Human Resources Committee on Feb. 16th, 2017

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

We'll move over to MP Sansoucy.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is my first time appearing before the committee on this tour. I was looking forward to it. I am glad it is happening here, in Medicine Hat. Following the testimony of my colleague Mr. Motz, I was very keen to hear your comments. They are truly inspiring.

For about 10 years, I headed up a community housing organization for vulnerable youth, at a time when there were calls for the principles that you defend, that you apply, and that are very important. By that I mean talking to citizens, listening to those living in poverty, and helping them take charge of their own lives rather than being looked after.

My perspective is from Quebec, and I was inspired by what Ms. Weeks said about the child welfare centre, because it sounds similar to the social pediatrics centres that Dr. Julien created in Quebec. The same applies for Ms. Turner and the social economy sector, which is giving rise to new ways of addressing funding. It is truly inspiring to hear all of that.

My first question is about the homelessness partnering strategy. You said we have to talk to the people who know the problems and the solutions. We should not focus on just one specific approach. You said the Housing First approach works well. Ms. Rogers spoke to that, as did Ms. Turner. There are, however, many other approaches that can also work well. We should also consider prevention. Ms. Turner just talked about that. We must take action and help people before their situation degenerates.

We know that the funding of the other approaches was limited, unfortunately. Essentially, I would like to know if you see the same problem here. Would you like to see a broader approach to funding for the prevention of homelessness?

Ms. Rogers can answer first and then the others can add their comments.

[Jaime Rogers]

I think what's important with the funding and investment is that strong outcomes and accountability frameworks are attached to it. Funding for a community, but at the same time having that federal perspective and expectation and guidelines about how that funding will be invested in the community is going to be key.

It needs to be even taking an approach whereby you know x percentage will go to prevention initiatives and x to addressing things like chronic homelessness, and there needs to be more long-term planning.

Investment into quality assurance is going to be so key. If you don't have someone monitoring, you may have invested a lot of money, but you will not see outcomes. Data is so important as well, and making sure we have.... When I came to Medicine Hat about six years ago, we had a saying that “data drives your dollars”. If you're not demonstrating outcomes, you will not receive funding.

Part of that boldness I talk about is ensuring that message is given when the national poverty strategy comes out. Data has to drive the dollars in the investment. If things are not working, don't fund them anymore. Don't continue to invest in things that are not showing results.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Turner, would like to add anything?

[Dr. Alina Turner]

Sure. I think I'll add something about system planning because it has come up a lot, and I think it speaks to what you're getting at as well.

In the context of system planning and locally driven strategy and what Jaime was also alluding to, there needs to be a quarterback who mans the game, who has the strategy, who tells the players where to go. Sometimes we think that's the funder, the person giving out the dollars.

The problem is that there are so many funders. There are sometimes as many funding pots in a community as there are services, and sometimes there are as many services as there are clients. We have this mess of a patchwork approach to all of these integrated issues.

What I think needs to happen is that there be a designated poverty reduction quarterback at the community level whose sole responsibility is to make sure that players are doing what they're supposed to be doing. That includes funders. Sometimes, believe it or not, the funders are the ones who get in the way of good work, because they change mandates halfway through.

This happens with the United Way often. They say, “We have $40 million in the community, and government has $40 million as well. We think the government should do that, so we're just going to de-fund it”, but they haven't talked to government. Who suffers? The clients do, because the money has moved, and now there's a service gap.

There needs to be somebody who implements the strategy and these common objectives at the community level and who has some accountability and power to dictate how this funding is doled out and to what purpose.

The key piece that worked really well here is that literally, here it's Jaime. Jaime's the quarterback. In other communities, we don't have a quarterback at all, and that's where you see things go pretty astray. There's no measurement system, the funders are arguing, the service providers are going behind each other's backs to the various funders, and nothing ever becomes implemented because the politics get in the way.

In a community in which there is buy-in to this quarterback function and in which the person manning it has legitimacy in the community, when the funders say, “I'm sorry, I'm moving this money; this is not where the community need is”, they have the backup of the community.

What I think tells you that story the best here is agencies in Medicine Hat going to Jaime and saying, “We have too much money; we want you to cut our budget, because we think you should invest in prevention in another area.” That tells you that a level of community planning is now bought into throughout the system of care, that they're moving forward along the same path, and that they trust that system planning is happening with that quarterback organization.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

Now we have Anju Dhillon for six minutes, please.

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

Good morning.

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to start with Mrs. Rogers. May I call you that?

[Jaime Rogers]

You can call me whatever you like.

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

You spoke about the federal government's Housing First program. Can you elaborate a little more how it has been helpful?

[Jaime Rogers]

Yes, I can, actually.

In Medicine Hat we are the community entity. We receive both designated and aboriginal community funding, so we have two streams of funding. It was a privilege to be part of the conversation at the federal level. We went to Ottawa and talked about what that would look like for the rest of Canada and what impact it would have.

I'll start with the challenges we had with it when there wasn't a Housing First approach. It left the funding too wide open. We could fund things in the community that were nice to have, not essential to have. Part of that was because the federal funding for homelessness goes back to 2001, with the SCPI. It was a feel-good kind of funding. It looked at managing homelessness, not actually ending homelessness.

In Alberta, when we shifted to a Housing First strategy and had our 10-year plans for homelessness and our local plans for homelessness, they identified Housing First as a strategy.

When the federal government came on board and aligned with the Housing First strategy, it allowed us to rethink how we invested those funds. It was so beneficial at a community level to say that the federal government is requiring this. Prior to that, the community knew there was such latitude with the funding that we could literally keep it for soup and sandwiches if we chose to.

In Medicine Hat we chose not to do that, obviously, and we invested a little bit differently early on, but shifting to that Housing First strategy and having that national voice to it bolstered our position in the community, actually.

With the messaging from the federal government and our seeing how important it is, it was almost as though the federal government had our back so that we could do the work.

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

How many seniors do you see coming in and seeking help?

[Jaime Rogers]

Within our Housing First program and our plan to end homelessness, Medicine Hat has housed 1,074 individuals since the inception of our plan on April 1, 2009. Of that, there are about 312 children. That's to date. Seniors account for 12% of those served through that program, and veterans are about 8% of that number. We do have homeless veterans in town, yes, and in the community as well.

In our affordable housing and social housing, our seniors self-contained housing is a large portfolio. I'm not exactly sure of the number of seniors we serve on that front, but we are a community that does have a high population of seniors.

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

Has there been an increase in the senior population?

[Jaime Rogers]

There has been an increase in the senior population, but not to the degree that would warrant or see more investment or a different strategy at this point.

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

Do you believe that the new OAS and GIS benefits are helping to maintain at least a stable level of seniors seeking help?

[Jaime Rogers]

Absolutely, yes. Some time ago, I was involved when the MP, the minister of state, put forward the homelessness and OAS policy that was passed. I had the privilege of working on that behind the scenes a bit. That has been so helpful for those seniors who may have needed help to apply for the OAS. It wasn't just guaranteed.

One of the challenges we do see with those benefits, though, is in regard to seniors who are currently receiving the AISH benefit. When they turn 65, we see poverty impact them, because their housing costs rise exponentially. If you're looking to tackle a big issue, that is an issue, that transition for someone receiving the AISH benefit and then going to old age security. That's when we see seniors at the highest degree of the disadvantaged stage.

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

Are these single seniors or couples?

[Jaime Rogers]

There are both. It probably would have more impacts for a couple.

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

You're saying that because of mobility reduction and whatever health problems they have, they have to alter their homes, so it costs more.

[Jaime Rogers]

I'm speaking about it as an income issue. When they turn 65, they no longer receive their AISH benefit. They get old age security, which means, based on our current housing qualifications, that they have more expendable income.

I'll give you an example. They were paying $120 a month while they were receiving the AISH benefit, but at the age of 65 they're paying $400. There is a flaw in that system.

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

Would you like to add something, Mr. Brown?

[John Brown]

Yes, I would. I think what we're seeing is just the tip of this so-called silver tsunami.

The first baby boomers turned 70 this year, so they're still relatively healthy. We're going to start to see increased numbers of seniors with significant health concerns as they get older. That increases both the cost to the individual and the cost to the public. It costs $2,500 a day to keep someone in a hospital, and it's estimated that 40% of our hospital beds are filled with people who don't need that kind of acute care. There's a systemic issue here that obviously addresses poverty, but there are costs that are coming to other parts.

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

Do you believe that home care—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I'm sorry. We have to move on. Maybe Wayne can share some time.