Human Resources Committee on June 2nd, 2009

[Tim Rourke]

It's not a very difficult concept at all. The only thing, I think, in the world that is ever going to actually eliminate poverty is when you give people enough money so they're not poor.

There have been numerous experiments about this recently. In Canada we had the Manitoba income experiment. Four different cities in the United States had it for a while in the seventies. More recently, various third world countries have conducted experiments. There was a very successful one in Namibia. If they can do it, why can't Canada?

It isn't even going to cost much more than what is already being spent right now on social policies. People who say that it is going to be an astronomically expensive program are not being honest. It simply makes sense.

The trouble with it is that it would change the present social order. Employers are not going to have a compliant labour force under their thumb. People can simply walk out if they're being abused, without putting their lives in danger.

The only real issues about it are that you have to get cooperation from the provinces in terms of things like a proper housing program. Right now I would say we have a disastrous social housing program. I live in one of these miraculous places, and it is not a pleasant place to live. First of all, in the provinces we need legislation to control rents. We need adequate housing or proper housing that is run by the tenants. Otherwise there is not going to be much point to a guaranteed income. Landlords will take it all back.

There are other potential problems with it. Employers might want to try to use it as a wage top-up. This will work for them mostly if the citizens' guaranteed income is very low. It needs to be adequate so that people can simply get out of the labour market without serious consequences until they can participate on equal terms.

Am I out of time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

It's pretty close. If you have any final thoughts, you can give them.

[Tim Rourke]

I just don't think there is any alternative. Everything else in the world has been tried to eliminate poverty. As Senator Segal said a while back, “Why don't we just start out with people not being poor in the first place?”

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I think Sultana also wanted to add something here, so I will give her the last word on this.

[Sultana Jahangir]

I am sorry, I have to leave. I have another meeting. So if anyone has any questions, I will leave my e-mail address with Christine so that she can give it to you and you can e-mail us the questions.

We want to see improvements in child care, and we are not going to go back until we get them. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Sultana.

We are going to move to Mr. Lobb. Sir, you have seven minutes.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thanks very much.

I would like to thank the witnesses today. There are some definitely different perspectives, I would say, from what we have heard before and some fresh ideas, for sure. So I think that is a positive thing.

My first question is for Mr. Shapcott. We may be a little provincial here, and that is perhaps not the wisest thing. I go back to the Green Energy Act, which was recently put through in the latest provincial budget. One of the interesting aspects of the Green Energy Act is obviously zoning and planning. That was taken away from the municipalities and counties and left in the province's hands. It appears to me that there is an initiative to move it along the process of green energy, and there seems to be quite a substantial number of dollars available for green energy in the spirit of diversifying our energy requirements.

I wonder what you would think if we had the same perspective on affordable housing, with the same zeal and zest for that, in terms of the components around planning and subsidizing. You talked about the number of housing units that were created, yet very few of them were much below the market rate.

If we took the same approach to the Green Energy Act and drew a parallel there, I wonder what your thoughts would be on that. Obviously this is largely provincial, yet it would be an interesting discussion nonetheless.

[Michael Shapcott]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lobb.

That's an excellent question, and I think it points to the fact that on important issues like housing, in our wonderfully complex and often frustrating federal system, different levels of government have different responsibilities.

One of the most important things is to line up all the governments and get them working in the same direction. Otherwise we'll have the situation, as has happened all too often in various parts of the country, where the federal government, or sometimes the province, will provide funding for an affordable housing project only to have the municipality, through its local planning and zoning powers, refuse to allow that project to move forward. That has happened in Charlottetown, it has happened in several places in Ontario, and it has happened in other parts of the country. So we do need to line everyone up.

If I may say, Mr. Lobb, one of the important mechanisms for that happening are the federal-provincial-territorial housing ministers meetings. The last meeting, which all the provinces, territories, and the federal government attended, was in September 2005, which in terms of the current recession is eons ago. At that meeting the federal, provincial, and territorial governments all agreed on a framework to move forward on a new national housing plan. Unfortunately, however, the federal government has refused to attend future meetings. There was one in February 2008, in which the federal minister of the day, in polite words, declined to participate. Another one is scheduled for August 20 of this year in St. John's, Newfoundland. The provinces and territories will be there. They've issued an invitation to the federal government to attend. They've also invited municipalities and a number of other housing expert groups. So we have an opportunity on August 20. Unfortunately, the federal minister, at this point again, has not confirmed her participation.

We think the way to solve the problem is just as you've explained, which is to get everyone pulling in the same direction. And to do that, getting everyone in the same room would be a good start.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

The next question is to Ms. Friendly.

I see my colleagues are very passionate about a national child care strategy and I definitely respect their opinions on that.

One area where I struggle around it is this. I'm sure you've heard this argument, and I'm just trying to understand it better. Let's say, for example, the average cost of child care in my area is around $750 or $1,000 per month. What is the thought or the logic if a parent says that if you're going spend it on national child care they would prefer to have those dollars go to them and they'll stay at home with their child? I'm sure you've heard that argument before. I'm not saying I'm for or against it. What do you think?

[Martha Friendly]

The two things are different. I guess the best thing I can say is that we do allow people in Canada to have the kids at home even after compulsory schooling starts, but we don't give them the money to do it.

I just want to say that I understand that argument. I have never advocated that all women have to be in the paid labour force. I very strongly have advocated for good parental leave and better workforce policies to support families and all that kind of thing. I see a national program, of course being within provincial jurisdiction, as being multi-faceted and providing a variety of services for people to participate in if they choose to.

I really think it's something to think about. If they can afford it, if they have the money, many parents choose to send their children to nursery school, to part-day programs. There's research that shows this. They don't send them for a full day; they send them for a short day. By the time the children are two and a half or three years old, it's something they want.

In my program, in my vision, that would be part of the picture. I don't know how much more strongly to emphasize it.

You know, I said when I started that it's not just about watching children while their moms work. And it's true; early childhood education is not the same thing as being a parent. Both are important. I think it's really important to emphasize that you need to have in the family policy area a package of things that allows families to be families, to support women in the workforce and education, to do the right thing for children. Giving parents money is part of it, but it's not the same thing as giving them an early childhood education program.

I can't tell you how many times people have asked me this question. I don't know how to say this more clearly: it's not just about watching the children.

Again, I've talked to women, political party women, and some of the anti-child-care women, who have told me, “Well, of course I want my child to have a socialization experience.” I remember that one of the Reform Party MPs I talked to quite a lot told me that she'd started a co-op nursery school. Well, that's part of the picture.

So the system would be not, as some people would have it, a one-size-fits-all program that comes down from Ottawa as a cookie cutter. You'd be very hard pressed to find that in Sweden, or in France, or in any of these countries. What you need to have is a collection of good programs that are well integrated at the local level and that do different kinds of things.

I'll mention that I've just written a book about child care policy. The last chapter of it really describes this vision.

This is not only about working mothers. It's not only about working fathers. It's not only about children being in centres. It's about having a collection of policies that support families, and part of that is income.

To go back to Maria Minna's question--it's quite relevant to this--I'm always ambivalent about whether we should give parents a universal benefit to recognize the contribution they make in raising children. Back before 1987, we had the baby bonus. When my kids were little, we had the baby bonus. It was a monthly payment for all families. It was token. It was to acknowledge parenting. It was not child care.

I see the universal child care benefit as the same kind of program. It's not enough to pay for child care. It's enough to help families a little bit, but it's not enough to help them to stay at home.

I guess that's what I want to say. If you really are tight with money, it's not a very good use of your money. If you really want to acknowledge parenting across the board, it's a good use of your money.

So just to answer your question, early childhood education and child care are different from parents getting money. They're not the same things.

I don't know; does that answer your question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

It's going to have to.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I had seven minutes or less, so that will do, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

It was a great answer for the amount of time she had.

Ms. Minna, I want to turn it back to you. You have five minutes.

Tony, we'll finish off with you with a quick question later.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

We'll read the blues and reread the statement.

I'm going to go to you, Mr. Shapcott, with respect to housing. I had meant to get back to you earlier.

A national housing strategy is not an issue with me; obviously we need to do that. But you had mentioned earlier that we need to have more bottom-up housing. Some of the best housing I've seen is co-op housing, for instance, probably some of the best bottom-up housing there is. Certainly in my riding there is quite a bit of it, and it's fabulous. It really integrates the community around it. It has a social, community, family feel and all of that stuff. I don't have to tell you specifics on that.

Two, with respect to homelessness, my former colleague Ms. Bradshaw did the SCPI fund, the homelessness fund. Again, that was bottom-up housing in partnership with the city.

The last comment I'll make is that I believe CMHC has the money in its budget to actually do a national housing program. We don't even need to go to the central budget. I think there's money there. What we need to do is change the mandate.

Can you comment on those three?

[Michael Shapcott]

Yes, I'd be happy to, and thank you very much.

Co-op housing, in fact, was nominated by the federal government in 1996 as a global best practice and was recognized by the United Nations as a global best practice. It's a model that many countries around the world admire. Ironically, 1996 was also the year that the federal government decided it was going to transfer virtually all its co-op housing and other national housing programs to the provinces and territories. They've reversed that decision, thankfully. But co-op housing is a good model.

You mentioned the SCPI which is now called HPI, or the homelessness partnership initiative. I love the federal acronyms. It is an excellent program for what it is, because the federal government is in fact an enabler. The program allows the communities to define their homelessness needs, and the federal government provides the tool kit in terms of finance and other supports.

I want to acknowledge that in September of last year the federal government extended for five years the funding for this particular initiative. That's good. The problem is, however, that 80% of the national money goes to 10 large communities, the other 20% goes to 51 other communities, and the rest of the country is out of luck. They basically don't get any money out of that program.

So it's a good program where it works, although I should say there has been a problem with SCPI as well, or HPI now, in that the program dollars are basically the same as they were when Minister Bradshaw first announced the program at Christmas 1999. Essentially, we're dealing with the same dollars, which means there is less.

When I talk about building from the community up, and that's the issue, there's one example I want to give you. You may be somewhat surprised to hear this from me, but the Province of Alberta is actually in the lead when it comes to housing and homelessness supports in the last little while. Seven cities in Alberta got together and created the seven cities partnership of municipalities and community groups. They defined their local housing needs and went to the Province of Alberta, and just a couple of months ago it committed, over a 10-year period, $3.2 billion in provincial funding. In its most recent budget, it put about $500 million down. When you look across the country at provinces and what they're doing, it's quite remarkable how the Alberta government has responded to this community approach. We think that's something the federal government should do.

In terms of the final issue on Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, on page 7 of my English submission—I don't have the French copy, so I don't know the equivalent page in French—we actually track, using the latest five-year projections of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, what they call their earned income, what anyone else would call their profit. That's the money left over after they've paid all their bills. It will rise to almost $2 billion by 2013. That year, the federal government's spending through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation on the affordable housing initiative will be $1 million, and I'm sorry to say, although $1 million is a lot of money to individuals, it's nothing to the federal government. It's zero, effectively. The federal government, through its national housing agency, will have an earned income or profit of $2 billion, and only $1 million of that is scheduled to be put into the affordable housing program.

So your comment is absolutely correct. We do have significant resources within Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation that can actually be put into a national social housing program and other national housing and homelessness initiatives.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Since I'm sort of time, I'm just going to make a very quick comment.

There was a major program in my own riding, called Main Square. It has four major buildings. It was built in 1976 as a partnership between the private sector and CMHC. The land was still owned by the public sector, but CMHC managed the buildings up until sometime in the 1990s. There are still semi-subsidized units in those four buildings, but they're shrinking in number. As a result, when a person moves out of a subsidized unit, it reverts back to market rent, so we're losing.

I'm using that as an example of some of the partnerships that were created. So people weren't necessarily ghettoized in an affordable social housing corner where everybody had to be on social housing to be able to get a unit. This was integrated, and it worked very well.

[Michael Shapcott]

If I may say, I'm very familiar with it. As you know, I was there with you on several occasions when there was a concern about the withdrawal of funding for that and therefore a loss of subsidy and, effectively, economic eviction of many people.

A comprehensive national housing plan with the provinces, the municipalities, the private sector, and the community sector involved will have a number of elements to it. Supply, including new co-ops, is an important element of it, but also looking at affordability schemes such as the one you mentioned that the federal government was involved in but no longer is. That is a component as well.

Some provinces, the Province of Ontario in particular--and I'm not sure of all the others--have been able to negotiate to use some of the federal dollars that flowed under the affordable housing initiative of 2001, the initiative that has just been extended with a small amount of money, to use some of that money to pay for exactly the kinds of partnerships you're talking about. But that's only a five-year program. The difficulty is, as you know with the Main Square situation, that at the end of five years those tenants are faced with huge effective rent increases and therefore, practically speaking, economic eviction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Tony.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I have a quick question for Kofi.

We talked with Tim about a guaranteed annual income. In fact, the government has tried, in sort of a patchwork way, to make sure that everybody has at least some income. The problem is that not everybody knows about it. You've pointed to a number of entitlements that people have a right to that they're not aware of or they haven't applied for or whatever, and the work that you're doing to try to educate people on finance.

What's the answer to this? Is it to have more people like you out there trying to educate people about the programs that people could access if they knew about them, or should government actually be moving quickly to fix these things so that people are getting what they're entitled to?

[Kofi Hadjor]

Thank you for your question.

The United States gives us a benchmark for what we should be doing. In the United States there is an organization called the National Community Tax Coalition. The coalition is a series of towns in the United States where the cities have come together, realizing that a lot of the low-income communities in their midst are not accessing their entitlement. They've created organizations to help people access them. The latest information I have on this is that in about one hundred U.S. cities these organizations have been generating about $20 billion to low-income communities. It's been going on for 30 years.

Of course, there's a program in the United States that makes that amount bigger. They have what they call the earned income tax credit. The Canadian counterpart is what we just established in this past budget, the working income tax benefit program, which committed half a billion dollars over four years and is likely to grow.

How do we make sure people get their entitlement? It's a combination of things. You need to be able to put on the ground, through the agencies serving the poor, the capacity to identify who is missing out on something. Then you need to be able to refer them to an agency that can help them access these things. Their level is to look at the federal agencies that are delivering these programs, like Service Canada and so on, and look at the effectiveness of their service delivery programs.

My research shows there's a problem, so we need to look at what the federal organizations are doing.

The next level is to create these community-based service delivery mechanisms to make sure people are getting it. These agencies serving the poor have a key role to play. They have to get the in-house capacity to at least be able to screen who needs help in this area and refer them to the right places.

Those are the three levels that we can do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

To all our witnesses, thank you very much for your time. I realize that you guys are experts in the particular fields that you come to us with, and we appreciate not only the work that you do in these areas, but also your having come to us today.

The meeting is adjourned.