Finance Committee on Oct. 25th, 2006

[Nathalie Brisseau]

If the SCPI program isn't seen and perceived as recurring, there will definitely be a lot of initiatives that will have created infrastructures, such as entry-level housing for young people or young mothers who have been homeless, and so on, but we won't be able to operate those infrastructures because staff is needed to work with these people and to help them integrate or reintegrate.

The purpose of the SCPI program isn't simply to give these people food and a place to sleep. It's to enable them to fully return to society and to have their place there. If we don't act now, social costs in our society will be high later on. Someone who is in the street may go back to crime in order to survive. That person will be sent to prison, and that's costly. When a woman winds up in the street, her children are placed in foster care. That's costly.

Not letting things go is an investment that will result in lower social costs.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Does the program's configuration reflect both capital costs and follow-up costs? Does the recurring aspect suit you?

[Nathalie Brisseau]

The first two phases took into account both infrastructure and necessary staff. The recurring aspect is important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I must interrupt you, sir, because your time is up.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, you have six minutes.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to all the witnesses for their briefs, which are very important.

I'd like to continue the discussion on Canadians' priorities and the federal government's budget choices. We have a lot of time to debate the debt issue in committee. The Conservatives and a lot of businesses say we have to eliminate the debt before we can take action on matters pertaining to education, the lives of artists, housing and homelessness. I think we should discuss that ideology because these kinds of policies are very dangerous in the perspective of the next budget.

I'd like all the witnesses to answer this question about these choices. For example, Anne-Marie Jean could tell us what the economic return would be on a dollar that the government would invest in the arts and culture sector, in the education sector, in the housing sector and so on.

[Anne-Marie Jean]

You've no doubt seen, as I have, that a number of studies conducted by various groups refer, in some cases, to a fiscal return of 200% for every dollar invested by governments. In other cases, they say that every dollar invested, directly or indirectly, in a cultural business can generate $3.20 worth of economic activity. In some cases, we have a multiplier effect of 8.5. Everything depends on the way the calculation is done.

There is definitely an undeniable economic impact. That's mainly because investment in the arts and culture contributes to making the lives of Canadians more complete. Cities are more vibrant, more interesting, more attractive, and we can attract more investment. Businesses choose to set up in a dynamic city where something is going on, where choices are available to us, where we have good schools, good universities and an active cultural life, where, every evening, we have the choice to read a book, to go see a movie or a play, or to go to a museum.

That's how investment in culture should be seen. When governments invest, the private sector invests. We have proof of that in Toronto. That city is dazzling proof of what governments and the private sector can do when they invest hand in hand in arts and culture.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Lefebvre Legault, do you have anything to add?

[Nicolas Lefebvre Legault, President, Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain]

Social housing is a collective form of property ownership. Lower-income households spend astounding percentages of their income on housing. All the money released through access to social housing is directly reinvested in the local economy. A welfare recipient who spends 80% of his income on housing and who enters low-income housing spends only 25% of his income on housing. The money thus freed up for that person is spent directly on essential goods, access to culture and so on. That freed up money will be spent locally.

This helps people and gives them more income to live instead of simply surviving. On another level, we must build and maintain social housing. In the communities, that enables people to have decent housing. This releases energy for doing other things.

When you have a serious housing problem, whether it's because you're paying too much, or you're living in poor quality housing or because you don't have any housing, you have to spend energy going around to food banks, and so on. When people's housing problems are solved, that frees up energy that they can use to do other things. In this way, they're given a chance to break out of the survival dynamic, to experience something else and, eventually, to return to the labour market and contribute to society in other ways.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

I'm going to ask Micheline or Nathalie a similar question in English.

If you have a leaky roof, do you fix the roof, or do you pay off the mortgage? I guess I'd like your comments on that in the context of this notion that we have to pay off the whole debt before we invest a penny in anything else.

[Nathalie Brisseau]

It's not just a matter of a leaky roof; even the building's foundation may be collapsing. If we don't invest in aid for the homeless, there will be an even bigger gap between certain parts of society. There's a cost to that gap. I'm not an economist, and I couldn't tell you what the return on investment would be, but from the moment you help a person begin a process of achieving stable housing, regain power over his life, emerge from a survival situation, that person is going to integrate and reintegrate. No one is satisfied with welfare. There are way too many prejudices.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I'm sorry, but I have to interrupt you.

Mr. McCallum, you have four minutes.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I want to ask you a question about housing. I entirely agree that the federal government should allocate more money to affordable housing and to the homeless.

If I were in your situation, I wouldn't be very optimistic because page 22 of the budget document talks about matters of provincial jurisdiction, including housing. That's not a good thing for the federal government. Your presentations suggest that you don't agree. You want the federal government to invest in this area. Is that correct?

[François Saillant]

Indeed, we want the federal government, which is the one that has the most resources in Canada, to continue contributing to social housing. That's something that's a provincial jurisdiction, in that the programs that make it possible for housing to be produced must be designed by the provinces and reflect their own situation. That said, funding must come from the federal government.

Yes, we're concerned about what the budget says. Despite the $800 million investment, there was the remark you referred to. Yes, we're concerned when we see budget cuts of $45 million made to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation on September 25. Yes, we're concerned when we see the opposition, which unfortunately is coming from the Liberal Party as well, to the bill introduced by the Bloc québécois that would make it possible to use CMHC's surplus.

I think that, beyond all partisanship, CMHC's money would be more useful if it were spent on the needs of the poorly housed and homeless.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Yes, but that's also a question for the Bloc. In general, the Bloc wants the federal government to withdraw from areas of provincial jurisdiction. I'd like to know, and this isn't a question for you, whether the Bloc agrees on the matter of social housing and affordable housing.

I'd like to put a question to Mr. Pigeon. As a former academic, I entirely agree with everything you've said, but if there was only one option and you had to choose between direct federal investment in universities and research or an increase in the transfer to the provinces, what would you choose?

[Michel Pigeon]

To refer to the example that was given, I'd simply say that, before putting on the roof, we'd build the foundation. I think that universities must first have the ability to act. They must have the ability to attract good professors, to pay them properly, to have the necessary infrastructure and so on. Ultimately, we need properly subsidized universities so that we can then conduct research. So I'd say that the first priority is the one stated in the brief, the transfer for postsecondary education.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Mr. St-Cyr, you have four minutes.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for your presentations. I suppose you must have been very frustrated at having to present all your material in five minutes, but, to console you, consider the fact that it's also very frustrating for us to have only a few minutes to ask you questions. I know you've made efforts to get your messages across in five minutes. On the weekend, I read Ms. Théberge's presentation to the Québec, carrefour international forum. It was exceptional and extremely interesting. One sees that you're very well structured, well prepared. I'm sure you could all have spoken at greater length, but we're pressed for time.

Ms. Théberge, what support do you have in the community? Is it only the Boîte à science people who are in favour of this project, or is it a project that has broad support in the community?

[Manon Théberge]

In 2001, we were the only ones who had this dream, and we shared it in order to build it. We wanted it to mirror the needs of the community. It's a community project that we're proposing, which brings change. At the moment, virtually all the school commissions, nine of them, support us, as well as four or five cegeps, universities, more than 60 private businesses and four chambers of commerce. I'm definitely forgetting some, but associations of all kinds related to our sector support us. We have written support, active support. The project is broadly shared, and that's because it was developed in cooperation with them. We didn't merely arrive and say this was a good idea and we were going to carry it out. We've really built it with the community.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

There's been a lot of talk in Quebec about standpattism, about how hard it is to move forward because of the fact that certain projects come up against opposition. Is there any opposition to your project? Are there a lot of people in the Quebec region who are opposed to the establishment of a science centre?

[Manon Théberge]

We know of no one who is opposed to it. There are people who have different views on certain questions, on the location, for example. We can have discussions about things like that, but there is a very broad consensus on the nature of the project, on the need, on issues, on the way it should be done, on the things that should be talked about. We can't say that support is unanimous, because we haven't met everyone, but there is a very broad consensus.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Okay. Do you have an idea of the impact that a science centre in Quebec City would have on the education and career choices that young people can make? When you're in high school, there are a lot of special programs in the arts and physical education. These are very much preferred things, but it's not so much the case in the sciences for young people to have the opportunity to take a look at science to see whether they like it or not; if they don't like it, they'll study something else. Do you think your centre would have an impact on that level?

[Manon Théberge]

Science centres have an impact on interest. The present challenge is that seven out of 10 youths decide from the age of 14 not to take any more science in their lives. They close the doors by not choosing science courses in high school. That's a little young to make that decision, first of all. Second, there is a 12% decline in college science enrolment in the Quebec City area. That's that many fewer people who will subsequently be going to university, and that subsequently makes for weaker sectors. Businesses that do spinoffs, as they say, are less numerous as well. It's a downward spiral. We have to work on finding solutions. Complaining and naming the problems is one thing. Science centres are a winning solution. There are centres across Canada. So it's not a new idea whose effectiveness has to be proven. There's a lot of proof on that point. I don't remember the exact number, but the top 20 cities in Canada, except ours, have one, because this has highly structural effects in the community.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I'm sorry, once again, sir.

We'll continue with Mr. Harvey. You have four minutes, sir.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Yes, let's start right away.

Let's talk about the Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative, the SCPI program. Could you tell us about the profile of the usual clientele? Are these people who have mental problems? What is the clientele?