Human Resources Committee on June 9th, 2009

[Monica Patten]

Thank you.

Obviously we would want to be very careful in any response we make in thinking about how government can encourage donors to step up to the plate. I will start with that one. It's finding the right balance for government not to be seen as abdicating what citizens might think are its responsibilities--in other words, pushing too much to the community. Having said that, I think one of the things the Government of Canada could do, and there are examples around the world where this happens very effectively, is work with community organizations such as the United Way/Centraide, or community foundations, for example. They are actually far better grant makers, far better at giving out money, than governments are because we actually know the communities, we know the players, we know the issues.

That kind of a partnership with a local grant-making entity like a community foundation is a very effective way for the resources that government may have to be distributed in a community. The community foundations, like the Hamilton Community Foundation in the Hamilton example, work through processes that we know around convening, bringing groups together, having them at the same table, having the conversation about the distribution of those resources, and really trying to minimize that competitive atmosphere that you've described.

This will not be a surprise to you, but on the competition I've suggested that when resources are scarce--and what governments have provided for community organizations has been scarce--we see more competition.

Some of it is just about making more resources available in better kinds of ways. I've already mentioned some of those. I would also suggest that you consider partnering with local grant makers who really know their communities and how to distribute the resources.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you.

Karri, you mentioned, specifically with reference to EI, that a qualifying period of 360 hours, which when you look at the days would in effect mean 2.25 months, to qualify for 50 to 100 weeks of benefits without a two-week waiting period at 65% of the insurable earnings...if that's correct, what do you say about those regions of the country that have high unemployment?

Quoting Mr. Savage from our own committee, he said, “As you can see, when you reduce it to a flat-rate of 360 hours, the cost is pretty significant.” In other words, keep the regional rates, more or less. This is to protect those people in high unemployment areas. Mr. Savage went on to say, “But it's a real concern that if you get rid of the regional rates of unemployment, and cuts have to be made, it'll be those areas that are hurt disproportionately, and we need to be very concerned about that.”

Are you not concerned about regions of high unemployment, when you say the rate should be the same across the country? Are you really suggesting that after working 2.25 months you would be entitled to all these benefits?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Is your question addressed to anyone in particular, Mr. Komarnicki?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

To Karri.

[Karri Munn-Venn]

First of all, yes, I am suggesting that people should be able to qualify for less time of work because--

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Okay. You're saying at 360 hours all those benefits would follow. My question to that then is, what do you say to those with high unemployment rates compared to those with lower unemployment rates?

[Karri Munn-Venn]

We're now in a situation where people who may travel to work, for whatever reason, are at an advantage over those who don't, because they can go home and get benefits.

We're not talking about a situation where we want fewer people to qualify and the situation to be worse for more people. What we want is to even out the rules and to make it fairer across the country.

I want to speak to the fact--

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Are you saying that we shouldn't take into account higher unemployment areas?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Mr. Komarnicki, I'm going to cut you off at this point.

I'm going to suspend, and then we'll come back after the vote.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

We can now resume our discussions. For the second round, questions and answers are five minutes long.

Ms. Minna.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And thanks to all of you. I'm sorry I missed the presentation, but I had another meeting.

I want to go to Ms. Eng. You talked earlier about caregivers and the need for us to reimburse and find a way.... And I agree with you. There is a need to make sure people don't lose their jobs and everything else, and generally the people are women.

Could you tell us—very quickly, because I'm sharing my time with my colleague—whether any studies have been done on what types of programs specifically would work and on the moneys we would be looking at, or something along that line?

[Susan Eng]

Thank you for the question.

The important thing with caregivers is, as I mentioned earlier, that some five million Canadians are already providing informal care for their families. That makes it possible for the older person in many cases to avoid going into institution-level care, to avoid bad health outcomes, and so on. It's an extremely important contribution to the public good.

If we were to value the unpaid labour, the estimates run from $12 billion up. The United States will have a survey coming out that suggests that in their context the value is some $370 billion. If we only take 10% of that, which is the rule of thumb, there would be $37 billion. Those are the kinds of values being attributed to the unpaid labour of family caregivers.

In order to make it possible for families to continue with this important responsibility, we have to make sure there is something that will allow them to take time away from their jobs. We have to give them either a refundable tax credit, such as a straight-out allowance, as is done in some European countries, or.... There are a number of options, and it really depends on the government of the day which is most palatable.

But of course it will be quite expensive. Some have estimated the cost as in the neighbourhood of $5 billion, depending how much you give to each person. But if we're talking about that kind of contribution and what value it levers in society and the social glue that it builds, then that kind of cost-benefit analysis is necessary.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you.

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

The issue of caregivers is important to me, as it is to Madam Minna and as I know it is to our chair today. Having had the experience of both my parents dying of cancer very close together, and dying at home because we have a large family—not rich, but well enough off that we could afford to have our parents die at home—it seems to me that one of the keys of the health care system going forward is to shift some kind of resource from institutionalized care to care for people in the home setting, whether they be elderly parents, children with special issues, autistic adults, or others.

[Susan Eng]

In the 2003 Romanow report and health care accords, it was pointed out that the next big challenge in our health care system will be the need to provide home care as an alternative to institutional care, simply because the cost of institutional care is impossible. The only option is really to develop the home care process and sector. That includes both providing better for-pay home care services and also somehow providing an incentive and facilitation for those family members who provide the added care.

In addition to all of that financial piece, there is the facilitation that the formal health care system has to provide to the family caregivers; that is, they have to recognize that they exist and they have to tell them where the resources are, and they have to provide and develop home dialysis systems, for example—which exist now, but there are other things that are necessary. There is also a necessity to use technology more imaginatively, to monitor the family in the home, to monitor medications, and that kind of thing.

All of these things are part of an overall package that allows people to age safely at home and keep them out of the formal health care system, especially institutional care.

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

One of the issues we haven't talked much about today, and that I know you all would have a view on, is that persons with disabilities are often marginalized by poverty. One of the ideas we heard from I think the Caledon Institute was that we should set up a system whereby we give the equivalent of OAS and GIS for persons with disabilities, to give them an opportunity. I wonder whether anybody has a thought on that.

I know I'm running out of time, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

I'm going to have to stop you right there because of the time you would have to take, but this is something you might be able to integrate into the answer you will be giving to someone else.

Mr. Vellacott.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It's good to have the issue of poverty among seniors come up in this particular session today. I would expect that most of the members of Parliament around the table have seniors in their ridings. There may be a fair number of them in certain parts of their ridings as well, as there are in mine, in the downtown Saskatoon core.

I meet some of these dear older folk as I door-knock at election campaign times and other times, and one thing that I know is a big issue is housing. It's probably one of the biggest things on their minds and in their hearts.

I know that these days, and maybe you can give me your response to this, there is some money coming back into this area—in fact, about $400 million over two years for the construction of social housing units for low-income seniors. In my own riding, just recently, I had a good news announcement come my way. I was able to talk with the good folks at a place in the city of Saskatoon that had received almost $1 million to create about 34 units. That's just one of the things being done across the country. We're looking forward to celebrating this at some point in the months ahead.

I wouldn't mind a comment on that. I don't know whether you are of the view that housing is the biggest top-of-mind issue. At least, as I speak it is.

[Susan Eng]

Housing is one of the major issues for a number of reasons, not least of which, of course, is affordability. We certainly congratulate the recent budget announcement of $400 million over two years; however, provincial cooperation is required for that money to flow at all, and it is directed at bricks and mortar, which, although important, is not the only thing that's important when we talk about seniors housing.

Important also is the availability of assisted services, which might be emergency medical care, a bit of light housekeeping, a local transportation system that allows people who live in these clusters, in addition to living there in affordable accommodation, to also have these assisted services.

This is something that is really high on our agenda. If you think of the basic arithmetic of living, you have to have income, you have to reduce your expenses, and there is really no third outlet.

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

Thanks very much.

Yes, that's quite important. There are those other, supplementary or corollary kinds of services, and of course the basic need to have a proper roof over your head. I was really thrilled with some of that support and grateful to our government. There is always more that can be done, but they are doing something in respect of this.

In fact, in this case it was 46 units. I thought this was great, but more, of course, can be done as well.

Some of the other things we have put forward on which I wouldn't mind some comment, if time allows, and I know we're pretty limited here, include providing up to an additional $150 of annual tax savings for low- and middle-income seniors by making a $1,000 increase to the age credit amount—making that adjust upwards is a good thing—and reducing the required minimum registered retirement income fund, or RRIF, withdrawal for 2008 by 25%, so that it is not penalizing. I've heard some good comments with respect to that too.

Also, in Budget 2008 there were investments of about $13 million over three years to combat elder abuse. It is a growing concern for me. I worked as a nursing home attendant. I know it's a thing that would concern all of us, if we had parents and elderly relatives or people we know. I think that's good; there doesn't seem to be enough awareness about this.

Allowing GIS recipients to keep more of their money by also raising the GIS earnings exemption to $3,500 from the former level of $500 was a huge upward increase that I'm hearing some positive comments on.

There is a package of things here, but there is also the tax-free savings account, which permits seniors to grow their savings without affecting their GIS benefits and having them clawed back. That is also something of benefit.

I mentioned the pension income credit. Income splitting as well is something I'm hearing about at this time, as people have gotten their income tax filing done.

The quick question I would have, which embraces seniors but others as well, is this. I would be curious and interested to hear whether the various groups before us today have done significant study of the root causes of poverty. We respond and we want to deal with the symptoms of the needs that are before us. But what are some of the root causes of poverty among the various age groups on which you could give me a quick response?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

You want a quick response? You asked a huge question, Mr. Vellacott. I'm afraid I'm going to have to cut you off.

Monsieur Lessard, s'il vous plait.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Vellacott, because I wanted to approach the problem in that way too.

First, thank you for being here today. As women, you are the appropriate representatives of those who work on the front lines to help people in the grips of poverty. Thank you for being here.

I am going to follow up on the thought that Mr. Vellacott raised. The people in Community Foundations of Canada are challenging community organizations to tackle the root causes of poverty too. Is there one fundamental cause of poverty?

[Sara Lyons]

Thank you for the question.

As Ms. Eng and Ms. Munn-Venn have pointed out, the cost of housing is certainly one of the main causes. Housing costs are often considered the most onerous, especially for people living in poverty.

Another cause that I would highlight is access to employment, especially for immigrants. In the largest cities, access to the labour market is very difficult for immigrants, especially for recent immigrants, compared to the population in general, regardless of their qualifications, their education, or their language abilities in English or French. So I do not think that the problem is education, or the availability of work, but rather of access to the jobs.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Agreed. I share that view.

Do you see things differently, Ms. Munn-Venn?

[Karri Munn-Venn]

Yes. Thank you again for the question.

I would like to say that there are many causes of poverty. They can have to do with one's origin, family history, and so on. But, really, the causes cannot simply be listed and defined. The poor in Canada can be poor because they are ill and because they can no longer work and...