Human Resources Committee on June 9th, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Welcome to the 43 ^rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The date today is Tuesday, June 9.

First of all, I would like to welcome our witnesses. We do not have cards for you yet, but they are being made right now. So you will have cards with your names on them in a few moments.

We have several groups here today: Community Foundations of Canada, Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus and Citizens for Public Justice.

Since we don't have the cards, I will begin with Madame Monica Patten, présidente-directrice générale, and Madame Sara Lyons, conseillère en chef.

We can begin with you and then we will go on. I just want to get cracking.

[Monica Patten, President and Chief Executive Officer, Community Foundations of Canada]

I am Monica Patten, CEO of Community Foundations of Canada, and this is my colleague, Sara Lyons.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Madame Patten, you will be speaking first?

[Monica Patten]

I will. I'll start, and then I'll turn it over to Ms. Lyons.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

You have 10 minutes for your group, which you can share as you wish. I will then go to the second group for 10 minutes, Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus, and you will divide your 10 minutes as you wish. Then for the last 10 minutes, with Citizens for Public Justice, it will be the same thing. Then we'll go on to questions.

Madame Patten, please start.

[Monica Patten]

Thank you so much. Thank you for inviting us to be present with you today, Madam Chair.

I am going to start by making a few comments about community foundations in Canada and talking for a very few moments about the role of private philanthropy in addressing issues related to poverty.

The first thing I want to tell you is that community foundations are place-based grant-makers. That's how we refer to them. There are 165 of those local foundations all across the country, and we make grants somewhere between $175 million and $200 million every year. Obviously, a lot of it depends on the economy and the returns we get in our investments.

Community foundations know their communities very well. They understand the complexity of community issues, a theme we're going to return to in a moment, and they understand the reality that there is no single sector—not government, not the private sector, not the not-for-profit sector, not the foundation or the philanthropy sector—that can tackle complex, deeply rooted, long-term problems, poverty being one of those issues. And we know that philanthropy has a role to play in addressing the systemic problems that we have been talking about.

Part of the reason that community foundations are able to do this is because we know our communities so well, because knowledge of community—community networks, community issues, community problems, community assets, the resources that every community has—is really at the core of the work we do. We have highly accountable volunteer boards and very skilled volunteers working in our organizations, and staff as well. So we believe that we're very well positioned to observe and understand emerging trends, what lies behind those trends and those issues, and to know appropriate responses for various stakeholders.

I'm going to ask my colleague, Sara, to describe to you very specifically and in the few moments that we have remaining some of the work that place-based foundations have done to address the issues of poverty.

[Sara Lyons, Senior Advisor, Community Foundations of Canada]

Thank you, Monica.

Several of our member community foundations across the country, most notably in Winnipeg and Hamilton, have taken on large-scale, multi-year, comprehensive strategic approaches to reducing poverty in their communities. Community Foundations of Canada, in its work to support other community foundations across the country to undertake such work, has pulled together some of the lessons learned from them into a web-based toolkit, if you will, which we'll circulate some information about. It's called “From Good Causes to Root Causes”, and it's for the use of community foundations and other funders in Canada.

More recently, the Government of New Brunswick has invited community foundations in that province to get their input into shaping a province-wide poverty reduction initiative and playing a leadership role in implementing the resulting strategy. In short, for several years, tackling poverty has been at the heart of our social justice philanthropy, and our comments today draw from that work.

The interest of this committee is in how the federal government can contribute to reducing poverty across the country and in hearing about innovative solutions for dealing with this important problem. Community foundations, and it's important to note this, are not front-line organizations and do not work directly on poverty reduction services or programs. But we have a unique bird's-eye perspective on trends and priorities in communities and the rich and broad approaches to real change that are taking place. While broad improvement to national programs like EI and the resources to aboriginal communities are needed, the federal government also has a role to play in community-based approaches, and that's what we're going to talk about a little more specifically.

As community foundations across the country do our work, several things are clear. The problem of poverty is complex. It is a long-term problem and it requires long-term solutions. Getting to know the players--both professionals or experts and people living in poverty--establishing trust, learning about what organizations and individuals are doing, and creating transparent processes are essential and take time.

We have to provide short-term solutions and support while taking on long-term commitments to explore and fix deep systemic issues. Embedding programs and initiatives in existing local institutions such as libraries, community centres, schools, etc., really helps with sustainability. No amount of money on its own will fix the problem of poverty. Identifying the strengths of all people and building on them, valuing and respecting citizens, embracing public policy that speaks to justice and equity, and fostering a culture of hope are just a few of the many other elements needed to address poverty.

Poverty is an issue that must be addressed through multiple simultaneous interventions, and there is a distinct role for the non-governmental sector and the philanthropic sector, and there's a role in creating complementarity between all these things.

Importantly, there is a constant pressure to invest in programs, particularly in programs that focus on alleviation, but there is an equal need to focus on the coordination and thinking about what those systemic responses are so that we really change the situation for people rather than just alleviate. We have to resist, though not ignore, the need for alleviation in the short term.

Poverty is most prevalent among certain parts of our population. This committee will be aware of that--women, the elderly, recent immigrants, etc.

Finally, this is something that community foundations are quite active in; data and knowledge are a strategic asset. Comprehensive data about poverty in communities can be key to choosing an approach, building shared ideas, and measuring progress. The federal government as a collector of national data has a key role in making that data available to communities at no or low cost and in a timely way.

Earlier we mentioned that community foundations are not front-line service providers. While this is true, as Monica outlined, we do have some very important channels and perspectives for understanding what's happening in communities. One interesting and strong example is the Hamilton Community Foundation, which is the co-convenor of the Hamilton Round Table for Poverty Reduction. It brings together business leaders, government, the not-for-profit sector, educators, people living in poverty, philanthropists, and other local leaders to take up the challenge of, in their own words, making Hamilton the best place to raise a child.

It's through this partnership, the round table, that they have developed individual solutions at the community level, while at the same time focusing on policies and systems at the higher level. After a long collaborative and consultative process to develop its changed framework, the round table has identified what it calls its five critical points of investment, most of which would and should include a role for the federal government. They are: quality early learning, which would include neighbourhood hubs in low-income neighbourhoods; skills through education, activity, and recreation, both in and out of school; targeted skills development, with a special focus on youth; employment, with a particular focus on opportunities for meaningful employment for new immigrants; asset-building and wealth creation, helping low-income people build savings and assets that would allow them to move through the housing continuum, social housing, rental housing, and eventually possible home ownership.

In closing, these are the priorities and actions that have been identified by one specific community through a community process. But similar lists would be seen in many places, and similar processes as have been undertaken in Hamilton could take place. Community Foundations are prepared to play a role in developing and implementing solutions, as well as processes for developing these solutions, and we're committed to poverty reduction as a goal in all of our communities.

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you.

We now move to Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus, represented by Ms. Eng and Ms. Gravel. Who will speak first?

[Susan Eng, Vice-President, Canadian Association of Retired Persons]

I will be speaking first. Thank you.

My name is Susan Eng, and I am with CARP. Our formal name is the Canadian Association of Retired Persons; however, we don't use the full, formal name anymore because most of us are either not retired or can't afford to retire, so we use the name CARP only. We're a national, non-profit, non-partisan organization with 330,000 members and 23 chapters across the country. Our main focus is the quality of life for Canadians as we age, and financial security is one of our three main advocacy pillars.

I'm going to focus on financial security for older Canadians. Much of the debate on issues of poverty generally focus on children and their families, and we definitely support and encourage and endorse all the recommendations in relation to improving the lot of all Canadians who face poverty.

However, we want to identify a particular challenge for the aging population. The first challenges are the demographics. The population is aging. The 65-plus cohort today numbers 4.6 million as of the 2008 Statistics Canada figures, or 13.7% of the population. They estimate that by 2031 there will be 9.1 million Canadians who are 65 or more, nearly double the number of today at 23%.

We also concern ourselves with those who are 55-plus and 45-plus because they share many of the same concerns as they face their own retirement. The 55-plus today number 8.5 million people, or 25% of the population, and by 2031 it is expected they will be 14 million Canadians, or 35%. When we think of the 45-plus, and the reason we do that is they represent the last of the baby boomer generation, the largest demographic, today they number 13.8 million people, or nearly 41% of the Canadian population. By 2031 they will be nearly half the Canadian population at that time, or 19 million people, so we're talking about a huge number of people whom we group under the heading of “older Canadians”.

Our association is affiliated with the magazine, which has been re-branded from CARP magazine to ZOOMER magazine, meaning boomers with zip.

Statistics Canada has projected that by 2015 Canadians over 65 will outnumber children under the age of 15, and this rapid aging of the Canadian population is due to the aging of the baby boomers, as I mentioned, combined with low fertility rates and increasing longevity. The projections show that population aging, which has already begun, would accelerate starting in 2011 when the first baby boom cohort, born in 1946, reaches the age of 65. This rapid aging is projected to continue until at least 2031, when seniors would account for between 23% and 25% of the total population, and that would nearly double their current cohort of 13%.

On the measurement and extent of poverty among seniors, the numbers are not as reliable as we would like. Frankly, it hasn't been well studied in terms of the focus on the seniors' cohort. There are many measures of poverty. The one that's more commonly used is the after-tax, low-income cutoff, or LICO. There are other measures of poverty as well, but the differences are not as meaningful. In 2005 Statistics Canada estimated the incidence of poverty using this measure by age and gender. They estimated the rate of poverty for people 65 or over was 6.7%. Applying this percentage to the 2008 population figures provides the estimate of over 300,000 Canadian seniors living in poverty. If nothing at all is done, and if this percentage is maintained until 2031, well over 600,000 seniors will be living in poverty, according to Statistics Canada's own measurements.

Even more dramatic, though, are the differences between men and women. The rate of poverty among women seniors is 8.6%, nearly twice that of men, at 4.4%. For unattached seniors, 28% of men and 38%, getting close to 40% or half, of women are in the low-income bracket.

The causes have been articulated. For women, it's an issue of lower incomes, lack of work, working in the home instead of out in the workforce, child care responsibilities, and now, in later life, often elder care responsibilities.

For people who are new to the country, there have been measures that look at people who have been in the country 20 years or less. Where they are unattached, the percentage of people living in poverty is as high as 67%. For those within families, the rate is 17.4%.

The trend is similar for those people under the age of 65. The unattached find their poverty rates are much greater, by several magnitudes more, than those who are in relationships.

And among people in a minority status, the comparisons again are stark. Of those who are part of a visible minority, 44% may find themselves living in poverty, whereas of those people who are not classed as part of a visible minority, 31% might find themselves in poverty.

What is the role of the federal government in reducing poverty among seniors? I'd like to focus entirely on the retirement income system that the country has. That is the primary role of the federal government in ensuring that there is adequate retirement income for the entire population. What are described as pillars one and two of the Canadian retirement systems, OAS, CPP, and GIS, together have been credited with the dramatic decline in poverty rates among seniors in the past 20 years. This is due in large part to the maturing of the CPP and the availability of GIS. These are the first two pillars of the retirement system, generally referred to as the public pension benefits.

The combined maximum is about $19,000 at age 65, but since the average CPP/QPP is about half the maximum, the typical retiree might be retiring on $16,000 annually, if he or she is relying only on public pension benefits. Some 35% of Canadians 65-plus are currently receiving the GIS, which ensures a minimum annual income of about $15,000. These are numbers as of March 2009. I do not have the numbers for 2008 to compare with the after-tax LICO, the government's own defined level of poverty, which for 2008 was defined as $12,000 for a single person living in a rural community and $18,000 for a person living in a city with a population of 500,000 or more. There is no other LICO for large urban centres, such as Montreal, Vancouver, or Toronto, and it may be argued that there should be a higher rate of LICO for those centres, since the majority of low-income seniors do live in urban centres.

Even with the existence of these programs in place, there is a prevalence of poverty among Canadian seniors. That level is still unacceptable, not only in the raw numbers but also because of the differential impact on their lives, most importantly because they really have little option to change their circumstances. As noted in the National Seniors Council report on low income among seniors, many seniors live on fixed and limited incomes, and slightly above LICO. So while they may not be officially living in poverty, they may be only one major expense or cost of living increase from that threshold.

Frankly, in this economic circumstance, there are a lot more people who are paying attention to their futures, or lack thereof, and the potential that they will face very harsh income circumstances. So the issue of poverty is an issue that has come to the forefront. In the past it has often only been the preserve of advocates and people on the fringes, whereas the debate now is much more front and centre.

So in the area of government income supports and public pension benefits, we would be recommending that the federal government increase the levels of OAS and GIS substantially to bring the guaranteed income to be at least LICO-appropriate for the urban centres or the places in which they live.

There is a web of clawback rules, all of which make a minuscule difference to the public purse but have important impacts for the people who are facing them.

I mentioned that there has been more public attention paid to people's own retirement these days, and, importantly, in the third pillar of our retirement system, namely the private pension savings system, there has also been a recognition that one in three working Canadians will have no meaningful retirement savings when they retire. It is to address that problem that CARP has also recommended that there be a universally accessible pension plan that will cover that issue.

From the standpoint of low-income seniors, that issue, unfortunately, is not as relevant. However, so long as the retirement system is here to prevent poverty in old age, and unless OAS and GIS are substantially increased, then some accommodation must be made in the reform of the third pillar.

I will comment on others when I have an opportunity in questioning--I recognize my time is up--and those will be in relation to the fourth pillar, the kinds of social changes, including caregiving responsibilities and so on.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Yes, we need to hear that, Madam Eng. I'm very involved in all that.

I now give the floor to Citizens for Public Justice, represented by Ms. Karri Munn-Venn.

Ms. Munn-Venn, the floor is yours.

[Karri Munn-Venn, Analyst, Socio-Economic Policy, Citizens for Public Justice]

Merci.

Good morning. Bonjour.

Citizens for Public Justice is a national organization of members inspired by faith to seek justice in Canadian public policy. We are pleased to have the opportunity to appear before this standing committee on the subject of the federal government's role in addressing poverty.

I would first like to offer my congratulations to the HUMA committee on behalf of CPJ for the work that you are doing and to offer our prayers and best wishes for the success of your efforts.

Despite Canada's considerable affluence and resources, poverty continues to be a significant concern. At least one in 10 Canadians currently lives in poverty, and this rate has not changed substantially over the past 25 years.

Now that we are in a recession, the most vulnerable Canadians are at even greater risk. Already people working full time at minimum wage are living in poverty, as measured by the low-income cutoff. The poor are the first to lose their jobs and find it harder to get new work. Social assistance and employment insurance are inadequate to prevent people from living in poverty. As the Canadian economy continues to slump, it is clear that the difficulties faced by poor Canadians will increase, and more Canadians will slide into poverty.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

You're reading a bit fast. I know the translators are going to be getting in touch with me any second now. Please slow down.

[Karri Munn-Venn]

Thank you. My apologies.

On May 22, we, along with campaign co-founder, Canada Without Poverty, announced the official start of Dignity for All: The Campaign for a Poverty-free Canada. Dignity for All is built on a number of shared beliefs. We believe that freedom from poverty is a human right. We believe in equality among all people. We believe that everyone is entitled to social and economic security. We believe in dignity for all. We also believe that now is the time to end poverty in Canada.

We are asking for concrete and long-term action on the part of the federal government to fight the structural causes of poverty in Canada. Dignity for All has three objectives. We want a federal plan to eliminate poverty that will complement provincial and territorial plans. We want federal anti-poverty legislation that will demonstrate a lasting federal commitment to action and accountability. And we also sufficient federal revenue to invest in social security for all Canadians.

Dignity for All is a collective initiative. To date--that is in the space of just two weeks--we have received the support of over 55 organizations as well as almost 500 individual Canadians. Our support base is growing. We understand that as elected officials you need public support for your efforts. Dignity for All will provide this public groundswell for moving poverty elimination up the political agenda.

Before moving on, I also wish to acknowledge that among the campaign's supporters are MPs Tony Martin and Mike Savage, as well as Senator Hugh Segal. We encourage all members of the HUMA committee and your parliamentary colleagues to sign on today in support of Dignity for All at www.dignityforall.ca. I have postcards here as well that I will be happy to distribute afterwards.

I just want to speak for a minute on a couple of concepts that are behind this important initiative.

First, I want to talk about dignity. Dignity is a core concept for what it means to be human. For the youngest members of society, living with dignity is having the freedom to enjoy childhood. It is not having to worry about adult arguments over money or whether you'll have winter boots that fit and keep you warm. For an adult, living with dignity is being able to provide for yourself and your family. It is having the confidence to face the challenges of life. It is knowing that you won't be refused service. Dignity is being able to sleep at night in warmth and comfort, unencumbered by concerns for basic survival. For everyone, young and old, living with dignity is being part of the community, taking pride in your accomplishments, and being valued for who you are.

Poverty robs people of their dignity. It forces unconscionable decisions between buying the groceries or paying the rent. It manifests itself in shame, doubt, and fear. And it is a daily reality for far too many Canadians.

So what are we to do? Love for our neighbour and respect for their dignity calls us to work to eliminate poverty. In doing so, we are faithful to God's vision of Jubilee as laid out in the book of Deuteronomy in the Old Testament. The Jubilee principles, which called for periodic redistribution of the means of production and the opportunity for everyone to participate in the economy on an equal footing, are still relevant today. They suggest that it is not enough to provide charity to those living in poverty. Instead, we must create public practices and policies that ensure people have the means to exercise a sustainable livelihood that provides a liveable income. They require that we make sure everyone has access to income and the resources necessary for well-being, even when we cannot secure all we need through paid work.

Public justice is the political dimension of loving one's neighbour, caring for creation, and achieving the common good, and it is particularly the responsibility of government and citizens. Public justice means that one of the roles of government is to create policies, programs, and structures that reduce poverty and that equitably redistribute resources in society so that all people and all parts of society can flourish and fulfill their callings by contributing to the common good.

Human rights are founded on the basis of dignity. Poverty is a condition that violates these rights as laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the international human rights conventions. Poverty impedes people's access to the basic resources necessary for well-being, including adequate and sufficient food and clothing as well as safe and appropriate housing. Poverty is also an important social determinant of health.

In 2006 the Human Rights Council of the United Nations was mandated to “undertake a universal periodic review...of the fulfillment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments.” As I trust many of you know, Canada has been under review this year and is in fact delivering its response to the Human Rights Council in Geneva today.

Among the 68 recommendations presented for the Government of Canada to consider was the recommendation that Canada implement a national poverty eradication strategy that incorporates a human rights framework. Unfortunately, this recommendation, along with several others dealing specifically with economic and social rights, was rejected. This regrettable response not only fails Canadian citizens, it also undermines the work of this committee and others in your efforts to determine the appropriate role of the federal government in combatting poverty in Canada.

Six Canadian provinces have either implemented or are developing poverty reduction strategies. The significant advances at the provincial level have been accompanied by an urgent call repeated in at least three provinces. Shawn Skinner, former Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment in Newfoundland and Labrador, and Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario, have both said that provincial strategies will only be successful if the federal government supports them. Most recently, Manitoba's strategy, released May 21, explicitly states that “the federal government must be a willing partner.”

Perhaps more compelling than the call for federal engagement is the fact that existing provincial strategies are already making a difference. They are coordinating government programs and eliminating counterproductive practices, publicly reporting on progress, and agreeing to be held accountable for their actions.

By 2007, those living on social assistance in Quebec and in Newfoundland and Labrador had already seen some improvements. According to the National Council of Welfare, in the case of the lone parent with a child of preschool age living in Quebec, welfare income for 2007 reached 100% of the market basket measure. Similarly, in Newfoundland and Labrador, welfare income slightly surpassed the MBM at 103%. These figures are particularly noteworthy when set against findings in provinces without poverty reduction strategies, where the same demographic has a welfare income in the range of 65% to 90% of MBM.

As you have heard in many of the presentations over the last weeks and months, Canadians share the view that the federal government has a critical role to play in addressing poverty and that now is the time to act. Based on our 45-year history of promoting public justice in Canada, Citizens for Public Justice would like to make five recommendations.

Recommendation 1 states that the Government of Canada should adopt the target of eliminating poverty in Canada by 2020, along with the vision of creating a Canada that promises dignity, well-being, and social inclusion for all.

Recommendation 2 states that the Government of Canada should reconsider its response to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva and instead adopt and implement a comprehensive, integrated federal plan for poverty elimination that incorporates a human rights framework.

A federal plan for poverty elimination will provide a pan-Canadian blueprint for reducing and eventually eliminating poverty. The plan will be built on the four cornerstones of an effective poverty reduction strategy as outlined by the National Council of Welfare, namely, a vision with measurable targets and timelines, a plan of action and budget, accountability structures, and an agreed upon set of poverty indicators.

The plan will contain measures concerning a range of issues, including, but not limited to, the assurance that all Canadian workers receive a living wage. As a first step, the federal government should demonstrate its leadership by ensuring that all of its employees as well as employees of all its contracted services, agencies, or businesses meet the same standard. Similarly, in its area of jurisdiction, it should legislate a national living wage.

The plan should also include measures to ensure social security for all Canadians, even when they cannot secure all they need through paid work, and immediate improvements to employment insurance, including: standard access rules across the country, set at 360 hours of insurable employment; doubling the available length of benefits from a maximum of 50 weeks to a maximum of 100 weeks; removing the two-week waiting period; raising the rate of coverage from 55% to 60% of insurable earnings; and extending participation to the self-employed.

It should also include a genuine national child care and early learning plan that is affordable and accessible to all Canadians, and targeted supports for aboriginal Canadians, newcomers and refugees, and other vulnerable populations.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Please excuse me, Ms. Munn-Venn, but I have no choice.

Thank you, ladies and—well, ladies, since you are all women. We now move to the question period. The first round of questions and answers will be seven minutes.

Mr. Savage.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks to all of you. I thought those were very good presentations, and they're very helpful in the work we're trying to do.

To start off, I want to go back to recommendation 17 of the UNHRC, the periodic review that you raised, Ms. Munn-Venn. I'm going to quote from the response of the government about the recommendation that we should implement an anti-poverty strategy. Among the government's response was this:

Canada does not accept recommendation 17 or the related recommendation from Ghana to develop a national strategy to eliminate poverty. Provinces and territories have jurisdiction in this area of social policy and have developed their own programs to address poverty. For example, four provinces have implemented poverty reduction strategies.

We've heard from those four provinces. You've mentioned that there are now six. I know Manitoba was the fifth. Which one is the sixth?

[Karri Munn-Venn]

It's Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Manitoba. New Brunswick is another one that's in the works.

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

New Brunswick? Okay. In fact, I recall that we got news of Manitoba adopting an anti-poverty strategy at the social forum in Calgary when we were there.

But what the provinces that we've heard from have told us is that they see an absolute need for some federal leadership involvement in an anti-poverty strategy. So I want to ask you, does it make any sense from a jurisdictional point of view, which seems to be what the government is using here, that we wouldn't have a national anti-poverty strategy? I would ask you and anybody else who wants to answer the question.

[Karri Munn-Venn]

It's interesting. The jurisdictional questions come up over and over again in this context, but the reality is that we need to be promoting the dignity and well-being of all Canadians, not just those who happen to live in provinces where their governments have decided to take action. We need to be working to address the needs of all Canadians. The reality is that there are some significant disparities, not just among provinces but among specific demographics, and the federal government really has an important leadership role to play.

Briefly, I will also mention that one of the other recommendations we have is around sufficient and fair taxation so that the federal government has the resources to invest in the social security of all Canadians. For the federal government there are resources here that don't necessarily exist in other parts, other jurisdictions. I think it's very important that the Government of Canada follow up on commitments that have been made previously internationally to work with the provinces in addressing this important issue.

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

Does anyone else have a point of view on that?

[Susan Eng]

As I mentioned before, our focus is on older Canadians, but the importance of any government taking a role is not only to provide coordination, funding, direction, and so on that would be necessary for a successful event, but also their rhetoric is enough to set a new code of values as to what is important in our society, what are the political choices they are making, and for Canadians to be able to judge what kinds of values the country stands for. When you have a written statement that says we reject looking after poverty, regardless of what the excuses are, I think that is a cause for concern.

[Monica Patten]

I'd like to add a couple of comments in absolute agreement with our colleagues at the table here and say that I think there are certain elements that the federal government can be more active in. A couple of them have already been mentioned around taxation. There are some things around early learning and so on that used to be very important at the federal government level that don't seem to be as important right now.

I think we know there are many factors contributing to poverty and the complexity of it. One of the areas that is critical and that we use a lot, and that I think our colleagues at this table have used a lot, is the actual providing of information and data. The best data we can get comes from within Statistics Canada and the federal government. I would argue that this, in addition to other points, would, could, and should drive the Government of Canada to being outspoken about poverty.

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

Thank you very much. I think we have unanimity among our guests that the refusal of recommendation 17 is a very sad point in our history. I know that Conservative members are working very hard on this committee to come up with an anti-poverty plan, and to be told by our own government that you're wasting your time, in essence, is a bit of a kick in the head. It's not that our personal feelings matter much; this is about the fact that there are people who are trying to make a difference, many of whom have come before our committee to talk about the importance and relevance of the federal government role in producing an anti-poverty strategy.

I want to congratulate Karri and CPJ. I'm not sure if any of the other organizations were at the social forum in Calgary. You were there as well? I'm thinking it was a seminal moment in the galvanizing of public support for an anti-poverty campaign in Canada. You spoke about the Dignity for All campaign on the Friday morning, I think it was, and it was very important.

I also want to congratulate our chair, Dean Allison, who came out and took part in that public forum, where I thought he handled himself very well as well.

I want to ask each of you if any of you have a view, a specific view, on the idea of the basic income that Hugh Segal spoke about at that forum and at many other places? Do you support the idea of a basic income? Do we need more information on it? Is it an idea that's evolving? Where would you be on the idea of a basic income for Canadians?

[Sara Lyons]

Your question is on a guaranteed basic income?

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

A basic income guaranteed annually.

[Sara Lyons]

I think at a basic level it is a good idea for many of the reasons that Karri expressed about the impact of poverty on young people, on older people. If we are living in poverty, there are so many effects, not just in terms of our money, but our capacity to participate in society, etc. I don't think it would be a stretch at all to say that we really should, in this country, be able to have a guaranteed basic income.