Human Resources Committee on Oct. 27th, 2016

[Khadeeja Ahsan]

Most of what we do is pretty much considered pro bono. We're funded by Legal Aid Ontario, so we are a community legal aid clinic.

We have parameters for how we define low income, which is different from the traditional or certificate program that Legal Aid Ontario has. We have our income guidelines. We serve only low-income South Asians in the greater Toronto area which, for us, really extends sometimes to even Niagara Falls and up to the Newmarket area, if you're familiar with the GTA.

To remove poverty, we work toward helping with income maintenance issues, and that can touch on so many areas of the law that we practise. We do a variety of administrative law, which includes appeals in immigration issues or, as I said, income maintenance. To remove poverty, we do outreach. We do legal reform, as this would be considered community development.

To remove poverty is too broad of a task to tackle all at once, but we do outreach and programs like that, so we can assist the communities we serve with understanding what their rights are, with understanding the programs they have, and how to appeal any decisions that are made against them. We represent those clients in front of tribunals, boards, and such to assist with that.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

You talked about racialization, systematic discrimination, and marginalization of immigrants in getting jobs, and when they are on the job, they are being discriminated against there. In my riding I have constituents who sometimes approach me with those types of problems. My question to you is this: what steps do you suggest the committee take to remove poverty so that they are not being discriminated against, they are not being marginalized? What types of steps do you suggest to the committee, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Answer very briefly, please.

[Khadeeja Ahsan]

I'll just go back to what I said before. I think it needs to be a multi-pronged approach whereby the federal government works with provincial and municipal governments to analyze the programs that do and don't work and spends time in engaging the community and the agencies that already exist to gain expertise on what they see so that we can work on actual policies and on change.

I don't know if that's brief enough for you. That's as much as I can do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

That's great. Thank you very much.

Now we go over to MP Zimmer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Again, thank you to everybody for coming today. It's important for us to hear all your opinions and views. Hopefully we can provide some strategies to do what we're trying to do here and eliminate poverty in Canada.

I have a couple of questions for Ms. Lord and Jennefer.

Just to clear up the record, we're talking about the financial obligations of some of the programs that you're suggesting. I think often we're branded as, “You brought up money, so that means you don't care.” I counter that by saying that I'm a dad with four children, three sons and a daughter, and I care about their livelihoods and their futures, and I care about other families that have a lot less income than I do to pay bills.

I've been through university. We had all our children when I was university. We had four kids while I was school, so you can imagine we ate a lot of Kraft Dinner—and I still like it today; I actually do.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Jennefer Laidley]

Ketchup, yes or no?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

No.

We asked you to class the programs that you've suggested this morning. What's troubling to a guy like me is you're making a lot of suggestions, but at the end of the day you have to pay for them. Sometimes we point at the big building that's Parliament Hill or we point to the big steel buildings in the big cities that say government has to pay the bill, and has to pay more. However, the government doesn't have any money. We have taxpayers' money. When we come and ask questions about who's going to fund this—

[Jennefer Laidley]

Sure. Yes.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

—we're talking about the very people you're talking about, who are close to the poverty line, who are going to be asked to pay. We often talk about the tip of the iceberg. That's the ones in poverty today. That's the tip we're talking about, but what's often not referenced is that group below the surface of the water that's close to poverty, the middle-income earners who have to pay this bill. That's why we ask those questions. It's not just because we care about the money. We're not all accountants here. That's why we ask and why we care about it.

I will ask you a question. Do you think your proposals would be much more credible if you would cost the programs and just have a fuller understanding of the cost yourself?

[Jennefer Laidley]

Thank you for that question. I don't know that I intended to give any kind of implication that this was your position.

Fundamentally, the recommendations that we're making are not about spending billions of dollars more; they're about let's spend these dollars in ways that address equity concerns that exist as structural outcomes of the ways in which these programs are set up.

There are women, folks from racialized communities, and others who are systemically disadvantaged in our society. In terms of the benefit programs that I'm talking about, that is a result of the ways in which the labour market doesn't work very well. We see that women, people from racialized communities, and people from historically disadvantaged groups have differential access to the labour market. When you have benefit programs that are based on labour market participation, you're necessarily going to get a disproportionate, negative impact on those people who are already negatively impacted.

I understand your point about costing. Again, I would point to the Alternative Federal Budget, which is a document that attempts to address issues around social spending from a financial and a budgetary perspective—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Sorry, Ms. Laidley, but I have to get to Ms. Lord quickly to hear her opinion.

[Jennefer Laidley]

Sure. I understand.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you.

[Stella Lord]

I'd just reiterate that I haven't costed the program. I'm a voluntary coordinator, not an economist. I do read a lot on the costs of poverty, and I would refer you to that literature. I will probably be writing a—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Ms. Lord, I have a question for you.

You've made some proposals this morning that ask to see increases in different things. I would say that to add credibility to what you're requesting is to have an understanding, even yourself, of really what you're asking for in terms of what the obligations are. I've said that before. People are probably getting sick of me saying that it's Joe and Jane Taxpayer. What you're asking for has to be paid for by a real person and real people and real families.

[Stella Lord]

I'm very much aware of that.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I'm not just asking you to be deflective to say there is lots of stuff on this that explains all this. I'm asking you as a person who presents to committee to come prepared next time to understand the full cost of what you're asking for.

I think that's a reasonable request. We're asking for it out of.... We want to fix this problem of poverty too, but we need to have realistic proposals so that it can be affordable for everybody. We can really fix this thing that way. I think that's what we're trying to suss out. That's all of my recommendation.

[Stella Lord]

Can I have time to respond to this question, or comment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Be very brief, please.

[Stella Lord]

Thank you. The questions are longer than the comments.

I would say that I had 48 hours to prepare this brief. We will be doing a longer submission to your committee. When you're talking about costs and who pays for it, you have to also take into account the costs that you are saving through addressing poverty. That was the point I was trying to make. We do know that the costs of poverty are extremely high.

Jennefer made mention of the Alternative Federal Budget. We also have an alternative provincial budget that looks very carefully at tax rates. I think if we had a more progressive tax system in this country, we would not be penalizing the near-poor or people who are just at the poverty line. We'd be actually having a much fairer tax system.

It's not that I dismiss this question, but I think you are evading the basic issue, which is also the cost of poverty.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you. I have to cut you off there.

For what will be the final three minutes, we go to MP Sansoucy.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Following the last speaker, I would say that, as to the budgets and programs that we choose to fund, we as parliamentarians are all concerned that these are public funds and that our role is to represent all taxpayers. I was aware of this responsibility as a municipal councillor and I am aware of it here now as an MP.

Ladies and gentlemen, having been in your position before, I know that, in this regard, we see much more what it costs not to take action to fight poverty and to live in a society without full employment. We do hope, however, to see full employment one day so that everyone can enjoy a good quality of life and the self-esteem that comes from having a job. We hope that all citizens can make a contribution to our society, but we are not there yet. At this time of transition, I think we need to take action so we can get there.

Mr. Hughes, you said that in order to reduce poverty or to completely eliminate it in certain groups we need to set objectives for the next five years rather than the next ten years. You also said that, in order to measure progress on our objectives, data and frequent analysis of that data are important. I would like to hear more about that specifically.

[James Hughes]

We have studies dating from 2006, 2010, and 2011. So they go back far enough and we see the trends in poverty and in other areas as well.

Federal support, which means funding from Statistics Canada, would enable us to continue these studies, to increase their frequency, and to expand the type of information we are looking for. We mentioned aboriginal persons in this regard earlier.

So we have a good amount of data, but we have little tax data and need to find more creative approaches. That takes funding. In many cases, Statistics Canada, which is recognized around the world, does not have the necessary resources to do everything it should and could do to help all of us who are responsible for policy and other things, to know whether our efforts are producing results.