Bill C-233 (Historical)

Poverty Elimination Act

An Act to eliminate poverty in Canada

Part 1 of this enactment provides for the establishment of a Government of Canada strategy to eliminate poverty and promote social inclusion.
Part 2 of the enactment establishes the Office of the Poverty Elimination Commissioner, which is independent of government direction.

Poverty

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions and I will be brief.

The first petition is calling on the government to support private member's bill, Bill C-233, An Act to eliminate poverty in Canada.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to table a petition from Albertans calling on the House of Commons to eliminate poverty in Canada and support Bill C-233.

The petitioners bring attention to the House that poverty affects over 10% of Canadians and disproportionately affects aboriginal peoples, recent immigrants, people with disabilities, youth and children. They state that poverty leads to poor health and that poverty and social exclusion constitute obstacles to protect and respect human rights and exclusion from economic social development.

As I noted, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to support Bill C-233, which would require the federal government to develop and implement a strategy for poverty elimination in consultation with provincial, territorial, municipal and aboriginal governments and with civil society.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise today to present two petitions.

The first pertains to the fight against poverty in Canada. The petitioners, who are mainly from Ontario, are asking Parliament to vote in favour of Bill C-233, the purpose of which is to establish a strategy to eliminate poverty in Canada.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions.

The first petition is from a number of constituents and others across Manitoba. The petitioners call on the federal government to develop and implement Bill C-233, a strategy for poverty elimination, in consultation with the provincial, territorial, municipal and aboriginal governments.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to table a couple of petitions on behalf of some constituents.

The first petition is with regard to Bill C-233, An Act to eliminate poverty in Canada.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.

The first petition is from residents of Nova Scotia who are concerned that about the fact that poverty affects over 10% of Canadians and disproportionately affects aboriginal peoples, recent immigrants, people with disabilities, youth and children.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure swift passage of Bill C-233, an act to eliminate poverty in Canada.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present.

The first petition is signed by a variety of people asking the House to adopt Bill C-233, an act to eliminate poverty in Canada.

The petitioners indicate that poverty affects over 10% of Canadians and disproportionately affects aboriginal peoples, recent immigrants, people with disabilities, youth and children. They also say that Canada ranks far behind most other developed countries in the extent of poverty among working adults and children.

Finally, Bill C-233 would require the federal government to develop and implement a strategy for poverty elimination in consultation with provincial, territorial, municipal and aboriginal governments and with civil society organizations.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to present a petition signed by the members of my riding.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure the swift passage of Bill C-233 and to take steps to eliminate poverty in Canada.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by 28 residents of Canmore in my riding of Wild Rose.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure the swift passage of Bill C-233, an act to eliminate poverty in Canada.

Opposition Motion--Old Age Security

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to this important motion. I will be splitting my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay.

I want to acknowledge in particular the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard for her very good work in bringing this motion forward. I also want to mention two other colleagues, the member for London—Fanshawe, the NDP seniors critic, and the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, the NDP critic for pensions. New Democrats have been raising the issues around pensions and seniors for the many years I have been in the House and we will continue to do so.

For the interest of people who may be just tuning in, I want to read the motion that we are debating. It states:

That this House reject calls by the Prime Minister to balance the Conservative deficit on the backs of Canada's seniors by means such as raising the age of eligibility for Old Age Security and call on the government to make the reduction and eventual elimination of seniors' poverty a cornerstone of the next budget.

I am going to focus on a couple of aspects of this motion. As the NDP critic for poverty in the House, I have a number of things I want to include in my speech today.

One of the things we have heard from the members opposite is that the country simply cannot afford to look after seniors as they age. The Canadian Labour Congress has done some analysis of the projected figures, which I quote:

As a share of GDP, the program cost is forecast to increase from 2.36% in 2011, to a peak of 3.14% in 2030, after which year the cost will fall. In other words, the cost of the program as a share of national income will increase by 33% from 2011 to 2030, even though the number of seniors will increase by 90%.

Many other analyses have been done on the affordability of the program as it currently exists, and the numbers simply fly in the face of the Conservatives telling us that we cannot afford to look after seniors.

Why should we be concerned? I mentioned at the outset that I wanted to talk about poverty. There is a direct link between poverty and the state of health of Canadians, whether they are seniors, young people or middle-aged people, and there is a tremendous amount of work being done on the social determinants of health. Although I do not have time to go into all of the determinants, I want to quote from an article on this:

The primary factors that shape the health of Canadians are not medical treatments or lifestyle choices but rather the living conditions they experience. These conditions have come to be known as the social determinants of health....

Canadians are largely unaware that our health is shaped by how income and wealth is distributed, whether or not we are employed and if so, the working conditions we experience. Our health is also determined by the health and social services we receive, and our ability to obtain quality education, food and housing, among other factors.

And contrary to the assumption that Canadians have personal control over these factors, in most cases these living conditions are--for better or worse--imposed upon us by the quality of the communities, housing situations, work settings, health and social service agencies, and educational institutions with which we interact.

This article talks about 14 different social determinants of health, and they include the following, which are a direct link to seniors as well: income and income distribution; unemployment and job security; early childhood development, which I will discuss later; food insecurity; housing and the social safety network.

Therefore, when we talk about the income that seniors receive, we are also talking about their health and well-being. That is why it is really important that we not delay income for seniors by two years, as the trial balloon that was floated by the Prime Minister would.

When it comes to income, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has also prepared a brief. It talks about the adequacy of benefits as they currently exist without any tinkering by the Conservatives. It indicates:

—the maximum annual income a single individual could receive from OAS and GIS combined in the July-September 2009 quarter is about $14,000. However, Statistics Canada’s 2008 after-tax low-income cut-off for a single individual in a major urban area with a population of 500,000 or over was $18,373. Even for smaller urban areas in 2008, the after-tax LICO [low-income cut-off] was above $14,000—

Just based on those figures alone, we can see that seniors who are just getting old age security and GIS are already living below the low-income cutoff.

If they start pushing those numbers up, what are those seniors between the ages of 65 and 67 going to do? These are seniors who qualify and many of them are at the low end.

If the Conservatives are serious about supporting seniors and future generations, what is needed is a real plan to address poverty reduction. I call on the government to support the NDP Bill C-233, the poverty elimination act, which would directly take on some of these issues.

The Canadian Labour Congress has done an analysis on poverty and ill health. In its paper, “Implications of Raising the Age of Eligibility for Old Age Security”, it states:

Raising the age of eligibility for OAS/GIS from 65 to 67 would likely result in a very significant increase in poverty for persons aged 65 to 67, unless they were able to find an alternative source of income. That is possible for some, but many older workers in their 60s are in ill health or are engaged in providing care for others.

I know many members in their sixties have parents who are in their eighties. We often talk about the sandwich generation, people who are caring for children or perhaps grandchildren. Many seniors are caring for their grandchildren. They could also be caring for their elderly and aging parents who often are in ill health by the time they are in their nineties.

It continues:

Raising the age of eligibility for OAS/GIS would mean that non-working, low income seniors on provincial social assistance and disability programs would have to wait to transition to OAS/GIS, raising social assistance costs for provincial governments. Costs of providing drugs and essential services to low income seniors unable to pay on their own would also increase.

We have seen the government's track record of downloading to the provincial governments. This is another way it would download to the provincial governments that are already struggling to meet some of their demands, whether it has to do with infrastructure, housing or drug costs.

The paper goes on to say that not everyone can work longer. Part of the argument we hear is that we have a labour shortage and we need to push the retirement age up to 67 so we can address that labour shortage. If the government is talking about addressing the labour shortage, it should invest in training and apprenticeships. It should look at immigration if it wants to deal with some of those labour shortages. The labour shortages are no surprise. We have known for 15 or 20 years that we were going to have critical skill shortages in some of the apprenticed trades. Where is the government's plan to address that? It is absent, missing in action. We are hearing that from all kinds of people. Whether it is pulp mills, other parts of the forestry sector or mining companies, there were all kinds of predictions of skill shortages.

Why are we not training, for example, first nations, Métis and Inuit to address some of those skill shortages? The money simply is not there.

The paper further states:

It is argued that eligibility for OAS/GIS discourages older Canadians from remaining in the workforce, and that we need to keep them working to avoid labour shortages.

In point of fact, the reality is that Canadians are already staying in the workforce much longer than was the case even a decade ago.... [O]ne in four (24%) persons, aged 65 to 70, is already still working, up from 11% in 2000. That rate has been trending sharply upward for a number of reasons. Some are working longer because they want to, and they find work interesting. This is most often the case for higher income workers. Others are working longer due to inadequate retirement savings. The trend to working well past age 65 will likely continue.

There is sufficient information to counter the government's argument that we cannot maintain the current old age security and GIS system to ensure that seniors can retire with dignity, and with an income that is already inadequate, we do not want to make it worse for them.

I would encourage all members to support this very important motion that was brought forward by the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard and to actually support seniors in their retirement.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question to do with the increasing use of food banks in this country. I want to remind listeners why we were raising this point.

A news release on the HungerCount 2011 stated that food bank use has skyrocketed by 26% since 2008. The report highlights that in a typical month, food banks across this country provide food to more than three-quarters of a million separate individuals and that more than 322,000, about 38% of the total, are children.

The minister has been heard to say in the House that people should just get a job. HungerCount points out that 20% of individuals and families assisted by food banks have income from current or recent employment. Clearly, the income from the jobs that people are getting simply does not allow them to meet their expenses.

The use of food banks is in the context of a number of reports that have come out recently which talk about the rising inequality in income in this country which drives people to use food banks. Many of these people have substandard housing, cannot afford to pay for their children to get a college or university education, and the list goes on.

In the article, “Rising Inequality, Declining Democracy”, put out by Bruce Campbell on December 12, 2011, he states that the income gap in Canada has:

--risen to levels not seen since the 1920s, and by some measures it is the worst it's ever been. The Conference Board notes that since the mid-1990s, income inequality in Canada grew at one of the fastest rates in the industrial world; faster than in the US.

He further states:

The average top 100 CEOs' compensation was $6.6 million in 2009, 155 times the average worker's wage.

Further on in the article, he quotes Canadian John Humphrey, a co-author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He wrote in his memoirs, “Human rights without economic and social rights have little meaning for most people”.

Of course, many people would argue that in this current economic climate what we have is a violation of human rights when people cannot afford the most basic of things, such as good nutritious food for their families.

Later on in the article, he indicates:

Whereas the Keynesian era was marked by rapid growth, low unemployment, widely shared prosperity, and economic and financial stability, the neoliberal era has been marked by three severe recessions, dozens of financial crises, slower economic growth, higher unemployment, ballooning inequality, and wealth concentration. Social spending in Canada and other Anglo-American countries...declined as a share of the economy.

He talks about the assault on democracy. In this country, we have seen that poor people have taken a disproportionate hit as a result of some of the policies that we have seen over the last five years. He talks about the fact that more than half of the unemployed are not eligible for employment insurance and that we are seeing the erosion of pensions.

It is clear that what we need from the government is a response around eliminating poverty. Will the government support Bill C-233, An Act to eliminate poverty in Canada, and put forward a national action plan on the elimination of poverty in this country?

Petitions

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present. The first petition is about Bill C-233, An Act to eliminate poverty in Canada.

In this petition, the undersigned indicate that poverty affects over 10% of Canadians and disproportionately affects aboriginal peoples, recent immigrants, people with disabilities, youth, women and children. Poverty leads to poor health such that individuals suffering from poverty suffer more health problems and have lower life expectancies.

There are a number of other items that they outline in the petition. They indicate that a majority of provincial and territorial governments have adopted poverty reduction strategies, but that they are limited in that they are unable to reduce poverty in their jurisdictions without support from the federal government.

They are calling on the House to ensure swift passage of Bill C-233, An Act to eliminate poverty in Canada.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economy

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for splitting his time with me and I also want to thank the member for Parkdale—High Park for putting forward this very good motion and for stimulating the kind of debate that it is important for us to have. I want to reference one part of the motion which says:

That...the government should take immediate action to promote job creation and address the persistently high unemployment rate among Canadian workers--

The motion also says:

--the International Monetary Fund prediction of yet higher unemployment rates in the future unless swift action is taken--

In my 10 minutes, I am going to focus on just two aspects of this. I am going to focus on the persistent high rates of poverty in this country, and national child care and early learning.

We know there are a variety of statistics, but one that we really need to pay attention to is that the official unemployment numbers in Canada are around 1.4 million Canadians and that is closer to two million when we include those who are discouraged or unemployed. This unemployment rate represents lost wages of more than $20 billion and that does not include the lost economic stimulus and tax revenues.

When we talk about these numbers, we hear from the government about all the jobs that are created, yet in an article by the Catalyst in the summer of 2011, it indicated there are approximately four million Canadians living in poverty, many of them despite having a job. It poses the question, why? It says there are not enough full-time well paying jobs. Nearly one million Canadians are working part-time involuntarily. Their jobs are increasingly characterized by instability and insecurity, few or no workplace benefits and little or no access to government benefits.

We know that when people do not have stable employment, that contributes to economic uncertainty in their lives and makes it more difficult for them to contribute to the local economy.

In addition to these persistent rates of involuntary unemployment or unstable unemployment, we also have an increasing income gap in this country. According to the Conference Board of Canada in a news release, it said that:

Canada had the fourth largest increase in income equality among its peers.

It went on to say that:

--high inequality both raises a moral question about fairness and can contribute to social tensions. In Canada, the gap between the rich and poor has widened over two decades, especially compared to our peer countries.

There was an article in the National Post on September 21, entitled “A Problem for Everyone”. The challenge with this income inequality is just not a problem in terms of the poor which is what we often think about this, it is a problem for each and every Canadian.

In the article it indicated that Canada's top 100 CEOs have seen a 13% year-over-year jump in average pay, rising to an average of $6 million. In contrast, the average earnings of employed Canadians has fallen to $38,500. Things are better for full-time year-round workers, but not by much. Median earnings inched up from $44,100 to $45,600 and in inflation-adjusted terms, not over the last year, but since 1976, and this translates into a $1,500 increase after 33 years. We all know the costs of everything have risen much more than $1,500 in the last 33 years.

In the same article, it translates this into what this actually means for Canadians. Since one of our targets is youth, I want to talk about what it is like for youths. In this article the author said, “I see it in my own life. Back in 1979, it took six weeks working the minimum wage full-time to cover my full-time undergraduate tuition in Toronto”.

She went on to say, “Today's typical student in Ontario has to work 16 weeks”, that is 10 weeks more, “at the minimum wage to cover just the cost of tuition, let alone anything else. Yet most are still frozen out of the job market, with 180,000 fewer 15 to 24-year-olds employed across Canada than when the debt crisis broke in 2008”.

This income equality is not just about CEOs getting way more than the rest of us, but it is about the real impact on young people and everyone else who is working in the current economy.

In addition, one of the things we often hear when we are talking about raising people out of poverty is the government referring to it as spending. In a recent report of the National Council of Welfare, it talks about spending on poverty as an investment.

In an article in The Toronto Star on September 28, 2011, it indicated it would take:

--$12.6 billion to give the 3.5 million Canadians living in poverty enough income to live above the poverty line in 2007. And yet Canadians spent at least double that amount--

That would be $24 billion.

--treating the consequences of poverty that year.

Clearly, the spending pattern does not make good economic or social sense.

The article goes on to say that to lift people out of poverty what we need is a long-term plan and a long-term investment to:

--lift people out of poverty and prevent others from falling into its grip.

It goes on to say that this:

--would benefit all Canadians in reduced costs for health care, education, criminal justice, social service and other areas directly affected.

It would seem that a good start for the government would actually be to support Bill C-233, my bill on income inequality, which lays out a strategy for national poverty reduction in this country. The NDP does have good concrete ideas on how to tackle some of these problems.

I want to switch now, in my brief few minutes left, to talk about national childcare and early learning. In the same report from the National Council on Welfare, it wanted to give a good concrete example of why investing in national childcare makes good economic sense. It is not just about looking after children and giving parents options in terms of being able to go back to work. It wanted to talk about the economy of it all. It says that provincially, Quebec's universal $7-a-day childcare program is credited for cutting the poverty rate of single-parent families by 15 percentage points between 1997 and 2007.

We in Canada are fortunate enough to actually have a provincial childcare program in place that gives us some real meaningful data on what the impact is on the provincial GDP. We actually have a study that has been done on this and it was called “The Economic Consequences of Quebec's Educational Childcare Policy”. I want to just read some of these numbers.

There are three macroeconomic impacts. Quebec's ECEC program has had major macroeconomic consequences on women's labour force participation, on gross provincial income and on federal and provincial finances.

First let us talk about the impact on taxes and transfers. Increased family incomes generate more tax revenues and lower government transfers and credits. All types of tax revenues increase not only income and payroll taxes but all levels of government benefit, not only at the provincial level.

For the longer term, the effects will be larger still. These are some short-term effects that the article predicted. On net, for every dollar spent on ECEC, the provincial government harvests $1.05 and the federal government gets 44¢ for nothing. This is because of the increased income. People are paying provincial and federal income tax, so the government, not investing in a program in Quebec, gets 44¢ for doing nothing. This persistent effect will probably grow over time as pre-ECEC mothers, aged 50-65, are replaced by post-ECEC mothers. This implies that the long-term effects on the growth of provincial income and government net revenues will also be larger.

In summary, by 2008, Quebec's ECEC program had increased women's employment by 70,000, that is plus-3.8%; had increased provincial GDP by $5.2 billion; and was entirely self-financing within the provincial budget.

Clearly, here we have a good solid economic case for investing in a national childcare program and an early learning strategy. Other data indicate that for every dollar we spend in the ages of zero to six we actually save $7 in the long run, whether it is on the justice system, on education, on income assistance, or on health care.

I would call on the government to support the motion put forward by the member for Parkdale—High Park and invest in a poverty reduction strategy, and national childcare and early learning.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, despite the list of programs that the member cites, the reality is that thousands of children and their families are still living in poverty in this country.

The 2010 child poverty report card stated that child poverty was known to be economically and socially unsustainable and that we either shared the collective responsibility to prevent and eliminate child and family poverty or we would face the rising costs in health care services, criminal justice and education, along with lost productivity and human potential.

The government continues to talk about jobs. What we are talking about is the loss of future workers because they simply are living in poverty and do not have access to education and other services that they need.

In June, I tabled Bill C-233, an act to eliminate poverty in Canada. The bill was the result of consultations with a wide variety of anti-poverty activists, community members and government officials. I would ask the member if she and her government are prepared to support Bill C-233, an act to eliminate poverty in Canada?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Conference Board of Canada and other reports have indicated that child and family poverty is increasing in this country. There are a number of measures that could be taken in order to alleviate that poverty.

I talked earlier about a job strategy. A comprehensive job strategy is an important part in lifting children and families out of poverty as is a national child care program.

There is one concrete measure that the government could take. In the previous Parliament, Tony Martin introduced Bill C-545, An Act to Eliminate Poverty in Canada. I have reintroduced Tony Martin's bill as Bill C-233 . In conjunction with consultations across Canada, that bill came out with some very concrete steps that could be taken.

Would the parliamentary secretary and the government support Bill C-233, An Act to eliminate poverty in Canada?