Human Resources Committee on June 2nd, 2009

[Barbara Burkett]

Certainly we see the racialization of poverty in our schools in terms of poverty impacting student self-esteem. The impact is exacerbated if you're blending the two challenges of racialization and poverty.

Toronto has been quite well identified and recognized for the parenting centres it has established in the city. These are places in which we bring in immigrant parents as well, in an informal setting that makes them feel much more comfortable with the school setting. Then we find educators who are embracing that concept, including cultural teachings, so that students learn to value one another.

Then, of course, we are much more aware of school safety because of some of the challenges we've been encountering in this province. We have some very pointed programming—in fact, OTF has also—to deal with safety in the schools and address bullying through building positive relationships, respectful relationships, and teaching children about how to be tolerant and respectful of one another.

Another great program that's in place in Ontario is called the Roots of Empathy. This transcends racialization but brings mother and baby into the classroom, so that the children learn to identify with all the needs of that child and then learn skills of empathy that translate. Apparently the results in the school, in terms of building positive relationships between students, is quite outstanding.

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

How broad is that program?

[Barbara Burkett]

The program is privately based but is supported by funding from the Minister of Education in Ontario. It's across Canada. Some provinces, I think, support it even more solidly financially than we do in Ontario. The founder of that program is Mary Gordon, and she has been quite well recognized across Canada—in fact internationally as well. It's a program worth looking at.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Mr. Ouellet, the floor is yours, sir.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Stapleton, I would like to thank you personally for your testimony in regards to employment insurance reform. According to the figures you supplied us, 22% of Toronto residents receive EI benefits. These figures are dramatic. How can we call this an insurance? It is a measure that only protects a few people. I did not have a specific question to ask you. I wanted only to thank you for having said this, because it is very important. These are figures that I did not previously have.

Mr. Melatti, I did not quite understand when you said that there was a big difference between the provincial and the federal assistance schemes. If I am not mistaken, there would be less money to alleviate poverty among children because of duplication and other problems between the two jurisdictions.

Could you explain in greater detail your comments regarding relations between the federal and the provincial governments? Obviously, what we are interested in, is what the federal input might be. Perhaps you could clarify for us the role of the federal government in regards to your ideas to lift children out of their poverty.

[Reno Melatti]

The point I was trying to indicate is that the Ontario government appears to be focused on other issues. It's not to say that they're not.... Our organization receives quite a deal of funding from the Ontario government for the bullying and the safe schools projects that we are involved with, to do some professional development of our teachers and make them aware of those areas that are poverty-stricken. Mainly it's for the idea of the safe schools, the racialized aspect.

What I'm suggesting concerning the federal government is from the standpoint of immigrant children. I think the federal government may not recognize the children as it more or less recognizes the parents. There are children who need some sort of assistance to bring them back into society. Because of the aspect of citizenship, I guess the stress may be put mainly on the parents, but I know, as an immigrant myself, that the school system is just not enough. There need to be programs in the community.

I come from Leamington, Ontario, where there are a lot of immigrants in the area. There are social services being provided both by the school boards and by the parishes to ameliorate bringing immigrant children as well into the community, not just from the school standpoint—because in some cases the schools become a sort of danger zone for racialization—but even in terms of the community, because that's key; that's where the importance is. From that standpoint, I guess I'm looking for the federal government to become aware of this and work in partnership with the provinces.

Thank you.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you.

The following question is for Ms. Gosse.

I would like you to give me some more details about your perspective. You mentioned a private pension. You are saying that the government would give people vouchers, money in one way or another to invest this money and see it grow. If I am not mistaken, you speak of this in contrast to a universal pension scheme provided by the government.

If we gave to the banks the money that people could get themselves through a universal pension plan—I am thinking of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec whose mandate is to grow pension funds—are you not concerned that, in the end, it will be the banks that will benefit from this money? I think that it might be dangerous.

At this time, we asking Parliament to increase the Guaranteed Income Supplement, that we call SRG in French, by $110 a month. Do you not think that we have a better chance of generating wealth if the government looks after the pensions? Let us take a country like Japan where the emphasis has been entirely on private pensions. It is a total failure: people who arrive at the end of their lives have nothing.

Why do you think that a private pension would be better than a government sponsored one? Might it not be a better idea to improve, to increase the current federal pension plan rather than creating something new?

[Barbara A. Gosse]

Absolutely, and I agree with you. But I think there needs to be incentive to allow Canadians to think more positively about their pensions, to actually actively participate in saving for their future, in putting that nest egg away. We need to change the thinking and actually have them think about their pensions, have them think about that time period in their lives in their future by incentivizing, not replacing the collective pension at all, but by perhaps instituting a more progressive universal system where there would be additional advantages for lower-income Canadians to save for their future. And perhaps we could provide a matched savings incentive for lower-income Canadians so that they would have a greater reason to save for their future, to actually turn their heads into thinking about saving for their future.

Nowadays there's a very different way of thinking. When you are in your twenties or thirties, you're now thinking about financing debt. You are never thinking about saving for your future. Matched savings incentives give people an incentivized way of putting money away or a nest egg away. We can look at the debt rates today in this country, and they're escalating.

If we're looking at pensions in the future. I saw a statistic recently that says that 25% of Canadians have absolutely no savings for their retirement. That's incredible. That's shocking.

This might be a way to actually provide some sort of incentivized saving mechanism to allow people to start thinking about their retirement and start being actively involved in saving for their retirement. It doesn't mean getting rid of the collective system at all, but it means instituting more of a progressive universal system where people with lower incomes would actually gain a greater benefit.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

[Technical difficulties: the Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Martin.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'm certainly intrigued with this notion of capacity building. However, I know from work that I've done and from reading and listening that there are already built-in disincentives.

Maybe the two of you can help me. When you fall off the EI wagon and you're now on social assistance, the first thing that has to happen is that your assets get spent. You're poor, but then you become desperately poor, because you have nothing.

How does that work now?

[Barbara A. Gosse]

John, you go ahead.

[John Stapleton]

What we have now in Ontario, and I think we have this in other provinces, is that when...especially what we might term the “new poor”. The only difference between the old poor and the new poor is that the new poor come to a social assistance office with maybe a little bit of money. We know that through Statistics Canada, that they have small amounts of savings--$5,000 or $6,000 in an RRSP, let's say, something very modest. For someone in Ontario, for example, their asset limit on social assistance is only $572. It's very low all the way across Canada, as the National Council of Welfare report shows. What an office will do, especially a tightly run office, is tell them, “You have $6,000 in an RRSP, and our asset limit is $572. For the next 10 months, you should live on that $6,000 or so. We'll make a notation in the file, and you can come back after that 10-month period and apply for assistance again.”

Of course, what happens is that the person cashes out their RRSP at a low point in the market, and the next year they have to pay a tax liability. They have a much higher tax bill at a time when they're on public assistance.

That's the sort of thing we're seeing that doesn't make sense. In terms of the recommendations we've both made--at the Toronto City Summit Alliance, and Barbara can speak to this as well--we're hopefully looking at social assistance programs that, especially during a recession, would allow somebody not to become completely destitute in order to just get some help, especially when the EI program provides so little.

I think we've both recommended that these draconian asset limits be lifted, especially during the recession.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Actually--I'm sure you know this, but I want to put it on the table--it's not just when you're living in poverty, as a person with children or whatever; it's also when you get to retire. If you have RRSPs and you start cashing them out, it then becomes an obstacle to your getting assisted housing, getting assistance with a nursing home, and all those kinds of things.

Richard Shillington makes this case very well--better than I would--that up to a certain point of income, people need to really look at this. Those who encourage people to save need to be honest with people: if you're not going to have over $100,000 or $150,000 in an RRSP, you're probably better off not doing that at all and maybe paying down your mortgage instead, or doing something where it's not going to be counted as income when you finally retire.

Again, it's a disincentive.

[Barbara A. Gosse]

Absolutely.

Richard, obviously, is the expert in that area, but I should say that there is political will to look at the situation. In terms of asset building and these specific projects, we have received a decision from the Canada Revenue Agency that has determined that the matched savings incentives in these projects should not be determined as income in the calculations that are utilized for income tax and benefits.

We actually have approval now. Six provinces have incorporated amendments to the regulations to allow people to participate in these specific asset building programs without having their benefits compromised at all.

The Ontario government has been looking at this with us specifically on a project-by-project basis, but they haven't taken the step whereby they would look at ensuring that people wouldn't have to spend down their assets, such as their RESPs for their kids, or their RRSPs, before they get social assistance benefits.

So I think there is a role that the federal government can play here in encouraging the provinces to be looking at this. This is really significant. It is very detrimental to the wealth building of lower-income Canadians.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I want to talk to the Teachers' Federations about the long-term poor.

In a recession you get a whole bunch of new people coming in who are poor, but there's a different dynamic. They're trying to get back into the workforce. I think some of this is in the study that John's group has done around labour market improvement and that kind of thing. A large number of people are stuck in poverty and don't seem to be able to get out of it. It seems to me we need to come at it from a far broader perspective than some of the really good work that's being done out there to try to target particular individuals and come up with new programs, and that is to look at this from a human rights perspective. We as Canadians have signed on to international covenants that we don't live up to.

Has your association done anything to look at that and how we might encourage government to bring in programs that would help people simply because they're human beings, simply because they're deserving of dignity and to live a quality of life that reflects the wealth within this country?

[Reno Melatti]

The continued advocacy for child poverty is important because that's our future. You can fix the problem at some end, but if you don't fix the problem at the beginning, which is the self-esteem and preparedness of students to come and learn and not be worried that they don't have any sleep or don't know what they're going to be eating today, then they're not going to be prepared. That's a never-ending story that has to be dealt with.

There are two aspects we have to look at. Our organization, OTF, through its affiliates and its national organization, CTF, will continually bring that forward both at the provincial level and at the national level. There's the idea of providing some sort of assistance in terms of a transition into school and providing some organization where there's food in the morning. Breakfast organizations are being developed in some of the school boards. That's something that should be promoted, because for the most part, that is critical to our future.

Other aspects have to be dealt with too, and I think Barbara could add how her organization is involved.

[Barbara Burkett]

I'll be a little more specific and repeat that an investment in early years education has statistical proof to support the fact that it is one of the greatest determinants of moving children out of poverty, and hence generations out of poverty.

I know that education is a provincial designation in terms of responsibility, but some of the ways the federal government could help is to target specific funding to support aboriginal students in their success. We certainly have seen some successful programs in partnerships we have initiated in Ontario and one the previous lieutenant-governor, James Bartleman, began in terms of the summer of hope literacy programs for summer camps in the north. Our organization has supported one, as OTF has, over the past three years to support the success of those programs.

We're also beginning a new initiative working with the Red Cross to bring in anti-violence work in aboriginal communities. It's called Walking the Prevention Circle, and it trains aboriginal facilitators to bring the programs into those communities. Clearly aboriginal education is a place where the federal government does have responsibility.

I pulled a news report out of the Timmins Daily Press that was published on Saturday, May 30. It references a parliamentary budget report by Kevin Page, who indicates that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is currently drastically underfunding infrastructure for first nations schools. His report recommends $287 million to $308 million annually, while the current amount being expended is only $118 million to $123 million.

I come from northern Ontario. I live just on the edge of Charlie Angus's riding. I'm directly aware of the struggle that's been going on in the community of Atawapaskat to try to have a new school built. That school was condemned in 1979 because of a diesel spill. That's a long time ago, but those students are still sitting in portables waiting for a school to be built. That's a place where the federal government could certainly move. If you talk about it being a human rights issue, I think there is no better example than the plight of our aboriginal students.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're now going to move over to Mr. Lobb. Sir, you have the floor for seven minutes.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you.

The first question is for Mr. Melatti. Do you know of any programs within the provincial ministry of education for high school students around financial literacy?

[Reno Melatti]

I'm not aware of financial literacy programs, but there are some programs being provided to keep students in school up to age 18. One of them is an apprenticeship program that moves them from actually working in school and into the workforce and, eventually, landing a job. This is not strictly academic, but it is being pushed even more so than before. Pathways is part of it, along with co-op organizations.

My understanding is that in some cases you can engage in an apprenticeship program that provides some funding for transportation. Access to co-op and apprenticeship programs seems to be the biggest problem, because the students can't travel. First of all, most of them can't drive. So there is some funding to provide transportation in those areas to access these programs.

But that's about all I'm aware of.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Fair enough.

Now, it hasn't been too, too many years since I graduated from high school. I took the full suite of Ontario academic credit courses: physics, chemistry, biology, math, and the like. They were pretty interesting courses. However, in practical life, despite the fact that I took physics, my career was in business. The only time physics came into play was when I climbed the ladder and I needed to know what gravity was, right? So it became pretty helpful there.

But most of my experience in life is actually around fiscal or financial literacy, and a lot of my friends and colleagues would probably feel the same way. I see Mrs. Gosse, who I believe is in the right direction, but I just wonder if the federation feels that it should lobby the government or ministry more to provide our high school students with that fundamental core.

I know that the Canadian Teachers' Federation talked about the Royal Bank or big banks providing that. And that's well and good, and it's great that they do it, but when we talk about that core component of education that you can use for the rest of your life—and again, the co-op programs, OYAP, and so on are excellent programs—do you have any thoughts about maybe coming up with some new ideas to provide financial literacy for high school students?

I'm asking this because if we did a general poll of students, I'm suggesting that none would know what a tax-free savings account was, and possibly a few would know what an RRSP was, and certainly a mutual fund would likely knock the lights out of them.

So what are your thoughts on that?

[Reno Melatti]

I think there are some programs coming up. What has happened is that the business aspect of high school is gone, and that was probably one of the important things for dealing with finances.

It's in the process of coming back. I was just reading the paper the other day, which said that new programs are going to be brought back, in terms of dealing with finances or educating students in financial concerns. But in terms of the financial side, I don't think we've looked at that.

We are supportive of what the CTF has done. Our mandate in terms of what we work on is to support our affiliates. But if you're talking about providing some sort of financial incentives, the only one I know of—because my son is still in university and has taken out a loan—is the educational aspect that the government matches. That was used up in the first two years, actually. There's really not much there.

That's about all I know, unless there are any others here who do.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Well, it's good to hear there possibly are some programs in the works or in the hopper in the near future to provide some guidance here.

[Reno Melatti]

What has happened over the past 10 years, I would say, is that the business aspect has gone and the focus has instead gone strongly into maths and sciences.

One other thing is that I'm a history teacher by trade—and they are a rare breed now, because there's not much demand for them—and I see that the business aspect has gone away, but it is now starting to come back in terms of financial literacy for students, and so forth. So that's a plus, because the economic times mean that students have to deal with finance. I know that 15 years ago, one of the grade 10s was in careers, and what I was saying then was, “Bring us your income tax and let's go through it.” Some of the kids said, “Why do I have to do this?” And I said, “Well, for the rest of your life, you're going to be doing it.”