Evidence of meeting #20 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was crisis.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Doug Pawson  Executive Director, End Homelessness St. John’s
Jacques Beaudoin  General Secretary, Réseau québécois des OSBL d'habitation
Parisa Mahboubi  Senior Policy Analyst, C.D. Howe Institute
John Milloy  Director, Centre for Public Ethics, Martin Luther University College

2:40 p.m.

Executive Director, End Homelessness St. John’s

Doug Pawson

Yes, absolutely. In my earlier comments, I mentioned the need for government across all levels, including the federal and provincial governments, to work closely with income support systems when addressing housing and homelessness strategies.

We've seen a lot of individuals who are unable to maintain housing in the private market because their income levels allocated for rent are simply not enough. That's the case here in St. John's, where we have a healthy vacancy rate. It's further exacerbated in larger urban areas. In rural areas, for example, in parts of Labrador, we see that housing is incredibly difficult to acquire and the affordability concerns there resemble something that you might see in Toronto or Vancouver.

We absolutely support the notion around the idea of implementation of these basic needs, basic income types of programs, that will ensure people have the affordability component of housing secure.

2:40 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

In Vancouver, we have a major housing crisis. Just a couple of days ago in another homeless encampment, some 40 people were arrested. All that really means is that we're pushing people from one encampment to another, with no place they can call home.

Now, part of the recommendation from the six-point plan is 300,000 new, permanent, affordable housing units. Compare this to what is proposed under the national housing strategy. Is the national housing strategy sufficient to reach 300,000 new, permanent, affordable housing units to meet the need?

2:40 p.m.

Executive Director, End Homelessness St. John’s

Doug Pawson

That's a good question. Just to address the first part of your comment, around the encampment and folks being arrested, what we see is that the costs across the system are just shifted. That's why interdepartmental coordination around housing and homelessness strategies and investments needs to involve every department that has a social policy objective and mandate.

To the point about the 300,000 new, permanent, affordable and supportive housing units, this is required in addition to the NHS investments, because what we often see is that, although housing stock may be built, additional supports are also required for those who are most vulnerable. We see in our community, for example, folks who may end up in a bedsit or a private market rental but, because their stability breaks down, the attachment of supports into housing is no longer there. They return to shelter. That's a common occurrence across the country.

These are not just an additional 300,000 housing units; these are affordable and supportive housing units that need to be available.

2:45 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

I absolutely agree. You need to build the housing and then you need to have the supports in place if people are to be successful. At a bare minimum, we need 300,000 units of affordable housing to be built and get the supports in place, because without the physical structure, you have nowhere to start. Is that correct?

2:45 p.m.

Executive Director, End Homelessness St. John’s

Doug Pawson

Yes, absolutely. The federal government has a great opportunity to lead on this by looking at the ways in which it's investing, not only in housing but in health, and the ways in which it's working with the provincial governments to align those investments between health and housing.

We know, and research has demonstrated to us, that folks who are homeless and who may be housed very unstably require additional supports, and that's often done through the provincial governments and their relationships through their health authorities.

We do need to have that leadership, and it can be done in great part with the support of the federal government.

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

Thank you, Mr. Pawson.

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Next we're going to go to Mrs. Falk, please, for five minutes.

2:45 p.m.

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Thank you, Chair.

I also want to thank our witnesses for their testimony.

To effectively deliver stable support and assistance to those experiencing chronic homelessness, it is necessary that we understand the needs and the impact that this health crisis, COVID-19, is having on those needs. Your insight today is very valuable and also very much appreciated.

My first question is for Doug Pawson. In reviewing the work that End Homelessness St. John's does, I noted that housing first was a guiding principle. I am sure you know that the housing first approach was implemented into the federal homelessness partnering strategy in 2014, and changes to the federal homelessness partnering strategy in 2018 removed the 65% housing first investment target, allowing funds to be diverted elsewhere.

In my view, moving beyond short-term emergency and crisis-based responses is necessary to effectively reduce chronic homelessness in Canada. I'm wondering if you can share with the committee why your organization uses housing first as a guiding principle and any insight on the successes it has had.

2:45 p.m.

Executive Director, End Homelessness St. John’s

Doug Pawson

For us, housing first is a philosophy that, first and foremost, recognizes that in order to participate fully in social and economic life, you need to have a home, and it needs to be safe and secure.

In terms of your question or your comments related to the transition between HPS and Reaching Home, and the connotation for housing first to be taken out of it, I think the intention of that, which is based on consultations that I've participated in and heard from other community entities around the country, is that it gave communities greater flexibility to make investments that were more strategic for their community.

I'll give you an example. Here, in St. John's, we see a gap existing. Housing first initiatives are often centred around rapid rehousing programs and intensive case management programs. These are often the jurisdiction of provincial governments. In our case, the federal government's investment through Reaching Home into St. John's is simply not sufficient to invest those funds strategically across the community and actually make an impact on the homeless serving sector. We abide by the housing first philosophy, and we want individuals to have agency in their entry and exit out of homelessness, but we also recognize that we need to work very closely with our provincial government where these types of health interventions need to be further embedded into housing and homelessness strategies.

That's a bit of a challenge that we face, unique to us, but I don't think that's unique across the country, where provincial governments operate their housing and homelessness strategies in isolation from their community entities.

2:50 p.m.

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

With my life experience and my experience with social work, I absolutely understand that we can't have an “Ottawa knows best” approach. That doesn't work, especially with Canada being so regional. Honestly, I would actually argue that municipalities would be best positioned because communities are so different, let alone provinces.

My next question is for Mr. Beaudoin.

As an umbrella organization for the 1,200 not-for-profits, you are very well positioned to speak on a spectrum of needs facing vulnerable Canadians. Keeping Canadians housed, we know, is fundamental to addressing chronic homelessness. I'm wondering if you could offer the committee any insight on the most pressing needs of those at risk of becoming homeless during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2:50 p.m.

General Secretary, Réseau québécois des OSBL d'habitation

Jacques Beaudoin

In the context of the health crisis, it's really a matter of ensuring access to a roof and safe places for everyone to comply with recommended health measures.

Over the past few weeks, we have had some interesting experiences in collaboration with teams from the health and social services sector, as well as municipalities. In Montreal, for example, fantastic work has been done to ensure that as few people as possible were forced to live on the street and that people had a place where they could get follow-up and guidance. As soon as someone had symptoms of COVID-19, they were taken care of. It is therefore necessary to establish a link between community support, access to housing and workers who can ensure follow-up with people in difficulty.

Homelessness is always linked to a housing problem, but it is not just about that. It is always accompanied by a range of problems. So community support and access to resources are fundamental if people are to make a successful transition to housing in the future.

We have had some interesting experiences, in a crisis context where we had to act quickly to help people. That gives us an idea of what we could do in the future to help people who may find themselves experiencing homelessness.

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

Thank you very much, Mr. Beaudoin.

Thank you, Mrs. Falk.

Next we're going to go to Mr. Long, please, for five minutes.

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to apologize in advance. The audio and video of what's happening around me aren't really good right now, but I think if you can hear me I'm going to move forward.

I want to thank our presenters for doing a great job in their presentations. I have some questions.

As Mr. Beaudoin rightly pointed out in his opening remarks, our federal government entrenched our commitment to undertaking a human rights-based approach to housing policy in Canadian law, so the National Housing Strategy Act was introduced and passed in the last Parliament.

I'll start with you, Mr. Pawson, and then I'll go to Mr. Beaudoin. In your view, how has the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for a human rights-based federal housing strategy?

2:50 p.m.

Executive Director, End Homelessness St. John’s

Doug Pawson

I think the commitment made by the government to adopt housing as a human right is not just a symbolic gesture. It allows us to chart a path to ensure that folks who are experiencing homelessness or who may need to avail themselves of emergency shelter supports can be quickly moved into housing. To do that, we need more housing. Simply put, we need more housing and more supports embedded around it. This, to me, would ensure that housing as a human right can be actioned across Canada.

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Mr. Beaudoin.

2:50 p.m.

General Secretary, Réseau québécois des OSBL d'habitation

Jacques Beaudoin

The crisis has really demonstrated the extent to which housing is a human right. It was a historic decision last year to enshrine this objective in an act of Parliament. We really saw in practice what that meant. All Canadians were asked to confine themselves, to respect emergency measures, to stay home. No one wanted this situation, and it was not desirable, but we could not have had a better demonstration of the fact that housing is a fundamental human right.

Having a home—where you can live in safety, where you're not overcrowded, where there are no families of five or six in one- or two-bedroom units, where the unit is big enough to meet your needs—allowed those who had access to that to respect containment. However, for those who did not have access to such a home, it was very difficult.

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Mr. Pawson, my office in Saint John, New Brunswick, does a lot of work with the two shelters here. We work with Jayme Hall at Outflow and with Mary Saulnier-Taylor at Coverdale.

I certainly remember getting home from Ottawa when the pandemic was becoming more and more serious in all ridings across the country. We were extremely concerned about the men and women at shelters. We serve breakfast there pretty much every weekend and have a great relationship with them. Our minds and hearts went out to the men in the shelters.

Obviously, I was thrilled that we came out with the Reaching Home homelessness strategy, which has provided more money to the shelters through the Human Development Council, with Randy Hatfield and his wonderful group. Given what has happened with COVID-19, what are the most significant risks that people experiencing homelessness have faced? What was their biggest risk?

2:55 p.m.

Executive Director, End Homelessness St. John’s

Doug Pawson

We work really closely with the Human Development Council folks. They're great leaders for your community and the province of New Brunswick.

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

They are.

2:55 p.m.

Executive Director, End Homelessness St. John’s

Doug Pawson

Most shelter systems are based on a congregate model. That is, individuals maybe have a cot on the floor and you'll see a number of beds in one room. There's very little of the bathroom space or washroom space that would be appropriate for individuals. It's often shared among the larger group. The arrangement of the shelter set-up is therefore ripe for transmission of COVID or a disease of this nature.

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Let me just jump in. Do you feel we need to move away from a congregate model? I was lucky enough to be in HUMA last session. We went across the country looking at shelters, and almost every one of them has that style.

2:55 p.m.

Executive Director, End Homelessness St. John’s

Doug Pawson

We're fortunate in our community in St. John's because we have more of a private/semi-private shelter model. The reason people continue to reside in shelters is that they're often individuals who have a very limited income and are without dependants. They can't avail themselves of the existing tax credits that are designed for those who have dependants or whatnot. They're totally reliant on provincial income support assistance, and those rental allowances are simply not enough in any urban centre or area where there might be a housing shortage.

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

Thank you, Mr. Long.

To the witnesses, Mr. Pawson and Mr. Beaudoin, we very much appreciate your testimony here today and the work that you do. Thank you for being with us here today to share your expertise and experience. We wish you a good weekend.

We will suspend for a couple of minutes to get ready for the next panel. I want to start this one on time because we have some very brief administrative matters to deal with before we adjourn for the day.

We are suspended.

3 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

We're back in session.

I would now like to welcome Ms. Parisa Mahboubi, senior policy analyst from the C.D. Howe Institute, as well as Mr. John Milloy, director of the Centre for Public Ethics at Martin Luther University College.

Ms. Mahboubi, please proceed with your opening remarks.

3 p.m.

Dr. Parisa Mahboubi Senior Policy Analyst, C.D. Howe Institute

Good afternoon, everyone.

Mr. Chairman and honourable committee members, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to you today.

In response to COVID-19, the C.D. Howe Institute has put together four crisis working groups to rapidly distill expert policy advice, and it has published a high volume of articles on a daily basis to address issues related to this crisis. One of these groups is the household income and credit support group, which has dealt with the immediate labour market and income impacts of the crisis and the transition to go back to work and reopen the economy.

Today I'd like to summarize an overall evaluation of the Canada emergency response benefit program, or CERB, highlight its current issues and provide some policy options to address them, based on our work and the output of our working group.

The Canada emergency response benefit was an early and critical element in the federal government's response to the crisis. In support of a stay-at-home strategy to flatten the curve, the CERB was particularly necessary to ensure that households stay afloat while the restrictions are in place. The introduction of the program was also in part an attempt to fill coverage gaps in employment insurance, the EI program. For example, workers in precarious employment, such as part-timers, are less likely to meet the minimum required insurable hours to qualify for EI. Labour market statistics show that the crisis has affected hourly-paid low-wage workers the most, highlighting the importance of this program.

With attention increasingly turning to reopening the economy, the CERB, however, is becoming a problem. The program has been very popular. There were more than 8.4 million unique applications as of June 4, which was about 44% of the employed labour force in Canada in February 2020. Although the heavy use of the CERB could be related, to some extent, to the slow rollout of the Canada emergency wage subsidy program and lack of a strong message and clarification on CERB eligibility in the beginning to prevent program misuse, the sheer number of applicants can be indicative of problems with the CERB itself that need to be addressed.

First, its eligibility criteria are very broad, and, unlike the EI program, there is no requirement to remain available to work and be actively looking for a job. Second, the amount of the benefit is relatively generous for low-income earners, and it is not linked to pre-pandemic income. Third, the clawback rate is too harsh with this program, since the benefit goes to zero for the first dollar of income earned above $1,000. All these factors create significant disincentives to return to work, particularly among low-income earners, slowing the recovery.

What is the best way forward?

With reopening strategies differing across the country's industries, the government needs to shift away from a national one-size-fits-all income support plan and create better-tailored income supports.

In general, two options are available for providing continued income support to CERB recipients who, after exhausting their maximum eligibility period, may remain unemployed without access to EI benefits.

The first option is to extend the CERB but introduce new phase-out modifications based on some features of the EI program that can help tackle work incentive issues and support transition to work. The EI features to consider for modifying the CERB are the following: the requirement to remain available to work and be actively looking for a job; the working-while-on-claim provision of the EI program through setting appropriate income-tested clawbacks, learned from international experiences; the linkage between the amount of benefit and pre-pandemic income; and the EI parental sharing benefit, to allow parents to share child care responsibilities when no child care option is available.

To provide income support, there is a second option, other than reforming the CERB. It's to expand the EI program by reforming eligibility criteria to take on the role of the CERB.

The decision on which program to reform largely rests on the length of the crisis and recovery period, and the number of CERB recipients in need of post-CERB financial support. Therefore, more and better data is needed to make informed decisions about an income support transition model.

When planning out the next phase in the short term, the government should aim to preserve fairness among those who would continue to receive the CERB and others who would continue to work without receiving the benefit. One proposal for balancing concerns of work incentives and fairness would be to combine a modified CERB with a temporary working bonus program that offers an earned income tax credit for low-wage workers.

To address the coverage gap for those who are not able to return to work, the working bonus and the modified CERB can be complemented by targeted supplemental measures, such as a refundable child care tax credit for parents returning to work, and a boost to the Canada child benefit.

Longer-term policy options to support Canadians during the pandemic crisis and recovery should also include investments in retraining, re-skilling, and upskilling to address long-term displacements and structural unemployment, because the labour market is changing.

The above-mentioned policies can provide policy-makers with options to support Canadians during the crisis while easing the transition to go back to work. These were my main points to highlight. Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your questions.

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

Thank you very much, Ms. Mahboubi.

Next is Mr. Milloy. You have seven and a half minutes for your opening remarks.