Human Resources Committee on April 23rd, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

I call the meeting to order.

Thank you for being here, ladies and gentlemen.

Before we start, committee members, I'd like to draw your attention to a notice that we sent out regarding the paperless project and the fact that on the 28th we will have an assistant here for those of you who want to participate in a paperless environment. The assistant from the House of Commons will be here to assist you, if you need help. But that's entirely voluntary. There will still be documents as we currently receive them. I just want to bring that to your attention.

Now we come to our witnesses.

Thank you for being here and good afternoon.

This is meeting number 51 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. We're here to continue our current study exploring the potential of social finance in Canada.

We are pleased to have here with us for our first hour, Ms. Sharon Mayne Devine, chief executive officer, and Mr. Rob El-Sayed, manager of fund development and communications, from The Honourable William G. Davis Centre for Families. Also joining us from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada are president Marie-France Kenny and Ms. Diane Côté, community and government liaison director.

Thank you all for being here.

We'll move into your presentations. Each of the organizations has up to 10 minutes. I'll give you a signal when you have approximately a minute left. Then we'll move into questioning by committee members.

We'll start with the first group, from The Honourable William G. Davis Centre for Families.

[Sharon Mayne Devine, Chief Executive Officer, The Honourable William G. Davis Centre for Families]

Mr. Chairman and committee members, good afternoon. We appreciate this opportunity to share our story from The Honourable William G. Davis Centre for Families located in Brampton, Ontario. Thank you very much for having us.

The Honourable William G. Davis Centre for Families is owned and operated by Catholic Family Services of Peel-Dufferin. We are a registered charity that has been providing individual, couple, and family counselling to those in need since 1981. Our mission is to strengthen and enrich individual, family, and community life. We serve the entire community in 12 different languages. Last year alone we served 30,000 clients.

In 2008 the board of directors and the senior leadership team of the agency envisioned the creation of the first family justice centre in Peel region in order to better serve those impacted by domestic violence. This centre would provide victims with all the services they required in one location, a one-stop shop. The planning of the centre included a discussion of whether we would rent a property, build on vacant land, or buy a building that would become the home for this family justice centre.

The board of directors and senior leadership team at that time recognized that owning was preferable to renting, and that the acquisition and renovation of an existing building in Brampton was more feasible than acquiring land and building our own centre. The estimated cost of building a small family justice centre would have exceeded $10 million. By acquiring and renovating an existing site, we paid $8.9 million for a building twice the size. With the acquisition of a larger property, we were able to expand our vision beyond a family justice centre to include other community partners addressing a range of social issues—poverty reduction, job creation, mental health services, child welfare services—providing coordinated service response under one roof.

A number of community stakeholders believed in our vision and were willing to invest in us. In 2010, through the generous support of the Province of Ontario, we secured the first $1 million. The Government of Canada, through the stimulus fund, provided another $1.6 million. We raised another million through corporate donors. Catholic charities and the Archdiocese of Toronto provided additional funds through grants and loans. In addition, the local regional government provided a revolving line of credit.

I'm pleased to report that three years after we took possession of the building, The Honourable William G. Davis Centre for Families was fully leased. We now have a short waiting list of organizations wishing to move into the centre.

The risk that the board of directors took paid off. They made a bold and brave decision that our elected representatives in the community supported. I'm delighted to be here talking to you about this today, as I understand today is National Take a Chance Day. People took a chance. People were pretty brave in stepping up and making this kind of an investment.

The Honourable William G. Davis Centre for Families provides a platform for social innovation. The building itself is growing into a social enterprise. Currently the gross annual rental income for the building is $940,000. After satisfying the debt obligations, the net annual income is $100,000. In 2017-18, after major portions of the loans are paid off, our cashflow balance will be $300,000. This will improve the following year to $400,000. CFSPD and the Davis centre for families will then be in a position to generate some of its own funds to support programming and enable us to respond to the expanding needs of our growing community in Peel, which is tremendous.

We are enterprising. In order to generate additional funds, we are renting out three rows of parking spaces at the back of the parking lot to neighbouring corporations. This rental agreement is currently generating $25,000 per year. We've also rented the southeast corner of our property to Bell Canada for a mobile tower. This is generating an additional $20,000 per year. These agreements provide additional building revenue and sometimes help offset some of our partners in the building when they can't make the rent because of funding cuts to their organizations.

We are now in the early stages of planning the renovation of the lower level of the centre. This will generate further income and meet the demand for additional programming space. We already have one organization located in the lower level. We look forward to the development of the entire area. In the future, we will have the ability to generate enough revenue through our rental operations to enhance our programming, help more clients, and become less reliant on funding sources—and, I think more importantly, we'd be able to fund programs that aren't currently being funded.

Today, The William G. Davis Centre for Families is home to 23 organizations, which include the Peel Children's Aid Society, the Canadian Mental Health Association, and OASIS Centre des Femmes, as well as the Safe Centre of Peel, our regional family justice centre. All organizations are either not for profit or registered charities. All are mission driven and respond to the needs of the community.

There are a number of benefits to this co-location. We know that those who seek help often need more than one service. Here clients can access a range of services, all in one location, ensuring they get the help they need when and where they need it, resulting in increases in client service engagement and better outcomes. This is particularly important when we talk about women who are leaving abusive relationships. Research indicates that they need to connect with 18 different organizations. So to be able to access all of them in one place makes a huge difference in women's follow-through for services, and then ensures the safety of their children.

Being in the same building has provided us with a platform for collaboration and social innovation. Living together provides opportunities for expanded partnerships and the development of creative synergies. We can do more together. We can be more together.

In closing, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chair and members of this committee, for inviting us and for giving us the opportunity to share with you our passion and the unique approach to social innovation and social enterprise.

I look forward to a discussion we can have this afternoon about the things we're doing and some of the things we're learning. I would like to personally extend to you a heartfelt invitation to join us for a tour of The Honourable William G. Davis Centre for Families in Brampton, Ontario, just down the road.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Thank you very much.

Now we move on to Ms. Kenny and Ms. Côté. Please offer your presentation.

[Marie-France Kenny, President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I'd like to thank you for inviting the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, or FCFA, to appear before the committee today.

My name is Marie-France Kenny, and joining me is our director of community and government liaison, Diane Côté. We are here today on behalf of 2.6 million French-speaking Canadians living outside Quebec, across 9 provinces and 3 territories.

The FCFA wanted to contribute to the committee's study because we are rather concerned. Allow me to explain. As we see it, a push is currently on to adopt social finance in a slew of government programs and initiatives, without regard for a range of considerations that are of the utmost importance to our communities. I want to make clear that we aren't here to argue against new methods or approaches but, rather, to add a nuanced and vital perspective to the committee's study.

I referred to the push to adopt social finance, and now I'd like to explain what I mean by that. The perception is that the government is trialling the model in a very limited and exploratory manner through pilot projects. The reality, however, is quite different.

The fact of the matter is that Employment and Social Development Canada and other federal institutions have already changed how they deliver their grants and contributions programs, bringing them more in line with the social finance model. The federal budget, tabled the day before yesterday, even includes a social finance accelerator initiative. Social finance has gone from an exploratory measure to a virtual fait accompli.

I'll give you an example. The official-language minority communities literacy and essential skills initiative is part of the Roadmap for Canada's Official Languages 2013-2018. But when Employment and Social Development Canada incorporated the $7.5-million investment under the roadmap into its broader programming, things went awry.

On the one hand, in its request for proposals, the department stipulated that the project had to have a national scope and that 20% of the funding had to come from sources other than the federal government. On the other hand, the request for proposals shows that the department has lost sight of the relationship to the roadmap. The department found it perfectly acceptable to say that it would prioritize projects targeting under-represented groups, which included official language minority communities, as well as aboriginals and immigrants. We are talking about a program provided for under the roadmap for official language minority communities.

The problem, when you put the focus on large-scale projects, is that organizations serving francophone and Acadian communities are shut out because their target populations are too small to achieve impressive wide-reaching results. When you put the focus on working with a private sector partner, you fail to take into account the difference between majority and minority settings. Minority francophone and Acadian communities don't have access to as large of a funding pool as majority communities.

It's important to understand that a key condition to working with the private sector through social finance initiatives is the existence of a critical mass. Simply ask big telecom companies how they would benefit from extending cell phone coverage or high-speed Internet access to rural or remote areas, such as the Port au Port peninsula, in Newfoundland, or northern Alberta.

A private sector company will usually view a project that can make a meaningful difference to a French-speaking community of 2,000 residents as too local or not profitable enough.

If you want to talk about innovation, in our communities, we have seen francophones setting up social enterprises to fill the void left by the private sector. That was the case with Baudoux Communications, a business that opened up where I'm from, Saskatchewan, to provide Internet access in regions where service was lacking.

Official language minority communities will feel the impact of an approach where requests for proposals are based on major projects and private sector contributions. The government runs the risk of creating an environment where, instead of having access to French-language services that fit their needs, francophone communities will, at best, receive bilingual services delivered by majority language organizations, or even services delivered by Quebec-based organizations with little understanding of our communities' needs.

Those kinds of results will do nothing to meet federal institutions' obligation under Part VII of the Official Languages Act to take positive measures to enhance the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities, and to assist their development.

That obligation seems to have been forgotten in the push to implement social finance.

But as the saying goes, we've seen this movie before. ln 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a ruling in a case regarding support for francophone economic development in Ontario's Simcoe County. At issue was the fact that the government-run Economic Development Corporation of North Simcoe offered identical services in both languages to majority and minority alike, and the francophone community did not use those services because they didn't fit its specific needs. Rather, the francophone community had set up a community economic development corporation, CALDECH, which was having trouble getting funding from Industry Canada. ln its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that in the spirit of part IV of the Official Languages Act, the pursuit of substantive equality between both official languages could require, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, distinct measures tailored to the needs and the specific reality of the minority.

ln the rush to implement social finance, these principles seem to have been forgotten. What seems to have prevailed is a one-size-fits-all approach, a may-the-strongest-win approach. There has been little attention to, and little interest in, how this was going to impact francophone minority communities.

As I said earlier, given the realities of French-speaking and Acadian communities, our social, cultural, economic and linguistic challenges are primarily being addressed by not-for-profit agencies and institutions that are run by and for community members. We do have some cooperatives and social enterprises, but they certainly aren't the norm.

The government may say to us that this is an excellent opportunity to innovate and try new approaches, and that may be true. If I may, though, I'd like to paraphrase a passage from a report by MC Consultants for Industry Canada regarding funding diversification and the entrepreneurial culture within community agencies. Basically, the passage says this:

In the movement to further integrate entrepreneurial culture in the partnership model, it's essential that organizations stay true to the mandate for which they were created.

We are, in no way, closed to all forms of social finance or innovation, on the contrary. Who could object to solutions that allow for optimal impact and outcomes? All we are asking for is tailored solutions that reflect our unique issues and needs, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. For that very reason, we have been calling for an impact assessment on social finance and minority communities, for a year now.

At the very least, some crucial questions need to be asked. How can very large-scale projects, delivered by majority community organizations, take into account the specific needs of our communities, especially in areas where those minority language populations are very small? How were the unique needs of our communities taken into account before the programs delivered by federal institutions were overhauled, and how were our communities consulted about that overhaul? How can these social finance issues be fixed, so that French-speaking communities and the organizations that serve them can benefit under this approach?

In conclusion, I would like to recommend that the government conduct an impact assessment in order to (1) build an inventory of the approaches used in our communities; (2) assess community capacity for social partnerships and, where appropriate, establish a pool of prospective partners; (3) identify the conditions for success, as well as the obstacles and challenges around the successful use of social partnerships in francophone and Acadian minority communities; (4) determine the conditions in which social finance is compatible with the government's official languages obligations; and (5) consult with communities and local service organizations on how to build capacity, and make policy recommendations to guide the federal government and communities in implementing social finance.

Thank you. I would now be happy to answer your questions

in both official languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Thank you very much to our witnesses.

Now we will move on to our first round of questioning.

I'll just remind committee members that because we have two panels, we'll have five-minute rounds for questions in the first round.

Madame Groguhé.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to our witnesses. I'd like to begin by thanking the witnesses for meeting with the committee today to share their perspectives on social finance.

Since the committee began this study, it has become clear that much of the groundwork for social finance has yet to be laid and that a considerable number of question marks remain, according to what we have heard from witnesses so far. Some told us they were enthusiastic about the social finance model, while others talked about their concerns.

Ms. Kenny, my first question will be for you.

In your opening remarks, you talked about your concerns around the use of social finance, advising the government to exercise a modicum of restraint and caution when implementing the approach. You also talked about the fact that social finance appeared in the recent budget and seems to be an approach the government will advocate going forward. The budget refers to the implementation of a social finance accelerator initiative. You have obviously pinpointed a very pertinent element in the budget, as far as our study is concerned.

What would you recommend when it comes to the social finance accelerator initiative?

[Marie-France Kenny]

The solution best suited to the majority will not necessarily fit our needs, anymore than it will fit the needs of English-speaking communities in Quebec. So that's an important caveat. As for whether the funding model could work, I would say that it probably could. What we are saying is, together, let's look at all the possible repercussions of social-finance-based programs. We aren't opposed to innovation, on the contrary.

Ever since the Supreme Court's 2009 ruling in CALDECH, which I talked about, a number of departments seem to have taken a blanket approach that doesn't take into account the specific needs of the minority. And yet, the ruling stipulates that they must be taken into account. It's important not to adopt a cookie-cutter approach. It doesn't work that way. We have to look at the impact it will have on communities, and that's all we came here to tell you.

I live in Saskatchewan. I'm sure there are private investors who would like to invest in the francophone community. I, myself, am an employer in the private sector and I'd be interested in making that kind of investment. But I'm not so sure that my neighbour who owns the business next to me and doesn't speak French would want to invest in my francophone project, even though he knows me and accepts that I live part of my life in French. That's where it gets a bit tricky for our communities. We will have much more limited access to these types of private investors. And I don't necessarily mean in larger communities in Ontario or the Acadie region but, rather, in communities like mine, or those in the Yukon and other parts of the country. Finding private investors would even be hard in some Acadian communities.

Is it possible to measure the approach's potential? Are there other ways of going about it? Together, can we find other innovative approaches? We aren't saying to the government, do it and we'll sit and watch. We're perfectly willing to do it with you. Let's work on it together because we don't have the resources to do it on our own. We need help and we are prepared to work with the government to make sure that everyone comes out a winner.

I'd just like to add one last thing. The government's official languages obligations don't end with my organization or a private investor. If the government entrusts partners with money under the roadmap or makes other financial commitments to enhance the vitality of minority language communities, the government has an obligation to make sure that the money really goes to francophone programs.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Very good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

You have 10 seconds left. Would you like to use them?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

I've got 10 seconds. No, it's okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Mr. Butt, for five minutes, please.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the witnesses.

Thank you kindly for contributing to our study.

Welcome to both organizations. We're delighted to have you join us in Ottawa today for this important study that we are doing.

I'm certainly more familiar with The William G. Davis centre, so I'll be directing my questions to our witnesses from that organization during my short five-minute time.

I just want to pay particular tribute to the excellent collaboration and work that you have done. I have visited several times. We've also had Justice Minister MacKay attend as well to see the great work you are doing. I think it's a truly remarkable organization. The collaboration has been outstanding.

I have a couple of questions, Sharon and Rob, on how the centre operates and what you're doing. I'm assuming that you're operating on a set of common values. You mentioned that you have a number of different organizations that provide specialized services, in particular to victims of domestic violence. I would call it a one-stop shop centre. Tell me how that came to be. What was the rationale for doing that? Why were those organizations willing to come together under one roof to do that work?

[Sharon Mayne Devine]

That's a great question. One thing I want to highlight is that the partnerships really developed over a very, very long period of time. Even before the dream of the building in 2008, a number of organizations, dating way back, were all doing the work of addressing issues related to violence against women.

One thing we learned early on, particularly in Peel, a community that is extremely diverse and has really exploded over time, is that really we had to work together to be able to provide the services. I think it's a real example of grassroots community development, all of us coming together and building those relationships. It takes time, investment, and commitment from a lot of people to really focus on what's most important to the people in the community.

In terms of the shared sense of values, it's really the values around respect. Really, what are we here for? Are we here for ourselves or are we here for the people we serve? I think that's the bedrock of the community partnerships. It's tricky. It's not always easy to do this. We have to navigate differences in cultures among different organizations and stay in conversation with each other. Part of what we do in working together is to create documents together around what our agreements would be. What are those values that we will abide by? How will we make decisions together? We strive for consensus decision-making. When that can't happen, then we go into a vote.

All of these relationships that get built over time really galvanize the relationships and set the focus on what's most important to the community we serve. It's great to be here to celebrate what we've accomplished, but I don't want to give you the impression that it didn't take a lot of time to forge that common vision together.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

I certainly know that you've had some support in the past, certainly on the capital front, in supporting the development of the building. You did mention in your presentation to the committee that the centre is receiving some commercial revenue from leasing out parking space and doing some other things.

One key idea in social enterprise is how to help the common good or social services to be delivered in a better and more effective way, not just by harnessing the non-profit sector, which often delivers those services in a very important way, but also bringing in private sector revenue and sponsorships, etc. Can you talk a little bit more about that? You mentioned that you're getting some private sector revenue through some of the things you are doing. How is that money then allocated back to help support the services that the agencies are providing in the community? One thing we've heard from other groups and that they're concerned about—it might be one of the recommendations in our report—is making sure we don't penalize non-profit groups for being able to get access to commercial revenue to help them actually deliver services.

Do you want to talk a little bit more about how you use that commercial revenue and how that benefits the programs you're delivering?

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Actually, the five minutes are up.

You're very welcome to answer that question in perhaps another round of questioning, should it be available to be answered.

To all the witnesses today, if we don't cover off some of these areas, you're welcome to later submit the answers in writing, or give any other information that you'd like the committee to have.

Mr. Cuzner, five minutes.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I'll ask a question similar to what you're going to ask, maybe from a different tack.

Madame Kenny and Madame Côté first, I have a number of Acadian communities within my riding. Some of the most self-reliant communities in my riding are the Acadian communities. The social economy is very prominent. The co-ops in Cheticamp and Isle Madame are a huge part of what that community is.

But I agree. Many of the francophone Acadian communities are smaller rural communities. The base of their economy is seasonal industries, and that big corporate dollar just isn't there. They have to find a way, so I can see the uniqueness of it.

You said you have been advocating for a specific study. Who are you hoping would undertake this study, and where has it been falling on deaf ears? You might want to make a comment or elaborate on that a little.

[Marie-France Kenny]

For the past year, we have been asking Employment and Social Development Canada to undertake the study, given that it coincides with a number of the department's programs. Industry Canada would be another department that could do the study. Another option would be to integrate it into the committee's study. But I would urge you to meet not just with the FCFA, but also with other community members, who would certainly have a lot to contribute.

If I may, I'd like to follow up on Mr. Butt's question.

In the past, we have been able to generate revenue that didn't come from the government. At year-end, our financial statements showed a $327 surplus, and the Department of Canadian Heritage took that money back. Small amounts of that nature shouldn't be taken back. It's not much, but it's the principle.

Diane, do you have anything to add?

[Diane Côté, Director, Community and Government Liaison, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

I'd just like to briefly comment on our local organizations. It is true that they are quite creative when it comes to funding diversification. But the problem arises when the government isn't there to kick-start the partnership process, helping with the initial steps and research. It's a matter of doing—

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Provide some security around that.

[Diane Côté]

—what needs to be done in order to have the right tools. Some not-for-profit organizations don't have the resources for those first steps. It's absolutely crucial that the federal government not exit the equation, quite the opposite—even if a diversified funding approach is used. It's paramount that the federal government continue to guide non-profit organizations through the first step, as they look for partners. That work is ongoing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

You have a minute and a half.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thanks very much.

Could you elaborate a little? I'm yielding my time to my friend and colleague here, but are there specific recommendations you would like to make and have put forward in this study?

[Sharon Mayne Devine]

Well, I really agree with my colleague. I would be very cautious about having a one-size-fits-all approach, too. I think the success is at that grassroots level. For me, it's really both levels working together. We do need the support of government. Our first million came from the provincial government, and $1.6 million came from the federal government. We got that, and then we could get the corporate sector on board. And it did come on board, and we had a $1-million campaign with the corporate sector, with banks and big corporations giving us other dollars.

I find that corporations are reluctant to give you money for programming, because the optics of not being able to continue a program in the community are really bad for a corporation. They give capital dollars, and then we can generate our own funds out of the capital dollars, and that's great. Being able to set things in place in such a way that we're not penalized for generating funds, that there are some tax incentives for corporations being able to provide those dollars.... Really, if you think about it, what we're going to be able to do over time will be tremendous in being able to fund our own programs and not having to put our hand out all the time.

What's happening for us right now is that we're just paying the bills. We're just paying off the loans at this point. In a couple of years from now, we will begin to collect some dollars. Now, that's going to all go into a reserve. If I could have had $1 million more, it would have made a huge difference in being able to fund those programs sooner than I can now. I think on the one hand, while we are a success story, we could be an even more successful story if we had more of those funds early on. We're having to grapple with things like property tax. It was very difficult to get the original mortgage; we're paying a higher mortgage rate than any other business would.

When I think about recommendations, I wonder if there is a way to insure those kinds of mortgages and loans for organizations that have proven track records. All of those things would help this be a more successful story than it is, though I think we're moving in the right direction now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Thank you very much.

We move on to Mr. Mayes for five minutes.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One of the questions I have, though, is this. You mentioned a number of services that are in the same complex that you're in. The provincial government provides social services. How do you ensure you don't have a duplication of services? The federal government is making transfer payments to the provinces to provide social services, and then there is another charitable organization providing the same service. I just wondered if there is any duplication in the services you're providing. And all your leaseholders, are they independent or are they also funded by government agencies—provincial, municipal or whatever?