Human Resources Committee on Feb. 16th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to MP Sansoucy, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Hansen, I do not have any questions for you, since you have so clearly described the problems that aboriginal populations face, the various solutions to be implemented based on your centre's experience, and the way our strategy must find different solutions for aboriginal populations.

As nearly all of the witnesses have done this morning, you talked about the need for all orders of government to work together. I was also interested to hear you say that, despite the real success of your experience, that model should not necessarily be copied and reproduced all across Canada.

It is clear that a national strategy will have to reflect the different living conditions from one end of the country to the other, and also be flexible by giving the communities responsibility to develop their own solutions. We cannot take what is happening here, in Medicine Hat, and apply it everywhere. That is not the answer.

My question is for the municipal representative.

You said the housing strategy should be integrated with the poverty reduction strategy. We see now, however, that these two strategies are being developed separately. How do you think we can integrate them?

Ms. Symmonds, you said the strategy should also include a basic income strategy. I would like to hear more about that. It is interesting that you are looking at this from the perspective of self-esteem and human dignity.

[Celina Symmonds]

In terms of the housing strategy integrating with the poverty reduction strategy, I think it's a natural fit. I think that, automatically, when you're writing poverty reduction, housing has to be a piece of it—meeting those basic needs. I think that when you look at our poverty reduction strategy, you'll absolutely see that it's interwoven in everything we do. It is a natural fit. As you're writing it, you'll see that happen.

I absolutely agree with you. You can't just take our solution, drop it on another community, and think that it's going to work. Really, you have to give communities the autonomy to spend the funding and do what they need to within their communities.

As far as basic minimum income is concerned, I, personally, have a very big interest in this topic. I think there is a lot of of merit to it. If you're going to do it, you need to essentially dismantle the system we have now and start over again. If you were just going to add a basic minimum income to the current provincial models and to the different funding sources, I don't believe it would work.

You have a strategy in place. You have a child tax credit system already there. If you were to take a look at the basic minimum income in Canada and dismantle all the other levels, all the income support levels that aren't working, and deliver a basic minimum income based on a sliding tax scale, like the child tax benefit, I think you would have an absolute win when it comes to income—and Medicine Hat is the place to do that pilot.

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

Duly noted.

Ms. Henning, you said we need to change the way we talk about poverty, our vocabulary, and stop talking about us and them. That speaks to me as a Quebecer.

Last fall, I introduced a bill to create a poverty reduction strategy, and I had to talk about it a lot in my riding. Surprisingly, a number of business people, from the chamber of commerce and store owners, for example, told me that poverty reduction is important. These are certainly not people who live in poverty, but they are well aware of its impact on the economic development of our communities and everyone who lives there.

That is an interesting angle and I would like to hear your thoughts on it.

[Dr. Denise Henning]

Thank you very much. I appreciate the question.

One thing, as a first nations person as well, I'm from the United States originally and I'm recovering one day at a time—that's just a joke.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Dr. Denise Henning]

The way in which we speak of “other”, we “other” people, and by othering people, we put them at a disadvantage to being equal to us. I am a first nations person coming from a poor background and a community that didn't have people going in to be a judge, or to be a lawyer, or to be a president and CEO of a college. That wasn't even heard of. What happened was people. People empower other people, not money, not services, not things. You can throw money at wonderful things until you think that you're doing a good job, but we continue to “other” people. That's what I think we need to address when I talk about how this is a “we” thing. This is our problem; it's not their problem or these people. We need to stop othering people and start using a language that is inclusive, that brings equity to our discussions and allows people to come in.

The reason that this strategy is exciting for me, and the reason I think it's going to be 100% achievable is that they went to the people first. They didn't have the academicians, they didn't have the social workers, the social services agencies, coming and saying, “This is the solution.” They went to the people. What better than to have a person say, “Do you know what? It's really hard for me to think about getting an education when I'm worrying about where the next meal is coming from. It's really hard for me to think about feeding my family when I want to know, am I going to have a roof over their heads?”

That is what I grew up with, and I am privileged now that the Creator gave me an opportunity to receive with one hand and to give with the other. I am very passionate about what is happening here. I'm very excited to be of service.

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

Do I have time for one last question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I'm afraid not, sorry. I actually let you go a minute and a half long there.

MP Dhillon, you're up for six minutes.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you to the panel for being here today. My questions will be for Ms. Desa.

You spoke about newcomers and how they're facing poverty despite the fact that they're highly educated and have a lot of professional experience. You spoke about their not getting their credentials because of systemic barriers. Can you please talk about these systemic barriers?

[Vanessa Desa]

There has been progress on systemic barriers, but the accreditation process, you know.... There were so many different accreditation bodies across the country. They're all provincially regulated. They're not federally regulated. Some are not regulated, so it was such a difficult process.

One of the things that were identified to the pan-Canadian framework was that processes need to be simplified. They need to be streamlined, and there needs to be a one-portal system or one-portal entry where an immigrant could apply to be accredited. It fits with our mobility. As a country, Canada, we want people to be able to be mobile from one province to another, so try to simplify the processes of accreditation and look at whether people could start the process before arriving in Canada.

One of the things they found in looking at the research is that the earlier people start their accreditation journey, they more likely they are to be successful. The less time they spend out of school or out of the field, the more likely they are to be successful. They looked at processes of how we can simplify it.

We saw that what brought about change was when the pan-Canadian framework was developed and you had federal government, provinces, and regulatory bodies committing to that, to the action plan and the framework, and setting something that we wanted to be happening in a more timely manner. Previously, you could have someone submit their documents just to be evaluated, and it would take over a year just for them to look at transcripts and to decide if they were equivalent. That amount of time was just interfering with the process, but having this sort of working together and setting in place that we want it to be equitable, we want it to be fair, we want it to be transparent, and we want it to be timely, addressed some of the issues that immigrants were saying were in the way.

On the other hand, in trying to—and I want to just share this quick example—make the process one national portal, you see some organizations that have actually taken steps backwards.

For instance, registered and licensed nurses in Canada now have to apply to a national body to get their credentials looked at before they can apply provincially. That national body, because maybe things happen too fast, has turned around and contracted an organization in the States to do that for them. Immigrants who live in Canada, who are RNs or LPNs, have to get their credentialling documents sent to an organization in the States from the source. Employers in their home country, the universities and the registration bodies, are required to send all those documents to this organization in the States, in either English or French. If they're not sent in those languages, then the organization is happy to charge the applicant $85 U.S. per page for translation. We have an applicant we are aware of who applied to have their transcripts, their university transcripts and employment, assessed in August of last year, and it's February. They've gone nowhere, and they've already spent $2,000.

The next step of the journey, as they are living in Alberta, would be to apply to CARNA, the regulatory body here. CARNA will not assess them in Alberta. They have to be sent to B.C. or Saskatchewan for the clinical assessment and that could take up to five days, so there is the cost of the assessment, plus the accommodation and other costs, and this person has a five-year-old at home. Then from that, they're then informed about how much of a bridging program they need to take. They might need to take a full year of bridging. When you just add up in terms of how much it costs and the length of time it takes, what should have become a simpler process has actually somehow gone off the rails.

I think that's why I was talking about accountability and measurement. We need to track the progress that's being made. Are the processes that have been put in place actually making a difference?

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Is your organization doing that?

[Vanessa Desa]

We have the ability to do it in that we have a very strong database of the applicants who apply to us. We have this longitudinal history in terms of their applying to us for a loan to start their accreditation journey, and we track them because they're paying back the loan throughout that process. We have the process to get it from them.

One of the things you'll see in the pan-Canadian framework is that they are talking about the struggles with measurement and accountability. That really needs to be strengthened, because you're not the immigrant who is going through the process. If you're the regulator, you have no idea when the obstacles are occurring. We need to find a better way of hearing directly from these people who are experiencing the barriers, what those barriers are, and what needs to change.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Is your organization one of a kind?

[Vanessa Desa]

You go ahead, Dianne.

[Dianne Fehr, Executive Director, Immigrant Access Fund Canada]

Immigrant Access Fund is the only organization that is able to provide loans to immigrants across Canada, with the exception of Quebec for various reasons, which is not to say that we wouldn't love to do that.

We are one of a kind in the sense that we provide services federally through a remote program. We don't have staff across the country, but we do provide services across the country. There are much smaller programs, a couple of very small programs in Ontario and one in Manitoba, but these organizations have really struggled with maintaining their funding. The funding comes and goes. There was a very strong program in Vancouver that has unfortunately had to stop issuing loans, because they simply didn't have the funds to do it.

Luckily, because Immigrant Access Fund does have the three legs of the stool—the private sector, public sector, and community—we have been able to keep our services constant across the country and to respond to any of the loan applicants that come to us.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Is the federal government giving you money?

[Dianne Fehr]

They are. Currently, the public sector provides about 85% of our operating costs. The largest funder in that is IRCC, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

For six minutes, we will have Mr. Long, please.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you again to our guests.

Mayor Clugston, what percentage of children live in poverty in your city?

[Celina Symmonds]

Thirteen per cent.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

How many people are on the affordable housing wait-list?

[Celina Symmonds]

It's 291.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

I do believe that Medicine Hat has a wonderful model that could be used across the country.

In Saint John we have different priority neighbourhoods, as we call them. We have different wards in the city. There are certain pockets, such as ward three and ward four, where—and I mentioned before that Saint John leads the country in child poverty at 29% to 30%, depending on the measurement, and so on—it's upwards of 50% to 65%.

Do you have pockets like that in Medicine Hat? What programs do you specifically use in those neighbourhoods, if you will, to combat the issues there?

[Celina Symmonds]

We sure do. We have different neighbourhoods down in what we call our River Flats area that have extensive poverty.

Often the programs are done in the schools. We talked about our community service workers program, where the municipality actually funds community service workers within the school. Those workers are able to work with students and families. They do everything from taking a family to income support and supporting them through the process to creating social change within the school.

We also provide a brown bag lunch program through the food bank. We provide 500 to 700 sandwiches per day in Medicine Hat and the surrounding area. We also work with those schools to try to do some innovation. We did a “food first” pilot project with families, where they were able to access extra services that we'll tell you all about at the food bank, but certainly there are pockets and areas where we do provide that.

Overall though, I would say that Medicine Hat is diverse throughout the entire community, so we see poverty pockets throughout the entire community.