Human Resources Committee on June 9th, 2009

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

Okay. Forgive me for interrupting you, but I want to ask another question.

I think that we have agreed that there is a wide range of causes. My question is whether one cause stands out from the others.

Ms. Lyons told us that housing is one of the main causes and that the ability to earn an income, access to employment, that is, is another. It seems to me that there is a vicious circle—I apologize for interrupting you, but you will have a chance to come back to that. When we studied the question of employability, we discovered that some people are too poor to go to work. I think that was something you mentioned too, when you said that the workplace was sometimes too far away, and so on.

When one of my colleagues asked you if a guaranteed minimum income was one of the possible solutions, you all said yes. How do you see that guaranteed minimum income? Would it take the form of a single source of income that would take the place of the social safety net as we know it at the moment, or would you keep the collection of measures that are currently in place and have the guaranteed minimum income just for people with no income at all?

[Karri Munn-Venn]

I would answer the question by saying that a basic income should be available to all but that it should not replace all the other services and programs that support people in various situations. We would have to see what base level to maintain. Moreover, a guaranteed minimum income should be available to all to establish a basis of equality, but that would certainly not exclude the provision of services for seniors or for people with disabilities or for other services that would complement the basic level.

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

Have you had the opportunity to look at the situation they are currently experiencing in Namibia? There was a debate about the guaranteed minimum income, much like the one we had in Quebec at the beginning of the 1980s. In Namibia, given that there was no national agreement, they chose one village and paid a guaranteed minimum income of $100 to all the residents, which is the equivalent of $14 for us.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Excuse me, Mr. Lessard, but we have gone longer than an hour. Here is what I propose.

Normally this is the end of the meeting. A lot of people have other engagements at one o'clock, including me. But if there are people who wish to stay and continue this discussion, we will need a vote to continue the meeting.

I'd like to hear from the members of this committee where you stand on this.

Madam Minna.

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

Madam Chair, if we extend the meeting, it would have to be for the sole purpose of finishing the hearings and nothing else. I just want to make sure we're not extending for....

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Ms. Minna proposes that we continue the meeting, but only so that we can keep on hearing the witnesses.

Mr. Lessard.

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

That is a good idea, Madam Chair. We have to finish this round of questions. Then we can adjourn.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Mr. Martin?

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

Okay.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

On this side, are you all right?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

We should finish the round of questions.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I would say finish the round.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Very good.

I take it for granted that everybody agrees there will not be a discussion of anything but what the witnesses have brought to us.

With that, I'd like to thank Mr. Lobb for giving me this opportunity to say a few words, because I'm going to have to rise from the chair immediately after my question.

I'll ask Monsieur Lessard,

...who is the second vice-chair, to take my place when I finish my question.

As for my question, I have two comments to make.

My first comment is about informal caregivers. With the cooperation of all parties in the House, I am preparing a private member's bill dealing with informal caregivers and the role that the federal government should play in order to help them to continue to do their work in a reasonable financial situation.

I also want to talk about the role of the Government of Canada. Everyone who made a presentation today talked about the important role of the federal government. Several of you also mentioned the important role of some provincial governments. Coming from Quebec, I have questions about the relationship between the two levels of government.

Given the obstacles that there can be between the provinces and the federal government when it comes to a policy that applies to Canada as a whole, would bilateral agreements be desirable? I am thinking, for example, about the bilateral agreements on immigration between Quebec and the federal government and other provinces. There are others as well. If so, what would the main components of those agreements be and what measures would we put in place to provide not only some accountability, but full accountability?

[Susan Eng]

Thank you.

I think on the whole issue of trying to make something national, it is not in our interests to force the provinces and the federal government to spend more time fighting about their jurisdictions. Rather, we are looking for some uniformity, some uniform standards, some portability of the different duties and monetary values that might be applied. And it is also important to have a national standard large enough to get the public's attention and put it to the front of the political agenda.

So the national aspects of it don't require an absolute national or singular perspective, but rather there needs to be some measure of uniformity and universality, so that it's in each province, not just some of them. And the levels and standards should be uniform as well. It's from that standpoint that we argue for a national caregiver strategy.

I think very little has been said about the details in the public debate, as everybody is stuck talking about whether or not we should talk about it. I think we need to get beyond that. We can start examining options that other people have tried in other countries. There are also smatterings of support for the caregiver role in the provinces. Some of it is attitudinal, that is, the health care systems—which, of course, are provincially run—need to recognize the role of the caregiver and facilitate that with assisted services, and so on.

Finally, I think the other reason for having a fairly high national profile for this issue is to ensure that workplaces actually accommodate the caregiver role, so that they keep their jobs. Really, we should use the maternity/paternity leave model, a comprehensive approach to recognizing an important public good, so that all of the systems that would support the role are pulled into play.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

My comments were not just about the informal caregivers' program, but about the war on poverty in general.

Do other members of the panel want to comment?

Ms. Munn-Venn.

[Karri Munn-Venn]

One of the challenges that I think we've seen in the past, not only with the issue of addressing poverty but with other social issues in Canada, is that often jurisdictional issues get in the way, and not just in the sense of not being able to agree on who's responsible for what. Unless the federal government is together in the room with the provinces, either altogether or one on one, there's always the idea that the other jurisdiction will be responsible for this, or that the provinces will look after this if we don't take it up.

I think it's really important that the federal government come together with the provinces to discuss these issues and to sort out what the challenges are and how are they're going to be overcome, so there is collaboration and everybody is in the room together to decide which pieces each level of government is going to take on, rather than passing it back and forth. That way everything gets covered and nobody gets left out.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

What excellent timing. Thank you so very much.

Mr. Lobb, you have the floor.

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

Well, thank you very much.

Thank you to our witnesses for coming today.

The first question I have is for CARP. I grew up in the auction and the real estate business in southwestern Ontario as a youngster. You can imagine the number of seniors you would deal with through estates and people moving and downsizing.

What further reinforced this was that during campaigns, door-knocking and talking to seniors, day to day, what I've come across--and I'm sure you have as well--is that there's a tremendous number of seniors who have very few savings but who have a tremendous nest egg in their homes.

I just wondered if your group has any innovative ideas on how to unlock that. We want our seniors to remain in their homes; they want to remain in their homes. It's really that what they have saved, and what they receive in CPP, OAS, everything else, does not really afford them much of a lifestyle beyond that.

Do you have any suggestions?

[Susan Eng]

Yes, we definitely do.

There are two ways you can look at this. One part is the business environment that is often pressuring seniors in those asset-rich and income-poor circumstances to enter into reverse mortgages. Now, we do not entirely endorse that approach because it leaves them with no asset and no alternative, and it creates a real serious problem for them. It might be appropriate, in limited circumstances, where the need is greater for immediate cash; however, it is not one of the options that we favour as the first option.

Instead, we look at the fact that there are people living in homes that they have lived in for a very long time who now can't afford to live there because of either property taxes, insurance rates, or utility rates, and those are areas in which the various levels of government can help.

For example, in Ontario, the harmonization process will create a new provincial level of tax on home heating oil. We would be recommending against that harmonization or for some kind of rebate for home heating fuel. Again, in the provincial context, we are recommending against or finding some level of relief for the massive increases in property taxes, for example.

So there is a multitude of options that provide people with the opportunity to stay in their home rather than choosing only the option of converting the equity in their home into immediate cash.

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

Okay.

There's obviously quite a lengthy discussion or debate that could surround that, and I do know that a tremendous number of seniors are in that position today.

Another question I have for you is about the number of people who are in their fifties who have virtually no savings to this point, whether they're in one circumstance or another. We know the older you get, the faster time goes by, and before they know it, they're going to be 65. They're not going to have any savings and they're going to be in the same situation as the seniors we just described who have a home paid off.

What do you recommend, what can the government recommend, so that we can help put our people who are not quite yet retired in a better position?

[Susan Eng]

There are a number of things. One that looks a bit further into the future—which comes upon us very quickly, especially in this economic climate—is to provide what we are calling a universal pension plan for the one in three Canadians who retire without any significant savings. That is something that will take a working generation to mature so that people do have a reliable pension savings vehicle. For the immediate time, we have to look at opportunities to make sure that older workers keep their jobs, and if they lose them along with everybody else, that they will be able to find new ones. Retraining is fine. There have been a number of government initiatives directed at retraining, but really the job match is probably more important.

There is an element that underscores all that we talk about, which is a level of ageism in society. This makes it harder for people to get new jobs if they are an older person, and to keep them if people are looking around to see who they are going to lay off. They often will be the ones who have caregiving responsibilities for an older loved one, and again workplaces have not been quick to accommodate a flexible schedule to deal with that. In addition, we have gotten rid of mandatory retirement at the provincial level, but it still persists for federally regulated businesses. So for people who need to keep working, in order to live appropriately before they retire, we want to make sure they are able to do that even past the age of 65. In addition, health benefit plans, if employers provide them at all, certainly allow many of them to cut out at age 65 or even at an earlier age.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Yves Lessard]

Thank you, Mr. Lobb. That is all. You have gone a little over your time. Perhaps Mr. Martin could continue with his questions now. Then I will adjourn the session.

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

I just want to ask Ms. Munn-Venn a question. She had talked about a framework to deal with poverty from a human rights perspective. Could you elaborate on the human rights piece of that, and why that would be important?

[Karri Munn-Venn]

Sure. One of the things that has been interesting in the past is that poverty tends to get looked at as an issue of disadvantage or of human need, and I think in some circumstances that is certainly an element of it. But what's important to recognize is that according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as other international human rights conventions, freedom from poverty is in fact a human right. We are talking about access to food, shelter, clothing, and a lot of really basic needs. By failing to meet those, we are in fact violating the human rights of Canadians.

Admittedly, in the Canadian context, this is a new way of thinking about this, but this is part of the subject of the universal periodic review that we spoke about a little bit earlier, and I think we need to be looking at recognizing freedom from poverty as a human right. It essentially turns the table in terms of how we look at these issues and where we really need to make sure we are respecting these rights.

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

Thank you.