`THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, June 3, 2019
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 4 p.m. to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20 of Part 4, and in Subdivisions C, K and L of Division 9 of Part 4 of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft report.
Senator Chantal Petitclerc (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[Translation]
I’m Senator Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec. I’m pleased to be chairing the meeting today.
[English]
Before I give the floor to our witnesses, I would like my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, from Montreal, Quebec, deputy chair of the committee.
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: Good afternoon. Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Ravalia: Mohamed Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Forest-Niesing: Good afternoon. Josée Forest-Niesing from northern Ontario
[English]
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Today, we continue our study of the subject matter of elements contained in Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019, and other measures. This committee will proceed through the various divisions assigned to it this week.
Last week, we examined Divisions 15 and 16, and today we are studying Division 20 of Part 4, which enacts the poverty reduction act.
[Translation]
I want to welcome our witnesses. We’re joined today by Heather Sheehy, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Service Policy Branch; and Hugues Vaillancourt, Senior Director, Social Development Policy Division, Social Policy Directorate, Strategic and Service Policy Branch, at Employment and Social Development Canada.
[English]
I want to remind my colleagues that we have this first panel of witnesses for 30 minutes. Please begin with your opening remarks.
[Translation]
Heather Sheehy, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Service Policy Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: Good afternoon. I want to thank the committee members for having us here today. I’m pleased to see you again.
[English]
I will begin with a brief overview of Division 20 of Bill C-97 as it pertains to the proposed poverty reduction act. As the committee knows, on August 21, 2018, the government released “Opportunity for All,” Canada’s first poverty reduction strategy.
First, the poverty reduction act included in the Budget Implementation Act legislates the commitments made in the strategy. Specifically, it proposes to legislate two targets for poverty reduction to reduce the poverty rate by 20 per cent by 2020 from 2015 and by 50 per cent by 2030 from its 2015 level.
Second, the legislation proposes to set an official measure, Canada’s official poverty line. The official poverty line is based on the cost of a basket of goods and services that individuals and families require to meet their basic needs and achieve a modest standard of living in communities across the country.
Third, the legislation proposes a national advisory council on poverty with a mandate to advise the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development on poverty reduction and to table a report in Parliament each year on the progress that has been made toward poverty reduction.
Those are my opening remarks in terms of what is contained in the bill.
The Chair: I believe we are ready for questions.
Senator Seidman: That was brief, but that’s okay because it leaves more time for questions. It’s a very long table, and I am looking way down the room at you.
Let me start with the metric itself. You could have chosen a different type of metric, like the low-income measure or low-income cutoff, but you chose the Market Basket Measure. Perhaps it’s a less mathematical measure than the others in the sense that there is a certain amount of discretion involved.
My question is twofold. First, who will make the decision as to what is included in the basket because that’s absolutely key, and how will that be determined? There is a lot of room in that decision.
The other part of the question is that there was an open letter sent to Minister Duclos signed by a very large number of national organizations and specifically about the choice of the Market Basket Measure. Basically, they say that many organizations have voiced concern that the MBM, which has been chosen as Canada’s official poverty line, will underestimate poverty rates in Canada. This measure does not include expenses for child care or health care and grossly undervalues the reality of housing and other costs. It requires constant rebasing and it is not internationally comparable.
Those are my two questions on that particular measure.
Ms. Sheehy: I’ll begin with your question about why the Market Basket Measure was chosen. As part of the work that the government did in terms of putting in place a national strategy, there were extensive consultations done across the country with people from sea to sea to sea.
As you pointed out, there were many different opinions in terms of what would be an appropriate measure for poverty to Canada. Based upon what we and the government heard, the overall consensus was that the Market Basket Measure had some elements that were preferable versus other existing measures. Most notably, LIM and LICO are two other measures that currently exist in Canada.
I should mention that the LIM will continue to exist. It is used quite extensively in international comparisons and is even included as one the measures for the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations. That will continue to be assessed and will be useful in that international context. In a domestic context, it was the Market Basket Measure that the government chose based on the consultations it has had.
Senator Seidman: Excuse me for interrupting you, but given that this open letter was signed by a lot of national organizations, including the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness, Food Banks Canada, National Association of Women and the Law, Oxfam Canada, UNICEF, Child Welfare League of Canada, Canadian Poverty Institute and the Canadian Women’s Foundation. All of them found the choice of this measure to be a problem.
When you say,“ consult,” who did you consult and how did you make this decision?
Ms. Sheehy: The consultation that was done for the poverty reduction strategy was quite extensive. There were 1,127 email submissions. There were 584 surveys. There were almost 200 stories and comments. There were sessions led by Government of Canada officials. There were 29 meetings with multiple levels of government, and on and on it goes. Those are all outlined in the poverty reduction strategy.
I should mention, importantly, that 600 Canadians were consulted through 33 conversations in nine different provinces and territories. There were others, as well. That’s some of the summary available in the report.
Not everyone agreed with one particular measure, but the government included the Canada official poverty line based upon consultations and based upon the MBM.
Senator Seidman: I will interrupt you again, or I will lose my time. How will the decision as to what is included in the basket be made? That’s critical.
Ms. Sheehy: This will be ongoing work between Statistics Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada. In the legislation itself, and I will turn to that section, the official poverty line is to be reviewed on a regular basis as determined by Statistics Canada. According to the Statistics Act, Statistics Canada is legislated to provide Canadians with objective statistics to help them form decisions.
On the methodology, Statistics Canada is the lead in terms of determining the Market Basket Measure. In terms of the policy underlying the measure, Employment and Social Development Canada works very closely with Statistics Canada. I know the question has been asked in the other house in terms of who exactly will be making those decisions. The minister will remain informed of the decisions being made, but the officials will be working with StatsCan to determine the basis of the Market Basket Measure.
I hope that answers the question.
Senator Seidman: Is my time over?
The Chair: Yes, it is.
Ms. Sheehy: You have a few other questions, but those are some of the main ones.
Senator Kutcher: I have two questions. To follow up on Senator Seidman, the MBM may not be the most sensitive for capturing specific cohorts, for example, young people, racialized minorities or other groups. How will the needs of those groups be identified in the MBM?
What is the plan for the national data collection of these metrics? Will they be fine grained enough to allow for analysis of whether there is a difference in improvement in poverty indices for the most disadvantaged groups or whether there are geographical differences and changes? How will we know that the people at the lowest end of the poverty scale will have the greatest improvement? That is necessary for us to know.
Ms. Sheehy: Let me start, and I may get Hugues Vaillancourt to fill in some of the technical details.
I will talk about the 2008 MBM because that is the one that currently exists. As you probably know, there is a review under way now, being led by Statistics Canada, in terms of updating the Market Basket Measure. In 2019, they are actually going into the field to collect the information under the Canadian income survey that will be used to inform a new Market Basket Measure.
Currently, many components under the MBM are collected, including food, clothing, transportation, shelter, other necessities and disposable income. There are many elements, but they are reviewing the MBM to see if it is current to 2019.
In terms of your question on what kinds of demographic detail they can get, the Market Basket Measure is made up of 50 different regions. They will be able to assess how poverty rates vary by those 50 regions. That will continue to be a capacity that is able under the Market Basket Measure. In terms of the specifics on demographics, Hugues Vaillancourt can go into that. I also want to mention that in the poverty reduction strategy the government also committed to doing a dashboard of indicators. That is outlined in the strategy. It looks at different aspects of poverty. The government has committed to try to detail them as much as possible, depending on what stats are available by demographics and by vulnerable groups.
There is work under way there as well. It’s not just the Market Basket Measure. That would be Canada’s official poverty line, but there is also a dashboard of indicators being developed to study poverty and the impacts of poverty across Canada. The government has made a commitment to work with Indigenous peoples to develop indictors that really reflect poverty in their communities, which is not necessarily reflected in current existing indicators.
Hugues Vaillancourt, Senior Director, Social Development Policy Division, Social Policy Directorate, Strategic and Service Policy Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: Perhaps I will expand a bit on the dashboard of indicators. We heard through our consultations that poverty is not one data point that explains it all. While having an official poverty line is a big step in moving forward, there is also recognition of the multi-dimension of poverty and the need to be able to track and understand what that means.
As Heather Sheehy alluded to, Statistics Canada is working on the dashboard of indictors which will essentially keep track of 12 different indicators related to poverty. That touches on health indicators, income measures and various types of indicators developed and available in the strategy, in terms of what those 12 indicators are.
The intent is very much for StatsCan to be able to slice and dice the data as much as data allow, in terms of getting to your question about trying to understand better what poverty means in a particular area of Canada or in some subsegment of the population. It’s very much the intent, through those indicators, to get to the multi-aspects of poverty and be able to drill down and understand the situations in some populations.
Senator Kutcher: That is wonderful. I have a simple question. Will we be able to know whether children in the lowest quartile in terms of poverty have achieved the outcomes we want them to achieve in the next 10 years?
Mr. Vaillancourt: The one key data source we have for underpinning the official poverty line is the Canadian Income Survey, a key survey that Statistics Canada runs to help get some of the information in terms of the income of families. Part of the commitment the government made is to invest in increasing the sample size of the survey so that we can get more granular information at the national level and at the regional and more specific levels so that we can effectively have a better understanding of the realities of children.
Senator Kutcher: Was that answer yes or a no?
Mr. Vaillancourt: I think the answer is yes.
Senator Ravalia: My question relates specifically to a demographic in my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador. With the aging demographic, I have personally witnessed an increased vulnerability of the elderly to poverty.
How does this legislation address the specific circumstances of this particular group, given the fact that Canada is aging and the older community does not seem to have the political connections or the ability to advocate on behalf of themselves and seem to have been left behind?
Ms. Sheehy: The targets proposed in the legislation are global targets for poverty. They are not defined by demographics but by children or by seniors. We do track poverty numbers by different demographic groups to see what is going on.
In the poverty reduction strategy, the government noted that it had made significant investment in the area of poverty. The number is $22 billion. They cited a number of different initiatives make up that number, including initiatives for both children and seniors, such as the Canada Child Benefit but equally investments in the Guaranteed Income Supplement and other programs aimed at different demographic groups.
While it is a global target, there is a way to track poverty among different subcategories, which would help the government determine where to make policy investments.
I should also note that in the legislation there is a proposed national council on poverty. It would need to table a report annually in. By doing so, they would hold the government to account in terms of the poverty reduction strategy.
Senator Ravalia: When this information becomes available to government, is there a specific channel through which a response to be created? If you are noticing that 70 per cent of seniors are living under the poverty line and have to choose between food and heat, are there measures that can be put in place to counteract that?
Ms. Sheehy: Let me pull up the section so that we can look at it together. In the legislation with respect to the actual tabling of the report, the minister receives the report. It must be received every year until such time as the targets are met. The minister then must table that report before Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which the house of Parliament is sitting.
That is the accountability included in the bill. The mechanisms for determining policy are with Parliament and with the cabinet system. Those continue to be the mechanisms for introducing policy related to initiatives that are raised.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest-Niesing: My question is about the National Advisory Council on Poverty that would be established pursuant to subsection 9(1) of the act, and in particular about the fact that its members include a chairperson and a member with particular responsibilities for children’s issues.
My first question — I will have others on the same subject — is as follows. I can understand why we would be particularly concerned about children’s issues, but why are we talking about a representative for children only and not for other groups as well?
[English]
Ms. Sheehy: In the proposed legislation the government has made a decision to identify a particular member responsible for children, as you point out. I won’t speculate on the government’s decision. That is what is in the legislation. It says that person would work with the eight to ten members in total, including the chair, who would then be responsible for continuing to report on poverty. That particular person is responsible for children.
I can’t speak to why something isn’t in the legislation.
[Translation]
Senator Forest-Niesing: I’ll ask you the question specifically with regard to Indigenous peoples. How would we be equipped to take into account the particular situation of Indigenous communities and, more specifically, individuals living on-reserve and off-reserve and experiencing poverty?
[English]
Ms. Sheehy: I have a few answers for you.
In developing the national poverty strategy, the government did significant consultation with Indigenous peoples across Canada to understand poverty in the context of the Indigenous experience, including parts of the strategy. We worked with Indigenous organizations to develop those elements.
It is recognized that poverty is different in many instances for those of Indigenous heritage. For that reason, the government made a commitment to look at indicators that would reflect their particular circumstances and their experiences, as I mentioned.
I wanted to also say that the government has identified funding to look at and further develop indicators. An amount of $12.1 million was identified in the 2018 budget to further develop indicators, including Statistics Canada using that money to look at having more fulsome indicators in the North that would better represent the experiences of many Indigenous Canadians with poverty. Certainly, that won’t be satisfactory to be able to reflect the full Indigenous experience with poverty.
With respect to the national advisory council, the government has made a commitment to look at a very broad array of people and consider them so that the council can represent the diversity of Canada. That commitment has been made. Many different candidates would be looked at to represent the diversity of Canada. There have been no decisions made in terms of who is on the committee.
Senator Poirier: I have a couple of questions. How much funding will your national advisory council on poverty require to establish on a yearly basis going forward? Has that been determined?
Ms. Sheehy: No additional money that has been identified for the national advisory committee, but funding to support the committee will be provided through Employment and Social Development Canada.
Senator Poirier: There is no yearly target.
Ms. Sheehy: There is no additional money in the budget for that. It will come from our current appropriations.
Senator Poirier: Division 20 sets two targets to reduce poverty by 20 per cent in 2020 and by 50 per cent in 2030. We all know targets are great, but without measures sometimes they are just numbers. Often, when it comes to immigration, governments set up targets to have immigration for the minority language communities to maintain the demographic balance.
Those targets are rarely, if ever, met. I would like you to tell us a bit about which poverty reduction measures are attached to the bill to seriously meet and achieve these targets.
Ms. Sheehy: Let me start with the first target of reducing poverty by 20 per cent by 2020. The most recent statistics were released in February 2019 by Statistics Canada under the Canadian Income Survey we were just talking about. They identified that the government has met the 2020 target already. Of course, the 2030 target is still several years away.
In terms of the poverty reduction strategy, it talks about the investments that have already been made by the government to work toward reaching the targets. In terms of what additional measures would be needed to reach the 2030 target, I am not able to speculate on future policy mechanisms, but the target is proposed to be in legislation, with reporting to Parliament, until such a time as that measure is met.
Senator Poirier: Have you given yourself a timeline for looking at the development of the implementation of the strategy?
Ms. Sheehy: The strategy is now being implemented. Many of the measures in the strategy, according to the Canadian Income Survey, have had impacts in terms of reducing poverty.
Mr. Vaillancourt has the numbers between 2015 and 2017 regarding poverty reduction.
Mr. Vaillancourt: It was reduced by 125,000 for the general population, and then there is a further breakdown by whom you are. For children it is a 278,000 reduction. There are fewer children living in poverty when you compare 2015 to 2017 data.
Senator Poirier: To go back to Senator Ravalia’s question, if I am hearing right, most of this poverty reduction plan you have in place is touching mostly children.
Are we even looking at seniors or other people with this strategy who are in a poverty situation, or is it basically just for children?
Ms. Sheehy: The poverty reduction strategy does not target children, seniors or other specific demographics. The poverty reduction targets are for all Canadians. The targets are for a 20 per cent reduction in poverty in Canada. Similarly, the 50 per cent reduction is for a global reduction in poverty. There are no actual subtargets for particular demographics such as children or seniors.
Senator Poirier: Do we know how many of those are children and how many are adults?
Ms. Sheehy: Given the statistics that StatsCan collects, we are able to measure the impact of poverty measures on different demographics, including seniors, but the targets are global.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Clause 11 states that the Governor-in-Council may, by order, dissolve the advisory council. So once we reach the 50 per cent reduction target — in relation to the 2015 poverty rate — I wonder, given the normal demographic changes in a society, whether it will be a static value. Okay, we’ll have reached the 50 per cent target today, tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, but things are already starting to change. Why should the committee be dissolved? Should another oversight committee continue to collect data over the years? The data will vary. Children are born, they grow old and they die. There should be a continuum to monitor the threshold as soon as it starts to fall so that we can react. Do you think that we could consider this type of proposal?
[English]
Ms. Sheehy: In the proposed legislation it dissolves the council, as you mentioned, upon the targets being met. The legislation, as it is written, starts with targets and legislates targets. From there it talks about the official poverty measure as a way to measure it. Then it talks about the advisory council as a way to hold the government accountable for implementing the legislation. The legislation as an entity is based upon the targets, and it falls from there.
The dissolution of the council is also very much linked, as you’ve mentioned, to the reaching of targets. Will there be more to be done once the target is met? I suppose we will see then. It will be a 50 per cent reduction in poverty, which means there will still be poverty in Canada. I would assume that would be the case.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Moodie: Thank you for being here today. I am going to put forward Senator Dasko’s question because I am representing her here today.
She is particularly concerned about the fact that, when you reach the target in 2030 of a 50 per cent reduction, one in seventeen Canadians will still be in poverty. There is actually a number that can be projected here.
When we look at who will be relieved out of poverty in the interim, it’s likely those who are closest to the margin or to the threshold. Those people who are in the deepest levels of poverty will remain in poverty. We can count on that.
Could you tell us, through this legislation and through whatever other mechanisms the government may have in mind, how they plan to address this one in seventeen Canadians who will still be in poverty? It seems surprising to me that we’re even having a discussion about disbanding and not looking any further at that point.
Could you shed some light on what might be the strategy then?
Ms. Sheehy: The way I could put it is that the poverty reduction strategy has three different pillars: dignity, opportunity inclusion, and resilience and security. If you want to think about that in a tiered way, dignity is about basic poverty, basic income and ensuring that people have what they need to live. Opportunity inclusion is about people being able to participate in society. Resilience and security are the next tier in terms of ensuring that people can stay out of poverty. There is a bit of a tiering there.
To your question, it’s similar to your colleague’s question as well, the other senator’s. Will there continue to be people living in poverty after 2030 if the target is met?
Senator Moodie: We know there will be. The question is: What is going to be done at that point?
Ms. Sheehy: In terms of what future policy the government could take in 2030 to address the remaining people in poverty, I am really not able to speculate on that. The government has put in place a plan in terms of reducing poverty up to 2030, but beyond that I really am unable to speak to future policy.
Senator Moodie: Briefly, I have a comment that refers back to Senator Kutcher’s question around the very specific and unique developmental requirements of children.
Your indicators or the general global indicators are not going to capture the uniqueness and address the developmental nature of childhood and the measurement of the indicators around poverty in children.
Just make sure that you transmit that message, if that is possible.
Senator Housakos: I have a couple of questions. I don’t know if they’ve been answered in the past. If they have, forgive me. I am just pinch-hitting here today.
First, what analysis has been done by the ministry on identifying two or three of the top causes of poverty in Canada?
Second, has an analysis been done to compare the percentage of poverty levels of new-arrival Canadians in comparison to old-stock Canadians?
Ms. Sheehy: As part of the development of the poverty reduction strategy, as I mentioned, there were significant consultations, including consultations throughout Canada with new Canadians and racialized communities.
That helped inform the strategy in terms of the three pillars I just spoke about. There is certainly recognition in the strategy of the different aspects of poverty, one of which can be immigration status in the country. There are other elements that contribute to poverty. Many of those are outlined in the strategy.
Forgive me, what was the second part of your question?
Senator Housakos: Was there an analysis done to determine the two or three top causes of poverty among Canadians?
Ms. Sheehy: Did we come up with just two or three? No, we didn’t come up with just two or three. There are many different elements of poverty which I think are reflected in the strategy.
I spoke previously about Indigenous peoples, for example, and the many elements that impact poverty from that perspective. I would not say that we came up with two or three specifics. I think there are many. They are multi-faceted.
Senator Housakos: I am not asking if the ministry has come up with two, three or four. I am asking if a database analysis was done, an actual analysis done on focus groups and research.
Did the ministry hire a research agency to do an in-depth study and identify the two or three major causes?
Ms. Sheehy: Very significant consultation was done for the national poverty strategy, including consultations by third parties. Tamarack went out and did consultations on behalf of the Government of Canada. A Tackling Poverty Together report was done as well with specific communities across the country, in addition to vast consultations across Canada by various demographics, including a youth contest to allow youth to come up with ideas on how to address the poverty they see.
Yes, a very significant undertaking was done to look at the basis of poverty in Canada. Most of that information was included in the national poverty strategy report. I think copies were provided the last time I appeared at this committee, but I am happy to do so again if we need copies circulated.
Senator Omidvar: I like the idea of updated market measures. I like the idea of targets. I think they are good. However, I want to probe a little deeper in the vein of Senator Moodie’s question about different levels of poverty that are not clearly apparent on the face of it.
There is deep poverty. There is extreme poverty. There are people who are very poor and then there are the near poor. Miles Corak, a noted economist worked with your department in developing the strategy. He expressed his disappointment about the strategy by pointing out disaggregating levels of poverty and the people who are deeply poor. There are those in what he called the deep poverty indicator. There are roughly 5.4 per cent or 1.9 million Canadians in deep poverty. They include working-age single adults, female heads of lone-parent families, Indigenous people living off reserve, recent immigrants, people with disabilities, et cetera.
He makes a point, and I would like your response to it, that it would be pretty easy for the government to lower the official poverty line by simply transferring resources from the very poor to the near poor without engaging with some of our concerns around people who are systemically in the deep poverty pillar.
Ms. Sheehy: I have just a couple of comments on that. That comes to the question raised around this table in terms of the importance of the Canada official poverty line, the Market Basket Measure, ensuring that the measure reflects a reasonable basket, and how those decisions were made. There were questions about how those decisions were made. It’s important for that measure to be able to measure poverty and many aspects of poverty.
In terms of your question as to just raising the top 50 per cent above the poverty line and leaving the lowest in poverty, a 50 per cent target is a significant target. It would make a significant impact in terms of those who live in poverty in Canada, but it’s not a target of 100 per cent.
Would there remain people in poverty? Yes, there would be. Would they be those who are the poorest? They have the longest to go.
However, the three pillars in the poverty reduction strategy try to address that tiering, as I mentioned. It does try to address the basic needs of those living in deep poverty or in very difficult situations. That tier is really looking at measuring how policies are impacting on those who live in deep poverty as well as on those whom we want to continue to be included in society and those we want to be resilient and stay out of poverty. There is certainly a lens on deep poverty.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: I want to thank our witnesses for participating in the study of the bill.
We’ll now continue our study of certain elements of Bill C-97, namely, Division 20 of Part 4, which enacts the Poverty Reduction Act. Some of our next witnesses will join us by video conference. These witnesses are Avvy Yao-Yao Go, Director of the Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic and Representative of the Colour of Poverty — Colour of Change; and Michèle Biss, Policy Director and Human Rights Lawyer at Canada Without Poverty. We’re also joined by Darlene O’Leary, Socio-economic Policy Analyst at Citizens for Public Justice; and Nora Spinks, President and CEO of the Vanier Institute of the Family. Good afternoon and welcome, everyone.
[English]
I want to remind you we are under strict time and I would truly appreciate your keeping your opening remarks to five minutes, to be followed by questions.
We will begin with Avvy Yao-Yao Go.
Avvy Yao-Yao Go, Clinic Director, Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, Colour of Poverty – Colour of Change: Good afternoon. The Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic provides free legal services to low-income Chinese and Southeast Asian members in Ontario. We are a founding member of Colour of Poverty – Colour of Change, a provincial network dedicated to addressing the growing racialization of poverty in Ontario. We thank the committee for the opportunity to comment on Division 20.
I have provided a written submission and some fact sheets developed by Colour of Poverty – Colour of Change, which highlight the impact of the racialization of poverty and racial inequality within the labour market, structural racism and other systemic barriers that have resulted in disproportionate levels of poverty experienced by racialized communities across Canada.
The 2016 Canadian Census showed that 20.8 per cent of people of colour are low-income, compared to 12.2 per cent of non-racialized people. Poverty rates vary among different racialized groups, with some communities being four to six times more likely to live in poverty, compared to non-racialized groups. Gender also plays a role. On average, racialized women earned 58 cents and racialized men earned 76 cents for every dollar a white man earned in Ontario in 2015.
We applaud the Canadian government for adopting its first national poverty reduction strategy. We are concerned, however, that the strategy does not have any specific plan of action to address racialized poverty and colour-coded inequalities. For instance, the strategy is very much based on the success of the Canada Child Benefit program. However, it does not acknowledge that the CCB is not in fact accessible to all Canadian children. Children, including those who were born in Canada, can be denied CCB if their parents have no permanent or citizenship status in Canada. This exclusion affects, in particular, refugee claimants and a whole host of people with precarious immigration status, regardless of how long they have lived in Canada. The exclusion also has a disproportionate impact on racialized communities, as they are overrepresented among those with precarious status. We are actually calling on Canada to repeal section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act that makes immigration status a ground for determining eligibility for CCB.
With respect to Division 20 itself, we support the establishment of the official poverty line for Canada, but we share the concerns that some of the senators mentioned earlier. We also support the creation of the national advisory council on poverty. Again, I want to echo some of the issues that were raised. We submit that the bill can be strengthened by introducing a set of principles, including the principle of equity to recognize that certain communities are at a heightened risk of experiencing poverty. We also submit the bill should require the minister, on poverty reduction, to collect disaggregated race data relating to poverty and formulate poverty reduction measures based on such data.
A number of senators ask many legitimate questions, including ones about poverty reduction by 2020. Maybe poverty will have gone down, but for whom? Is it universal across the various groups, including people of colour, Indigenous people and so on? It’s not just the data. It’s using the data and the analysis to ensure that there are specific measures to address these specific populations.
We have included in our submission a number of other measures that could address the issue of poverty for racialized group in particular. For instance, we are calling on the government to examine all poverty-reduction policies through the racial equity lens to address the needs of racialized communities. We are asking you to incorporate disaggregated data by race, gender and other socio-demographic information into the development of the poverty reduction strategy and related measures and goals.
We also want the strengthening of the federal employment equity legislative framework, including the contract compliance mechanism to level the playing field for racialized and other underrepresented groups to improve their income level.
We want changes to the employment insurance program to ensure people working in precarious employment who are mostly women and racialized groups will have equitable access to EI benefits.
We also want improved access to justice through increasing federal contributions to legal aid, so that all marginalized communities will be better able to enforce their legal rights, including employment rights and access to social security appeal processes in the various provinces, and thereby improve their life chances overall.
Finally, we want the government to work with civil society to create an enhanced and more robust Canada’s Action Plan Against Racism to address some of the underlying structural racism that leads to the increasing racialization of poverty.
That is my five minutes, and I thank you for your time.
Michèle Biss, Policy Director and Human Rights Lawyer, Canada Without Poverty: Good afternoon and thank you so much for the opportunity to address this committee. For those who are not aware of our organization, Canada Without Poverty is a non-partisan, not-for-profit and charitable organization dedicated to ending poverty in Canada. For nearly 50 years, CWP has been championing the human rights of people living in poverty. Since our inception, our board of directors has been comprised entirely of persons with lived experience of poverty.
I will begin at the outset by noting for the record that though we’re not discussing this section of the BIA at this meeting, Canada Without Poverty is very much in support of the amendments that were tabled last week with regard to Canada’s National Housing Strategy legislation. Of course, this afternoon my comments will focus specifically on the poverty reduction act within Division 20 of Part 4 of the Budget Implementation Act.
This legislation comes at a critical moment in Canada’s history. This is the legislation that will guide all laws, policies and programs for millions in Canada who make daily decisions about whether to pay their hydro bills or put food on the table. It is so important that we get this right. While Canada Without Poverty supports Canada’s first poverty reduction strategy and that it be secured in legislation, we have serious concerns as to whether this section truly adheres to and implements Canada’s international human rights obligations.
As this committee is no doubt aware, after decades of advocacy, the poverty reduction act was tabled in November 2018 by the Honourable Minister Jean-Yves Duclos. In response to the legislation, along with our partners at Citizens for Public Justice who are also at this meeting today and Campaign 2000, we coordinated an open letter with recommendations for this legislation. It is very important for this committee to know that despite the fact that this open letter was signed by over 500 organizations and individuals, including the Canadian Council of Churches, ACORN Canada, Oxfam Canada and the Canadian Women’s Foundation, none of these amendments were reflected when the bill was lifted word for word into the Budget Implementation Act.
I urge the members of this committee to seriously consider the recommendations that we have brought forward on this critical legislation by Canada Without Poverty, Citizens for Public Justice and hundreds of other stakeholders across the country. In particular, we recommend that the legislation be amended to place Canada as a leading country in the implementation of the sustainable development goals by committing to the spirit of SDG 1, which is to end poverty. In its current form, as has been mentioned by a number of senators in the last meeting, the goal of the legislation is to reduce poverty by 50 per cent by 2030. The reality is that when we only commit to reducing poverty, we create opportunity for some and not all, especially those who are the most marginalized.
I want to take a moment to reflect on the importance of today. Today, we saw the release of the report on the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. In that report they noted the significant intergenerational discrimination and marginalization by poverty for Indigenous women and girls. Now more than ever is a moment to ensure that no one is left behind and that the most marginalized are taken into account. This can only be done if we commit within our poverty reduction strategy and legislation to end poverty.
The legislation and accompanying regulations must recognize the limits of the methodology behind Canada’s new official poverty line, the Market Basket Measure. This new poverty line, whether or not we like it, will be used to establish eligibility for programs. That means that it carries significant weight. Though civil society has raised many concerns about the methodology behind the MBM, Statistics Canada and ESDC have still not released a what-we-heard report. Statistics Canada must be mandated to understand that it too has a role in implementing our human rights obligations to ensure an accurate methodology.
We also ask that the legislation and accompanying regulations ensure that the national advisory council on poverty can adequately implement the progressive realization of economic and social rights, so concretely this means that the council must be mandated as independent, given authority to make recommendations, and require remedial action for the rights of people in poverty and a sufficient budget to fulfill its mandate.
As has been noted by senators in the last meeting, we strongly recommend that this committee put forward an amendment to section 11, which arbitrarily authorizes the dissolution of the council once poverty has been reduced by 50 per cent of the 2015 MBM levels. As has been noted by civil society, this is highly problematic and demonstrates a complete disregard for the other 50 per cent of people living in poverty, often the most marginalized. It is also an excellent example of why Canada must not merely strive to reduce poverty but instead dedicate ourselves to ending it.
We recommend that the government commits to working in partnership with Indigenous governments to co-develop initiatives to ensure accountability and implementation of remedies for the distinctive barriers faced by First Nations, Metis and Inuit persons living in poverty.
I look forward to answering questions in this regard.
Darlene O’Leary, Socio-economic Policy Analyst, Citizens for Public Justice: Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak with you today. You are going to hear a bit of overlap between what Michèle Bliss had to say and what I have to say, given that we’re pulling our recommendations from a joint letter that we co-sponsored. It will sound pretty familiar, and actually Avvy Go of the Colour of Poverty also signed on to the open letter, so there will be some overlap there as well.
My name is Darlene O’Leary of Citizens for Public Justice, or CPJ, a national, faith-based charitable organization that works on Canadian public policy, primarily in the areas of poverty eradication in Canada, ecological justice and refugee rights. We co-lead Dignity for All, a national campaign for a poverty-free Canada, with our partner, Canada Without Poverty. For the past decade CBJ and Dignity for All have called for the creation of a comprehensive and legislated national anti-poverty plan for Canada. Our campaign has been endorsed by close to 800 organizations and over 12,000 individuals across the country.
Today I’ll speak specifically to Division 20 and recommendations we have made on the poverty reduction act. In an open letter sent to the Honourable Minister Jean-Yves Duclos in February, sponsored by CPJ, Canada Without Poverty, and Campaign 2000 and signed by over 500 organizations and individuals, we outlined our position on the poverty reduction act by making specific recommendations to strengthen the legislation. As you know and as Michèle Biss mentioned, this act was previously Bill C-87, was tabled in Parliament and went to second reading before being added without amendments to the budget act.
Our recommendations include the following. The poverty reduction act should reflect Canada’s international human rights commitments, including the commitment that Canada has made in adopting United Nations sustainable development goals. The targets and timelines identified currently in the legislation reflect the minimum goals set out in the SDGs to reduce poverty rates as we have heard by 20 per cent by 2020 and 50 per cent by 2030, using the 2015 Market Basket Measure rates as a starting point for these targets.
However, as Michèle Biss mentioned, the first SDG goal to which Canada has committed is no poverty. We recommend that the legislation be amended to reflect this as the ultimate goal with a much more ambitious timeline. Otherwise, we are failing to honour our international commitments and are implicitly claiming that it is acceptable to leave behind those remaining in poverty once the minimum goals are met. We also recommend that the legislation be amended to affirm economic and social rights as ratified by Canada in international human rights laws.
In addition, the legislation recognizes the new official poverty line, as has been discussed already, as the Market Basket Measure or MBM. While the legislation indicates that the MBM be subject to regular review, it should ensure that review takes place no longer than every three years. It should include public input to ensure that the costing of items identified as part of a basket of necessities reflects the actual costs experienced by low-income households, and that the basket includes adequate and appropriate range of costs. The current MBM base has not been updated since 2011, with a slight adjustment in 2012, though it is presently under review as we’ve heard earlier. That means that the costs being calculated now, for example the cost of shelter, are vastly underestimated for some communities. Given that the MBM could now be used to establish eligibility and access to needed programs and benefits for low-income people, regular and public reviews are essential.
The legislation should also recognize that no one measure of low income or costs captures the reality of poverty. A range of publicly available data sets should be included in assessing progress and achieving targets. Further, the new national advisory council on poverty is being established to advise and report to the minister and engage with the public in reviewing the progress of the federal poverty reduction strategy. For this council to be effective, it must be independent, adequately resourced, given authority to make recommendations and require remedial action for compliance with economic and social rights. There must be a transparent process for appointment of council members, including establishment of criteria of qualifications and inclusion of people with lived experience of poverty.
We recommend that section 11, which authorizes the dissolution of the council when its poverty as has been reduced by 50 per cent by 2015 levels, be removed or amended to ensure an ongoing mandate for the council to oversee the goal of sustained poverty eradication. To reiterate what Michèle Bliss said, in addition we want to see the federal government work in partnership with Indigenous governments to co-develop initiatives to ensure accountability and implementation of remedies for distinctive barriers faced by First Nations, Inuit and Metis people living in poverty.
Further elaboration of our recommendations is available in the open letter that we have submitted and in the brief that we jointly submitted under the Dignity for All campaign.
Nora Spinks, President and CEO, Vanier Institute of the Family: Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here to address you once again. For those with whom I have not had the opportunity to spend time, I am with the Vanier Institute of the Family, a research and education organization founded 55 years ago by then Governor General Georges Vanier. He established the institute to inform and advise. We educate. We don’t advocate. We are a national resource to you and to all others in Canada.
You will not hear a list of recommendations from me. I am here today to share with you some of the context within which you are trying to make your deliberations as a committee. We prepare plain language documentation. One of our key partners is Statistics Canada. We work closely with them and have been involved in the social conditions committee and all the reviews of the Market Basket Measure. Many of the concerns and questions you have raised this afternoon, since I snuck into the room, have been addressed at either that committee or through the consultations of the MBM.
At Vanier Institute, since our inception we have been looking at family finances from three distinct perspectives. First is income and expenditures; second is savings and debt; and third is wealth and net worth. When you put all those together, you either have poverty or not. When we look at poverty, eradicating poverty is very simple. All you need is income. It’s that simple. How, where and when that happens becomes complicated.
When we look at income, we look at all the government sources: the transfers, the benefits and the payments. We also look at employment and self-employment on which people tend to focus when they think about income. We also look at market participation: people selling their goods, selling their own resources, or even renting out rooms. We also look at pensions and investments, things like inheritance, gifts or gifts in kind. We look at it through a family perspective. We want to make sure that some of the intergenerational relationships with money are better understood when we think about poverty. As many of you have mentioned, particularly those who are experiencing extreme poverty, it is a multi-generational impact.
At the opposite end of the income scale, those who are the wealthiest tend to increase wealth through intergenerational behaviours. When we think about it, we also look at those with no income whatsoever, which gets at what Senator Omidvar was talking about earlier when there is no income. They may be street engaged or those with little income, which does not cover enough. They may be those with a low income that is erratic, unpredictable and very difficult to manage. Then there are those with low income, which tends to be where people focus because they are the easiest to count, to measure and to include in surveys and consultations.
When we think through a family lens, we also need to calculate what is happening within a family unit. They might not be living in a household. We have been working with Statistics Canada on trying to figure out how to capture that. We either have individual data or we have household data. If the individual data or the household data says there are $58,000 in the household, how many households are those $58,000 actually supporting? How many families in that one household is that amount of money actually supporting? Poverty can be hidden.
We also know the challenges for young people in their 20s. Many of them are receiving assistance from their parents who are allowing them to live rent free so that they can pay off their student loans or while they are trying to get into the labour market. If they are middle or upper income, they are being allowed to live rent free so that they are able to save to get into the real estate market themselves. There are lots of hidden transfers of wealth, sharing of income and sharing of expenditures that we were really not able to capture in some of the existing data collection sources when it comes to finances.
We know that for the middle income, in the next 10 years, there is expected to be an enormous wealth transfer between generations. We are trying to get a handle on that because we expect it to have two impacts. First, those currently living with low income may all of a sudden receive a lump sum of cash. Grandma had a house in Parkdale. That house sells for $1 million. That money gets transferred to the next generation. They have never had that kind of money before, and then what happens?
The work we have been doing with the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada has been asking people for a long time what they would do if they missed a payment or missed an income but never asking what they would do if they had a windfall. What would you do with the first $5,000? What would you do with the extra? We are trying to capture that information. We know from the research and from the families we engage with during our listening tours that it’s really about the source of income and how controllable, predictable, stable and secure it is. We also hear about cash flow from people who live with limited income. They get one cheque a month and try to make it stretch when most people live with paycheques that come in every two weeks. Cash-flow management is a big piece. The other is the easy access to credit. That leads us to the savings and debt question.
The savings and debt question is really important because we look at good debt, bad debt, ugly debt and toxic debt. The good debt is where people are stretching themselves for things like education, where there will be a return on that investment. Then there is bad debt, where they are investing in something that will depreciate like a vehicle, but that vehicle may be the only thing that allows them to participate in the labour force and have child care at the same time. The ugly debt is using high interest rate credit cards to pay for necessities such as hydro or groceries. We recently added toxic debt in our look at struggling families, particularly those living in poverty, which is the payday loans, the predatory attacking of any sense of security people living in poverty might have.
There is lots to talk about. We’re happy to answer your questions and to engage in conversation. We are here as a resource. We have all the data for many of the questions you asked the previous panel, if you are interested.
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses. I remind my colleagues and our four witnesses, two of whom are via video conference, that it can be a little challenging. If we forget about you a bit, just raise your hand if you want to answer a specific question.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much for your presentations. I have a very direct question that l want each of you to answer. I’ll start with Michèle Biss, then Avvy Go, and then our two witnesses in the room.
The Associate Assistant Deputy Minister of Employment and Social Development Canada was here before you, and she said that there was very broad consultation. In fact, I quoted to her from the open letter with a specific question. If I look at your open letter, it has four pages of content and eight pages of signatories.
I would like to know from each of you if your organization was consulted on the proposed legislation. Beyond the open letter, which was a lot of content, were you consulted and is your advice reflected in the legislation? I’ll start with you, Ms. Biss.
Ms. Biss: I will give you the most frustrating lawyer answer, which is it depends. Yes, we certainly had some very productive conversations with Minister Duclos’ office as well as with ESDC. We have often been invited to many consultations where we have had a chance to voice our concerns. I will start by saying that.
As you can see within the letter, there was an opportunity for change within our concerns about this bill. That’s something we want to make very clear. This open letter was submitted when this bill was previously Bill C-87. It is quite concerning to see so much concern, especially around those pieces that are quite easy to change. Frankly, for example, section 11 is a completely arbitrary decision that could have long-standing negative impacts. To see that lifted word for word into the BIA without any consideration of consultation or our recommendations was seriously concerning.
Ms. Go: Again it is a lawyer’s answer. It depends on how you define consultation. We certainly reached out to the minister and his staff after the initial poverty reduction strategy was released. We wrote to them to express our concerns, some of which I repeated here today. We then tried to arrange for a meeting with the minister.
Finally, after months of reaching out, we had a conference call with him while he was driving between Ottawa and Montreal. We were advised of the legislation shortly after it was tabled, but I would not say that we were consulted on its wording. In October of last year, we actually came to Ottawa to try to meet with some of his staff. We had a meeting, but again it was us talking about our concerns as opposed to being consulted on the actual legislation or the actual poverty reduction strategy.
Ms. O’Leary: We participated in the consultations around the development of the federal poverty reduction strategy, which involved in-person consultations and participating in a national round table with Minister Duclos specifically.
The women from ESDC mentioned online participation. Our campaign, Dignity for All, was responsible for about 80 per cent of the online input that went into the consultation. We engaged quite a bit in the consultation process, but when you asked that question earlier you were asking about the Market Basket Measure. At no point was I specifically in a meeting where we were asked, “Would you like the Market Basket Measure to be the new official poverty line of Canada?” That wasn’t clearly outlined or asked. There were conversations about measurement and the importance of data, and we had input into that. If we were asked that question, we probably would have said that we would prefer the low-income measure as the choice. That being said, the MBM provides a certain amount of data. We respect that it is useful but limited.
Ms. Spinks: We were actively involved in consultations related to the poverty reduction strategy and consultations with some of the players who were making submissions. As well, we participated in some of the round tables, et cetera. We are not just a resource to elected officials. We are also a resource to advocacy organizations and other groups. We provided a lot of data for them to develop their consultation and input as well.
Senator Seidman: Would you say that the advice of these groups is reflected in the legislation?
Ms. Spinks: I think it’s best to have those groups answer that. We have heard pretty clearly their feeling that it is not.
When we look at data and information, we look at them more globally. We are also particularly interested in how the Market Basket Measure and other measurements of poverty are used around the world and in how we compare. As full disclosure, we are now working on a project funded by ESDC around a well-being index that will take into account the new child and youth well-being index the UN is working on. It is connected to the sustainable development goals or SDG. It will be looking at some of the poverty reduction trends, with more breakdown than we are currently seeing.
We are also integrating a well-being index of seniors, those new to Canada, the Indigenous, and then a whole host of families: those affected by incarceration who also experience high levels of poverty and those living with addictions. We are looking at how to measure all the behind-the-scenes pieces so that we will be able to answer some of the questions you’ve been struggling with that aren’t easy to get. We held a listening tour not long ago. We actually hung out with kids and adults in shelters, under bridges and in fields across the country. We asked them questions about money and finances, how they take care of themselves, where their families came from and what were their hopes, dreams and aspirations.
Senator Oh: I have a question for Avvy Go. Welcome to the committee. Avvy, I want to thank you. You are a champion for helping minority groups address social injustice. I would like to discuss the Seidu Mohammed case with you. He is from Ghana. He lost all his fingers to frostbite after crossing irregularly into Manitoba from the U.S. in December 2016.
Both Mohammed and the man he was travelling with, Razak Iyal, had previously had their asylum claims rejected in America before coming to Canada. Both of their claims for refugee protection were eventually accepted in Canada. What will happen to them if Bill C-97 becomes law?
Ms. Go: Thank you for the opportunity. I guess that is not Division 20. I believe that is Division 15.
We certainly have many concerns about the way the refugee determination system is being amended right now by this bill. Although it kind of acknowledges or tries to move away a bit from the safe third country agreement, at the same time it sets out certain countries and claimants who have passed through those countries on the basis that they have gone through a more legitimate claim process. We know, at least in the case of the United States, that is not true. Certainly it is not true for a lot of refugee claimants from Muslim countries.
We are extremely concerned. Our office has written to the Senate on that very issue. As you rightly pointed out, some of the claimants like Mr. Mohammed may not be recognized as refugee claimants any more because they will not be given the same right to a hearing under the amended process. They may only be able to get a pre-removal risk assessment, the PRRA process, which does not have the same trappings and same procedural fairness right for a hearing that is now before the Immigration and Refugee Board. I would certainly hope that the Senate will address this issue, maybe not in the context of the Division 20 but by looking at other divisions, to try to restore the right to a hearing for a refugee claimant, no matter how they come to Canada.
I will give you an example.
The Chair: I apologize, Ms. Go. We have limited time. We are trying to stay focused on Division 20, although there has been talk about Division 15 and Division 16. I know it was a question that you were asked.
Senator Oh, did you have a specific question on Division 20?
Senator Oh: No, that’s fine.
Senator Munson: I know we are all talking about divisions, divisions, divisions, but the guaranteed minimum annual income is another division. Ms. Spinks, you talked about all it taking was income. Within all of these divisions, is there room for a guaranteed minimum income? It seems to work in many other healthy countries.
Ms. Spinks: When we look at the poverty levels for seniors, which are as close as we have in Canada right now to a basic minimum income, we see that a couple with two basic incomes from CPP and OAS can live quite comfortably. The challenge there is that it is based on individuals. If one is deceased or has to move out to receive care, that one income is insufficient to remain living with basic needs being met, and families tend to step in at that point.
We have examples of how well that works. The government is at a point where there is a moment in the poverty reduction strategy to consider different kinds of income. We are certainly seeing it around the world with the granting of student tuition repayment forgiveness and the forgiving of all loans for post-secondary education, which is another form of guaranteed income for 20-somethings.
I am not sure if that answers your question.
Senator Munson: I just wanted to have that on the table. That was basically it. I have another question, but go ahead, Ms. Go.
Ms. Go: I want to highlight, because we work with seniors at our clinic, that many of them are relying on OAS and GIS. This is an issue, particularly for immigrant seniors. It depends on how long they’ve lived in Canada. They may not be able to access the full amount of OAS. We see a number of issues even with seniors who are on OAS. They are still experiencing tremendous challenges.
I don’t want to go into the details, but we believe that certain seniors are being targeted for review by Service Canada in the way the system is being implemented right now. Let’s say they have been in Canada for a number of years and have been on OAS for a number of years. All of a sudden, they are asked to provide information about years before they started collecting OAS to prove they have met the residency requirement.
Many issues have not been addressed by the poverty reduction strategy, partly because it doesn’t really break down the population even among seniors, children, youth or whatnot. Different specific populations will have different challenges.
Senator Munson: Maybe it is not in this section, but putting on your disability lens, with all of what you have done in your recommendations, your consultations and the statistics out there about unemployed people with disabilities averaging up to 70 per cent and so on, I haven’t heard in your submissions that you are paying poignant attention to those with disabilities who live in real poverty. I don’t know who can answer that.
Ms. O’Leary: In our open letter, people with disabilities is one of the groups we identify as being highly vulnerable to poverty. We don’t make specific recommendations about policy in the open letter, just because it’s directed to the legislation, what is in there and what we would like to see amended.
We certainly have provided in our campaign a whole range of recommendations around income security that would include measures to better support people living with disabilities. That is certainly something that we are concerned about.
Senator Poirier: I actually have two questions that I am going to combine. Both have been addressed a bit by two different witnesses already. My question has to do with the national advisory council of Canada and the appointment process.
Ms. O’Leary, you mentioned in your opening remarks the importance of appointments being independent. Right now the appointments will be made by the Governor in Council. I would like to hear the opinions of the other witnesses on whether appointments should be made independently from government because you’ve already put your position on that.
Ms. Biss, you had talked about the second point I wanted to bring up. It’s on the dissolution of the council. Right now, once they are at 50 per cent below, it looks like the council will be dissolved while only half the work has been done. You mentioned that in your opening remarks also. I wanted to hear the thoughts of the other witnesses on the council being dissolved and not all the work having been done.
I’ll leave it like that. Anyone can start. Jump in.
Ms. O’Leary: In terms of the makeup of the advisory council, we would certainly want it to be a very transparent process. We would like to ensure that it is as diverse as possible so that the makeup of the council is representative of the vast range of the population that would experience poverty in Canada, in particular people with lived experience and diversity in terms of racialization and disabilities.
Senator Poirier: I am sorry interrupt for a moment, but I was looking at whether you feel the appointments should be made independently of government.
Ms. O’Leary: It would be nice to have a process that involved public input. I am not sure. We have recommended that the council be an independent body. There will be some relationship with the minister. We would prefer that there would be a level of independence in terms of those choices, yes.
Senator Poirier: Did you have any comments on the dissolution of the council?
Ms. O’Leary: Yes, we’re certainly in agreement in our open letter, as Canada Without Poverty has already indicated. We think that is quite an arbitrary decision and it should be removed. There’s no need to identify a dissolution point at 50 per cent. It’s a minimum target, and we want to see the advisory council continue.
Ms. Biss: That is a very interesting question about the appointment. We hadn’t included that in our letter. I will say there are some instances where we’ve seen similar things happen in the past that have been really good accountability mechanisms. An example would be the National Council of Welfare or the NCW. In some ways this advisory council could have a function similar to that of the NCW, which was actually a very effective body. The truth of it will come out about effectiveness when we see who in fact has been appointed to the council. It will be an interesting test to see the effectiveness of whether it is representative of many different intersections of marginalization and reflective of Canadian communities.
On the point of dissolution, I am the one who has really been pushing that one. I am very grateful for the questions asked of the previous panel. We have been told in meetings that part of the decision to pick the dissolution target was that they needed to put an end date on the council. There had to be something within the legislation.
What I don’t quite understand and what I would be very curious to hear the SDC explain is: Why was that 50 per cent target chosen? There are some serious concerns around the Market Basket Measure. We heard in the last testimony, for example, that there are gaps in the Market Basket Measure because it is based on 2008 numbers and that it doesn’t take into account Northern communities. While all that was being done, it was put out there at the same time that we had already met the first target early. While we’re saying there are problems, we’re also presenting that we’ve met those targets early. I have serious concerns about the way that certain governments could manipulate the Market Basket Measure to say that they’ve met that 50 per cent target early and then dissolve the council which is effectively the accountability mechanism for the strategy.
There are many different layers as to why section 11 is so deeply problematic and why that language really needs to be changed.
Ms. Go: In addition to echoing the comments that have been made, my only other comment is that by not having disaggregated data and by looking at poverty reduction in a very aggregated way, it is also easier for the government to manipulate. If you look at different populations, Indigenous groups, for sure, have not met the target they said they had met. It is similar for racialized groups as well.
There is another way of looking at the dissolution clause other than pushing for it to be repealed. If it cannot be repealed, then you should look at ensuring they have disaggregated data. The reduction target has to be met by all groups, as opposed to a reduction target for the general population.
Ms. Spinks: In full disclosure, again, I sit as a representative of the National Seniors Council which is a Governor in Council appointment. I can tell you that the process is very rigorous. It is very intense. It is multi-layered. It is wide open. There are lots of opportunities for people to participate in the process. The criteria that Governor in Council appointments use include representations from diverse groups.
What is refreshing about being a member of one of those councils is that you have a group of people who don’t always have vested interests in the outcome. Yet we involve and engage people who do on a regular basis. It’s a very interesting process. I would say yes. However, if the dissolution of it is part of a budget implementation measure, it would need an end date because you can’t have a budget that will go on in perpetuity.
Having said that, the advisory council would have the power to make those kinds of recommendations for it to continue beyond 2030. That is about creating the terms of reference for the council. I agree that just picking an arbitrary date isn’t helpful, but if you need to have the process to get it started, I would say, “Get it started because we need it sooner rather than later.” Then you could have the council, not the government, determine what measures to use, when to say they’ve reached their targets and when to say our work is done.
Senator Omidvar: My question is for Ms. Spinks because she is the researcher here. Please forgive me if my thought is convoluted.
Because the new measure will define access to benefits and programs, should we be concerned that high-cost jurisdictions like Toronto or Vancouver with high-cost housing will therefore have a higher rate of benefits, a higher rate of access to programs and, therefore, completely unintentionally constitute a pull factor in these jurisdictions by people living in poverty?
Ms. Spinks: Right. Just to be clear, I am not speaking on behalf of Statistics Canada in any way, shape or form. The calculations within the Market Basket Measure take those factors into account. I don’t believe this is divulging any privileged information, but I remember having a conversation about one element of transportation. One of the examples they used was a basic mid-size car.
If you live in the North and you’re Indigenous, that’s not adequate for your safety, your security and the kinds of roads that you’re travelling on. For the North we were able to substitute out a different vehicle as part of the base. Those things are factored in. It’s not a perfect measure. There’s still a lot of work to be done, but I believe that those elements and those realities are taken into consideration.
Senator Omidvar: My question is for our three activists. We recognize that you’re all on the side of the angels. We love activists because they push us a little, sometimes a lot. Since this is a bill of measurement, let me get your temperature on this bill. On a grading of 1 to 10, what grade would you give this bill?
Ms. O’Leary: The bill?
Senator Omidvar: Yes.
The Chair: We need someone to begin.
Ms. O’Leary: I’ll start. Let me give you the context first. The bill is very basic. That being said, it includes elements that we wanted to see, so I won’t give it a failing grade. Yes, there are pieces we are glad are there. We want it to be strengthened. Hence our recommendations.
Senator Omidvar: You’re not willing to put a number on it, are you, such as five of ten?
Ms. O’Leary: I’ll say five.
Ms. Biss: I’ll take that tricky one next. It is hard to give it a number because I would give it high numbers for certain things and low for others. I would say that we’ve been calling for legislation and for a Canadian poverty reduction strategy for decades. Far before the time I was an advocate we’ve been calling for this. Now we finally see it, and that’s very exciting. There are elements in here that are very exciting to us.
The fact that we will have a council at all is exciting. The fact that we reference sustainable development goals is promising and connects us to our international human rights obligations. There are components here that I would give very high grades to, but the reality is Canada that is one of the richest countries in the world. On the grading scale, this should be a 10, but fortunately we’ve really underdelivered here. Because of that, I would have to give it a much lower grade.
By looking to legislation that is really ambitious, strong and based in human rights, in particular the amendment to the National Housing Strategy that we saw tabled last week, we see really good legislation that is really promising. If you put this poverty reduction strategy legislation next to the National Housing Strategy legislation and you are grading students, let’s just say that one of them is going to pass that class and one of them is not.
The Chair: Ms. Go, did you want to rank the bill?
Ms. Go: Sure. Again, it’s all relative and I don’t want to repeat what was said. I will give you another way of weighing the legislation. If you look at this legislation and compare that to Ontario’s Poverty Reduction Strategy, there is a lot of stuff in the Ontario legislation that is not included in this legislation. I understand that drafting legislation takes time. I think the government is trying to push it through, so I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they want this passed before the next election.
At the same time, because there are examples they can borrow, I am a bit surprised that they did not at least consider using some of the language that is already in the Ontario legislation and putting it in there. For instance, in the Ontario legislation they talk about a number of principles, equity and consulting with the community. They talk about communities being at a heightened risk of poverty, including people with disabilities, newcomers, racialized groups and women. All of that language provides more context and colour to the legislation. As Michèle Biss said, there are also very good things in this legislation that we want to be kept.
Senator Kutcher: I have a question for all of you. Are there any OECD countries that have legislation much better than is being proposed? If so, which ones and what should we be borrowing from them?
The Chair: Who wants to answer that one?
Ms. Biss: Sure, I can take a run at that one. If I were looking for a comparator for legislation, I would actually look to the Quebec legislation rather than looking internationally. There are many really good components in the Quebec poverty legislation in terms of the definition of poverty in the Quebec legislation and the connection to our human rights obligations.
When we’re looking into best practices in other OECD countries, I often like to look to the Finland example for many things, mostly related to the housing piece more than anything. If we’re looking for really strong legislation that we could build on, there are a lot of provincial examples such as the Quebec example that we could look to.
Ms. Spinks: When we look at OECD comparators, the implementation of their strategies might be a little surprising. I am not a lawyer. You would have to talk to the lawyers about the legislation itself. We look at Denmark. We look at Finland. We look at Netherlands. There are a number of examples where they’ve taken a very complex situation and made it really simple.
There are also some developing countries that are dealing with extreme poverty. There are some really interesting movements in developing countries as well. We should consider some of the experience that they’re having as well. I would be happy to provide you with a list.
Senator Kutcher: Could you give us an example of one developing country?
Ms. Spinks: I would really need to look back on the data. A couple are having some really good successes investing in women and transferring funds directly to women who then reinvest them back in their communities, whereas men tend to invest in themselves first and then maybe their families. The experience in a lot of developing countries is that women invest in the community first and themselves last versus the other way around. I would be happy to pull that together for you if you are interested.
The Chair: You can send anything you wish to send to the committee clerk. We always appreciate good data.
Senator Moodie: This question is for Ms. Spinks. Thank you for being here today.
A lot of available health research clearly shows the benefits of investment in child development, the importance of social determinants of health for child development and the lifelong limiting effects of allowing children to grow up in deprived circumstances.
We heard earlier that there was to be a dashboard and that maybe some more specific indicators might be decided upon. Could you shed any light on what will happen in terms of backfilling those indicators? Are we going to be able to disaggregate poverty? Are we going to be able to understand the impact of poverty on children and the improvement that may be occurring? Are you involved in any way?
Ms. Spinks: I can’t speak on behalf of Statistics Canada or ESDC. You’d have to ask them about that. We now have the ability to access administrative data such as T1 forms in the tax records and to link them with immigration records and support payments that are being made from fathers to mothers, for example. A number of linkages are currently being made. We’re just scratching the surface of that.
That is why we’re attempting to overlay an index on top of that. UNICEF is developing the new child and youth index. That is in the field right now. It is a model building off an international one, and Canada is the lead on that internationally. You should check that out under UNICEF. Lisa Wolff is leading that.
There are a number of other indices and index projects taking these various pieces of data and bringing them together so that we can analyze them more accurately and understand them at the community or neighbourhood level, if not at the individual household level. We’re working on it. When I have it, I will make sure that you all know about it.
The Chair: We appreciate that. Thank you very much, witnesses, for your participation here today. Your assistance is truly appreciated as we are studying this bill.
Before we move to the in-camera portion of the meeting, I reassure the senators that we have permission to meet today. We agreed at the last meeting that we would provide for a discussion of the draft report as we go along in order to be efficient.
I request your permission for Senate communications to record portions of our meeting for a documentary that they are producing. They are producing mainly a communication interview including your chair. I would need your agreement. Is it agreed that the committee allow coverage by electronic media of the committee public proceeding on June 5, 2019, with the least possible disruption of its hearing? Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
We will suspend for one very quick minute before we proceed with the in camera discussion of a draft report.
(The committee continued in camera.)