Human Resources Committee on Dec. 4th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), our study on the federal contribution to reducing poverty in Canada will commence.

I want to thank our witnesses for being here today and giving us some feedback as we put our report together. We've been working on this for the last year or two. I'm not sure exactly how long it's been, because of elections and legislation. We're glad that you're able to come out.

We've been travelling for a week and there are a lot of support staff in the room—translators, clerks, and the people who help organize things. I wanted to thank all of you publicly for all the hard work you do just getting us on and off the bus. It's like herding cats sometimes, worrying about moving MPs around.

I'm going to start with Mr. Cohen. We're going to go across the room. We have a very busy panel. When we've had a chance to hear from everybody, we're then going to go around the room with the MPs. I realize you're all very busy, and we appreciate your taking time out of your busy schedules to come out this morning and talk with us about what I know is near and dear to all your hearts.

I'm going to stop talking and let you do some talking.

Welcome, Neil. You are with the Community Unemployed Help Centre.

[Neil Cohen, Executive Director, Community Unemployed Help Centre]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

The floor is yours.

[Neil Cohen]

First of all, let me begin by thanking the committee for the opportunity to be here today. I want to begin by telling you a bit about our organization, and then you'll understand the nature of my presentation. I must say I'm somewhat embarrassed that I didn't have time to prepare a brief, but I do have speaking notes that I'll use for my own benefit. I would be quite embarrassed to share them with you because they are rather sketchy.

The Community Unemployed Help Centre is a Winnipeg-based non-profit organization that was established in 1980 to assist unemployed workers with matters on what was then unemployment and is now employment insurance. Essentially, we provide information, advice, and representation to unemployed workers. In particular, we represent workers who have been denied EI benefits for various reasons. We do test case litigation and public education around EI.

When I looked at the responsibility of this committee in terms of its study on federal contributions to reducing poverty and putting that in the context of a seven-minute presentation, I decided to focus on what I know best. So I will talk only about EI and leave it to my other learned friends to talk about whatever they choose to talk about.

Because we've been operating since 1980, our organization certainly has considerable expertise in the area of EI. We have watched, tracked, monitored, and followed, criticized, and applauded--on occasion--changes to the unemployment insurance program in Canada. If I switch back and forth between the two terms, it's that some of us still prefer the term “UI”, so I hope you'll understand.

I want to talk about our clients. We've been fortunate in Canada, until the past year, that unemployment was relatively low throughout the 1990s, so our client base shifts to some extent. When we've gone through periods of high unemployment in the past, particularly a period about 10 or 15 years ago, our clients represented the broad cross-section of workers from blue collar, to white collar, to people in poverty, to those who were in management positions, as a result of restructuring and layoffs and so on. But now, with relatively low unemployment in Manitoba, our client base is largely represented by people in poverty, particularly aboriginal people, new and recent immigrants, and marginal workers who have irregular labour force attachments.

We've seen the UI policy throughout the 1980s and 1990s, and there's been a general theme. With some exceptions, I will acknowledge, throughout that period of time, beginning with Bill C-21 in 1989, the general trend has been to require workers to work longer to qualify for benefits, benefit duration periods have been shortened, and penalties have been increased for workers who are fired or quit or made false or misleading statements.

The impact on low-income people of the reform of EI was that low-income people to a large extent now fail to qualify, and those who do qualify find their benefits run out much sooner. The benefit rate is lower as well. Many years ago, some people might remember, the benefit rate was actually 66 2/3% of average weekly insurable earnings over the past 20 weeks. Now the benefit rate is 55%, and because of the way the benefits are calculated, they don't take into consideration the worker's best weeks of work, but rather, the earnings in the last 26 weeks. I'm sure some of you will know the formula. It has the effect of reducing benefits below 55% for many workers, and that remains a concern. Particularly now, with the economic situation where many workers have their hours cut before they become unemployed, it has the effect of reducing their benefits even further.

At the Community Unemployed Help Centre we have taken on some important landmark cases over the years. In particular, I will draw your attention to the case of Kelly Lesiuq, a woman working part-time. Because she was working part-time she failed to accumulate enough hours to qualify. This represents one of the fundamental flaws of the program. This program is very much biased towards workers who have a long-term attachment to the labour force and have more regular patterns of work. It really has the effect of differentiating between men and women, because women are disproportionately represented in part-time work. That was, in short, the basis of the Lesiuq case.

We currently have a case where one of our clients, a woman, is a person with Down's syndrome. The case is currently before the courts. They're moving its way through the courts. Again, because of her mental or physical disability, she is unable to accumulate sufficient hours of work. This is a heroic woman with Down's syndrome--I'm trying to provide you with some real stories--who is doing the best she can to work and she is working part-time. Because of her disability, it is impossible for her to accumulate sufficient hours to qualify for benefits.

There has been a growing body of evidence accumulated, beginning in the 1930s but certainly over the last 30 years, that talks about the impact of unemployment. There was a recent report done by the Ontario Institute for Health & Work that, again, reaffirms some of the work that's been done in the past. It's easy to dismiss unemployment as being a temporary condition from which people will recover, but many people don't. The impact of unemployment has a devastating impact on one's mental and physical well-being.

Let me very briefly commend Parliament, certainly, on some of the recent measures that have been passed and introduced, particularly the extension of the duration of benefits, although it must be noted that it's a temporary measure. We certainly support those measures and we certainly support legislation to increase the EI benefit to change the way in which benefit rates are calculated. Both measures will assist those living in poverty or who have different labour force attachments. We'd also call for changes in the way the qualifying period is currently structured to go only to 52 weeks, because it fails to recognize women, in particular, who may have been removed from the labour force for a period of time. We would welcome a study and a commitment on the part of this committee or Parliament to look at workers who have irregular attachments in the labour force.

In closing, it's important. CUHC sees every day, and again, from our personal experience, we see every day the impact of unemployment on people's mental and physical well-being. We see this every day in the faces of our clients, particularly those who live in poverty, who fail to qualify or who see their benefits run out. We would call for easing of entrance requirements and also for restructuring the program in a way that is responsive to workers who have unstable or irregular labour force attachment patterns.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I thank you, Mr. Cohen.

I realize, as well, that you didn't have a lot of time to prepare, so I do appreciate the spontaneity of your being able to get this together to formulate your thoughts in seven minutes. I'm sure it's tough for you. It's very tough for the MPs, as well, to have their talking time for only seven minutes because we would love to ask more questions.

Thank you for that.

Brendan Reimer, you're with the Manitoba Community Economic Development Network. Welcome. The floor is yours, sir. You have seven minutes.

[Brendan Reimer, Regional Coordinator for the Prairies and Northern Territories, Manitoba Community Economic Development Network]

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your deliberations and discussions on the critical issue of poverty reduction in Canada.

The Manitoba chapter of the Canadian CED Network represents hundreds of community organizations that are working with thousands of community members across the province to build stronger and fairer local economies, to reduce poverty and homelessness, and to create more sustainable communities.

I should clarify that when we talk about community economic development, we are not referring simply to business-focused development, as you might envision from the term. We are talking about people in communities working together at a local level to generate innovative and effective initiatives that create economic opportunities for individuals, families, and neighbourhoods in ways that improve social and environmental conditions.

Whether we are looking at the social determinants of health, the many facets of full social inclusion, or the nature of poverty, we understand that they all describe a complex and interdependent set of dynamics that can only be effectively addressed with integrated approaches. The CED model understands that complex community issues require multi-faceted and coordinated responses. Those responses will be most successful if they are community led.

This isn't a new idea, of course. Communities across the country and around the world have been working together to fight poverty for a very long time. We have many innovative and effective models here in Manitoba. But despite the proven track record of this approach, communities of all kinds around our province lack the necessary support to take action in dynamic, holistic, and innovative ways.

What has been lacking, and what we are recommending, is a comprehensive federal strategy for reducing poverty and for supporting community-led responses to poverty reduction. To be effective, this federal strategy needs to be strengthened with targets and timelines for outcome-based results. It should be accompanied by anti-poverty legislation. We stand as part of the Dignity For All campaign with this clear and fundamentally important request.

A comprehensive strategy requires that policies be developed to achieve defined objectives in key areas, such as child care, housing, food security, skill development, and employment. Here in Manitoba, this has been very well laid out in The View from Here, a comprehensive strategy designed by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Manitoba together with Make Poverty History Manitoba. Policies in these areas will have an even greater impact on poverty reduction and social inclusion if strategic consideration is given to the way these policies are implemented.

When capital projects are undertaken, we recommend that the federal government implement training and apprenticeship components that ensure that skill development happens in the local community. This is important, because when the infrastructure is completed and the project is done, the employability of people in that area will be enhanced, and the legacy of the project really can live on in the lives of those people.

On creating economic stimulus initiatives aimed at infrastructure, we recommend strategic investments in community infrastructure, such as child care centres and social housing.

On supporting labour market development, we recommend that community-based organizations rooted in impoverished neighbourhoods be given the resources they require to provide holistic support for a sufficient length of time to ensure success. And when you address our housing crisis in this country, we recommend that social enterprises, such as our own Inner City Renovation, be contracted, recognizing that the overall return on investment through this strategy is much greater than simply the value of the construction contracts.

On developing strategic investments, we recommend prioritizing comprehensive community renewal initiatives, as demonstrated here in Manitoba with our 12 neighbourhood renewal corporations. They work with communities to identify comprehensive long-term strategies for revitalizing neighbourhoods.

I know that you heard from one of the members of the Canadian CED Network policy council in Vancouver on the value of social enterprises. So I will just reiterate the primary point that this is one important model that hires and trains people from marginalized populations, particularly people living in poverty and living with various disabilities, who would otherwise face barriers to employment.

A point I want to make clear is that there are opportunities in everything the government does--in every department, in every program, in every project, and in every policy--to have an impact on poverty in this country. But without putting in place a comprehensive framework and an anti-poverty lens through which all decisions are made, most of these opportunities may not even be identified. They will most certainly be missed. In creating a federal framework for reducing poverty, we would recommend that you consider Manitoba's CED policy framework and lens as a model that would require the federal government to ensure that all programming and policies consider the implications for poverty and community development.

Finally, we recommend that the federal strategy include a program that commits funds to strengthen effective community-led poverty reduction initiatives. As I mentioned earlier, Canadians across the country have long been taking action that enables others in their community to overcome barriers and develop capacity and opportunities to participate fully in community life. Many of these initiatives lack the required resources to work with the active leaders in their communities to tackle the complex issue of poverty, and yet they do what they can with great passion, innovation, effectiveness, and dedication.

As I said, there's a long history, and there's current strength and innovation in communities across the country already working at reducing poverty. But what we need is strong government leadership that creates a comprehensive federal strategy for reducing poverty, strengthened with targets and timelines for outcome-based results, with accompanying anti-poverty legislation, and a complementary program for enabling community-led responses to poverty reduction.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Reimer.

We're now going to move to the Manitoba Research Alliance. We have Lynne Fernandez.

Welcome, Lynne. The floor is yours.

[Lynne Fernandez, Project coordinator and Research associate, Manitoba Research Alliance]

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee.

I represent the Manitoba Research Alliance, which is a group of academics and community-based researchers. We received a five-year grant of $1 million from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. This is our second grant to do research in this area. This particular grant is classified as a CURA, which means a community-university research alliance. As a CURA, we are tasked with bringing together the academic expertise of economists, political scientists, social workers, and sociologists with community-based residents and researchers. The idea is to bring together the academy with the community to do research based on that kind of team. Our project is called “Transforming Inner-City and Aboriginal Communities”.

Because most if not all of you are not from Manitoba, I'm going to give you a bit of background as to why transformation is required in these communities. Then I will explain what we have learnt so far from our research. You'll see that a lot of our research backs up things that Brendan just mentioned.

Conditions in Manitoba's multi-ethnic inner city and aboriginal communities are deteriorating, despite years of intensive and creative work. Household poverty in Winnipeg's inner city is more than double the city-wide rate, and Manitoba's aboriginal population is growing at more than three times the non-aboriginal population. These projections are worrisome, given high rates of poverty, unemployment, violence, and illness in aboriginal communities. These are the product of dynamics that are not just economic, but also cultural, social, and political.

Stressed urban centres are also the destination of growing numbers of poor refugees and immigrants, resulting in rising levels of what we call spatially concentrated poverty. If you spend any time in Winnipeg's inner city, that will be very obvious. There are high levels of poverty that are confined in the inner city. As you move out, these pockets of poverty are not seen nearly so much, and particularly once you get out into the suburbs.

The many refugees and immigrants arriving in Manitoba come from different parts of the world, and they are increasingly finding themselves locating in the inner city as well. Some are escaping civil war and environmental destruction; others have seen their lives drastically changed by the forces of globalization. Too often when these people arrive in Canada, the services and jobs they need are not available. I would refer to what Neil Cohen said about the Community Unemployed Help Centre: often the employment insurance benefits they need are not available when they arrive.

Conditions in non-urban aboriginal communities are equally complex. Traditional one-dimensional strategies have little effect in these communities, but effective community development strategies have helped, and they have left a legacy of community-based organizations in many communities and in the inner city.

The situation for aboriginal peoples is particularly significant in Manitoba. Mendelson, who has done a lot of research in this area, has argued that “the increasing importance of the aboriginal workforce to Manitoba...cannot be exaggerated. There is likely no single more critical economic factor for [the prairie] provinces.”

Aboriginal peoples constitute a disproportionately large percentage of the population in impoverished inner-city communities and move frequently between urban and rural communities. In our project we talk a lot about migration and about migrants. This is an obvious reference to the refugees and immigrants who come to Canada, but we also consider aboriginal people to be migrants, because they are constantly moving back and forth between the inner city and their own communities, particularly reserves. The conditions on the reserves are very bad, but when they come to the inner city, a lot of those conditions are not any better.

Non-urban aboriginal communities, including those in the north, experience difficulties of a kind similar to those in inner cities. They have high rates of unemployment and poverty, low levels of income, inadequate housing, and rising rates of crime and violence. The persistent poverty and social exclusion experienced in aboriginal communities is partially the product of the long process of colonization.

Simplistic policies such as forced migration or business development have not worked and will not work in marginalized communities. We support a holistic community economic development approach, or CED, that considers the social, cultural, and political aspects of social exclusion, not just the economic aspect. A CED approach does not impose development from the outside; it promotes development from the inside. CED seeks to meet local needs by hiring, purchasing, producing, and investing locally. In economic terms, it creates local linkages and minimizes the amount of money and resources that leak out of the community.

Winnipeg's inner city has many community-based organizations that are well positioned to help implement a CED strategy, but these organizations are poorly and inconsistently funded. We believe that the solutions to the communities' problems come from these community-based organizations, but they will not be implemented without substantial help from the three levels of government. We warn that results are not going to appear overnight, and probably not even in one generation.

Because CED considers more than the economic issues, it affords communities the time and resources they need to recover from the ravages of addictions, neglect, violence, and cultural upheaval, all of which are at the root of social exclusion. An economic business development plan typically is not going to deal with those issues, and so it's not going to work.

We recommend that the federal government consider implementing a comprehensive CED policy such as the Manitoba government's CED lens. This is what Brendan was just referring to. While this provincial policy has not yet been implemented in an effective way, the necessary foundations have been laid that would facilitate moving concepts into action, so it would be a good model to follow. Also of crucial importance is securing funding over the long term so that valuable programs are not cancelled every time government changes hands. A CED approach is an important component of a comprehensive poverty reduction plan such as Brendan was referring to, an idea that will no doubt be discussed at some length in the hearings.

We haven't finished our project yet. We have about 47 projects under way, and some have been finished. As the reports are done we post them on our website. It is an ongoing project. We have about three years left in it. We would encourage committee members and others to use our website as a resource for what we consider to be pretty solid public policy prescriptions to dealing with poverty and marginalization.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Fernandez.

We're now going to move over to Social Planning Council of Winnipeg, and Sid Frankel.

Mr. Frankel, welcome, sir. The floor is yours.

[Dr. Sid Frankel, Board Member, Social Planning Council of Winnipeg]

Thank you.

We'd like to thank the committee for coming to Winnipeg.

The Social Planning Council is in its 90th year, and it's a membership-based, voluntary sector organization that focuses on three things: public policy advocacy, community development, and support of the voluntary and non-profit sector. We are the lead local partner of national Campaign 2000 to end child poverty.

We'd like to begin by congratulating the committee on its sixth report, which called for an immediate plan to eliminate poverty in Canada. We were pleased this report received unanimous support in the House of Commons on November 24 and we look forward to your final report, in which I am sure you will spell out what that poverty reduction plan should look like.

We'd like to make four recommendations to you in the service of that kind of plan. We're pleased that this report and the resolution that followed it clearly acknowledge a role for the federal government in poverty reduction, and we think the federal government absolutely must show leadership if poverty reduction is going to be effective in Canada. Provinces, municipalities, aboriginal and first nations governments, the voluntary and non-profit sector, and the private sector all have their role, but this is a case where we need government leadership.

Our first recommendation is that an official poverty line be established in Canada, which is one of the few economically advanced countries that does not have an official poverty line. We think this poverty line is absolutely necessary if targets and timelines are to be established to accomplish the goal involved in your sixth report. You noted in that motion, and we agree, that we collectively were unable to fulfill the goal of the 1989 motion to end child poverty by the year 2000. We think it is absolutely necessary, therefore, that there be clear targets and interim timelines to accomplish the goal articulated in your sixth report.

We think Canada's official poverty line should be established by Parliament. There should be broad consultation with provincial and territorial governments, municipalities, first nations, and the non-government and voluntary sector. As you know, there are five possible candidates currently collected by federal government agencies. We also understand that establishing an official poverty line will be a matter than involves some controversy, but we think this is necessary and we hope you recommend it in your report.

We would like to make two further notes. One is that poverty lines and poverty measurement are not unique in terms of the controversy that involves them. Economists still disagree about measures of unemployment and, for that matter, about measures for economic growth, yet we report unemployment rates and the gross domestic product.

The second thing we would note is that action on poverty reduction does not have to await adoption of an official poverty line. As the United Kingdom did, we could use any or all of the existing poverty lines to benchmark where we are now and to see progress until an official poverty line is adopted. We don't want a poverty measurement debate to replace action on poverty reduction, yet we do think it will be useful to have an official poverty line.

In Manitoba and throughout Canada, many poor children live in families in which the parents work the equivalent of a full year, full time. Much poverty is created within the labour market rather than outside it. In Manitoba, almost 70% of poor children live in families where there is the equivalent of full-time, full-year work.

We think the federal government needs to show leadership. We are therefore recommending that the federal government adopt a living wage policy with regard to its suppliers and contractors. One of the conditions of contracting and selecting suppliers would be that living wages are paid to the employees of those firms and organizations. A living wage is generally higher than a legislated minimum wage. It includes sufficient resources for a family to participate in their community and even to assemble some of the assets necessary for retirement and the education of children. We think that by pursuing this policy the federal government would be demonstrating vision as well as leadership.

Our third recommendation is that Canada should revive the Population Health Fund, which has not accepted applications since 2006. We believe the federal government has an important role to play in supporting the health and well-being of Canadians—health promotion as opposed to the provision of health care. From all of the evidence we've heard, poverty is an important determinant of health, and the Population Health Fund helped many community organizations to do their share in defeating poverty. In Winnipeg, many organizations were started or had their capacity enhanced through the Population Health Fund: the Andrews Street Family Centre, the Broadway Neighbourhood Centre, the West Central Women's Resource Centre, the North Point Douglas Women's Centre, and the Indian and Métis Friendship Centre in The Pas. We think this would be in line with the federal government's business of supporting the functioning of the national economy and the health of Canadians.

Finally, we would like to reiterate a recommendation from Campaign 2000, that the Canada child tax benefit and the national child benefit supplement be increased to a maximum of $5,400 in 2009 dollars. The National Child Benefit Progress Report, issued in 2006, indicated that the national child benefit at that point prevented 59,000 families and 125,000 children from falling into poverty. The poverty rate for families would have been 12.1% higher without it. The architecture is right. The investment needs to increase. There's a good instrument there that can make a real difference.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Frankel.

I realize we don't want to debate the measure now, but are you for a market basket, a LICO, or a hybrid thereof? Have you given it much thought?

[Dr. Sid Frankel]

We're not sure, to tell you the truth. We would want to look at it. We think that one has to be adopted, but we'd be happy if in the interim the market basket measure were adopted to track progress.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I realize that I could start a whole new debate just by interjecting here, and I don't want to do it.

We're going to move to the University of Manitoba, and Ms. Prentice.

Thank you for being here. The floor is yours.

[Dr. Susan Prentice, Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Manitoba]

Thank you very much.

I was able to prepare a report, which I hope has made its way to you. I'd like to say thank you to the translators, who I understand were able to get to it, so merci aux traducteurs.

While I fully endorse the larger programs that have been laid out by my co-presenters today, I'd like to give you a very specific argument that you ought to want to tackle both children's and women's poverty and to recommend that early learning and child care services be a part of the solution to that.

Here in Manitoba, Statistics Canada data show us that almost 19% of children live below the before-tax LICO, and in some regions of Winnipeg the poverty rate is even higher. Google Maps will tell you that just 3.5 kilometres from this hotel you'll find the Daniel McIntyre neighbourhood, and there you'll find the incidence of low income at over 27%. In Mynarski, which is just six and a half kilometres from the hotel, the low-income rate is 30%. This means, as my colleagues have demonstrated, that there is intense spatialized poverty in Winnipeg and it has terrible consequences for children and for families. There are of course obvious human rights concerns when a country as wealthy as Canada has such persistently high rates of poverty and such intense pockets of such deep poverty.

You will know, of course, that children are poor because their families and mothers are poor, because they live in poor families. And work is not always the solution for such poor families. Close to half of low-income children have at least one parent who is in the labour force full time. When jobs are poorly paid and costs are high, then employment is often the cause of family poverty rather than its solution. Data show us that rates of working poor parents have been increasing over recent years rather than diminishing.

Where children are raised by single parents, the parent is most likely a mother. Women in Canada face persistent discrimination, labour force discrimination being one of the worst instances of this, and one of the key obstacles is a stubbornly persistent wage gap. In 2003 Canadian women working full time, full year, earned only 71% of what men working full time, full year, earned, and compared to male colleagues, women are far more likely to lose time at work because of personal or family responsibilities, to work part time, and to work less.

It's important to stress that where child care services are available they can begin to mitigate some of this cost. Where services are high quality and widely available at a low cost, maternal employment will increase. I hope you are familiar with the case of Quebec. Quebec began implementing its very ambitious early childhood care and education program over 10 years ago, and economists have found that the new child care system has had a large and statistically significant impact on the labour supply of Quebec mothers with pre-school children. The proportion of employed mothers now in two-parent families increased by 21% since the provincial child care program began. It is more than double the national average. This tells us that women will work where services are available.

Moreover, recent analysis of the cost of the Quebec program calculated that approximately 40% of the annual operating expenses has been recouped through the increased taxes paid by parents, so the child care program goes a long way toward paying for itself directly.

You will know that Canadian families have changed and that working mothers are now the dominant form of families in Canada, and yet we fail to accommodate working families with the kinds of programs that they need. The gap between the rich and poor widens, and despite increased rates of women's employment, we see that, on average, for every dollar that families in the poorest 10% of Canada earn, families in the richest 10% earn more. This gap is an enormous problem.

To put it together, we find action is needed. It is almost 40 years since the Royal Commission on the Status of Women made its groundbreaking report, and yet women remain disadvantaged on every social index in Canada, and aboriginal women bear an even greater burden. I hope the grief of stolen, murdered, and missing aboriginal sisters is weighing heavily on your minds. Canada has international commitments to gender equality as well as to children's equality that it fails to meet. I think here particularly of CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, and I would urge you to step up to these.

I have two recommendations for you. In recognition that the long-term prosperity and the future of Canada is severely compromised by women's and children's poverty and in recognition that poverty impairs the full social inclusion of poor children and women, I'll recommend two specific actions for you.

The first is that Canada should immediately commit to spending 1% of its GDP on early learning and care services. These funds should be directed to supply side development, aiming to build a high-quality, developmentally appropriate, and inclusive national early learning and care program, knowing that this will bring benefits for all children, and especially for children living in poverty.

Second, Canada should immediately affirm its domestic and international commitments to full gender equality, because this directly impacts on poverty. This would require, I suggest, restoring the equality language in all Status of Women Canada policies, practices, and projects; reversing the cuts to Status of Women budgets; and increasing the capacity of Status of Women and other gender-equality-seeking organizations to advocate for women's equality.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Ms. Prentice.

Mr. Lessard, the floor is yours for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like first of all to thank you all for your contribution to our study.

The evidence we have received to date is very enlightening. It will certainly be useful for the analysis and the findings in our report. You are bound to find it useful as well.

If I may, I will ask all my questions at once. You will want to listen carefully to each question because of the time it takes for translation. I think we will save time that way.

I would like to make two statements, two reminders. The first is of course the undertaking Canada made in 1989 to eliminate poverty by the year 2000. We know the situation today; we have failed. If we acknowledge that there is poverty, we have to admit that there are factors which make poverty worse. Each of you mentioned a number of aggravating factors, such as Employment Insurance regulations that eliminate as many people as possible. One of those factors is the fact that almost 10 years ago, the federal government withdrew from social housing, for example.

I personally am very touched by your evidence, Dr. Prentice. It in fact echoes other evidence about the fate of women and children. I am a firm believer that the solutions lie in better living conditions for women and children. When we improve the conditions in which women live, we improve the conditions in which children live. I think there is a direct link. Not recognizing that amounts to not recognizing the realities of life.

However, many measures work against women. One of the latest measures, for example, is the removal of women's right to go to court seeking pay equity as part of a quest for equity. There are better things in life; that is not an example. As Mr. Cohen said, the same year the undertaking was made, the Unemployment Insurance Act was amended in order to eliminate as many people as possible.

I gave this introduction to impress upon you the fact that our vision also includes a set of factors which create poverty and make poverty worse.

My first question is to you, Dr. Prentice. You say that work, here, is sometimes a factor in poverty. You gave as an example the gap between men and women. In Winnipeg, the gap is $7,000, and in Manitoba as a whole, it is almost $9,000. This shows that in Winnipeg, women perhaps earn a bit more and the gap is wider elsewhere. What do you mean when you say that beyond that gap, work also creates poverty in some cases?

The other question is for you, Mr. Cohen. When you did your analysis of poverty, one of the examples you gave was Bill C-51 concerning the extension of benefit periods. However, your comments were aimed specifically at people whose jobs are precarious. I am sure that — because you are very involved in the issue of unemployment — you are perfectly aware that people with precarious jobs are all excluded from Bill C-51. It's actually after five years, seven years, and so on. You know the conditions. There are no measures, and it is temporary.

I would like hear a bit of what you have to say about that, about employment insurance. What measures would be appropriate for this program to help put an end to poverty?

Ms. Fernandez, I believe it was you who were talking about detailed federal strategy. We have seen that exercise before, and we know the outcome today. On that subject, I am going to put the following question to each of you.

What should be done differently to ensure that we succeed this time? Are we not going to take the same dynamic and end up 10 years, 15 years or 20 years later in the same situation?

[Dr. Susan Prentice]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard. I understand your feelings and agree with you about the importance of the status of women. However, I would like to answer in English.

You asked me how it's possible that poverty is caused by work. It's a counterintuitive finding, but it's very true for women. Women face a wage gap, are disproportionately concentrated in low-paying jobs, and have insecure attachments, and there is that 71% wage gap that I mentioned. So minimum wage is very often not sufficient to support an individual, let alone an individual with children. So when single mothers are trying to support their children strictly on labour market wages, their work is often the cause of their poverty.

So a social wage that included services would partly ameliorate family poverty. That is why services for women that enable them to work and afford child care are so important.

Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Cohen.

[Neil Cohen]

Mr. Lessard, on the kinds of changes in EI reform that would be helpful, easy entrance requirements for EI would help people get out of poverty. When we moved from an hours-based system to a weeks-based system, it required workers to work two and a half to three times longer to qualify for benefits. So that's important in order to allow workers to qualify. Certainly extending the benefit duration would help, but of course, as you pointed out, that will only help those workers who qualify. The benefit rate certainly has to be increased beyond the 55% and the way in which it's presently calculated.

EI reform is desperately needed so it recognizes that people have different patterns of work. This program has been operating since 1940, and to a large extent throughout that time it has been responsive to the changing nature of work. It has brought more workers into coverage. Maternity and other kinds of benefits--parental benefits--were brought into the plan, recognizing women's participation in the labour force. So we need to review the act to ensure that it is equitable for both men and women, and for other working patterns.

Certainly increased money for EI training is a positive step. I know that's being done. But there should be training designated to help people out of poverty who might not otherwise qualify for EI benefits. That's critically important.

I think it's also important to recognize...and just to provide some context. I don't want to point fingers today, but there is the $54 billion solution. We're aware of the so-called EI surplus, the vanishing surplus. I'm not just pointing fingers at the current government; the past government created the enabling legislation. This is a debt that is owed to workers who paid but failed to qualify and, in fairness, even to employers, who see this as a double tax.

We also have to recognize that the federal government withdrew from financing the EI Act in 1990, so I think the federal government has a responsibility. It has historically financed the EI Act, in part because it recognized that fiscal and monetary policies might influence the rate of unemployment.

I also think there's an opportunity, because of the repayment that has been ordered by the Supreme Court, to designate some of that money, in terms of the benefit repayment schedule, and target that for people in poverty and poverty reduction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm going to leave it at that. We'll come back for another round. We'll probably be able to get back to Mr. Lessard to ask those questions.

Judy, I won't welcome you to Winnipeg because it's your town, but welcome to the committee.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Welcome to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We're glad to have you here.

Go ahead, Tony.

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

Thank you very much.

I also want to say how pleased I am to have Judy join me here this morning. Judy is a great champion for a comprehensive national anti-poverty strategy and has been very supportive of me in caucus as I've moved it through that vehicle. She understands the relationship between health care and poverty and in a very meaningful way.

We're almost at the end of a long process here. We've crossed the country and heard from various people who work with poverty, who are living in poverty, who advocate on behalf of people living poverty, and I have to say I've been pleased with the sincere participation of everybody around the table--Conservatives, Liberals, and Bloc members. We're all trying to find a way to do something meaningful here, and finding that formula is the big challenge.

So far, three things have presented themselves as needing to be addressed. One is income security. Another—and this comes up everywhere we go—is housing: affordable, safe, accessible housing. The third thing is a bit more nebulous, but it's one that Brendan spoke about this morning: the issue of social inclusion and how you define that and how you get to that. Certainly they're all interrelated as well.

I know Manitoba has just recently come forward with a plan, and whatever we do in terms of a federal role in a national anti-poverty strategy has to be integrated. Maybe I could get some quick response on how you see those two plans integrated, the Manitoba plan and a federal plan.

From speaking with some provincial jurisdictions where they have strategies in place, I know one of the comments is that without the federal government we can't accomplish all that we have the potential to accomplish. So maybe I could get some initial comment on the Manitoba plan and how it might connect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Frankel, go ahead.

[Dr. Sid Frankel]

Thanks. I think it's a very good question.

First, to address more generally the question of coordinating between federal and provincial plans, I think every one of the provinces, including Manitoba, that has put forward a poverty reduction strategy has pointed to the role of the federal government, perhaps most explicitly in Ontario, where they really said they could not meet their targets in their child poverty reduction plan without the participation of the federal government.

One approach to this might be for the federal government to see its role in two ways, one as the deliverer of particular programs where the federal government is in the best position fiscally to do so. One of those programs is the Canada child tax benefit and the NCB portion of it. The federal government is clearly in a better position fiscally than any provincial government; it's a national need. It has to do with the role of the federal government in guaranteeing Canadian citizenship, and so on.

Secondly, I would argue that the federal government needs to take a bilateral stance in almost a province-by-province, territory-by-territory way, because the provinces have started at different places and have gotten different places. So I would agree that there would have to be some capacity, some fund established within the federal government that pays attention to issues of interprovincial and inter-territorial equity, but that the particulars of what's going to be put in place are going to have to be negotiated bilaterally. Quebec, for example, is in a much different place and has made many more investments than Manitoba has. They've started earlier and have moved farther. Certainly Newfoundland and Labrador are in a much different place.

Federal governments have done this before. When there were significant changes in youth justice requiring different kinds of provincial systems, the federal government of the day established a fund and dealt bilaterally with each province to put that in place.

So briefly, there are two federal roles: the deliverer of some programs, and the entity with the capacity to develop bilateral agreements with provinces.