Thank you.
Good morning, everyone. On behalf of the board of the Canadian Association of Social Workers and our president, Jan Christianson-Wood, I thank you for inviting the social work voice to this important consultation.
When we considered the study's guidelines, we noticed that the words “new” and “innovative” emerged over and over again. Not to be cheeky in any way, CASW would propose that the first step to innovation is actually in better measuring and assessing existing systems and strategies so that we can build upon and lift up best practices and evidence.
To elaborate on that, CASW is often asked which provinces and territories are leading in poverty reduction. It is also asked where dollars allocated for social services through the Canada social transfer are being spent, or in an ideal world, where they are being most effectively spent.
We simply don't know. No one does. At present, there is no requirement that the provinces ensure recognition of the federal payments or provide information to the federal government about how the CST is spent. The dollars flow into general revenue.
With the introduction of the Canada Health Act, the government acknowledged that certain principles should be upheld across Canada in the delivery of health care services. Far from hard laws or regulations, the Canada Health Act serves as a set of guiding principles that are really just meant to ensure that Canadians have access to equitable, quality care wherever they reside.
This is why CASW is proposing a social care act as a piece of a national poverty reduction strategy.
I can see many of you looking at me. I know I probably have pitched this to you, individually, before.
As with the Canada Health Act, the proposed social care act would establish common principles to help comprehensively address poverty. These aren't new—public administration, universality, portability—and this would help set the stage for a framework for reporting on how the CST and other federal social investments are spent.
Enabling such a framework for reporting would not only provide the government with a record of return on investment. It would also serve as a catalyst for the sharing of best practices and evidence between the provinces and territories.
That being said, I'll move on to the study's specific questions, of which there are a number.
With regard to education, training, and employment, I'll go briefly back to the CST and accountability. We think the portion of federal dollars intended for post-secondary education should be separated in some way from the rest of the CST, which is really intended to address Canadians' dignity and basic needs. This doesn't necessarily mean separating it altogether, but rather delineating the funds' intended purposes, which would be, again, facilitated by something like a social care act.
We also would ask that the profession of social work be included under the Canada student loan forgiveness program, which currently includes nurses, for instance. Not only are social workers' skills greatly required in many rural and remote regions in Canada, but we also are trained mental health professionals whose expertise most often comes at a more cost-effective price point than that of psychologists or psychiatrists.
With regard to housing and homelessness, CASW wholeheartedly supports the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association's request to continue and increase direct supportive housing investments, noting that the 2016 federal budget introduced targeted funding to increase affordable housing for seniors and for victims of violence.
CASW recommends that these programs be continued beyond their two-year mandate. It also recommends that this program be extended to include other forms of supportive housing targeted to seniors, LGBTQ individuals, veterans, and also previously incarcerated individuals. Funding for these types of targeted programs would ideally be set a minimum of $150 million per year. It would also ideally flow through something like a social care act as a social policy framework.
With regard to government administrative savings and entitlement programs, we have a lot to be happy about, a lot to reward the Liberal government for. In tying the Canada child benefit to income, the Government of Canada took a bold step towards developing a comprehensive basic income for families with children.
Budget 2016 also enhanced the guaranteed income supplement, which combined with OAS—old age security—moves forward basic support for seniors. We commend this, and we encourage the government to continue progressively with the concept of a basic income for all, potentially.
We were also really pleased by the CPP expansion in bill C-26. We do remain concerned that it lacks those so-called dropout provisions for child rearing and disability, and we do hope the government commits to amending those as it has publicly promised to do.
On social investments, which is my last piece—I promise—we recently released a paper entitled “The True Cost of Capital”, which was on the potential of social finance in Canada.
Keeping in mind this government's mandate to develop a social innovation and social finance strategy, CASW urges that any approach be guided by social principles as well as economic ones, and that it implement strategies based on evidence and not only the assumption of efficiency and innovation, as ubiquitous as these assumptions seem to be.
Since social finance tools have the potential to impact the most vulnerable in our society, it's imperative that they are not further economically exploited by private investors.
On social finance, we would just advise that any initiatives meant to address poverty or vulnerable populations be guided by a social conscience, and use as a framework the principles proposed by a social care act, which are the same as in the Canada Health Act, namely, public administration, accessibility, fairness, effectiveness, accountability, and transparency, to name a few.
We also hope that the federal government will heed the view provided in the supplementary opinion on this committee's study of social impact bonds, which went on to say that it is important above all else to ensure that the government prioritize the needs and successes of vulnerable Canadians, meaning their needs and successes, not those of private enterprise.
Finally, I think it just needs to be said one more time, because it is so important, that private profit has no place in the provision of services to vulnerable Canadians.
I think I kept that short.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to any questions you may have.