Status of Women Committee on Nov. 1st, 2011

[Prof. Hugh Armstrong]

I'm delighted to tell you that it's the people of Canada, through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. We got in just under the wire before SSHRC decided that they weren't going to consider any projects that had to do with health.

I think this was a disastrous decision on their part. They basically said that they don't get enough money, and since CIHR--the Canadian Institutes for Health Research--gets a lot more, why don't they do everything to do with health?

The trouble is that CIHR came from the Medical Research Council--

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

In the interest of time, can you just tell me how much the study is being funded for?

[Prof. Hugh Armstrong]

It's $2.5 million over seven years. There are 25 co-investigators.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

It sounds quite comprehensive, would you say?

[Prof. Hugh Armstrong]

We're trying, yes. Several countries--

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

You sound fairly happy with this.

This government has funded a whole series of studies, because we also heard from Dr. Lynn McDonald, the scientific director of the National Initiative for the Care of the Elderly. She has said that HRSDC has put in a pile of money and we have conducted numerous studies on this. We certainly heard this from the witnesses.

Would you say that today, as compared to five years ago, more money has been put into research on this specific subject than before?

[Prof. Hugh Armstrong]

No, I wouldn't. I think it's a different kind of research, more located in the medical profession and in related health professions. It's very difficult for social science and humanities researchers to get money these days.

That's what I was speaking to when talking about SSHRC having gotten out of the field. I very much hope they get back in.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

All right, so you're not aware of the fact that there has been more money put into this, then?

[Prof. Hugh Armstrong]

I know there's more money every year, and even in real terms, after inflation, there is more money, no question. It's more a matter--

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

So there is more money, then. That's not what you just said. You said the opposite.

I just need some clarity for the purposes of knowing.

[Prof. Hugh Armstrong]

I come from the social sciences. My closest collaborators in our current project and elsewhere are in the social sciences and humanities. We are finding it more difficult. There is more money going into medical research.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you so much, Dr. Armstrong. I'm a sociologist. I come from the social sciences as well. So I do know that there has been more money. Can you confirm for this committee that there has been more money put into the study of this area?

[Prof. Hugh Armstrong]

No, I cannot.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Okay.

Judith Wahl, I have a question for you as well.

Sorry, I'm rushing through and I apologize. We have very little time.

You, Ms. Wahl, have said that using money that is going out but not being used very effectively.... Actually, I would really support that statement. I think that's very true. As you know, this government under the Public Health Agency has something called the family violence initiative. The Public Health Agency of Canada coordinates 15 partner departments, agencies, and crown corporations who are looking into senior abuse and all of this.

I would imagine that within 15 partner departments, agencies, and crown corporations, we probably spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, in hundreds of programs and services, because I am a sociologist, and I'm familiar with some of these, having walked through the service end with my mother. She does receive services and programs, etc., that are ultimately funded by the people of Canada, as you so rightly say, Professor Armstrong.

Therefore, my question to you is that rather than just throwing more money at this at this point in time, would it be useful, in these kinds of studies that Dr. Armstrong is conducting, for us to be looking at efficiencies? How can we be more efficient with the money that's currently there? Then we can build on that. I know, having gone through my mother's situation, that there are numerous inefficiencies in the system we currently have that are not being addressed.

[Judith A. Wahl]

I'm not going to be able to give you a good response, because I'm a lawyer, I'm a practitioner, I'm on the ground, and I see a lot of people struggling with the systems they're working in. I can't say necessarily that it's inefficiencies. People are doing a lot more with less nowadays.

I work in a service funded by the provincial government, and we're told to find efficiencies. Everybody is doing that. I think people are on a pretty thin edge of the wedge everywhere.

I'll use police as an example. I'm seeing the police doing a lot with very little, but they still need the time to do the work properly, and there may be need for more resources there. I don't know if it's going to produce the efficiency. I'd be afraid that simply focusing on efficiencies without really looking at things more comprehensively way would divert people from what I'd call the meat of the issue. We get diverted to looking at how we can cut rather than at how we can do a good job.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Given our current fiscal realities, do you think it's wise for us to just throw more money at things without looking at whether we are doing the best we can given that so many of our systems and processes and services were developed some 40 or 50 years ago--since the fifties and the sixties and the seventies?

[The Chair, NDP, Niki Ashton]

You have ten seconds, Ms. Wahl.

[Judith A. Wahl]

I really can't give you a good answer one way or the other. I just don't know enough about the funding.

[The Chair, NDP, Niki Ashton]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll turn it to Ms. Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much.

My apologies for being a few minutes late.

Dr. Armstrong, I missed your presentation.

I assume we will get these presentations in written form, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, NDP, Niki Ashton]

Yes, we have a copy ready.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Certainly I have followed the work that SSHRC has done and the investments they have made into so many different areas, and their pressure to continue to fund things is difficult.

You said your study was for two and a half years--

[Prof. Hugh Armstrong]

It's seven years.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Oh, I'm disappointed if it's seven years; it will be a long time before we hear what your results are and hopefully come up with something significant.

As a more pressing issue, from what you have seen in the period of time that you've already been doing this study, is there any one thing in particular that stands out?

[Prof. Hugh Armstrong]

The first thing I'll say is that we're not waiting for seven years to issue a report. We're talking with people as we go along.

One of my colleagues and I were at the Council on Aging of Ottawa last week. There were 35 or 40 people, all of whom work in this area, and we were exchanging views and ideas with them. We will continue to do that. We have a website and all the sort of standard stuff. So we're not waiting for seven years.

That said, towards the beginning of the project we were trying to map what exists in these various jurisdictions. You may not have heard, but we were talking about California, Texas, five Canadian provinces, Scotland, England, Germany, Norway, and Sweden. There are a lot of interesting things to do in terms of making sense of the comparisons among these jurisdictions.

One thing that seems to have come out--and this would speak to the efficiency argument--is that for-profit seems to be less efficient in that for the same dollars you get fewer good results. This is difficult to measure, and we sometimes measure it in a surrogate fashion by looking at staffing levels, but that's not the only way we can measure it. I'll refer you to Margaret McGregor's piece for the IRPP released last January.