Human Resources Committee on June 1st, 2009

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is no secret, as you noted, that poverty and housing are closely connected. Access to decent social housing could alleviate some of the poverty experienced by women. The same can be said for members of Arab and Jewish communities across Canada.

Aside from one investment of $1 billion, no new money has been invested in social housing in Canada since 1993. A small amount of money has been invested in housing for seniors and persons with disabilities. That's all well and good, but there has been nothing for families, single women, immigrants or persons in distress.

Ms. Wybrow, what role do you see the government playing in the area of social housing for women?

[Beverley Wybrow]

I do believe, as I said, that housing is a really critical issue in poverty, and particularly for women. I think the federal government needs to have a national housing strategy that has a gender analysis built into it, and one that increases the funding for specific groups of women and types of housing. For example, second-stage housing for women fleeing violence is truly critical in making the difference as to whether or not women return to violent situations. Yet across the country, there is very little support for it and the number of second-stage shelters has really declined. That type of housing is really critical. It's longer-term support; women can stay for up to a year in that kind of housing with their children, as opposed to three to six weeks in an emergency shelter. You can't change your whole life in three to six weeks.

The federal government also needs to invest money in the construction of affordable long-term housing, with a focus on aboriginal women on- and off-reserve, in the north, and women who are fleeing violence, and for women with disabilities in particular.

So more money is needed for the construction and rehabilitation of social housing, and then support for particular kinds of housing, such as second-stage housing.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Oliveira, can decent social housing help children break out of the cycle of poverty? Is this an important element?

[Dr. Claire de Oliveira]

Thank you.

Although I did not specifically talk about social housing, I think it is important. This would be, for example, an in-kind transfer, so to speak. So you would provide a service for children and their families.

I haven't actually looked extensively at housing for children and how that can impact, for example, their health status or their education, or other welfare or other outcomes. But it is also important to guarantee that, because once that need has been addressed, then obviously the parents can focus on other things that are also important for a child's development and then, later on, their outcome as an adult in the labour market.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Ms. Simons, do we really need social housing? Is it important? What is your view of social housing?

[Melanie Simons]

Yes, absolutely, there is a need for increased supply of social housing, as well as more funds directed to the maintenance and upkeep of social housing.

We have taken some initiatives in our own community to develop partnerships with landlords. The federation tops up what would be the market rental price and offers a subsidized unit to families and a lot of single mothers with children, but also to seniors, who are another very vulnerable population.

So the answer, absolutely, is yes.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Boudjenane, do you think the government should provide assistance to your community in so far as social housing is concerned, or does the private sector meet all of your needs?

[Mohamed Boudjenane]

I can't say that it meets all of our needs. As you noted, for the past twenty years or so, we have not seen any serious investment in social housing in Canada.

To answer your question, I would like to advance the following premise. As I stated in my opening remarks, any strategy aimed at addressing poverty issues must take into account racial analysis. Strategies for housing and access to education, employment and health do not take consideration racial discrimination, and historic factors that have led to the marginalization of some communities in Canada, such as aboriginal communities. If these factors are not taken into account, it will not be possible to develop programs that effectively meet the needs of these groups.

Let me give you an example, a statistic that I believe speaks volume and is rather shocking at the same time. Between 1980 and 2000, the level of poverty among Canadians of European descent declined by 20%. During this same period, the level of poverty among aboriginal communities and racial minorities increased by 360%.

While some programs and strategies have been developed over time, if they fail to specifically target these communities, which already face discrimination at the grassroots level, then this issue will never be resolved. The same is true of housing problems.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

We're now going to Mr. Martin. You have seven minutes.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for coming this morning. We have certainly heard some really good information and valuable ideas. It's good to be hearing from such a broad spectrum of the faith community and also the business community in terms of some things we should be considering.

We heard in Halifax from the YWCA that down there their experience is that women are the poorest of the poor. They made a strong plea for justice, not charity. I think I heard that mentioned this morning, not just from you but from the groups that came before you, that whatever we do as the federal government--and that's the role we're looking at here and trying to get a handle on--it needs to be rooted in human rights, and we have a moral responsibility.

The challenge, it seems--and I've been at this for quite some time--is to mount a campaign out there in the public discourse about poverty that then affects the kind of political will and leadership that needs to happen at the federal level. It's great to see the business community engaged, and I've seen examples of where they've done some really constructive and positive things, even in our own country.

I feel the faith community needs to be engaged in a more active way. It was great to see the forum in Ottawa, and we need to have more of that. I think I was sharing earlier that in my own parish in Sault Ste. Marie a survey was taken recently in terms of adult education and what would be the major topic for the fall. The results were overwhelming that it should be social justice. I think people have known and felt, as I feel, a moral responsibility to deal with this, but now it's becoming very real for many more people than ever before.

How do we engage the broader community in that discussion, such that it will impact the decisions that we make here and ultimately government's decision to move on this national anti-poverty strategy that everybody says we need?

[Mohamed Boudjenane]

Who are you questioning?

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Well, anybody. Perhaps the Canadian Council of Churches.

[A voice]

Do you want to go first?

[Mohamed Boudjenane]

I want to go back to what I said about having an analysis that encapsulates the reality of racial communities, gender issues, people with handicaps, and our first nation communities.

I think it's crucial in Canada to avoid the errors and the mistakes made in other places. I don't want to see Canada falling into a situation where you have a suburb like we saw in Paris a few years ago, where people had to rise up because there was crass social injustice, discrimination, and marginalization. And we do indeed have in Canada now some seriously alarming signals, where in the majority of big urban areas the overwhelming majority of people under the poverty level are from racialized communities or first nations, or are single mothers. In my view, that situation will have serious consequences for our social cohesion in this country.

As we said, we need to engage those communities in meaningful dialogue, but we also need to put forward serious legislation, strategies, and policies that will address that injustice. On employment equity, for example, we do have legislation in the federal government; but, boy, we know that racialized communities, women, and people from first nations communities don't have access to those jobs. We know there is a reality in terms of racism and racial profiling in this country, and I think it's important to address those issues and concerns.

[Peter Noteboom, Associate Secretary, Commission on Justice and Peace, Canadian Council of Churches]

I support much of what was said earlier. But one of the statistics we mentioned in our brief is that 85% of Christians in Canada who self-identify as Christian attend churches that are members of the council. So that's quite a few people, and it puts some of the burden back on us, frankly. I think, as churches in Canada, we also need to do more in education and internal work to grow a stronger movement and coalition for change to end poverty in Canada.

And it's really a partnership. One of the things, of course, that churches do is internal education, but also participation in local neighbourhood and community ministries, and all of that, and social service programs. But it's also that justice and advocacy and human rights work that's so important. So the Dignity for All campaign, which was the last component of our brief, is one way to move it forward. It tries to name, just in a few key points, what it is that Canadians are calling for and how we want the Government of Canada to be accountable for ending poverty.

But with other big social movement changes, such as for universal public health care in Canada, it really took broad activity, a broad coalition of different sectors in civil society. And for this, too, we need to work together on it, both on the government side and on the civil society and faith community side.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I know that on the Christian side there is the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the Council of Churches, but is there any multi-faith effort or organization going on, Melanie, that you're aware of?

[Melanie Simons]

Yes, provincially there is ISARC. Though lots of members of ISARC represent national bodies, to my knowledge there is no national coordination. And that's something we definitely should be working on, because I do strongly believe there is a very large role for faith groups to play in creating that safe political space within which we can have these discussions that, traditionally, have been very controversial and, let's say, unpopular in general with Canadians when it comes down to it, such as EI reform and those sorts of things. I think governments are often very hesitant to engage in those types of conversations, and they fall back on safe discussions around child poverty. But as we've heard today, child poverty is not just child poverty; you can't get at or solve child poverty without looking at strategies that support single mothers in particular, racialized groups, and families. A lot of families with dual incomes today are still low-income families.

Perhaps the role the federal government can play there is to provide support for and recognition of that sector, as well as the third sector in general and non-profits. But the faith groups in general do have a very important role to play, especially around that conversation of justice versus charity. This is not charity; this is justice we're talking about. This is human rights.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move over to Mr. Vellacott.

Sir, you have seven minutes.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to dialogue with Claire in respect to in-kind transfers as compared to cash.

From remarks you made in responding to Maria on some things, it's not that you don't think there isn't any place for cash; it's just that you're making some judgments based on research of some kind, I take it, that certain things are better done in cash, while certain things are better done in kind. Is that how it is?

[Dr. Claire de Oliveira]

No, I'm saying that based on research, if we transfer a lump sum of money to a family and look at certain outcomes--for example, children's health or children's poverty--what has been found is that transferring just that amount of cash has little impact on their health or on other outcomes, such as educational attainment.

What I am trying to say is that alongside income transfers, we should be placing most of the emphasis on in-kind transfers. Along with those cash transfers, we should be having in-kind transfers, but with the focus on the latter, because those have been shown to be more effective in influencing children's outcomes, such as health and educational attainment.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

In terms of something fairly uniform, the child tax benefit, I think the figure is $5,000 to $6,000 per child. I don't understand exactly. Are you saying that in the case of that kind of thing, you think that if those dollars were used in kind instead, it would be a better use of the dollars?

[Dr. Claire de Oliveira]

I think so, yes. I am not saying to eliminate cash transfers, or at least some of that amount, but to have a greater weight placed on in-kind transfers. Have services rather than just transferring the money and giving the families total discretion on that. Provide services that the government and researchers and policy-makers feel have a greater impact on children's outcomes. It has been found that, for example, services directed towards mothers, or soon-to-be mothers, have a larger impact not only on the mother but also on the child during childhood and also later on, when they're adults.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Right. I'm trying to grasp and comprehend this, because most of the groups we've had before us in committee so far have been pretty adamant in saying that the present amount of $5,000 or $6,000 should be increased.

I want to give you an opportunity again to say that you think these dollars, in total, are better used in kind, which, as you're well aware, goes counter to some of the other evidence we've heard here. These people don't qualify it at all. They say it would be simply much better to take it up from there. They want that recommendation of a higher amount, and they say the federal government should do that.

I don't know if you would be at odds, but you realize you're certainly a little different from some of the others.

[Dr. Claire de Oliveira]

Yes.