Evidence of meeting #33 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was federal.
Member, Community Social Planning Council of Greater Victoria
Yes.
I really want to emphasize one of the substantial issues. The community council is part of a national poverty reduction strategy, and the variants across the country for welfare standards and welfare delivery are a substantial problem.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Can I just clarify that when I say CAP, I mean the Canada assistance program, not the community access program.
November 8th, 2006 / 9:10 a.m.
Member, Community Social Planning Council of Greater Victoria
I understood what you meant. And yes, I would advocate going back to that system.
Liberal
Member, Community Social Planning Council of Greater Victoria
Thank you for that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you, Mr. Regan.
It is interesting, as we travel across the country, that witnesses would be advocating on behalf of more federal involvement. There are definitely some provinces, and some members from various regions, who say they want less. This is a useful exercise, seeing where different services lie in the country.
We appreciate those follow-up comments.
Ms. Savoie, we're going to you, for seven minutes, please.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much for those presentations. They were really packed with information and based on your experiences.
Jane, I know you and really appreciate the work you and the Community Social Planning Council do in Victoria. I'm closely aware of all the different initiatives, starting with projects you haven't even identified. I know that Marge Reitsma-Street, for example, presented documents on poverty that really showed the face of poverty. You referred to compounding barriers and I think those were really well identified. So thank you.
There were several references from all three presentations to the fact that some people don't fall under the federal or provincial definition, and they just fall between the cracks. There was a suggestion about adopting an integrated approach across ministries federally--adopting multi-sectoral solutions. I think it's fair to say we're hearing that a lot. I think people are reacting to silos that in themselves are not bad, but there's a tendency for organizations to not share information, so valuable data gets lost.
In Victoria I know there was an approach to address that, and you referred to it. It was called the Victoria Urban Development Agreement. There were literally hundreds of people who participated in this. The objective of that exercise was to bring the focus of the federal government, the provincial government, and the local governments on key issues that were articulated by the community over many meetings and bring together a huge diversity of groups.
This agreement was never signed, and I'm having difficulty finding out where it is. It seems to have slipped off the minister's desk. At the moment I am working to get some information about where it is. I doesn't matter if the Conservative government wants to rebrand it; I think the concept was good.
I'm wondering if you want to talk a little bit about that. It was an attempt to have all three levels of government focus and bring the resources that were needed to address the specific issues that were identified by the broad community, rather than having programs from the federal government that were imposed, or accountability measures that had nothing to do with outcomes. The point was to have everybody focus on the key issues. I think some of them in Victoria were around housing, among other things.
Do you have any comments?
Member, Community Social Planning Council of Greater Victoria
Certainly I think that's exactly the kind of thing the federal government has the capacity to do. It wasn't just that the dollars were coming in from the federal government. The way the urban development agreement was happening, it was leveraging enormous dollars, including from the province, which otherwise would likely not have been at the table. But other people were coming to the table saying, these are the issues, and if the federal government puts this money in, we'll put this money in. The municipal governments were starting to get interested in community economic development.
I spoke of the enabling role of the federal government, and urban development agreements are a prime example of that.
Another successful point is the work the federal government has been able to do around homelessness. I'm terrible with what the acronym SCPI stands for, but I hope you are all familiar with it. Again, there has been a response where other people have put dollars in, so we're able to do much more because the federal government is the first to the table.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
You referred to the different levels of government bringing money to the table, but it was more than that, as I recall. Ms. Strachan mentioned falling between the cracks and not fitting into one definition or another. It was proposed that resources from all levels be brought in to ensure that some of the policies that weren't dovetailing together might be changed. That was another really valuable aspect.
I guess I'm hearing that this is an initiative you would like to see us really look at to address some of these disjointed problems. Would that be fair to say?
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
I know there's such an agreement in Manitoba, and I think there is one either in Saskatoon or Regina. I'm not sure which of the two cities has one, but I know they have that type of agreement.
I'd like to come back to some of the barriers. You mentioned barriers and describing them. I think we all understand what those barriers are. What about the barriers at the policy level? Do you want to identify why people don't fall under federal definitions, and what we could do about those people in terms of employment?
Executive Director, ASPECT
I'm old enough to remember when I started in the employment training field. It was 1986. At that time, I worked in a program that saw me work directly with clients. We were able to help anyone who came through the door, and sometimes there was a breakdown in ages. There were certain programs to help people under the age of 24. Others helped women returning to the workforce. But people were able to come and seek assistance getting employment, regardless of their funding source.
Often, one of the biggest barriers that I found was kids who came from loving families. Their parents make it too easy to stay at home and not get out and get a job. Sometimes those are kids who need help finding out how to get a job.
In Victoria, we have a number of kids—I guess it's the case throughout British Columbia and, I hear, across Canada—who are on the streets and don't have any supports. We hear of that and it's heartbreaking.
There were often women who were returning to the workforce who had husbands and kids, yet those women are now no longer able to get assistance if they've been out of the workforce for more than five years.
There was an open door policy. If someone needed help getting assistance, they could come to our program and get help.
Executive Director, ASPECT
Yes. I forget what the bill was, but I think it was Bill C-911. What that did was change the definition of access to programming for those who were EI-eligible or—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
That's all the time we have.
Ms. Yelich, for seven minutes, please.
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
Thank you.
I, too have lots of questions for each and every one of you, and I will start with you, Ms. Strachan.
You're “an association of community-based trainers that represents and promotes the interests and activities of members to strengthen their capacity to provide services to people with barriers to employment.”
My question is, how do you describe ASPECT's primary role? Are you a coordinating force, or do you actually create training programs for people with barriers to employment?
Executive Director, ASPECT
Both, actually. It's a bit of a conflictual situation sometimes. Our first mandate is advocacy, so we represent our agencies and the issues of our agencies to both the federal and provincial governments and to many ministries in the provincial government. We provide networking opportunities. We have conferences, newsletters, and workshops for the professional development of the people who work in the agencies, who are members of ASPECT.
We also have some provincial government contracts, because the British Columbia government was moving toward large programs with a single point of contact, where programs would be delivered throughout the province by one agency. They were moving toward large corporations like PricewaterhouseCoopers, and I was concerned that the community-based agencies would become extinct if that model continued.
So we do develop programs in response to RFPs from the provincial government. Our models are always client-focused and individually based. From time to time, we have contracts with the provincial government. They're subcontracted out through our member agencies. We only provide the administrative infrastructure.
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
Your website mentions that you're delivering a program entitled IMMPowerBC.
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
IMMPowerBC. Well, that's cute. It's designed to employ skilled immigrants.
So what kinds of barriers to employment are confronting skilled immigrants in Canada?
Executive Director, ASPECT
I was very interested in that. I just came back from Ottawa last night, where I was at a conference. IMMPowerBC receives joint funding from the federal government and the Ministry of Economic Development in British Columbia to help skilled immigrants get employment commensurate with the skill that they came to Canada with.
The barriers are frequently the inability to jump the hurdles and get the training vis-à-via language issues. Oftentimes regulatory bodies provide barriers to people. They're unable to navigate those barriers. They need assistance and often funding to navigate those barriers.
Other issues are just understanding the lexicon of the Canadian language. We've had people looking for jobs as actuaries who didn't realize they were accountants in Canada. So there are those social barriers as well.
I think my colleague spoke very eloquently to them.