No, we have not.
Evidence of meeting #36 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was shelters.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #36 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was shelters.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Chief Operating Officer and Chief Policy Officer, Canadian Association of Retired Persons
No, we have not.
4:35 p.m.
Chief Operating Officer and Chief Policy Officer, Canadian Association of Retired Persons
We might, yes.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
All right.
Mr. Ursell, during your time that you were [Technical difficulty—Editor] with CMHC, did you get any sense that either CMHC or Generation Squeeze had a preconceived notion of what the outcome of this study on intergenerational equity should be?
4:35 p.m.
Practice Lead, Watershed Partners
If we had, we wouldn't have gotten involved in the project, because it violates how we operate as process facilitators and neutral facilitators. For us, creating an open space for generative conversation is what we do. That was the nature of our engagement in both the problem space and the solution space.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Yes. You were a partner with Generation Squeeze, which is committed to reforming taxation as it relates to personal residences. Did that cause you any concern?
4:35 p.m.
Practice Lead, Watershed Partners
From my lens, Generation Squeeze was a client of ours. We were playing a content neutral role in facilitating. That's the role we played successfully for two sessions.
I can't really speak to Generation Squeeze's specific policies. I'm not an employee of theirs. I think that's a question for them.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'm still puzzled why the relationship would have been severed. I'm just a little bit confused. Has anybody replaced you as facilitators since November?
4:35 p.m.
Practice Lead, Watershed Partners
I'm afraid I don't know. I believe Generation Squeeze will be coming in later today. I think that's a question for them. I don't actually know.
April 22nd, 2021 / 4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
I'm not sure what this line of questioning has to do with our topic of COVID-19 spending, programs and related monetary policy.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
—but the topic is pretty broad. I'm not going to rule it out of order.
Go ahead on your point of order, Mr. Julian.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Chair, we had this discussion at the last committee meeting. Members are free to expand beyond COVID. This line of questioning is completely relevant. It's not one that I would take, but it's completely relevant for another member.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Chair, I just want to note that right in the deck that Generation Squeeze provided, in which Watershed was a partner, it says, “A place to call home or an investment vehicle directed Solutions Labs' COVID-19 pivot.” This is about COVID-19.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay. We're not cancelling your question anyway.
Before we got into this discussion, Ed, you had about 30 seconds left. Do you want to take it or pass it on?
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.
Mr. VanGorder, I'll begin with you, sir.
Thank you for the work that the association does. We have an outstanding CARP chapter where I am, down here in London, Ontario. It serves London and Middlesex and it's been great to get to know that organization and its leadership. I know that they've been wonderful advocates for seniors in our area.
I want to ask you to expand on your comments on long-term care. You spoke about obviously the tragedy in long-term care and the need to do better. The budget that was just unveiled devotes very significant funding of $3 billion over five years to helping establish national standards in long-term care, of course in partnership with provinces, since it's their area of responsibility.
I wonder if you could speak about the need to establish long-term care standards.
4:40 p.m.
Chief Operating Officer and Chief Policy Officer, Canadian Association of Retired Persons
Yes, certainly. CARP has been advocating for appropriate national standards in long-term care on the basis that your postal code should not determine the level of care you get. CARP has been very strong on this issue.
We are pleased to see the intention that seems to be indicated by the large amount of money that has been proposed. However, in the first year and reporting sometime in early 2022, the basis of a public discussion paper will come out to many of our CARP members. If you're 80 years old and concerned about going into a long-term care home, something that you can see is going to take years and years to develop is not very comforting. We need action now. That's what seniors are saying.
We've known for 20 years that these problems existed. CARP has been talking about them for over 15 years. We need action now. Large money, with the only action out of it being to appoint three organizations to develop standards to be reported next year, is not carrying much weight with seniors.