Human Resources Committee on Oct. 27th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, everybody. We're going to get started right away.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, June 13, 2016, the committee is resuming its study on poverty reduction strategies.

The first phase of this study is entitled government-administered savings and entitlements programs, and this is meeting four in a series of five on this theme.

I would like to welcome five witnesses today, I believe. We have four, and then possibly one who's not feeling the greatest, and I thank them if they do show.

As an individual we have James Hughes, senior fellow of the J.W. McConnell Family Foundation.

You are here. Thank you very much, sir.

We have Jennefer Laidley, research and policy analyst with the Income Security Advocacy Centre. Welcome.

By video conference, we have...can you see me from Toronto?

[Khadeeja Ahsan, Barrister and Solicitor, Staff Lawyer, South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario]

I can see you. Hi.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Okay, fantastic. That's actually much easier than I thought it was going to be.

We have Khadeeja Ahsan, barrister and solicitor with the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario. Welcome.

Then I believe we have with us Stella Lord.

Is that correct? Can you hear me?

[Stella Lord, Voluntary Coordinator, Community Society to End Poverty in Nova Scotia]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

She is a voluntary coordinator with the Community Society to End Poverty in Nova Scotia.

I understand Georgia Barnwell is not feeling very well and—

[Georgia Barnwell, Coordinator, Women's Centres Connect]

I'm on the phone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Oh, you are on the phone. Fantastic. Welcome. Sorry; I just didn't see you in front of me.

I really do appreciate your getting up and speaking with us today. Obviously, if you have to excuse yourself for reasons of health, then please don't hesitate, but welcome, Georgia Barnwell, coordinator, from Women's Centres Connect, again coming in from Nova Scotia.

We do have a full slate, so we'd like to keep the opening remarks to a brief seven minutes, if we could, so we can spend as much time as possible with questions.

Without any more pomp or ceremony, let's get right into it with Mr. James Hughes, senior fellow with the J.W. McConnell Family Foundation.

Welcome, sir.

[James Hughes, Senior Fellow, The J.W. McConnell Family Foundation, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm delighted to be here.

Good morning to everyone on the committee.

I am very happy to be here with you this morning. I look forward to taking part in the dialogue on reducing poverty, a subject that is so important for our country.

I'm absolutely delighted to be here to be talking about a federal poverty reduction strategy. From the sector's point of view, it has really been the Holy Grail to pull in the federal government to a conversation on bringing its powers to bear on this important topic.

Very quickly, my background, for the members of the committee, is that I used to run a homeless shelter in Montreal called the Old Brewery Mission, a fantastic organization right on the ground, doing the important work of helping homeless people get housing and get out of homelessness.

I've also been a senior civil servant in the Province of New Brunswick, Deputy Minister of Social Services, so I'm delighted to be here with friends from New Brunswick and to bring the government perspective to bear on this conversation this morning as well.

I'm currently with the J.W. McConnell Family Foundation, a fairly well-known private family foundation that is deeply committed to the issues around poverty reduction, but coming at it from a variety of very interesting and innovative points of view, including indigenous initiatives, urban poverty, post-secondary education, and other thematic areas such as that.

With the very limited time for introductory comments, may I simply say a few words about how important and what a great opportunity I think this is for the country to consider bringing full coherence to bear in the poverty reduction space, which is admittedly a very complicated space—very complex from a data point of view, from a policy point of view, and from a service-delivery point of view? There are a lot of moving parts in the file. I think your mandate, or the issues you're considering here as a committee, reflect that.

I would put it to you that the opportunities to be engaged at the federal level in poverty reduction should be exceptionally strategic. There's a lot of work going on already, a lot of work being done at the provincial level, where probably a majority of the powers constitutionally that come to bear with respect to this subject are vested at the local and municipal level. There are dozens and dozens of communities across this country that are getting organized to reduce poverty in the ways that they can.

What can the federal government do? I would put to you that there are really a few areas where I think federal powers could be brought to bear in a particularly strategic way.

The first one is evidence. I think in this country there is a lot of data but not necessarily a lot of knowledge and information around what works when it comes to poverty reduction.

I would suggest the committee consider a federal role in creating a centre such as they've created in the U.K. on a number of other thematics around poverty reduction. It's what they're calling in the U.K. a What Works centre. It's a trusted centre at arm's length from government, though funded by it with other partners such as family foundations like ours. That would be a place to turn to establish what works in the poverty reduction file from an evidentiary point of view, including what quality of evidence or reliability of evidence is actually available.

It helps everybody to know what works. It helps everybody also to know what doesn't work. I think that's equally important. Disseminating knowledge tools in a way that is simple and accessible by all constituencies would be very valuable.

Also in the evidence area, there are a lot of studies done by Statistics Canada and other bodies on a regular basis. However, from the point of view of trying to know if it's working as quickly as possible, having more studies on labour dynamics, on poverty issues themselves—housing and so on—instead of having studies every two, three, or four years, have them try to increase the frequency and depth of some of these studies through StatsCan and otherwise, so that we have more of an in-time access to information and data as it's becoming available. That would be deeply valuable to the sector, including the provinces and local communities, as I said.

A third and final piece in terms of evidence is experimentation. We still have a lot to learn in the space, and an experimentation fund around looking for new ways—for instance, to reform welfare at the provincial level—would be deeply appreciated.

We spend over $12 billion a year, including federal dollars being transferred through our various funding mechanisms. I think we can do a lot better than we're doing now. Frankly, I think there's probably total consensus that our welfare programming needs massive reform, but let's start with innovation and experimentation. I think the evidence area is a big opportunity.

Another area, of course, is as an employer. The federal government is a large employer, and it's also a large purchaser of services and product. Is the government using its power as an employer to ensure living wages are being offered to all of its full-time and consultative-type of staff? That is a question I think it should answer.

It also purchases, as I say, and it's a huge purchasing power in this country. Would it be possible to ask its suppliers to make sure their employees receive living wages? That is another wonderful question. It shows a role-modelling by the federal government, which is overdue. In the area of employment and as a purchaser of products and services, I think it can be impactful.

The third of four areas I'd mention is obviously to set objectives through an engaging national process with provinces and municipalities. It's a unique opportunity. This is a bipartisan space, a tripartisan space. Everyone agrees we have to reduce poverty in this country, but there's so much going on in the country that I think creating an innovative table where we can actually set some common objectives over time would be very appreciated. I think that is a space where creating ententes of a creative and innovative kind would be very valuable.

Finally, in terms of its emphasis, where should the federal government be thinking about setting its own targets with its partners? I think there are some zero-poverty rates that should be targeted, not for a generation but in the next five to 10 years. What are those four areas?

I'll conclude with this, Mr. Chair, and my apologies if I've gone over.

Full-time working people in this country should not be living in poverty. Many are. A 0% poverty for working people is a target we should set. We should have a target of 0% poverty rates for people who have disabilities. As for children, not a single child in this country should live in poverty. We should set a target to do that. I think some recent initiatives by the current government are exceptionally helpful in that regard, and hats off to it, particularly in regard to the Canada child benefit.

Finally, as for seniors, we were close, folks. We were close, 15 years ago, to 0% senior poverty rates, but we're back up again. We, particularly the federal government, should set our sights on 0% poverty in this senior space within the next five to 10 years.

I'll end there, Mr. Chair, with thanks.

I'm looking forward to the conversation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

I think everyone in this room agrees with those sentiments in your conclusion.

We'll move quickly to Jennefer Laidley for seven minutes. She is the research and policy analyst for the Income Security Advocacy Centre.

Welcome.

[Jennefer Laidley, Research and Policy Analyst, Income Security Advocacy Centre]

Thank you very much, and thanks to the committee for inviting us to be part of the panel today. We welcome the opportunity to speak briefly about the important role of publicly administered income security benefit programs in poverty reduction.

We want to urge you in this study to look not only at CPP and OAS, as it says in your mandate, but at all the federal programs and funding mechanisms that have a role in reducing poverty. Poverty can't be reduced in Canada without shoring up in some significant ways the programs and policies that exist to provide income security to Canadians.

We'll comment briefly on the Canada child benefit, the CPP disability insurance program, and the Canada social transfer. My remarks today are preliminary, and we're going to be sending in a written submission that will address these issues in more detail as well as provide some comment on OAS, GIS, and employment insurance, which I know you know a lot about because you've already been through that study.

The Income Security Advocacy Centre is a community-based legal clinic funded by Legal Aid Ontario. We have a provincial mandate to improve the income security of people living in Ontario. We do that through test case litigation, through policy advocacy, and through community organizing.

As part of our work, we've been deeply involved in the Ontario government's poverty reduction efforts over the last nine years. We've gained a number of insights into poverty, one of which is that while poverty is certainly a multi-dimensional problem, clearly a lack of income security is foundational. Financial benefits from government can have a transformational impact on poverty, so access to these benefits and benefit levels are critically important.

Ontario, for example, has seen progress on child poverty from investments in the Ontario child benefit, and they report that the OCB has played a role in not only lifting children out of poverty but also in preventing children from falling into poverty in the course of this last recession.

With respect to the national view, the new Canada child benefit is a powerful tool in reducing poverty. We commend government for that, but we recommend a few necessary changes to allow the CCB to realize its potential.

First, the CCB urgently needs to be indexed to inflation before the current projected date of 2020.

Second, take-up among indigenous peoples living on reserve has to be addressed, particularly given that 60% of first nations children on reserve are living in poverty—that's 60%.

Third, the CCB must address significant gaps in eligibility, particularly for those without regularized immigration status.

Fourth, steps should be taken to make sure all children in Canada see the full benefit of the CCB without clawbacks from social assistance incomes.

Finally, the base amount of the CCB should be increased.

With regard to addressing poverty among people with disabilities, CPP disability is the largest public benefit program for people with long-term disabilities in Canada.

I'm going to go way over time. I'm sorry about this, but I have a lot to say.

It's a contributory program tied to labour market participation and it uses a relatively strict definition of “disability” to determine eligibility. However, people with disabilities in Canada have a low labour market participation rate relative to others, and only 15% to 32% of people with severe disabilities actually receive benefits from CPPD. They have a higher incidence of low income than the rest of the population, and there are some equity issues here as well in terms of discrepancies in access to the labour market. People who are more likely to be working in low-quality jobs are, of course, going to be impacted when the programs that they rely on are based on their labour market contributions to that program.

Many CPPD recipients, you'd be surprised to know, receive benefits low enough to allow them to quality for social assistance benefits in this country. CPPD could be made better at reducing poverty by increasing the monthly benefit, expanding the definition of disability, and increasing access by loosening the contribution requirement.

This committee reviewed the CPPD program in 2003 and made a number of recommendations that we believe should be reviewed at this time to have the CPPD program better deal with poverty.

Finally, I'd like to address the Canada social transfer. This is the primary source of federal funding that supports provincial and territorial social programs, including social assistance. About 5% of Canadians receive social assistance, but they make up about 40% of the people living in poverty in Canada.

Reducing poverty effectively cannot be achieved without addressing poverty on social assistance, so the CST becomes a very important policy lever for the federal government. Federal contributions currently cover only about 10% of the cost of provincial programs, which is down significantly from the historic 50% of cost sharing. Just as importantly, in the transition from the Canada assistance plan to the Canada health and social transfer and now the CST, four of the five conditions for federal funding were eliminated.

The overall objective of ensuring that social assistance programs provide adequate support to people in Canada has been lost, because the provinces and territories no longer have that as a condition of receiving CST funding. We really have no accountability mechanisms or standards to ensure that social assistance programs across the country meet the basic needs of Canadians.

In every jurisdiction and for every family type, the incomes provided to people receiving social assistance fall below, and often far below, accepted measures of poverty. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has recently reviewed Canada's obligations, and it has made comment on the inadequacy of social assistance. It has recommended that Canada work to ensure that rates be raised to allow for a decent living and that accountability provisions be put into the CST to allow monitoring of how the funds are allocated.

We believe that increased and accelerated investment in the CST, as well as requirements for provinces and territories to spend those investments on improving incomes, would represent a significant contribution to poverty reduction in this country.

Thanks for your attention. I'd be happy to answer questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

You have a whole minute left.

[Jennefer Laidley]

Really?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

You do. I swear. You were fast.

[Jennefer Laidley]

How did that happen?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I think the translators were being put through their paces.

[Jennefer Laidley]

That's right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

You were really quick.

[Jennefer Laidley]

That's a missed opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you for that. No worries. There will lots of opportunities to answer questions as we move forward.

Moving on, we have Ms. Ahsan, barrister and solicitor in Toronto, Ontario, with the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario. Can you hear me?

[Khadeeja Ahsan]

Yes, I can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Excellent. You have seven minutes. Please go ahead.

[Khadeeja Ahsan]

Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you for allowing us to participate in today's meeting.

I am a staff lawyer at the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, or as we like to call ourselves, SALCO. SALCO's a not-for-profit organization established to enhance access to justice for low-income South Asians in the greater Toronto area. Since 1999, SALCO has been working to serve the growing needs of South Asians in a culturally and linguistically sensitive manner. Our mandate includes direct legal services, legal education, law reform, and community development work. We do a large volume of advocacy in gender-based violence work, and as a specialty clinic funded by Legal Aid Ontario, we provide advice, briefs, services, and legal representation in various areas of poverty law. Part of the work we do also includes advocacy in intersecting issues of poverty, including access to housing, income security, employment, and discrimination.

We have presented a paper here, I believe. I'm not sure if the committee has it in front of them. It was co-authored by the executive director of our clinic, Shalini Konanur. We're presenting that paper to you, focusing on the main points.

In keeping with the intersection of poverty and racialized people, racialized immigrants and immigrant communities have been among the most marginalized and socially excluded communities in Canada. Increasingly over time, social exclusion as experienced by racialized group members and immigrants manifests itself in the racialization of poverty and related issues, coupled with a decreasing level of socio-economic and political participation by the members of these groups, despite their growth in absolute numbers and in their percentage of the overall population of Canada.

Social exclusion as experienced by racialized and immigrant communities is a product of systemic and structural racism, which is prevalent in our society and little benefited by the corresponding governmental response, or lack thereof, to this fundamental problem. We therefore welcome the initiative by the Government of Canada in its review of Canada's poverty reduction strategy, with one of the four targeted areas being housing.

However, we believe that in order for a national housing strategy to be effective and inclusive, it is critical to understand the connection between race and poverty. Any conceptual framework employed by the Government of Canada in examining the housing crisis must be guided by a vision for equity that acknowledges the existence of the multi-faceted intersectional inequities in Canadian society.

While poverty can be a concern for anyone, its causes, forms, and consequences are not the same. Racialized immigrant communities experience disproportionate levels of property as a result of structural and systemic discrimination. Employment and Social Development Canada reported in the 2006 census that racialized communities faced higher levels of poverty. It showed that the poverty rate for racialized persons in Canada was 22%, compared with 9% for non-racialized persons.

Two-thirds of the racialized persons living in poverty are immigrants, and a further 8% are non-permanent residents. Almost half the population of racialized persons living in poverty are less than 25 years old, with 27% being 15 years old or less. In Toronto, 62% of all persons living in poverty were from racialized groups.

While racialized persons living in poverty in Canada are more likely to be highly educated, they are underemployed, more so than non-racialized persons living in poverty. Despite the higher levels of education reported among immigrants, poverty rates have been rising in this group and falling in the Canadian-born. In Toronto the number of racialized families living in poverty increased 362% between 1980 and the year 2000, while the poverty rate for non-racialized families dropped by 28% over the same time.

Income levels for racialized persons are significantly lower than for non-racialized persons. Racialized women are further marginalized, as they experience a higher level of poverty than racialized men. These women outnumber men by of 52% to 48%. With respect to employment, marginalized women's participation in the labour force is lower, and they have a higher unemployment rate.

I know I'm reading out a lot of numbers to you. Hopefully they will all make sense.

The higher levels of poverty render racialized persons and immigrants at a higher risk of homelessness. This is our focus in our submission to you.

People of colour accounted for 12% of Canadian households in 2006, and 53% of those people lived in Ontario.

Statistics Canada showed that in 2006 households of people of colour paid, on average, 29% more for shelter than a non-racialized household, and just over 50% of people of colour in Canadian households live in homes that are not affordable.

We've observed greater housing core needs since 2006. In Ontario in 2011, over 16% of immigrants had poor housing, compared to 10% of non-immigrants. However, approximately 30% of recent immigrants and non-permanent residents had core housing needs. It's not surprising, since one study found that most newcomers were spending more than 50% of their income on housing, with 15% of that group spending 75% or more of their income on housing.

A study on precarious housing and homelessness among refugees, asylum seekers, and immigrants in Toronto published in December 2011 found that 83% of newcomers are renters. The study also revealed that one in three respondents reported their housing was in need of minor or major repairs and that overcrowding is a common occurrence, as well as poor maintenance and unhealthy housing.

The study we refer to also reported in December 2011 that half the refugee and asylum-seekers stayed in shelters at some point, which indicates this group is at a higher risk of homelessness.

Meeting the needs of vulnerable Canadians requires a conceptual framework that promotes equity and acknowledges these unique barriers. Based on that, we're making a number of recommendations.

The first is that we examine any policy or proposal through the race lens to ensure that the process and impact of any policy or proposal addresses the needs of racialized and immigrant communities who are at a higher risk of poverty.

The second is that we incorporate the collection and analysis of this aggregated data by race, gender, and other socio-demographic information into the development of national housing strategies and measurements and goals associated with such a strategy.

The third is that we include a rights-based approach that is guided by Canada's international obligations, including its commitment under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I'm not going to read all of them. They are in front of you. We're referring to all the international obligations that Canada has committed to.

Another recommendation is that we engage a broader range of experts, including agencies that provide housing assistance to newcomers and racialized communities and seek their expertise—am I going over?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

If you can conclude, I assure you there will be opportunities during questions to elaborate as well.

Now we're going to go to Bedford, Nova Scotia, and Ms. Barnwell, who is the coordinator from Women's Centres Connect.

You have seven minutes.

[Georgia Barnwell]

Thank you so much. I appreciate being able to join you by phone, although I certainly would rather be in the room.

Women’s Centres Connect is the provincial association of women's centres. There are nine centres in Nova Scotia. They provide a multitude of services on a range of issues. We work on anything from poverty to employability to sexualized violence.

The centres have been around for in excess of 30 years, and we have developed very close ties to our communities. Through our experience, we have a pretty good understanding of what women and girls in our communities need to achieve financial security. Our recommendations follow.

Certainly, in all cases of research, we need to apply a rural lens where appropriate, and in Nova Scotia that is most of the province. In addition to the rural lens, of course, there need to be a gender lens and an intersectional lens that considers all the diversities, whether it's immigrants, refugees, racialized people, or people living with disabilities, etc.

As far as housing goes, we would say that there needs to be a mix of affordable housing models: community-based social housing, public housing, housing co-ops, rent supplements, affordable home ownership, and, to a lesser extent, subsidized rental housing in the private market.

We would suggest that funding needs to be available to enable community-based organizations to develop non-profit affordable housing. The reason we say this is that many of these organizations work not from an official housing-first framework, but certainly from the perspective that supports need to be available to people to enable them to maintain their housing stability.

We would also suggest that funding for green housing would benefit both the tenants and the planet. We also need research into housing markets and needs, especially in rural areas and small towns, as well as in our urban centres.

We would like to suggest that you restore resource group funding, as it was known 30 years ago, so that non-profit affordable housing developers can maintain consistent leadership and expertise in their communities and steer the development of affordable housing projects.

We also need sufficient capital grants for affordable housing to be truly affordable.

Let's move on to education, training, and employment.

Women, whether they are rural women, racialized women, indigenous women, or immigrants, are more likely to live in poverty than men. Two main factors here are motherhood and caregiving duties and a lack of education or training. In addition, women face a wide range of other barriers to economic security. Certainly practical supports, such as transportation and child care, are essential and are sadly lacking in those rural communities.

The other thing is that many women, particularly in rural Nova Scotia, have histories of violence, sexual abuse, and trauma. This compounds the barriers to financial security and requires a range of supports, whether they are for mental health, practical assistance, health care, counselling, or financial literacy. Programs really have to be comprehensive and address the full range of needs of people.

Also, in rural areas, access to higher education is very difficult. It must be strengthened, and the cost of tuition must be reduced. Nova Scotia's tuition fees are among the highest in Canada. Our students graduate with a high debt load and, due to a poorer job market, they have to leave Nova Scotia. We are training students to go away and help the economies of the other provinces. We would like to keep some of them here.

The other thing we've noticed in some of our communities is that ESL needs to be available for women immigrants, particularly because they're given secondary consideration with respect to their earning power, and it's not as easy to access the ESL courses.

In terms of government-administered savings and entitlement programs, certainly we agree that the CPP needs to be strengthened, the Canada child tax benefit needs to be indexed, and we would suggest that the social transfers need to be raised to a significant and effective amount. As well, as an earlier presenter said, there need to be some accountability and standards along with those social transfers.

We would urge the committee to add a number of topics to this category.

The first is federal leadership for a $15 minimum wage, and I would also echo the comments of Mr. Hughes: we think a livable income is really the ideal for employment, and we'd like to see some leadership in that area. We would like to see a universal child care program, a universal pharmacare program, and a fully indexed guaranteed liveable income tied to the market basket measure.

In terms of neighbourhoods, somebody has also suggested that addressing poverty should involve all three levels of government. The centre's staff really works very closely with the municipalities, and we would urge some leadership in that area.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Ms. Barnwell, if you could—