Human Resources Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay. We're going to finish off with that. We're going to leave it at that. And I've been good at not being partisan either, but I'm going to leave it at that, too. I'm not going to say anything.

I will ask you to put your headsets on if you need translation. Then we'll let Mr. Lessard.... We don't want to cut into his time for asking questions.

Mr. Lessard, sir, I'm going to turn the floor over to you. You have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would also like to thank the witness for his testimony this morning.

No matter where we go, we always learn something surprising. I come from Quebec. We had the impression that the phenomenon of strong economic performance had favoured western Canada. I think that is indeed the case. We also had the impression that the wealth was more evenly split. This time, I see that is not so. This morning, my colleague, Mr. Savage, is outraged, and I think more of us should be outraged at this ongoing situation.

I want to come back to two things that were said this morning. According to Mr. Moore-Kilgannon, the solution has to be a comprehensive one. I want to point out that the House of Commons unanimously adopted a motion in 1989 to eliminate poverty, especially among children, before the year 2000. And here we are today.

Now I want to come back to something Mr. Kolkman said. He pointed out that good economic performance had improved things slightly. That was also the finding of Campaign 2000: poverty improved, in other words, there were fewer poor people, but it was due to strong economic performance. So that means that the measures we adopted were not in vain.

It is my understanding that your concern has to do with the fact that there are no measures that are effective on an ongoing basis. What should we take that to mean? You are on the ground, and you see how things are changing, so could you tell us whether we are in a situation that I would not necessarily call desperate, but where there is no way out? I always come back to what you said about needing a comprehensive solution. What would that comprehensive solution be?

[Bill Moore-Kilgannon]

Who should answer that question, Jacques or me?

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

Both of you can respond. It could just as easily be put to Ms. Matthiessen, as well.

Alberta's society is made up of 50% women and 50% men, which is rather unique. Elsewhere, women outnumber men.

Furthermore, we see that women are not treated the same as men. In terms of income, for instance, men have an average income of $33,260 a year, while women have an average income of $20,823 a year. The difference is clear. I find it difficult to imagine the situation of an aboriginal woman with a disability.

My question is for all three of you. This is the challenge we will face in putting forward our report recommendations. I am asking all three of you. What is the comprehensive solution?

[Bill Moore-Kilgannon]

I will go first.

There is not just a single solution; it is more of an action plan. As I said, you need a plan where all the elements work together. As we have seen, if the federal government puts money towards an action plan to help the homeless and the provincial government cuts that same amount, it doesn't do anything. That is why it is really important for all levels of government to work together.

In my opinion, it is important to ensure that day care centres, for instance, are not just places to take children while parents work; they need to be part of an action plan that creates child care centres that educate children and support families.

Here, in Alberta, with our market-based child care system, there are no programs for families. There is really nothing to assist families or help them access other social programs, financial aid, all of that. Family centres can really do that, but if we give money to families or the provincial government just to create day care centres, we see that nothing changes. It is really important that the action plan require provinces to cooperate, and we need to ensure that the money is used properly, to really reduce poverty here.

[John Kolkman]

Thank you for that question.

You had mentioned strong economic performance. Certainly in Alberta, since the late 1990s until about a year ago, we had a very strong economy. Probably that was the main contributor to some reduction in poverty in the first years of the 21st century. Having said that, I remind you that even at the height of the boom in 2006, we still had one in 10 children in Alberta living in poverty. That was an improvement. It got as bad as about one in five children in the mid-1990s.

So there was some improvement, and certainly the strong economy is probably the main reason for that. But also, as I had said, some reinvestment in social programs played a role. The provincial government stopped making cuts and even did some modest reinvestment in some of the social programs.

To give a little bit of credit to the federal government during this period of time, after the cuts to the transfers to the provinces in the mid-1990s by the federal government as well as the complete elimination of affordable housing dollars by the federal government, there were in fact—and to get back to my pitch here—some real increases in the child tax benefits that flowed starting in the late 1990s and through the early years of 2000, even beyond inflation.

We had some difficulty with some of them because much of those benefits, when they first started taking place, were kind of clawed back by the provinces by reductions in their social assistance payments. So the true benefit of those increases in child tax benefits weren't realized by low-income families. But the last couple of times there were real increases in child tax benefits, the province didn't do the clawbacks. I really think it's important not to.

There are solutions. There really are solutions to reducing poverty in this country, and I think one indicator of that is that every year we try to measure in Alberta the effectiveness of government income transfers. There's been some improvement. In the 1990s, only about one in four children--and families with children--were lifted out of poverty by government transfers. That's now improved to about 40%, four out of 10. So we went from one in four to about four out of 10.

I would actually say that the enhancements to the child tax benefit system have been primarily responsible for that improvement. That's why I think it's such an effective program. As federal government revenues recover from the recession, we need to get back to what we did around the turn of the century where each year we were actually increasing child tax benefits by more than even the rate of inflation, because it's a very effective way to reduce child and family poverty in particular. We need to get back to that.

I guess that's my pitch.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

We'll come back. Maybe we could try to get you in a subsequent question. We're over time and we're trying to move to Mr. Martin.

Sir, you have the floor for seven minutes.

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

Thanks for coming this morning.

The work we do is critical to the livelihoods of thousands of families and individuals across the country, and we want to make sure we get it right. It's important for us to be here in Edmonton. We were up in Yellowknife and Whitehorse for the last couple of days, and it gave us a sense of the challenge that exists in that part of the country.

Mr. Savage is correct when he says we have an even bigger problem looming ahead of us right now. This committee is one of the better committees working out of Ottawa. It tries to find common solutions and generally drops the partisan rancour that often gets in the way of good work being done. I think we will probably find a way to table a report that will make a difference. The question is, how would we pay for it? The proposals we put forward—whether it's income security, a national housing program, or a national child care program—all cost money and somebody has to pay.

Mr. Savage mentioned yesterday in the hearings that we need a discussion about taxation—fair taxation, progressive taxation, taxation that actually works in the interests of those who most need it, so that they can participate in society and live with some dignity. Why not start today?

For the most part, middle-class Canada wants to pay less taxes. What they want to see in every budget that comes down is a tax reduction. They don't seem to understand—or maybe they're just turning a blind eye—that with every tax reduction there is less money in the government coffers to pay for programs to help those in need.

Government doesn't usually do stuff that the general public isn't willing to support. Ultimately, we all have to go back to our constituents and make a case for staying in office based on what we stand for. If we're willing to stand up and say we're going to make tax cuts, chances are we'll get re-elected. If we stand up and say no, we're going to raise your taxes, our horizon is limited. That's the reality.

Given what we're hearing on poverty and on groups like the disabled, who are struggling just to get the basics, how can we get a discussion going that will make people willing to support the investments we need to make Canada the country we all believe it has the potential to become?

I'll leave it at that.

[Bill Moore-Kilgannon]

I think your question is incredibly important. It's certainly a discussion here in Alberta, where the provincial government likes to say it has the lowest tax system in the country. We are the only province that has a flat tax. When you look at the actual numbers, what you'll actually find is that low-income people pay the fourth highest taxes in Canada, in Alberta, because of the flat tax. So it's erroneous to say the provincial government in Alberta can be cutting taxes because of our oil and natural gas wealth. But the distribution of the taxes is obviously not shared equally.

You used the word “investment”, and I think that's exactly the way we need to talk about a commitment to a poverty elimination strategy. I would urge us as well to talk about poverty prevention. When we do so, I think we can easily make the case that these are important investments that benefit the quality of life for absolutely everybody.

The return on investment approach is that whether you look at investments, as I've been talking about, in early childhood education and care, greater access to post-secondary education, and the diversification of our economy, they absolutely need to be crucial parts of how we talk about poverty elimination and support for people with disabilities, who have an incredible amount to offer. I've been hearing that the provincial government is now out of money through the EI fund to support people with disabilities in colleges and technical institutes. Many of those people who are in mid-program are going to be young people with disabilities and are being cut off from the money. So as of January they will not be returning to school.

Those are the stories that we need to tell, so that people understand that these are real investments. When we've done polling, we don't do as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation does and simply ask, “Would you like a tax cut?” Sure, that sounds good to me. But would you like a tax cut if it would mean that your mother in the long-term care system is going to have to pay significantly more? Would you like a tax cut if it's going to mean less access to post-secondary education? Would you like a tax cut if we're not going to have child care so that your granddaughter is able to get into quality child care so that your daughter is able to go back to school and training?

If you frame it that way, then every time we've done polling, even in Alberta, the numbers are completely different. When the provincial government asks “What are your priorities?”, tax cuts were number 8 or 9 on the list of where they want to see government spending. So we have to talk about priorities and what matters to Canadians in their lives and make sure those investments are being put in place so that at the end of the day we're building a system where people truly have choices that allow them to move forward and benefit from the wealth that we all share.

If I were a politician, which I'm not, that is how I would approach it with my constituents: telling them their dollars are well spent here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Bev, did you want to add to that?

[Bev Matthiessen]

When a question like that comes up—providing more services with less money and not raising taxes—then we start talking about efficiency and effectiveness and those types of things.

I will tell you that out of all the years I've worked in the disability community, I have never heard anyone say that they want to see anyone with a disability go without services. They would actually pay more in taxes to make sure that does not happen.

I also want to say that in Alberta our income support program, Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped, is a very good program. Between 1992 and 2003, there were hardly any raises; inflation went up over 25%, and our AISH program went up about 6%. People were getting further and further behind, but in the last five years the provincial government has given a raise to people on AISH, and it has helped out considerably.

Sometimes it's those extra supports around it, such as subsidized housing or accessible and adaptable housing—things such as that, and access to education—that can make the difference.

I've given a couple of ideas here. One is what we're calling a Federal Disability Act, something that would be a good thing to do. Another is to work along with our national group, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, on this national action plan on disabilities.

There are a few other things. A few years ago we were talking about a federal home care program and we had given a lot of recommendations for that, but nothing ever came of it. Our organization has recently done a project on respite care for family caregivers. I'm bringing something up here at the last minute, but this is extremely important, because this project was for unpaid family caregivers looking after family members with disabilities, in their own home. It is a tremendous savings to the health care system, if those people can be supported. I have a full report on this that I'd be more than willing to pass on to you.

So I have made some suggestions about what the federal government could do to help people with disabilities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Tony, very much.

Go ahead, John.

[John Kolkman]

I just want to respond very directly to Mr. Martin's question.

Ed Broadbent, someone I think you know, wrote a very interesting opinion article in the Globe and Mail on November 24, the 20th anniversary of the Eliminating Child Poverty resolution. One of the things he suggested was that if the federal government were to increase the marginal tax rate on people with individual taxable incomes above $250,000 per year to 35%, which is exactly what people in the United States pay making that level of income—that's a six percentage point increase, from 29% to 35%—the federal government could generate an additional $4 billion a year in revenue.

What if the federal government were to decide, with that $4 billion, that they were going to put it into some key priorities? For example, the Caledon Institute has calculated that child tax benefits could be increased by about 50% above current levels with an additional $4 billion investment. Perhaps some could be applied to enhancing the disability tax credit that Bev talked about.

I think there is some room to look at raising the marginal tax rates on very wealthy Canadians. In a sense we're non-competitive with the United States, which has a 35% tax rate above $250,000 in individual taxable income. I think if it were framed in that way, and if those dollars were dedicated to fighting poverty, you might be surprised: there might be more support for that kind of proposal than we think at the current time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks, John, and thanks Tony.

I'm going to wrap up.

I have a few questions regarding Alberta's plan, which they just came out with in the last little while. There's a Hamilton round table for poverty, near my riding in southwestern Ontario between Hamilton and St. Catherines. They have had some success, and Vancouver and a few other cities have been talking about it. One of the things they've come up with is the thought process of “no blame”. In other words, everyone needs to participate. Sure, there's more the federal government could be doing, and there's more we need to do; we all recognize that. But there's the notion of trying to get businesses involved, and municipal and provincial governments, and all these kinds of things.

My question to you, given what I've heard about Alberta's plan, which seems to talk about what they're going to do over the next number of years, is what your thoughts are on the plan that Alberta has come up with or is talking about trying to implement. They talk about more housing. The number one recommendation, from everywhere we've been bar none, is about housing. It's a critical issue.

My question to the panel is, what are your thoughts concerning the recommendations Alberta has made and where they're going with this?

[Bill Moore-Kilgannon]

We Must Do Better was a report put together by those of us who toured the province and looked at 37 forums. The provincial government currently has a number of initiatives, which are highlighted in our brief. It's not as though nothing is going on in this province to try to address issues of poverty. Most of the issues, however, are focused on poverty alleviation rather than any real vision of poverty prevention or poverty reduction; there is no provincial plan here. We are hoping that community organizations, business groups, and the municipalities will all come together to work with the provincial government, and ultimately the federal government as well, to put a plan in place.

You talked about housing. We specifically didn't get into housing in our presentation here, because we know that other people will be addressing it later in the day. It is a huge issue here. John can talk, though, about how on the one hand the province has put forward a ten-year plan to eliminate homelessness and has then taken money from another fund in that area to fund it, so that there are no net new dollars.

John, you may want to talk about how shuffling money from one side to the other is not a plan.

[John Kolkman]

Yes. Those of us involved with affordable housing were very pleased that the provincial government adopted a ten-year plan to end homelessness. In some ways, one of the arguments we're making is that it should be extended to perhaps a ten-year plan to end poverty, because homelessness is only one dimension of it. When it comes to providing the financial resources to bring it about, we're already falling seriously behind.

Unfortunately, Alberta appointed a secretariat to study how much it would cost to end homelessness, and the number they came up with is that it would cost $3.3 billion over 10 years; that's $330 million a year. When the provincial budget came out last year, however, they only invested $400 million over three years, so they have already fallen behind there. Then, worse than that, they basically took those dollars out of other housing programs, particularly out of the rent subsidy program. That's one of the reasons the wait list for subsidized housing has gone up so dramatically: there are just no additional dollars. They ran out of dollars about four months into the budget year.

So it's a good commitment that the Alberta government has made, but we are calling upon them to fund the commitment appropriately; otherwise we're just not going to be able to achieve that worthy objective of ending homelessness. I guess that's my answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Bev, I'm going to give you the last word.

[Bev Matthiessen]

Thank you for that.

Not everything has to cost money. If we work on universal design and build buildings that are accessible to people with disabilities, then people can go to school, can get a job, and can have a decent place to live.

The other thing I'd like to say is that if you ask a person with a disability, often they'll say that the greatest barriers are attitudinal barriers. The fellow I was talking to yesterday is trying to move from his place, where he's paying $850 a month for rent, but everybody at every place he goes to where it's a decent amount per month, when they learn he's on our income support program, won't have anything to do with him. Many people will tell you that attitudinal barriers are really a big thing that holds people with disabilities back.

There are programs that can help educate the community about the abilities of people with disabilities. That's my last word. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Just in conclusion....

Yes?

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

Chair, just as a suggestion, we have one witness in the next meeting, as I understand it, and we have three very good witnesses here. I'm wondering whether there's any chance we could consider extending for another quick round of questions with these witnesses, if it were the wish of the panel. I'm not sure who's here for the next panel.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Certainly, if it's all right with the panel.... I'll limit it to a couple of questions. We're going to have a couple of walk-ins as well, so there will be more.

But by all means, if it's all right with the ladies and gentlemen at the table, we could certainly....

Why don't we go with five minutes each?

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

I just need a couple of minutes. It should be enough.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Sure. Unless you say something controversial, then I'll have to rebut it.

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

No, I'm done with that.

Listen, I appreciate the work all three of you do in this community. John, you were making an excellent point about refundable tax credits, the child tax benefit and the national child benefit. You mentioned the disability tax credit, which, as a start, should be made fully refundable. You spoke about the UCCB. Most of the people we've met with, when they talk about the universal child care benefit, suggest eliminating the UCCB and redirecting the funds to enhance the means-tested child benefits or to create child care spaces. A lot of people, particularly in the child care community, are telling us to get rid of it or fold it into the child tax benefit. That wasn't what you were saying. You were saying it should be retained and made non-taxable.

[John Kolkman]

That's correct.