Human Resources Committee on May 28th, 2009

[Dave Quist]

We've discussed family income splitting, but I'll leave that one for now.

I think there can be other things that will assist too. For example, tax credit programs can reward people by saying, “You're married, you're doing these things. We know there are outcomes that will be beneficial for you as a couple, but also for children in the long term. If we don't have to have those children going through other sorts of education, supplemental programs, or health benefit programs, there are cost savings there as well.” Basically, by assisting families today, we have benefits down the long term as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're going to now move over to the Conservatives. You have five minutes, Mr. Lobb.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Allison. I'd be happy to use the five minutes as best as possible.

Again, thank you to all the witnesses here today. I was a former United Way board member, so it's good to see United Way here today.

Mr. Quist, I thank you. You've definitely answered some questions here today. My colleagues across the way obviously disagree with some of them, and that's their democratic right. And thank goodness for that.

However, I am from rural Ontario, and I can say that some of what you mentioned in your presentation actually works for rural Ontario. Perhaps the member opposite is not aware of the issues in rural Ontario, as likely her party's most rural riding would be in Mississauga.

That being said, I wonder if you could just expound a little more or give us a little more idea or discussion around income splitting. It would be my observation in rural Ontario that a national child care strategy would not necessarily work for every community, because in my riding there are well over a dozen communities, and likely there wouldn't be enough infants to attend these facilities to keep the operating capacity where it is. The way I observe it is that income splitting would perhaps allow some family members--and they may not be all in poverty, which is understandable, but for some of those parents who would choose to stay home with their children, it would allow child care spaces to open up for those who otherwise would not be able to send them there.

Maybe you could explain that perspective. I think that's where possibly my colleague opposite does not recognize some of the issues facing rural Canada, and in my case, rural Ontario.

Thank you, Mr. Quist.

[Dave Quist]

Thank you, Mr. Lobb.

The issue of income splitting and child care is all related to dollars and cents for family decision-making. Some of those families are going to be in poverty and some are not going to be in poverty. As we've discussed, when families are below a certain level, they are not paying taxes to start with. So we need to segment and look at each of those different strata, respective of their needs and their details. For those who are on the cusp and who are paying some income tax, all the expenses that are going to family life are important. Child care is a major expense and is needed for some families. There's no question about that.

Our research has shown that whether from rural or urban, from male perspective or female perspective, from all different demographic areas, if given the opportunity, 82% of people would like to have one of the parents stay home to raise their children. That's not always practical, and that's not always feasible, given economic circumstances or other needs that go along with that family life as well.

One of the things we've looked at is child care from the perspective of every province or every region of the country, and those things remain the same all across the board. In fact, a child care program that is national in scope actually falls down about three or four pegs below what the actual choices are.

The first thing is to have child care run by mom or dad in the home. Second is by a family member. Third is by a neighbourhood person who you perhaps know, who lives down the street. Fourth is the non-profit child care, and fifth is some form of a for-profit child care program. The incentive for people to make that decision is largely based on finances, not on personal choice, so if we can give them the opportunity to have the financial wherewithal to either stay home or raise their children in the manner they would like to, that has been the first choice of those people.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you.

I know that may be difficult for some of my colleagues opposite to comprehend.

I would like to also ask my colleagues from the United Way if they would give me some perspective. We know that our government has contributed significantly to the social transfers, and during these tough economic times have actually increased the transfers 3% or more. We've heard a number of witnesses testify that the dollars are getting there, but the provinces are perhaps not targeting those dollars where they're most needed, and we've heard some comment about strings attached and directives of those dollars. Seeing how the United Way definitely is at the grassroots level, and you're right in the field and you're doing the hard work, I just wondered if you had any thoughts on any of those commentaries that we've heard from other witnesses.

Thank you.

[Pierre Métivier]

It's hard for us to answer that kind of question because here we're talking about intergovernmental redistribution mechanisms, respective commitments, and so on. Unless I'm mistaken, you're saying that the amounts allocated to the provincial governments aren't being used as planned. I'm not part of the provincial government.

However—if you'll allow me one minute—I know that the provincial government is of course the one that's closest to social services and the public—that's normal. Theoretically, it's the one that's most involved in examining needs and all that. So it invests a lot in social organizations—I'm talking about Quebec—with the help of organizations like the United Way and other private foundations.

Nevertheless, that's not enough to really help people get back on their feet, to emerge from poverty and to be active in society. Who will be the one that pays the most? The provincial government, the federal government or both? As a taxpayer and United Way worker, I think it's both.

We sent the same message to the provincial government as the one I want to give you today, which is that you should invest more in community services to help poor people. You must give more money to those organizations.

I hope your colleagues who were in Calgary last week were just as impressed as I was to see hundreds of people from across the country who are involved in services, but who are exhausted. If those people stop being involved, the entire community will have a problem.

What's the problem? Does it concern intergovernmental responsibilities? I don't know. What I do know is that if we don't invest more in these organizations and help people restore their dignity and be active in their community, the entire society will be shooting itself in the foot, and we will all be responsible.

The community groups that were there last week and those that are part of our system—we fund only 180 in the Quebec City and Chaudière-Appalaches region—tell us that they don't have enough. They would like the two governments to do more, and that includes the federal government. Whether it's directly or through the provincial government, that's politics for me. What I'm saying is that the federal government and the provincial government must do more.

Earlier I cited the example of infrastructure, even though that was perhaps a bit specific. The two governments have invested in infrastructure to stimulate the economy. However, neither has invested in social and community services to stimulate the economy, whereas that's one extremely cost-effective investment from all standpoints, including economic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're now going to move over to Madame Beaudin for five minutes, please.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon to you.

I'm also extremely pleased to see you people from the United Way, since I work for a local initiative, the Centre 1, 2, 3 GO!, founded by Centraide du Grand Montréal.

My questions are put to you, Mr. Métivier, because you addressed the subject I would like to pursue.

First, you say that community organizations must be funded. Do you mean, more specifically, that sustainable investment must also be made to permit sustainable funding?

Also, how do you assess the impact of those organizations so that we can determine results at some point? As you know, we had a 10-year project to eradicate child poverty in 2000. We failed. Why? Did you conduct an analysis on the subject? Do you have any data for us? What should we invest in instead?

The United Way people are talking about building mutually-assisting communities and supporting the ability of those communities to take action. Can you give us a little more information on what building mutually-assisting communities means? Could that be one option to consider for Canada as a whole?

Quebec's framework legislation has been in effect since 2002, but that's as a result of a vast mobilization of civil society, as you know. The people in the field felt they wanted an act.

We began this study a few months ago, and we had the opportunity to meet with a number of organizations from other Canadian provinces. There are local initiatives, best practices, extraordinary people in the field, and they need help. I think there are probably potential solutions in that area.

As regards Quebec alone, should we intervene in all the regions in the same manner? Haven't we always said that partners intervened, that each region had its specific characteristics, and that each local player could determine its priorities? Consequently, shouldn't we consider matters in the same way for Canada?

Those are my questions. Go ahead.

[Pierre Métivier]

There are obviously a lot of aspects to your question. I'd like to talk about Quebec's legislation. I was in the assembly when it was passed. I was proud to be there. I also remember the pride of all parliamentarians, regardless of party, in voting unanimously in favour of such an act. It was magical. They didn't achieve it alone. It was a broad popular movement that resulted in that decision and made things happen. Members were paying attention, which is very important. They agreed to listen and did not close teh assembly's doors when the petition was introduced.

You talked about impacts and organizations. Government funding is often program funding in an attempt to measure the program's impact. I understand why. It's because governments want very specific accountability. Investing in people and investing in a community are not measured in the same way as investing in a business. You don't measure that based on performance, the number of customers or benefits that can be distributed to shareholders. There's an expression in English: trust the process. That means that you have to let the communities act, invest and use that money well. It's not program funding that we need. The machinery of the government has a lot of trouble understanding that.

Across the country, the United Way has changed its practices in the past 10 years or so. We are totally committed to comprehensive funding of the organization, to core funding. We are the only ones. Even some private foundations are proceeding through program funding. We have to get out of this context. We have to mobilize communities, help them in an overall sense and subsequently assess the impact. That's the only answer I can give you.

Large companies that make donations to the United Way ask what impact that has had on the community. I tell them what we've done with the money, how we've mobilized the community and the number of services we've put in place. Someone one day dared to ask me if we had any poverty reduction targets. The answer is no; donors aren't there for that. The federal government gave itself 25 years and wasn't even able to achieve it and didn't follow it appropriately. So how can we ask charities to do that kind of tracking in the community? Who do those people take us for? They give us money so that services can be provided, so that people can get back their dignity and so that communities can vitalize. We do that and we give them figures, but they ask us to set impact objectives like you ask university institutions, private businesses and other institutions. You have to be careful. The third sector is full of people of good will who know what to do and who know their community. Let them work and don't exhaust them with impact measures that will deter them from what they really have to do.

That's a trap, and that's the best answer I can give to all your questions, Ms. Beaudin.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're now going to move over to Mr. Cannan for five minutes.

He's not there.

Dona, why don't you take over?

[Dona Cadman, Conservative, Surrey North, BC]

I'm going to be Ron for a moment.

Some of the witnesses who have appeared before the committee have called for the creation of national housing. Can you tell me if you agree with this or not, and why?

[Greg deGroot-Maggetti]

Yes, I think a national housing strategy is a key element for reducing poverty and eliminating poverty in Canada. The simple reason is that there's a high proportion of people, particularly renters, who pay a disproportionate amount of their money for rent. There's not enough affordable housing. Waiting lists for non-profit housing in some areas are ridiculously long, and people just get turned away.

Housing is one of these key things that we need if we're going to live and thrive and live in dignity. Since the federal government stepped back from funding construction of affordable housing a decade or so ago--it has stepped forward with a little bit of funding, and many provinces as well—the stock of affordable housing has dwindled dramatically. At the same time, people's incomes, particularly from work, stagnated, even during the ten years we just went through when there was low unemployment. Many people were working longer hours and not making so much more money.

It's been shown that just relying on the private sector housing providers to build enough housing to create an affordable housing market hasn't worked. So there's clearly a role for both the federal government and the provincial governments to create...well, at the federal level, to create a national housing strategy, to fund construction of housing, subsidies. There needs to be a strategic approach to make sure that everybody has access to affordable, safe, secure housing.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses. I apologize for coming late. I had an overlapping committee.

I appreciate all the work that all your organizations do. Mr. Quist, and MCC I'm very familiar with, as well as the United Way. I had the honour of being our workplace chair prior to my life in politics. They do great work in the community, and with all the volunteers as well.

We've heard from numerous witnesses over the last several months while the committee has been studying this important issue of poverty. We know it's a non-partisan issue. It affects all of us across the country, in every corner and every nook and cranny across the nation.

I represent an area in the Okanagan. The Kelowna Lake country has a high demographic of seniors, and the aspect of income splitting for seniors was very well received. I understand the fact, which Mr. Quist alluded to, that you need a multi-pronged approach.

Regarding the delivery of services, we're finding a lot of the social issues are at the provincial level, from a constitutional perspective. We have the social transfer of 3%, which was alluded to by my colleague Mr. Lobb, until 2014, so it's escalating each year. But there are really no conditions attached to that transfer of funding, and we can't really go back because of the agreement. So I wonder if maybe we could go across the panel and get some suggestions for the committee for additional funding to be provided to the provinces as we move forward. How can we provide some benchmark stipulations so there's some accountability for the funds as they're earmarked for housing and specific projects and for social issues in the community? Even child care is a provincial jurisdiction. We give them money and we can't force them to deliver there.

I look forward to your expertise on working with the provinces on how we could have that “conditional love” attached, if we can put it that way.

We haven't heard from Ms. Potvin. Do you have any words of advice from your experience? Welcome.

[Émilie Potvin]

You're putting me on the spot.

I'm going to answer the question in French. I believe that, with respect to services and the delivery of services, a number of countries are looking at a better way to cooperate with the various governments. In the United States, the Barack Obama team has just commissioned a study to examine how services are delivered in the communities, to see how the various partners could work together. The same thing is being done in Australia.

I don't know whether the committee will examine the studies currently underway, but I know that these are the kinds of initiatives that we at the United Way want to put forward. That's why we're asking the government questions. We're trying to determine whether this type of questioning is being done in committee or within the government at this time. It doesn't necessarily concern the investment of additional funding or the development of additional processes, but is the government considering how to do things so that these services are delivered more efficiently, with better cohesion among the various partners that provide them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Cannan.

We're almost out of time, but I promised Mike one quick question, and then we have to get to some committee business.

Mike.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

In the interest of time, I don't really have a question. I want to thank the witnesses for coming.

I want to make one comment about the United Way. The Action for Neighbourhood Change program has been fabulous. Paul Shakotko in Halifax, did a great job in Spryfield. He's now working in Dartmouth, which is in my area. He appeared at our committee in Halifax, when we had hearings there. That is a case of people actually getting in and working with people who are living the poverty experience and making change.

I just want to commend the United Way for the work they've done. Perhaps I'll just leave it at that so we can move on.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks, Mike.

Once again, I want to thank all the witnesses for being here. We appreciate the work that you do on the front lines every day, and we appreciate your being here to talk a bit about what the government's involvement can be.

I'm going to ask people to maybe thank the witnesses, but don't go too far as we have to take care of some committee business. We'll regroup here in about two minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I would call the members back to the table.

We have a couple of motions before us today, and I want to deal with them in order.

Mr. Savage, would you please kindly read your motion into the record, and then we'll have some discussion on it?

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I move

That the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities request that senior officials from the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, responsible for Employment Insurance and Training appear before the end of May 2009 to provide the Committee with an update on:

the progress of the stimulus package as it relates to Employment Insurance and skills training funding;

wait times for processing EI claims, including month by month processing times from December 1, 2008 to April 30, 2009;

the additional $60 million allocated to case wait times and to hire more workers;

and that the Committee report its findings back to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Would you like to speak to the motion now?

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Yes. I think it's more and more important, as the economic crisis we're going through has an impact on Canadians, that we find out how quickly support that is alleged to be working its way through the system is getting out. We don't have a lot of time to waste. We heard yesterday that we're now looking at a $50 billion deficit, so if the money is not going to get out now, when is it going to get out? That's a pretty simple request.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

All right.

I have Mr. Blaney, Mr. Lobb, and Mr. Martin on my list.

Mr. Blaney.

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

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. First I would like to say hello to committee members. I don't have the chance to take part in proceedings regularly, but I nevertheless want to say hello.

I find the motion relevant, in view of the current context of economic disruption. This morning, Mr. Jean-Robert Sansfaçon wrote in Le Devoir that hundreds of thousands of Canadians had lost their jobs in the past few months, but the majority were receiving benefits, contrary to what some claim. He went further by saying that we have every interest in determining the impact of the measures that have been put in place to mitigate the effects of the crisis on workers.

In that context, I find this motion interesting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks, Mr. Blaney, and welcome back.

Now Mr. Lobb, then Mr. Martin, and Mr. Lessard.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I think the questions that Mr. Savage asked are relevant and important questions that Canadians want to know about. My one question to Mr. Savage is--maybe two questions--is he asking for one meeting? Is that what he's requesting? Two, should we amend it, seeing that we've been unable to deal with it in the manner in which it was delivered? Should we amend the time on there? And keeping in mind that we have around three weeks remaining, and we would want to hear before the House recesses, should we try to work to that, to get it in before the end of the session?