[T]here’s no silver bullet. There’s no one sector. Government can’t do it alone, and neither can the private sector or United Way. We’re all part of the solution. Having a plan with a target helps us all push in the right direction.[445]

Over the course of its study, the Committee heard recommendations concerning the elements of a national poverty reduction strategy. Recommendations on specific aspects, such as the importance of linking the national poverty reduction strategy to the national housing strategy or the need for an early learning and child care framework have been addressed earlier in this report. However, a number of witnesses spoke about general features of a poverty reduction strategy as well as the unique policy levers for which the federal government is responsible.

A.  Features of a National Poverty Reduction Strategy

1.   Objective and focus

Several witnesses observed that the federal government has successfully reduced the rates of poverty among certain populations, noting in particular the significantly lower rate of poverty among seniors following the introduction of the GIS. Nonetheless, they indicated that little progress has been achieved for other vulnerable groups and recommended that a national poverty reduction strategy be focused on key sub-populations, such as working-age unattached individuals.[446] However, most recommended a broad national poverty reduction strategy that supports all low-income populations.

In terms of principles to guide the national poverty reduction strategy, the Committee heard that the federal government should view all policies and programs related to poverty reduction with a lens for gender, age, disability, and mental health.[447] Some witnesses recommended that the national poverty reduction strategy be grounded in human rights, stipulating that it make explicit reference to Canada’s international human rights obligations,[448] and that a human rights lens be applied to the strategy’s elements.[449]

The timelines for a strategy were also considered by many. Witnesses commented that the government had to consider both short- and long-term measures and goals. While short-term emergency services such as shelters and food banks are unable to reduce poverty, they are critical for many and no witnesses proposed that they be eliminated. However, the Committee heard that in addition to addressing the immediate needs of those in poverty, the government needs to look at poverty reduction as a long-term effort with a 20-30 year timeline, focused on upstream measures that will help lift those with low incomes out of poverty and prevent others from falling into it.[450]

The Committee was also advised that the federal government should consider a pan-Canadian approach, with universal targets and financial supports to provinces and territories, in order to ensure consistent approaches to poverty reduction across jurisdictions.[451]

2. Governance

Because of the long timeline that many suggested was necessary to successfully reduce poverty in Canada, the Committee was advised that the poverty reduction strategy should be grounded in legislation and overseen by an organization at arms-length from government, allowing the strategy to benefit from long-term leadership and insulation from shifts in policy priorities. This approach has been used by the government of New Brunswick, which set its poverty reduction strategy in legislation and established the Economic and Social Inclusion Corporation, a provincial Crown corporation to oversee the implementation of the strategy, in partnership with municipalities and stakeholders.[452]

3. Definition and measurement of poverty

Witnesses also addressed the issue of data on poverty among vulnerable groups. As there is no official standard of measuring poverty, the information provided to the Committee used the various measurements of LICO, LIM, and MBM. Several witnesses noted the limitations of such measures. Based on income, they fail to capture non-income based measures of poverty. Others did not advocate for specific measurement tools, but focused on the need for the federal government to develop a Canada-wide poverty measurement.[453] Underlying this issue is the need to actually develop a common definition of poverty, which can then be measured. According to witness testimony, the lack of both a common definition and a common measurement of poverty hinders stakeholders’ efforts to develop targets and conduct rigorous assessment. These elements are necessary if the strategy is to be successful in achieving its objectives. The issue was summarized by John Harvey of Covenant House Vancouver:

... the federal government has endorsed no official measurement of poverty. The question then arises, how do we meaningfully talk about poverty if we don't have a common language around poverty and a set of metrics to measure the impact of any and all of our efforts toward reducing poverty?…

… Regardless of what methods we adopt, the axiom “you can’t fix what you don’t measure” rings true here.[454]

4. Leadership and communications

The Committee was advised that the federal government should assume a leadership role in reducing poverty, building upon the momentum created by provincial, territorial, and municipal poverty reduction strategies and using its ability to launch broad national communication initiatives. Federal leadership should extend beyond the coordination of programs with provinces and territories, to “collaboration, equity, flexibility and accountability for results”.[455] There is also the need to inspire and motivate other levels of government, stakeholders and the public:

... I challenge you to end poverty and increase well-being. Be bold. Be bold with your message. Unless you are bold, municipal governments, provincial governments, and community will not be bold, so please take a leadership role and be that bold.[456]

Witnesses suggested that the federal government could champion a national strategy that integrates community economic development and social economy initiatives, thereby demonstrating the economic opportunities created by addressing poverty.[457] Others agreed, while also advising that the cost of poverty for society and the consequences of maintaining the status quo should be weighed against the cost of poverty reduction measures.[458] Indeed, several witnesses told the Committee that their communities had been spurred into developing their own poverty reduction strategies by the increasing and unsustainable costs of poverty for their health, judicial, and social systems.

5.   Partnerships

The development of a national poverty reduction strategy will inevitably require close consultation and collaboration with numerous partners. This naturally includes provinces and territories, Indigenous peoples, as well as municipalities, to ensure that goals, policies, and programs are in alignment and do not duplicate, overlap, or contradict each other. The Committee heard repeatedly from witnesses that those with lived experience should be included in the development and implementation of a national poverty reduction strategy. Including these voices was identified as a critical factor in municipal and provincial strategies, enabling them to direct resources with the greatest effectiveness and ensuring those directly impacted have an opportunity to be heard. One witness quoted the saying of Halifax community groups: “Nothing about us without us.”[459]

The need for involvement of the private sector was another recurrent message. Many municipalities have developed and implemented their poverty reduction strategies in collaboration with their business communities. The Committee heard that in Saint John, New Brunswick, much of the impetus for their poverty reduction plan came from the private sector, which determined that the consequences of poverty in the community, such as low literacy levels, were hampering their ability to meet their labour needs.[460] The Committee was also reminded of the power of large companies to reach a broad cross-section of society in support of social goals, such as Bell’s Let’s Talk campaign which is designed to increase awareness and acceptance of mental illness.[461]

6.   Funding: the Canada Social Transfer and a Social Care Act

In 2016-2017, total federal expenditure on the Canada Social Transfer (CST) is estimated to be $13.4 billion. Because the CST rolls up various social supports into one block payment, there is no mechanism by which to allocate any specific portion of the CST to social services, social assistance, or child care. During the course of the study, various witnesses spoke of the lack of accountability mechanisms and standards to ensure that social assistance programs across the country meet the basic needs of Canadians.[462] Jennefer Laidley of the Income Security Advocacy Centre urged the government to introduce standards as a condition for receiving CST funding. She recommended an increase to CST funding specifically earmarked for poverty reduction, so that provinces and territories could support their own strategies and flow funding to municipalities. She also stated that such a renewed CST should include conditions for enhanced provincial and territorial social assistance programs.[463]

Finally, The Canadian Association of Social Workers proposed in its brief the creation of a Social Care Act for Canada, which would be guided by principles similar to those of the Canada Health Act, such as public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability, accessibility, fairness, effectiveness, accountability and transparency, rights and responsibility, as well as comparability.[464] The objective of a Social Care Act for Canada so developed would be as follows:

Such an Act would help guide the provinces and territories in developing policies that best fit their unique needs, while helping the federal government better understand where dollars are being spent – and, in turn, where more targeted investment might be needed. This would help not only to foster dialogue around shared issues, best practices, and evidence-based programs, but also aid in producing comparable outcomes across Canada. Without federal leadership guiding social transfers and investments, dialogue on progressive social policy stagnates.[465]

In her appearance before the Committee, Ms. Guy suggested that a Social Care Act for Canada be a component of a national poverty reduction strategy.[466]

7.   Research and experimentation

We are not going to solve poverty with the status quo. We've tried that, and it did not work.[467]

The federal government has directed significant resources to research, but several witnesses noted gaps in research and information related to poverty and the dynamics within certain vulnerable populations. For instance, the Committee heard that there is a need for more studies on issues such as housing, poverty, and labour dynamics and that more frequent and more in-depth studies prepared by Statistics Canada and other government agencies would help stakeholders to continue to recalibrate programs and identify emerging trends more quickly.[468] The need for more research on mental health and measures to support those with mental disorders in the workplace was also identified.[469]

Witnesses also described new approaches and success stories from all levels of government, including innovative transit fee structures and the elimination of homelessness at the municipal level and a pilot project for a basic income at the provincial level.

However, there is no centralized information source to share new research, best practices, or to test new ideas. The sharing of such ideas is a means for the federal government to facilitate collaboration and to enable stakeholders to benefit from lessons learned and encourage adoption of successful models.[470]

The research hub developed in the United Kingdom was described as a best practice by James Hughes of the McConnell Family Foundation. According to Mr. Hughes, the British have developed What Works Centres, a network of seven arms-length centres, based on themes that include aging, local economic development, and poverty reduction. The centres are funded by government and other donors and provide stakeholders with domestic and international information and research that enables them to make informed decisions. Mr. Hughes stated:

I would suggest the committee consider a federal role in creating a centre such as they've created in the U.K. on a number of other thematics around poverty reduction.... That would be a place to turn to establish what works in the poverty reduction file from an evidentiary point of view, including what quality of evidence or reliability of evidence is actually available.[471]

[What Works Centres] can then determine whether they can use that specific evidence to create trials or pilot projects, or not pursue it because it has not worked elsewhere.[472]

8.   Taxation

The Committee heard several recommendations intended to improve the Income Tax Act in order to support poverty-related organizations and the communities they serve. One witness told the Committee that the Income Tax Act is outdated, as it does not include a definition of “charitable” nor a definition of “poverty,” preventing some organizations focused on poverty alleviation activities from obtaining charitable status.[473] The Committee was interested to hear that changes to the Income Tax Act to remove the capital gains tax on charitable gifts of private company shares and real estate could increase charitable donations by as much as $200 million annually.[474] Others advised the federal government to consider converting non-refundable tax credits to refundable ones. This measure could be a relatively straightforward and cost-effective means of reducing the rate and depth of poverty, particularly among non-elderly singles.[475]