Thank you for being here. We always appreciate being heard. I've been heard for hundreds of years, I guess. I'm sort of the old lady in this group, and I'm a rural representative. I used to run the roads for the New Brunswick Housing Corporation. In that capacity, I got a lot of experience. I also travelled with Claudette Bradshaw in 1999, when she was the minister responsible for the homelessness file. I went with her to every province and territory to see homelessness on the street. That's a perspective that I was privileged to have. I wrote the report for her.
Three years ago, I co-wrote the report for the New Brunswick task force on the non-profit sector, which was a provincial undertaking in which we examined the state of the non-profit sector. What we discovered, among other things, was that the non-profit sector, properly supported and strengthened, could be the best vehicle for dealing with poverty and addressing issues of poverty in the community. That's a critical thing. Let's have no more direct service delivery from the top, from the middle. Let's put it on the ground. That would be my main recommendation.
I'm going to read, because if I don't, I'll rant. The two areas in which the federal government should contribute to the reduction of poverty are, first, the articulation of national poverty reduction principles, and, second, the funding of community-based programs aligned with these principles.
The current policies and programs directed at social welfare and poverty reduction are based on false assumptions. We assume that recipients of these programs are helpless burdens on society, that they have little or nothing to contribute to the socio-economic mainstream, that they want to remain passive and excluded, that they need only enough money to survive, and that they'll cheat the system whenever they can. In fact, the majority of recipients of welfare and other assistance are capable of functioning in some productive way, of earning at least part of their income, and of being included in many aspects of community life. They long to be respected as contributing members of the community. I've never met anyone who was really happy on welfare and really wanted to be there.
Therefore, the federal government should turn our existing basis for policy and programming inside out, or upside down, and articulate a new direction that acknowledges that each person is valuable and has a talent to share. This provides a wide range of opportunities to connect marginalized and disadvantaged persons to the socio-economic mainstream—opportunities, not hand-outs. It helps build a community-based infrastructure in which the non-profit sector is the primary delivery agent of integrated services. This sector helps people to climb out of poverty and helps to integrate social development with economic development at the community level. In other words, let's look at people who are poor as assets and not liabilities, because they have tremendous contributions to make if they have the chance.
Secondly, we need community-based programs. Obviously, there will always be some people totally dependent on public support. But the majority currently receiving passive assistance, in the form of cheques, mostly, are wasting away without ever having the chance to fulfill their potential as individuals and members of communities. While there are many approaches to poverty reduction, my experience has led me to believe that two are the most productive—those that focus on housing and those that focus on employment. If people have a safe, affordable place to live from which they can launch themselves into the socio-economic mainstream, and if they have a job to do that makes them feel needed and competent, the problem will essentially be solved. Better health, more education, and less crime will flow from meeting these two basic needs: the need for being, survival; and the need for belonging, community acceptance.
The federal involvement in these approaches can be focused and powerful. In respect of housing, CMHC should take the lead, through its agreements with provinces, to strengthen the community non-profit housing sector as the primary agent of service delivery and encourage provincial governments to support non-profits, rather than deliver housing programs through their own bureaucracies.
We also need to focus on transitional and supportive housing so we can get people out of the emergency shelters they have been living in for years. That's not where they belong. We have plenty of emergency shelters, but we don't have the next level of transitional or supported housing.
The other approach is transition to work. The federal government should invest heavily in pre-employment and skills programs, not only for those who are job-ready, but primarily for those with low levels of education, literacy issues, lack of employment skills, sporadic or no previous attachment to the workforce, and lack of confidence.
The best vehicle for meeting this spectrum of needs is a social enterprise or training business, which has a double bottom line of making a profit while teaching its employees how to work. The so-called social economy in Quebec is the best model of this approach, but the concept of social enterprise and community-based enterprises is gaining momentum everywhere and should be strengthened, encouraged, and supported.
Finally is a third kind of off-the-wall suggestion, but it's based on some experiences I had recently. The major obstacle to employment for marginalized people is lack of reliable, affordable transportation. The federal government should establish a program that provides funding to individuals for public transportation where this is viable. Where a car is the best or the only option, create a program that buys previously owned cars and allocates them to people in transition to employment, with a mandatory requirement and support for eye examinations, glasses, and training in car maintenance and driving skills. Think of the economic benefit that would have. There are all these cars sitting there doing nothing, and all these people sitting there doing nothing because they don't have cars. It looks like there's a fit there.
In closing, it's critical to note that federal resources should not flow directly to community-based non-profit organizations.This sets up destructive confrontations between the federal and provincial governments in which the non-profits are trapped between the warring factions. This may not happen every time, but I've seen so many times where the federal money starts something and the province won't take it over. That puts the NGO in a bind.
Probably the best structural organization is to create funds for integrated services that require provincial governments to work together across their own silos and partner with community-based groups to access the resources.
Thank you.