Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 6 - Evidence - Meeting of September 28, 2006
OTTAWA, Thursday, September 28, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8:08 a.m. to examine and report on rural poverty in Canada.
Senator Joyce Fairbairn (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I would like to call the meeting to order. We have a very distinguished group of witnesses who will start leading us into the study on rural poverty.
The last few years have seen the worst levels of Canadian farm incomes in history. Farm families have suffered the most. It has had an impact on rural communities all across Canada. Recognizing the importance of the problem, last July, the federal government announced the creation of a Canadian Farm Families Option Program that would spend $550 million to help lower-income individual farmers and farm families.
Last May, this committee was authorized to examine and report on rural poverty in Canada. Until the end of the year, the committee will receive different witnesses who will give an overview of poverty in rural areas. This work will serve as a basis when the committee will then travel to various communities across the country in the new year.
To start our study today, we are hearing from representatives from the National Anti-Poverty Organization. This organization has championed the cause of poverty eradication for more than 35 years, mounting several high-profile campaigns aimed at drawing attention to the plight of the poor and at proposing measures to reduce poverty.
To represent the National Anti-Poverty Organization today we have with us Ms. Debbie Frost, President of the Board of Directors and the Executive Director Ms. Sherrie Tingley. We also have Ms. Nancy Shular, the Vice-President of the Board of Directors. Ms. Frost comes from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Ms. Tingley is based here in Ottawa; and Ms. Shular comes from Owen Sound, Ontario.
Sherrie Tingley, Executive Director, National Anti-Poverty Organization: It is an absolute pleasure to be here today. We are privileged to present to you, and that we are able to include members of our board of directors who are volunteers.
We are a non-profit, non-partisan organization that represents the interests of low-income people in Canada. We have a volunteer board of directors from every province and territory of the country; they direct and govern our work. All board members lived in poverty or are living in poverty. The board is assisted by a small staff who work out of our headquarters here in Ottawa.
Our mandate is to work for the eradication of poverty in Canada by ensuring the concerns of low-income people are reflected in federal policy and decision-making. We defend the human and economic rights of low-income people and assist local and regional organizations to bring the voice of low-income Canadians to decision-making and policy-making processes not only in their communities, but also in the provinces and the national arena.
I want to start out with the definition of poverty and the indicators that are used to estimate it. I would like to submit, for the record, the words of a group of grade four and five students from North Bay. They were asked what poverty is. They said — and I think you have this piece which is telling:
Poverty is wishing you could go to McDonalds; getting a basket from the Santa Claus fund; feeling ashamed when my dad cannot get a job; not buying books at the book fair; not getting to go to birthday parties; hearing my mom and dad fight over money; never getting a pet because it costs too much; wishing you had a nice house; not being able to go camping; not getting a hot dog on hot dog day; not getting pizza on pizza day; not going to Canada's Wonderland; not being able to have your friends sleep over; pretending that you forgot your lunch; being afraid to tell your mom that you need new gym shoes; not having breakfast sometimes; not being able to play hockey; sometimes it is really hard because mom gets scared and cries; hiding your shoes so your teacher won't get cross when you do not have boots; not being able to go to cubs or play soccer; not being able to take swimming lessons; not being able to take electives at school, like downhill skiing; not being able to afford a holiday; not having pretty barrettes for your hair; not having your own backyard; being teased for the way you are dressed; not getting to go on school trips.
As you can see by these moving words, poverty is not absolute; it is relative. It is about social inclusion.
Your committee could spend all of its resources and time getting caught up in the debate about relative versus absolute measures of poverty. We are hoping that you will take the relative approach. It is critical that you look at social inclusion.
I will turn the floor over to our President, Debbie Frost, who was involved in an innovative project in Saskatchewan called Photovoice. It is a process by which people can identify, represent and enhance their community through a specific photographic technique. It entrusts cameras to the hands of people to enable them to act as recorders and potential catalysts for social action and change in their own communities. It uses the immediacy of the visual image and accompanying stories to furnish evidence and to promote an effective, participatory means of sharing expertise to create healthful public policy.
Debbie Frost, President, Board of Directors, National Anti-Poverty Organization: I will talk about the project. One of the other things I would like to note is that it has a lot of information in it about rural pride and rural poverty in Saskatchewan.
Another project I worked on was through the Prairie Women's Health Centre of Excellence, a research project on social services and the impact on women's health. We did focus on groups all over the province, including rural areas and reserves. There was another key piece about access to advocacy in that project, especially for rural people and access to resources. I do not have a copy of that report with me. I can send the information and the link for it; it is called: Don't We Count as People?
Our participants picked the name for this project, Looking Out/Looking In — Women, Poverty, and Public Policy: A Photovoice Exhibit. It explores the multiple meanings of poverty: What does it mean; how is it different to different people?
We gathered a group of 10 women, and asked if they would be willing to be photographers. All the women were living in poverty: Single moms, disabled families, single women. We met several times. We did not know each other, but we felt it was important to build a trust because when you are a low-income person it hard to trust people. After a few meetings of just getting to know each other and explaining what we would like to do, we built that trust. Some of the meetings were very emotional. After a while women shared tears and laughter. We talked about families, incidents and bad things in our lives. One woman's husband was going through a really rough time and she opened up to the group about it, but it took a while to build that trust.
We then gave the women disposable cameras. I was on the organizing committee for this project and I was also one of the photographers. We also gave the women the option of using an optional name. When women get involved, they fear repercussions, especially if they are on social services. If you speak out it is bad. Social workers tend to threaten to cut you off. One prime example of that was a woman who ran for city council in Saskatoon a few years ago. She was on social services and her social worker sent her a letter and told her to withdraw her name or she would be cut off. People on social services were not allowed to run for these positions. She did not withdraw her name and we did fight it.
Back to the project. Low-income women are often subject to scrutiny and surveillance by others and in this project we were behind the lens, not under it. We looked at our own experiences and out at the world from our perspectives. We looked out for all the obstacles that come from living in poverty and all the good things that keep us going.
We encourage people in communities to look out for each other by developing just policies and treating everyone with dignity and respect. We are looking for change and hoping to make a difference.
Our goal in the project was to use our words and photographs to raise public awareness and to influence public policies to reduce poverty and improve the conditions of women's lives.
We are talking about doing this project again with men so that it is an inclusive process and not just focused on women. We are working on getting a group of men together. It is harder to get men together to do something like this. We are working on that, and we hope within the next year to have that project underway with a group of men doing the same thing.
As you see, the women did use fake names, but the whole idea was to have these pictures and the captions. You can see the name above the picture, and the titles, such as, ``Being in Poverty Hurts.'' The women picked the titles themselves, and they wrote the captions. These captions came from their hearts. This is way they see poverty and what it means to them. Some of these pictures are very powerful. I am sorry that this package does not have all the pictures. When we set up the links and the PowerPoint presentation, we were not able to include all the pictures. We had to downsize a bit. I can get the link with all of the pictures in it.
It is a powerful project, and it is strong. Some of these women are from rural Saskatchewan, and some are from reserve. When we do projects like this, we focus on ensuring that it is an inclusive process.
I recommend that you take a good look at this handout when you have time and read the words of these women. Look for the one from the men to come soon. I will send the link for the report, because there are strong recommendations in there for you to take into consideration.
Nancy Shular, Vice-President, Board of Directors, National Anti-Poverty Organization: I am from rural Ontario. I am first vice-president of the National Anti-Poverty Organization. I come from a rural community where many only know where their next meal is coming from because they are lucky enough to grow their own food. Those who live from their farm produce are at the mercy of seasonal effects and weather. If it is a bad year, then even these families go hungry.
For those who do not farm, the depth of poverty is so deep that they have no mode of transportation to get to grocery stores or, just as bad, medical care, if it is available. In rural areas, there are few to no doctors and no psychiatrists, even though the suicide rate is high.
Men are frustrated at not being able to provide for their families, and they often turn this frustration onto their families. Given there is no transportation, families are trapped in abusive situations, and the vicious circle continues. Even if the abusers want help, they have no way to get to where the help is available.
Women, children, men, farmers and families in general are affected by rural poverty. There is no medical care, a lack of resources, high cost of housing, including heating costs, no transportation, and men who may feel inadequate. Many of these issues are symptoms of abuse.
Something must be done to help make life more of a life than just an existence. Rural children do not even see brighter futures with a higher education, since there are no funds to pay for it. We need the government to come up with a viable working poverty reduction strategy. This strategy must at least reach the poverty line. This would allow for nutritious food and possibly even a mode of transportation. Proper nutrition and medical care might give children a chance to hope for and see a better future.
Senator Callbeck: I thank you for coming this morning and helping us with this study on rural poverty. Your organization has been in existence for roughly 35 years. You have run several campaigns. Where do you get your financing?
Ms. Tingley: We have generous donors. In addition, Human Resources and Social Development Canada fund us. I am not sure what will happen to the funding next year, but historically the government believes that our participation in the discourse and public policy making is important to a democratic society. We also receive donations from foundations, et cetera. It is always a challenge, and we are not sure what the future holds.
Senator Callbeck: You have been funded by the federal government for several years.
Ms. Tingley: Yes, we have.
Senator Callbeck: I notice that you are running two large campaigns right now, one having to do with the minimum wage, a fairer wage, to make it $10 an hour. Certainly, that would be helpful for many people on an hourly wage. I come from Prince Edward Island, so I am very sensitive to that issue. Have you given any thoughts or recommendations for fishermen and farmers who are not on an hourly wage? I was wondering if you have put any thought into the guaranteed annual income.
Ms. Tingley: One of our priorities is a guaranteed annual income. We believe that is critical to human rights and social justice and economic security for Canadians. That is one of our main priorities and something we would recommend. We know the impact that the current income transfers have on evening out to some extent, but of course it sorely falls short of meeting the needs.
Senator Callbeck: Another recommendation is to change the tax system to make it fairer. Do you have specific recommendations in that regard?
Ms. Tingley: We probably have not done as much work as we could on the tax system because it tends to be left with economists, et cetera. One of our concerns is access to the tax system. That sounds a little crazy, but many benefits are delivered through the tax system so it becomes critical that people have access to filing their taxes in order to access the benefits. We are quite concerned about unclaimed benefits. People are left out of the process because, generally, people may think, ``I did not have any income, so I will not file an income tax return,'' or they may be living with a partner who files taxes and not realize that filing a tax return is part of the process in gaining access to benefits. Increasingly, we are delivering benefits to Canadians through the tax system but, in addition, people have to apply for those benefits.
The process is complex and it is disturbing that parliamentarians have worked so hard to implement these programs and yet we have fallen short. Recently, learner bonds were introduced but, again, that process is highly complex, although it might not seem complex to you or to me. In order to get the learner bonds parents have to apply for a social insurance number for their baby. They might not think of making that application. They have to open an education savings plans and be in receipt of the National Child Benefit Supplement. Human Resources and Social Development Canada assures us that banks will apply for the learner bond on behalf of their clients, but I am a bit skeptical about the process. We are concerned about how many people miss out on these benefits. On the tax return form, there are yes or no tick boxes to let the Canada Revenue Agency know whether they should calculate the GST credit. We will endeavour to determine how many people forget to check the tick box. Does CRA follow up on that or does it consider it a bonus when people forget to tick that box? It seems crazy that it could not automatically calculate the credit for everyone that files a tax return.
People feeding people at the ground level are meeting just the basic needs and do not often think of these issues. Many people in our shelters are seniors that are not accessing the Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Shelter workers are barely stemming the tide and do not have time to delve into the income issue. Perhaps my colleagues have additional comments.
Senator Callbeck: Certainly, I share your concern. I have talked to many people in Prince Edward Island who are not receiving some of the benefits simply because they were unaware that the benefits exist. It is a problem.
Senator Tkachuk: I want to begin with the point you raised about social services and not allowing people on welfare to speak out. I was appalled when I heard that a recipient could not run for political office. Could you explain further why this happens? Is there a policy to this effect?
Ms. Frost: People on social services are very intimidated by social workers. I have a social work degree and my experience with social services and social workers is not what I was taught in school. Hence, it should not be called ``social services'' but should be called ``financial services'' or something else. People in Saskatchewan have a real fear of speaking out and getting involved. I am the exception because I am involved, but then I have a big mouth. For most people, it comes down to a lack of self-esteem and self-confidence. We work with these people to help them build that self-esteem and self-confidence. One way to do that is to help them become involved in the community. However, some people have a real fear of that involvement because they are afraid to speak out. They believe that if their social worker finds out they have spoken out, they will receive a letter saying that they have been cut off. As a prime example, I work with one woman who is also an advocate. For some of her cases, rather than go through the social workers, because she was not getting anywhere with them, she went right to the ministers office, which we, as advocates, will do at times. This woman received a letter from the program director at the Saskatoon office telling her that if she went to the minister's office once more, she would face repercussions through her benefits. This is what the department does; social services intimidates people.
It seems like every time someone on social services tries to move two steps forward they get kicked three steps back. It is a struggle out West. We keep working toward empowering and encouraging people and helping them to build that self-esteem and self-confidence to get them into the community. Eventually that can lead to their looking for work and becoming self-sustainable. It does not happen for everyone but for many it does.
Senator Tkachuk: The committee has been charged with looking at rural poverty. The economy over last number of years has been good. The unemployment rate in most provinces is low. Governments are spending more money on everything. You can focus on rural Canada or you speak to this generally, depending on how you can help us. I would like to know the following: Are the working poor on social welfare? Are they disabled? Are they young or are they old? Who are the working poor?
Ms. Tingley: Historically, the poor are women. In Canada, there has been great mobility in and out of poverty. People have floated down and up and then back down again. The persistent poverty has not been that bad because there have been many opportunities for many people, and we had a social safety net that kept people from falling down too far. Today, however, we are seeing the creation of a poverty trap, which concerns us. When people fall out of work, they no longer fall on Employment Insurance. Many people turn to welfare, which is punitive. Most provinces have moved to asset-stripping a person, which means that they have to be almost on the street before they can qualify for benefit. For example, Ontario lowered the ceiling on assets of single mothers from $5,000 to about $1,200. With assets of only $1,200 and a process that is so complex, people often face eviction from their residences. It is incredible how far someone can fall.
I do not know whether the committee has looked at the report of the National Council of Welfare on income from social assistance. In Ottawa, and Ontario is not the worst province, a single mother with one child receives about $950, and the average rent in Ottawa is $950.
If that mother was precariously employed, and experienced a serious bout of flu, with the kinds of jobs we have now, she would likely be out of work for having been absent from work. She would be scrambling. Suddenly she would be unable to pay her rent and have to sell any belongings just to pay that rent. If things get any worse, she and her child are on the street or one-step from it.
People have fallen into the safety net, but now the net is so low that most of people's time is spent lining up at the food bank, fighting their evictions or living in a shelter. It is just phenomenal. It is one of the biggest problems that we see, but it is a hidden problem that has not yet revealed its full dynamic. It is just incredible.
Again, with the asset stripping in Ontario, your car cannot be worth more than $10,000. That seems like a pretty good car, but again, what if you had a pretty good car and in rural Canada the best thing you can have is a pretty good car, well, suddenly you have to sell your car. Your chances of participating in the workforce are nil so it becomes crazy. The welfare regime, the Canadian Assistance Program, was lost in 1995, and there is no conditionality to the transfers to the province for social assistance outside of being able to move province to province. Provincial governments are not obligated to ensure that the benefits they give people are adequate to meet their basic needs. There was a Supreme Court of Canada case called Gosselin, where many of the provinces argued that they had no obligation to their citizens to provide anything. I know one of the Supreme Court justices asked the Attorney General's counsel of Ontario if that meant even water and she said yes, and we knew that was true but it is quite distressing.
Senator Tkachuk: When you say the CAP was there in 1995, was there a CAP before then? When you say the CAP was removed, what do you mean by that exactly?
Ms. Tingley: The Canadian Assistance Program was introduced in 1965 or 1975, and it became the basis for the social transfer. There were conditions on what provinces had to provide to their citizens, and it was the Canadian Assistance Program and it included home care, child care and social assistance. For social assistance, they had to provide adequate benefits; there had to be an appeal process; they had to give benefits to people in need.
The government reports every five years to the UN on social and economic rights in Canada, and said that the Canadian Assistance Program was the fundamental basis of economic rights for Canadians. Therefore it was quite shocking when they brought in the Canadian Health and Social Transfer and it became a block that was transferred to the provinces and it meant that the welfare systems were competing with education and health, and the broad majority of people want and will need health care. We have seen incredible changes to welfare systems across the country.
Ms. Frost: I wish to add a comment here. When we had the CAP, the provinces were accountable to the feds about where the money was being spent, but also when the money was sent to the provinces it was earmarked. A certain amount had to go into social services, health and that kind of thing. When they brought in the social transfer all that was taken away and the whole accountability process was done away with. Now the money goes to the provinces and the provinces can put it where they want. It is not earmarked anymore.
The Chairman: Very often, when you talk about food banks you think of urban Canada. This summer I was at one of the many pancake breakfasts one goes to in small communities in southwestern Alberta, and in going into one there were big boxes where you paid your entrance fee, asking for not money but for clothing, for food, for whatever, for the food bank in this very tiny community. I wonder, particularly in the case of Ms. Frost, from Saskatchewan, while we are worried about the aspect of poverty out on the ground in rural Canada, we worry about how that is affecting the towns, and the very survival of the towns. Could you comment on that?
Ms. Frost: In rural Saskatchewan it is really bad. They do not have food banks; they do not have resources. One of the problems in living in any rural town, in any province I imagine, is the cost of living is much higher. For example, I can go to Superstore and buy four litres of milk for $3. If you go to a co-op in a rural town you are paying $5 for the same things, which is the equivalent to two loaves of bread. The cost of living in rural area is a lot higher. They do not have the major groceries stores that we have in the city.
My experience in Saskatchewan, and working in some of the rural areas, is that the people who reach out in those areas are mostly church groups. They will work with families, they will help, but what is happening is there is no boom in the rural areas anymore. Many of the towns are closing down; people are leaving and the towns are just disappearing and they are becoming ghost towns. I do not know about other provinces, but I know this is happening more and more in Saskatchewan.
As Ms. Shular said, the problems are lack of resources, transportation and health care. For people on social services in small towns, they have a social worker who goes out to the small towns once a week. That is the only time when those people can reach out for help. If they are on social services and need something, they have an opportunity once a week to get a hold of a worker or see a worker and that is it. In the case of Saskatchewan it is a lack of resources, a lack of everything that is closing down the small towns. The cost of living is much higher for the rural people.
The Chairman: I would assume that would also be a critical issue in the rural areas of most of Western Canada.
Ms. Frost: I would think so, yes.
Ms. Shular: In Owen Sound, which is our major centre, people are allowed to attend the food bank three times a year, and in rural Ontario, people have to find someone to take them there. Three times a year when you are starving is not enough. That is the limit in Owen Sound — three times a year.
Senator Segal: Could you give me a sense, if it is the Owen Sound area that is home or whichever part of Ontario, of the dynamics of how people are getting on? I remember Mr. Rae being deeply upset when Mr. Martin slashed the CAP program, although he slashed it for other reasons relating to larger fiscal problems.
The federal government's influence meant that for each dollar province spent, the federal government gave you one dollar. It was dollar-for-dollar balanced funding from Ottawa. When that disappeared, it angered the people and the government of Ontario. It was just at that point when the recession was producing massive unemployment and employment benefits had been massively cut back by the government of the day. Everything was falling down to welfare, so the welfare roles were rising. The federal government took the position that it would not provide for any welfare rolls, which left the provinces on their own. I think history will show the holes in the safety net got larger and many lives were affected by that federal decision.
I want to ask about access to health care in the part of rural Ontario that you know. You mentioned transportation, the need for a car. Could you also give us your sense of whether it is farm families who are suffering the most in our present circumstances, or whether it is people who lived in rural Canada and might have worked in a local factory that closed, or gone into the local town to work in a retail operation that closed or at which the minimum wage is not sufficient to carry the costs? I do not want statistics. If you have them that would be wonderful, but just give me your own sense, in the part of Ontario in which you live.
Ms. Shular: As far as when the CAP went down, Grey County is known for the most tribunal hearings and the most losses. First, you have to be able to get to Grey County social services to apply, which is a central location in Owen Sound. You have to view a film on the first day, go back another day for an interview and another day to see if you get it. Therefore, you have to be able to get there three times and then they send you a cheque if you get it, or a letter of denial. If you get a letter of denial, you then have to go to a tribunal, which could take months. People are really suffering in the welfare area and it just does not make sense that it takes all those steps.
Owen Sound is a central location. I happen to live there now, but I did not until five years ago. Most of the people outside of Owen Sound have to do something about transportation. Owen Sound has city transit between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.; but outside of Owen Sound, there is no transit.
Senator Segal: Statistics Canada tells us that of those people living in rural Canada, close to 40 per cent are living below the low income cut-off. If you think about your neighbours, people that you know in the county, would that be a fair number or is that understating the problem?
Ms. Shular: I think it is a little low. The perception, which I do not believe to be true, is that farmers are better off than other people in rural Canada because they have land and they can grow their food. However, again, it is determined by the weather.
Senator Segal: There is no minimum wage for a farmer.
Ms. Shular: There is no wage for a farmer, period. The other thing is they see the farmer as being rich in land, and no one knows how much a farmer owes on that land. The farmer could owe 99 per cent of the value on the land, so they are not really land rich. Although some people in rural Ontario say, well, farmers are better off; no, they are not. There may be some that are, if they have inherited a family farm or something like that, but the rest are not better off.
Senator Segal: Ms. Tingley and Ms. Frost, you talk about a guaranteed annual income. It is something that many people, me included, have supported for a very long time.
I take particularly what Ms. Frost said about how you deal with social workers and how the social workers, including the ones with the best of intentions, have to deal with their caseload as it gets larger. One of the arguments made is that if you had a guaranteed annual income that worked properly, people would simply file their income taxes. If your income fell beneath what was necessary to live with self respect and have the basics well covered — transportation, heat, food, et cetera — the system would kick out whatever was necessary automatically, as it does now for the GST tax credit for those who file.
The argument made is that you would be able to remove the impediments you described — going in, seeing the movie, applying, et cetera — and it would be more automatic. However, it does require literacy levels that allow you to connect with the tax system. If you do not file, you would not be able to be registered for the purpose of however long you needed the help. You raised the problem about connecting with the system, so what is the answer?
Let us assume you had a government that was prepared to say it would have a basic income floor for all Canadians in rural Canada. How do you bridge that other gap?
Ms. Tingley: There is no reason we cannot have a one-page tax return. Revenue Canada has all the information. I have done my own tax return for years. I have a 22-year-old son and have been sitting down with him as well. Kids ask the great questions; he is always asking why do you have to multiply by 17 per cent and then 33 per cent?
Senator Segal: There are floors of tax accountants who depend upon the complexity.
Ms. Tingley: Yes; but it does not make any sense. We are going to be pushing for that one-page, simplified tax return, so that you do not have to multiply by 33 per cent and then 17 per cent and 1.2 per cent, et cetera. They tell you to multiply by a percentage; they say multiply it by 20 per cent, not by 0.2 per cent. It is ludicrous; and then, of course, Revenue Canada has all the information.
From my personal experience as a low-income mother, when they brought in the National Child Benefit, I worked as an advocate on that program. When they brought that in, I was living common law. They brought that in at the same time we lost the baby bonus, and they allowed common-law partners to file joint tax returns. I thought that was great, we can file one tax return. I did not realize that if I did not file a tax return myself, I would lose the National Child Benefit.
I was living at the poverty line and I felt I was doing great. I went about six years without getting the National Child Benefit. I thought I must be too rich to get it, although here I was working nationally on the policy. I was quite frustrated because when I talked to Revenue Canada when I separated, they had all my income information from the past. They could just do a single printout for me and I filed for those years. I thought, they have the information, I reported that income, et cetera. It is just phenomenal that someone who is working on a national policy level cannot figure out the system. It really said that it is not a matter of literacy or knowledge; the system is way too complex and it is crazy.
Ms. Frost and Ms. Shular must go to a meeting, but I want to touch on our recommendations, concerning those people living in poverty in rural Canada, asset-based poverty reduction, and also the fact that many of the people living in poverty are working. There is a tremendous amount of working poor.
Ms. Frost: If you are a single mom making minimum wage and paying child care, by the time you pay for your child care, you have nothing left to live on. There is not enough left to even pay your rent.
Before we go, I wish to add something about the GAI that has come up a couple of times. Our board has several different committees working on different things. I think Ms. Shular is the chair of it. We have a GAI committee which has been working on that for a year now. We are trying to move it forward. We are trying to connect with other groups across Canada that are working on the same issue. We are trying to bring those groups together so that we can come up with some universal GAI that will work for everybody.
Ms. Shular: We are not working on guaranteed annual income. We are working on guaranteed adequate income.
The Chairman: On that note, we thank you both. We are sorry you must leave. As the year goes on, we will want to be in touch with you for some of your experience and wisdom.
Meanwhile, Ms. Tingley will remain and we will continue our hearing.
Senator Munson: Good morning. We have heard some eye opening statements that we should not be hearing in this day and age. First, I have a couple of nuts and bolts questions about how many people live in poverty in rural Canada. Maybe this is naive, but is it worse than 10 years ago?
Ms. Tingley: I do not have the figures on hand. However, I can address whether or not it is worse. With the amazing economic performance of Canada, it has not raised all boats. In fact, the depth of poverty is shocking. When you are talking about poverty, it is critical to be looking at its depth, and how far people are away from the low-income cut-off. Is it worse? It is phenomenal how much worse it is. It is quite shocking how poor the poor are and the impact that poverty is having on their lives. We must be careful that we are not looking at the poverty rate and saying, that is good because the rate has fallen from 30 per cent to 20 per cent. It is not great because the 20 per cent are worse off than they ever were. I hope that answers your question.
Senator Munson: Do you think it is an attitudinal thing? I believe that we are city centric, and rural Canada is out of sight and out of mind. If you live in the city like many do, or any big city, if you walk from here to home you will see 20-25 people looking for money. You know, because of the institutional way that we have things, perhaps they will end up in a shelter in the evening, and so on. We see that, but we do not see a farmer sitting at the end of the road saying, ``Can you spare a dime?'' We do not see that. Yet, there is a lot of suffering going on. We just do not see it.
Ms. Tingley: Everything written, from the words of people living in poverty and in rural communities, is about the invisibility of poverty. It is phenomenal how it is totally below the radar.
I spent quite a number of years living in Barrie, Ontario. For the longest time, if you lost your housing the municipality's answer was a bus ticket. There were no homeless people living in the community because they were on the outskirts. There is that attitude as well. It is incredibly hidden.
Some of the most difficult moments in my work as an advocate are talking to people, working them through how to apply for welfare and then convincing them that they had to apply for welfare for their children, because that was the absolute last thing that they wanted to do. I had to say, ``You must do this for your children.'' With the downturn in Ontario, many people had never relied on any kind of assistance. In rural Canada, there is a self-reliance ethic. I have rural roots with my family with land claims. I grew up in a rural community and I can be self-sufficient, although my quilting has fallen off a lot.
Senator Munson: This goes back to your opening statement. You talked about poverty being social inclusion so that when people have to apply for welfare, which they do not want to do, it is about pride of place. How do we deal with that in a very real and psychological way and a giving way?
Ms. Tingley: Our welfare systems and even our employment insurance systems are not very welcoming. When you do fall, the response is not very great. When you have to go to a food bank, the response is not very great.
I hesitate to say that in rural communities, people are more proud, but maybe they are more transparent.
Senator Munson: I just mentioned guaranteed income. What is the single most important thing the government can do to help eradicate rural poverty?
Ms. Tingley: Adequate income would go a long way to eradicating poverty in Canada, especially rural poverty, with a design wherein you filed your taxes and got a payment back. The baby bonus of years ago made a big difference in peoples' lives. It was an amazing program. Although it was a small transfer of money, it made a big difference in the lives of women and children. Nobody was ashamed to get their baby bonus cheque. Nor did they have to line up or strip themselves of assets, et cetera. I am not sure if we are there. I am concerned that the distance between here and there will be very difficult. There may be other mini steps involved.
I had the pleasure of being a member of the task force on modernizing income security for working-age adults. There are a number of excellent recommendations in that report. I left the report for people to look at. It is entitled, ``Time for a Fair Deal.'' Although it may be viewed as urban, there is nothing in the Toronto-centred task force recommendations that would not benefit rural Canadians.
Senator Merchant: Ms. Tingley, earlier on you painted a picture of what it is like to be a young person who lives in poverty, and it was telling to see poverty through the eyes of a young person. You have also touched on women and single mothers. We have an aging demographic. I am wondering about how the elderly handle living in poverty and the difficulties the elderly in the rural areas have to overcome. Is that something extra or is it easier to live in a rural area when you are old and poor? How is it different from living in the city? How do you help the elderly who live in poverty? The family unit is dissembling in that families are not living together through the generations any more. Who looks after the elderly? We all have aging parents. I have a dad, who is 90. He is not poor, but I know the difficulties he has just because he is elderly. If you have to go into a home, it is expensive. How do the elderly poor deal with this situation?
Ms. Tingley: There has been an approach of stripping back community supports. This week we have seen that in Canada, with the federal government, and the voluntary sector has taken a real beating in Canada. The voluntary sector has been a critical player in that part of the community. For example, Meals on Wheels, which is generally volunteer driven, and home care, which was volunteer driven and still is to some extent, have been cut back. Therefore, the ability of the community to contribute to that whole range of services has been diminished across Canada. That is a big concern and has a big impact on assisting the elderly to remain in their homes. Another concern is the unclaimed benefits, namely, the GIS that elderly people are not receiving. Perhaps people have less ability to know about those benefits in rural communities because of places to go for activities. Of course, with more women working there is less in rural communities.
In addition, the participation of those affected in the community life is critical. I am quite proud that the National Anti-Poverty Organization works so hard to ensure that people who have experienced living in poverty are among the participants, but that has been diminished to a large extent. In Ontario, there are systems of nursing homes. We have cut back the system so much and there is absolutely no waste in it. Ms. Shular, for example, may have a nursing home around the corner, but her spouse is taken to Orangeville. However, there is not necessarily the ability for those people to be participating in the system. When you rationalize services to the very minimum, the impact starts rolling out and it is difficult to support the independence of people.
Senator Merchant: Is it more difficult to be elderly in the rural areas than it is in the city?
Ms. Tingley: Yes, it is because of transportation and isolation, and, again, the nursing home issue because services are very thin.
Senator Merchant: Do you find there is more of a community spirit, though? You know your neighbours and you know the community, so you know when somebody is in need, whereas in the city there is anonymity.
Ms. Tingley: I do not know if we know when people are in need because of pride and wanting to keep up appearances. The last thing they want to do is ask for help, especially when it is so shameful to ask for help. We have not been investing in those supports. We have not been valuing the voluntary sector.
Senator Merchant: You learn things when you have parents. With medication, for example, there are ``bubble packs,'' and in the city, the pharmacy can prepare these packs. I think they are for the whole month, and there is colour coding for morning and night medication. They put all the medicine in a little bubble that is for the day and you push it through. However, if you are living in the country, you do not have a pharmacy. How do you get the kind of assistance that you can depend on in the city but cannot in rural areas? There are all kinds of little tricks.
Ms. Tingley: Yes, and they support independence.
Senator Merchant: You said some parts of the country are worse than others. What do you mean by that? Do you mean provinces?
Ms. Tingley: In terms of social assistance, New Brunswick is the worst, along with Alberta.
Senator Segal: Do you mean in terms of the levels available?
Ms. Tingley: Yes, the benefit levels are so far below the cost of survival. When the Premier of Alberta commented on that in August, he said, ``Well, people can move.''
The Chairman: I must say that comes as a great disappointment to a representative from Alberta when there is, in comparative terms to other provinces, a great deal more there to help.
Senator Callbeck: I want to follow up with you, Ms. Tingley, on the poverty track that you say is deepening or widening. You spoke about 1995, when the Canada Assistance Plan was cancelled, and we got a social transfer. Of course, as Senator Segal said, if the province spent a dollar, it got a dollar from Ottawa. As the provinces used to call it, it was 50-cent dollars they were spending, so there was more incentive to put money into social services.
As someone said, you are competing with health and education, and it is difficult.
As an example, you said that in Ontario a person who owns a car valued at more than $10,000 would have to sell that car. Obviously, many changes have been made in Ontario. It is clear that you feel that this social transfer has increased the poverty trap. Have any studies been done to illustrate that this is the case?
Ms. Tingley: Studies show that people are on welfare longer. One such study at the University of Toronto is entitled, ``Social Assistance in the New Economy.'' It indicates the trap that people fall into. When a person falls that low, all their energy is directed at getting enough food and dealing with crises like not being able to pay the bills.
Senator Callbeck: Did this study look at all the provinces and find that was the case across Canada?
Ms. Tingley: SANE focuses on Ontario. It is my understanding that across the country, people stay on social assistance longer.
Senator Tkachuk: My first question asked who the poor are and in response, you talked about women but then moved to something else.
Ms. Tingley: Predominantly, and sadly, women are more likely to be poor, especially sole support mothers. In rural Canada, the incidence of disability is higher than it is in urban Canada, which is surprising given that services are more readily available in urban centres. Structural changes have had a greater impact on women than on men in Canada. We know everybody is poor.
The big concern is the number of working people who are unable to escape poverty. Ms. Ruth Levitas' paper speaks to the approach to social inclusion and exclusion used in the U.K. and across Europe, where they have concluded that work is the answer to inclusion. In Canada, the past 20 years have been about just that — people simply need to get a job and the problem will be solved. The National Child Benefit Supplement was designed to promote workforce attachment for parents, primarily for women. In most provinces, if all or part of their income came from social assistance, then they lost the NCBS through provincial clawback. About one half of those relying on social assistance are also working, which is important to know. Therefore, work does not necessarily lift people out of poverty. Work is different now, especially for sole-support parents, especially rural ones, and work might not be the solution to their problems.
Senator Tkachuk: Is it as difficult for women in rural Canada as it is for those in the city? Is the percentage the same or higher?
Ms. Tingley: I do not have the answer to that question. I would imagine that it is much more difficult for rural women because urban women have access to many additional resources in terms of parenting. For example, the library around the corner from my house has amazing programming for at-home kids. As well there might be greater access to child care for urban families.
Senator Tkachuk: You mentioned that the number of working mothers living in poverty is quite high. Why is that? Is it because the fathers are not paying child support? Have the fathers abandoned their families?
Ms. Tingley: No. We have a much better child support system in Canada because we have child support guidelines, but child support is not sufficient to lift the family out of poverty.
Senator Tkachuk: Are you talking about child support paid by the husband or father?
Ms. Tingley: Yes. If they rely on assistance, it is a dollar for dollar; if the payor pays the family $500 per month in child support, then their social assistance benefit is reduced by $500 per month. If they have to rely on assistance, the fact that they are receiving child support does not necessarily improve their situation. It is a help but for many people it is simply not enough.
Senator Tkachuk: There is no consideration for the fact that not only should the person who is no longer part of the family pay child support to ensure that the child is looked after, but also pay support to ensure that the caregiver is looked after.
It used to be embarrassing for males to have that happen but it is not as embarrassing today. It is a problem because, in my view, they should look after both the child and the caregiver as a legal and moral obligation. Is there a way that we could help bring that forward?
Ms. Tingley: The courts have been pretty clear about the need for women to become independent. I have worked in the area of family issues but where there is an award for spousal support, it is time limited. The expectation is that the woman would become economically independent. Consider too that the ex-partner might be living in poverty as well and his ability to support a second household might be limited.
It might be worthwhile looking at the child support guidelines because the amount of support payable decreases as the payor's income increases. It becomes a lower portion of their income because it is based on the theory that higher-income families spend less on their children. They do not take into account the payee's situation. The theory is interesting — the higher the income of the payor, the lower percentage of that income is paid out in child support, no matter the economic situation of the family that cares for the children.
Senator Segal: I have a simple question to which there may be a very complex answer; then a complex question to which there may be a simple answer, but I will leave that to you.
The simple question concerns the government's recently announced farm option program. It is too soon to know whether it will have a positive affect, but its intent is that no farm family should be living on less than $25,000 a year. Excepting it may cost more to live in some parts of Canada than others, assuming that the farm family has the same dynamics as our other Canadian families, which is 1.6 kids or whatever the number is, can you give me your sense whether that is a reasonable number as a core number? That works out to a little more than $2,000 a month; how close, how far, how reasonable is that premise?
Ms. Tingley: It is a great step forward. It pretty well hits the low income cut-off, so it is quite exciting. Of course, the devil is in the details, so how that is calculated and rolled out is important. For example, how much is the cost of housing, which is a big factor in people's income and people's poverty? It is quite stark when you compare families; neighbours may seem very similar but one may not have a mortgage and one may be mortgaged to the hilt. Often the cost of housing is not taken into account in many of the designs of programs, but it has a big impact.
It is an amazing start, but it has to be followed very closely. There has to be the ability to look at the rollout and have a feedback mechanism to address those problems.
Senator Segal: My next question relates to points of access for people. We have a federal system; therefore, certain things fall within the purview the province and the municipality, while others fall within the federal level. While governments work as much as possible to coordinate, often you see where what is sent out by the one level gets dissipated by the other, not because of anything other than the fact that the other had rules in place long before the new federal initiative, whatever it might have been.
We saw that, for example, with the millennium scholarship. It was a program aimed to be genuinely helpful to young people — it could generate up to $2,000 a year — but a series of provinces had laws that said, for example, if you apply for OSAP in Ontario, we have to count all your income; and if this is counted, it will reduce your eligibility. There was no negative intent there, but the end result was that the net benefit the government had in mind did not really transpire.
There are various ways to go at this. The federal government could download all its social obligations and responsibilities, with some conditions as we had with CAP, but say the primary points of delivery will be the provinces. They are closer to the people, they are more engaged at a level, they have offices that are closer, they are held accountable locally — end of story. The federal government's obligation is to ensure there is enough cash on a redistributive basis, based on the wealth capacity of the country, and that there are some conditions in the process so we do not get all the money going into new hospitals and none going into welfare to help Canadians below the poverty line.
Do you have a view on that, as someone who has been through the system — think, if you could, about rural Canada, but even generically — or do you not trust the provinces?
Ms. Tingley: I do not know if I should say whether I trust them or not. In Ontario, there has been downloading and switching back and forth. What I have seen of the downloading to municipalities is that it is not very good. I will give an example of Ottawa. The operation of social housing is now up to the City of Ottawa, and it sets the priority for first access to housing. Prior to that, 10 per cent of social housing units were set aside for young families, youth and new Canadians — people who would have trouble waiting for a very long time. When the housing was downloaded to municipalities, they could set their own priorities. In the City of Ottawa, youth and new Canadians were lost as a priority. They did not get priority to social housing. With a waiting list that is nine years long, we do not have any youth or new Canadians living in those communities. You cannot get on a waiting list until you get in the country and in the community.
I like uploading the responsibility to the higher level because I think policies get better. Locally, there can be very mean-spirited views of the poor. I was involved in a case of a municipal council wanting the list of people on welfare in their community. They wanted to review the list and figure out who should not be getting welfare and who should. We successfully fought that and won, but sometimes at the lower level there can be real mean-spiritedness and so often the higher up you get, the less mean-spirited.
On the point of access, access is becoming increasingly difficult for Canadians. As an example, if you need to apply for employment insurance when you get to the office you are pointed toward a computer; you have to file your application on line. Older people find this process difficult and we have advocates — if they are lucky enough to find one — that have to go in and sit down with them at a computer because they are unable to fill out the application. Access is increasingly a problem; it is the devil in the details of programs.
There is stacking as well. I do not know if we talked about that, but you may have touched on that subject. For every dollar you get from wherever, you may have to lose $1.50 in benefits from, say, Meals on Wheels. When we have this complex system of benefits, we also get the stacking effect, so it is really problematic. I do not know if that answers your question.
Senator Segal: It is very helpful. The complex question briefly was as follows: Everyone says that the best thing you can do to ensure we have a healthy and happy population is to ensure that everyone gets a good education. Education is a great predictor of earning capacity, health and longevity, and dollars taken from education to pour into the health care system, which spends most of its money in last three years of someone's life, is not the best way to go at it. Instead, we should be deeply investing at the other end if you thinking about the long term.
I remember a prime minister who said that the best social policy is a job. We have to do everything possible to ensure that people have the tools necessary to get into the employment market, which is why various literacy initiatives were undertaken by the Mulroney administration with some courage and determination.
What would you recommend for dealing with people who, for reasons largely beyond their control, are outside the economic mainstream? If a government, wants to make the expenditure most likely to help those people find their way back what would you recommend as the most substantial thing that it could do to change the water on the beans, as we say in rural Ontario. I mean back to work in terms that are respectful of whom they are and of the difficulties, they have gone through.
Ms. Tingley: That is scary.
Senator Segal: I never said it would be easy.
Ms. Tingley: We are committed to substantive equality, not formal equality, and the courts have talked about what that means. Offering everyone the same thing is not good enough, but ensuring that people get to the same end is achieving substantive equality, and that is how the Charter has been interpreted.
I have often wondered why our responses to inequality or disadvantage end up compounding disadvantage versus moving people to a position of being not disadvantaged, of achieving substantive equality outcomes.
We do not allow the most disadvantaged to own homes, although we know that owning a home will result in a much better life. We do not believe in giving them money that could go toward accumulating an asset. Our response compounds disadvantage. They have to live in rental housing or perhaps in a very bad situation. Our response to a young mom is that she cannot go to post-secondary school because our social system does not allow that. We know that getting her into post-secondary education or helping her finish high school would help her to achieve substantive equality.
I have skirted the issue, but our responses should be looking at the life course of people. We should be much more sophisticated about it. If we are a country based on equality, our policy responses to social programs should be promoting those outcomes and not compounding disadvantage. Access to education is immensely important. It is very sad that the answer for people who are so disadvantaged is that they cannot go to school.
Senator Segal: That was very helpful.
The Chairman: Therefore, you believe that the 42 per cent of adult Canadians who lack the literacy skills to do fundamental things each day of their lives, which things we take for granted, are at the lower level of the poverty scale because of their lack of access.
Ms. Tingley: That is right.
Senator Munson: I assume that the need to get rid of assets means that a farm family cannot qualify for welfare and still keep its assets. It does not seem like welfare is much of an option for them. Do you agree?
Ms. Tingley: They have moved to putting liens on people's homes equivalent to the benefit received. If you receive $10,000 a year, you have mortgaged your house for $10,000. It is extremely punitive and counterproductive.
Senator Segal: If I am correct, Her Majesty's lien comes before that of the bank.
Ms. Tingley: Internationally, poverty reduction strategies are looking at assets, including the asset of having an education. We know that for sole-support mothers having a house would be an immense asset. We know that for families that are struggling having a house is an immense asset.
It is quite interesting that in the U.S. there are many programs for access to home ownership, but not here in Canada, because we do not believe that people should be allowed to accumulate assets. In fact, we strip them of their assets and put liens on their property.
I know that when I was faced with applying for welfare, at a time that I owned a home — of which I am quite proud as a single parent — I chose not to turn to social assistance and instead became an independent contract worker. That was at great cost, but the last thing you want to do is put a second mortgage on your home with the equity slipping away.
Senator Munson: We know that your organization does great work, but the focus has been on women, children and Aboriginals. Are you in a learning curve now on dealing with rural poverty? Do you feel your organization has paid enough attention to rural poverty?
Ms. Tingley: No, I do not think we have spent as much focus on rule poverty as we should. Urban poverty has many advocates and cities are constantly working on that issue. We really welcome this opportunity to meet with you and talk to you about rural poverty. This is a great learning curve for us. We would love to have the resources to do much more work on this issue.
Senator Merchant: In response to Senator Segal's questions, you have answered my question about thinking of creative ways to prevent people from falling down so far.
Does your organization have members who deal with people in rural areas, or are you urban-based?
Ms. Tingley: We have members across Canada, and we have many rural members.
Senator Merchant: Do they work in their own communities?
Ms. Tingley: Yes, they do.
The Chairman: In Canada there is the a question of distance from access. How do the people working with you connect? One thing that has troubled us and has encouraged us to try this is the reality of distance and pride of people who have lived on the land and are now at risk. That is happening in every corner of this country. How do your people cross that barrier? What is the response when they have to deal with the very things that happen in cities and add to them the isolation of being out on the land?
Ms. Tingley: We do an incredible amount of teleconferencing. One member of our board of directors is a fisherman. There is such a respect for the fisherman member, too. The board is made up of people who are active in their communities across Canada. Building understanding across the country is critical for us.
We also use email to some extent, although some members of our board of directors do not have access to a computer or the Internet. That means mailing things, et cetera. It is always a challenge. Canada is a big country and it is difficult to bring everyone together with limited resources.
I am not sure if that answered your question.
The Chairman: It is a question that is hard to answer and I know that.
This is our first meeting and you are our first witnesses on this issue. We have started with a very helpful group. It is good for us to know right at the beginning that this will be an extremely sensitive and difficult job to do. As we move along, we may want to talk to you again. Having been here today and knowing what the interests of the committee are, if you or your colleagues come across useful or other issues of concern in what you are doing, please let us know.
Ms. Tingley: There are amazing rural groups out there, including rural women's groups. There is an amazing array of rural groups. I know we probably have not done justice to their depth of knowledge around the different issues. I am sure they will be included in your hearings as you move into other areas.
The Chairman: It would be helpful if our staff could be in touch with you to find out some of the areas and some of the contacts that you might recommend.
Ms. Tingley: Certainly.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Thank you, colleagues. This is a good start on what very clearly is a tough issue.
The committee adjourned.