Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to the committee for inviting me to participate. I want to congratulate all members for the study's comprehensive terms of reference.
Implicit is a recognition that there's no silver bullet, that poverty's underlying causes are multi-faceted and highly personalized, and that Ottawa's principle role is an enabling one; i.e., the federal government is primarily responsible for creating the conditions for economic opportunity and social mobility.
Former British prime minister David Cameron referred to his poverty reduction strategy as a “life chances” agenda. I think there's something to that type of thinking. Life chances, I would contend, are what this committee is ultimately studying, and what we're talking about today.
There is, of course, plenty to say on the subject of a federal poverty reduction strategy. I would be remiss, for instance, if I didn't observe that any such strategy must place a significant and major emphasis on improving the life chances of our indigenous people on and off reserve.
I'll focus my presentation on what we know about poverty, how we think about it, and what practical steps we can take to create the conditions for greater economic and social opportunity, particularly for those at risk of persistent poverty who, I'll argue, ought to be the focus of the government's efforts.
Let's start with some basic facts. Over the last 20 years, the percentage of Canadian households in poverty has declined from 6.7% in 1996 to 4.8% in 2009. The share living below Statistics Canada's low-income cutoff has also decreased from 15.2% in 1996 to 9.7% in 2013. The progress is broad-based. The incidence of low income among children, seniors, and persons in lone-parent families has also dropped.
Low incomes tend to be transitory. Research from Statistics Canada shows that only 1.5% of Canadians were in persistent low income from 2005 to 2010. I don't cite this data to claim that the committee's study is superfluous or to diminish its importance, but rather to celebrate our advances firstly, and secondly, to focus the rest of my discussion.
The development of a federal poverty strategy must start from where we are presently and understand who we're targeting. The progress that we've achieved to date is largely the result of a growing intellectual and political consensus on the role of government and public policy to address poverty and enable life chances.
Notwithstanding occasional political rhetoric, the left and right agree more on these issues and questions than we think. The left has come to understand the limits of state action and sees poverty as more than a problem of materialism, and the right has come to recognize the solution is more than simply pulling oneself up by his or her bootstraps. It involves a role for carefully designed government intervention.
This consensus has manifested itself in specific policies including generous child care benefits, low-income grants for education, targeted income subsidies for the working poor, and public pensions for low-income seniors. These policies, which draw on the best ideas and traditions of the left and the right, have had an important effect on poverty and economic participation in Canada.
The committee's eventual study, therefore, ought to ensure that it's accounting for post-tax and transfer measurements of poverty. It is simply a fact that a child born in a poor household today is better off in several ways than he or she would have been a few decades ago. We shouldn't lose sight of this progress.
Nor should we rest on our laurels. We must continue to reform and improve programming to help low-income Canadians climb the economic and social ladder. I've recently written an essay, for instance, with a former NDP adviser on expanding the working income tax benefit, which was created by the previous Conservative government, supported by the New Democrats, and poised to be expanded by the current Liberal government.
The key priority must be to target those at risk of persistent poverty, including persons with disabilities, those with less than high school education, and individuals from lone-parent families. This is where the problems are most intractable and for which we have a clear societal obligation to help our fellow citizens.
These aren't cases of people temporarily experiencing low income following graduation or because of job loss, or who need a helping hand in the short term to pursue their goals. These are cases where individuals face health-related or other forms of major barriers to paid work. Progress with these groups won't be easy. Factors that contribute to persistent poverty are complex and varied. Solutions will thus differ. It will require trial and error, and highly personalized programming and services, and of course, federalism will have to play an important and critical role.
More generous cash transfers are part of the answer for some, especially for persons with severe disabilities whose employment levels are one-third of the non-disabled population. The government should make the disability tax credit refundable, for instance.
Cash transfers aren't the solution for everyone. In fact, they could be detrimental for someone with a substance abuse problem, as an example. The point is that those at risk of perpetual poverty should be the chief focus of a federal poverty reduction strategy, and this will invariably involve different policies and tools than those to address transitory low income, or to help Canadians climb the economic and social ladder. It's essential that we understand the distinction and develop policy agendas with both objectives in mind.
I'll just conclude by saying, again, I'm grateful for the chance to participate. I think the work that you're doing is critically important. I have a key recommendation: first, to recognize the progress we're made and to recognize the extent to which that progress represents the results of a growing political consensus; and secondly, to make sure we understand who we're targeting and then develop a policy agenda to focus on those people.
Thank you.