Finance Committee on Oct. 24th, 2006

[Ian Johnson]

Mr. Chair, I can't speak for the government, obviously, but I think what they were telling us...in fact, they tried to sneak this into the budget legislation in this most recent session to try to change that. They said--and, if I understand your question, what you were saying--we don't have any control over what the federal government establishes in terms of conditions for funding; therefore, we have to make sure that if the government is saying that money can only be used for infrastructure or primarily for infrastructure, we have to make sure Bill 207, the provincial legislation, reflects that. So that's why they brought forward the change.

Our argument was--from what we could see both in what the federal government said at the time and what we have of material of the trust--that it's not restricted to infrastructure. It seemed to be pretty broad, and that seemed to be brought forward again when the government announced that the money was coming forward in late September. So we still have an argument with the government, and they have yet to indicate how the money will be used within Nova Scotia.

It's a textbook example of how not to fund a program because of the confusion. First was the length of time it's taken and then the confusion about how the money is to be used between the two levels of government. That's why I wanted to make sure you're aware of it.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

The other point you make in your paper is that in the Harper government's first budget, the federal government confirmed up to $1 billion in support of urgent investment. The budget was in the spring and the funding of Bill C-48 was in the fall. I would have thought that those were two separate envelopes of funding. Am I correct or incorrect about that?

[Ian Johnson]

It would appear to be the case, except that the.... Our question from May 2005 on--and we met with a variety of party representatives and MPs and MLAs--is, where is the money? It never came forward. Now the first argument we heard was, “We have to make sure there is a surplus.” In fact, that was part of the legislation, that the money would be available.

Then we were told the Martin government at that point was going to bring forward new measures to incorporate that. Then we had the change in government and what you just pointed out in terms of the infrastructure.

For us on the ground, so to speak, there seemed one obstacle after another, either by federal or provincial governments, to bring that funding forward. That's where a dedicated transfer would help: the money's there and it's going to be used. Instead we have this runaround--

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Sorry, Mr. McKay.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

We conclude with Mr. Del Mastro now.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have four minutes and three questions I desperately want to get in, and a preamble, so I'd ask everybody to speak very quickly if they could.

First of all, I'd like to point out that it's a pleasure for me to be here in Halifax. This is where my grandparents landed when they immigrated to Canada. They had $20 to their name and a backpack with all the clothes they owned, and they created a tremendous life for themselves in what I believe is a land of opportunity.

First of all, my question is for Mr. Johnson. You said all Canadians have a right to post-secondary education. I agree with you. However, I think we get wrapped up in post-secondary and classifying that as university or college. There are a lot of forms of post-secondary education. We've made significant strides on skilled trades. Would you like to comment on that?

I believe we're damaging properly supplying our workforce by this notion that one form of post-secondary is necessarily better than any other.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Of course, you must remember that Mr. Del Mastro has two more questions he wishes to have answered.

[Ian Johnson]

Yes, sure, I'll be very quick.

As I tried to indicate, I agree with your point. It shouldn't be restricted to just post-secondary. In fact, we used the words “public education and training” so that it could be available. Certainly we, as an organization representing trades people, recognize the importance of that area, but we wanted to focus especially on post-secondary education.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Parsons, you made the point that students basically have to work a lot and do a lot just to keep things up, and this may be decreasing the quality of their studies and the quality of their education. Mr. Keys mentioned that risk aversion may be pushing people away from taking risks and starting businesses.

Do you think that university education is a full-time job, first of all, and second, do you think that's equivalent to running your own business? I will tell you that I started my own business at 24, and you'd better be prepared to work seven days a week and long hours. What is the balance that you think should occur between working and studies?

[Chris Parsons]

I think the balance has to be established at the point where it becomes prohibitive. For example, is it actually damaging someone's future opportunities with how much more the financial cost is going to be? What you see is that if someone is working 25 hours a week, they're not going to have time to build those skills that are necessary to start a business when they graduate. A lot of things you learn in school are also the things that happen outside the classroom. If you're stuck flipping burgers or slinging coffee at Starbucks, you're not necessarily going to generate those particular skills required to start a business or generate the skills that a lot of law schools and medical schools and graduate schools require that you receive in order to get in.

So I think it is important that people should be able to devote their full time to studies, and ideally a university education is a full-time job, with everything that goes along with the education if you're going to be treated as a student and as a citizen.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thanks.

Ms. Fay, you made the point that the market-based economy is causing poverty. I would argue that—in fact, I made this speech to over 1,000 people a couple of weeks ago—I really believe Canada is the land of opportunity. The door is open for those who want to walk through. I understand that not everybody has been blessed with the skills to be able to walk through the door, and we absolutely need to help those people. We absolutely need to provide equality of opportunity to people who are disadvantaged, but you seem to be making the case that we're running a society that causes exclusion. I don't agree with you. Quite frankly, there is incredible opportunity in Canada for people who want to reach out and grab hold of it.

What do you think of that argument?

[Jeanne Fay]

I'd like to believe that is the case, but from my perspective, the figures and my experience say otherwise, that people are excluded. It's not an individual problem; it's a systemic problem. We have had studies in Nova Scotia, for example, where a person of colour will call and get a job interview, but as soon as they show up the job no longer exists. That happens over and over again.

You're in Halifax, which has the largest indigenous population of African Canadians east of Montreal, and I challenge you to go into banks, law firms, universities, places where there are good, well-paying jobs, and find African Nova Scotians, aboriginal people, and single mothers working at those jobs. The opportunities for that level of job for those people are restricted, and unless we have stronger employment equity.... I understand the federal government can only legislate for federal organizations, and in fact the only place you will see black people in good, paying jobs is in federal programs. If you go to the post office, if you go to the immigration office, you will see people, but if you go to other places, particularly private businesses, they are not providing the opportunities that you wish they would.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Ms. Fay, thank you, Mr. Del Mastro, and thank you all very much.

Just as an observation, Chris, I had to put myself through university. I was forced to work, but it's amazing how the skills one develops, even slinging coffee, come into play in other occupations as you move on. Interestingly enough, my principal occupation during the school year was refereeing basketball. Who knew that I'd become a referee here for House of Commons members. Transferrable skill development comes from many sources.

In any case, those were excellent presentations. It has been a very stimulating panel, and thank you so much for being here. We do thank you.

We invite the next panel to come forward. We'll suspend for just a very short time and ask the next panel to take your places at the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

We will now recommence and continue the stimulating discussions, as part of the process of preparing recommendations for the finance minister for the upcoming federal budget.

Thank you all for being here. Thank you for the submissions that you previously forwarded to us.

I will give you an indication when you have a minute remaining in your presentations and when you have less than that. Then without any bias or prejudice, I will cut you off at five minutes. I must do this to allow for discussion with the panel members.

Anything you miss in your presentations, work it into your answer. That'll be the coaching I'll give you this morning.

It's a pleasure to be here in Halifax. We'll start with the presentations now.

Chris Ferns is here.

Chris, I understand you're bringing some introductory comments on behalf of two organizations this morning. Would those be the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Association of Nova Scotia University Teachers?

[Dr. Chris Ferns, Past President, Association of Nova Scotia University Teachers]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I'll give you a little time here, but keep it to the five minutes.

Thank you, sir.

[Dr. Chris Ferns]

Thank you.

About our organization, the Association of Nova Scotia University Teachers represents faculty associations of all the universities and degree-granting institutions in Nova Scotia, except for Dalhousie University and the Nova Scotia Agricultural College. We're also part of a broader coalition of organizations concerned with post-secondary education in Nova Scotia that includes CUPE Local 3912, which represents over 1,200 part-time faculty and graduate students, and also the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union, and the Canadian Federation of Students, whose representative spoke to you in the previous session.

My colleague, Dr. Lanning, from CUPE Local 3912, is unable to be here and has asked me to speak on his behalf, so I hope the chair might allow me a little bit more latitude in terms of time, but I will try to keep my remarks brief.

We would echo the concerns of our colleagues from the Canadian Federation of Students with regard to the need for a dedicated federal transfer for post-secondary education. We'd also echo their concerns with the unfairness of the system, which awards funding on the basis of provincial population rather than the number of students taught, which acts as a kind of reverse equalization payment where we're penalized for being a net importer of students in Nova Scotia. Those are concerns you already heard.

What I'd like to focus on is an issue that was raised in the earlier session, which was to do with the quality of education and how that's affected by underfunding. The problem we're facing is that while enrolments nationally have increased by more than 25% since the early 1990s, there's been no corresponding increase in the number of full-time faculty to teach them, and that has two effects. First of all, increased class sizes. We're hearing of classes where there are not enough seats in the room for the students to sit on. The students are forced to stand, or sit on the floor. I can't see how you can call that any kind of quality of education. But there's also been an increased reliance on part-time faculty to fill the gap, and that leads to some specific problems. It's not that part-time faculty are ipso facto inferior to their full-time colleagues. Many are just as well qualified, just as good; nevertheless, as my colleague points out in his brief, only roughly half the part-time faculty have a doctoral qualification, and that's a serious concern.

But there's also a structural problem. Part-time faculty are not provided with the resources that enable them to do their job properly. Often they have no permanent office space in which to consult the students. Often, in an era of increasing technological sophistication, they are not provided with computers. They are not provided with time or money to do research, and while many of them do do research, it has to be on their own time and on their own nickel. What we have in fact is a pool of highly qualified individuals whose ability to contribute to both research and the education of the students of the future is being compromised by the lack of resources. So I would argue—this has been my experience, having been teaching for the last twenty years in Nova Scotia—that there's been a real decline in the quality of education offered the students who are now paying massively increased tuition fees.

But that's only part of the picture. The other problem is what students are able to get out of what is on offer. As little as ten years ago, the expectation was that yes, students would be expected to work in the vacation to fund their education. They might have to work a few hours during the term, an evening a week perhaps, or work on the weekends. But now it's not uncommon to see students working 25, 30 hours a week, some even full-time because of the financial pressures on them. The effect I see in the classroom is that they simply are not able to get the full benefit from their education. I see good students going down in flames on an assignment because they simply haven't had the hours to put in to do the work required. And that's an intolerable situation.

The other thing that's a problem, however, is that while it may not be as efficient as some people would like, a lot of education is a matter of trial and error, finding out through experience that what you thought you wanted to do isn't in fact what you want. Any education, but a university education especially, is about changing minds, introducing people to new and unfamiliar ideas, and it's not uncommon, therefore, for students to change their direction in midstream as they begin to get some sense of where their real path lies. I know that was my own experience as a student.

Now that's what it should be like, but increasingly what we find now is that it's more and more difficult to do that when the financial consequences of taking an extra year or several more courses is a major addition to an already crippling debt load. More and more students are being driven not by intellectual curiosity but by the need to pursue courses of study most likely to lead to careers well enough paid to enable them to pay off their debts.

My final point is that I think the real crime is that many of us hold the old-fashioned view that we'd like to see our children have better opportunities than we had. Now, I suggest, we're giving them worse. If you see tuition fees for what they are--an alternative form of taxation--the increase of over 180% since the early 1990s represents a staggering redistribution of wealth, not from the rich to the poor or from the poor to the rich so much as from the young to the old. We are making a priority of tax cuts that benefit our own generation, and we ensure the cost of them is borne in large measure by our children.

We believe that policies whose effect is to line our own pockets at the expense of our children cannot be justified. That is a legacy that no responsible policy-maker would want to leave to the future. That is the reason for the recommendations we've outlined in our brief.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ferns.

We continue now with Response: A Thousand Voices, with Gale McIntyre.

Gale, five to you.

[Gayle McIntyre, Founder, Response: A Thousand Voices]

Thank you.

Our community-based organization, Response: A Thousand Voices, discusses and evaluates the ongoing conditions and treatment of the most vulnerable of Nova Scotian Canadians: the impoverished, in all of its guises. To paraphrase an adage, one is only as strong as the weakest link, and so are the provinces and territories in a nation like Canada. Our most vulnerable Canadian in this vast nation of incredible resources is not immune to the truism in that adage.

The most vulnerable of any Canadian community is the weakest aspect of the nation, and it is here where we find the gaping issues of neglect and concern that can only be remedied with governmental attention and finances allocated to the issues identified as the most important in our respective communities. We strongly believe that humanistic mentalities and programs implemented to address these critical issues here in Nova Scotia can also be applied across Canada and will inevitably improve the quality of life for the most vulnerable of all our natural resources--the Canadian people.

By improving the conditions for living of this specific population, we improve all life for all Canadians. To do otherwise is in direct violation of our own statutes, legislation, acts, and Constitution. To do otherwise jeopardizes the quality and therefore the security of the future generations of Canadians still unborn.

If we as Canadians desire to be taken seriously on the global stage, we must first take ourselves seriously. By addressing the issues of the most vulnerable of any Canadian city, we set into motion a commitment that our people are its greatest natural resource and we are prepared, as a nation, to put whatever money is necessary to ensure that this valuable resource does not become contaminated, or worse, extinct, either through complete assimilation with our neighbours to the south or through the lack of national pride and identity, cohesion, and culture.

Canada has such a great opportunity to set standards of respect by government for its citizens that can be emulated around the world. There are so many choice remedies of which we can avail ourselves, but only a few sincerely reflect the intelligence and civility that we boast about as people living in a developed nation in the western world. With our most humble resources as a community voice organization, we respectfully submit the following as the topics of critical concern that we know, if put into actualization, will improve the quality of life for all Canadians.

The treatment of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons. So too could be said about measuring the civility of Canada on how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. When we, with honest introspection, discover the truth about the conditions of the Canadian poor, we then reveal what we are capable of doing as Canadians, as a nation, in creating these deplorable conditions and creating the solutions to dismantle them.

We do not live in a fascist or tyrannical country, so if we ignore the impoverished, then we choose to do that. If we mistreat or abuse our impoverished, then we choose to do that. If we collude with or enable others to abuse or mistreat them, we choose to do that. If we assist the most vulnerable with whatever reasonable remedies will inevitably improve their quality of life, we choose to do that as well.

We think Canada is a nation that chooses to aspire to those standards that are above reproach. This can only be measured in its creation of humane policies and selection of qualified civil servants to implement and enforce them equally and fairly without prejudice and intent to harm.

Some could argue that to aspire to such elevated understandings of humanity is counterintuitive to the competitive nature of a capitalistic world. We advocate that humanity within governmental policies and commitments improves the integrity and therefore the efficiency of every Canadian, thereby indirectly and directly improving the quality and quantity of their production and earning potential within that family and that community. This will inevitably improve the quality and quantity of Canadian production, influencing the at-home market and international importing and exporting markets. We rely more on the solid character of a strong Canada; we rely less on others we are competing with and for the very resources we already have.

We hold governmental efficiency through efficacy as the very critical attribute of a formidable Canada. With this in place it will keep us in standing, not only as a worthy competitor in the world market, but as an innovator that sets new standards for governing this very market.

We created a new acronym, GETE, governmental efficiency through efficacy. We understand that every government department is a system, much like a machine of production, that is dependent on every other system for functionality. If one of the parts of the system is dysfunctional, we can predict with accuracy what the repercussions will be. To ignore or dismiss the importance...we know that we're giving the last results to the people who can least afford them.

We have five recommendations, and I realize you already have the strategies.

One is a baseline standard for qualifications for civil servants in those departments that interact directly with Canada’s most vulnerable.

Two is a provincial and federal website for the Department of Community Services for (a) appeal decisions and issues; and (b) for those families and individuals who have to migrate to various provinces for work, medical care, or supports, which could include education.

Three is a separate provincial and federal department for housing, with a separate division in Access Nova Scotia to deal with social and public housing issues.

Four, a separate provincial division for persons with disabilities in the Department of Community Services.

And five, a new eclectic department for legal accountability and national responsibility for Canadians to safely report/whistle-blow on civil servants who are breaking the law and/or violating the chartered constitutional rights of its citizens.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Gayle, you have set the record. That was a fine presentation. You now can go back to your normal breathing rate.

[Gayle McIntyre]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much.

[Gayle McIntyre]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

We have Paul O'Hara. Welcome, Paul. Paul is here from the North End Community Health Centre.

Five minutes to you, sir.

[Paul O'Hara, Counsellor, North End Community Health Centre]

Thank you for the opportunity to present to the standing committee on the important issue of Canada’s place in a competitive world.

The recommendations I have are, first, that the Government of Canada initiate a poverty reduction strategy with specific targets, deliverable accountabilities, and evaluation processes.

The second is that the Government of Canada participate in and provide leadership for cross-sectoral, multi-faceted collaborative practices and coordinated approaches that acknowledge and act on the interdependent nature of successful models of poverty reduction.

The third recommendation is that the Government of Canada renew the national homelessness initiative as a permanent program giving priority to the need for supported and supportive housing for citizens requiring housing and harm reduction programs.

The North End Community Health Association is a non-profit community organization established in 1971. Our mission statement is, through service, education, and advocacy, to play a leading and active role in concert with others, in promoting healthy communities, particularly in the north end of Halifax.

Our health centre is guided by our mission to support healthy communities, and we believe a competitive Canada must be one of social inclusion and strategic planning to confront the barriers and challenges associated with poverty reduction.

Our health centre’s work reflects the social determinants of health. This work was informed first by National Health and Welfare's Lalonde report, by the Canadian Public Health Association, and by the health promotion branch of Health Canada, through formally recognizing the value of addressing the social determinants of health.

Our health centre has contributed to addressing poverty-related determinants, including income, housing, and social exclusion. We also incorporate intersectoral collaboration in confronting poverty.

The need for a poverty reduction strategy is based on evidence from the business plan of the Department of Community Services, which states that approximately 11% of Nova Scotians live below the low-income cut-off, 44% of all income assistance recipients are disabled, 13.5% of Nova Scotia youth between the ages of 20 and 24 have not completed high school, and that 26,000 Nova Scotia children live in welfare-dependent families. The business plan further articulates that income assistance recipients have multiple barriers to employment. The department suggests that factors beyond the mandate and control of the Department of Community Services contribute to this reality.

Despite these facts, the Province of Nova Scotia does not have a poverty reduction strategy. On the contrary, Nova Scotia families living in poverty have less access to financial security than they had ten years ago. We are failing vulnerable children. We are leaving our youth to fend for themselves. We are telling disabled adults to do more with less. And we are further victimizing lone-parent mothers to live in communities, which, through lack of social planning, have become undesirable or high-risk neighbourhoods.

Clearly, no one in this room today would subject their families to these realities if they could do something differently. We must articulate a clearly targeted policy that addresses high-density social housing projects, not by tearing them down, but by focusing on the development of the social infrastructure in and around these projects.

We must create more social housing so that poor families are not lumped together in large housing developments. Families admitted to a housing project must be supported through engagement and targeted programs geared to address education, skill development, and the ability of tenants to participate in learning. It is important to maintain a cap on rent in existing housing projects, so people who begin to earn decent incomes are not induced to leave.

We must involve the private sector in creating employment opportunities for project families.

We must create child care spaces within the projects and develop strategies aimed at improving safety.

We must target education and employment opportunities for youth and provide them with alternatives to the drug economy.

We must think about what we do now and how we can do things differently in light of the high percentage of Nova Scotia citizens who are left out of and are unable to participate in the economy.

The recent National Council of Welfare report and reports from the Toronto-Dominion Bank and the Chamber of Commerce have articulated the importance of poverty reduction in keeping Canada competitive. We must find ways to transfer the knowledge we acquire through research into policy that engages our citizens in the Canadian economy.

Research suggests existing poverty/work strategies are maintaining the welfare trap. The federal government must initiate policy that will create a partnership among all levels of government, the community, and the private sector to actively participate in poverty reduction, and the need for a multi-faceted approach.

Federal government leadership in the areas of social determinants of health has been advanced, in part, through the promotion of interprofessional collaboration and health care delivery. Evidence suggests that community health centres are both cost-efficient and effective in improving health outcomes. We believe the interprofessional collaboration of health centres is the major contributor to their efficiency. This model must be enhanced further, developed, and incorporated within all sectors to realize multi-faceted, cross-sectoral engagement to advance a poverty reduction strategy for Canada.

The national homelessness initiative must be renewed as a permanent program. This program has meant the realization of several community initiatives that have been several years, if not decades, in waiting. Community government partnerships have accomplished Nova Scotia's first halfway house for recovering women, Nova Scotia's first shelter for homeless youth, Nova Scotia's first community methadone program, a new shelter for homeless women, transitional housing for single adults, and housing alternatives for teen moms.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. O'Hara. We must move on, but we appreciate your presentation.

We go now to a presentation from Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers, Susan Nasser, executive director.

Welcome.