Human Resources Committee on May 13th, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Good morning. This is the 30^th meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. We are meeting on Wednesday, May 13, 2009, from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.

First of all, I would like to welcome you all and to thank you for having answered our invitation. I would like to give you two or three pieces of information before we begin.

As you heard, the meeting will end at 2:30 p.m. You have a small piece of equipment before you. Channel 8 is for English, channel 9 is for French and channel 7 is for the language being spoken at that time. At times, we cannot hear very well what is being said.

This meeting is one of a series being held by the committee right across the country. We have begun a study on poverty in Canada, and God knows we need this study. Canada's economic situation has worsened. We have therefore undertaken a tour of Canada. We began in the Atlantic provinces, in Moncton and Halifax. Today, it is Montreal; in a few days, we will be in Toronto; and a bit later on, we will visit the Canadian west and Canada's north. This gives you an indication of the context within which we will hear your comments.

The meeting will unfold as follows: each group has five minutes to make a presentation in the language of their choice. You may share the five-minute period with your colleague as you see fit. After the presentations, my colleagues may ask you questions. They represent all of the parties in the House of Commons. Ms. Maria Minna and I represent the Liberal Party of Canada; Ms. Beaudin, of the Bloc Québécois, shares her time with Mr. Lessard; Mr. Mulcair is from the NDP; and Mr. Komarnicki and Mr. Lobb represent the government party, the Conservative Party of Canada. These people will ask you questions which you may answer.

We will begin right away. I will simply follow the plan by beginning with Mr. Saillant, of the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, bettter known as FRAPRU.

Mr. Saillant, the floor is yours.

[François Saillant, Coordinator, Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain]

Good afternoon.

I'd like to begin with a very brief introduction of FRAPRU. We are a Quebec umbrella group of 130 organizations that advocate for housing, the homeless, and more broadly take part in the fight against poverty and for social rights.

From the mid-1990s, Canada, as you know, experienced a very long period of economic growth, a very long period of enormous budgetary surpluses, and in some years they were absolutely colossal. It was therefore a period that would have been conducive to a decrease in poverty, and even more than a decrease, it was a period that should have been conducive to the elimination of poverty in Canada. Unfortunately, this is not what happened.

I am not the only one to say so. An OECD report was published last fall, and this is not an organization particularly known for its left-leaning views. Not only did the OECD state that income gaps had increased significantly in Canada, but that only one country had done worse than Canada in this area. The OECD report more specifically addressed the income of the poorest quintile of the population. Their income increased by only 0.2% between 1995 and 2005, whereas the income of the wealthiest quintile, that is to say the fifth of the population that has the highest income, had increased by 2.1%. There was therefore an increase of 2.1% for the richest and 0.2% for the poorest.

In my view, the official policies adopted by successive governments in Ottawa are to blame for this. I will give you only one example, because there are many, but I will give you the one I know best, that of social housing.

In 1993, the federal government completely withdrew from the social housing sector. We know that before then, they were the main contributor of funds in this area. This followed three years of brutal budget cutbacks. In 1993, we therefore withdrew. There was a timid return in 2002, with the provision of funds for what was called “affordable housing”. However, even taking into account what the government put into affordable housing, even taking into account what the Government of Quebec did with its own budgets, the shortfall for Quebec, for poorly sheltered and homeless people in the province who suffered, was 54,300 homes in 16 years. That represents 54,300 people or families who would otherwise not be on the street today, some of whom would not be paying an exorbitant percentage of their income for housing, or would not be living in hovels.

It is not without reason that Canada, on several occasions, has been criticized by UN authorities, particularly the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 2006 and by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing in 2007. The United Nations Human Rights Council, again quite recently, during its universal periodic review last March, criticized Canada for its weak performance in upholding the right to a standard of adequate living and also the right to housing.

We were in a sustained period of economic growth and budgetary surpluses. Now, circumstances have changed; there is an economic crisis and we are once again facing a deficit. We must not use these two reasons, the crisis and the deficits, to fail to act to relieve poverty. I feel that these responsibilities not only still exist, they're even greater in such times.

I am almost at my recommendations. FRAPRU's first recommendation is to respect the international commitments that Canada has made in terms of human rights, and particularly social rights, rights which the government and society have agreed to uphold. It seems to me to be the very least we could do to take the various UN committees' recommendations into account. In this regard, I remind you that the Canadian government has still not, after three years, responded to the comprehensive recommendations that were made by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

More specifically, and I believe Ms. Jetté will add to this—we must increase the Canada social transfer to give the provinces and territories the means to increase social assistance benefits across Canada and make it possible to return to the levels we had at the time of the elimination of the Canada Assistance Plan.

I imagine that my time is almost up.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

You have one minute left.

[François Saillant]

The employment insurance program must be reviewed in order to increase accessibility, so that any unemployed person would have the right to an adequate benefit level. This means that we must make a massive investment in social housing. When I say “massive”, I am in fact asking for another $2 billion per year for the building of social housing. This also implies that we fund the Homelessness Strategy Partnership in the longer term, in order to allow advocacy groups working in this domain to continue their work. The budget has not been indexed or increased in years. We must continue funding existing social housing once the agreements signed with the federal government expire.

It speaks to the fate of the 623,000 social housing units across Canada and the 120,000 in Quebec. If these agreements are not renewed and if we do not continue funding this social housing, the low income renters living there will no longer have the means to stay. Often, the fact that they live in this housing allows them to improve their financial situation and even to escape the cycle of poverty. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Mr. Saillant, you were very brief, and I thank you for that. We will come back to this issue.

We will now move to the Front commun des personnes assistées sociales du Québec.

Ms. Jetté.

[Nicole Jetté, Spokesperson, Front commun des personnes assistées sociales du Québec]

Good day.

The Front commun des personnes assistées sociales du Québec includes 34 associations advocating for the rights of social assistance recipients from various regions of Quebec. I can tell you that poverty is seen as being nothing less than an impenetrable barrier. People living in poverty are excluded as citizens. That is what people experiencing this reality feel.

As a common front, we represent only 34 associations, but there are more than 400,000 people on social assistance in Quebec. However, we stand with many movements, including some that deal with women, for example the Fédération des femmes du Québec, the Fédération des associations de familles monoparentales et recomposées du Québec and the regroupement des centres de femmes du Québec—, the L'R des centres de femmes du Québec. We maintain contact with the Collectif pour un Québec sans pauvreté, a coalition of all kinds of community, union and other organizations, as well as with umbrella groups dedicated to working on the problems of homelessness and housing. I will not repeat what Mr. Saillant has said. We support him 100%. I want to emphasize that point.

We also have ties to non-union advocacy groups, some of whom have testified before this committee, as well as with the Civil Liberties Union. In fact, we believe that poverty is a structural reality that can be changed if we respect the broader rights of people, of the citizens of Quebec and of Canada. We know that rights are not prioritized and that they are indivisible. Rights are universal, deeply intertwined, interdependent and inextricably linked. If poverty denies people their rights, that means that people living in poverty are not full citizens, in Quebec and in Canada. We also work from this perspective.

The federal government has reduced its transfers for public services to the provinces, be it in health, education or social services. Its withdrawal from the Canada Assistance Plan has allowed the federal government to cut its transfers in half. It is clear that those who are most affected by this are those living in poverty. We know what the consequences of poverty are on health, education and so on. The federal government has a responsibility in this regard. We ask the federal government to fully reinstate this 50% in order to pay the real costs of public services.

There is also the whole story of employment insurance, which in reality is unemployment insurance. The government no longer invests in this. It uses these funds for purposes for which they were never intended. In our opinion, this is unacceptable. It is important that unemployment insurance be returned to its original purpose.

There is also the tax aspect. We are asking that taxation be made much more progressive than it actually is and that simple tax credits be replaced by refundable tax credits. Indeed, who benefits from tax credits? Those who pay taxes. But people living in poverty do not pay taxes, and they remain in a state of great poverty.

Furthermore, the federal government abolished the Court Challenges Program. For advocacy organizations, this program was a necessity. People can no longer assert their rights and defend them. It is therefore as though they have none. This program is also directly linked to the rights of people living in poverty.

We are also asking that the Women's Program return to the purpose for which it was created, which included supporting advocacy for women's rights and promoting equality.

Currently, the scope of this program is very limited.

Furthermore, it is obvious that if the federal government were to set a higher minimum wage, it would help increase the minimum wage in the provinces as well.

As far as the Canada Child Tax Benefit is concerned, it should be increased. Everyone knows that the amount allocated does not correspond to families' real needs. We also feel that funds should be invested into public transportation rather than into tax credits. I believe that it is people with money who can truly benefit from tax credits. Every time any such measure is implemented, we further isolate people living in poverty, and prevent them from participating in society.

The government has made international commitments. One of our prime ministers even said that we live in the most beautiful county in the world. If that is the case, we are very concerned about the world. The government must review these commitments, be honest and consistent in this regard. That is what we are asking for in the fight against poverty. If people do not have the conditions required to be able to experience and exercise their rights, they do not have any. Poverty is a barrier to exercising one's citizen rights.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you very much, Ms. Jetté.

I now give the floor to Mr. Francis Vermette, of the Maison des Jeunes de Laval Ouest.

[Francis Vermette, Director General, Maison des jeunes de Laval Ouest]

Good afternoon, Ms. Folco.

Good afternoon, Mr. Lessard and other members of the committee.

I am also here to tell you what is happening on the front lines at the Maison des Jeunes, and how we experience the poverty of children from 12 to 17, day after day.

Needs are steadily increasing in the neighbourhood of Laval-Ouest, and the number of poor young people continues to increase from year to year. We have more than 110 members at the Maison des Jeunes de Laval-Ouest. We always need the support of the federal government, which brings me to presenting our three recommendations.

The first concerns the importance of maintaining the Canada Summer Jobs Program, of stabilizing it. We do not want to find ourselves in the same situation as in the spring of 2008, when funding cuts were announced to this program that allows young students to participate in sectors related to their areas of study. This subsidy must not be taken away from us. Canada Summer Jobs allows students to work at the Maison des Jeunes, with other community organizations or with the public, and this assistance represents some support. We have a great deal of work to do during the summer, and these students help us. This subsidy is an absolute must for us.

The second recommendation is to set up employability programs for young drop-outs or young people living on social assistance or on employment insurance. As an example, I would mention the Projet artiste de l'est de Laval, offered by the Maison des jeunes de Sainte-Dorothée, or the Pro acte project, which offers rehabilitation to groups of 8 to 12 young people in order to allow them to work in their field. The problem is in the difficulty of putting together groups of 8 to 12 young people. At times, according to the projects that we are trying to set up to fight against poverty, we cannot find the 8 to 12 youths. That is the case in Laval-Ouest. There is no project adapted to a smaller group of four to six people. There needs to be more flexibility, and also some opening within these programs that could be of more assistance to us.

The third recommendation concerns a project like Summer Jobs Canada, but that would work in other periods of the year. This project, with stable funding, would allow us to hire young students who could work in their fields of specialization or in their area of study, and we could therefore provide much broader support, help students, and thus help our youth.

We can see the poverty of those who come to the Maison des Jeunes. It is difficult to measure, but we see it in the circles under the eyes and in the lack of small change that they might have to feed themselves with. We prepare meals on Tuesdays and Thursdays so that they can eat dinner with us. We always have some 12 to 15 youths who come, and often some of them do not even have the 50 cents we ask for the meal. Imagine the effort required to come up with that small amount. We also ask ourselves, with good reason, how they get their hands on the money. These are very poor children. Some have been expelled from school, and if they make their way to the Maison des Jeunes, we can see that poverty is part of their everyday lives.

I think there is much work to be done. Our three recommendations for the federal government deal with the maintenance and addition of stable funding, year by year.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you, Mr. Vermette.

I now give the floor to Ms. Annie Pothier, Coordinator of the Maison de la famille de Laval-Ouest.

[Annie Pothier, Coordinator, Maison de la famille de Laval Ouest]

Hello, everyone.

The Maison de la famille is a service that complements the youth home that Mr. Vermette directs. We look after children from birth to age 10, pregnant women, and fathers who want to know what a family is. We try to meet children's needs, beginning with the basics. What is this? What should I do? What is a proper diet? What is eating? What does it mean to be warm? What does it feel like to be comforted? It is the Maison de la famille that answers these questions.

The Maison de la famille has existed for 18 years, and I would say that we help some 100 families per year. Many families have come to me to say that if it had not been for our services, they don't know what would have happened to them.

What we deal with every day is children who come to us frozen in the wintertime because they have no heating in their homes because it costs too much money. Children who are 1, 2 and 3 years old come to me asking for food because their parents have no money to pay for it. We take in mothers who are five months pregnant who have starved themselves because they must give the little food they have to their child and they do not have enough for themselves. These are realities we see every day, every week.

Obviously, if we qualify for the Canada Summer Jobs program, as Mr. Vermette said, we can hire an additional employee and thus offer activities to children who normally cannot afford them. For example, they do not have enough money to take the bus to the local swimming pool or the Granby Zoo. It is impossible for them to take part in this type of activity. They have no idea what such activities are. We definitely recommend that we be able to qualify for Canada Summer Jobs at all times. It is clearly an essential tool.

Another very important recommendation concerns the Community Action Program for Children, the CAPC, which is a subsidy given by the federal government. For the past three years, we have been told that we may not be eligible for this subsidy again because the program may not be renewed. Most community organizations for families operate solely with this subsidy. So local family support centres would be forced to shut down if they did not receive the CAPC. Each year, we have to wait four or five months before finally finding out that the program will be renewed.

I can tell you for sure that without the CAPC, we would be unable to offer even half of the services currently provided by the Maison de la famille to children aged 2 to 5, to mothers, to parents who want to meet for coffee, attend conferences, have discussions with our employees and receive support. Children aged 2 to 5 receive services from us that help them develop life skills: how can we learn not to shout? How can we ask for things without hitting our friends? This program definitely meets our needs. Without it, we would lose two employees and half of our funding.

This is a major concern. When people ask me whether we will qualify for the program next year, I tell them that I do not know. I hope so, but I just do not know. Therefore, one of our recommendations would be to ensure that we can count on receiving this program funding annually. We want to be sure of receiving it so we can plan for the future and perhaps create other services.

As concerns the Community Action Program for Children, what we need and what we are asking you for is more flexibility. The program is very rigid.

It is very complicated to fill out the applications.

As concerns the grant application as such, it's fine. However, the children have to be at least two years old and have at least three problems, or else we do not qualify for the program. It's not flexible enough. Just because people don't have families, have enough to eat and have no social problems, it doesn't mean that they should not qualify for the CAPC. It's too restrictive.

Those are our recommendations.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

You have both been very eloquent.

Thank you Ms. Pothier.

Ms. Trudel, of the Association coopérative d'économie familiale de la Rive-Sud de Montréal.

Go ahead, Ms. Trudel.

[Marie-Édith Trudel, Coordinator, Association Coopérative d’Économie Familiale de la Rive-Sud de Montréal]

The ACEF of the south shore of Montreal will celebrate its 35th anniversary on October 19 of this year. In Quebec, the family education and consumer rights associations movement has existed, or should I say survived, for over 45 years. Our activities are offered to all consumers living on the territory of eight RCMs in the Montérégie region, which represents over one million people for five and a half workers.

For over 35 years, we have been offering assistance in learning about budgets, debt and consumption, particularly to low and middle-income households. Thanks to these services, we aim to create sound budget management practices, prevent and limit debt, promote the responsible use of credit—half of my text is about credit—help people become informed consumers and encourage consumers to stand up for their rights.

Our association is a member of the coalition des associations de consommateurs du Québec, which comprises some 21 associations in Quebec. This month, the ACEF completed its annual review, which is very positive: our services are up 40% compared to the past three years. We offer a telephone hotline to consumers who are grappling with budget and consumption problems. We also receive calls from people who want to declare bankruptcy. As concerns budget consultations, these are up 40% over the past three years. We also offer education workshops to community groups. Here again, these services have increased by 50% as compared to the past three years.

As a group, we could pat ourselves on the back and say that everything is marvellous, but we are hearing alarm bells instead. We have contacted the other 21 associations, which are experiencing similar problems, and so this information is worrisome. The majority of the associations are experiencing the same increased demand for services. It should be recalled that in the beginning, our services were intended mainly for low and middle-income individuals, the unemployed, social assistance recipients, etc. Today, “middle income” can also refer to workers who owe money, whether it be large or small amounts. This term can also refer to couples who work and who have children, but who are literally crushed by small debts, mortgage debt, and double and even triple credit card debt.

We also offer budget consultations and free services to the public. Many workers have no savings for their senior years. Savings are a luxury. It is often said that people do not spend their money properly, but that is not the case. People do not indulge in any kind of recreational activities; their children simply play in the backyard. In such cases, family resource centres are very useful.

The ACEF has a saying that is somewhat sad: “it costs a lot to be poor.” Low and middle-income individuals are not the ones who receive the best credit card rates: on the contrary, it's inversely proportional in Canada. The poorer you are, the higher the credit card rate.

Renting an apartment that they can afford doubles or triples their heating bill. When you are poor, it's heating that costs a lot of money, because the building owners are not obliged to maintain their units properly. This means that these people pay much more money than those who live in properly insulated houses.

Transportation takes another large chunk out of their budgets. At the beginning of the month, these people don't buy a transit pass; they simply pay every time they take the bus, which means that their transport costs are three or four times higher than the average consumer.

This brings me to the subject of credit, the bugbear of the ACEF and consumer associations. Because credit access is too easy, consumers carry more debt and more of them declare bankruptcy each year, as well as saving less money.

Consumer associations are of the opinion that it is essential to warn consumers of the risks linked to excessive debt and to provide them with the information they need to stabilize their financial situation.

We realize, during budget information sessions, that credit cards are now being used as social safety nets or simply to make ends meet. Credit cards are being used as cushions, as if they were actual money. People borrow money on their credit card to pay off other credit cards.

Society has changed a great deal over the past 40 years. The advent of credit and credit cards have changed our society. According to Statistics Canada, the average Canadian has three credit cards. Over 60 million credit cards are issued in Canada, so if you do the math, many people have more than one card.

Consumer associations like ours are not against credit; on the contrary. We think that credit is necessary, but one credit card per person is sufficient. According to Statistics Canada, in 1968, there was one bankruptcy for every 10,000 people. In 2004 this number had risen to one for every 250 people. I can only imagine what 2009 will look like. According to what we see every day with the people who come to us, the figure will be very high.

I am not saying that credit alone is responsible for people’s misfortune, but if you read Professor Gérard Duhaime, you will understand that debt is a shared responsibility. Obviously, the individual is responsible, but we feel that the aggressive canvassing of credit card companies, their place in society and access to credit all play a role as well.

In our schools, chocolate and soft drinks are being banned, but credit card issuers are allowed to set up booths at the entrances to CEGEPs and universities. This is unconscionable. What causes more harm, chocolate or credit cards? Moreover, certain people are very vulnerable, such as compulsive personalities, people who have been unlucky in life, and those who collect credit cards. It's a combination of all of that.

My time is already up? What about my recommendations?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

We would ask that you skip to the conclusion because you have already gone over your allotted time.

[Marie-Édith Trudel]

The coalition and our association recommend that credit advertising and the canvassing be banned. If people want to obtain credit, they should apply to a financial institution. In addition, more education on the subject of credit is needed; money management classes should be reinstated in our schools; our associations should be equipped to offer more educational and preventive services free of charge to the public, and finally — we can always dream — credit agencies should be obliged to invest in education programs, just like those who sell alcoholic beverages.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

That is not impossible, Ms. Trudel.

I would like to make a brief comment. Yesterday, I received a letter from a credit card company—I have several credit cards—telling me just how much this company helped me and was so nice to me. Indeed, the company sends me information on various things. I found this letter almost insulting because, in the final analysis, it treated people as though they were idiots.

[Marie-Édith Trudel]

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

There is no hidden message. These companies are meeting a need they have been made aware of, but they do so in such an insipid way that it is almost insulting.

This explains why I quite understand your intervention. I'm going to stop here because I do not have the right to speak.

Thank you very much to all of you.

We will now proceed with questions. You have seven minutes for both the question and the answer.

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

Thank you to everyone. Today's presentations were extremely interesting.

I agree on the social housing issue; it's a major issue in our country. In Toronto in any case, but for most of Ontario, there's nearly a ten-year wait list. In essence, there is no access at this point to affordable housing. There are some homelessness program shelters, but the other is....

So that's a major issue, and I agree with you 100%. I'm not going to ask you questions that I think are very clear and that we have agreement on.

With respect to the revenue for lower-income Canadians, I was wondering, as a supplementary question—I think it was Mr. Saillant who mentioned this—where you would put the work income supplement, the WITB. How would you change it?

Housing and high-quality accessible child care would be another piece to bring the cost down for most low-income families, I would think.

I'm looking for some comment from you about the WITB program. Of course, in the case of housing and child care, I assume you would support.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

I do not know whether the translator understood.

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

Working income supplements--I said that.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Working income tax supplements.

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

Income tax supplements.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Working income tax benefits.

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

Benefits, sorry.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Do you want to reframe your question, please, Maria?