Human Resources Committee on Oct. 4th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Madame Sansoucy, please.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank everyone who has come today to contribute to our committee's work. I thank you for being here this morning.

Part of your work consists in analyzing bills that are brought to the attention of MPs in the House of Commons and, depending on your respective areas of expertise, in recommending that the minister support or not support a particular bill.

I asked the minister this question earlier. I would like to have your analysis of Bill C-245, which aims to create a national strategy to reduce poverty. Could you tell us about your recommendations?

[Louise Levonian]

As you know, we give our opinion to the minister. As the minister just said, the content of the bill is consistent with the direction taken here today. It is very clear that they are both going in the same direction.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you.

As the minister said earlier, in 2010, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities considered a study on poverty reduction. At the same time, a Senate committee was studying the same thing. Both of those committees published reports containing a series of recommendations. We know that the government issued a response to these reports.

However, aside from that government response, I would like to know what measures are taken in your department when such a report is published, in order to analyze and implement each of the recommendations.

Five years on, can you say that certain recommendations have been implemented and others have not for a given reason? I would like to know what the process is and how these recommendations have developed in each of your respective sectors over the past five years.

[Louise Levonian]

I will give a general answer, and my colleagues can add more details if they wish.

As a rule, we look at the recommendations and study each of them. Is it a fact-based recommendation? Is it a good recommendation? We document it all and we provide an opinion to the minister. After that, all of this information is taken into account in the response. However, that really depends on the recommendations.

In the case of recommendations that the government agrees with, we ensure that they are implemented. However, in the case of recommendations that the government does not accept, we do not check whether they have been implemented five years on.

Once again, if the recommendations are accepted and measures taken, we check to make sure that they have been properly implemented. At the end of the day, it all depends on the recommendations.

I don't know whether there is anything to add.

[Jacques Paquette, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Service Policy Branch , Department of Employment and Social Development]

Briefly, I would add that, in this case, for example, when the document was prepared for the minister, the various reports were analyzed, both those from Parliament and those from non-governmental organizations. As you pointed out, a number of things were written, and we tried to determine how well the initiatives put forward by the current government addressed some of the recommendations formulated in the past. In the document, you will probably find a number of elements that in fact address some of those recommendations.

To answer your question, a number of recommendations were implemented immediately, or, under the current government, additional measures will be put in place to address some of the recommendations made in the past.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

If I understand correctly, we will find answers in the document, but there is no official report. The 2010 Report said that a review would be conducted after five years, but there is no official report concerning the number of recommendations that were implemented or shelved. We don't have that. As the chair pointed out, we should use this work and build on it. We must find our answers in your documents and not in each of your respective sectors.

There were also recommendations concerning housing. There is a clear commitment. Housing is an important element. We know how much households have to spend on accommodation. This is an important component of every household's budget, as some of my colleagues have pointed out.

In the housing sector more specifically, how do you operate with any recommendations we may formulate? Basically, I would like to know how the results of our work will be used at the end of this year of study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I'm afraid we're out of time on that question. I apologize.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

The question is out there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Very good.

Now we'll go to MP Ruimy.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you to our guests for coming here today.

The question I'm going to start with is for the CMHC. We heard today about the new fund of $2.5 billion over five years to encourage building. Is that fund going to be managed through CMHC?

[Michel Tremblay]

That's correct.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

If I'm a non-profit who wants to build a building, I don't have to go through the provinces. I go directly through you.

[Michel Tremblay]

Yes. We'll have a call for applications, and people will submit it through our organization.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Can you tell us about any parameters as to how that might be used?

[Michel Tremblay]

Sorry?

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Are there any parameters as to who might use those funds and how?

[Michel Tremblay]

Yes. We have some parameters. Obviously, it will have to be demonstrated that it's going to increase rental housing in a particular area. We'll also be looking at certain measures for affordability, although it is not what is called a “deep subsidy” program. It's really to increase the supply.

I think we've landed on a good balance. It's going to be, I think, 90% of the market rent of the certain area. For example, if you're in Vancouver, the rent will be substantially.... Also, a certain number certain number of the units must be affordable for the median income in that area. I can't remember the precise number. I apologize, but we can get you answer.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Do I understand that this is a loan? Or is it a grant?

[Michel Tremblay]

It's a lending initiative. It's lending at a low cost.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Lending at a low cost? Okay.

I know of an organization that is building one big complex. As far as I know, just to get the shovel in the ground costs about $5 million. Would they be able to access those funds for part of that?

[Michel Tremblay]

If they make an application, we will review the application, and depending on where they are in process, yes.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

My esteemed colleague on the other side mentioned a parable in French about how when you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, and when you teach him to fish, you feed him for life. It works the same in French as in English.

One of the themes we're going to be exploring is financial literacy. That is a challenge out there that is real. We have a bunch of folks who are already in their prime and who don't have that financial literacy. How can our government speak to financial literacy for those of a younger age?

[Louise Levonian]

That's interesting. It's a good question. Thank you.

I want to make sure I understand your question. Is it about how the government can get to financial literacy more directly, potentially at the high school level, etc.?

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

The challenge we're going to run into is that education is a provincial mandate.