Human Resources Committee on Nov. 1st, 2016

[Kendra Milne]

I would simply add that I think the kinds of support that are necessary for women are a bit different. As I said, we tend not to see women in homeless shelters in a representative way that is proportional to the way we know they're experiencing housing insecurity and homelessness. I would stress that, for us, the big issue is looking at how to prevent the crisis in the first place. It's less about a band-aid solution. Of course, right now organizations like the one you're talking about are struggling, but the solution is not, in my view, to just increase emergency shelter beds. The solution is to look at why people are ending up in that situation in the first place and then back up a few steps. For women, it's a question of their overall financial security. So all of the things connected to their [Technical difficulty-Editor] to the labour force and in their economic security, tied to caregiving and other issues like the wage gap, have to be addressed, because band-aid solutions are simply not going to address these matters.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much. Unfortunately, we have to move on, but hopefully we'll come back again. We keep cutting you off. I apologize.

We've going to move to MP Sansoucy.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all the witnesses. They have all shown us how important federal leadership is, especially as regards poverty among aboriginal peoples, as well as the importance of working with community organizations in the field, whether municipal or provincial. Ms. Milne also pointed this out.

We are talking about daycare, caregivers and violence, as well as education, which is under provincial jurisdiction. Education, which must be addressed in various programs, is important, but it is hard for either children or adults to succeed at school if they show up with an empty stomach, if they move several times per year, or if the people around them are dealing with job loss or mental health issues.

My first question is for Ms. McLachlan.

Thank you for your presentation. You demonstrated the depth of your commitment and also stressed that, in the committee's study on poverty, our analysis must not focus on individuals, since that necessarily leads to inappropriate decisions. You argued that we should take a systemic approach to poverty.

In this first topic of our study, we are looking at all income security programs. If I understand correctly, we must first establish the issue of rights.

Would one way of doing this be to include the criterion of social condition in the Canadian Human Rights Act?

[Harriett McLachlan]

What's the question around that?

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

Social condition is not currently a criterion in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Should it be one?

[Harriett McLachlan]

Yes, absolutely.

On the social condition, we know about the social determinants of health. We know about all the outplay of this. It has to be comprehensive and systematic, based on human rights.

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

Would you like to add something, Ms. Farha?

[Leilani Farha]

I would only add that social condition has been recognized across the country in many human rights acts, at the provincial and territorial level, as a ground of discrimination. It's clear that it is a matter of human rights. One's social condition has an impact on how one is treated in our society, unfortunately.

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

Ms. Farha, with regard to income security programs, poverty must be addressed in terms of costs. We must make better use of the available resources. I am not sure if that is what you are saying, so I would ask you to elaborate on this.

What exactly do you mean with regard to the use of resources?

[Leilani Farha]

Thank you.

International human rights law says that state governments have to realize economic and social rights progressively, that is, over time. They can't sit back and put their feet up on the table. They have to realize that it takes progressive steps, and they have to use their maximum available resources.

In a country as wealthy as Canada, we may cry poor at times. In light of our historic wealth, we may cry poor now, for example, compared to other countries. We have the 10th largest GDP in the world so we're doing pretty well.

In light of that wealth, we have to use our maximum available resources. That's been defined as the money that is available. It has also been defined as the money that could be available and isn't available. What tax rates are being used? Who's being taxed and at what rate? Are corporations being taxed?

The tax base itself becomes open for exploration. The United Nations doesn't micromanage states. They say only that you need to be looking at all of your potential sources of funding. That's what maximum available resources means.

The question that governments should be asking themselves is whether we are meeting that criterion. There may be a defence for Canada to say, ”You know what? We are actually spending a fair bit on social expenditures, but we're not getting the bang for our buck, and maybe we should be doing this differently somehow.” That's a legitimate position for the government to take. They would have to defend that position, but it's a possible position.

People always worry that social and economic rights require a huge expenditure. They really don't. They ask for a reasonable expenditure to the maximum of available resources in light of all of the demands on a country. It's not a matter of not spending anything on security or defence and putting it all in the social and economic realm. That's not what international human rights say. They say that it has to be reasonable.

Obviously, a state has many competing demands. We have 4.9 million people living in poverty or approximately 235,000 people who are homeless in a year. For a country as wealthy as Canada, those are very high rates.

I travel the world. Those are high rates in light of our wealth and in light of our fairly small population.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

Now, I will pass it over to Monsieur Robillard.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Ms. Harriett McLachlan.

Ms. McLachlan, your organization strives to raise public awareness of poverty through conferences and workshops. Can you tell us which parts of those workshops are most effective? What should the main takeaways be for participants?

[Harriett McLachlan]

Thank you for your question.

Our workshops offer human rights education around economic, social, and cultural rights. Actually, in Canada, I don't think we understand our human rights, and I believe that they should be integrated into our curriculums in schools across the nation, from elementary school to high school and post-secondary school.

I think that what people walk away with is a much clearer understanding of what human rights are. They are demystified. They are agreements that Canada signed in 1976, and people know the components of involved with them, the practicalities of housing, food security, and those basic things. They're not pie-in-the-sky, in-the-clouds human rights; they're very concrete. We really don't understand poverty in Canada, and these workshops help people to comprehend exactly what it means.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Part of your mandate is to redirect people to the appropriate government programs so they can access the services to which they are entitled.

Among those programs, which are in the greatest demand to reduce poverty and why is that the case?

[Leilani Farha]

Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of programs to direct people to in the country at the moment, beyond income assistance or welfare programs, and there are some scant housing programs, etc., so what can I say?

One of the things we are very concerned about at Canada Without Poverty, which is quite difficult to deal with and has been a persistent problem, is the low level that social assistance is set at across the country. I mean, they are unlivable amounts. They're sometimes 50% below the poverty line. It's asking people to live in such severe conditions and circumstances.

It's very difficult to live a life of dignity when you're living in such poverty, really, and it's a little shameful for a country like Canada to allow it to continue. I'm not just talking about indigenous peoples, which is of course a blight on Canada's record, and now a recognized blight, I think. It's about newcomers, people with disabilities, single mothers, and immigrants. For us, that is a big issue that we grapple with, and it's difficult because we're dealing with provinces and territories across the country.

It's not really a federal landscape.

I'll leave it there.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. McLachlan, the ultimate objective is of course to eradicate poverty in Canada through public policy, among other methods. In your opinion, which ones are most effective and why?

[Harriett McLachlan]

Thank you again for your question.

I think the kinds of solutions that are effective are those that are comprehensive. When we have a piecemeal or targeted policy here and there, someone is left out; there's some impact on another part of a person's life. For example, if in my poverty there is help for housing, it's quite possible that another part of my whole life would be affected, and likewise for the nation. There are some people who are left out. Most reduction strategies focus on families with children, but not on those who are single with no children and between the ages of 55 and 65, for example.

It has to be comprehensive. It has to touch everyone, because everyone has human rights and rights to housing, food, shelter, and clean drinking water, and so forth. It has to be comprehensive, and not piecemeal or targeted. We have to look at the whole picture.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

MP Tassi, go ahead, please

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, witnesses, for your testimony today.

Ms. Farha, with respect to the comment on the human rights approach, I understand that and appreciate it. I'm interested in the 4.9 million. You made reference to this. You said that you won't have 4.9 million people knocking on the door. As a lawyer, it's something that is of concern to me.

I don't want a verbal response, but if you would be so kind, in your submissions that you make to this committee, could you include your reference to other countries and how that in fact hasn't resulted at the end of the day? Unfortunately, I have only six minutes and I have so much stuff. Your input is very valuable.

I just want a very brief 20-second response, maybe, on the connection between education and poverty. Dr. Lee made reference to that. Can you give me a 20- to 30-second response on how you see the link between education and poverty? Do you see it in the same way?

[Leilani Farha]

I think that in some cases there's going to be a link and in some cases—Harriett McLachlan is one—there won't be a link. I think poverty is incredibly complex, and the paths into poverty and the persistence of poverty in someone's life can be very complex.

[Harriett McLachlan]

I did everything I could. I have a master's degree and worked in my field, and I still lived in poverty. That's an example of how it needs to be comprehensive. It's not just a job and it's not just education. It needs to be the whole of it.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you for that, and congratulations. It's amazing.

My questions now are going to be directed to Ms. Milne.

The two areas I would like to address have to do with child care and the flow of money—looking at the flow of money through a gendered lens. I'm going to leave it to you as to how best to answer that within the four minutes you have.

I know you've written extensively about the lack of affordable child care and how this is an insurmountable barrier for women. By looking at what's happening in the provinces with low-cost child care and different programs—I know there's a provincial program in B.C.—what can we learn? What works, and what doesn't work?

Second, with respect to the flow of funds, we know that poverty disproportionately impacts Canadian women. Can you comment on the gendered nature of the fund and resource allocation, and how this leads to increased poverty among women?

[Kendra Milne]

Absolutely. Those are great questions, but big questions for four minutes.

With respect to the child care issue, I can speak from my focus in B.C. I think it's a good case study for how things are working. In large part here, child care has been left to the private market, and it is largely unaffordable for families, even middle-income families. The median cost of child care right now is between $1,200 to $1,300 a month. It's the second-biggest cost for families after housing. When I interview women about their individual experiences, I can see how that cost trickles down into their financial insecurity in so many ways. We know that a targeted subsidy system in B.C. is not addressing those needs.

We have a system in B.C. that is intended to help people afford child care. It's failing because the subsidies are not high enough to meet the escalating costs of child care, so there are huge gaps, even for people living in deep poverty. For example, someone on income assistance who's a single parent of one child and has an income of $900 a month would maybe be left with $300 or $400 in child care costs after a full child care subsidy. It's simply unattainable for people. Also, the caps are too low. The income threshold at which you're no longer able to get a subsidy simply isn't working. Again, I think this is largely a product of it being a piecemeal approach.

I will say there is one very new program in B.C. It is a piecemeal program, but its beginnings show some real promise. It's called the single parent employment initiative. It's for families on income assistance, and it's targeted at single-parent families. The income assistance system pays the full cost of child care as well as tuition costs for 12-month education programs. If the single parent is able to get employment after those 12 months, the system continues to pay the full cost of child care, with no cap, for 12 months after that. We see a real recognition of the fact that the cost of child care is a huge obstacle to particularly single-parent families getting out of poverty. Addressing those full costs of care is key to helping those families get some financial relief to allow them to retrain and work on their independence.

With respect to the flow of funds, in general, flowing funding without a gendered lens often leads to targeted funding for things like homeless shelters, which are obviously very necessary. However, this type of flowing funding doesn't meet the particular needs of women, and it doesn't address the feminization of poverty. I know this is a long-term goal and there have been comments about this being a really progressive realization, but I think part of what needs to happen is that we move away from these practical, real “reaching for immediate implementation” steps we can take. Instead, we need to look at our long-term human rights obligations and figure out a long-term plan to start working towards them. One of those things is to review federal transfers and to potentially attach conditions to make sure that, by using a human rights lens and a gendered lens, the needs of women in poverty are being met.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Can you comment on how best to do that? When you look at how you actually do that, when you look at the flow of money through a gendered lens, how do you set that up so you can study it and analyze it effectively?