[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, November 6, 1996
.1212 
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to commence our second round table discussion this morning.
I'd like to inform you of what the procedure is going to be this morning. We will start with brief opening comments of approximately three minutes for each presenter. If you have a written presentation, please don't feel the need to read the entire presentation. We will read them. If you could summarize it, that would be great. If you prefer to read it and if it will be read within the three-minute time period, that's fine, but I would prefer if you do not speed-read, as it's very difficult for our translators to keep up. We would appreciate it, if you do read from something, if you read it slowly.
The finance committee is holding pre-budget consultations, with half of the committee coming west and the other half of the committee going east at the same time.
I'm Susan Whelan. I'm the member of Parliament from Essex - Windsor in the province of Ontario. I'm vice-chair of the finance committee and I'm chairing this session in western Canada.
With us today we have Mr. Rocheleau from the province of Quebec representing the riding of Trois-Rivières; Monte Solberg from the province of Alberta representing the riding of Medicine Hat; Gary Pillitteri from the riding of Niagara Falls in the province of Ontario; and Ron Fewchuk from the riding of Selkirk - Red River in the province of Manitoba. Ron Duhamel will be joining us shortly from the riding of St. Boniface in the province of Manitoba.
With that, I'm going to begin today with Lorelee Manning from the Council on Social Development Regina.
Ms Lorelee Manning (Executive Director, Council on Social Development Regina Inc.): Thank you.
I'm going to read out the recommendations contained within our brief. Our brief basically focuses on the need for the federal government to take on a proactive role in the area of full employment and to implement a full employment agenda for Canadians.
One, we recommend that the federal government take on a proactive role in job creation. Such a stance will benefit communities, because it will increase people's sense of security, and federal coffers, because revenue will increase as the number of workers increases.
.1215
Two, we recommend that the federal government enact a social security act to uphold the economic rights previously contained in the Canada Assistance Plan. Such an act would assist Canada in meeting its international obligations and would help to reframe its economic response in the context of social and economic justice.
Three, we recommend that the federal government stop relying on the business community for job creation. Rather they should resource and promote community-based alternatives, including worker cooperatives, and replace subsidies to business with tax incentives tied directly to job creation.
Four, we recommend that the federal government free up seed money so community-based groups can establish the infrastructure needed to support the development of sustainable worker cooperatives.
And five, we recommend that the federal government take steps to outlaw workfare in Canada and at the same time develop a strategy for work and wealth redistribution.
That's all I'm going to read out.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you very much, Ms Manning.
I'll now turn to Mr. Cyr from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations.
Mr. Lindsay Cyr (Third Vice-Chief, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations): Thank you. I will read the statement and maybe try to elaborate.
The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations would like your committee to carefully consider the opportunities of sustained but refocused financing of first nations governments.
We would also like you to understand the unique nature of first nations funding of treaty obligations, as opposed to other government program funding. The treaty relationship is significantly affected when federal government offloads the cost of meeting these obligations to the provincial government.
We would like you to appreciate the risk in human terms of not bringing first nations up to the standard of living enjoyed by most Canadians.
We want control of our own destiny. The results of Indians' control over their lives will pay dividends, but we still have a long way to go.
In 1960 there were 60 first nations people enrolled in post-secondary education in Canada, while today, with first nations self-controlled schools, 30,000 students are enrolled in post-secondary education. These statistics are promising, but representation of first nations people in skilled labour, professional designations and the job market as a whole is far below a fair representation. We require approximately 60,000 jobs to equal provincial levels.
The demographics of our population indicate we are in an early stage of a baby boom. The success of our young people will benefit all Canadians, and continued representation in social programming will cost all Canadians.
As with education, control over the finances of first nations was only returned to our people in the last 20 years. We have faced many growing pains but are beginning to develop more control over our financial destiny.
The FSIN was faced with a significant deficit in the last few years. One-half of the deficit was eliminated in the last fiscal year and the deficit will be totally eliminated in the next fiscal year. This means surplus budgets that will eliminate all total cumulative deficits in two years. If additional information is required on that, a report is available.
The Minister of Finance's representation to this committee detailed the financial challenges that face our country. It also detailed the need to provide Canadians with the support they require to take advantage of the modern economy fulfilling the responsibility in particular of giving our young people the best opportunity to succeed.
.1220
The first nations funding for youth will ensure they are productive and healthy members of our communities. We want to participate in a modern economy, and we will succeed if given the opportunity.
With respect to treaty obligations versus government program spending, we do recognize the fiscal difficulties in meeting financing challenges, but the committee must understand that to our people treaties are like contractual obligations by the federal government. We would like to ensure that the fiscal transfers between governments are not with the province but with the first nations. Who knows better the problems faced by first nations people than the first nations people themselves?
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you very much, Mr. Cyr.
I would now like to turn to Ms Denise Hildebrand from the Saskatchewan Council for International Cooperation, please.
Ms Denise Hildebrand (President, Saskatchewan Council for International Cooperation): On behalf of the 30 member agencies of SCIC, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Finance for this opportunity to present some of our concerns.
Canada, as a donor nation and member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, has reaffirmed its commitment to the United Nations' aid target of 0.7% gross national product. Despite this commitment, Canada's aid has hit a 30-year low. By 1998 aid may be as low as only 0.24% GNP, less than 35% of our global commitment.
In Canada's 1995 foreign policy statement, Canada and the World, it states that CIDA's mandate is ``sustainable development in developing countries, in order to reduce poverty and to contribute to a more secure, equitable and prosperous world''. As part of this mandate, Canadian Overseas Development Assistance and CIDA have set a target of 25% for basic human needs programming.
Independent reviews of CIDA's expenditures reveal that excluding emergency assistance, only 13.6% of its budget was allocated to meeting basic human needs. A similar review of ODA's budget found only 10.7% targeting basic human needs. A March 1996 government report to the development assistance committee of the OECD estimated its own spending on basic needs at about 8% of total ODA.
The same report estimated basic needs expenditures for health and education combined as approximately 5%; agriculture expenditures around 3%; with a dismal 0.3% on water and sanitation. Aid expenditures for death relief exceed 11%, with emergency assistance over 9%. These figures suggest that Canada's commitment to sustainable development and poverty reduction has been abandoned.
In 1995 the federal government cut funding for programs that built public understanding and support for development. Many of the 90 or so regional and community-based organizations that had received funding for these activities have been forced to close their doors. Recent studies of public support for development programs have seen that when a specific government development program is described, support for development assistance dramatically increases.
The role of these organizations in describing programs, country-specific information, and development opportunities may be increasingly important in a globally competitive market.
As Canadians increasingly engage in global competition, it is crucial that they become informed about their responsibilities as global citizens. As global citizens, we are all affected by the long-term social and economic consequences of poverty. We can only benefit from an equitable distribution of wealth, citizen participation, human rights and social development.
Our recommendations are as follows.
Canada must honour its global commitments on levels and disbursements of aid to 0.7% of GNP with 25% allocated to meet basic needs.
.1225
Canada, along with other donor and recipient governments, multilaterals and the voluntary sector, must take responsibility for establishing standards, objectives and policies by which social spending and poverty eradication measures can be assessed. The impact of social investment must also be measured to test benchmarks of real action towards poverty alleviation and sustainable development.
The Canadian public has a right to know about development issues, opportunities and successes. Funds must be provided for development education so that Canadians are informed and active as responsible global citizens.
Aid must be used as a catalyst that enables people in poverty to become productive and active contributors to social and economic development. The Canadian government must invest in social development to create an environment that puts people at the centre of the agenda. The views and the rights of the poor must shape the design of development interventions.
The eradication of poverty is possible within our lifetimes. The challenge is to find a vision and sustained political commitment needed to complete this task. On behalf of the 30 member agencies of SCIC, we issue this challenge to everyone around the table. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you very much, Ms Hildebrand.
I'd now like to turn to Ms Maria Lepage from the Saskatchewan Action Committee on the Status of Women, please.
[Translation]
Ms Maria Lepage (Board member, Saskatchewan Advisory Council on the Status of Women): Good afternoon. I represent the Saskatchewan Advisory Council on the Status of Women. I am sorry to see so few women around the table, except for Ms Whelan who is here with us today. If you look at the list of members that each party has on committees, you get the feeling that people want to encourage the belief that finance is a male domain.
[English]
The Saskatchewan Action Committee on the Status of Women is the largest provincial feminist organization, representing 66 member groups and over 200 individuals. As a multi-issue organization, SAC reflects the community of Saskatchewan at the grassroots and is inclusive of women from diverse backgrounds.
We would like to thank the committee for inviting us to present. However, we are extremely concerned about the fact that several community organizations were not included in the consultation. Most of these organizations work at the grassroots level, and it would seem logical and in the best interests of government to include them in the process of consultation. This is the heart of Canada, reflecting diversity at all levels, whether it is in culture, class or gender.
While Mr. Martin has expressed great satisfaction that the debt has been greatly reduced, it seems as though the promise to create more jobs has evaporated. In short, debt and deficit reduction are a priority as opposed to jobs and job creation. The cost of deficit reduction has come at the great cost of dismantling our social programs and transferring the burden to the provinces and individuals.
How can we forget the 1995 federal budget and Bill C-76, or Bill C-111 and the UI changes that accompanied it, or worse, the hated head tax on immigrants and refugees? All this was part of the 1995 budget, and we are beginning to feel the negative impacts of the cuts in social services, loss of jobs, increased poverty, health care cuts and reduced child care. These basic needs under CAP were guaranteed rights.
Individual Canadians affected by these measures are the most vulnerable and the most marginalized in society, namely, women and children, people of colour, aboriginal persons and persons with disabilities.
The 1996 cutback that has hit us touches CBC Radio Canada.
[Translation]
Not only will the number of jobs decrease, but it will mean cultural suicide for Francophones living in a minority situation in Canada, because we will not have any other choice of local radio or television programs, or even national programs.
[English]
With CBC we will be missing an important Canadian link that connects this country from one end to the other. It is the people's medium, and I think the people who are opposed to the people's medium have a hidden agenda. Local programming for French communities across the country, a half hour of TV...is that too much to ask to be a Canadian citizen? How about the seniors and women in the francophone community across the country who are the majority listeners of French radio and TV? Don't they count for anything?
.1230
Our brief would like to focus on the increasing detrimental impacts of the slash-and-burn agenda that is now looking at other areas to cut. Our recommendations are ways to help Canadians rather than hurt them, through job creation and quality employment, as the Liberal Party promised in the red book.
It has become more and more evident in the last four years that the Liberals react to the Reform Party's interruptions, and part of their strategy is to take the heat off in various degrees. We're talking about the regressive head tax and the drastic changes in the UI.
We would like to take a look at job creation and unemployment, social programs, fair taxation and funding to ethnic groups and women's organizations. In ethnic groups, we could also add the social groups in this country.
As for job creation, The Globe and Mail reported on October 12, 1996, the loss of 47,000 jobs last month, resulting in unemployment rates of 9.9%, the second highest since 1994. Most of these jobs were full-time positions concentrated in health, the public sector and education. Downsizing the public sector while anticipating job growth through the private sector is only a projection and not a fact.
The present crisis of downsizing has been alarming and in the long run will have a negative effect on the economy. Cutting jobs to reduce the debt is self-defeating, because although interest rates have gone down, insecurity can create a poor consumer market, shifting to a no-growth situation.
Canadians are creative and are aware that limiting ourselves to massive cutbacks and lay-offs is not the answer to reducing the debt. The only positive action is the creation of more jobs.
Corporate downsizing of the nation has resulted in hundreds of job losses, with big bonus packages for CEOs in the multimillions, stock options and other perks.
Who is paying the price for high unemployment, job stagnation and large public sector downsizing in Canada?
The future looks dismal for youth and for women, who are the casualties of these measures. The quality of life is fast deteriorating in Canada, as more people lose jobs, are forced onto UI or welfare, and the provinces in turn determine whether this is workfare or welfare. We have concerns about students, a large proportion of them being women, paying back huge loans.
In 1994 Mr. Martin projected an increase of 3% in employment. However, there was only a 1.6% increase. About 99,000 jobs were created between December 1994 and December 1995, but all these jobs were part-time and temporary, which means very few social benefits. In 1995 there were 74,000 jobs lost, and the losses for 1996 will be in the range of 100,000, mostly in health care and education.
The summer placement program for students is really not as big as projected. Team Canada's approach to creating more jobs for youth is a 1% payroll increase in their business budget. Some corporate actions resulted in a few part-time jobs to avoid paying into benefits and packages that would benefit employees. In some food chain administrations, only the top administrative jobs are full-time and comprise 5% to 10% of the total payroll.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Could you summarize the remainder of your brief, please?
Ms Lepage: It's a little difficult when we're the only people representing women's issues, Madam Chairman, but I will try.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): You have the opportunity in answers to questions to bring up others, and again at the end.
Ms Lepage: We have concerns about some of the social programs, the transfers and the unemployment issues. We find that our employees are having trouble accessing their own benefit plans, which they paid for.
In education we feel that the lack of transfer payments to educational institutions will affect women at a greater rate, because girls and young women will hesitate to place themselves in debt to $40,000. They know that in the future they will be procreating and will have to be out of the workforce for a certain amount of time. That becomes a loss of human resources.
.1235
In health care we know that women are picking up the slack because it is not very often that the male partner in the relationship will give up his job - which is often better paying - its demands, his volunteer work, or even his hobbies.
Research in women's health is not assured. It's always at the bottom of the list.
With respect to fair taxation, we find that where corporations used to be 15% of the revenue for the Government of Canada a few years back, this is now down to 8%, while there are corporations that have not paid taxes and have had profits greater than $55.2 billion. That means 62,480 corporations made profits but paid no taxes. How can we justify that to a single mother who has to start paying income tax on an annual income of $11,601?
We have corporations that have high profits but have job cuts. Bell Canada had a $0.5 billion profit and cut 3,100 jobs. Inco had a 3,281% increase in profits and cut 2,000 jobs.
Those are just some of the issues and some examples.... Community groups, women's groups and social groups have administered the funds they've received as interest groups, which is perceived as being negative, and it should not be. They have probably administered their funds much better than any government or any party in Canada that has ever existed.
I will come to the recommendations a little bit later on when we are in the discussion period.
Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you very much, Ms Lepage.
I now turn to Mr. Walter Logan from the Regina Anti-Poverty Ministry, please.
Reverend Walter Logan (Regina Anti-Poverty Ministry, United Church of Canada): The Regina Anti-Poverty Ministry of the United Church of Canada appreciates the opportunity of making this presentation.
The poverty ministry is interested in establishing what could be described as the good society. The good society cannot tolerate the discrimination against varieties of people in either race, status, money or any other area. So the good society must look towards the establishment of equal opportunity for people. It must look forward to the opportunity being created for people to contribute to a society and to discover an opportunity for their own well-being in order to create a good society.
There are impediments to that in the society in which we exist, and the Regina Anti-Poverty Ministry makes these recommendations.
The Regina Anti-Poverty Ministry recommends the elimination of the goods and services tax, as it is not a cost-efficient tax, has done nothing to lower our national deficit, and is too great a burden on those of our society who can least afford such a regressive tax.
The Regina Anti-Poverty Ministry recommends that the federal government reinstate the 50-50 financial cost-sharing agreement for social programs.
The Regina Anti-Poverty Ministry recommends that the federal government put in place the Canada social security act to once again legally protect the right to adequate income when in need, the right to an appeal, and the right to work freely chosen.
The Regina Anti-Poverty Ministry recommends that the level of taxation for corporations be raised to the same level as individual taxation.
The Regina Anti-Poverty Ministry recommends that tax loopholes and deferred taxation for corporations and wealthy Canadians be totally eliminated.
The Regina Anti-Poverty Ministry recommends that the governments of this country make zero percent unemployment a goal they truly strive for.
The Regina Anti-Poverty Ministry recommends that the governments of Canada outlaw workfare programs.
And the Regina Anti-Poverty Ministry recommends that our governments work towards creating sustainable, full-time employment, rather than creating more part-time employment that adversely affects women.
Thank you.
.1240
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you very much, Mr. Logan.
I'll now turn to Peter Morin from the Saskatchewan Child Care Association.
Mr. Peter Morin (Chairperson, Saskatchewan Child Care Association): I'd like to thank the committee for allowing the Saskatchewan Child Care Association to make a presentation today.
My involvement in the child care team came later in life, and as a male I had a different perspective towards child care. In fact, I had a very low opinion of child care when I first got involved with it. Over the years, through my involvement, I've really changed my opinions and I've come to see the need for child care in an organized fashion.
One of the reasons is the illustration we used in our presentation. Bernadette is a parent with whom I've had a lot of interaction over the years. Through a seven-year period, through no fault of her own, she was in a situation of low income. She received $9,000 through subsidy to be able to afford child care for her young daughter. Since then she's improved her lot in life. She now has a fairly good job, is making a fairly good income, and has paid, over the last ten years, $83,000 in taxes. Perhaps more important, as a business person I see the savings to social assistance. Had she made the decision to stay at home, which she could well have done, it would have cost the provincial government and I guess the federal government over $100,000 to keep her there.
We look at child care not as a social service issue but as an economic and education issue. Children who go into child care and have the opportunity to start learning earlier, develop better. When they hit the school system, they are usually ahead of their peers who have not been in child care.
We look at it from an economic point of view for two reasons. The parent who is involved in child care, by having access to child care, is able to contribute to the workforce, improve their situation and, instead of receiving social assistance or UIC, is able to contribute to the economy through income taxes. Perhaps these are more taxes than most would like to pay, but nonetheless they contribute.
In the future, the child who has had the benefit of child care is less likely to end up on social assistance. Their self-esteem is better, their education is better, and they have a positive role model.
Our recommendations to this committee are fairly simple and straightforward. We'd like you to look at child care as an economic and education issue and not as a social service issue. Most importantly, we'd like you to work with our provincial government - and provincial governments across the country - to develop a good child care program that's available, accessible and affordable to everyone who wants to access it. We'd like you to bring back the promises in the red book and implement them, and not be as stringent as the original proposal on child care was. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you very much, Mr. Morin.
I'm now going to turn to questions. Mr. Rocheleau.
[Translation]
Mr. Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Ms Lepage, do you think our tax system is such that everyone contributes according to his or her means? Since you have not had time to make recommendations, would you like to take a few minutes to broach that subject?
Ms Lepage: I do not think corporations pay their fair share. Too many large corporations do not pay any tax. Your just have to read the figures that are made available. You just need to read statistics on lost jobs. Unlike the post-war period, when laying off employees was considered bad form and immoral unless there were valid economic reasons to do so, nowadays, the viability and profits of major corporations increase when they decide to cut staff to benefit their shareholders and their own pocketbooks. It is the country which pays for it.
I will continue with my recommendations in English, because I want to make sure everyone understands them.
.1245
[English]
Mr. Rocheleau has asked me to read my recommendations.
We are recommending that the Canadian government act like a majority government instead of a minority government by responding in a more human way to the needs and concerns of average people. Those who have gone before us have established and enshrined values that ensured the basic needs of all Canadians. A strong public sector is the pulse of Canada's growth and economy, and if we are to survive we must resist the pull of corporate America.
We strongly recommend and support one of the major demands of the National Women's March Against Poverty, namely a Canada social security act based on the five principles of CAP. This would ensure that provinces would not be able to use social assistance money for health.
We recommend keeping interest rates low for consumer loans and small businesses in order to lessen the burden on the borrower and create a rolling economy.
Without job creation we are also finding ourselves in a trap with a depressed economy and the possibility of a recession. To stimulate a healthy economy, the government must concentrate on creating full-time public sector jobs or forming partnerships. It can be done in different ways. This would create growth, increase spending and lower the debt.
We urge the Liberal government to take stock of the situation to stop the cut-cut attitude by creating public sector jobs that are key to a strong and growing economy. Privatization has its benefits, but it also has its inequities. It's not necessarily the way to create an environment where there is a solid job base and job security. I think we just have to look south of the border. Let's not Americanize Canada more than we have to.
A tax on all corporations and the wealthy in order to finance job creation and investment in social and public services is another recommendation.
We reiterate the need for a national child care program, as opposed to a child benefit scheme with the provinces. We believe this will create jobs, raise the quality of life, and provide women with an opportunity to work. The government must also respond to the needs of women who choose to stay at home to do the job of caregiving. The value of unpaid work that is primarily carried by women needs to be recognized.
I heard this morning that the tax credit has been passed through the House by a private member's bill and was definitely supported by the Bloc Québécois and the Reform Party. But it's a tax credit, and that goes against the opinion of the women's groups that were consulted two years ago by Mr. Martin and Mr. Axworthy. I understand why some of them didn't vote for it.
Again, the women at home would be accused of taking tax-based money to stay at home. We don't want that issue to come up. It also removes the autonomy. As a tax credit, it is not money that is going directly to the women who are staying at home, to be administered by themselves. It's a tax credit on their husband's budget, and they will probably never see a dollar of it. They're having a hard time making ends meet and paying bills with that.
The other contribution we would like.... Immigrants have contributed to the rich heritage and culture of this country and they pay their fair share of taxes. We recommend that the head tax be eliminated.
We recommend that the funding to women's groups and community organizations be a priority for the government. Most of these organizations are underfunded, yet the work they do is invaluable. As for the grassroots implication and result, it's not a bureaucratic level.
We urge the government to enforce gun laws and collect registration fees. I know that goes against the grain with a lot of people in Saskatchewan. It's one way of creating jobs. It's also a way of decreasing the flow of guns in our society.
We would like to make a statement that it is not only criminals who are killing with guns. The incidents in Saskatchewan in the last year have mostly been honest-to-goodness citizens who are mad about something.
We recommend that the federal government guarantee dollars for social and health programs, as these are preventive measures against poverty and violence.
We recommend that you look at jail services and the dollars that go into such programs. Preventive programs aimed at keeping people out of jails are more cost-effective than increasing the number of jails.
We have a line-up of people who want to take training to become personnel for prisons because of employment opportunities. Doesn't that make us a little bit leery? We don't have the money to put social workers on the ground floor in the grassroots communities, or school counsellors, but we've got the money to build jails and people them.
We don't agree that longer sentences in a lot of areas are going to make a bit of difference. It's just going to cost us more and be less productive.
.1250
We recommend that the federal government put pressure on provinces to have a pay equity policy as well as a means to enforce it. This would reduce the feminization of poverty, which is directly related to child poverty.
We recommend that the Canadian government promote Canadian products to guarantee Canadian jobs, increase Canadian labelling and have tighter control on imported commodities, especially on war games and toys that promote violence with explicit violent directions. We urge the government to seriously consider human rights records when negotiating trade deals on this issue.
[Translation]
We recommend that there be no further major cuts to French CBC and that Francophones be consulted on the impact of those cuts, the job losses, the cultural and mental health of our Francophone citizens, the respect of their rights and needs as well as a vision of a bilingual Canada where we do not just pay lip service to bilingualism.
[English]
We urge that CBC cuts be put on hold to a certain extent for the French section, but also for the English section. We need Canadian radio stations so we can have a different viewpoint, to make positive our discussions of who we are as Canadians and what we can accomplish. We should not forget that the American people tune in to CBC and really appreciate having a different view of things that are happening in Canada, but also in the States and in the world. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you very much, Ms Lepage.
Mr. Rocheleau.
[Translation]
Mr. Rocheleau: Thank you, Ms Lepage. Your presentation and your vision are completely different from the official discourse we hear. Some people think we all want the government to cut, cut, and cut further, without worrying about the impact. Your views are also quite different from those of some of the other presenters we heard this morning. I would like to congratulate you because I think that a brighter future requires a more global vision rather than short-term gains.
My second question is for Ms Hildebrand.
[English]
Ms Hildebrand: I'm sorry, my interpretation mike isn't working.
[Translation]
Mr. Rocheleau: You are concerned about international co-operation. What would you respond to those who say that Canada and Canadians have so many problems at home that they do not have any money for international aid, and that we should not worry about lesser developed or underdeveloped countries?
[English]
Ms Hildebrand: I would say that in the increased globalization that Canada is participating in, it's crucial that we take responsibility for absolute poverty issues, because absolute poverty affects all of us. When wars break out or when drugs are transported around the world, all those things affect us - our peacekeepers, our children.
I would view global citizens, at this particular point in time.... We have responsibilities not only to Canada but to the world.
Recent opinion polls have shown that about 75% of the Canadian population supports the ODA. That's a fairly significant proportion of the population in support of development assistance.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Ms Hildebrand.
Mr. Solberg, please.
Mr. Solberg (Medicine Hat): Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
A couple of presenters mentioned the issue of protecting economic rights through new legislation. Ms Manning did, as did Ms Lepage. I'm just wondering if you could expand on that and tell me exactly what you mean by economic rights.
.1255
Ms Lepage: I think we're talking about a half-decent pension plan and an employment program.
Mr. Solberg: Excuse me, I understand that you're talking about social benefits, but I'm wondering about the term ``rights''. Of course, we have a right to freedom of expression, freedom of movement, and things like that guaranteed under the charter. These are rights that enjoy the support of a huge majority of Canadians. But when you talk about rights as opposed to privileges or benefits, for instance, that people are willing to give up because they want to help out, I think there's quite a distinction. I want to try to understand what you're getting at.
Ms Lepage: I think there's the right to human dignity and being able to live as a woman, as a child, as a retired citizen in half-decent conditions. We're not talking about mansions or going on trips on a yearly basis.
Even just the social issue of the pension plan - that's a social issue? Excuse me, but that is a basic right that Canadian citizens have coming to them. They've contributed to the building of this country. The senior citizens in this country deserve what they're getting.
I think the congress for youth.... As far as pensions are concerned, we have a pitting of youth against the people who will be receiving pensions. This is a dangerous agenda. We know that the organization that represents the businesses in this group don't even have memberships. They are funded by the CIBC and Royal Bank to promote this idea that the old are going to be a drain on young resources.
To me there is a whole bunch of things like this that can be put as social issues or as rights. It's a matter of interpretation. For some people, rights are not necessarily privileges. The interpretation of privilege by you or me is different.
Mr. Solberg: This is a very important issue, because when you talk about rights as distinct from privileges, it seems to suggest that these rights would be paramount over what other people simply desire. This may be something you're suggesting, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. For instance, if people have a right to a certain level of income, does that mean that people who are paying for that don't have a right to keep a certain amount of their own money that they've gone out and earned?
Ms Lepage: No.
Mr. Solberg: They don't have that right?
Ms Lepage: I'm not saying that at all.
Mr. Solberg: Okay. If you are putting these things in the category of rights, how are you going to enforce these rights?
Ms Lepage: I think we have to look at tax dollars. The billions of dollars of profits that all these corporations are skimming off the top and not paying taxes on would go a long way towards reducing the deficit. It would also create jobs. Therefore, we would continue to contribute to our social programs. Everybody would contribute.
Mr. Solberg: Those things already occur, though.
Ms Lepage: They do and they don't.
Mr. Solberg: But we truly have social safety nets today and people pay taxes towards them.
Ms Lepage: I agree.
Mr. Solberg: Rights are not part of the lexicon when we talk about those things. In fact, these are benefits that are paid to people who need them on the basis that Canadians have decided they want to provide a social safety net.
My concern is that when you start talking about rights, without making clear exactly what you're talking about, people get very nervous. People work extremely hard in this country, they pay tremendously high taxes and they are concerned that when you talk about these things, you're talking about adding ever more to their tax burden and making it virtually impossible for the economy to create jobs and move toward the full employment that you suggest we need.
Ms Lepage: I think the five points that were cited by the CAP program are the minimum we're aiming for.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Mr. Gilmer, you are replacing Ms Hildebrand at the table. Would you like to respond?
.1300
Mr. Peter Gilmer (Program Staff, Regina Anti-Poverty Ministry, United Church of Canada): Yes, I would.
The question of rights is really key, because what we are looking at are in fact rights, not privileges. Canada and all of the provinces have signed international covenants - United Nations treaties guaranteeing social and economic rights, which include, in fact, the right to an adequate income when in need, as well as work freely chosen. What we're talking about is not something that we've just pulled out of the air, but actually covenants and commitments that we as a country and as provinces have made to individual rights. The right to an adequate income when in need is in fact an international human right; it's not some airy-fairy privilege.
Mr. Solberg: But certainly that is not something that's recognized in legislation. I would argue the majority of Canadians don't feel bound by treaties that have been signed on their behalf without any of their input.
Mr. Gilmer: I think it can be argued that these are commitments that the international community has made. These are commitments that we've made as a nation and as provinces. I think the representatives of the province and the nation did in fact believe they were acting in the interest of their country and their people when they signed those agreements. I would say that the majority of people think it probably is a right not to have to starve in this country.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Mr. Cyr, do you wish to reply?
Mr. Cyr: Yes. I suppose the question we could ask in response to whether people should have the right to a certain amount of income.... We may have to look at that in Canada - a revenue/resource-sharing option for treaty Indian people. I think when you look at treaty the way Indian people look at it, there are benefits on both sides.
The treaty audit that was developed and undertaken by a highly reputable group for an international auditing firm shows very clearly that the money generated in the Canadian economy is to the non-Indian benefit. I would, I suppose, challenge anyone to look at the numbers that specific audit showed, where there are billions of dollars being spent on non-Indian commodities and developments, whereas approximately $10 billion is being spent on Indian people in Canada.
When you look at the numbers...it's outweighed. I think that may be an option that we have to look at in order to satisfy society.
People think that Indian people, treaty Indian people, are getting something for nothing, but when you look at how much land and resources Indian people have given up in terms of sharing.... They wanted to share, and that sharing is part of the spirituality of Indian people, because ownership could never be obtained, and it wasn't in the language, it wasn't in the culture - ownership the way the Europeans brought ownership to Canada. Indian people could never understand that, and they were taken advantage of and exploited to the point where their religious and spiritual beliefs were used to undermine them of their land and their resources.
I think those things have to be taken into consideration when statements like that are made.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Mr. Cyr.
Mr. Logan, do you wish to reply?
Rev. Logan: I think the implication or the implementation of a right in this arena is rather important. At times, when I see some of the stories and some of the experiences of people, I would almost equate it as the right to life.
It is not a just world or a good society in which some of the people are deprived of the ability to find fullness in their life, either within our own context and in our own society, or certainly in the world scene. The life of a person who is in Zaire is as important as our lives, sitting around here.
It's very difficult then to say that we have a right to the money we have earned at the expense, in a sense, of the people who are literally losing their right to life.
It seems to me there is in the good society a real requirement that the society as a whole share the concern of the people who are, for a variety of reasons, incapable of meeting the standards or of finding the work that is necessary to give them a sufficient standard of living such that they don't lose, in a sense, their life and their quality of life. So I feel it needs to be a right to life, a right to have an experience of wholeness and to move towards that.
.1305
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Mr. Logan.
Ms Sekhar, do you wish to reply?
Ms Kripa Sekhar (Communications Coordinator, Saskatchewan Action Committee on the Status of Women): First of all, I'd like to thank Mr. Cyr and people like Mr. Cyr who have given me, an immigrant, an opportunity to live in this beautiful land. I recognize that this is your land, that you share it with us, and I want to thank you for that. I recognize how wonderful they have been in sharing that. Today we question their right to survive in this country, but for me that isn't questioned.
The other question I have is about the question of privilege. I believe those who are in positions of privilege try to put down those who are not privileged by bringing in these sorts of arguments about talking to Canadians. I'm Canadian. You're Canadian. But does that mean some of us get excluded because you are presenting this point of view as a Canadian? Does that mean I don't have the same right to food, shelter and clothing as any other Canadian? I put that question to you. I don't want to live on charity. I have paid taxes. When I need it, do I have the right to it or not?
When you talk about guarantees, those guarantees are no longer guarantees. If you look at what came out of the premiers conference in Jasper, the dialogue going on is about what can be taken out to dilute our social programs and how there won't be any fundamental guarantees from province to province. There will be no national standards. To me that is a concern. Without having Canadians in on this, who share with us, as opposed to individuals who want their rights - these are collective rights we're talking about. We're women. We work. Most of us are poor. Do we have no rights? I'm just asking.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Mr. Solberg, do you have another question?.
Mr. Solberg: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Certainly you have rights. Those are enshrined in the charter, and I think people agree that those rights should exist. You have the right to free speech and you have the right to argue for your point of view, and I think most Canadians believe that everybody should have equal opportunity. I don't think that's in dispute at all.
I think what people are concerned about is the prospect of certain groups saying we believe we have a right to other people's income, and that in doing that the people who are earning the income don't have the right to have input into that whole decision-making process. The right to equal opportunity, I agree with absolutely. I think 99.9% of Canadians agree with that, but I think people grow extremely concerned when you talk about rights that are quite distinct from the level of privileges or opportunity. I would suggest that if there was a national debate on this issue today, and I think Canadians do need to be consulted on this, your arguments would not carry the day.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Do you wish to reply?
Ms Lepage: The thought that we have rights to free speech and free opinion doesn't cost anything, so that's not questioned too much. When we're talking about rights to income when a person is in need, and all those basic financial issues to survive, or to even live.... We're not talking about living high.
The people who are well off in this country, where did they get it from? They got it from the people who are working at minimum wages. They have invested, they have gambled, but I expect corporations to pay their fair share of what they've taken out of the Canadian people and the Canadian economy. That's where we have to learn to look at things. I'm not saying we will change everything overnight, but let's take an honest-to-goodness look at corporations that are making billions of dollars in profit and not paying any income tax. It's illogical.
.1310
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Mr. Gilmer, do you wish to reply?
Mr. Gilmer: Yes. I also want to reply on the question of the right to another person's income. It appears that there's a huge redistribution of wealth going on, but what's happening is that the redistribution isn't going from the top down, it's going from the bottom up. Right now 1% of the Canadian population controls as much wealth as the bottom 80%.
At an international level, we have 358 billionaires who control as much wealth as the poorest half of the world's population, or 2 to 3 billion people. We're seeing a massive redistribution of wealth, and what we're really seeing is the right for a very small percentage of the world's population to take and control the resources of the world. That is not going to disappear simply by talking about questions of individual rights to hold on to the income we have. We have to look at questions of distribution and there have to be mechanisms of power that can actually stand up to transnational corporations and individuals who have way too big a share of wealth and power in this country.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Mr. Cyr, do you wish to reply?
Mr. Cyr: The right to other people's income is the question, I think. As treaty Indian people, we never believed the payment of treaty would come from taxation. The right to six or eight inches of topsoil is what was given up in the discussions of treaty, our elders still tell us. The animals, the forests and the waters were to remain with the treaty Indian people, because the promise of everything that is here now will remain yours. We don't wish to own your animals, your fish or anything. How could our fish live without water and our animals without forest...and the different needs of sustainment in that way? We feel we're being infringed upon as much as you feel we're taking your tax dollar. Your taking our resources is doing the same thing, so where's the trade-off? These are the types of things we need to discuss.
For the other moneys that are consolidated, it wasn't the Indian people who decided to consolidate the revenues of Canada. We were promised that certain things would come. We expected that it would come from the sharing of the resources of this land, not from the taxation of individual incomes.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Duhamel): Thank you. There will be an opportunity to pursue it later if necessary.
Mr. Pillitteri.
Mr. Pillitteri (Niagara Falls): I'd like to thank everyone for the presentations this morning.
Please don't say ``we as immigrants have the right...''. Most of us are immigrants. Mr. Cyr is native Canadian, but I am an immigrant like you. It is not a privileged spot if you hold this country as giving the opportunity to all of us to be sitting at this table. It is not a privilege, but an opportunity for all.
Ms Lepage, I like your presentation. It's quite interesting, especially the one you did not read, where it says that one group that has been whitewashed from this list is the Business Council on National Issues. You mention Tom d'Aquino and a 14-person staff. He also works for a non-profit organization. You didn't have that in there, but I do remember that. I recall having a conversation with Mr. d'Aquino, and in the election before the last one he supported the free trade issue.
Something in your presentation is a little bit puzzling, however, especially where you keep talking about corporations not paying their fair tax. This is something we hear all the time.
.1315
Just to give you some information, I think it was The Financial Post last week that had statistics on how different G-7 governments and countries pay taxes. I see here - and these statistics can be verified - that the corporate sector in Canada was something like 2.4 in tax, the United States 2.5, Japan 4.1, France and Germany, 1.6 and 1.1, but the average is about 2.5. Germany is only 1.1. So we rank about third in the G-7 in personal income taxes.
You also said that the government should create jobs. I'd like to pose a question to you in the reverse. In your last recommendation you say the Canadian government should promote Canadian products to guarantee Canadian jobs.
As you well know, our gross domestic product in Canada is what is produced in Canada, what is consumed in Canada, and what is shipped abroad. Of our total gross domestic product, 37% is exports, so we benefit from exports, from jobs in Canada that we often did not have before. We have a manufacturing sector that has done fairly well. As a matter of fact the automobile industry has high-paying jobs.
Just to give you an idea, in the auto industry, for every two cars we produce almost, one is exported out of Canada. If the United States were to put in the same recommendations, how would it be in Canada? If everybody did this against Canada, would we be better off or worse off?
Ms Lepage: I don't think I was saying we should have less exporting. I was saying we should continue to promote Canadian products in Canada, because we have a tremendous wave of Americanism and less expensive lines that our Canadian citizens will buy over a Canadian product.
Maybe we have to look at the promotion of Canadian products to guarantee Canadian jobs. Maybe that also concerns industry, not just the Canadian government, but we also have to look at what we receive in imports.
I came across a document two weeks ago about a war toy and the rules and the instructions were so explicitly violent. If a parent picked that up and didn't look at that.... You buy a toy because somebody - and I'm not into war games so I didn't find that at home, it was somebody else who brought it to my attention. That worries me because we are not careful about those things.
Another area where we could be more careful is with all the imports from Taiwan and China. We want to exchange with these countries - we want to sell and we want to buy - but when the average Canadian woman on a limited budget has to choose between buying a Canadian product at Eaton's or Sears, and a Hong Kong product at Zellers, and it's a pair of pants for her son, she's going to pick the one that has a lower price.
We want to keep wages up for Canadian citizens, but is there something we can maybe look at that -
Mr. Pillitteri: We are in a global economy.
Ms Lepage: I know we're in a global economy, but let's not get caught in the rat race of lowering all of our standards so that we can compete internationally and we end up being a third world country. We could end up in the same boat they are, with the rich being rich and the others being extremely poor.
.1320
Mr. Pillitteri: If we didn't have those exports today, we would be -
Ms Lepage: Yes, I know, and I agree. We're just asking that we look at that constructively and see what we can come up with.
Mr. Pillitteri: Yes, it is to promote Canada, but the bottom line is the price.
Ms Sekhar: We're also looking specifically at the human rights violations. We're not against exports and imports. We do believe in globalization to some extent, but we have to be careful. I come from a country where we know what happened when traders came into India, and eventually they took over. The East India Company finally took over our country, and we became the slaves of the British nation.
When we do trade with other countries, we have to set some standards. We have to have a screening process. We should be careful that labour in other countries is not being exploited. Those are the kinds of issues that are of concern to us. We are requesting that the Canadian government look at that carefully.
Mr. Pillitteri: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Ms Sekhar and Mr. Pillitteri.
Mr. Fewchuk.
Mr. Fewchuk (Selkirk - Red River): Good afternoon. Thanks for coming.
It's very interesting to travel with this committee across our great land. I'm very impressed with what I hear this morning. I tie myself into a lot of your feelings in view of where I came from; I went from having nothing to getting a little bit and being satisfied. Just four years ago I was in this $12,000 to $15,000 bracket, and my wife had to go to work so we could survive. So I hear where you're coming from.
As you know, government can't solve everything. Perhaps somehow you could give us some of your priorities. It doesn't have to be over the mike; it could be in a hand-written note for my eyes only. Just pick out two or three issues.
Let's face it; we don't have the money for everything in this world today. Give me some indication of what would be your number one, two and three priorities. Where could the government help you now, tomorrow and in the distant future, the next 12 months? Where is it most needed? It doesn't have to be over the mike, as I said. It could be at a later date to my address.
Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Is that your only question?
Mr. Fewchuk: Yes.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Does anyone wish to reply to that at this time, or would you prefer to do it in writing?
Ms Lepage: I'd like to make a comment.
Canadians who have a social conscience are really worried about the fact that ``interest group'' is becoming a negative title, and that we are attributing this title to anything that has to do with women or different cultures, such as the immigrant citizens of Canada and the native people of our country.
Maybe we should wake up and look at who is really the interest group in this country. It is the richer portion of the country that can pay for an association with a secret budget to be the shadow cabinet of our federal governments throughout the years and to have access.
I know people don't like that, but it's the truth. We know I cannot get a hold of Prime Minister Chrétien or Mr. Martin. Even if I represented all women in Canada, I could not access them at any time of the day or night. But I'd be willing to bet $100, which I don't have to bet, that the president or the CEO of an association has no problems.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have access, but the thing is they're setting the agenda for Canada, and they're setting it on their terms, not to reflect and include the rest of Canadians. When we're looking at 150 companies, that is scary.
Are we going to do the same thing a lot of other countries in this world are doing, or are we going to stop? As Canadian elected officials - and as far as I'm concerned, every party has to be responsible for this - you have to take their considerations into account, but they shouldn't be the yardstick by which you determine....
.1325
The other thing is donations. This morning we were discussing the tax credits for donations, and we were saying make sure the groups are well qualified. Where do political parties come into play here? That's a 100% deduction for their contributions, and we don't get that for other things. We have to look at that.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Ms Lepage, I'll just correct you on that. It's not 100%.
Ms Lepage: Not any more?
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): It's not 100%. On the first $100 you donate to a political party, you receive a $75 tax credit. On your next $400, the percentage goes down. There's a maximum contribution. It's not -
Ms Lepage: But is it the same percentage as -
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): No, it's different from charities.
Ms Lepage: Okay, but the thing is people are going to question that. I'm not saying it shouldn't be taken into account. We just have to -
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): What we were talking about earlier, though, was specifically charities. We were talking about appreciated property, which is totally....
We weren't talking about just a tax credit on the individual donation. We didn't talk about that this morning.
Ms Lepage: No, I know.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): I don't want to leave the confusion.
Ms Lepage: What I'm saying is let's look at charities compared to contributions to political parties.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): That's fine. Thank you.
Ms Lepage: I'm not against it; I'm just saying -
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): No, that's fine. Thank you.
Mr. Fewchuk, are you finished?
Mr. Fewchuk: Yes, thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Mr. Duhamel.
Mr. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Thank you very much.
I will be making a comment and then I will be asking questions of Madame Lepage.
First of all, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your presentations. As far as I'm concerned, you have the right, absolutely, totally and completely - I underline it - to your fair share of Canada's wealth. Any other position is totally untenable, because it would cost us horrendous amounts of money not to respond in such a way.
I'm really quite willing to contribute my fair share of taxes as well. As I said to a young presenter this morning, I want to make sure, though, that if I do my fair share today, he and others will do their fair share later on, when I need some special assistance.
[Translation]
Ms Lepage, you raised a number of issues and you did not beat about the bush to do so. I appreciate your honesty, which does not offend me at all. I am not the least bit upset, and I really mean that.
If you had one main message to send to Mr. Martin, what would it be? I am going to ask the same question to each of the presenters.
Ms Lepage: The same message as women's groups and I have wanted to send to Ottawa for the past two years. When women's groups make recommendations and carry out studies to see how they view things in their community, or in Canadian society, it always gets diluted or rejected.
As for employment insurance, I have a little trouble with that one. If I'm not mistaken, the employment insurance fund will have a surplus of $1.6 million this year, if not more. But there are now rules which make it more difficult to collect benefits.
It affects women's finances. It is really dangerous because now, it is the number of hours worked that are counted and women represent 80% of the part-time workforce. Everything they can get as benefits is minimized.
Mr. Duhamel: I want to make sure I clearly understand what you are saying. You are saying that Mr. Martin should pay more attention to what women are saying to him and that he should be more sensitive to the impact of his decisions on women. Am I correct?
Ms Lepage: Yes, their impact on women, but he should also remember that women reflect the needs of society as a whole.
[English]
Mr. Duhamel: Madam Chair, with your permission, I'd like to have a comment from each person assembled here.
Very succinctly, what is the main message you want us to bring to Mr. Martin?
Ms Sekhar: We want you to act as a government, not as a third party. Promises were made in the red book, and they were wonderful promises. We urge you to keep the commitment to women and to NGO community groups. Without those resources, we cannot continue.
.1330
Mr. Cyr: I believe the message first nations people would like to put across is they have paid so much that it is almost impossible for them to rebuild their economies in a way that they would be free, under the agreements their forefathers have signed. All you have to do is look at the high populations of the Indian reservations and the migration of people off the reserves. You'd see very quickly that there just isn't enough there to create the economy to look after the social well-being of the first nations people. I think that would be a very strong message we would like to put across.
Mr. Gilmer: It's quite difficult to come up with just one, so I'm going to briefly mention two.
The first one is on the implementation of a social security act that would put in place the rights that were previously in the Canada Assistance Plan. The second one would be to start looking at taking some of the funds that are used in terms of tax breaks and subsidies to business and looking at the development of a larger infrastructure for community economic development enterprises, worker cooperatives, etc., so that we can actually maintain some economic control within our communities.
Rev. Logan: The thing I'd like the minister to hear very clearly is the significance of human life. Therefore, any actions that would be taken by the government should respect the reality that people who are at the poor end of the scale, the poverty-stricken people, are people, and any action the government takes should not discriminate against those people or expect them to carry more of the burden than they can possibly carry.
So I would say any action, any kind of legislation that was proposed, should emphasize the importance of their lives, the importance of those people. Therefore, anything that would be introduced that would deprive them, pick on them, or blame them should be avoided.
Mr. Duhamel: Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Mr. Duhamel.
[Translation]
Mr. Rocheleau, you have another question?
Mr. Rocheleau: No, not for the time being.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Mr. Solberg.
Mr. Solberg: I have one question. People have spoken about full employment, and it's a laudable end; there's no doubt about that. But I'm wondering if anyone here can point to a jurisdiction where full employment has been achieved using some of the policies that have been advocated this morning.
Mr. Gilmer: There is in fact no example I could give in the modern industrialized world, but I think the purpose of talking about zero unemployment or full employment is that unless we set it as a goal, we're not going to get anywhere close to it. As long as we put other priorities ahead of full employment, the employment question is not going to be the major focus of -
Mr. Solberg: We've had very low levels of unemployment in the past. In fact, I think in the early 1970s it was down around 4% - somewhere in that range. Although no level of unemployment should be acceptable, in the real world the fact is there is always going to be at least a little bit of unemployment.
The argument I want to make is if you focus on trying simply to address this problem by getting the government to put these people to work - I'm not talking about workfare here, but I suppose to hire them - at the end of the day you're simply taking money out of someone else's pocket to do that; in other words, people who may be creating jobs themselves. Isn't it better to create an economy where you have a very productive workforce, where people are trained and are extremely productive? Isn't this the way to create jobs? Of course, there are many aspects of being productive. You have to be competitive, etc., with the rest of the world. Isn't that a much better way...than trying to decree, through government going out and hiring people or make-work type programs...which at the end of the day simply transfer money from one group to another group?
.1335
Mr. Gilmer: Yes, but the alternative that is used is one in which we look at a better climate for transnational corporations to do business. We haven't shown that improvements for corporate profits or competitiveness at an international level between corporations has necessarily meant an increase in jobs in Canada. In fact, right now our national unemployment rate is as high as it's been in a long time.
When you see companies that are making bigger and bigger profits but are actually laying off workers, as was mentioned earlier, you really have to question the whole philosophy of the relationship between job creation and a so-called healthy business climate. That correlation seems to be breaking down.
Mr. Solberg: The small business sector is the biggest job creator in the economy, although a lot of the talk has been about transnational corporations and that kind of thing. If we were able to free up the small business sector by lightening the load for them a little bit, by giving them lower taxes and lower UI premiums, for instance, so they have an incentive to go out and create jobs, doesn't that get toward the end you're concerned about, which is putting more people to work?
Mr. Gilmer: You're setting up, I think, a phony competition between the rights of people who work for small businesses and small business owners themselves. I think what we really should be doing is looking at shifting resources from subsidies and breaks to larger corporations towards small business, and link job creation with the question of any special benefits that any business would get.
I think you also have to look at the question of high interest rates. One of the big problems for small business has been the fact that interest rates, until recently anyway, have been higher. That's caused a lot of problems for small business people. I think interest rates have to be linked to the whole question. Instead of looking at UI premiums, let's look at the bigger picture.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Mr. Gilmer. Thank you, Mr. Solberg.
I'm going to turn to closing comments. We have another group of witnesses who need to appear before us before 1 p.m. What I'd like you to do is take two or three minutes for a closing comment, if need be, to provide us with anything you don't think reached the table.
I would like to make one comment myself; it's not directed at anyone, it's just a comment. When we talk about corporate downsizing and corporate taxation, we have to remember that the reason some corporations have downsized and some corporations are trying to increase their return on profits is for those private pension plans that many of our spouses, friends and neighbours invest in, because they're asking for a greater return on their money. It's a vicious cycle that we're subject to right now in certain parts of the country, but those are the realities we live within.
You've brought some very interesting points to the table today. I'd ask if we could start with closing comments.
Ms Lepage and Ms Sekhar, you could decide between the two of you who's going to give that.
Mr. Logan, if you wouldn't mind beginning, just give a brief comment on your final message to the committee, please.
Rev. Logan: My final message to the committee really grows from the basic concern we have in the Regina Anti-Poverty Ministry, which is that we are dealing with human beings.
It's very threatening in a way to always be dealing with statistics, but when I run into a situation I was in the other day, where I saw a review of the support system for children who are in separated families and found the vast range in the compensation given to the well-off child and the very small amount of money that's given to the poor child, I have to raise in my mind the question of where are we in relation to the meaning of human life, to the value and integrity of being a human being. Therefore, anything we want to do or will try to do under the Regina Anti-Poverty Ministry will be to emphasize the significance of being a child of God.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you very much.
Mr. Gilmer.
.1340
Mr. Gilmer: Very briefly, in some of the comments that have been made today, I see a correlation or a connection in history.
Some of the comments Mr. Cyr was making remind me that the reality is that despite all the talk about programs for first nations, the actual benefits that have gone to first nations communities have been minuscule, compared to, as was mentioned, the resources and benefits that have been accrued to the larger society, based on land and resources. I see the same situation today, not only with first nations, but with low-income people across the board. Low-income people are blamed for the deficit. Low-income people are being blamed for economic problems. The reality is that their impact on the debt and deficit and the economic problems of the country is minuscule compared to the types of power and control and breaks that are going to more powerful economic players in the economy.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Mr. Gilmer.
Mr. Cyr.
Mr. Cyr: I would like to say in closing that in the beginning, I suppose, when welfare was being issued, first nations people chose not to accept that type of a supplement. Indian people, first nations people, lived off the land. They wanted to be a part of the land. It was in the spiritual belief that the Creator put us here for a reason, and we're here to fulfil that mission. Financial subsidy was never a part of that philosophy.
Along with all the job creation government has tried to employ Indian people with, I think one thing has been forgotten. All the trades, skills and training, and one thing and another, that have gone on, on Indian reservations, the capitalization for development after that training is done, the corporate requirements, all the capitalization to put businesses into place, is something that hasn't really been in place.
There are attempts with ABC and CAEDS, and one thing or another, to try to capitalize, but there just aren't enough capitalization dollars to provide the means to set up businesses and to create the employment we require at the reserve level.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you very much, Mr. Cyr.
A final comment, Ms Lepage.
Ms Lepage: On the part of women's groups and women, who still form about 52% of the population, we resent being called an interest group. Because of our Canadian and multicultural aspects, we feel it becomes more and more negative. We are being used as tools of the government to pander to the mainstream ideology that actively seeks out to silence groups and communities.
There's a sense of a political agenda to rabble-rouse Canadians into believing that these groups are draining the economy. We are suffering the backlash of that, because we're termed a ``special interest group''. We are wondering whether the government is committed to the work of women and to raising their status and profile. Is the government committed to an agenda that actively promotes anti-discrimination, and is this visible in every area of work? We don't think so, but we'd like to be proven wrong, any time of the day or night.
We wish that the whole of society would actively participate in elevating the status of women, of making us equal, because it's going to benefit our children; it's going to benefit our country. We need the male population in on this, and that means the majority of elected representatives. We need an opening to women's programs, to community groups, because they're doing the ground work; they're doing the dirty work. Let's give them the funds to do it. They're going to do a good job, because they're looking after their own people, and
[Translation]
I know our country can meet that challenge. It is especially important to encourage respect of each individual in Canada and in Quebec. I do not think that we can reach that ultimate goal if we do not keep talking to each other.
.1345
We must also respect one another, respect our differences, our cultures and different financial status, from the poorest of the poor to the richest of the rich. We do not think the richest should part with their wealth and give it to the poor. All we are asking for is that it be shared equally. That is all we want.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you very much, Ms Lepage.
I want to thank all the witnesses for their time before us this morning and for their comments. It's been a very thought-provoking and very interesting discussion.
I would be remiss, Ms Lepage, if I didn't let you know that there are two other women on the finance committee and they are travelling east. I'm not sure if someone mentioned that when I was out of the room.
Again, your presentations are very thorough and they will be read in detail and will be part of our submission to the Minister of Finance. Thank you, again.
We'll have you exchange places now with our next witnesses. Thank you very much.
I'd invite the witnesses from the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour to please come to the table.
We're under a time constraint and so I'm going to propose a format. If you want to make a brief presentation to the committee or if you want to make a longer presentation to the committee, it's your choice. The longer the presentation, the less time there is for people to ask questions. We are under a time constraint because of the checkout time in the hotel, and a number of other factors. But we have about 15 minutes that we'd like to give your undivided attention to. We're sorry that you weren't part of our presentations earlier this morning. I apologize if that's an oversight on our part or if there was an invitation not extended.
Ms Byers.
Ms Barbara Byers (President, Saskatchewan Federation of Labour): I'm president of the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour. With me is Cindy McCallum, who's the national vice-president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, and Rick Byrne, who's the regional director for the Canadian Labour Congress in the prairie region.
I want to thank you for the invite to be here. Rick hauled me off a bus as we were taking our demonstrators back. There was an earlier call last week for us to appear before the committee. We should be clear about that. We have a convention that started this morning in Regina and so chose not to appear on this basis.
So we brought our convention down here because you were meeting here. You almost tricked us. We thought you were at the Sands for a while, but we have pretty good intelligence out there as well.
What I want to deliver to the committee, because I have had the opportunity to appear in front of you before and be part of the discussion you've had before, is that we don't think the federal government and the parties that are there are listening to people. Consistently, a group such as ours, and the groups that appeared just before us, will come and talk to you about what needs to be done. Then we get the next round of cuts. It's very interesting. We feel like we don't want to give you any more suggestions for good ideas because it seems to drive you to the bad ideas.
We look at it and ask what people have gained in the last number of years. What they haven't gained are any jobs or job security. They are finding their services are cut. The agreements the public had with the federal government, in terms of social programming and basically the social contract that goes with this, are gone.
.1350
On the weekend I was watching some television and they were showing the demonstrations in Toronto. I heard somebody say, this is what happens when capitalism pulls away from the social contract, because those things were there for people.
What we have right now is more people unemployed - and you can go by the officially unemployed figures, which are pretty high, or the unofficially unemployed figures, which are even worse.
The largest creation right now is food banks. We're finding that more and more people are being forced out of work and that more corporations are recording record profits.
There is greater concentration of the media. We see that here in Saskatchewan, where Conrad Black bought the weekly newspapers and afterwards just conveniently came in and fired hundreds of people for his own purposes and his own bottom line. I ask you, where does that get this province or the Canadian public?
I want to give you a personal story on that. I was in Saskatoon the weekend those cuts came down and I happened to be staying in the hotel where the company that was doing the firings did the firing. They brought the people in. When you'd come in and say, for example,``My name isSusan Whelan'', they would say, ``Susan, you go to room 1, Ron Fewchuk, go to room 2, and Ron Duhamel, you go to room 3''. You didn't know what was being done. Essentially you were being separated from your co-workers and sent off there. In two of the rooms people were told they would keep their jobs and in one of the rooms they had their jobs cut.
You tell me what kind of society we are building when corporations can do that, when they can come in and basically perform triage on people - that's how it was put.
The Canadian Union of Postal Workers - Cindy has a few things to say as well. We are faced with massive job cuts there. What solution is that?
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: you have cut massive numbers of jobs there, with promises of more cuts. If I recall my high school history, they often told us that in times of war, what you'd try to do was cut off communications between people. That's what's happening across this country; you're cutting off communications between Canadians when you attack the CBC. You attack our opportunity to learn about each other from each other.
The list is long. You haven't done anything in terms of real tax reform. People still have family trusts, which seems to work well for them. It doesn't work well for anybody else. You have people who can hide their money offshore - billions of dollars. That's not a problem. It's a blip in the news, and then it's.... We can go on.
The solutions that the federal government has been trying since 1993 - as well as the federal governments before that - haven't been working for people. If you've got any responsibility at all, and any conscience at all, what you're going to do is make sure the next time people like myself or people from the anti-poverty groups or the women's organizations come to see you, they will be able to say they've seen a real improvement in the lives of the people they represent.
We're sorry you couldn't hear all of our speakers outside. We are pleased that you got to hear the speakers here; it was important that you hear from anti-poverty groups. We had people out there talking about the Canada health and social transfer; the Canadian Union of Postal Workers; students; the Public Service Alliance of Canada about cuts in UI; Len Taylor spoke to us about the potential cuts to the Canada Pension Plan. There was a broad range of people there.
The next time you come to Saskatchewan, plan on staying longer. We'll bring the whole group in to talk to you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Ms Byers.
Ms McCallum, did you have anything to say?
Ms Cindy McCallum (National Director, Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Saskatchewan Federation of Labour): Yes. First of all, I'm pleased that Barb has allowed me to share this time period with her.
I represent 7,000 workers in the post office. On October 8 your government made a decision that impacts on 10,000 of the most vulnerable workers in the post office - the deliverers of ad mail. Your government decided very quickly to listen to people like Conrad Black, who came to this government and asked for a mandate review of Canada Post in the first place, and decided to throw 10,000 people out of work.
I guess I look back at the newspaper clippings from a few weeks ago, when the Prime Minister said that he was going to put forward an evaluation of the red book. He was going to come to the Canadian people and say, this is what we've done; this is what the red book said we were going to do; tell us how good you think we've done.
.1355
I remember the last election campaign when the primary focus of the red book, which attracted people to vote for the Liberal government, was the creation of jobs, jobs, jobs. That was the fundamental point of the party's platform to run for government. I say hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy. In a stroke of a pen you've put 10,000 people out of work.
Let me tell you about these 10,000 people. These are people who are working on a part-time basis, usually working one or two or three different routes just to be able to survive. They have families. They have children. They're people who have physical and mental challenges, who don't get accepted quite as readily into the regular workplace, so have been unable to find a job allowing them dignity and to be able to pay their way in life.
The government has turfed them out onto the street and said, maybe people like Conrad Black and Ken Thomson will be able to hire you when they take over the ad mail business, which they're all lauding as a gold mine. They're indicating that they see pure profits are able to be made and they're lauding it as a gold mine. But they have no intentions of hiring these 10,000 people.
So I would say that what you've done is you've thrown these people out in the cold. December 31 is the last day they'll be working. What a nice way to start the New Year. No hope for jobs.
In conjunction with thousands of other jobs that have been lost through the cuts to CBC and the cuts to the public service, the market is shrinking incredibly. I would say you have to start looking at the faces of the people who you're impacting by the cuts in public services, the people who are lining up at hospitals because of transfer payments in the provincial spectrum, and the people who are looking at the future with a sense of hopelessness because they don't see themselves in it.
Many of the ad mail workers who we represent are women. Many of them are single parents. They have to be in a position to be able to feed their children. What has this government done? This government had an opportunity with the mandate review in order to take a look at some choices they have. They could have expanded and improved service in the post office, which is one of the recommendations in the mandate review. But instead they went immediately with the recommendation of eliminating 10,000 jobs.
I would say my message to the Prime Minister is if you want to have an evaluation of the red book and of your promises, I call you a liar and I call you a cheat. I would say you are going to have to come forward to the people of this country at some point in time and say that you're either going to go back to your promises and put people to work and look at developing a society where people have an opportunity to live with dignity, or fess up and say you have no intention of doing that and let people have an option to make up their own minds.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to raise this issue with you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): I'm going to ask my colleagues if they have a very brief question. I warn them, I will cut them off after 30 seconds if they try to go into long dialogues, because we do have time constraints with regard to the hotel.
Mr. Rocheleau, if you'd like to begin....
[Translation]
Mr. Rocheleau: I would first like to welcome my colleague from the NDP. I am very pleased to see him here today, since we are discussing a very important matter.
Ms Byers, you were very consistent and vehement in your criticism of the neo-liberal trend. Let's be blunt about it - currently prevailing in Canada, especially in Alberta and in Ontario, where people are proud of it.
How much broader should the debate be? Should we not try to see whether it is an international macroeconomic phenomenon, where everything is being pushed downward, not only to the grassroots, but also to sovereign states and even continents? Have you thought about those who hold the real power, the financial clout?
.1400
[English]
Ms Byers: I think we do need to have an elevation of that kind of discussion, but we can't use it as an excuse to not do anything here. What we see is that capital is quite clearly controlling governments. Governments are fighting for capital. The biggest excuse used provincially and nationally is we can't do that, we can't take on the corporations because they'll leave.
I don't know if you've been at some previous meetings I've been at before when you've been in Saskatchewan, but I've said these are the same corporations that say they have some sort of sense of Canadian identity. How unpatriotic of them to say they'll just leave.
I think we need to be much tougher on capital, and that means, yes, some international pushes on it and some coordination, but we shouldn't wait. We should lead the way instead of always waiting. We had better not wait for our friends to the south to do anything, because they're a long way back.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Mr. Solberg.
Mr. Solberg: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
First of all, congratulations on your assessment of the red book. I couldn't agree more.
With respect to dealing with corporations and how they're treated with respect to the deficit, on the one hand we do have a deficit problem. I don't know what you're saying about the deficit. Are you treating it as a serious problem that we have to balance the budget?
Ms Byers: We believe the deficit and the debt are serious problems. We just don't think the solutions have been taken up.
Mr. Solberg: I accept that. You're saying taxation of corporations is one way of dealing with that.
Ms Byers: Yes, it is, and wealthy individuals, people who don't line up at the food banks....
Mr. Solberg: In reference to what Mr. Rocheleau was saying, on the one hand we have people complaining about corporations laying people off and making profits. We're talking about globalization and corporations being able to flee. You're saying it would be unpatriotic of them to leave, but frankly I'm not certain this is very persuasive.
How are you going to tax them more and not cause lay-offs in doing that, or cause them to flee and cause lay-offs?
Ms Byers: I'm quite convinced we need to start putting in some restrictions if somebody wants to do business here in Canada. We can put restrictions on whether they can come in and do business. If you take a look at the jobs we've lost since free trade and NAFTA, since you didn't have to have Canadian branch plants, you will understand the kinds of restrictions we need back here.
How do you do it? It's true corporations have no conscience, but corporations like to make money, and I'm not convinced that if a government finally stood up to them that some corporation wouldn't say, yes, I want to sell newspapers; maybe Conrad Black doesn't want to sell newspapers, but I want to sell newspapers in Canada. I think we have to make it disadvantageous for them to cut jobs, move out of the country and just use us as some sort of a secondary place to operate, but basically a place to make money.
You have a choice - you really have a choice - because people are becoming more and more impatient with this. You may have heard only unions talking about it 15 years ago, but as more people lose their jobs you're seeing more people taking it to the streets.
So you have a choice. You can deal with it in Parliament and in other places or you can have people on the streets.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Mr. Duhamel, please.
Mr. Duhamel: This is a serious question, and the reason I give a preamble is I want to make sure that no one thinks I'm trying to play politics or bait anyone. That's not my style.
I've just come back from British Columbia, where I talked to a number of people who were discussing with me the cuts that are being undertaken by a government - and I say this with full respect - that's normally extremely sympathetic to working people - massive cuts that will parallel those of the federal government.
I've talked to people in Saskatchewan, where there's a social democratic government, and they talked to me about the savage cuts in the health care system.
The question I ask you to help me understand is, why is it that governments of different political persuasions, at different spots on the political spectrum, appear to be approaching the question of management of the economy, management of the country, of a province - unless I'm missing something - in very similar ways? Could you please give me your insight? I'm anxious to understand.
Ms Byers: I do take your question quite seriously, because we have had massive cuts here in this province and we have had people very severely damaged by that.
.1405
I think it's time for us to ask who controls the governments. Why do we elect you guys if it's going to be the corporations that run it?
Ms Byers: Why do we elect you? You don't seem to be able to do anything in terms of being able to control things. Corporations call the shots. We've had the same thing here. In the first few years after the NDP was elected, there were times when I would look at our premier and our cabinet members and I wanted to ask if they would mind stepping aside so I could see who's really running the province. When we asked why they cut all those jobs, why they cut health care, the answer was always we can't do anything else because capital is going to leave the province, and we're already a poor province.
If you politicians want to get some credibility back, then stand up to the corporations that are pushing you around and say, we represent people and we should be representing more poor people right now than corporations, because there's more of them.
Mr. Duhamel: Then your contention is that governments no longer govern; it's the large multinationals, the large corporate sector, that governs.
Thank you.
Ms Byers: They do. Take a look at the decisions that have been made.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Ms Byers.
I want to thank Mr. Taylor for sitting in and listening to this discussion. We appreciate your appearing before us today. We apologize that we weren't able to accommodate you with your convention going on earlier today. We hope you'll join us again in the future, and we will take your message back to Ottawa. I can guarantee you that all of my colleagues sitting around the table have heard it loud and clear.
The meeting is now adjourned.