Human Resources Committee on Oct. 27th, 2016

[Jennefer Laidley]

There was a big debate in Ontario around this very issue when Ontario was putting together its poverty reduction strategy.

I'm not saying that Ontario is getting everything right. I think that there are some significant areas in which the Government of Ontario needs to make progress on poverty reduction and where, in fact, it has not met its own targets for poverty reduction, but I would say that one of the things that's very good about their strategy is that they take a multi-dimensional approach to the measurement of poverty. We know that poverty is about income, but it's also about.... Poverty is both a relative and objective kind of experience, so I think it's important to look at not only the relative measures of poverty, but also measures like, say, the market basket measure.

The Ontario government put some other measurements into place. They created a deprivation index, and I think it was the Daily Bread Food Bank that did the majority of the work on that. They worked with Statistics Canada to ask questions like “Have I been able to feed my children a meal of meat in a given week?” for example. There are a number of different measures.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

With the measures that are in place right now, do you feel that's sufficient to really...?

In order to move forward, we have to really understand poverty and how we define it. Somebody living on the streets is obviously poor, but we know there are a lot of working people who are poor as well. In order to make progress here, we have to be able to be accountable for the things that we do and how we do them, and that's where the measures come in.

[Jennefer Laidley]

Sure.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Very quickly, you mentioned a report from 2003, with recommendations.

[Jennefer Laidley]

Yes, it was one that this committee did on CPP disability.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Would you be able to submit that to the clerk as evidence?

[Jennefer Laidley]

I sure can. Yes.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Okay, great. Thank you.

Moving on, you talked about zero poverty, and disabled is a big one. We do know, as my colleague across the hall mentioned, that there are many disabled folks out there who want to work. What do you think are some of the barriers that are preventing this?

[Jennefer Laidley]

Oh, boy; that's a big question.

I think one of the tricks with addressing the poverty of people with disabilities, and addressing their labour-market participation, is around acknowledging the fact that labour market participation for people with disabilities exists sort of on a spectrum. We think about this in terms of eligibility for benefit programs.

The question of whether or not you can work is the wrong question to be asking. It's not an on/off switch, right? There are folks who are able to work on an intermittent basis. Folks with episodic disabilities can work one week and not another week. The experience of disability is not just about your medical condition: it's about the ways in which society, and our infrastructure and our expectations, are structured to create barriers for people's participation.

When trying to understanding labour market participation for people with disabilities, there needs to be a nuanced approach to that issue, I think.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you.

Going to the CCB—I'm glad you like it—you mentioned the uptake is not very high by indigenous folks. That's money in the bank. Why would that not be—

[Jennefer Laidley]

This is a challenge when you're delivering benefits through the tax system. It's not set up to be a benefit delivery mechanism.

One of the barriers that exists is the requirement to file your taxes. There are first nations people, indigenous people on reserve and others, who don't file their tax returns for a number of different reasons. I think in the case of first nations and addressing child poverty and poverty levels on first nations, there is the question of tax filing.

I don't know that the answer to that issue is to get everybody to file their taxes. I think the committee should probably do some outreach to first nations and indigenous communities and ask them what the best approach would be.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you.

I think I have time for one more question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

You have about 30 seconds.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

You mentioned clawbacks.

I find that really frustrating, because you take a single mom who has a very minimal income and wants to get a job, but as soon as she does that, the money starts coming off. Do you have any comments and thoughts on clawbacks?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Be very quick, please.

[Jennefer Laidley]

Again, it's a very large issue.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

I could spend a whole day with you.

[Jennefer Laidley]

Let's do it. Let's talk about clawbacks.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

That's fantastic.

[Jennefer Laidley]

In this instance, we're talking about provincial and territorial governments clawing back from social assistance benefits the gains that were made in the Canada child benefit. So far, the Northwest Territories is the only province or territory that's done that. You may have seen stories in the paper in the last week and a half to 10 days that they have reduced amounts for children for food and clothing after the Canada child benefit was increased. There are no mechanisms in the CCB right now to prevent that, and we would encourage government to think about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

Now we move over to MP Sansoucy.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First I would like to thank all the witnesses for their presentations.

They all showed us that we must take a broad view in studying income support programs. Ms. Laidley raised the topic of provincial programs. Ms. Barnwell pointed out that we have to take action at the neighbourhood and municipal level, and raised the importance of pharmacare and daycare services, which are provincial. So all levels of government are involved. Ms. Lord also said that we need a comprehensive and coordinated approach. So I think it is inevitable that we will go in that direction.

My question is for Mr. Hughes. You pointed out, as did our chair, that we share objectives in eliminating poverty among working people, persons with disabilities, children and seniors. I would also add that, for each of these four groups, we should show particular concern for aboriginal persons, given our federal responsibilities.

Your testimony is especially interesting given your experience running a shelter. Having run a community housing agency myself, I know we are concerned by everything happening at the municipal level. You also have a provincial perspective, since you are developing a strategy for New Brunswick in your current position. You were also a member of the National Council on Welfare. Please tell us about your experience in your reply.

I would like to thank my colleagues for their indulgence. I do indeed have many opportunities to talk about Bill C-245, which I introduced. In your testimony, you touched on some interesting aspects. You talked about an observation centre on poverty data, to see what is working well and what is not working. Professor Notten spoke about an observatory on social indicators. From the testimony we have heard, it is clear that we need evidence regarding poverty. We need a mechanism to measure effectiveness. Action at the federal level is essential: the government must show leadership on a strategy.

Please tell us more about how you could make the data collection centre operational.

[James Hughes]

Thank you very much.

I am very pleased that you mentioned the National Council on Welfare, which has worked very hard on poverty reduction. In fact, New Brunswick's entire poverty reduction plan is in part based on the report the national council produced at that time. This report indicated that four main elements were needed to create an effective plan, including a comprehensive vision. Intervention priorities are also needed, delivery mechanisms—that is, who will be responsible for them—and, finally, performance indicators.

I would like to say a few words about your previous question. New Brunswick uses 12 indicators to track the plan's progress. That might be worth noting.

Getting back to the whole question of what is happening, what is working and what isn't, where are the gaps in factual information, in basic data, in research that has not yet been done. What is the quality of the evidence?

These are good questions for all stakeholders, including the federal government, the provinces, municipalities, and non-profit organizations. We all want to know, for our own information, what has been done elsewhere, what the results were, and whether that evidence is reliable.

As MPs, you hear all kinds of proposals on how to reduce poverty. The question, however, is whether the solutions proposed have been successful elsewhere and whether the evidence is reliable as regards future initiatives.

In England, where I was a month ago, they have developed a network of centres called the What Works Centres, a very interesting name. There are currently seven centres but they are considering doubling that number. These centres are government-funded, receiving over 200 million pounds sterling per year to give the appropriate stakeholders the tools they need to make informed decisions. Their work is based on certain themes, including aging, early intervention, local economic development, crime reduction, and so forth. The centres are managed by people who are recognized in their sector of activity, but they are funded separately.

So they are not controlled by the government's political agenda or by the university or academic agenda. The centres have an objective mandate to disseminate and share with the appropriate stakeholders what is happening around the world. They look at what has been done around the world in a specific field and analyze the quality of the evidence. They can then determine whether they can use that specific evidence to create trials or pilot projects, or not pursue it because it has not worked elsewhere.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I'm afraid—

[James Hughes]

These centres have been a very positive initiative.