Human Resources Committee on Dec. 4th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today and contributing to this debate. We appreciate that you men and women are on the front lines making it happen. As politicians, we are trying to leverage those dollars back in there so that we can go further. I thank you for the recommendations we can put into our report to government. We hope it will result in some action.

I'm going to suspend the meeting for five minutes. We're going to be back here at 9:30 with a new panel.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'd like to welcome everyone back as we continue to look at our federal contribution to reducing poverty in Canada.

I want to once again thank the witnesses for taking time out of their busy schedules to be here. Some of you probably know by now that we've been working on this for a year or two. We have had elections and legislation--there's been a whole bunch of things. But we're glad to finally be out here in the west. We've been to the east and the north. This week we started in Vancouver, and we're finishing up today in Winnipeg. I want to thank you all for being here.

I'm going to start with you, Mr. Duguay. I'll try to keep you to around seven minutes. I won't cut you off. I'll give you the one-minute sign so you can try to wrap up your thoughts. Once we've done that, we'll start around the table with some rounds of questioning.

Welcome. The floor is yours. You have seven minutes.

[Gerald Duguay, As an Individual]

I'd like to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to appear at this hearing to testify on the implications of poverty on individuals with mental illnesses.

Social assistance plays a crucial role in determining the extent of poverty in this province. The agency's vision includes this statement: We strive to ensure that diversity is respected, that people feel accepted and valued, and live with dignity and security. We work with the community to support Manitoba children, families, and individuals to achieve their fullest potential.

That statement is at odds with the fact that individuals with disabilities receive income benefits that are roughly 50% of the poverty line, according to low-income cutoffs.

I realize that social assistance is beyond the purview of this hearing; however, this provincial program is partially funded through the Canada social transfer.

Living in poverty has several implications for individuals with mental illnesses, starting with a lack of access to safe, affordable housing. We were involved in a research project sanctioned by the University of Manitoba, and one of the individuals we interviewed on a participatory action research project on perceptions of recovery stated:

How do you expect people to take care of their physical self, take care of their mental self, and actually move forward in the recovery process, when...there's no money to do that? Because your physical wellbeing has a lot to do with your mental wellbeing. That $271 really

--excuse my language, but this is what she said--

pisses me off. That's all you get for rent. You know the areas you end up living at on $271 aren't exactly conducive to, you know, a good recovery or even a recovery process.

That basic amount for housing has been moved up. I think it's $285 a month, plus there's a Manitoba housing allowance of $50. That's still only $335. You're not going to find much in housing for $335 a month.

A female consumer, regarding the lack of personal safety as a result of inadequate housing, stated:

Can you just imagine getting up every morning...being afraid...going to bed every night being afraid ...just being afraid constantly.

Our key informant psychiatrist, regarding what would better assist mental health service recipients in their recovery, stated:

Let's start...with homelessness or housing...you know poverty...those issues that you recognize particularly during PACT, because if you can move people into decent living arrangements...if you can provide for them some meaningful work opportunity, even if it's still recovery from some disability. Many of these people are penalized because they want to work, but they can't work a certain amount because they're going to get their hands slapped. So you can't...you know, there's always another barrier. You have to ask why can't we start somewhere and do a transition into something meaningful work-wise without getting people feeling like they can't get off welfare? I can't get off this because I'll be high and dry. How will I get my medications paid for? Well it's ludicrous, right? Let's look at how people are remarkably moved forward by simple little things that would build self-esteem and would give them a sense of self.

That would include housing, employment, and education.

Regarding other barriers to recovery from a mental illness, a consumer stated, “...a barrier for me mainly was lack of achieving an education and employment”.

My personal experience regarding education and employment has been that success breeds more success. Having come to education and real employment later in life, I can attest to the importance of a decent education and working in a meaningful occupation. Achieving an education and having what I consider to be real employment, because it's something I want to do, has worked wonders in my recovery. Actually achieving an education--and I worked for it--and then getting a meaningful job has worked miracles. I can't stress enough the importance of that aspect in recovery from a mental illness.

I had to rely on social assistance for my income for a few years, and I know what it's like to live in poverty. It was one of the most degrading experiences of my life. The income amount was insufficient to meet my needs, and the lack of income, contrary to encouraging me to get a job, only succeeded in doing the opposite. A person doesn't dream or plan for the future on the amount of money social assistance provides; a person survives day to day.

I have some suggestions.

First, initiate and operate a basic income program for persons with disabilities, specifically including persons diagnosed with mental illnesses.

Increase the Canada social transfer to the provinces and ensure that the money goes to the social programs it was intended for, through collaboration with the provinces. Make housing a primary federal concern for individuals with disabilities.

Support individuals with mental illnesses who want and need education by developing more supported education and training programs.

Support individuals with mental illnesses who are able to work through supported employment programs and training. Encourage employers to hire individuals with mental illnesses by providing resources for employers to implement workplace accommodations. Increase the success rate of programs by consulting with individuals with mental illnesses on what works for them.

Individuals with mental illnesses should be consulted in the development and implementation of any programs or services that are designed for them, instead of finding out after you've spent a billion dollars that the program just doesn't work. That would be a cost-saving measure. It kind of makes sense to find out first if people are really interested in a certain kind of program.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Duguay.

We'll move to Shauna MacKinnon.

Welcome. The floor is yours.

[Shauna MacKinnon, Director, Manitoba, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives]

Thanks for the opportunity.

Just before I start, I want to say, following Gerald's presentation, that we're putting out a report on Wednesday entitled It Takes All Day To Be Poor. I think it captures a lot of the testimonials that you raised in your presentation.

Poverty and social exclusion continue to be universal problems, as we all know. Recognition of our failure as a society to address these challenges has led many governments in the developed world to adopt comprehensive strategies with timelines and targets aimed at reducing poverty and social exclusion. For example, as one of the previous presenters pointed out, in Britain the Social Exclusion Unit was established in 1998 to study issues such as school truancy, homelessness, housing, crime, and unemployment, from a national perspective.

In 2000, European Union countries established a social inclusion process with the aim of eradicating poverty by 2010. This was followed by the development of a framework for national strategy development, and policy coordination between EU nations based on five key challenges. As was noted, while some of these targets haven't been accomplished, there was some commitment that spread across the EU nations that we're seeing now, some significant strategies being developed that are making a difference.

Following that, the Australian government began a process in 2008 to address poverty and social exclusion at a national level. These things are happening at national levels, so there's really no excuse that we can't be doing it here in Canada in a significant way.

Unlike these national examples, Canada has failed to take a leadership role in tackling poverty and social exclusion in a comprehensive and systematic manner. We urge the federal government to learn from governments that are implementing comprehensive plans to tackle pervasive poverty and exclusion, which are, ultimately, deterrents to economic prosperity.

On a more positive note, as was previously mentioned, leadership at the provincial level is beginning to grow in our country. Quebec, of course, was first to show leadership with the introduction of the Act to Combat Poverty and Social Exclusion in 2004. Newfoundland and Labrador introduced their plan in 2006. The Newfoundland government included some bold timelines and targets, and they have since made significant gains in reducing poverty. As a result, they've dropped from having the third highest child poverty rate in the country in 2005 to, I think, the eighth in 2009. In addition to other gains, they have met their target of a $10 minimum wage, so this, again, for us is an example of how we can set some targets and reach them.

Other provincial governments have also followed their lead and are beginning to develop plans. For example, Ontario now has a plan in place with some specific targets on child poverty, and Manitoba recently released a plan.

We believe it is imperative for governments to hear what the community has to say about what is needed in a plan, and I'm here today, like others, to provide a perspective from the community here in Manitoba.

This spring, CCPA Manitoba, in collaboration with Make Poverty History Manitoba, published a poverty reduction plan that was developed in consultation with hundreds of Manitobans and endorsed by more than 70 organizations. While our focus was on the provincial government, we continued to emphasize that poverty reduction will be most effective when all levels of government agree to implement timelines and targets and work collaboratively to meet them. We identified five common features that we believe are necessary to maximize effectiveness.

First, again, as has been mentioned several times this morning, we need a comprehensive and coordinated approach. The causes of poverty and social exclusion are complex and often very deeply rooted. Solutions are equally complex and require multiple policy and program interventions, which are the responsibility of various levels of government. These realities need to be reflected in a poverty reduction plan if it is going to be effective. A comprehensive approach would include an increase in income benefits, for example; an expansion of social housing; increased access to child care; increased access to recreation; increases in minimum wages towards a living wage; and establishing policies that provide education and training opportunities that lead to good jobs, rather than the precarious cycle of low-wage jobs, which is the reality for many.

A second key feature is that there needs to be a process that consults meaningfully with citizens, so we appreciate the opportunity to be here today. The social exclusion legislation adopted in Quebec, and the poverty reduction strategies established in Newfoundland and Ontario, and others in early stages, such as in Nova Scotia, have engaged NGOs and anti-poverty advocates in identifying key issues and targets. Citizens interested in building a more inclusive community, including anti-poverty advocates, community workers, progressive business and labour leaders, as well as individuals most affected by poverty, should be consulted and engaged in the process of establishing a poverty reduction strategy.

The third feature, which again was mentioned several times today, is the inclusion of targets and timelines. While we understand that economic circumstances beyond the control of governments can quickly throw a wrench into the best of plans, setting targets and timelines shows that governments are serious about poverty reduction. Governments that have taken this step provincially are to be commended for taking that risk. Targets and timelines make governments accountable and provide incentive to follow through with actions. Sid Frankel previously gave an excellent example of what's happened in the U.K. Without targets and timelines, strategies can become little more than a public relations exercise, and I think that's what has happened when we've done this in the past. However, we believe that setting realistic targets and timelines is essential.

The fourth feature that we believe is critical is communication and collaboration across departments in government and levels of government. Governments and their departments must communicate in order to coordinate government activities and ensure that all are working towards the achievement of common goals with respect to poverty reduction and inclusion—this is where setting targets and timelines is critical—to ensure that governments and departments are not working at cross purposes, which is often the case. There must be organizational structures put in place to ensure such collaboration. There are examples of this at provincial levels; I know Newfoundland has a unit that works across government.

Fifth, there needs to be an annual evaluation and progress report. For example, youth strategies are regularly evaluated by an independent evaluator to show where gains have been made and work is required, and to make recommendations when needed. Quebec legislation requires that departments evaluate progress annually, as well.

We believe that a poverty reduction plan can have multiple benefits. It can demonstrate that governments take the issue of poverty and social exclusion seriously and that they aim to make it a priority. It can also highlight existing initiatives, expose gaps, and provide direction for future action; provide a mechanism for governments to engage citizens in discussion about what might be incorporated into a comprehensive strategy; increase transparency and hold governments accountable to their commitment to poverty reduction; and act as an education tool to raise awareness of the complex nature of poverty and social exclusion and why prioritizing the elimination is important for the entire community, not just those who are poor.

The view from here: Manitobans call for a poverty reduction plan—and I've provided a copy for the committee—is a plan that we put forward from the community. It was endorsed by many organizations, and it includes timelines and targets that we believe to be realistic.

We are pleased that the Manitoba government has very recently released its poverty reduction plan, but we are dismayed that it failed to include a more detailed commitment that includes timelines and targets. However, I should note that one target and timeline it did include, which we're very pleased about, is the development of 1,500 new social housing units over five years. This is a target that came from the community, and we're very pleased the provincial government has agreed to move that forward. We will continue to press the province to include more comprehensive timelines and targets.

We emphasize that combatting poverty and social exclusion in a significant way will require the coordinated efforts of all levels of government, and in particular the leadership and financial commitment of the federal government. The key here is the financial commitment. As others have noted, this doesn't come free, but there are long-term benefits for all of us.

Unfortunately, in many of the areas we have identified as a priority, significant final investment is required. Provinces have been left with major challenges because the federal government has shirked much of its responsibility, and it continues to refuse to step up to the plate in a significant way to meet the growing challenges. Social housing, for example, which has also been mentioned several times, has long been identified by the community as a major issue. Housing is a foundation for stability, good health, and education attainment. To tackle it in a significant way, we require a national strategy that includes ongoing financial commitment from the federal government. Here I would like to emphasize the importance of Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. It cannot be overemphasized how important that is as a starting point.

To sum up, developing a well-funded national poverty reduction plan would send a message to provincial governments that poverty is a national priority. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it is the smart thing to do. Allowing Canadians to fall deeper into poverty will only create significant problems in the future that will be a drag on our national economy and a deterrent to social and economic prosperity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Ms. MacKinnon.

We will now move to the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. We have Chief Donovan Fontaine.

Welcome, sir. The floors is yours for seven minutes.

[Chief Donovan Fontaine, Representative, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs]

Good morning, and thank you.

First of all, welcome to the Treaty 1 area. I'm a chief of a Treaty 1 community, the Sagkeeng First Nation, an hour from here. I want to thank the panel for giving us this opportunity.

Of course I bring greetings from the grand chief, and I speak for 64 first nations today--that's who I'm speaking for. I'm also speaking for the person on the street, the first nations person down the street here on Main, the person back home, the hungry people back home. There's a lot of weight on my shoulders today, and I hope my message strikes a chord. I hope something comes out of this. I hope it's not another broken record that's saying the same thing over and over. I've been saying the message consistently; that's my duty. Sometimes it's not the record that's broken, it's the record player. You have to give it a kick. Hopefully we can give the government a kick with this. I'll try it again, anyway.

We first nations obviously bring a unique perspective, because we're obviously the most impoverished in Canada. We don't have to go to Africa; we don't have to go to Bangladesh. We don't have to go to these countries; it's right here in our own backyard, and the invitation is there to come to look at any reserve. I think we actually did offer an invitation to one of the committees to come to Sagkeeng and to have a look at poverty first-hand. Again, you don't have to go overseas to see poverty.

Of course, when you look at poverty from a first nations perspective, you have to put it in the context of all the government policies since the treaties have been signed. We know about RCAP and all the studies even prior to that, and post-RCAP, all the millions that have been spent studying things we already know. It just confirms one thing after another. We are impoverished, and treaties are not being implemented. I think that's the primary issue with first nations poverty; it's the implementation of treaties. Of course, we know the main things that are talked about often are residential schools, all the systemic things coming from government policies under the Indian Act.

Of course, we know about the contribution to Canada of our veterans; we have to applaud them. We also applaud the groups here that speak on behalf of poverty, on behalf of disabilities. But I think we have to go further in those partnerships. We have to engage the province as well, and the private sector, and we must look at the roots, not just the systemic and band-aid things. We must look at the roots. Why are there high incarceration rates? Is it cheaper to put a kid through university or to incarcerate them for three years or two years? Is it cheaper to give them upgrading or is it cheaper to put them in a detention centre? As for chronic diseases, is it cheaper to amputate or is it cheaper to treat and create some awareness and prevention?

I know one of my colleagues said it very, very well, and he hit the nail on the head. Chief Ross from Opaskwayak stated, “Our people are not waiting for care, they're waiting for amputations”. That's the reality. They're lined up at home or they're lined up in the dialysis units. The plight of and the outlook for our people are not good.

I think it's all interconnected. Health is connected to housing. Overcrowding is connected to poor health. Poor housing is connected to poor learning and retention in schools. It's a very vicious cycle to get out of once you're in it. By saying “in it”, I mean there is no way out for many of our people because of the reserve system. The reserve system destroyed a lot of things we had before. A lot of independence, a lot of government, social structures, our own economies, access to land, access to resources--all that was taken away. It's the easiest way for the public to just look at it and say, “Well, why don't they work? They get all these billions.” It's not that easy. That's another myth perpetuated by the media, by the public.

So a big awareness and education campaign has to be brought forward in all the schools. I think that's going to come forth from the truth and reconciliation commission. We hope our story is going to be told in every school in this country. That will go a long way towards getting rid of these myths that we have all these billions of dollars, when in fact I think we get $6 a day. And on the reserves, it's even worse. The opportunities are in the city. So I wait with optimism for what is going to come out of the truth and reconciliation commission.

Nothing but full involvement of our people in policy-making, true high-level consultation, will lead to adequate progress. This morning I was reminded by my legal adviser that this is in consultation. It's another message I have to bring forward. I have talked with many people over the years, and they chalk it up to consultation. Like poverty, it has to be dealt with at a high level and we have to be at the table.

There are examples of why we should be at the table. We have some results. The youth in our province of Manitoba are connecting with their culture and learning who they are and where they come from. Eagle's Nest is here this morning. That bodes well. We have to walk two paths now. As much as we didn't like assimilation, MTV and hip hop are here. We have been somewhat assimilated, and now we have to manoeuvre in both worlds. A lot of our people, if given the right tools and the right opportunities, can manoeuvre in both worlds. They're finding out who they are and where they come from.

One of the biggest things in my life has been learning my language a little. I went to university and I have degrees. I have a few certificates. I've accomplished a few things in life. I've travelled the world. But one of the most important things that make me feel good in this part of my life is learning my language—a few sentences, a few phrases, some socializing, things learned from eavesdropping. That is one of my greatest accomplishments.

I can imagine how these young kids feel. Most of them were probably born in the city, and their outlook wasn't great. They wake up to gloom and doom. But the connection to our culture is going to go a long way. Those programs have to be funded. It's not just concrete and bricks in the city. There is a vibrant first nations community in Manitoba. Winnipeg is probably the largest reserve in Canada.

I spoke briefly about diabetes. We have a partnership in a pilot project that could be duplicated elsewhere. It's significantly successful. It's a partnership with Saint Elizabeth Health Care. It's in regard to a patient wait time guarantee. It's a pilot project for prevention, care, and treatment of foot ulcers among first nations people. It came from Health Canada, from the first nations and Inuit health branch. Almost half a million dollars was invested, but it's only the tip of the iceberg. I think it's only covering about 30 of our communities, and it's not necessarily getting to the real issue, which is the amputations. Still and all, we're going to identify the problem. With more programs like that, I think the suffering will lessen and the cost savings will go up. If there are partnerships, cost savings would be split between the two governments and possibly the private sector.

Part of the challenge is getting rid of the jurisdictional football and no longer throwing it back and forth. In the meantime, when you throw those issues back and forth, our people perish and there are amputations. I think that Jordan's Principle is one bill that's going to address this, and it is our hope that this principle will go into education, health, and housing.

We know about the natural resources transfer of 1930 and how we weren't consulted. There is a long list of things that were off-loaded from the feds to the province. These things have to change now.

Right now, as I speak, we have an issue with respect to the CEAP stimulus program. We have the stimulus, and the remote and northern communities are finding it very difficult to access this program because of the seasonal roads. They have to access the materials, the supplies, and they can't get it up there. With something as simple as a letter from the government saying that they're approved, that they're getting the money, they could take this to the bank and somebody could provide bridge financing for them while the road is in so they could move their materials. But they're finding that they're having trouble getting that done.

I knew I wasn't going to get through all this stuff. There are so many important things, and seven minutes is pretty quick.

Again, I don't want this to fall on deaf ears. I want something to come out of this. Since forever, I've been hearing about these same issues on housing and health. When is it going to change? I think the system breaks us down; it breaks us down as first nations leaders. There's divide and conquer between our organizations. A little bit of money is thrown here and there, and the results have been minimal. But I do believe we can do good things with the crown and the provincial governments. Partnerships are the key. As I hear some leaders say, we are not anti-development, we just want to be part of the fabric of this country. We have a lot to offer, if given the opportunity.

Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Chief Fontaine.

We're now going to move to the Manitoba Federation of Non-profit Organizations, and Martin Itzkow.

[Martin Itzkow, Co-chair, Manitoba Federation of Non-Profit Organizations Inc.]

Thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee.

I'm the co-chair of the Manitoba Federation of Non-Profit Organizations, and we reflect the ideals and the challenges that are facing our sector organizations and their capacities to deliver services in community. My conversation with you is about infrastructure organizations that actually deliver service, and specifically those organizations that are focused specifically in terms of reducing, and hopefully eradicating, poverty in the long term.

We're connected to a range of networks across Canada, umbrella organizations with the same conversation about sector organizations, where they fit, and what they need to survive and be able to provide service to community. In the Manitoba context, we actually are an umbrella organization representing more than 8,000 community-based organizations. Our vision is to use our collective voice and the assets of our organizations to build and sustain healthy and thriving communities.

The national survey of nonprofit and voluntary organizations, which was completed in 2003, indicated a couple of important things that I think will set the context for this, which is about the economic contribution of the sector and how this plays out in terms of Canada.

Organizations in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and the territories reported more than $12 billion in revenue. In addition, these organized received in-kind donations of more than $154 million. Organizations in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and the territories reported 174,000 employees, which constitutes approximately 13% of the labour force in this area. Manitoba organizations reported $7.6 billion in revenue. We are economic contributors to the community and to the economy generally, and that's not often known, but it's true. You may not have placed community-based organizations in that context, as contributing to our economy, but in essence we provide 6% of GDP in Canada. Many of our community-based organizations are working in communities where poverty is a significant challenge. They provide either indirect or direct services to people living in poverty.

The presentation is about organizations in this sector, about their staff, but let me first establish some context.

In 2001 Canada signed an accord with the non-profit sector. I'm not sure most of you are aware of that, but there is an accord that from our point view is still there, and we desire for it to be operationalized at some point in time. The focus of that accord, which was signed off by the government and the sector leadership at that time, was to streamline regulations affecting the sector, enhance the knowledge of the sector, and propose a new approach to financing the sector that is sustainable and long term. And ultimately two codes of good practice were developed: on good practice on funding and on policy dialogue.

Let me be clear. This accord, signed by the Government of Canada and this sector in good faith, perhaps has failed both of us. There has absolutely been no follow-up on it, no commitments to what was stated in the accord, no application of the two codes. We believe there was a chance to collaborate and build a relationship of trust between government and the sector, and perhaps that is not necessarily true, and that is something we have to focus on.

Our organizations themselves range from culture and recreation, health and social services, to environment, to international development. There are approximately 11 subsectors of the non-profit sector known nationally and internationally. All these organizations are involved in a range of activities, and most of them are focused on people who are living in poverty. Others have talked specifically about poverty; I want to talk about infrastructure. And again, that's about the organizations, the staff, and their capacity to deliver services to community.

In a document called The Capacity to Serve and other studies that have come out since 2003, there were a number of questions asked and information provided that reflect on today's discussion. What type of external factors constrained the ability of non-profits to fulfill their missions and to meet their objectives to deliver service? What type of capacity challenges are these organizations facing now and in the future? At the same time, new ideas were brought forward, described from this research, based on the notion that there are obviously opportunities to go forward, not just necessarily to look at the problems we have to solve. New funding models that provide organizations with stability and support were proposed. New models of financial accountability were proposed. Opportunities to share infrastructure and other services were proposed. Strategies to help organizations address long-term labour market quality and quantity challenges were identified.

I do have to let you know, that seems to be the most significant element of our work across Canada. It's all about the labour market and how the non-profit sector fits into provincial and national labour market strategies, and there's some activity taking place in that area.

We knew there would be regional variations in this capacity map, but ultimately the questions that were asked were focusing on declining funding from government, which has incredible results in terms of mission drift for organizations; lack of stability; and, we believe, organizational and service loss in the long term. Yes, organizations will go under and disappear. The question is, will services be brought back to the community?

There is a need for a shift from project funding to something much more stable that will reduce mission drift, allow organizations to think long term, and deliver services to the community. As well, there's an increased demand for services in the community, and that is a very important issue.

In terms of where I think there is traction now in government—and we're trying to work backwards in terms of that context—is labour markets. The Government of Canada has signed labour market agreements with provinces. It signed an agreement with Manitoba. It has focused on this issue. It is one that I think is very healthy for us to consider in the context of service delivery.

However, even moving in that direction is not that positive because the labour market challenges the sector faces are enormous, for the reasons I mentioned: lack of funding, lack of infrastructure support, increased demands, and financial accountability. If you think about it from a labour market perspective, are we prepared for the next generation of staff for our organizations?

Recently I came back from a round table that brought in a range of organizations we have been working with across Canada. This organization represented a body in Alberta that focused on disability services. They've been doing quite a bit of work in the area of looking at labour markets. Surprisingly and shockingly, they identified that if they hadn't acted on it, in 10 years disability services in Alberta would not be in existence. They have acted on it; however, they've also identified that turnover rates have increased, the quality of staffing has decreased, the levels of education for staff have decreased, and the workload is increasing. It doesn't bode well for sector organizations across Canada unless we address that infrastructure conversation.

There are still issues around organizational governance and the decrease in the availability of qualified board members. There are concerns about sector skills in terms of organizational renewal. There is demand by governments and other funders to secure information to look at the efficacy of organizations. That's problematic in terms of demanding more from organizations that may not have capacity. Of course, one of the areas that become very much a concern is lack of funding for infrastructure, including organizations not having access to space.

An area that I think is also somewhat interesting and important is inner city communities across Canada. We believe strongly that large pockets of people are living in poverty, and in the Manitoba and Winnipeg context, inner city organizations are primarily run by and for aboriginal peoples. They have clearly said, in terms of many reports I've read, that there are concerns about their funding and sustainability based on the notion of project funding and not core funding. There is concern about their own staffing, about their ability to meet ongoing need, and their ability to be able to direct service where it's needed.

In closing, the case I'm making in terms of the non-profit sector and its organizations is that if you want to look at poverty and services to people living in poverty and the things my colleagues have spoken about, if we don't address the infrastructure we may not necessarily have the services we require. If they're not supported, if we're not addressing the change in labour market needs and that dynamic, if we're not looking at the funding and the nature of services that are required in communities, we may have some significant challenges in Canada. Our eyes need to be opened about infrastructure, about organizations of the sector, and that's where we are coming from.

There are two questions I want to leave with you that I think you need to pose in your process. First, how does Canada view the non-profit sector and its role in strengthening the social infrastructure of Canada? Second, what is Canada's long-term strategy to ensure that Canada's social infrastructure is successful, innovative, and robust to meet the changing needs of communities coast to coast?

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

We will now move to Lindsey McBain from the Right to Housing Coalition.

Welcome, Lindsey. The floor is yours for seven minutes.

[Lindsey McBain, Communications co-ordinator, Right to Housing Coalition]

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to the committee.

The Right to Housing Coalition is a Winnipeg-based coalition of 120 individuals and 33 organizations working together to address the current housing crisis and the chronic need for social housing. We promote and lobby for safe, high-quality social housing in which rent is geared to income, and for housing policy solutions on a local, provincial, and national level as part of a comprehensive strategy to eliminate poverty. The Right to Housing Coalition maintains that adequate and affordable housing is a basic human right; yet over the past decade, the commitment by the federal government to put this right to housing into practice has been significantly eroded.

In 2006 the United Nations called housing and homelessness in Canada a national emergency, a finding confirmed by the UN special rapporteur on the right to adequate housing after his official fact-finding commission to Canada in 2007.

The key reason that the Right to Housing Coalition has decided it's important to present to this committee today is that we want to take this opportunity to reinforce, with the experience of our members, member organizations, and the people they work with, a message that I'm sure you're hearing across the country: that the provision of social housing is a key component to alleviating poverty in Canada and that it will take action by the federal government to address this housing crisis.

The Canadian Housing and Renewal Association estimates that Manitoba requires 1,000 units per year for the next five years to reduce our deficit of social housing. The Province of Manitoba has now stepped up and committed to create 300 units of social housing each year over the next five years—that's a total of 1,500 units over five years—and now it is the turn of the federal government to do its share.

You, the members of this committee, have a tremendous opportunity before you to address the housing needs of Canadians. On December 8, Bill C-304 will come back to this committee to complete its clause-by-clause review before it is sent back to Parliament for its third and final reading. The Right to Housing Coalition urges you not to miss this opportunity to give it a speedy passage back to Parliament before Parliament is dissolved and the bill dies on the order paper.

So my message today is pretty simple: it's a strong encouragement to this committee to make sure this happens, because if we want to take steps to work on poverty in Canada, this is a fantastic opportunity.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. McBain.

Now we will have the MPs go around the room. We will start with Ms. Neville.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you.

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You have seven minutes.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

It's seven minutes and lots of questions. I clearly can't ask all that I'd like to, but we'll follow up with some of you afterwards.

I'd like to begin by asking Chief Fontaine a question.

Chief, I'm not being political when I ask this question. We all know that the Kelowna accord was signed by the Government of Canada and the first nations in Canada and all of the aboriginal organizations. It did not come to pass, but it was done in full consultation, with an 18-month process. It was an integrated process to deal with all of the issues you've identified. My question to you is how we begin the process again to reduce poverty within aboriginal communities, on-reserve and in the urban setting. How do you see it working so that we can ultimately come up with a comprehensive, integrated strategy to address the things you were speaking about?

[Chief Donovan Fontaine]

Thank you, Anita.

Obviously this wasn't a rehearsed conversation.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

It certainly wasn't.

[Chief Donovan Fontaine]

Kelowna asked for 0.5% of the GDP. I don't know where the other 99.5% is going. Anyway, all the resources on our territory, all the future growth and the very economic prosperity of this country will depend on activity on first nations lands, and we have to be a part of the solution and part of the opportunities—of course, respecting the environment and the future generations.

I think the key is that it was a good plan, a plan that I don't think had any political stripes and that involved all of the parties. It also involved all the aboriginal leaders. I think the way it was timed wasn't the best, perhaps—there was a switch in government—but there's certainly nothing wrong with it. There are a lot of positive and strong points in it, much as there were some good things in the FNGA and some bad things in the FNGA. I think these things have to be given some wheels, and the rubber has to hit the pavement.

Is it dead? I don't know whether it's dead. I don't have the latest update on it.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

It's dead.

[Chief Donovan Fontaine]

It's dead? Well, let's give it some life.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you.

Mr. Itzkow, I was intrigued by your presentation. You talked about and focused upon infrastructure. As I was listening to you, I was struck by the challenge that we're going to have as not-for-profit organizations deal with the increasing demand they're going to have while we see the obvious pullback by government, for a whole host of reasons, right now.

You've left us with two particular thoughts, but do you have any concrete recommendations to make to the committee that the committee can put forward in its report?

[Martin Itzkow]

I'd have to think about that in terms of what strategies I think would be best met by that objective.

It's hard to talk about something when, in a sense, the accord that was signed gave life to an arrangement and a relationship between government and this sector. Perhaps there is some way to bring that conversation back and focus on some of the deliverables that were agreed to then and that could be brought forward to make the relationship a useful and a trusting one.

On funding, I think there is some need to be able to investigate the funding arrangements and the nature of the funding and how it could be made more secure for most organizations.

The area that seems to have traction at the federal level and at the provincial level is the labour market.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

The labour market; you indicated that.

[Martin Itzkow]

The labour market area and the agreements that have been signed between Canada and the provinces are now at the table of most provinces. The Government of Canada is supporting these and leasing money through the labour market agreements to be able to do this. So I think an area of focus and investigation is the labour market.

Let me be clear: there are about 1.4 million Canadians across Canada who are employees of this sector. We know there will be a 30% to 40% turnover and loss, probably, in the next three or four years. It's a significant challenge, perhaps, for us to face, when we do the labour market information surveys and so on, in skills and skills gaps and simply in whether there are going to be people interested in working in the sector. There's a real concern about whether we're going to be able to attract and retain people.

I would have to say that Quebec, through its work in the province, has done incredible work concerning the économie sociale. Their exact strategy about the labour market is incredible and is something we should look at and that you may want to look at it. They've actually been able to establish a range of processes to guarantee that the sector will retain and recruit staff. It may not necessarily be as significant a problem in Quebec as it is in Canada and the provinces.

I think your focus should be looking at the labour market in order to strengthen the infrastructure of the sector and have employees who work in organizations, notwithstanding that you still have to worry about funding, compensation, skills training, all those other issues. But I think an area and a focus that the federal government has committed to, through LMA and other agreements with provinces, is that area. I think it's an important one.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you.

Can I ask a quick question? I didn't know about this accord; I have to be perfectly honest. Which was the lead department? Was it the Department of Human Resources?