Human Resources Committee on May 13th, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

It is Wednesday, May 13, 2009, and I would like to welcome you to this 29th Meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. We are starting the meeting a little late. We will make up the 15 minutes owed to you, ladies, by ending the meeting at 12:15.

We would like to welcome the following witnesses to today's meeting: Ms. Denise Boucher, Vice-President of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux; Ms. Gibeau, from the Union des consommateurs; Ms. Chevrier and Ms. Mazerolle, from the Regroupement des cuisines collectives du Québec; and, Ms. Janine L'Archevêque, from the Jardin de la famille de Fabreville. Welcome to you all.

I would simply like to explain the process. The headsets are very important. Channel 8 is for English, channel 9 is for French, and channel 7 is for the floor. You have to press the little green button, as I have just found out myself, if you want to hear.

This meeting is part of a major tour of Canada by this House of Commons Committee. We began in Moncton and Halifax. We are continuing our hearings today in Montreal. In a few days, we will be in Toronto, and then we will move on to Western and Northern Canada. This tour is an opportunity to continue the work we have already begun on poverty in Canada. Although it has always existed, unfortunately, we are realizing that, in the current economic climate, it has most certainly worsened.

You are all people who are working in the field, and that is valuable. You have direct and personal experience with what is occurring at this time. I hope that you will address an issue of great interest to us—namely your specific recommendations to the Government of Canada regarding a situation you are closely acquainted with.

All the political parties in the House of Commons are represented at this table. Ms. Minna and myself are members of the Liberal Party; Ms. Beaudin and Mr. Lessard represent the Bloc Québécois and will be sharing their speaking time; Mr. Mulcair is from the New Democratic Party; and, the government party, the Conservative Party, is represented by Mr. Komarnicki and Mr. Lobb.

Each organization is given five minutes to make a presentation, so that you will be sharing your time with your colleague. Once we have heard from everyone, each of the parties will have seven minutes to ask questions and hear your answers. Those seven minutes include both the questions and the answers. I just want to remind colleagues that, the longer your question, the shorter the answer will have to be, if you follow me.

I would like to begin with Ms. Denise Boucher, from the Confédération des syndicats nationaux.

Ms. Boucher, please proceed.

[Denise Boucher, Vice-President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Confédération des syndicats nationaux would like to thank the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for this opportunity to propose solutions for the fight against poverty in Canada.

The CSN, the second largest labour confederation in Canada, represents 2,800 unions in Quebec and 300,000 members, most of whom are Francophone. Even though the Standing Committee began its study of the federal government's contribution to reducing poverty in Canada in the spring of 2008, we believe it is appropriate to state, right from the beginning, that this study is extremely timely.

Whatever people may say, the political crisis in recent months has brought home the importance of establishing mechanisms which will no longer be unacceptable and unfair to the jobless, older workers, women and Quebec, and which make them highly vulnerable. Why do we refer specifically to Quebec? Well, because we believe that the changes announced to the equalization formula last fall, which were confirmed in the most recent budget, will result in a loss for Quebec of $1 billion, this year, and up to $2 billion, next year. This will essentially deprive Quebec of the means to address the current crisis and will undoubtedly deprive large segments of the population of the necessary spinoffs, which could have been invested in health care or post-secondary education. To weaken Quebec, particularly in those two areas, is to deprive Quebeckers of the opportunity to raise their standard of living.

As regards employment insurance, given that more than 129,000 jobs have been lost since January—something that has not been seen in 32 years—it is abundantly clear that our safety net is quickly unravelling. Employment insurance is a frontline economic lever and family support. The money is spent immediately and locally to feed a family, pay bills and buy clothing for children. It is also the local economy as a whole, and even that of an entire region, that will feel the effects of either access, or no access, to EI benefits for laid-off workers.

Quebec has already been hit hard by the forest industry crisis, as we all know. The Government of Quebec's investment in that industry has been significant. However, one cannot help but notice that the federal government has not stepped up to the plate to address that crisis.

In the Mauricie Region, 2,500 people lost their jobs in the forest industry in one year. We are therefore asking for significant improvements to be made as regards access to the EI system. We are suggesting that there be a single requirement of 360 hours, an increased benefit rate—based on 60 % of an individual's wages over the 12 best weeks—and that the two-week waiting period be abolished. Why should workers be penalized for two weeks? Since when do people work for free? Furthermore, the CSN has long been demanding a financial support program that would allow older workers who have lost their jobs to bridge the gap between the end of their employment insurance benefits and the beginning of their retirement benefits.

Since POWA was cancelled in March of 1997, nothing has been done to help a whole category of workers who are more severely affected than young people during periods of unemployment. Indeed, you heard from witnesses a little earlier, including representatives of the CSD, who told you exactly the same thing. In fact, several years ago, the four main central labour bodies formed a coalition to address this question. We made representations to the Government of Quebec which were acted on. Unfortunately, there has been no response from the federal government.

As you were probably told a little earlier, the CSN believes that, in order to be eligible for the income support program, an individual should be over the age of 55, have been subject to a mass lay-off or company shutdown, have at least 10 years of labour market attachment over the last 30 years, be in a situation where the gap between acquired skills and those required by the labour market is significant, be unable to find truly gainful employment and find a job in his or her region.

With respect to women—I mentioned this in my introduction—we consider Bill C-10 to be an affront to the fundamental rights of women and to recognition of the value of their work.

This legislation attacks women's rights by preventing them from accessing equal pay for work of equal value, in particular, and by adding to generally-acknowledged job assessment criteria, additional elements that reflect the needs of employers in terms of recruitment and labour retention. In other words, wage discrimination is allowed if it can be justified by market conditions—something which is completely unacceptable.

We are therefore recommending that proactive legislation be introduced to help women escape poverty and ensure that women workers will no longer be considered second class. I would also be remiss if I did not emphasize the importance of investing in social housing and the need for a federal contribution in that regard.

That completes my presentation.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you, Ms. Boucher, for being so concise, although the essential points were most certainly raised.

I now invite Ms. Gibeau, from the Union des consommateurs, to make her opening statement.

[Élisabeth Gibeau, Social and Fiscal Policies Analyst, Union des consommateurs]

I would like to thank you for inviting us to present our views on the federal government's contribution to reducing poverty in Canada. The Union des consommateurs is a non-profit organization—a federation of cooperative home economic associations, which have had roots in every region of Quebec for more than 40 years now. Ten of these associations came together to create the Union des consommateurs, which represents their interests at the national level. The associations have daily contact with people struggling with poverty—people who have difficulty making ends meet and who come to them for advice on how to balance their budget, how to access certain government benefits and how to deal with welfare offices, if they are having trouble receiving benefits. These associations are out there every day helping people who are having trouble making ends meet and balancing their budget. The associations make us aware of the issues, and we then make representations to [Inaudible--Editor]. So, the focus of my presentation today will be the issues brought to our attention by the associations through the work they carry out on a daily basis in the field.

We have tried to answer one of the questions included in the witness guide. You asked if federal resources currently earmarked for reducing poverty could be distributed more effectively, if additional resources are necessary and how they could be funded.

I would like to give a three-part answer to that question.

It is quite clear to us that the federal government's current contribution is not adequate in terms of reducing poverty rates in Canada. The brief we submitted provides some figures to support that assertion. Indeed, in 1989, the House of Commons passed a resolution calling for an end to child poverty by the year 2000. We note that, in 2000, the child poverty rate was exactly the same as in 1989—11.7 %. So, child poverty has not gone down, despite the government's good intentions.

Furthermore, in 2008, despite increases in the minimum wage, no employee making minimum wage in Canada reached the poverty level by working 40 hours a week. We know that most people paid minimum wage do not work 40 hours per week. If we rely on this threshold, everyone falls under the poverty line.

As we see it, these numbers speak for themselves and clearly indicate that the very significant contribution of federal and provincial government social programs is not adequate to bring about a significant and lasting reduction in poverty rates in Canada. In our opinion, the federal government must do more.

As for your second question, regarding the resources needed to reduce poverty, we have set a number of priorities. I remind you that these are priorities. In our opinion, the following programs constitute a priority for additional federal government funding: employment insurance and the Canada Social Transfer, particularly in terms of support for children and post-secondary education, housing and public transit.

Along with these additional investments, the Union des consommateurs is also calling for an in-depth review of the Canadian tax system, in order to guarantee more equity among taxpayers.

We also believe that enforcement of the Canada Health Act and continuation of a strict ban on the advertising of prescription drugs are two priorities that would have an impact on poverty in Canada.

With respect to employment insurance, fewer than half of the workers who lose their jobs are currently eligible to receive EI benefits, even though all workers contribute to the system. We consider that to be completely unacceptable and unfair. We are calling for a major improvement in benefit coverage, by setting the number of work hours required to be eligible for benefits at 360 hours, extending the benefit period to a minimum of 35 weeks, setting the percentage of insurable earnings at 60 % of wages, abolishing the two-week waiting period, extending the illness benefits, and enhancing the benefits for compassionate reasons.

With respect to the Canada Social Transfer, we believe it is important to continue to enhance it. The many cuts made to provincial transfers since the 1990s have negatively affected the funding of many social programs in the provinces and resulted in chronic underfunding, something which has greatly affected service quality.

In our opinion, it is high time that the federal government increased transfers to the provinces, in particular, to allow for massive reinvestment in post-secondary education. In that respect, I would like to mention that an Ontario association published research in 2004 showing that investments in Ontario colleges yielded an annual rate of return of 12.7 % if one considers, among other things, income earned by graduates, improved health, lower government transfers, the unemployment rate, and so on. For comparison purposes, I would note that paying down the federal debt yields a rate of return of only 5.5 %, which is less than half.

The Quebec economist, Pierre Fortin, recently published research showing that every school dropout costs society some $500,000. We see this as clear evidence that a massive investment in post-secondary education is extremely important.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

I would ask that you please wrap up now, Ms. Gibeau. You have exceeded your five minutes.

[Élisabeth Gibeau]

As regards housing and public transit, a massive reinvestment is also needed because these are both budget items that have a major impact on low-income Canadians.

With respect to the tax system, I simply wanted to mention that it is important to once again create additional tax brackets, as was the case in the 1980s in Canada, so that it is not the middle class and low-income Canadians who are bearing the brunt of the tax burden. There is a need to spread that burden more equally and require high-income Canadians to contribute more to the overall tax burden.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

For those people who do not know this system of ACCÉSSS, these are cooperatives that help families work out their budgets and give them a great deal of information, which is free. It's very little known outside of Quebec. But certainly I remember years ago, when I first went to them when I was unemployed, they helped me an awful lot.

Thank you very much, Ms. Gibeau. Sorry for interrupting you.

I would like to turn it over to Ms. Germaine Chevrier.

Ms. Mazerolle, how would you like to proceed? Is Ms. Chevrier going to be making the presentation? If you prefer to share your time, that is fine.

Please proceed, Ms. Chevrier.

[Germaine Chevrier, Delegated Spokesperson, Regroupement des cuisines collectives du Québec]

Thank you.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for inviting us to appear. We feel privileged to have this opportunity to present our vision of the fight against poverty to the Human Resources Committee. At the Regroupement, we always work together; so, we both decided to come and meet with the Committee today. Ms. Mazerolle sits on the Board of Directors of the Regroupement des cuisines collectives du Québec and she works in the field as a facilitator with member groups in the Laurentians region. I am a last-minute replacement for the person who usually acts as spokesperson for the Regroupement des cuisines collectives du Québec. I will try to explain our overall vision.

I would like to begin by introducing the community kitchens concept and talk about our vision of the fight against poverty. I will then discuss cooperation with some of our associations.

The community kitchens concept was developed in 1982. It is important to understand that it grew out of the desire of two people living in poverty to take control of their lives and do more than simply receive gifts of food. So, the basic principle is empowerment. This group was created in 1990 and now includes some 1,400 groups across the province and more than 37,000 people. Community kitchens were developed by five or six people who got together and pooled their money, skills and energy to prepare meals that they would take back home. Skills development and improved purchasing power are the fundamental principles behind the community kitchens concept.

We have a political component which is founded on the principles of popular education and independent community action. We have always fought poverty—first and foremost, in order to eliminate prejudice and avoid ghettos. That is why the community kitchens are open to everyone, both rich and poor. We rely on individual skills.

Several years go, we developed a vision which is separate from what is known as food security, something many people often misunderstand. We refer to food security from the standpoint of food unfairness or the response to food insecurity. We believe that the right to food is far more than that, and thus we prefer to talk about food autonomy. That food autonomy is based on four major thrusts: providing access to healthy food at a reasonable cost; giving people purchasing power and the ability to choose their food; respecting the principles of sustainable development and the environment; and, responsible consumption, now and for future generations.

Food autonomy is not something that exists at an individual level; it is not just a matter of developing individual skills. It also refers to collective action, and communities need to develop the means to respond to the right to food.

As I said earlier, the community kitchens movement was the initiative of two women who wanted to be able to make ends meet. So, the guiding principle is to fight poverty and avoid ghettos. We want to empower people so they can take control of their own lives again and access the tools that will allow them to do that.

We have significant personal testimony and research we could refer to dealing with the impact of community kitchens in Quebec and other provinces. We have less contact with those associations, but we know that community kitchens are a means of helping people to save and reducing the effects of poverty while improving their lifestyles, that they have a major impact on people's physical and psychological health, and that they strengthen self-esteem and develop skills, as well as creating mutual assistance networks. These are ways of fighting poverty. As well, we have always been very active and supported the demands of le Collectif pour un Québec sans pauvreté.

What do we think the government should do to contribute to reducing poverty in Canada? In that connection, we would like to talk about the work that is carried out by the Regroupement des cuisines collectives du Québec and other associations in the province, including the Association québécoise des banques alimentaires et des Moissons, Équiterre, Option consommateurs and the Table de concertation sur la faim. We looked at how we could really eliminate poverty by enforcing the right to food. As we see it, enforcing the right to food is very important.

In Quebec, we have the Coalition pour une souveraineté alimentaire. In Canada, there is a similar organization with the same kind of orientation, with branches in every province. It is called Food Secure Canada. So, we work in close cooperation. Our guiding principle is that food is an essential need and a recognized right, and that it must not be considered simply as a consumable good. There are different provisions that set out the right to food—for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. I am not a lawyer, but the United Nations has a special rapporteur on the right to food. There is also the Rome Declaration on World Food Security and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

I have to interrupt you, because you have exceeded your allocated time. I will give you one or two more minutes and ask that you move directly to your recommendations.

[Germaine Chevrier]

I would just like to say that we are recommending the application of a food policy in Quebec that focuses on the right to food and draws on nine interrelated dimensions. We have 14 recommendations dealing with purchasing power, the cost of food, physical access to food, food safety, nutritional quality, the food culture, food diversity, the sustainability of our food system and citizen power. Our recommendations deal with those nine dimensions.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Ms. Chevrier, I am sorry to have to interrupt you, and I also want to apologize to the other participants, but there will be a question period, and anything you have been unable to touch on can be included in your answers subsequently.

If you have written briefs, please submit them to our clerk. He will have them translated into the other language, if necessary, and will make them available to us. So, even if you did not have a chance to say everything you wanted to, we will still receive that information.

Thank you, Ms. Chevrier.

I would like to invite Ms. L'Archevêque, from the Jardin de la Famille de Fabreville, to make her opening statement.

[Janine L'Archevêque, Director General and Co-Founder, Jardin de la Famille de Fabreville]

Good morning. Thank you for your invitation. Unlike my sisters, I will be talking primarily about my organization. My comments will be of a far more practical nature.

Our organization Au Jardin de la Famille was founded 20 years ago. Our mission is to provide fragile, disadvantaged people with a living environment that teaches people autonomy, discipline, self-esteem and respect. Our client base is made up of low-income people, people living with an intellectual or physical disability, people who are illiterate or have low educational attainment, people with learning difficulties, or people with mental health problems. There are 45 people in our organization.

I would like to tackle the question regarding the strategies and solutions our organization has developed to reduce poverty and what parts of our program are currently yielding the best results. Our strategy and our solutions involve providing them with actual work. We are a support service. We opened a second-hand clothing store, where they can learn to work in a store environment, in sales or as window dressers or cashiers. They learn how to do the things that are required. We also have work in a warehouse, where they receive the merchandise. It is important to state that we receive a great many donations. So, they learn to sort the clothing and prepare it for sale. We also have other services which are provided through our organization. In 1996, the Quebec Ministry of Education recognized us as a grassroots literacy group. We also help children with their homework. We have computer workshops, sewing and community cooking workshops. We also teach them janitor work and budgeting. Our goal is to develop all aspects of the individual.

All learning occurs in a structured environment, meaning that they have to punch in just as they would in the workplace. They have to punch in when they arrive and when they leave. They have one hour for lunch, as well as breaks. The clothing store represents an actual commercial business that gives them work and provides service to the community. And, it allows the organization to be self-financed.

Our latest project, which began last year, is the development of a community garden. All the work we are doing in that area focusses on teaching our clients to work as a group and to socialize, and on breaking their isolation and fostering their social integration through everyday tasks. That means that people who come to see us learn to get along on their own, with a view to being able to live alone in a home subsequently. We focus a great deal on helping them become autonomous. As you can see, our client base is made up of the most disadvantaged people. They cannot even work at a developmental centre, because they are not quick enough.

We do what we call “pre-pre-employability”. In other words, it is a long-term process. The aspect of the program that works best is the range of activities that are offered, because they learn to live in a group, they socialize, they develop more self-confidence and have better self-esteem. Also, we see them change and develop and become better integrated into society. In fact, what we are doing is what I call popular education. When they are at the Jardin, it is like being in a real family.

I also wanted to answer the question regarding the role the federal government should be playing in reducing poverty in Canada and how it can pool its efforts with those of the provinces and community organizations. In terms of the funding we apply for, we would like to see that funding be a lot more stable and recurring. In fact, as regards the IFPCA programs, when we apply for a grant, the amount we are given is $25,000. If we are given $18,000, we have to apply again to explain how our work is changing. So, it is very tough. We are constantly having to justify what we do.

We would like there to be more stable funding. As regards project funding, when the year is up, the project is over, and that has an impact on the organization because things are constantly changing. It is exhausting for us. We hire people and then have to let them go because, when the year is up, we no longer have the necessary funds to continue the project. Very often, it would be worthwhile to continue those projects, but it just is simply not possible.

We are aware that needs are great in this area. Unfortunately, as needs continue to grow, we do not have the necessary resources to respond. I also note that, as regards the job integration contract program, which gives a job to seven people, year over year, the amount being provided is going down.

At the same time, the person's illness is not receding; his problem remains the same. By reducing funding, though, there is a risk that the work will not continue. Furthermore, we need more workers and more psychoeducators, which we do not have.

So, overall, we are asking for more stable and recurring funding.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you, Ms. L'Archevêque.

I believe I said previously that all of you are people working in the field who have direct experience. I find that very helpful.

Ms. Minna, you have seven minutes.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Everything that has been said is extremely important. They are things that we have dealt with for some time. Some of you may have been at various meetings like this one many times before. Maybe it is time we started dealing with it much more aggressively.

I wanted to ask Madame Boucher about the 360 hours a week. The wait times are pretty much a given. In fact, the two-week wait period was already voted on in the House of Commons. With respect to the elderly worker bridge to pension, how low would you set the bar in what you consider to be the bridging period, how much would it cost, and how would it be funded? Would you see it as being funded through the EI system or as a separate fund?

[Denise Boucher]

I would just like to remind you that, previously, there was a federal program called POWA, the funding of which came out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Whatever the source, money is needed. Since money has been transferred from the EI Account to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, there is money available. At the time, there was a 40-60 split in terms of the provincial and federal contributions. The federal contribution is much higher.

In my opinion the source of the money is unimportant. Earlier, I talked about the conditions that should apply, and they certainly are not frivolous. When there are significant layoffs, we have noticed that we often end up--

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you.

I understand what you mean by the program and the importance of it. I just want to understand what age you would start it at.

[Denise Boucher]

Starting from the age of 55.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you.

Madame Gibeau, you talked about the tax system and having more equity in it. We had a report yesterday from the Auditor General that gender budgeting is still not being done by the government and they're having problems. You mentioned lower tier, to lower the bottom. That I understand, I think. Do you also have some suggestions with respect to tax expenditures as opposed to direct investment? These are things like child care versus child care tax credit. Do you know what I mean? There are programs that come through the tax system, social programs, ones that are direct payment like child care or the education direct assistance. Then there is the child care tax credit.

Can tell me which programs are more effective in addressing poverty, the direct investment or the tax expenditures? I think I have the answer, but I would like to hear from you.

[Élisabeth Gibeau]

This gives me an opportunity to raise a point that I did not have time to mention in the brief I submitted. We are calling on the government to put an end to the UCCB, or Universal Child Care Benefit, because tax credits are measures that apply to individuals—and the same thing applies to the public transit tax credit—are ineffective and unfair, in our opinion, because they do not benefit all segments of society. These investments are not intended to improve public transit or fund daycare services. We believe it would be better to transfer the money to the provinces for them to invest. For example, in the case of the UCCB, Quebec would be in a position to recover half a billion dollars, which could then be used to increase the number of available spots in daycare or early childhood centres.

At the present time, the number of daycare spots is woefully inadequate. We believe it would be preferable, by far, to transfer the money to the provinces so that they can invest in public transit, social housing and daycare programs, rather than giving the money to individuals through non-refundable tax credits that do not apply to everyone.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you. That's a very clear answer and I appreciate that. As I said, I thought I had the answer. I simply wanted to share that, because sometimes there is a difference of opinion on some of these things.

Madam Chair, do I have more time?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

You have one minute and 43 seconds.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Okay. I'll try to be quick on this one. It's hard.

Canada's statistics for 2006 show that unattached individuals who do not live with a blood relative, a spouse or a brother or sister, what have you, are poorer, that their income level is lower. What do you think the Government of Canada should do to target the unattached individual in Canada specifically that would be different from a family approach?

This is to Madame Gibeau or anyone else who has a specific recommendation to target that group.

[Élisabeth Gibeau]

What comes to mind offhand is the need to increase social welfare benefits, particularly for unattached individuals, because those benefits are woefully inadequate. At the same time, that is not a federal responsibility. As regards the federal government, my answer would be to increase provincial transfers so that the provinces are able to fund programs for people experiencing much deeper poverty than families.

Right now, there are a lot of programs in place, particularly in Quebec, that are aimed at families. That has benefitted them a lot, but unattached individuals are pretty well ignored for the time being. In my opinion, the federal government could increase transfers to the provinces.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Ms. Boucher, I sense that you want to add something.

[Denise Boucher]

We could also add that there should be better investments in social housing, which is partly a federal responsibility.