Human Resources Committee on Nov. 5th, 2009

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Well, I feel there's been a lot of research and a lot of work done, so I'm very much hoping that we can consider the bill and get it back into the House, but it's the committee's decision in terms of what it does. We're here to answer everything we can.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Because the bill is meant to be a framework for a national housing strategy, there are a number of areas.... For example, subclause 3(1) says “does not compromise an individual’s ability to meet other basic needs, including food, clothing and access to education”. I would assume that you wouldn't want this to be an exclusive list. Health services and recreation and so on would also be basic needs that we'd want to provide for and wouldn't want compromised by the costs of housing and so on, as they often are.

That's a question. I have a number of others. I'm wondering whether we need to address the wording in this legislation in order for it to be effective.

Go ahead, please.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Certainly the bill is not perfect. It's one of those bills in which you could include everything. It would have a very long list. We tried to cover off basic issues. It's not exclusive to other things that need to be considered. For example, in the development of a strategy, whether it's health services....

I hope it's clear with the bill that the goal is to develop a strategy that does look at the whole person and that housing is a core element of that. I know from your work, and certainly the work I've done in my community, that unless somebody has that sense of housing security, it's really hard to get anything else done. That's a very core element.

I'd be happy if a strategy, when it's developed, as this bill hopes to accomplish, would be broad. That would be part of the discussion that takes place with the various partners.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Assuming the bill is the framework, then we want to make sure it will work and can be relied upon. I think the strategy matters, but it's the programs that would actually execute a strategy to start to make a difference in the lives of people. In other words, there are many other strategies that have been done, and they end up as reports and stay passively on the shelf.

This is intended to be otherwise. This is intended to be action-oriented, correct?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

It's definitely intended to develop a strategy that can be implemented, but I think, as you've heard from witnesses and through so many other reports over the years, there is simply a sense that not enough is being done and what is being done is not being done in a coordinated way. The idea that the federal government would be working in partnership with other jurisdictions, whether they be provinces, territories, first nations, the not-for-profit sector, or municipalities, is a very core element of the bill.

While we've all seen individual programs over the years, whether or not they're homelessness programs, if you talk to any one of these experts—I'm not necessarily the expert, but the folks who are here today are—I think what you'll hear from people is that those measures in and of themselves are obviously very important, but overall there is still a huge need that is not being met, partly because we haven't had that overall framework from the federal government.

That is what this bill is trying to get at. In Canada, we used to have housing programs from the federal government that the provinces and the municipalities could buy into. Much of that is gone, and now we're left with these one-off or much more piecemeal attempts, as you've heard today from some of the witnesses. We want to get beyond that and get into a strategy that actually can be implemented and will deliver the results we need.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Again, I'm just trying to understand this, because I certainly support the objective. For many of the presenters, the need is accepted, and the question is how to make this so that we do a framework that will deliver on that need and do it in a way that has the confidence of the various components, from aboriginals to municipalities.

For example, in setting objectives, would it not make sense to put in the bill some kind of commonly understood objective like core-need housing, which was presented earlier by the co-op federation, or something like that, so that we know what we're working towards? I think there seems to be fairly wide consensus that this is one generally understood need. Instead of just saying “standards and objectives”, could we say something that is concrete and that we can measure progress against?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes. I think that's a very good point and certainly, in a lot of its work, CMHC does talk about it and has a definition of core-need housing. In the bill, it is broader and general. I think that in the development of such a strategy—and you certainly heard from the AFN earlier—you then need to go into the detail in terms of exactly what those definitions are.

Even with core-need housing as it is defined, many people think it's actually very limited. I know there will probably be other witnesses today who will tell us that in other countries and other jurisdictions the definitions, the variables, and the criteria that are included are much more detailed. In this bill, we didn't want to overly prescribe that, because I think that in developing the strategy it's precisely one of the issues that needs to be discussed and agreed upon with the partners.

Yes, you could say, on the one hand, that maybe this is too general, but I think that on the other hand it allows for those details to actually be really worked out in the development of a framework and a strategy. A consensus will come from that. We have certain measures in Canada. I think there are many arguments about why we should be including other criteria as well, some of which you've identified in just your own questioning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kennedy.

We're now going to move to the Bloc for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I would like to congratulate you on this initiative, Ms. Davies. I think it is an extremely wise and necessary initiative at this time. I also want to thank our friends for accepting the committee's invitation and coming to testify to their experience and the great need to reinstitute a "Corvée-Habitation" to make sure the most disadvantaged people are better housed. Those are the people targeted.

Personally, I am with you wholeheartedly when you say that we have to change our approach. At the same time, a question arises. What is there to suggest that it will work this time? I am asking each of you the question because I think the question of housing is an aggravating factor.

As you already know, the committee is currently studying the entire problem of poverty. In 1989, the government made a commitment to reducing child poverty by 50% by 2000. That objective was not achieved, and nothing has changed. At that time, one of the recommended measures was to improve the housing situation. Criteria had already been proposed. For example, one question was what indicator could be used to determine that investment had to be made in housing. It was agreed that it would be when there was a vacancy rate below 3% in a municipality—decent, affordable housing units, because there may be some that are vacant but are neither affordable nor decent.

The government also committed to investing 50% of the cost in a "Corvée-Habitation" with a provincial contribution of 35% and 15% from the municipalities. Who could have access to that housing also had to be determined. It was decided that the people entitled to these units could not pay more than 30% of their income. So that didn't come out of nowhere. It was the result of a strategy that accompanied the study of the problem of poverty. We had a Canadian strategy. Nonetheless, starting in 1993, there was complete withdrawal of the contribution, or the funding, from the federal government for housing, right up to 2001. Not until 2001 did the federal government start to contribute again.

I have two questions. What is there to suggest that it can work this time and that the people who are responsible for enforcing the rules that are made will play the game by those rules? Also, do the criteria that were adopted at the time still apply today, for example, the 3% vacancy rate rule for decent, affordable housing? Of course the question is also for the people who are activists at the municipal level. Is the 15% contribution still realistic? Since I have been a municipal councillor myself and was involved in the issue of affordable housing, I know that it is very difficult to do with that amount.

You are changing the criteria when it comes to the 30% of income we all know, but I will come back to that if I have the time, Ms. Davies.

I had several questions, but I would like to know your opinion on that subject. What is there to suggest that it is going to succeed this time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Who wants to take on this one? That's unfortunately all the time, but we're definitely going to allow an answer.

If a couple of you want to respond, go ahead.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'll be very fast. I'm not sure of the specific program Monsieur Lessard is referring to with the 3% and so on. I do know that in 1989 there was a motion in the House to reduce child poverty, an objective that we haven't met.

I guess the response is that we can't give up. We have to begin somewhere, and we have to begin with a partnership between the federal government and other jurisdictions. I don't know where else to begin. It has to be clearly laid out. There have to be timelines and objectives that can be met. To do anything less than this means that we're failing Canadians and we're failing the people who are most in need.

So yes, we try, and we try again, and we keep raising this issue. That's why we're all here today, all of these organizations. This bill is responding to what has been identified out there as the reality for millions of people every day. It's our problem to solve as federal parliamentarians and as provincial, territorial, and municipal people. Certainly, Quebec has a fine record of producing social housing. I think we have much to learn from that.

All I can say is, why would it work this time? It will only work if we all agree that it should be done. I hope that's the agreement we will have. Then we will move on to the next step.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Could I get a quick response from Mr. Smith and Mr. Gillard as well?

[Dewey Smith]

Yes, I have just a quick response to the first point, which was about what the difference is going to be in this round of thinking versus other rounds of thinking? I would suggest that there is an important consideration about policy and strategy being developed inclusively versus exclusively.

Although we've had input into dialogue, we've never been provided the opportunity to be involved in how this unfolds. If it's going to be inclusive, then the policy and strategies that are developed come from the grassroots, from those practitioners and those service providers, those who deal with it on a day-to-day basis.

This isn't a policy and strategy that's developed in exclusion by bureaucrats and administrators who are doing something that they feel is good for the people they're dealing with. It needs to come from the bottom, not from the top.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Could we have just a quick response, please?

[Geoffrey Gillard]

First, having no strategy and no policy isn't going to get us there. Having a policy and having a strategy is no guarantee, but I also point to Quebec and the example of the Solidarité 5000 logements program. I think Quebec took great pride as a province in saying that they would meet certain targets by certain dates, and they've moved toward that and they've done it. I think if those targets hadn't been set, there wouldn't have been those units and those people wouldn't have been housed.

This is no guarantee, but it's a necessary effort, and I think the measurable outcomes are a critical part of the whole thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Leslie, welcome back to the committee. You have five minutes. All your colleagues have taken seven, so you're probably going to end up with seven as well.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of you. I am so excited to be here and talking about this bill with you. I'm very pleased to see the diverse stakeholders who are here to be witnesses to this bill.

My first question is for the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association. You said that we need a federal strategy to connect, inform, and guide local strategies. We certainly know that all levels of government have contributed to various housing initiatives, but can you expand on why you think it's important for the federal government to take the lead?

[Geoffrey Gillard]

As for what we've seen, the reference was made by your colleague from Quebec to a period when there was no federal investment in new affordable housing in Canada. The experience from that period showed us that when the federal government does not invest and does not take a leadership role, many provinces follow in kind, I think, and will also pull back investment.

What we've seen is that federal leadership and federal investment spark provincial involvement, and that in turn sparks municipal involvement. Even when the requirements aren't there, municipalities will, as often as they can, step up to the table. The federal leadership is critical.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you.

This is a question for the Evangelical Fellowship and StreetLevel.

CHRA mentioned that the non-profit and private sectors should be part of the process. Mr. Smith has told us that first nations of course should be part of this process. In regard to developing a strategy, I'm wondering if you have thoughts about the role of those non-profits or faith-based groups that work with people in poverty.

[Don Hutchinson]

The role of faith-based groups is vital from a number of perspectives. First, we actually already have a history of working with all three levels of government in developing several levels of housing, from shelters to transitional housing to permanent affordable housing. Second, we are also engaged across the evangelical community in particular. Several denominations are involved in developing housing, not only for those who are poor and homeless and are making their way off the street, but also for the elderly, for those who have disabilities, and for a number of categories of Canada's vulnerable.

We have a history. We have the experience that we think would be a benefit at the table in working with others, as we've done in the past.

Julia.

[Julia Beazley]

Also, I think the agencies within StreetLevel are intimately and directly involved in the lives of people living in poverty who are homeless. There's a real understanding of cause-and-effect relationships, of what it actually takes to move someone off the streets into housing, and of what those transitions need to look like. There's a good understanding, through trial and error, as I said, and through figuring out what works, of how we move people to wholeness and to a healthy home and community and all of that.

I think that sort of perspective on the housing issue is an important one for inclusion as well. Whenever you're talking about strategy, how we implement, what needs to go into this, and what it should look like, we can't necessarily do the nuts and bolts of policy,as we said, but there's a perspective that I think is really valid.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you.

My last question is to whomever would like to answer it. This past year, the federal government said that it will actually invest $3.57 billion in housing, so I'm wondering why this doesn't cut it. What's the difference? Is there proper accountability for where this money's going? Why would we still need a strategy if this kind of money is being invested?

[David Eddy]

Some of this money is stimulus money, so it's not going to be for the long term. In a certain way, we see housing as infrastructure. It shouldn't be contributed to in political cycles, in four-year cycles. We have to look at the long term.

One of the interesting things we're seeing now is that those formerly called the middle class are starting to creep down into being folks who can't afford housing. Many of our constituents have always been in that position. I'm sure that some of you who now have adult children know that they can't afford to buy a house in the area where they live. Vancouver is one of the most expensive housing jurisdictions on the planet, not just in Canada or North America.

This is a problem that is not going to be solved with stimulus dollars.

[Julia Beazley]

We made reference in our presentation to taking the 30,000 foot level vision; we weren't sure if the expression was 50,000 or 30,000.

I think it's great and the stimulus money is good. Directing funds towards initiatives is really good, but what's lacking is that high-level view and standard that says we're going to figure out the implementation in the different regions and municipalities.

We need that high-level view: here is a standard we can agree on together, that nobody should fall beneath, and that no province should fall beneath. We need to say we're going to agree on this and then we'll figure out the best way for implementing in the different provinces and regions. As we've all said, piecemeal may be effective in the short term in certain localities, but overall it's insufficient, and it's an inefficient way of doing things.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move to our last questioner for this particular panel.

We'll have Mr. Komarnicki for five or so minutes.