Human Resources Committee on May 28th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I call this meeting to order pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), our study on the federal contribution to reducing poverty in Canada.

We will now begin. I want to apologize for the delay. We had problems with elevators and a bunch of things. We're trying to get our researchers here. But we're going to get started, because you've all been waiting patiently. I want to thank all of you for being here today and taking the time out of your schedules to talk to us about the issues of poverty that we're working on.

Yes, Mr. Savage.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

On a point of order, I'm very anxious to hear the witnesses, but I just want to make sure that we do have time allocated today to deal with motions that are before the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Yes, most definitely. Thank you, Mike.

Mr. Quist, we're going to start with you. You're the executive director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada. We'll set the clock for ten minutes, and it will go off. We're hoping you'll keep it around that, but if you happen to be a little less or a little more, we're not going to stop you from talking. We'll give you the ten-minute timer, and if you're done before that you won't hear it.

There you go, David. Thank you for being here. The floor is all yours.

[Dave Quist, Executive Director, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada]

Terrific. Thanks very much.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, my thanks to you for the opportunity to appear and add my comments to your ever-growing knowledge base on the issue of poverty.

As you no doubt know already, the issue of poverty in Canada is complex. It involves multiple jurisdictions, circumstances, solutions, and preventive measures. Over the past several decades, respective Canadian governments have spent billions on this issue, yet poverty continues to exist in Canada. I think we all need to ask ourselves the question, why? That's why we're here today.

Collectively, endless administrations at all three levels of government have made attempts to resolve this issue. We have indeed made progress on several fronts, but there are still a number of families and other individuals who currently live in poverty. As you know, Canada does not have a true definition of poverty. We often use the low-income cut-off, or LICO, or the market basket measure. Frankly, I don't know that those families who are living in poverty really care which measure we use, rather that we are addressing the issue itself.

In recent years, there's been a trend to name child poverty instead of poverty as a pressing social concern. While all poverty, in particular children in poverty, is a tragedy, child poverty would be more aptly named family poverty. Children are, after all, poor only if their family is as well.

We also know that the effects of poverty go beyond mere money and income. Among other sources, Statistics Canada reports that the effects of poverty on children have many detrimental outcomes, including on health--both physical and mental--education, development, and behavioural disorders. There is also a higher probability that as adults, those children will grow up living in poverty as well. Addressing these needs lowers other life barriers as well.

Let me preface my next remarks by recognizing that there are those who will require society's assistance, some more than others. Unfortunately, there are those who are physically or mentally unable to adequately care for themselves.

I believe I am my brother's keeper and that society has an obligation to assist where it must.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Quist, please slow down, just for translation purposes. I know you're trying to get your 20 minutes into 10 minutes.

[Dave Quist]

Okay.

So what can be done? In our analysis of poverty, I believe we must consider four distinct issues: first, how to meet the immediate short-term needs of those in poverty; second, how to meet the long-term needs; third, how to minimize the number of people who will fall back into poverty; and finally, how to prevent poverty from occurring in the first place. Each of these factors is interconnected.

In addressing the short-term needs, when individuals, and in particular families, enter poverty, there are several levels of needs that require attention. While not an exclusive list, the immediate needs of safety, food, shelter, clothing, and children's education must be addressed.

It's not clear that these should be strictly the domain of government. One leading agency in the United Kingdom, having done much research and work on the ground with poverty-fighting groups, has determined that these needs are often best served by grassroots communities who know, understand, and are best able to deal with the local needs of those in poverty and facing other social difficulties.

Addressing the long-term needs is not an extension of the short-term solutions. Ensuring that people and families have a way out of poverty must be the next focus. We do no one any favour by maintaining existing barriers such as the welfare wall, tax clawbacks, and an inability to meet education and training needs. Research in the U.K. has clearly shown that family entrenchment in poverty leads to ongoing cyclical poverty for generation after generation.

In order to minimize the return to poverty, one of the biggest impediments that individuals and families face when attempting to move out of poverty is the welfare wall. While on social assistance programs, certain benefits--such as housing, child care, and prescription drugs--are subsidized. As a person attempts to move out of poverty, these benefits are eliminated, thus increasing the financial needs of the individual or the family, and often resulting in a return to the poverty cycle and/or as a disincentive to work.

In recent years, the federal government has recognized this problem. It has moved towards addressing it through the working income tax benefit--the “WITB”, as it's commonly known--which is intended to lower the welfare wall by compensating people for personal high marginal tax rates. Without this, marginal tax rates for some of these individuals may actually be as high as 50% to 70%.

The key to any of this poverty strategy is education. We expect that young people in high school make good, positive decisions for their lives as they continue on to post-secondary education, trade school, vocations, and careers. I believe it is important that we also explain the statistics of social decisions as well--the importance of relationships and the statistical outcomes of broken relationships; the effect of not completing their education in a 21st century world; the long-term consequences of decisions made today, both good and bad. This is not moralizing; this is being honest about the risk of certain outcomes given their respective decisions. Let the numbers speak for themselves and be widely known.

In preventing poverty, one of the byproducts of the steady erosion of the institution of marriage has been the rise of lone-parent families. In short, family structure and stability plays a large role in the eradication of poverty. Strong, stable married parents are less likely to fall into poverty, and their children are less likely to enter poverty themselves as they approach adulthood.

But one element of poverty that I'd like to highlight is the link to lone parenting. Lone-parent families have, I think, the hardest job in the world, be they moms or dads. Social science research agrees that the demographic group with the highest rate of poverty is the lone-parent family.

Since 1987, Statistics Canada has shown female lone-parent families to have disproportionately higher levels of poverty than other family forms. Measured as “the proportion of people living below the low income cutoffs with a given group”, according to Statistics Canada, children in female lone-parent families have ranged from a 22-year high of 65.7% in 1996 to a low of 32.3% in 2006. While progress has been made to lower poverty levels, in particular in the past ten years, statistics show that almost one third of female lone-parent families continue to live in low income.

For many, a strong, stable marriage is both a defence against entering poverty and the key to exiting it. Our research has confirmed that for unattached women who become single mothers in a given year, the odds for being poor in that year rose 5.8% to over 30%. Conversely, a lone mother who got married in a particular year saw her chances of exiting poverty rise from 29% to 84%. Single motherhood is a reliable predictor of family and child poverty. Reflexively, marriage is an important poverty-fighting institution.

Public officials at all levels have a limited role to play. As mentioned previously, community-based groups often have the best outcomes due to their ability to work with local residents. Public officials need to recognize and support this role.

Furthermore, there is a need to evaluate programs for effectiveness. Rewarding and continuing to fund the organization or voice that is the loudest is not the best way to determine which program should be funded and which ones will not. The problem of poverty is big, it's complex, and it's fraught with competing interests and solutions. We should be looking closely at outcomes and results.

Some positive steps have been taken by the government in the past. I've mentioned the WITB is a step forward in addressing the welfare wall, but it has not yet eliminated it. Continuing to expand this program would make it easier for people to return to the workforce. The elimination of the marriage penalty, tax-free savings accounts, and disability tax credits are all good measures as a part of that process. However, there are several public policy measures that I believe could be taken in order to further support anti-poverty measures.

One of these is family income splitting. In our research, the number one issue that affects families in every single demographic group across the range is finances. Reducing the tax burden on families will greatly assist and control their decision-making within their own family. Several options exist to introduce family income splitting to Canada's tax structure.

The second is married family based taxation. Intact married families fare best in all measurement scales: mental and physical health; personal income; family stabilities; and lower levels of poverty. Government should be rewarding this positive behaviour. We need to create incentives that support family and in turn fight poverty. For many families, the reason they enter poverty is family breakdown. We've made some progress on this front. But while this drop is encouraging, we still have over a third of lone-parent families--specifically mothers--living in low-income situations.

We also need transparency and accountability measures. According to the C.D. Howe Report, "Good Health to All”, just released within the last month, no one knows whether or not many of the federal programs are offering good value for money. It is imperative that we determine if we are maximizing, duplicating, or wasting tax dollars on different programs.

We meed community-based program delivery. As you recall from the presentation by the Right Honourable Iain Duncan Smith, the U.K. experience has been that the local community, faith, and NGO organizations are best able to deliver services that are tailored specifically to the needs of poverty-stricken individuals and families within their community. I believe this is the key to further improvements for low-income Canadians. Further efforts should take place around this issue. The Centre for Social Justice reports have set a high standard to which we can all look for practical solutions and policy.

In conclusion, family breakdown is expensive. It has a high fiscal and social cost within our society. The dollars are truly staggering. At a time such as this current recession, it's in everyone's best interests to find continued cost savings. I invite you all to come next Wednesday when we release our latest report on the cost of family breakdown. The numbers are truly staggering. More than anything, this process helps to restore hope to those in poverty--hope that they will sooner rather than later move out of poverty permanently. Hope should be our inspiration to achieve the goal of poverty eradication.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's good timing, even with the slowed-down version. So thanks, Dave.

We're going to move over to Greg deGroot-Maggetti, who is a poverty advocate from the Mennonite Central Committee of Canada.

Thank you very much, sir, for being here. You've got 10 minutes.

[Greg deGroot-Maggetti, Poverty Advocate, Mennonite Central Committee Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

The Mennonite Central Committee is very pleased to be able to participate in these hearings. I want to start by acknowledging the role that this committee and its members have played in keeping a focus on the federal government's role in poverty reduction across Canada. Thank you for that work.

My particular position is that of poverty advocate from Mennonite Central Committee Ontario. I'll talk a little bit about that work, but first I'll say that if you're familiar at all with the Mennonite Central Committee, we're probably best known for the work we do overseas in relief, development, and peacemaking. But MCC does a lot of work across Canada.

In Ontario, for example, we do street ministry with people living on the streets in Toronto. The Circle of Friends program is working with women, helping them to move from the shelter in Kitchener to break the cycle of homelessness and make the move into independent living. We have restorative justice programs. We have the Aboriginal Neighbours programs, where we are working with first nations and aboriginal communities. We have refugee sponsorship in which many, many Mennonite and Brethren congregations sponsor refugees from across the world.

In all of that work, we encounter poverty and people who are marginalized by poverty, so part of my submission this morning comes out of this work that we do on the ground with people who have been marginalized.

This submission also reflects the work we do particularly in Ontario with several different coalitions that are working on poverty issues, like Campaign 2000, which is working on child poverty, the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition in Ontario, and the 25 in 5 Network for Poverty Reduction.

Our submission also is rooted in our faith conviction, a conviction that we're all called to create a society where all can be included, where every person can enjoy the fullness of life, and where our dignity as persons is truly respected.

What I'd like to talk to you about draws particularly on the work we've been doing in Ontario, where the Ontario government recently brought in a poverty reduction strategy and actually just a couple of weeks ago passed poverty reduction legislation, Bill 152, the Poverty Reduction Act.

My opening comments, I hope, will be very brief. Let me get to the substance of them. What I'd like to do is highlight several elements that I think are key for a strong federal poverty reduction strategy. They relate to human rights, participation, targets and indicators, legislation, and the need for a comprehensive plan of action.

Let me say first that Canada's poverty reduction strategy needs to be integrally linked to the international human rights commitments that Canada has made. These international human rights commitments, particularly with respect to economic, social, and cultural rights, should provide the framework for developing and implementing a pan-Canadian poverty reduction strategy. I won't go into more detail at the moment, but I'd welcome your questions on any and all of these points.

Second, let me talk about participation. The participation of Canadians is really important in the design, implementation, and evaluation of Canada's poverty reduction strategy, particularly for individuals and communities living in poverty. That participation is crucial if we're going to have an effective strategy. This is the same message we brought to the provincial government in Ontario and that we have seen in other jurisdictions in Canada, like Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, with their poverty reduction strategies.

Third, a strategy has to include medium-term poverty reduction targets and clear indicators for tracking progress on poverty reduction. Two types of indicators are needed, I would point out. One is policy effort indicators and another is outcome indicators.

Just to give an example, if we're talking about housing, the need to address homelessness, and the need for housing, indicators would be not just the amount of money that's allocated, say, for a national housing strategy, which Canada needs, nor how many units are built or how many people are served. Those would be policy effort indicators, and we need those kinds of indicators to track the success of a poverty reduction strategy, but we also need outcome indicators that show, for instance, how many people are in core housing need and how many people are homeless. The goal of the strategy is not just to build housing or provide service to so many people, but to actually make sure that people's right to adequate, secure housing is met.

So the strategy would need two types of indicators: outcome indicators and policy effort indicators. Also, data on each set of indicators should be disaggregated along geographic and demographic lines.

Again, I'd welcome your questions to flesh that point out a little more.

Fourth, legislation is important. Quebec is the first province in Canada to bring in poverty reduction legislation--An Act to Combat Poverty and Social Exclusion--and Ontario, as I said, has recently brought in the Poverty Reduction Act. Canada's commitment to poverty reduction should also be enshrined in legislation. Again, I could elaborate on that further in questions if you'd like.

Lastly, Canada's poverty reduction strategy should set out a multi-year plan, in collaboration with provinces, territories, first nations, aboriginal organizations, municipalities, and community groups, to achieve sustained and deep reductions in poverty.

In Ontario, when the 25 in 5 Network went out to dozens of communities to gather input for Ontario's consultations on poverty reduction, we found in communities across the province the need for action in three broad areas. First is sustaining employment so that when people work they can live free of poverty. Second is livable incomes, particularly for those who can't work or who can't work full time for a full year, to make sure they can live with dignity at a reasonable standard of living. Third is strong and supportive communities. This relates to a range of programs and services that combine federal and provincial programs and funding with the kind of community programs Mr. Quist talked about. The combination of all three working at all those levels is very important.

I will just reiterate the five points: the poverty reduction strategy needs to be grounded in and integrally linked to Canada's human rights commitments; it must involve participation of people across the country, particularly those most impacted by poverty; it has to include clear targets and indicators for poverty reduction; the strategy should be enshrined in legislation; and the poverty reduction strategy has to include action plans that are renewed every two, three, or four years and updated.

I'll leave it at that, and I will welcome your questions when you have time for questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Greg. Thank you very much.

We're now going to move over to the United Way. We have Émilie Potvin as well as Pierre Métivier. Thank you both for being here today. I understand you're going to split your time, so we'll turn it over to you.

[Émilie Potvin, Vice-President, Communications, United Way of Canada]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, and committee staff.

I would like to begin by thanking you for extending this invitation to United Way/Centraide Canada. We are pleased to be here today to discuss the challenging question of reducing poverty with you this morning, and we look forward to interesting exchanges.

I will begin by talking a little bit about the United Way of Canada, and then Pierre Métivier, the president and CEO of Centraide Québec and Chaudière-Appalaches, will discuss what is being done in his community in terms of fighting poverty.

No doubt, all of you who are at the table know United Way/Centraide. No doubt, as well, all of you know of United Way/Centraide as a fundraiser. What you may not know is that next to government, the United Way/Centraide movement is the largest funder of the voluntary sector and social services in Canada.

Each year, United Ways and Centraides across the country raise upwards of $480 million, the vast majority of which is reinvested in local communities to support programs and services directed at improving the social conditions of all Canadians. Every day, Canada's 119 United Ways and Centraides work locally to change living conditions for the better. The issues they face may vary, but the values and purpose of all these United Ways are the same: to strengthen their communities and to improve the quality of life for Canadians. The movement employs approximately 900 staff and engages over 200,000 volunteers in various capacities.

In 2003, the United Way/Centraide movement approved a new mission, and I want to draw your attention to that new mission because I think it's fundamental to the study you're doing right now. Our new mission launched the organization on a profound journey. This transformation is about a fundamental shift from being a very successful umbrella fundraising organization to being a movement focused on community impact. We are often asked what community impact is. What does it mean, and how is it different from what we used to do?

Fundraising is one strategy in support of our new mission. Who we are is about making lasting changes in communities. Community impact is about achieving meaningful, long-term improvements to the quality of life in Canadian communities by not just addressing the symptoms of problems but by getting at the root causes. It's about making fundamental changes to social conditions in communities.

As a member of a movement committed to community impact, United Ways and Centraides across Canada are working together and with others to build on the collective strength needed for real change to happen.

I will now leave it to Pierre to discuss some of the initiatives that have been put in place to tackle poverty.

[Pierre Métivier, President and CEO, United Way Québec and Chaudière-Appalaches]

Good morning. My presentation is in French, obviously. I only have a few minutes to tell you about an important problem and about a lot of things that we have done in our region.

First of all, I would like to quote a few individuals who I think would like to speak to you. They are, first, Susan George, an anglophone writer whose following comments are quoted in a magazine:

The crisis we are going through is of course economic. But it is first of all social, with rising poverty and inequalities [that it will cause and has caused]... Unfortunately, our leaders have gone back to the old methods that will solve nothing fundamentally. If the idea is to stimulate consumption by offering money to those who need it in order to live decently, all right. But distributing it indiscriminately through lower taxes, for example, is not a solution.

The second quotation is from French journalist Hervé Kempf, from the newspaper Le Monde. He writes:

The economic crisis also means the end of a material growth-based model that was considered unlimited. We have to rebuild a society where the common good goes before profit. The economy must no longer be an end in itself, but a tool at the service of people. We must change values, replace the market, growth, competition and individualism with solidarity, cooperation and the general interest.

I could cite others. I've simply taken these remarks from a magazine that I had at home. I think a good part of the message is there. I also have a cartoon by Mr. Côté, cartoonist with Le Soleil, in Quebec City. You can't see the pictures, but you'll understand very clearly from the text. There are two homeless individuals. One points out to the other how generous people are during the Christmas holidays, and the other tells him to watch out and not eat too much so he doesn't get a stomach ache. The first one answers that won't be a problem since he'll have one year to digest. How do you understand the message? With the picture, the text is more striking.

I want to talk to you about a problem that I think is real. I say "real" because many people try to downplay it or conceal it. Poverty isn't the subject; it's people. Moreover it's those people who should be here today to talk to you about it. I'm going to come back to that.

I'm going to be a bit provocative, but in a very respectful way. At the United Way Québec, we've chosen to make a lot of room for community groups and poor people. In a survey that we conducted, we asked people what the biggest problem was that should be solved in the community. People quickly answered that it was health, education, world peace, taxation and so on. However, when we asked them to choose from a number of problems the one that was in greatest need of being solved in the community, poverty was the number one answer. Twice as many respondents gave that answer as gave health and education. That shows that people are extremely sensitive, but that you have to talk to them about the problem. You have to talk about it in the community and make it a social issue. That's what we are having a lot of trouble doing in our society.

Poverty is often the subject of prejudice. Among other things, it's said that poor people are responsible for their fate. I invite all parliamentarians to put themselves in their position and see whether they would agree to stay there for long. It's said that the gap between rich and poor is growing regularly, and that's a fact, but it's also said that we simply have to create wealth for everything to be resolved. However, the problem isn't to create wealth, but to distribute it. As evidence of that, nothing was resolved in recent years, even though the degree of prosperity was quite high. In short, poor people are ready victims of prejudice.

At the forum of the Canadian Council on Social Development, which was held last week and which certain parliamentarians attended, including Mr. Martin, we talked about the following three points. Poor people are able to speak for themselves. They want to be heard. On that subject, I repeat that I'm not the one who should be here today.

It is the mobilization, solidarity and development of communities that will help these people. It's everyone's business. I'll be coming back to this in a moment.

Lastly, there is access to services, which is complicated in a number of communities. The fewer networks there are, the harder it is to get services. I'm going to talk about that again as well.

These three elements are fundamental, if we want to help people who are in a situation of poverty. In my opinion and that of the people who were in Calgary last week at the forum of the Canadian Council on Social Development, the federal government is absent from these three areas. However, it could play a role in them by, for example, providing access to services. In cooperation with hundreds and thousands of organizations, the United Way Movement is putting in place a 211 reference-information line in many communities. This is a magic way to provide access to services. The poorer you are, the more patient you are, and the less need you have of networks to help you. We must put an effective system in place. Apart from the 911 emergency service, why wouldn't there be a 211 service for community social groups, charities and so on? In Quebec City, Toronto, Winnipeg and Calgary, we're working toward that end, but there is no support from the federal government to put this service in place across Canada. We're doing it with our own resources, thanks to public charity donations. The federal government has a role to play. I'm talking to the government, not to the political parties as such.

Several hundreds of community groups across the country are doing an outstanding job. They are supported by their municipal and provincial governments, but very little by the federal government. We've sensed a lot of reluctance on the government's part to continue funding in the areas of homelessness, literacy and status of women in recent years. That's not a good strategy.

The economic stimulus plan developed by the federal government is based mainly on infrastructure. That's very good, but part of that money could have been invested in community and social groups that combat poverty. The return would have been incredible. We do want you to fund infrastructure, but you can do a lot more with little money.

Combating poverty isn't just helping people; it's also investing in the economy. Business people need a stable environment in order to generate good returns, and poor people or people who are left to their own devices must be helped and supported if we want to establish that kind of environment.

I'll quickly give you an example. In Quebec City, two years ago, the main bridge over the St. Lawrence, the Pierre-Laporte Bridge, was blocked by someone threatening to commit suicide at 6:00 a.m. So the entire economy on both sides of the river was blocked because workers couldn't pass. I was going to a business, the Ultramar refinery. We all arrived late. I had a meeting with members of the management team. They told me to give them the information quickly and that everything was going badly. I told them that my Centraide-United Way message was going to be simple: giving to the United Way means investing in their business. They asked me why. I asked them if they had been operational that morning. They hadn't because someone on the bridge had threatened to commit suicide. If community groups did not exist, there would be one person doing the same thing every week, and their business would stop operating.

The federal government can send out this message: investing in community groups and in the fight against poverty also means investing in the economy. It's a lot more costly to tolerate poverty than to address it. You should acknowledge the problem and try to take action.

My colleague talked about Quebec's poverty legislation. This is a very bold political action that isn't perfect, but that is interesting. Five other provinces are preparing to do the same thing. Twenty-five years after the federal government issued the declaration to limit child poverty, nothing has yet been solved. Regardless of the political party or the economic situation, you should recommend that the government legislate to compel the federal government, regardless of party, to take on-going action.

This goes beyond political partisanship. The fight against poverty requires us to do these kinds of things. Symbols must be spread around our community so that people understand that it's unacceptable. You have a role to play in this regard.

Quebec, like many other provinces, can definitely serve as an example in this area. These are the main messages I wanted to send you this morning. You aren't very much involved in the fight against poverty on a day-to-day basis, with all the community groups. You can play a role. I'm convinced that the provincial governments would be interested in working in cooperation with you. I'm not engaging in politics, and it's not my role to resolve this issue. I simply know that the community groups and poor people have been left to their own devices, and our community is paying the price for that. We need legislation and legislative constraints to compel the government and the governments that succeed it to address this issue.

In closing, I would like to submit three documents prepared in Quebec with people from the community. The title of the first is Une société en déficit humain. Rapport sur les conséquences sociales de l'appauvrissement [Report on the social consequences of impoverishment]. I invite you to read it. The second is Une société qui se tire dans le pied - lettre ouverte aux personnes qui ne se sentent pas concernées par la pauvreté… et à toutes les autres [A society shooting itself in the foot—open letter to those who do not feel concerned by poverty... and everyone else]. I don't know how the interpreters will translate that. Lastly, the third document, which moreover concerns the social costs of poverty, is entitled On n'est pas seuls au monde : propos sur la responsabilité sociale et la pauvreté [We aren't alone in the world: remarks on social responsibility and poverty]. This is a call to social solidarity and commitment.

Thousands of copies of these documents have been distributed throughout our community. The effect has been to rally the public together to find solutions. So I am submitting them here. I invite you to examine them and consider them in your proceedings.

I want to thank you, despite my enthusiasm and passion in this area. I thank you for considering the issue of poverty, and I want to repeat to you that it's the right target. Thank you all very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Métivier. I appreciate your presentation.

I realize that while the government, in terms of the cabinet, wasn't there on Thursday, as a member of the government party I was there on Thursday in Calgary and I have the bruises to prove it.

We're going to start the first round with Madame Folco.

You have seven minutes, please.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks to all four of you.

I would like to answer a question that was not asked clearly. Since all the parties are here, I want to emphasize that the work we are doing here on poverty is a long-term effort involving a lot of branches. The result of this work will be a report containing recommendations that will be tabled not only in the House, but also with the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, from whom we expect an answer. I simply wanted to provide that piece of information for certain individuals who may not be very familiar with the process.

I'm going to ask some perhaps well-targeted questions, but I won't put them to anyone in particular. Answer them if you think you have something to add.

First of all, I wonder about the minimum wage. Even if the federal government increased the minimum wage, that would affect only a small part of the federal government workforce. Can you imagine the importance of increasing the minimum wage through the Canada Labour Code, which would obviously have much greater impact on the general public?

Second, I would like to talk about the importance of the NGOs in the fight against poverty. This issue concerns everyone. I don't know how it is for the people on the other side of the House, but on this side, on the opposition side, a lot of us have already worked in cooperation with the NGOs and, in some cases, for NGOs and non-profit organizations.

Let's talk about the financial relationship that the federal government has with non-profit organizations. If we wanted to suggest ways of helping the non-profit organizations that have already proven themselves in the fight against poverty, what could the federal government do to help those organizations do a better job and more effectively enter the field?

Those are two very specific questions.

[Dave Quist]

Thank you very much for your comments.

The issue of minimum wage is one we have not done direct research on; however, how it fits into the issue of poverty is one of being a floor of income levels for people. You're quite right that the provinces deal with a larger number of people who may be more directly affected by minimum wage than the federal government does.

The bigger picture, though, is how we ensure that people have opportunity through either education or ensuring businesses can offer progressively better jobs that have better pay rates than even minimum wage can offer to them as well. That would be key to ensuring the business community can offer those jobs that provide far greater salaries and wages and so on.

With regard to the aspect of non-profits and working with NGOs, that is actually one of the keys to how we address the issue of poverty within our communities. Many of the groups that are here today work directly or work with groups that work directly with those who are poverty-stricken for a wide variety of reasons.

The difficulty of having one policy even at the federal level that will meet all those needs across the country is extremely difficult. The needs and obligations in one community or one region may be quite different from somewhere else.

So I would urge the government to try to let local NGOs, non-profits, churches, and community-based groups—that can best deal with that, that have the resources and have the contacts—deal with it, rather than strictly at a federal government level, working cooperatively and essentially removing any road barriers to letting those groups do their job best.

[Greg deGroot-Maggetti]

Thank you for those questions. They're really good ones.

I'll start with the issue of the minimum wage. That provides a good opening to thinking about one of the fundamental basic human rights in terms of economic, social, and cultural rights, which is the right to freely choose one's work, to work in safe conditions, and to be paid enough to enjoy a decent standard of living. So I think the question of a minimum wage addresses that one key fundamental human right.

In terms of a poverty reduction strategy, this is a good area where, as the federal government creates its poverty reduction strategy in collaboration with provinces and territories, it should identify making sure people can have work that provides a decent standard of living. One of the root causes of high rates of poverty in Canada is the large number of low-paid jobs. So getting the minimum wage up to a level where a person working full time full year can rise above the low-income line will be a key element.

But also important would be enforcement of labour standards and updating labour standards to new labour practices, like contracting out and the growth in temp agencies. All these things have to come together, as well as how the federal government will work with provinces and with business and labour to ensure that people who start working at low-wage low-skilled jobs can upgrade their skills throughout their career, so they can earn higher wages and be more productive in their work.

This is why it takes a strategic plan, and there should be a target to reduce the number of low-paid jobs. Raising the minimum wage would be one of the actions that would get us there.

Around the funding for non-profit groups, again it's a question of complementarity of roles among different levels of government. One of the issues I've encountered over the years from non-profit groups is the problem of always having to seek project-based funding and losing out on a lot of core funding. That would have to be rectified.

I'll just give you one quick example of how the interaction between non-profit groups can help enhance very good programs the federal government has. One area where Canada has done very well in reducing poverty has been among seniors, as I'm sure you're well aware, with programs like old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. However, a number of years ago it became known that there were a lot of seniors who were actually eligible for these programs but weren't accessing them. The question was how you let those folks know. HRDC—I think that is what it was called in those days—put together an action plan, working with community groups to get out to places like seniors centres to get the information out so that more seniors could access this program, which was one of the keys in bringing down poverty among seniors.

That is just an example of how the coordination of a strategic plan at the federal government level, with community groups, can really have an impact in making sure people can access services and reduce poverty.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Thanks, Greg.

We're going to move to our next questioner. Mr. Lessard, you have seven minutes.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I also want to thank you for your testimony this morning, which is very revealing of one concern, which we have in common, being related to the exercise we're conducting here. If I understand correctly, we'll have trouble making progress if we don't first involve the people who are caught in the spiral of poverty.

You say it differently. Mr. Métivier tells us that they're the ones who should be speaking to us here. Mr. deGroot-Maggetti tells us that we can't move forward with plans if our people don't take part in them. Mr. Quist, you say otherwise, probably in accordance with what's guiding your convictions: that is to say that the government should provide the least possible support for programs, apart from community group assistance programs.

Don't you think that, in that way, you're inviting the government to shake off one responsibility and put it on the shoulders of the people who are already disadvantaged and who are dedicated to assisting those who are caught in the spiral of poverty? I just want to understand where you're headed, and your thinking. This isn't a judgment. The idea is to understand, because we're here to try to understand your thinking on this. I'd like to hear what you have to say on that subject, Mr. Quist, so that we can clearly determine whether that's the way you view matters.

[Dave Quist]

Certainly. Thank you, sir. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that for you. And pardon me, my French is terrible, so I won't even attempt to do that.

The work we have done has been drawn from international sources, looking at the United Kingdom, primarily, where they have had cyclical poverty for many generations now in some quarters. Their research has shown, and I believe it to be true here as well, that whereas government should be involved, the community groups, the NGOs at the community level, the grassroots, if you will, the faith community, do a better job than programs run directly by the government.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I'll stop you there because the time allotted to us is limited. I understood your reasoning enough to know where you stand on that idea.

There is another idea that surprises me somewhat, but, at all events, that should be clarified as well. It's a fact that single individuals are more inclined to experience financial difficulties. We agree on that. But you're saying that one of the effective measures is to encourage those people to marry. To that end, you even advocate a marriage bonus, and you also urge the government to offer a tax deduction to people who marry. That defeats me.

I want to try to understand how you can reconcile that with the deployment of modern society. Furthermore, we will acknowledge that we are no longer living in those times when people were compelled to marry. I believe you'll acknowledge that. We can't compel people to marry, unless you tell me the contrary. There remains only one step to take, and I believe you've taken it: you're saying that we shouldn't compel them, but we should urge them to marry—ah!

How can we accept that and want to make it a recommendation that will be helpful for the future? I don't know whether you really understand my question. Here we want to neglect no suggestions in our analysis, but we also want to accept suggestions that are really consistent with our objective.

[Dave Quist]

Thank you. The word “compel” did not enter into my discussion. Rather, the statistics clearly showed that family breakdown will most often result in levels of poverty, that those who remain married are less likely to enter into poverty.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I agree with you, Mr. Quist, but that's not my question.

We understand you're proposing we recommend that the government adopt incentives for people to marry. However, you're not linking that with the couple. For example, if a person says he or she wants to live with another person, even if he isn't too tempted by the idea, because he wants to have fewer financial problems... People do that as well.

However, you're saying that, if they aren't married, they won't be entitled to the bonus or the tax deduction. That's what you're saying. We understood you on that point.

[Dave Quist]

I think the government has already started that process. For some time now there has been a disincentive to being married by rewarding those who were living common-law. That was just rectified in the last two budgets.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I understood you. That's your position, that we need incentives. You're inviting us to encourage people to marry. We've understood you.

[Dave Quist]

Compelling your obligations has to remain out of this discussion. It really needs to be a personal choice. However, I don't believe that the general public, or even the government and the policy-makers, are aware of the net effect that marriage or non-marriage has on society itself. Poverty is just one of those effects. Education, violence.... The effect of marriage on children and teenagers as they grow up is positive, so we just need to--

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

We can acknowledge that that produces positive results. This morning, like the other people who are here—you are all serious individuals—you're making recommendations to us that are not to be taken lightly. And out of respect, we have to consider each of your recommendations. I've clearly understood that you want us to urge people to marry.

I only have one more question that I will ask very briefly, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of which is to determine each of them.

You're saying you want people who are in the spiral of poverty to be participants in the exercise we're conducting. What are you suggesting we do to achieve that? To date, we've found ourselves somewhat in the same dynamic as in the past: people arrive in limousines to talk about poverty. I've seen that.