Evidence of meeting #16 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was data.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:20 p.m.
Brittany Collier Committee Researcher
Mr. Chair, I can certainly answer that.
We can certainly refer to outside reports and studies, if that's something that the committee would wish us to do, to provide further context for some of those sections.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
Okay. Thank you.
I raised that point...and then to Ms. Gazan's points and all of the different groups she mentioned and the intersectionality lens that she wants to apply, I think we need to stick to the actual people, the indigenous people, we heard at this committee and to the points they were raising first and foremost. They were the ones we brought forward to the committee. I'm worried, with some of those comments, that we're going off what the witnesses were saying and just trying to add additional points right now.
Thirdly, I'm going to make a comment about Mr. Vaughan and Ms. Gazan talking about provincial governments. I just had an indigenous group in my riding rejected from the RHI, because they said that the on-reserve housing was specific. They were asking me why they were rejected already, when we all know that in their neck of the woods, housing is woefully inadequate.
With regard to comments about whatever provincial government is in question about their inability to provide housing, I would raise the same points about the ability of the federal government [Technical difficulty--Editor] lack of responsiveness that we heard about from Indigenous Services Canada on basic questions that the PBO was able to answer but they were reluctant to even respond to.
Thank you.
6:20 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This will be the first report that I will be involved in as a committee member. It is substantial, and it touches on a very relevant and wide-ranging issue. There has been some talk of adding points to the report, but to my knowledge, they were never part of the study. We did not analyze them, nor hear from witnesses about them.
In my opinion, the report should correspond to our study and talk about the barriers we observed, which I will not review now. The conclusions of the report will become very political. If our committee report makes recommendations to the House, the analysts need to be able to work from the briefs and witness testimony we heard. I don't see why we would add anything.
Let me refer to the example of the amounts of money transferred to the provinces. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has just told us that his office does not have these analyses. We are not going to ask our researchers to analyze things that have not been studied. That is my concern. If we do, our report will not reflect what we discussed.
I'd like the report to be based on the testimony, because that's how we'll know what needs to be improved in the programs.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Thank you, Chair, and good evening to all my colleagues. Congratulations to MP Dancho in becoming vice-chair.
I would like to suggest also, if we could, adding a bullet under section E.1 that would be a human rights-based approach. I know that did come out in the questions that I asked and it certainly was brought forward during testimony. I'd like to suggest that.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
I really am quite flummoxed by the level of detail and the characterization of some of the information of the PBO. It's astounding in its absence of fact and reliance on anecdotal evidence, which I never expected to hear from an accountant.
There is clear indication...and the answer that was given by the PBO was that there is no requirement under provincial transfers to report back on the effectiveness of the spending in an area where we have clear federal jurisdiction. It told me that we are sending money but we're not delivering results, and because of that there is a double whammy. If you're not involved in the federal spending, there is no way of knowing if you're caught and saved by the provincial spending.
As a result—and I think MP Gazan has identified this in Manitoba in particular—if both governments go in the wrong direction at the same time, indigenous communities are left with absolutely nothing. That's exactly why we're finding the numbers so astounding in Manitoba. I think that's a finding. It doesn't really matter in the dollar amount. What matters is that federal transfers are not landing in the households of indigenous families and they are a federal responsibility.
Therefore, the question I asked directly of the PBO was, do we need to be intentional about it, and the response was yes. That's the point that's driven from this, it's not who is doing a good job or a bad job or what's being spent where, it's how do be intentional about this, which is an area of clear federal jurisdiction and the Supreme Court has ruled on this.
The second point I would make—and I would love to take it off-line with Mr. Vis—is we are being briefed by CMHC officials and no one has been told yes or no in the project stream yet. It sounds like it is somebody who was disqualified and has not been eligible as opposed to not being qualified. I would be happy to give you a call afterwards and see if there is a way of rectifying that through a different program. I'm trying to find out too who the projects are because I have needs in my riding. There have been no rejection slips because no positive slips have gone out. We're still in the final days of making that determination.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Yes, I would like to build on indigenous women. I do think it's critical to incorporate the calls to justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Much of it is specific to housing but also income. That's just a suggestion there.
In response to MP Vis, when we're taking about intersectionality that was very much a part of the testimony, for example, on being indigenous and transgender. I think it's really critical that we certainly look at the list of folks, and particularly in that area there is a number of, for example, LGBTQQIA youth who find themselves homeless. Why is that and what is the need and what kinds of supports are there? I think we have to reflect that diversity in the report. Certainly we heard a lot of that testimony during the study, which I really appreciated.
Thank you.
6:25 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
The important thing for me is that this report really reflect all the testimony we heard.
What I understand from my colleague Mr. Vaughan's comments is an attempt to include in the report, in advance, conclusions suggesting that the provinces are ultimately to blame. My objective for this report is not to find the culprits. The point is not to say that federal funding is insufficient and that the provinces are not meeting their obligations.
We may see weaknesses in some areas, but we need to be able to look at the programs and shared responsibilities. More importantly, we need to be able to determine, based on people's testimony, what barriers have maintained the shortfall and the needs, and how these barriers could be eliminated.
For my part, I will not draft foregone conclusions.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
I thank Madame Chabot. I couldn't have explained it any better. I think we need to let the testimony of our witnesses stand before coming to any conclusions. I take that very seriously, because as you all know, I invited many indigenous witnesses from my riding and I will never presume to speak for them or understand what they're talking about from their experiences in life.
I would agree with Madame Chabot in the approach we need to take.
6:30 p.m.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you, Chair.
I'm sorry for taking up so much airtime, but in terms of this study, MP Chabot certainly brings up a good point. She also speaks to the diversity around the country. Going back to looking at developing a national indigenous housing organization, I also think we have different cultural traditions between our provinces in the country. I think that would be really difficult. Certainly a more productive action would be, in fact, to look at diversity in provinces, see what the differences are and see what the similarities are.
If we are looking at a national plan, we can't develop a national plan if we don't honour the diversity between provinces. It would be ineffective.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Ms. Gazan.
That exhausts the speakers list. I'll go back to the analyst for the last word.
Are there any comments, clarifications or questions on the feedback? I think it was a good discussion. Whether that makes it any clearer in the direction that needs to be taken, I'll leave it to you for any comments you might have for us.
6:30 p.m.
Committee Researcher
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have one point of clarification. It's not quite clear to me at this point how the committee wishes us to integrate the PBO report, so perhaps members could comment on this or provide feedback in some way.
Does the committee wish it to be integrated throughout the document? Is it a separate chapter? Those are just some thoughts for your consideration.
Thank you.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
Where the PBO report details what witnesses told us, it's very helpful. Where it veers into conjecture or guessing or anecdotal evidence, it becomes less helpful, because it's just that; it's anecdotal evidence, and that's not helpful when you're trying to build a real report, with real ideas, real facts and towards a real direction.
I can't tell you how astounded I am at some of the language that was used to describe some of the conclusions, like anecdotally we talked to some housing providers who stopped work during COVID. I won't even get into that.
Having it stand as a monumental environmental scan of the situation facing urban, rural and northern indigenous housing—I just don't think it delivered that. What I do think it delivered, however, were some of the gaps, some of the areas where funding is allocated but not directed, and some of the areas where funding is extended but no guarantees are being made that it's being met. I think we heard that from the witnesses in much more profound ways as it relates region to region.
Therefore, I would use it as a document to detail factually, where it's factual, the observations and analysis provided to us by the people with lived experience, most of whom are indigenous, who said we have a shortage of housing subsidies and we can now know exactly what that shortage looks like. However, when it gets into 25% versus 30% and it's just a guess that this is where it's at, I'm not sure how good a report could be if you base it on guesses.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
I would love to have the PBO report back about whether they believe their testimony is in fact anecdotal and provide commentary that we can perhaps include within our report, because I wouldn't be as dismissive as Mr. Vaughan. Maybe one area where we do come at it in common is that what we've heard from officials and what we've heard from the indigenous testimony is that the federal government falls very short on where we need to be as it relates to housing.
A big part of that is in fact the gaps in data collection and how money is being spent. I think that has become very clear, both within the PBO report and within the testimony we heard. I think it would be best if we referred...and we can get into that debate and leave that judgment to the analysts as well, about where it's relevant in the course of what the testimony said and how the PBO report complements that.
Secondly, I think it should be included perhaps as an appendix to the report, or at least referenced extensively, so that people know that this was a big chunk of how we are trying to understand where money is going, how it's being spent and who it's serving.
February 16th, 2021 / 6:35 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I can't speak for Mr. Vaughan, but certainly my impression of the PBO report was that it was written by accountants and financial analysts. When you have those folks—no offence to them—writing a report, they often use financial modelling, and in financial modelling you have to make a whole bunch of assumptions.
I think I agree with my colleague, Mr. Vaughan, that some of those assumptions may turn out to be false. I think we should take our direction from people with lived experience—the witnesses we heard from—because one thing that the PBO's report does not do is assess the level of effectiveness of any one of the interventions. They haven't broken it down in a way that I think is digestible and makes sense given the testimony we've heard, and I think we have to take their conclusions with a large degree of caution.
Furthermore, I think we should be asking them to clearly identify any of the assumptions they've made in their report so that we can take those and basically include a caveat in any of our final reports that says these are financial models that are based on assumptions.
Mr. Vis, I can see you shaking your head, but I actually know what I'm talking about here. I think there are assumptions that are part and parcel of doing any kind of modelling and projections like this. I think we just have to be careful about how we use those.
Thanks.