Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 16 - Evidence - Meeting of February 19, 2007 - Morning
CORNER BROOK, NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR, Monday, February 19, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 9:12 a.m. to examine and report on rural poverty in Canada.
Senator Joyce Fairbairn (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Good morning. I believe I speak for all of us in saying that it is both a pleasure and an honour to begin our hearings on rural concerns, rural poverty that will take us all across Canada and up into the Territories. We wanted to start in our newest province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and here we are. I believe it is fair to say that Newfoundland and Labrador are by far the most rural of Canada's provinces. Those of us who come from the West believe we are, but really this province is, with more than 53 per cent of its population residing in rural areas compared with only 21 per cent nationally.
The province of Newfoundland and Labrador is also a fitting place to begin because it is one of only two provinces — the other being Quebec — that have adopted a province-wide poverty reduction strategy, in which we are particularly interested. In Newfoundland, this strategy clearly has a very important rural component.
Our first witness this morning is here to tell us about that strategy and about the plight of the rural poor in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Jennifer Jeans is the senior departmental official responsible for the poverty reduction strategy. We are very keen to hear all about that.
Jennifer Jeans, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador: Welcome, senators, to Newfoundland and Labrador. I am happy that you have come to our province to share information with people who also have an interest in the important issues that you will be discussing.
I am here this morning to tell you a little about Newfoundland's poverty reduction strategy. I know our minister, the Honourable Shawn Skinner — a new minister for our department appointed about a month ago — wanted to be here. He tried to juggle some conflicts, but was not able to come. Therefore, I am here in his place. He is the lead minister responsible for the poverty reduction strategy.
I will give you a short presentation as an overview of the strategy, which will allow time for questions and discussion.
The slide talks about government's commitment. In the Progressive Conservative election platform they committed to transform Newfoundland and Labrador, over a 10-year period, from a province with the most poverty to one with the least comparing after-tax income and the cost of living. That was reflected again in the Speech from the Throne in 2005 where government committed to develop a comprehensive, government-wide poverty reduction strategy. This would be done in collaboration with the community.
How do we define poverty? We look at poverty in its broadest sense, really in terms of social exclusion, and we talk not only about people not having enough money, but also being able to fully participate in their community. We talk about the level of education someone has attained. The lack of education can be both a cause and consequence of poverty.
Do they have adequate housing? Do they have access to the essentials of life? A telephone, for example, would allow them to participate in their community. Also, what is a person's health? Do they have any special dietary needs? Can they afford nutritious food and their medications?
The next slide talks about who lives in poverty in Newfoundland and Labrador. For our purposes we do look at the focus on low income. There are about 62,000 individuals living in 33,000 families; 17,000 children; 12,000 older adults, particularly between ages 55 and 64 — and when we were doing our research that did come out. While seniors have one of the lowest rates of poverty, this group in particular was one of the higher rates of poverty. We really do not know why, but that is one of the areas that we have identified for some further research. As well, 18,000 single adults and 5,000 single-parent families live in poverty in the province.
We know that, statistically speaking, about 27 per cent of the province's population experienced poverty at some time between 1999 and 2004. Twenty-seven percent of the population is more than 130,000 individuals.
When we look at poverty we look at not only whether or not they fall below a certain income level, but also at the depth of poverty — how far below that level they fall — and as well, the duration of that poverty. Of those people who fall below, that 27 per cent, we know that more than 20 per cent of poor families have a poverty gap of over $6000. Just over 16 per cent of people, who were poor, were poor for six years between 1996 and 2001. That is when we released our background report in 2005, working with the most recent data that was available.
The next slide mentions poverty in the province, a rural and urban phenomenon. I noticed in the interim report, which you released in the fall — and I did look through that and talked about the increasing urban levels of poverty — the whole issue of poverty becoming an increasing urban phenomenon for the rest of Canada. That is not the case in this province. We have the highest percentage of individuals in the country who live in rural areas, and they live below the low-income cut-off, LICO. Newfoundland, in both rural and urban areas, has the lowest per capita income.
When we develop initiatives for the poverty reduction strategy, we apply a rural lens, and while we do not have a formal lens at the moment, we are working on one within the government that would be applied to all major program and policy decisions. In everything we do, because of the rural nature of the province, we have to look at how it impacts in rural areas, and if it will have the same rural reach that we would want our initiatives to have.
The vision for government in our poverty reduction strategy is a province where poverty has been eliminated. This will be a prosperous, diverse province where all individuals are valued, can develop to their full potential and have access to the supports they need to participate fully in the social and economic benefits of the province.
Our vision was very much influenced by what we heard in the consultations that we held around the province before the development of the poverty reduction strategy.
With respect to the government's approach, the action plan was developed through a review of existing research, best practices and current government programs and services. We had extensive consultation in rural and urban areas of the province and established working groups at different levels of government.
I will give you an idea of the consultations we had prior to the development of the strategy. In June 2005, we released a background report, which is available on our website, called Reducing Poverty: An Action Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador. It looks at the profile of poverty in the province and also summarizes some of the research in different parts of the country and internationally.
We had 12 workshop sessions with community groups, 10 sessions with organizations that focused on poverty or had particular expertise — this included some business and labour groups — and six focus-group sessions with individuals living in poverty. We partnered with some of our community partners such as women's centres and groups serving youth at risk, who have a rapport with these individuals. We attended those groups and heard stories of people who were living in poverty.
We had a toll-free line and had over 450 calls from people; 50 per cent of those were living on income support. We had an email line and we had 100 emails and 60 written submissions from individuals and organizations.
These provided feedback from a wide range of people: individuals working for low wages, individuals living on income support, and those advocating on behalf of or providing services to people living in poverty. The goals for the strategy, which I will go through, as well as the initiatives in the 2006-07 budget, were developed with consideration to issues identified in the consultations and the best practices through research and evaluation.
Thus, this was the approach that we used to develop initiatives for the first year of the strategy and will be carried out in future years.
In developing the initiatives for the budget, the strategy and as part of our sort of broad principles that we use as we implement our work and develop future initiatives, there are a number of guiding principles.
A key principle is to focus on prevention. Early intervention is necessary to break the cycle of poverty. Therefore, we always ensure that we take that long-term preventative approach because we know that while an investment is required upfront, it can pay off dividends over the long term.
Building on partnerships recognizes the different roles that various sectors play and the solutions they have to contribute. Therefore, much of our work is based on partnerships that various government departments have with community agencies, with our municipal partners and our federal partners.
Taking an integrated and coordinated approach; believe it or not, that is the biggest challenge. An integrated approach means working across government departments that are structurally organized in vertical silos. It is a challenge to build those bridges across departments and then with community. We have made efforts to try to show, in the strategy, how we take an integrated approach. That could be through a ministerial committee, an interdepartmental working group, commitment to analyze policies across departments and looking at the combined impacts. Another guiding principle is to address rural and urban differences and challenges, developing initiatives that work best in different geographic areas. We need to develop different kinds of responses.
We have five goals developed in the strategy, and each one of these has a series of objectives and actions. The goals are long term. They are for four years. The objectives and actions will be applied over the next two years. The goals are measurable. Again, as I mentioned, they reflect the results of the consultation on what we need to do to address poverty, both to prevent poverty and to alleviate some of the negative effects.
These five goals are: Improved access and coordination of services for those with low incomes; a stronger social safety net — that is improving the present safety net programs; improved earned incomes — because certainly for many people the route out of poverty is a good, well-paying job, as well as support programs for those who are unable to work; increased emphasis on early childhood development; and a better-educated population. We heard those loud and clear, and it is supported by the research in terms of the steps that need to be taken to reduce poverty over the long term.
What are the key directions? We identified three broad directions that will drive the long-term work and reflect what we want to achieve. One is to prevent poverty over the long term. Early intervention is essential to break the cycle and prevent people from living a life of poverty. Therefore, a long-term approach is necessary, as well as ensuring supports are available at key junctures in people's lives.
We want to reduce poverty and increase the proportion of the population with incomes above the poverty level. This will require supports to people in making transitions in their lives.
We want to alleviate poverty: decrease the depth of poverty and improve the quality of life for those who are poor. This will require building on the strengths of the social safety net and promoting inclusion by the removal of barriers, such as low levels of literacy, and creating systems that are more sensitive to the needs of those in poverty.
We had an opportunity, in 2006, to make significant investment in reducing poverty. The strategy itself is a framework that will help guide our decisions over the next number of years. We were able to make this significant investment, and a number of initiatives were released in the 2006 budget. As I mentioned previously, these were informed by the results of the consultations.
The main focus of those were to support low-wage workers and their families; support the development of employment skills; support income-support clients, who want to go to work, by removing barriers and providing other supports; support the kindergarten to Grade 12 school system to be more responsive; strengthen the social safety net; support early learning; and improve access to post-secondary education. One of the key initiatives — and they are listed in the strategy document at the back in the white pages — was expanded eligibility for our prescription drug program. Previous to the end of January this year, the only people who had access to a prescription drug program were those individuals on income support and seniors. People who had very high drug costs could apply, but they would have to meet a means test that income-support clients would have met.
As of January 31 this year, this program was extended to all low-income individuals; it was available to people with incomes under $30,000 on a sliding scale. People who had incomes under $23,000 got full access with a 20 per cent co- pay, and then the sliding scale applied up to an income of $30,000.
For us, that was a major policy step and was received very positively. It reduced some of the barriers for income- support clients and provided much needed supports to people working for low wages. As we learn, we will see how that applies and whether or not it can be improved over time.
We eliminated school fees. In our province, a lot of schools charged a fee at the beginning of the year to cover the cost of everything from agendas to consumables. Many children had to pay a fee to cover supplies if they wanted to take art in school. This could be anywhere from $75 to $100 per child per family payable in September. This had a significant impact on low-income families. Therefore, the grant per student to schools was increased this past year with a requirement that all school fees be eliminated.
Income support rates were increased by 5 per cent, and starting this year we indexed income support rates and improved access to adult basic education programs.
The last slide talks about our commitment to measure success. The key directions are long term, but the goals have measurable outcomes. We know that it may take some time before we are able to show direct impact on LICO and so on, but we are identifying measures that will show progress along the way. They could include such measures as increased graduation rates, reduced numbers on income support, reduced young people entering income support, and the participation rate in post-secondary education.
We have committed to publish a report every two years — the first one will be in the spring of 2008 — and to continue to engage communities throughout the process. Formally, next year we will have a series of round tables to sort of check in, but, in the meantime, we do have ongoing discussion with communities through our usual processes: the budget consultation process, structures that government talks to on a regular basis such as the provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, a youth advisory committee and so on.
There are many other issues I could mention, but I will conclude there.
The Chairman: I must say this is an uplifting report that you have given us. In our hearings in Ottawa over the last several months, some of the issues that you have touched upon are very important, and I would say you are on the leading edge of a number of them.
Senator Gustafson: I certainly feel the same as our chair. This is a very uplifting report to see that the government commitment here is very positive.
My first question is about the average income and the amount of monies that is available for the really low end of people who are suffering the rural poverty. Could you go over that again and give us a bird's eye view of the bottom end? You had some numbers there; I did not catch them all.
Ms. Jeans: I have to admit I am not the statistics person, but there is some information in the report. I can just go over the numbers that I gave you. We did talk about this; about 27 per cent of the population have lived in poverty at some point. We have the highest number of people living in rural areas who have incomes below LICO, and we are about in the middle for the rural population. As you know, LICO can be different depending on the size of the community. For example, in a very rural area, such as Baie Verte, LICO can be about $14,000 whereas the same in St. John's would be about $20,000. It varies for different families.
Senator Gustafson: How much of the poverty is because of certain industries? For instance, the pulp and paper industry has been having problems; the fisheries have been having problems. Are there pockets where it is much more severe than others?
Ms. Jeans: Many of the rural areas of the province definitely depend on the fisheries. Therefore, the downturn in the fishery in the 1990s and so on has had a major impact on the economics of the rural areas.
I brought a few maps, not 20 copies, but I do have enough for the senators here. We have a rural secretariat; we all work together and try to integrate our work. They have looked at rural communities and based on the number of indicators, have mapped out those that are at risk and those that are doing well. I can certainly provide that.
I cannot give you direct numbers right now, but certainly the rural areas that rely on fishery have been significantly impacted. We hear stories all the time about people having to move away and find work. That is not a big change from what we have experienced in our history, but the numbers now of young people who are leaving is a major concern for many communities. We have had a significant population decline in many rural areas.
The focus for the rural secretariat is to engage people in rural areas in some long-term considerations of where they want to be in the next 10 years and to work together to come up with a strategy or an approach to sustainability for their area.
Senator Gustafson: What is the minimum wage?
Ms. Jeans: Seven dollars an hour.
The Chairman: For your interest, I should identify where our senators come from. I am from Alberta. Senators Gustafson and Peterson are from Saskatchewan. Senator Mahovlich is from Northern Ontario. Senator Callbeck, of course, is from Prince Edward Island, and Senator Mercer, who was here, is from Nova Scotia.
Senator Peterson: Thank you for the presentation this morning. It is certainly a very ambitious and laudable undertaking on your part, and you seem to be hitting it head-on.
This document was tabled in June of last year, right?
Ms. Jeans: Yes.
Senator Peterson: You indicate in there that research and policy development work with the stakeholders and beyond is ongoing. How is that progressing? Will that be an ongoing process or will you try to define the parameter and set the template early in your studies?
Ms. Jeans: In the document, we have identified a number of areas that need to be researched, such as that 55 to 64 year-old population to try to understand why there is a pocket of poverty right there. We talk about looking at the impact of programs across government and improving the tools with which we have to work. We have started to do some of that work. We have a number of programs in government that are needs based. One of the commitments is to research the eligibility criteria and to try to bring them into line — work has started on that already.
The work to establish the indicators has started, and we will be coming out with those this year in terms of identifying the benchmarks.
Does that answer your question?
Senator Peterson: It is a good start. Thank you.
The report indicates that poor education can be one of the causes of poverty in effect. Having a low literacy level today is almost a guarantee of poverty. With the recent cutbacks in funding for literacy studies, what impact is that having on you here? Obviously, it is a very important segment.
Ms. Jeans: It is important, and those cuts were announced late last year. Our provincial department of education has looked at the impact of that because, obviously, they supported many of the literacy programs. Therefore, they are in the process of determining how that plays out and what it is that we will do to respond, to fill that gap. I believe the minister has written her federal colleague expressing some concerns around that. Certainly, literacy is key, not only in terms of leading into further post-secondary education, but also in general participation in day-to-day life and citizenship, such as being able to read prescriptions and understand the directions on drugs.
There will be an impact. Our department of education will determine what to do to fill that gap.
Senator Peterson: Being that important, I would imagine one would want to almost send them a copy of this report highlighting that paragraph.
Ms. Jeans: We have shared it with all eight of the ministers who sit on the ministerial committee. While our minister is the lead, each takes considerable ownership. They have been one of the strengths and key ingredients to the success of the strategy. The integrated approach that it takes has been the engagement of provincial ministers that include the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, which is our connection with the economics side and the other social departments. I understand they have sent copies of the report to their federal counterparts.
Senator Peterson: With regard to measuring success, which you will get it in quantifiable terms, because I feel that is going to be very important. How is that progressing? Do you feel confident that you will be able to get results that you will be able to measure and identify?
Ms. Jeans: Yes, we will. Because the commitment has been tied to low income, we will be looking at LICO and the Market Basket Measure, MBM. Our Newfoundland and Labrador Statistics Agency is actually in the process of developing a Newfoundland MBM, which will allow us to look at measures on a community or regional basis. It is important to identify some short-term measures to measure progress along the way, such as literacy rates, educational levels, et cetera. We will be held accountable for our commitment to measure.
Senator Peterson: I wish you all the success. This could be a template for other provinces trying to deal with this same problem.
The Chairman: Further to that, we have been having a rather vigorous set of hearings in our Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology on the literacy issue. On one occasion, we had a quite remarkable presentation by learners from various parts of Canada. One of the most outstanding was a young man from St. John's, Newfoundland having begun with no literacy skills, is now a very good student at Memorial University. Therefore, it does work, it does happen, but we need much more of it. We too are very concerned about this issue.
Senator Mercer: I echo Senator Peterson's comment. This is a template for other provinces to follow, and I certainly hope the people in the province of Nova Scotia are paying attention.
I am quite impressed by the amount in the 2006-07 budget. You say that $30 million has been committed and more than $60 million annually thereafter. That is a lot of money for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador — for any province.
What is driving that from the financial side? Is it because of your success in Hibernia and the potential of Voisey's Bay? What is behind it? As a Nova Scotian, who is also a signatory to the Atlantic Accord, I am nervous about rumblings that perhaps the current government may not honour the accord, which affects both Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia very much.
Is that what is driving it, the money from the accord and from Hibernia?
Ms. Jeans: The Minister of Finance can speak specifically to that. However, we were really pleased that the government could make such significant investments because that is not always possible. Therefore, I believe, when the decisions were made during the budget process by the premier and the cabinet, that this was identified as a priority area for funds that were available for investment in the province. In terms of the source of funds, it is increased revenues from the oil industry that has had an impact and provided additional funds.
Senator Mercer: If you were not getting the revenue from the oil industry and the Atlantic Accord had not been signed we probably would not be having this conversation. We might have the conversation, but we might not have the money to back up what you are trying to do.
Ms. Jeans: I imagine it is a determination of priorities too in terms of scarce resources and where investment is best placed. That is the only comment I can make on the decisions of government.
Senator Mercer: My major question from your presentation is: What are the measurables? I really like what you are talking about, and it seems to be extremely well planned. I have some difficulty in determining how you will measure this in real terms. When is the first measurement plateau to gauge your expected progress?
Ms. Jeans: It is a 10-year commitment, and because poverty is so complex, it is a long-term approach. However, people will not wait 10 years to find out whether we were successful. There will be a number of measures and indicators for each of the goals. The broad measures will be LICO, the number of people falling below that; also other measures such as the proxy measures for the number of people in post-secondary education, on income support and so on. We will be publishing our first progress report in 2008. We have just had that first year of investment.
Senator Mercer: Is that the end of 2008 or the end of fiscal 2008?
Ms. Jeans: Some time in 2008. It may be June 2008. I say June, but that is off the top of my head.
Senator Mercer: Okay. I will not hold you to it.
Ms. Jeans: We will report then. Before that, obviously, we will have identified the indicators, on which we will report at that time as well as what we have done and the investments that we have made. We are in the process now of looking at what investments we propose for the 2007 budget period. To make the kind of significant progress to which we have committed will require a significant investment over a period of time; not only to prevent poverty in the long term, but also to raise people's income levels.
Senator Mercer: We look forward to the first report with great anticipation; recognizing the first report may not be the best one, but it will at least give an indication of whether it is working.
Last week we had presentation from the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, AIMS. The message they gave to us or the message they were trying to convey to government was, and I quote, "People in government, at all levels, need to get out of the way. . . ." That was their message to us about how we reduce poverty in Canada, rural Canada and urban Canada. How does that sit with the attitude of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador?
Ms. Jeans: We can only look at the root causes of poverty and what needs to be done to address those. Some of those are areas in which government has to act, for example, the provision of education, health and so on. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has a number of strategic approaches to improve economic development and improve the climate for economic development. Each of us tries to complement what each strategy is doing as opposed to operating independently. The key approach has been that we all work within our areas of responsibility. Government has a strategic partnership with business and labour, discussing the key challenges in the province and what needs to be done to address those. Therefore, they are working together to understand the issues from the different perspectives, particularly the development of the labour market to respond to the needs of the future.
I believe government has a role to act and is responsible for the provision of key services. This is an area that we map out or that government has said are the types of approaches from a strategic perspective that we are taking over the long term.
Senator Callbeck: I certainly agree with the positive comments that others senators have had about your strategy. It is an ambitious one — 10 years to change your province from the one with the most poverty to the one with the least. I commend you. It is wonderful that you will measure the progress as best you can and report every two years. We look forward to that first report.
In your document there are different sections; one is working with the federal government. I wanted to ask you about some of these measures. You say, "Create a new Labour Market Development Agreement that is more responsive to the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador." Can you give me some examples of what you want in that new agreement that is not there now?
Ms. Jeans: The forum of labour market ministers has been talking about the Labour Market Development Agreement, and, as you know, there are a number of provinces that have some different arrangements. Some have devolved Labour Market Development Agreements; others have co-managed. Ours is a province that has a co- managed agreement. The funds under that agreement invest in skills development and support labour market development. They support people who have eligibility for employment insurance or have had eligibility. These are people whose EI may have run out, yet they retain eligibility for a number of years. They are called reach-back status.
A key element for our province has been greater flexibility in terms of responding to other groups, such as people who are underemployed — already employed in the work force, but need to increase their skills — people who are on income support and those who are just not in the labour market. I can only speak generally to that because there is another group that is involved in the federal/provincial/territorial fora. The key to working with the federal government is working in the different fora in which we participate to try to advance areas as identified here that can improve either access to services or address some of the needs.
The Labour Market Development Agreement brings just over $130 million to the province each year and invests a fair bit of that in skills development and, as I said, other programs to develop the labour market. However, there are people out there who are not eligible for these funds. From a provincial perspective, we certainly do not have the same amount of funding to invest as through that agreement. Therefore, it is broadening our ability to be able to address some of the key areas for those who have not been traditionally eligible for these funds.
Senator Callbeck: Basically, you want the eligibility expanded.
Ms. Jeans: More flexibility both in eligibility and the types of things that you can do with that that would result in a more responsive labour market.
Senator Callbeck: Another area is to "Improve programs and services for persons with disabilities." Is that something with which you are familiar?
Ms. Jeans: Yes, I am familiar with that one. We, like all provinces, have programs for persons with disabilities. Primarily, our department is focused on supports for persons with disability who want to go to work. We are a partner with the federal government in the Labour Market Development Agreement for persons with disabilities. That agreement expires at the end of March this year, but it has been recently extended to next year.
The federal/provincial/territories forum had been looking at benefits to persons with disabilities in terms of employment supports, but also broader supports to help them participate in society, as well as some way to improve income. The officials had done a fair bit of research to look at improving income because there are more persons with disabilities who are poor than the general population. They are also less likely to participate in work. Therefore we work with the federal government to improve the supports to go to work, as well as to improve income stability. In terms of the approach and the direction, that has not yet been determined with the current federal government.
Senator Callbeck: I want to ask you about micro-credit because that has come up a bit. I was involved with the Prime Minister's Task Force when we went across Canada in the year 2003. We heard this frequently, especially from rural women, that micro-credit would be so important to them; that they could get o loan of $500 and set up their own little business. Half of our women entrepreneurs in Canada today come from the rural areas. Statistics show that women are really good at small business. Has micro-credit been thought of in this whole plan?
Ms. Jeans: It is not an element of this plan. It might be an area where this would intersect with some of the economic development approaches because, of course, to reduce poverty we want people to have a paying job. In terms of whether that has been an issue that has been explored and what is currently done, I am not sure. I know for income- support clients there is a program to support those who want to become self-employed, and there is a micro-credit program available to them. However, I can certainly investigate whether or not there are programs available and whether that has been explored, particularly as it would relate to women, and get back to the clerk of the committee.
We do have an organization for women entrepreneurs called the Newfoundland and Labrador Organization of Women Entrepreneurs. I have a vague recollection that they may have some type of small micro-credit program, but I cannot speak for sure on that.
Senator Callbeck: I am surprised that there is not more involving economic development worked into this plan.
Ms. Jeans: I believe that that is the direction we deliberately did not go in because this plan was not to be all things for all people, but rather to intersect with the government's economic development strategy. There is a skills task force; we had a White Paper on Post-Secondary Education; and there is a rural economic diversification strategy. This plan, therefore, was to intersect, support and complement the strategies that are either in place or being developed.
You are right, and what we heard from people all across the province was the importance of economic development and jobs, decent paying jobs in or nearby their communities as being key for poverty reduction.
Senator Mahovlich: I am from Northern Ontario. I thought it was four years ago — but it might have been 15 or 16 years ago — I was whitewater rafting in a little village called Ogoki, in Northern Ontario, about 400 miles north of Timmins. I got stuck and I had to stay there for a few days. It was a Native village, and the people who were working on the sewers and the plumbing were from Newfoundland. I had a wonderful time for three days with these chaps. I was wondering if this still exists, do people exit Newfoundland during high working times in other provinces. Is there an exodus of workers?
Ms. Jeans: Yes, senator, there has been historically. We have had people leaving to work in other areas. In history, we had fishers who went up to the coast of Labrador for the fishing season and came back. It is an area of concern that there have been an increasing number of people leaving the province, particularly with the impact of the downturn in the fishery in the 1990s and the draw from the West in terms of high paying jobs. Many people moved to find work. There are different arrangements: some commute back and forth, particularly to the West, and some have moved families up to Fort McMurray and other areas. In the 1950s and 1960s people went to central Ontario as well. There has been a significant increase in the number of people moving, particularly from rural areas, for work purposes.
Senator Mahovlich: Therefore, there has not been any immigration to this province in the last few years. How is immigration? I know people seem to be moving into cities. They have that problem over in Europe also. Is everyone going down to St. John's, Newfoundland, or is all the immigration attracted to the cities? Isn't anyone moving to rural areas anymore?
Ms. Jeans: There is an intraprovincial movement to the regional hubs around the province.
Senator Mahovlich: Yes, to Grand Falls.
Ms. Jeans: Yes, Grand Falls, Gander, Corner Brook and so on. There is a move within. We do have people coming into the province to work, particularly in the oil industry. In actual fact, the government is in the process of developing an immigration strategy to improve immigration from outside the country to address some of the labour market areas. We have had immigration for a number of years of doctors and people in the medical field, but we are looking at a more strategic approach now to attract people to work and live in the province.
Senator Gustafson: I have a question on transportation, and I am not talking about transportation of people getting from one job to another in the province. I am talking about transportation in the broader sense. You are on open waters here. Coming from Saskatchewan, one of our biggest problems is we are landlocked. If we had to get something to a port in Vancouver or out to the Great Lakes, we are looking at a couple of thousand miles in some cases, 1,500 miles in others. It seems to me that the open waters here should be a tremendous benefit. Or does Halifax get all the benefit of that as opposed to the ports here?
Ms. Jeans: Transportation is a challenge.
Senator Gustafson: I am talking about transportation; for instance, in shipping out potatoes, having open waters is a tremendous benefit. At least that is the way we see it in Saskatchewan because we are landlocked on so many areas where we have to transport our commodities out. It cost so much money for transportation that there is nothing left. How does that work here or are you run over by the harbours at Halifax? Do you have deep sea ports here?
Ms. Jeans: Yes, transportation is always an issue where a population is spread out, both in terms of movement of people and goods. There is an increased cost of bringing goods into the province via any of the major ports; mostly coming through either by truck where they have to cross the gulf through Port aux Basques, or through container ships into St. John's. All of that does add cost to goods.
Thus, you are landlocked in terms of land, and you have to truck it in. We are sealocked too, oceanlocked.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, and we much appreciate you coming. Give our best to the minister.
Ms. Jeans: I will. Thank you very much for inviting us to come and share what we are doing with our strategy.
The Chairman: Colleagues, we now have a miracle presentation here today. We have been having some difficulty. One of witnesses is not well and another is not able to come. However, we have got two very fine people together as our new panel. We have Colleen Kennedy, Executive Director of the Gros Morne Co-operating Association. She also is representing the Rural Secretariat of Corner Brook-Rocky Harbour. Also with us is Doris Hancock from the Western School Board Partnering Committee, and Sean St. George, Executive Director of the RED Ochre Regional Board Inc. They will all get together and be our newly-formed panel.
Colleen Kennedy, Executive Director, Gros Morne Cooperating Association: Good morning. My paying job is as Executive Director with the Gros Morne Co-operating Association, and we are a "friends of the park" group. My volunteer job is chair of the Rural Secretariat and past chair of the RED Ochre Regional Board that Mr. St. George works for, so I have been involved in social and economic issues in Western Newfoundland and on a provincial rural secretariat board for about 12 to 15 years now.
I am the bad girl in the class; I do not have a formal presentation. I will be speaking as I know it and if you have any questions, feel free to ask.
I will start with economics. We have always felt we have been strong in resources in Newfoundland. However, we have not maximized profits by selling ourselves at the raw material state, and we have never got into secondary processing and trying to maximize what we could get from the resources that we use. We have been really weak in that, but we feel that we are moving in that direction. Much of our problem is we have not done long-term planning. We have reacted to situations rather than been proactive in planning. We are getting better at that, and it has been a really big change for our rural areas because it was not until fishery collapsed in the 1990s that it forced us to have to think farther ahead.
From a connectivity point of view: From the Rural Secretariat, we had to identify what would change us in 2020. We went through all the issues, and every time we talked out an issue, we came back to connectivity. We are the only province in Canada that does not have a direct link to the mainland, so we are forced to use the ferry and air services.
The Chairman: Really?
Ms. Kennedy: We need a direct link that gives us a better competitive edge in the marketplace. We feel this would increase our business opportunity, the longevity of our jobs, our profit margins and really take us into the future. If there is one thing that could change the face of who we are, especially for rural people, it would be the connectivity.
The other big challenge we face is the seasonality of jobs. Much of our industry is resource-based, such as fishery and forestry. It is very seasonal. We moved into the tourism business, also a seasonal occupation. Many jobs are low- paying jobs that force people into programs on EI in the winter, which is really not a way of continuous living.
In terms of our human resources, not too many people under the age of 30 live and raise kids in our communities in Western Newfoundland, and all across Newfoundland. This has impacted our health and our education. Our enrolment in schools has dropped to the point that now we are often doing only core programming. Our kids in rural Newfoundland do not have access to a lot of programs in the science field and it is basically the core programming that would be offered in about 80 per cent of our communities here.
Our health is our biggest challenge of all. We have an aging population. We have a decline in access to our human resources and our professional people, and we have an added expense of an aging population that puts more of a demand on the service. This has been a huge challenge for us in recognizing that we have fewer dollars to provide the service.
Then we move to regionalization, which becomes another burden on rural Newfoundlanders because they then have to drive for every appointment. They have to come to Corner Brook or St. John's for CAT scans, MRIs, dialysis, a whole list of services that perhaps other people take for granted. For example, the birth of a baby — a very big event — means that the mother has to travel three to four hours to have her baby.
There have been many issues that have impacted the big picture and for us; it is all connected. We have seen, in trying to work through a long-term plan, that programming and policy was set years ago and it has got to change to meet the changing needs of the people. That can only happen with the input of the people and the communities. We feel very strongly about that.
Ms. Jeans spoke earlier about the drug-card program. We have always talked about how to move people from low- paying jobs or off the system into the workforce. However, we always come back to the problem of if they work for $7 an hour, they lose all the drug benefits and all access to health care, so there is no incentive. We need a sliding-scale system where people can work and make a certain amount of money and still keep these benefits, which would encourage them to seek employment.
The question, I believe by Senator Mercer, was how can we afford to do that? We cannot afford not to because when we run the numbers over a 20-year period, putting people back into the workforce is less of a burden on our social programming for the long term. For the short term, yes, it does seem like it is a very big luxury, but for the long term, I believe it is our only option.
We have also created federal programs, such as job creation. We go out to our communities, and they look at it as some type of social hand-out. It is worth doing the job, but it is not insurable. Every employer in the province has to provide insurable earnings. With job creations — which are Service Canada Centres now — employers can hire somebody and make work in for 12, 14 or 16 weeks, and, at the end of the day, they do not qualify for a program. In rural Newfoundland, it is not a matter of going out and finding another job for the next 20 to 30 weeks or until the season opens up in the spring.
The biggest issue, I feel, is we have to engage communities and let them be a part of the solution. We cannot make policy that we believe is going to fit all; it does not fit all. Policy has to be flexible enough to meet regional needs. Regionalization is a good step, a positive step, but we also have to be sensitive to the local needs and how to provide the best service in local communities for the resources that we have.
That is my take on the situation; it is probably a bird's eye view.
Doris M. Hancock, Regional Partnership Planner, Corner Brook-Rocky Harbour Region Rural Secretariat: Thank you very much for the opportunity to share some of our work with you. I am the regional planner for the Rural Secretariat and Ms. Kennedy is one of my co-chairs. In 2004, the province was divided into nine regions with 10 planners and, really, the mandate was to look at long-term planning under social, economic, environmental and cultural aspects. This work right here that I am doing with many of our local partners really fits into the social category, and if you consider the national sustainability index, it comes under, I guess, human capital development.
We did not start with poverty. We started because there were concerns in some of our communities that children, upon entering school, were not in school enough to succeed and progress from grade to grade in a way that was beneficial to them. Therefore, that is where our concern started and the partnership continued from there.
The document I have prepared really speaks to your mandate under the examination of the dimension and depth of rural poverty, the key drivers of reduced opportunity for rural Canadians and the provision of recommendations for measures mitigating rural poverty and reduced opportunity.
Within the school board, our partnership was to bring government and community agencies together and provide a forum to come up with a solution. When we started, we used what the provincial government has developed around Community Accounts, and I do not know if you are familiar with that. It is an extensive web-based data system with social, economic and environmental indicators that is open for public access and can really be used for anything from business to social planning. All of our activity was informed along the way, and we used master's-level research students to guide our path.
Our first initiative was to look at the communities and schools here, and we identified one school in particular as having more issues related to needing more resources. The school was seeing people come in from smaller communities who were struggling with a whole myriad of social issues. There were a high number of referrals to child protection. Many of these had not actually been to a point where the Children's Aid Society could intervene, but there was certainly a lot of communication back and forth around what was happening with children and families in our communities.
From that, we identified that a school social work resource was needed to link children and improve academic achievement, families and communities. Now, you might say this is a common service throughout Canada in most schools, but we were one of two provinces that never had school social work services, and where we had social workers in the schools, they were there under a child protection mandate. It was not prevention. Our efforts were to really get in there with prevention and early identification of issues to build a strong resource and relationship for children early in their lives and that of their families' as well.
Our work implemented a position that was 100 per cent preventative. We did that with community mobilization funding from the Department of Justice Canada at the time. On the basis of that, we were able to evaluate the position and establish some base-line indicators.
You will see in the report the indicators we tracked were below the ones that the province was tracking. We tracked school attendance, lateness, absenteeism and behaviour, and from that, we found within this one school that the greatest group that had an issue with absenteeism was the kindergarten class. If you cannot get children to school, how will they learn to be productive citizens? We started to track our indicators in line with our intervention of the social work position. The information contained in the document given to you is not meant to be generalized to any community, but it will show how we understand what is happening with our children early in life and the importance of social supports.
We evaluated that position and found it to be very beneficial and went on, then, to try to understand more about what was happening in the school. We then accessed another level of Community Account, which was a neighbourhood account. It is not publicly available data, but the Newfoundland statistics identified 23 geographic neighbourhoods within the Corner Brook area. Therefore, we proceeded to do an analysis, or what we called at the time a "poverty profile," of the Corner Brook area. We found out that, while we often refer to poverty as being in this neighbourhood or that neighbourhood, it was really prevalent throughout the city and the area. There were five neighbourhoods that were identified for having high levels of low-income families. These five neighbourhoods all fit into the catchment area for the one school with which we were trying to work. No wonder the school was having difficulty. It had an enormous amount of pressure on it to respond to changing social circumstances and a generational issue that was enormous.
Now we have the poverty profile and the findings from that, which are outlined in the report, to inform our work. The importance of having preventative resources to deal with poverty at the local level becomes very important in the course of identifying best practices around the school social work position. We identified programs that Family Services Canada have, such as the Families and Schools Together Canada and the fast track program. These were expensive programs. We found the resource to implement them, but the continuation and sustainability of these programs is very much at risk. Provincially, there is only so much money in the education system to go around. The benefits of school social work positions have been recognized for many years, and there are documents to support that. However, that was never the way the province went, and we hope that, through this process, we can inform some decisions at the provincial level.
Our findings are very revealing. Some of the comments of the people we interviewed — the parents and key informants — were very much in keeping with your report, in the first level of your work, and the National Anti- Poverty Organization around the social exclusion that results from poverty. We are trying to come up with a local solution that would help us alleviate this. We know from other research that was done here — the study on intergenerational dependence on social assistance — that it is a generational problem. Many of the children we are see are in receipt of income support. It is going to take many years to solve this problem, and it is very likely that these children will go back to being income-support recipients unless we have other intervention measures.
Some of these reports I have included in the appendix of this report for your benefit. With respect to the initiatives that we are doing now, because the partners were so committed to this, they have taken regional monies to support the social work position in the school over the next three-year period. Therefore, it is very much horizontal collaboration at a regional level to actually intervene and impact what we are seeing in our community.
From the committee's perspective, we would very much like to see increased collaboration between the federal and provincial governments to address poverty — child poverty in particular — child care and changes in taxation. Where we have demonstrated preventative services in provinces that do not have the same level of services as most other provinces, we would like that to be addressed, so there is more of a levelling influence amongst the support services in the education system. If we are to have an impact for sustainable human capital development, it needs to happen now, especially in our rural communities, as we are in the crux of so much change; it is a critical period.
We need further research into the school-level indicators in tracking horizontal collaboration within our government and our regions. Also, we would really like to see — to follow up on Ms. Kennedy's comments — more regional and flexible solutions that come from rural people being involved and having more direct control over resources to deal with what they are seeing. The solutions that come out of urban communities and urban Canada do not always work for our communities. I believe if Ms. Park had been here, from some of the work she was doing, she would further support some of that and what we are seeing here.
I cannot go over everything that is here, but I will say many of the people on very low incomes that we spoke to knew they never had a lot of money or a lot of disposable income. However, they did not see themselves as living in poverty, and they felt, many of them, that they had very rich lives; money was not the only factor that contributed to their quality of life. It was a big determining factor, but they certainly did not feel they were living in poverty and wanted as much for their children as any parent would.
I have put together this information so you can review it, and if you need to get back to me, please do.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. This is the kind of information we need to hear as we start off on this journey.
Sean St. George, Executive Director, RED Ochre Regional Board Inc. (Regional Economic Development Board): Good morning, senators. The RED Ochre Regional Board is one of the 20 economic boards in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are funded federally and provincially to do community economic development throughout the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are very much part of the system of community development organizations in Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and New Brunswick. In other provinces, it would be the Community Futures Program, with which you are familiar.
At the RED Ochre Regional Board, we cover the area from Trout River, which is north of the City of Corner Brook. It includes the park area and up to the community of St. Barbe. This is approximately 400 kilometres. We cover 34 communities with an average population of 264. We estimate the total population — and Census Canada will confirm — to be less than 9,000 now, approximately 8,800, based on a drop of approximately 13,000 a number of years ago. We have seen a 26 per cent drop in our population.
As a board, we have focused on some key components of community economic development, human resource development, marketing business development, infrastructure, policy and environmental integrity or sustainability. Lately, we have become very much involved in research and development because the challenges that we face require much more depth than we anticipated over the years, and we are certainly working toward it.
The areas that we have been doing work in, in particular in our zone, are the three economic sectors: forestry, fishery and tourism. We have had some successes. Tourism, in 1992, brought in approximately $10 million and employed 380 people in the region. Today, it is a $35-million economy that employs more than 1,300 people. I would say we would have to give credit to the federal and provincial government, to Parks Canada and the many groups that came together to build on our assets after the cod moratorium was declared.
We live in an area of Canada that has been inhabited the longest by people; over 5,000 years of continuous human history. We are the site of the Viking settlement 1,000 years ago. We have a history of European settlers, French, Irish, Scottish and English. It makes for interesting stories; and we have pride. People really do love the communities. One effect that we do find when people leave is that it is really hard on them. Going to Fort McMurray for a job is one thing, but having to leave their family or their way of life is another.
We, as a board, have taken certain steps, which I will address under the six items. We have taken steps to deal with human resource development. Over the years, with support from Services Canada, we have done a great deal work of with literacy. We were the local proponent. That has ended, but 40 per cent of our people still cannot read and write, so we still struggle with what to do with that aspect of our communities.
We have marketing of business. I have to say federal and provincial programming have been good. We have seen a marked decrease in fisheries and forestry-related business, but we have used programs and services to develop a variety, to match the assets of the National Park and national historic sites in the region, the Aboriginal sites in Port au Choix, Bird Cove, the beauty of Gros Morne National Park.
Under infrastructure, we have been supported strongly by both levels of government with highway systems, new schools and two new hospitals in the last 10 years. Those basic kinds of infrastructure then lead into the whole issue of education and health.
We have seen positives: environmentally, under the integrated coastal shelf management with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Ms. Kennedy is working with waste management. We are starting to see that communities want to address that.
Under research and development, we are just starting. We have a new partnership with Memorial University to look at research in fisheries in the areas of social, biological and environmental with respect to how the world is changing around us and how we should work with that.
Basically, we put steps in place, but the end result has been a marked decrease in our population. Again, I am speaking about two economic zones when I say this, but in 1996 we had approximately 26,000 people on our northern peninsula. We have 12,000 — according to Statistics Canada — in our labour market, which would be 12,000 people 15 years of age and older, up to approximately 65 years of age. When I recently did the statistics again after the 2001 statistics, we had dropped 50 per cent. When we lost 6,000 people on our coast, they were 6,000 people that were working. Therefore, our labour market actually decreased by approximately 50 per cent.
What challenges has that presented for rural poverty? Our town councils are having trouble getting volunteers. The old way of looking at economics was, okay, we have our economics over here, we have our social over here and we have our environment way up here somewhere — depending on who you are. That does not work.
Senator Mercer, you mention the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies attitude was laissez-faire; get out of our way and the economy will thrive. It does not work. We have to have a community. If someone, today, said that they will move a factory into my economic area and that they will need 200 people, we would struggle with housing, schools for their children, hospitals, et cetera. Immediately, the doctors and nurses would see an increase of ordinary health issues. How would we deal with it? Therefore, it is business, but it is also social. No business person could put a business in our area without looking at the social side: housing, medical, schools, hydro. It all flows together.
Recently, using Services Canada research, we had the attitude that we have three separate areas, social, environment and economics, with some overlap. Now, we realize that in dealing with an issue such as rural poverty, the social is within the environment and within that is our economy.
That is what I mean when I say that it does not work unless we deal with the social. As Ms. Hancock has mentioned, we have to deal with our high illiteracy rate, and we have to deal with school children with disadvantages. In our area, Internet is dial-up, and we did not succeed yet with high speed. If you take a child into kindergarten today, and they do not have access to the Internet, how can they go on to post-secondary education? They will have major challenges.
Therefore, my job is to look at business development or economic opportunities. With respect to one of our key components, policy, we did an exhaustive review of the fisheries on the Great Northern Peninsula with support from both levels of government. I know you deal with agriculture and forestry, but on the question of rural poverty, our fishery still gives the same amount of value to the country and to the province. However, the value does no longer accrue to our area. By that, I mean we have gone from over 1,100 people, as our harvesters, down to approximately 600 people. We have gone from over 1,000 people in the fish plants to probably 500 people. Again, that has created less opportunity. We have 2,000 people in our school system under the age of 19. Where are the opportunities for them? They will be elsewhere.
What happens to senior citizens and our community organizations? Again, we have people at a disadvantage. In rural Newfoundland, like rural Canada, we have the whole gamut, people who have good incomes, people who have poor incomes. However, as we lose our economic base for employing our people, it makes the situation much worse. We have faced, as an economic board working with our partners, the challenge of how we should address the future.
I will give you some points. We recently did a human resource database for our young people who have left the school system in the last eight years. We counted our youth database, modelling ourselves after Northern New Brunswick and the Irish model, where, even in the 1970s and 1980s, they would check where their expatriates went. The Internet has enabled us to do this rather cost effectively. We now know where those young people are, who are now anywhere from 19 to 29 years of age. We have communicated with them. We have them in a database. Therefore, when a business person in the area needs someone — recently a garage needed an auto mechanic, for example — we email out to the people in the database. We know they graduated from school. We know that they have post-secondary training. We actually have that categorized. Thus, if a business person comes to us, we are able to send information to these people.
In New Brunswick, they warned us when we talked to them that it took a while for the business community to take off. However, we are depopulating as our population ages and retires. I noticed in your interim report, you talked about more people out-migrating, less need for businesses and services and how that becomes a spiral effect. We saw this database in one of the publications on the Canadian Community Economic Development Network, so we contacted the economic board in New Brunswick, and they have shared everything with us — again, modelled after what has happened in other countries. We see this as a good tool. However, we still struggle with funding and to get the business community to buy into it. That is one step.
We are facing, like the famous novel set during the French Revolution, the best of times, the worst of times. We have jobs now, but we have lost so many people to the higher paying jobs in Alberta. We are now challenged. We have new businesses, new services in Gros Morne National Park. However, how do they get employees when they are offering $7, $8 and $10 an hour and no health benefits for the most part? We have a recruitment problem. Our young people are leaving, and I am no longer under the age of 30, so when I am the youngest person in the room, I know we are in trouble.
I have given you some basic facts. I presented to your staff a copy of the Great Northern Peninsula Fisheries Task Force Report. I will focus on that for my concluding remarks.
The report basically looked at the policies, federally and provincially, that are affecting our economy. Again, I would highlight that we face a challenge: Fisheries are still bringing the same value to the country, but it is no longer accrued to the economy of the local communities. Employment is gone. In your interim report, you highlighted that capitalization is replacing labour, and that is fair enough. However, we do not even have opportunity for new business development if we do not have access to the resources off our shores, which is the reason why we settled there, the Aboriginals settled there and so on. We have 5,000 years of settlement, and it was for the resources there that were available to the people.
In our report, which our MP, the provincial ministers and Fisheries and Oceans Canada staff have all supported, we highlighted, under resource allocation and reasonable quota shares, numbers 2.1 to 2.3, which refer to issues and recommendations in our report. Altogether we have 44 recommendations. The full report is available through your staff now. Unfortunately, it is a thick volume and I did not have copies.
That would be federal responsibility, the quota shares. Under provincial processing capacity and licensing, we highlighted numbers 5.1 to 5.6, which include the whole issue of regional processing, licensing and so on. Then at number 8.1, we highlighted the issue that has closed our highway a few times and caused great community stress. It is the idea that fish are harvested on the coast and then trucked off the coast. We highlighted that that has to be addressed more effectively. After the cod fishery decreased, we saw a significant increase in the shrimp fishery, but then many shrimp processing licenses were located in other parts of the province, even though the resource came from our area.
We have done a policy-level document that highlights the issues and how they need to be addressed. We are saying that there are opportunities. You are here to talk about rural poverty. My point or contribution to your dialogue, as you go across our country, is simply to say that rural poverty has many challenges and many issues: education, access to proper services. You did highlight, in your report, the issue of citizenship, access to proper health care and access to proper education. I will say that access to economic opportunity would be part of the issue of poverty. We are challenged with that in this day and age, in our area. Our challenge will then become the challenge for the City of Corner Brook and for the province because as our population decreases, the needs in other areas will decrease and, again, the spiral continues.
We have opportunity. I have highlighted some initiatives that we are taking human resource-wise. We have expanded our tourism industry approximately 300 per cent in the last 15 years. I believe that was a challenge met by many stakeholders that was good. We still have to look at more work. That is why our research and development on fisheries is important with our university, funded, hopefully, by the shore applications through the Canadian International Development Agency in Ottawa. That has all gone in as of last week.
To return to what Ms. Kennedy mentioned with regard to transportation, Premier Charest announced recently that the Quebec government is committing over $100 million to complete the North Shore highway. That would leak into the Labrador system, and it provides an opportunity for people to come to the Maritimes, go up through our region — the Great Northern Peninsula — and exit through St. Barbe; or, as Ms. Kennedy mentioned, it provides the fixed link. Therefore, if we access it and move through it, that is a major economic opportunity in the years to come.
Finally, with respect to information technology, we do need access to high-speed. When we are in the office, we know all the kids are out of school at three o'clock because when we go to try to email someone, the email goes down. We cannot get anything out. We are challenged and need to find solutions. We know that the provincial and federal governments are working with Persona and Rogers, some of our local providers, to deal with that. When they are asked to do a business case for a town of 200 people, it is difficult. However, if the town has two outfitters that are making $1million a year, and they need high-speed Internet, it is an issue for economic survival.
You have been general in your interim document with regard to indicators. We are challenged with human resources. We do use services and programs; they are excellent and necessary. However, policy is the root of our issues, policy — such as tax incentives — and access to our resources. Because we live in rural areas, we do travel extensively to come for health services. All you have to do is listen to one of our nurses describe a trip over the mountains to Corner Brook with a sick patient in the middle of winter, with a plough in front of her. It is a challenge and costly.
When I first came to the Northern Peninsula 15 years ago, there was a northern allowance. Tax incentives for rural areas is an area that could put us back on a level playing field. In terms of indicators, when you talk about low-income measures, Services Canada, Statistics Canada, Market Basket Measures and so on, they are from a macro. We need to clarify what the indicators are to show that we, in the Great Northern Peninsula of Western Newfoundland, are having the same citizenship rights, economic opportunity and so on as in Hull, Quebec; Halifax, Nova Scotia; or St. John's, Newfoundland.
St. John's is booming. Our post-secondary graduates now do not have to go far. They are in Halifax; they are in St. John's. In our survey, more than 60 per cent of our youth with post-secondary education stay in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. However, they do not necessarily stay in our area because of limited opportunity.
As you deliberate, I hope you will look at what tax policies and policies in the fishery can do for us. We do have a small agricultural industry in our area and a major forestry sector, which is facing the downturn throughout the region, creating another challenge. With the forestry, we are hoping to use the Forest Communities Program through Natural Resources Canada for research and development for alternate uses. In agri-food, we have been using support from the provincial and federal governments to do a pilot project on cool-climate berry crops to supplement some of the smaller communities.
In conclusion, we have done work. We have used the programs and services. I would say our challenge at the end of the day is: How do we deal with the issues of human resources, marketing new business, infrastructure, policies, environment and research and development when we are at a disadvantage of being far from the main centres and resources are limited? The annual income in our area is $43,000 per family, the province is $53,000 and the country is $63,000, but there is a cheaper cost of living in the sense that we own our homes. The highest home-ownership rate in the country is in Newfoundland, especially on the Great Northern Peninsula. I believe probably all our neighbours could build a home.
Are challenge is: How do we deal with a modern society where we need advanced health care access? If someone needs a CAT scan, that is a cost, and we see the community struggling to get access. Education is also another issue. Tax policies give every family the same break, but if a family is living in St. John's, their financial need for educating their children is about one-third less than a family in the Great Northern Peninsula who has to pay for the transportation and the extra housing.
Senator Mercer: Panelists, thank you very much for being here. We appreciate it, particularly those of you who filled in so quickly for others who could not be here. I have a lot of questions, but I will try to be quick.
Ms. Kennedy, you made reference to the volunteer base, and a number of you mentioned the declining population. How difficult is it for organizations that are volunteer-driven in rural Newfoundland and Labrador to recruit the necessary people to get the basic jobs done?
Ms. Kennedy: That is an easy answer: We have the same volunteers now. We have exhausted our volunteer system. We have been operating on a volunteer system now for, I would say, 10 to 12 years. I sit on approximately 12 to 14 boards and out of those, I know at least 50 to 60 per cent of the board members from other boards. It is hard to get new faces into the volunteer system. Also, when it is economic, we can get some interest, but we require a certain expertise to help move our agenda forward. That becomes a challenge. It is not just a matter of getting a warm body with a heartbeat.
Senator Mercer: The good news is that Newfoundland and Labrador, in all studies that are done annually, continues to be the most generous province in the country in that Newfoundlanders give money to charities at a higher rate than any other part of the country. That is significant when it is also the poorest of the provinces. It is a tribute to the people.
The federal government, in the last budget, came out with a child care program, which many of us challenged, that gives $100 per month per child in certain categories. Has that had any effect, positive or negative, in Newfoundland and Labrador?
Ms. Kennedy: I really cannot say that that actually hit the radar at all with regards to what difference it made to our quality of life. When there is a program is put in place, we can see the effects in our community. There have been many new programs for primary health care, some social programs; and if we do not see them work in our community, then we really cannot say they make an impact. That was a program, however, that, because of where I live, I do not believe I would see the impact like I would if I lived in Corner Brook.
Senator Mercer: Ms. Hancock, have the recent federal government cutbacks to social programs had an effect on the Western School Board area?
Ms. Hancock: They have indirectly. The province would most acutely feel any changes in federal funding in the negotiations they were having around child care or other expenditures that would come to the province. In response to your question, to Ms. Kennedy, I have heard many individuals say that the amount they get for child care is beneficial, but it really does not cover the full range of child care expenses that they might encounter in a month.
Senator Mercer: On that point, what would be the average cost of a child care space in a licensed child care centre in this part of Newfoundland?
Ms. Kennedy: You should ask Mr. St. George. He has a small child.
Mr. St. George: On average, in Western Newfoundland, it is $500 a month for a registered daycare.
Senator Mercer: Therefore, the $100 a month does not go very far toward that.
Mr. St. George: It is 20 per cent of what you need.
Senator Mercer: If you do not have the other 80 per cent, it does not matter, does it?
Mr. St. George: No, it does not.
Senator Mercer: Exactly.
Ms. Hancock: Many of our smaller communities do not have licensed daycares available. They rely on neighbours or family members to provide the care. I understand of the money that was to come to the province, much of it was to go toward developing the early childhood system within our province, and there had to be a rearranging of potential programs to accommodate the federal funding changes. This is why, in our recommendations, we want more federal/ provincial discussion around solutions to rural areas and child care programs.
Senator Mercer: Therefore, the agreement that had been signed between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador would have been more beneficial if it had stayed in place rather than the $100 a month.
Ms. Hancock: That was the opinion of many people who have spoken with us, but I cannot say it is the opinion of the province.
Senator Mercer: Another thing, Ms. Hancock, that puzzles me in your report, was the high absentee rate amongst kindergarten children. I do not understand that. Since you have mentioned it, I assume it is unusual. Do we know why it is happening?
Ms. Hancock: That finding shocked us. We looked at data over a six-year period to identify that trend. In some instances, children were missing up to 80 days in the school semester. Through tracking data at the school level, we were able to look at absenteeism, lateness and attendance and really target the work that we are doing with the preventative social work position to make a difference for those families. The position has made a difference in terms of increasing the presence of children in the school and increasing the involvement of family members. Parenting classes have been started. Sometimes it was about really trying to make a stronger connection with the parents of the children.
Since we have implemented the school social worker position, one of the very basic provisions she has made is to have a supply of clothes for children. Therefore, if they do get to school and, during recess, get wet or need a change of clothes for winter wear, she has that available to them. They do not have to go back home. That is the basic level of provision we are talking about. Many of the issues do go back to income, single parents and people really struggling.
Senator Mercer: Is that where the high absenteeism came from, because you do make reference in your report — on page 7, "Key Findings — Magnitude of Problem" — to people in the poverty cycle, people who have been on social assistance.
Ms. Hancock: Yes.
Senator Mercer: Would a large percentage of these children come from families that are on social assistance?
Ms. Hancock: Yes. That was the value of the Human Resources, Labour and Employment, HRLE, provincial study on intergenerational dependence on social assistance. The teachers taught the parents as children and now, years later, they are seeing their children in the same situation. How do we start to break that cycle of poverty and make a real difference?
Senator Mercer: It is the biggest challenge, of course.
Mr. St. George, you talked about a drop in the population in the service area. The first number you used, I believe, was from 13,000 people down to 8,800 people.
Mr. St. George: Yes.
Senator Mercer: What was the time period?
Mr. St. George: That would be from 1988 to 2001.
Senator Mercer: To go further on into your presentation and others, would those people have gone to St. John's or Halifax, or would they have gone further west to Fort McMurray?
Mr. St. George: Yes, in our area, the largest majority went to Alberta. In the early to mid-1990s, more people went to Ontario, Mississauga and Brampton. In 2000 and 2001, that switched totally to Alberta. I have noticed lately that people who used to be in Ontario now move with their other family members who have gone to Alberta.
Senator Mercer: I was surprised at your reference to the fishery. In general terms, you talked about the value of the fishery. Being from Nova Scotia, I, to a certain extent, understand the difficulty with the fishery, and I would have anticipated it would have been even more magnified here. If the fishery still has as large a value as you indicated, what are they fishing? You mentioned shrimp. They are obviously not fishing cod. What are they fishing that enables you to maintain the value level?
Mr. St. George: They are fishing shrimp, crab, herring, mackerel — now, this is changing as we speak because some of the stocks are stressed out — the ground fishery. Cod in particular closed in 2003, but lobster fishery in our area is very big; and then there is a host of other smaller fisheries around that. Overall, though, it is shrimp that has maintained the value until now for our area.
Senator Mercer: We heard testimony last week from some people in Nova Scotia about the owner/operator policy in the crab and lobster fishery. Do you have an owner/operator policy here, where if you have the crab or lobster licence, that you need to be an owner/operator, instead of the licence being owned by somebody in St. John's and then they just hire somebody to do the work.
Mr. St. George: Yes, we do have that policy.
Senator Mercer: I will make an assumption that that is a good thing.
Ms. Kennedy: I was part of the fisheries task force, so I do know some of it. We are a part of the own/operate policy, and we looked at some of the stuff that Nova Scotia is doing with that. It would kill rural Newfoundland, especially for lobster — that is where the inshore fishermen really prosper. If they transferred their licence from one to another, it could basically devastate a small town that is dependent on the industry — probably the 10 to 12 families that live there.
Mr. St. George: Iceland has individual, transferable quotas. We were over there for a fact-finding trip a number of years ago. They did a quota, but it was devastating for their most rural communities.
We have two examples of a region basically modelled after what happened in Northern Alaska. In the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company Limited, they have a quota that they harvest and can spend the money to subsidize or develop other fisheries or other economic opportunities. In St. Anthony, which is out of my area, they have St. Anthony Basin Resources Inc., SABRI, and they have a quota. In our area, we have a smaller quota for a group north of the 50th parallel. Labrador is the best model. The quota has been very successful. It has helped create new businesses and kept people employed. It has a strong business component; it is not a social component at all — it is, you know, business. I know that our colleagues at the Nordic Economic Development Corporation have been pushing for quotas for the area, such as regional quotas for the different communities. That would keep some of the wealth in the area; or the quota could be sold, like SABRI does with their quota. They reinvest the money in the area. However, that does not happen unless we have a quota locally.
When I say the wealth of the fishery accrues elsewhere, increasingly, the wealth is switching to the larger companies out of the region. We are seeing a shake-up again now with Fishery Products International Limited changing, and we notice that we have, I believe, two new companies in our area. It is accruing the wealth away from the communities that first depended on it, that always depended on it.
Senator Gustafson: I have a question about the heavy hand of government in relation to unemployment insurance, seasonal employment and so on. In agriculture and in small business, there is always room for people to hold a job for a short term — two, three days, maybe. These people are drawing on employment, but the government is down there is telling them that they will be cut off because of those two days or two weeks of work. It becomes a negative, and it is out there. Businesses try to hire a man for short-term labour, for example a carpenter needs some help, just the raw labour, and I feel the government penalizes these people and keeps them in a position where they never dig themselves out.
I am speaking from experience — 50 years in the farming industry, small business, construction and so on. It happens and continues to happen. People would rather not take the job because they will be cut off and will pay the price. We have not found a way to deal with this. It is predominantly among men, but there are cases, in the service industry, where it applies to women as well. We penalize and cause a bigger problem.
Most of these people will not get an education. Some of them can barely sign their own names. Education is the furthest thing from their minds, but they are good workers. In many cases, they can operate machinery better than most people because that is the only job they have had. There is no area in which we can pay these people without penalizing them.
Ms. Kennedy: Ms. Jeans referred earlier to the sliding scale and people not wanting to work for $7 an hour because they lost their benefit and their drug card. The EI system has got to be reconfigured because we have a lot of people who, if they work after they draw EI, get paid under the table. Is that right?
Senator Gustafson: Yes, that is right.
Ms. Kennedy: There are ways of changing policy and programming that can address that: Use a sliding scale, share the wealth; let people bank a certain amount of money without penalizing them. From an employer's perspective, every time they work a day, the other side of that is that I am spending a day filling in paperwork for Service Canada because they cannot keep it straight in their system.
There is a real challenge with the system and the way it is set up. We do business differently now. We need new systems to assist us. A sliding scale would work really well under the EI program.
Another issue is that the system is paid into by employers and employees. Jobs in Newfoundland, especially in the tourism business that Mr. St. George was referring to, where we grew this market to create a demand, are low-paying. Jobs in tourism pay $7 per hour. The occupancy rate is 38 per cent in rural Newfoundland in some of the hoteliers, so they cannot afford to pay $10 per hour. However, that is what they will need to pay to keep staff. Maybe we could have a system where there is a partnership: If you make this amount of profit, you qualify for a subsidy back under the program that you have paid into. There are all kinds of new ways that we can do business and be successful. This board will probably have to look at the challenge of how we do new business and be successful.
Mr. St. George: I can add to the whole issue of attachment to the workforce. If you bring someone into the workforce, even for short periods of time, they gradually get more attached. We have seen it already in our area where some people started off with very little work at the hotel or the business and as their skills improve, they gradually become attached to the workforce, and their employment is repeatedly extended. However, that takes time and the programs do penalize people.
I go back to my comment about indicators. One of the issues that we face in the 21st century is we are using 20th century, or worse, 19th century indicators. We are using economic indicators and accounting measures. How many bricks to build a building? How many people does it cost per hour? All these numbers crunch out, but in the formula, they miss the social impact for non-inclusion of citizens if we do not help people, who are disadvantaged, join workforce. Most of them, from what I have seen in 15 years of work on the Northern Peninsula, become very good employees. However, it takes time.
I heard one of my university professors talking about the need to think beyond the box. Accounting measures are not for the economy. They are for small businesses, they are for big businesses, but, if you own a business and you have a brand, such as Coca-Cola, you could say that has no material value. Yet, if people do not protect their brands, companies such as Coca-Cola or IBM would be in some trouble if they allowed other people to take their brand. It is a very intangible thing.
I agree with what Ms. Kennedy just said about attachment to the workforce. In Newfoundland, we have people with literacy skill issues. We have a high social service dependency. We lose some of our best people to other provinces due to high wages. I was in Cape Breton last summer and the Cape Bretoners have the same issues. Actually, we talked about it and there was so much similarity in a large number of rural areas. We have to put steps in; the programming and services only benefit to a point. We need good indicators that can show the benefit over the long term. I know from being at Memorial University 16 years ago, we were told it costs $1 million to keep someone on social services the rest of their life. That amount must included the staffing, the paperwork, all the costs involved. However, if that same person is put through the programming and through university or whatever it takes to get him or her into the workforce, that cost is in the region of $100,000. That is a measure over 25 years, so that is what I mean when I say we need to broaden our indicators.
Senator Gustafson: This has been a real bug with me. I call it "big government." It seems to me the government can find a way to circulate more paper. They love paper and will create jobs with paper just to create jobs, sometimes for political reasons. However, when it comes to doing something that is realistic and produces real economy and real strength in the industries — and it is needed — we cannot seem to find a way to help these poor people that really need the help. They will not dig themselves out on their own.
I use this example — and I should be careful in using this: I have been to Africa several times and the answer we have for even a Third World situation is education. All right, so we give them an education. What happens? They get an education and fly to Canada. They do not go out there and work that field and increase the prosperity of the agricultural community in that land. They get an education, they are gone.
We have to find a way to help these people that are at the bottom end of the scale. Many of them have an expertise of their own, but we have no way of helping them.
Senator Callbeck: Ms. Kennedy, you talked about selling raw material and not having enough value added in Newfoundland, which I can certainly identify with, being from Prince Edward Island. However, you went on to talk about how programs and policies that have been set long ago and must change for today's world. You mentioned about the drug program, which has been brought to Newfoundland, and I agree that is a step in the right direction. It certainly helps lower-income people and helps those on the welfare to get off the system. In my province, if they go off it — I assume it is the same here — then they are responsible for their own health bills and drugs, et cetera. Then you talked a little bit about the EI. I would like to hear your ideas about other changes that you feel need to be made for today's world.
Ms. Kennedy: When I spoke about our raw material, I was trying to give you a picture of how we got here. We got here because we sold raw resources. There was so much more that we could have done. If we had maximized the income, we would not find the shortage in our forestry and fishery that we find today. Therefore, we abused these resources, and we did not do it alone. We were allowed to do it, which is why I talk about policy. When we got into the fisheries task force, we realized we cannot make changes. We can make recommendations, but it is only with a change in policy that we can make a change in our way of doing business. Therefore, through the fisheries task force, we have made forty-something recommendations to the government, most of which were linked to policy. We have to start making that change in the industry.
We would like to bring programming back. We have seen the consequences in our health care. We are living it now; we are trying to regionalize, and we recognize the need that we have to do it. We do not have unlimited resources, and it has become a strain on us to provide this service. However, making the decision for us is not the right answer. We can come up with good decisions that could benefit us, not cost us any more, probably make us very happy and provide a much better service. We have to effect policy with regard to education, health and the other social programs in our communities that affect us economically.
When we recruit health care providers, a doctor, for example, it costs us $80,000. We find them, they come to rural Newfoundland, but they will not stay. We have no support in place, so they return to St. John's, Toronto or Vancouver, somewhere where they have some supports around them for their culture. They want nothing to do with staying in rural Newfoundland. We have retention rate of less than six per cent.
Sean talked about interviewing people who left Newfoundland to see if they would want to come back to work here. That is where we must start. People who have grown up here love it. They have a passion for it. Poverty is more than money, and there is a real love of the land. People will come back for less — but not a lot less now. They want a base. We have a problem with recruitments because we are dropping our health care and education systems. Thus, it has become a vicious circle for us.
We have to start setting up a way to entice people with a good health care plan and a good education plan. Maybe it is connected; maybe it is a holistic approach we are talking about. We are educating people on health and school. We are not just telling them about nutrition, for example, and they are not going to a dietician, getting a sheet and going home saying, "Work with Omega 3 and do this, this and this." We are trying to connect health and education and make it community health living, so that people can go to a community kitchen and learn to eat the foods that are required for their diet. They can go to the physiotherapy programs if they want. We are trying to set this up under a community structure, so that five or six or seven communities can take part. It can be spread out to some of the school programs, and we can get the communities, parents and other volunteers involved. We, then, have changed the way of doing business in the health care and education systems because we are educating as we go. It is the same with regard to putting the sliding scale in place now: In 20 or 30 years, you will see the growth and the demand fall on the structures that we set up now.
That is a part of where we are going with regard to policy. We have to change, take away all these pillars that have been created as to how to do business and start building bridges that make the flow easier.
Senator Callbeck: You mentioned how difficult it is to recruit doctors. Has there been any thought given to incentives for youth, who live in Newfoundland and have been brought up in rural Newfoundland, to help put them through medical school if they commit to come back for a certain length of time?
Ms. Kennedy: Yes. There is a program actually in place at Western. It is a $25,000 bursary toward their education. It is limited. They probably have two bursaries. Maybe sometimes we are really narrowing how we look at it. We use it to recruit people. We will say, "Well, they are from here, they are coming back anyway, so we will look at somebody else," and then we lose them. There are some programs in place, but not enough. Changes to that program are needed because we have quite a few people from the West Coast who are in the medical profession and would probably love to come back here, but we are not competing very well with the States or Western Canada to keep them.
Senator Callbeck: One other question I had was on taxation. Ms. Hancock, you talked about the provincial and federal governments working together on many issues and ideas, and one of them was changes in taxation. I believe you did, too, Mr. St. George. I would like to hear you talk about that.
Ms. Hancock: Some of the points that came up in our discussions with people were that we are moving toward a wellness framework, and that is in keeping with prevention. People invest a lot of their own dollars to have their children take part in sports or recreation, ways that benefit healthy living or in child care or additional services. They are providing extra in addition to some medical costs. How do they, then, have that recognized, in terms of benefits back to them while they are meeting overall social objectives around investment in people? They do not see an opportunity for that to be recognized in taxation, and I guess it came out in terms of investment in children. It also came out as more people are facing care of elderly persons in rural communities.
There are many similar issues. If people pay over and above for services, equipment or for someone to stay in a long- term care facility, how does that get recognized? How do we get some kind of tax benefits coming back to people in communities? The issue came up a number of ways, and we need to find more opportunity there in the taxation system for people to have tax credits.
Mr. St. George: The Northern Peninsula is a beautiful place to live, but it can be very expensive if we get sick. It is very expensive to educate our children. I will find that out. It is also very expensive to deal with other daily activities, for example, if you have to see a lawyer, if you have to go see a government office. Business people on the Northern Peninsula are certainly penalized because they are on the Northern Peninsula. It is costly for them to do business with government departments.
Correct me if I am wrong. In your interim report, you talk about e-connections, e-government or e-services. The problem with that, in our area, is that computer technology, information technology is new for many people and it takes time for them. I know the Community Access Program, CAP, for the Internet, which is federal/provincial, has worked somewhat, but we have a lot of small business owners — as our demographics will show. They are working, so how can they to stop to learn the computer? We have a complete database of our businesses. We have interviewed all 3,800 homes in the district and also all 394 businesses, so we basically know that only 18 per cent of our businesses use email. How do we correct those disadvantages?
Programming and services could help there, but one of the big issues — to get back to your comment on taxes — is, again, the need to clearly identify the indicators. I am simply saying that we need measurable outcomes to understand how people in rural areas are affected. Level the playing field a bit. I will give you a good example. In the United States, the Banking Act requires banks to do small business loans in rural areas. In our area, our business people are struggling to get access to capital. Ms. Kennedy and I, in our capacity as volunteers and on the Regional Economic Development Board, we have seen business people struggle to get access to capital.
Those situations challenge you and yet policy, such as the Banking Act and tax policy, can level the playing field. I mean, bluntly, our banks do not want to lend money to the Northern Peninsula any more. For all commercial banking on the Great Northern Peninsula now, we have to come to Corner Brook.
That just gives you an idea of the disadvantages. It is not that we are poor in rural Newfoundland. It is just that we are financially penalized for everything we have to do. It is basically sapping our energy.
Senator Callbeck: Yes.
Mr. St. George: We have to be innovative. We have to look to the future, but when we are siphoning off our resources just to stay where we are — I am not concerned about where we are today — my big concern, as an economic development officer, is where we will be in 10 years' time, in 20 years' time. The rest of the country is progressing, and if we do not progress, our status today will look much worse in 10 or 20 years.
If Canada was a house, I would compare rural Canada to the basement, the attic and the garage. I have to ask you, would you own a house if it did not have a basement for your electrical or your hot water tank, your laundry room? Would you own a house if it did not have a shed to store your garden furniture? Canada is made up of many parts, and rural Canada provides an essential service to the country. We have the raw materials. If the Northern Peninsula, the national park sites are depopulated, how will people travel to the area if we do not have services and people living there?
Canada is made up of many factors. Urbanization is a world-wide trend, but, just like a basement, attic or utility closet provides basic services in houses, we provide essential services to the country. That is perhaps a poor analogy, but it gives you an idea of where I am coming from.
The issue you face is: How do we deal with the imbalance between different areas in our country? If we do not deal with the imbalance, what does that create for the long term? I am not sure we want to know the answer. My training and experience tells me if we do not take care of our health, we have to pay money when we are sick. If we do not educate our children, when they turn 20, we have a bigger problem.
Senator Callbeck: What about credit unions in Newfoundland?
Mr. St. George: We do have one credit union in our area. That does not do commercial loans. I know in the Labrador Straits, which is just north of us, the banks totally withdrew, and it was the credit union that stepped in and did a very good job. In our area, the banks and the credit union are evolving and the credit union will probably be a solution. However, we are definitely seeing the banks withdraw.
Senator Peterson: Are each of you active participants in this program?
Ms. Hancock: I believe one-third of the funding for the school social work position is through that initiative.
Senator Peterson: Are you involved in an ongoing way? Do you meet with them? Do you have input?
Ms. Hancock: We were involved in a consultation at our committee level and certainly have access to the people working on that.
Ms. Kennedy: I have seen this document. Ms. Hancock has probably worked more with the group that was setting up the meetings. For me, personally, I have read parts of the program, but I have not been engaged in much of the program.
Senator Peterson: Do you not feel you should be?
Ms. Kennedy: Oh, most definitely. I was actually listening today to see some of the issues that will get the highlights from the province and their reduction strategy. Ms. Jeans provided some good stuff, and I feel they are moving in the right direction.
Senator Peterson: You were a little hesitant there. Do you feel this has a possibility of turning the corner or is it too broad? Do you want to stay more focused in what you are doing?
Ms. Kennedy: Yes, I like the specifics where you can measure rather than the general where you cannot. Some of the programs that they are implementing are really good programs. It is the first step in moving in the right direction. They have started to build partnerships, but this is just beginning.
Senator Peterson: Do they not have the authority to make the changes you want? Is that not important?
Ms. Kennedy: Yes.
Senator Peterson: Now, you talk clawbacks, economic development, health, and schooling. Is this not where the authority comes from?
Ms. Hancock: Yes, I believe that that strategy document is a very important step for our province, which will really set a good future direction.
Senator Callbeck, a couple of the questions you raised, I think, in keeping with that strategy, Human Resources, Labour and Employment has introduced some policies for people to make the transition from income support to employment without losing all their benefits. It is very broad, but it is very well thought out; it is also very new. However, as it takes shape, we will certainly see a difference in this province.
Ms. Kennedy: I feel that is the key thing: It is very new. I was not hesitating because I thought it was not a good document. It is new; it is just starting. I think it has a lot of potential.
Senator Peterson: That is the time to be engaged, when it is new.
Senator Mahovlich: That is very interesting. In looking at your province with its issues of access to a hospital and a good education, I wonder if anyone has proposed building a university in the northern part of the province. Has that ever been brought up?
Ms. Kennedy: We have a university in Corner Brook.
Senator Mahovlich: In Corner Brook?
Ms. Kennedy: Yes. It is an extension of Memorial University. It is Sir Wilfred Grenville College. It has been there, I would say, about 30 years.
Mr. St. George: Yes.
Ms. Kennedy: It did not offer graduate programs. Basically, we did our one or two years and then could move to four. Now, it probably offers about 10 different degree programs.
Senator Mahovlich: Is it progressing?
Ms. Kennedy: Actually, aggressively progressing in the last two or three years with a strategy by some people in the region to see it as independent. I am not saying that that is good or bad. I am not involved in that, but we are moving forward to expand on the post-secondary offering in Western Newfoundland.
Senator Mahovlich: Do a lot of students come from offshore, from the mainland?
Ms. Kennedy: We have been doing a lot in recruitment, not just in Canada, but outside of Canada, and we have had much success at Sir Wilfred Grenville College and at College of the North Atlantic in recruitment overseas. They have probably had about a 15 per cent increase.
Ms. Hancock: I am not sure.
Ms. Kennedy: It is a fairly significant increase in take-up outside of Newfoundland right now.
Senator Mahovlich: Are you looking toward being competitive with other Canadian universities?
Ms. Kennedy: Memorial is actually competitive with other universities.
Ms. Hancock: Yes. Whether this is just an expansion of the Memorial program, I feel it is not a bad thing.
Senator Mahovlich: I feel it is good.
Ms. Kennedy: I do, too. We can expand the offerings here and the programs in Western Newfoundland a great deal.
Mr. St. George: Yes. Senator, in my area, a lot of the younger people are using Corner Brook both for the college and university since the degree programs came out in the last 10 years.
A positive we have seen is that people are well aware of the challenges of the economy. Our people need to be educated. We see our young people going to post-secondary education at a higher rate than we have ever seen before. Our challenge is to keep them in Newfoundland.
However, Western Newfoundland and Labrador does have a smaller version of it. At the community college campus, they take university courses up there, so we have moved in that direction.
Senator Mahovlich: That is great. Senator Gustafson mentioned that people in Africa get educated and leave, but I believe there are other reasons why they are leaving. Much of it is corruption in government because I was over in the Congo and saw many different reasons why people leave the country. Keep educating and positive things will happen because everybody feels that it is the number one priority. If you build a great university, people will come.
Mr. St. George: Ten years ago we identified the need to have links between economics and schools. We now meet with the schools on programming through the integrated coastal shelf management and the college in Rocky Harbour. There was work with the Canadian Tourism Commission with the high school. Therefore, that is a big issue because we have opportunity. Jobs will be there in the years to come, so we have to get students while they are in high school because once they are on campus, their mindset is broader.
We hope to do more through local industries in the schools to provide information. Last year, taken from a pilot project in Corner Brook, we introduced Books for Boats through all the schools from Trout River to Port au Choix. Ms. Kennedy's office actually ran the project. The idea was to take the Grade 9 science class into the marine biology station in North Point and show them the value of the ecosystem and the fishery. I was only involved in the financing part, but, apparently, we have had a lot of pressure to do it again this year and to broaden it further.
Ms. Hancock: We also have College of the North Atlantic here and 17 campuses throughout our province. In looking at the statistics, we recognize that, where we have education infrastructure throughout our province, the completion rate for high school and post-secondary education is higher.
It would be very nice to expand that infrastructure, but there are some logistics with that as well. Presently, Sir Wilfred Grenville College is looking at its status as part of Memorial University. We are really trying to look at closer links between the university and the college and benefiting people in rural areas as well.
Senator Mahovlich: It gives incentive to the youth if they have something to look forward to. A university close by is something that is reachable. Every time my father built a house, he always built it next to a school to make sure I got in there.
Senator Gustafson: Have you looked at how immigration policy is affecting our country?
Ms. Kennedy: The province has just released a new immigration strategy within the last six months. We have asked to have them look at it and probably call it a "population strategy." Most of us recognize that there is a real need to have an immigration strategy, but rather than release what we are doing to the public, we would like to call it a population strategy. P.E.I. started the population strategy versus the immigration strategy. We do not want to bring people in just by bringing in new people. We want to recall some of our own. Therefore, that is being looked at, but the strategy is done. Some people had some concerns; it is a culture change for us. When they look at the big picture, most people were very accepting of the strategy.
Senator Gustafson: It would seem to me that we should be looking at the global situation. We hear of the U.S. trying to build a wall between Mexico and the U.S. However, the truth of the matter is, if they did not have those migrant workers harvesting their crops and working in hotels and restaurants and so on, you would not be able to get a room.
We live in a fast-changing world and a fast-changing global situation, and it appears to me if Canada has made any mistakes, it is that we will accept people with money, with a very good education and sometimes even penalize our own. That happened in Saskatchewan with doctors. That whole political era of bringing in doctors and so on. However, there was a time when, because of the policies, we were not allowing our own students to be educated in medicine at the expense of people coming in from other countries.
I just wondered how much work you have done on that in the province.
Ms. Kennedy: That is why we wanted to be politically correct and not say "immigration strategy," and we wanted to side with P.E.I. in that a population strategy made more sense.
Senator Callbeck: I would like to get your comments on the Community Futures Program. Is it working?
Mr. St. George: Actually, I was an employee of the program and, when the Community Futures Program was merged with the Business Development Centre, I went over to the Regional Economic Development Board on the community side.
In our area, we have NORTIP Development Corporation. There are 15 offices in the province that offer financing lending. They are a valuable part of our services and programs. They make a contribution to the economy of the area because they are often the only group that will provide business support or lending.
The challenge we have, though, is the amount of investment we need. They have limitations on their investment fund — $125,000 right now, I believe. There are issues of how we fund businesses. I will give you a specific example, and, again, we would have to look at the policy. We have shrimp plants producing shrimp that dump the shrimp shells off the coast, whereas if we could build a shrimp shell processing plant, we could produce chitin and other by-products that are used in the pharmaceutical sector. That is where the more holistic approach comes in to make sure we get the value added.
The Community Futures Program is more aimed at the smaller business owners, so it is a valuable program and serves us well, but it is only one part of the whole. As an employee, I certainly see the value of the program. However, with the changes in our area, it is certainly becoming more challenging to deal with the business community.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentations and comments.
Our next presenters, senators, are representatives of the Food Bank Network and the Fish, Food and Allied Workers.
Judie Gushue, Past President, Food Bank Network: I am very pleased to be here on behalf of the Bay of Islands Ministerial Association Food Bank Network, commonly referred to as the Food Bank Network. Sister Alicha, who is here with me as well, and I are both executive members of the Food Bank Network. Sister Alicha is an outlet supervisor, and I am past president. I have a background of 30 years in post-secondary education in business and applied arts and community services, and Sister Alicha has an extensive background in teaching as well, from kindergarten to Grade 9, and with a 13-year background in community services in the environment of which we find ourselves at the Food Bank Network.
The word "network" describes very clearly that the emergency food services that we provide are a network in that we are a centralized collection and distribution centre for the City of Corner Brook, North and South Shore Bay of Islands, Steady Brook, Massey Drive, and Little Rapids. It is centralized in that we have a very well-developed system of computer data tracking of client records, information on food assistance, which is given in numbers from 1994 when the Food Network was created.
It was created under the auspices of the Ministerial Association for a reason. Earlier in its history, needy families were served by all the churches in the area, and there was quite a bit of duplication in food assistance given in the early years. Therefore, the Ministerial Association was wise enough to have a community meeting and ask the community, through all the churches, if they would be willing to support a network and to have a coordinator hired, so that the overlap — we refuse to use the word "abuse" — in distribution of food services and food hampers would be diminished greatly. The system would work so it would be fair to everybody and ensure its existence.
The Food Bank Network is a registered charity. It has been incorporated as of this year, September 2006. We have a very active — proactive as well — board of directors, all of who represent churches in the area that we serve. We serve a population base of 40,000 or more in that area. We have a full-time coordinator and hundreds of dedicated volunteers; and if it is possible to have a 150 per cent of community support, then we have it and have had for many years.
In 2006, we gave out 1,647 requests for food assistance, which helped 657 families in our area. That dollar value was $120,000. Our food bank outlets — we have two in the area — give out on average, close to $10,000 per month, every month, summer included, of food assistance to needy families in our area.
We have to be the only food bank, I would imagine, in Canada that has, over the past two years, seen a decrease in the amount of assistance that has been given out. I can explain this. We have had a 29.8 per cent decrease in food assistance over 2005. As well in 2005, we had a decrease of 8.8 per cent in the distribution of assistance. You are probably saying, "I really need to know how this happened as it is increasing in most places."
We had a crisis in 2002 with the network. Because our records are so well kept in the computer, and we can create statistics and data, we found that 24 per cent of our clients — which is not a very good word, but we will refer to them as clients for now — were coming to the food bank every eight weeks, faithfully. They would, admittedly, plan it around their monthly ventures to come to the food bank. Most of these families — no surprise — were receiving Social Assistance, now called Income Support. They had been receiving assistance from these totally volunteer organizations many times for many years. We were in crisis as a network.
In 2002, we had to meet with the Ministerial Association, identify that crisis and make a plan of action to handle that. I suggested, as the incoming president at that time, that if the numbers were increasing, particularly in the people who come every eight weeks, and continued to increase, we would shut our doors. The 800 or 900 families we were serving in 2002 would have to go back to the churches, and that would be a disaster. The whole system would have collapsed.
Thus the board of directors put a plan into effect where we would be the volunteer directors, the coordinators, the Ministerial Association, and as well the most important mix in this return to sanity, would be our clients, themselves. We made everybody accountable for their actions, and we were very fortunate in that we had strong outlet supervisors, Sister Alicha and Captain Betty Ann Pyke at that time. We started taking back control. We felt we had lost control. We had an accountability factor to the public, who were so supportive.
We started working directly with outlet supervisors and with the families, asking them and reminding them that this is an emergency food service. We said, "We are very willing to continue to help you, but we must stop this drain on resources." Actually, we shared the cost of them. We let the families and individuals know that we were still here to help, but coming every eight weeks for a couple of years may not be able to continue. We started putting in the mindset of the people, "Yes, we are willing to help, but you must reconsider. Think about it." We became even more assertive asking the clients, families and individuals, "What is your emergency this time? Are you able to resolve it before the next two months period?" We really asked for their assistance, and were able to ensure that our resources would not be depleted as quickly as they were depleting.
In 2002, we had 24 per cent of our families coming every eight weeks, and in 2000, that was actually a cost of $40,000 in food resources to the voluntary network. We pointed this out to the Department of Health and Social Services, because most of that $40,000 had gone to Social Services clients. We felt strongly that we were supporting and subsidizing the department's budget at that time, and we no longer could continue that.
Our challenge as board members of the Food Bank Network — and Sister Alicha can speak to this as well — is that we know the problems; we see their circumstances; we see the financial statements that they give us; we know they are low income people; we know they are not educated; but we only have a mandate. As a board, our mandate is simple. It will have to be addressed very, very quickly. Our mandate is to provide emergency food services. We do not have access to the families and individuals. Sister Alicha and I, both being involved in education, know the extreme importance of education, and we get very concerned, very upset and disappointed that we cannot access the clients to say to them, "Let's sit together. Let's plan a meal. Let's plan your budget. Let's look at how you spend your money." Without being judgmental with them, but giving the knowledge and skills that we have as a board. We can't share that with the clients. We have a confidentiality policy and statement that prevents us from doing that, but I feel strongly that we need to find a way to help our clients.
It is particularly challenging for the volunteer outlets and for people, such Sister Alicha, who see these people on a daily basis. They have been a great asset because we have been talking to the clients and suggesting that maybe they go to a financial management workshop or they learn how to eat healthier and so on. However, it is such a small thing that we can do. It may or may not be having a large affect.
The second challenge that I will speak to for the Food Bank Network, in being able to help low-income families, is what we face now with our mandate for distributing non-perishable food items. In my notes, you will see the title, "Nutrition (In a Can or Box?)." I believe we can in some way, with the mandate that we have right now, be more astute in providing families with more nutritious boxes of spaghetti, pasta, wholegrain items and so on. We can look at our food assistance package and see how we can change that. Therefore, this will be an item that we will discuss at our next board meeting.
We are very grateful for the continued support that we have from our residents, businesses, organizations, schools and colleges. Our commitment as a board to the families that are seeking food is that we will also search for other ways to help them to provide even more help.
I have just listed some things that we can do, which we have already done several times. Sister Alicha has suggested that people get counselling for budgeting, life-skills training and so on. We will continue to work with the partner groups that we already have. When a group or an organization has a debt management and budgeting workshop, we will put these pamphlets in their food bags, their grocery bags, and they will take them home. We have partnered like that, but it is a kind of in-the-backdoor method. We would like to have more direct access to be able to help them even further.
We will review what we call our standard hamper list for possible healthy choice changes and suggestions from the community. We will request the community help by providing them with a list of healthy food that they can donate even though they are non-perishable items in a can or a box. We do get financial donations from the community, with which we will make a conscious effort to purchase more healthy choice items more often.
That is just an introduction as a point in beginning the discussion and having you ask questions of the Food Bank Network. I thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to your questions.
The Chairman: Sister Alicha, would you like to add anything?
Sister Alicha Linehan, Secretary, Food Bank Network: Not a whole lot. Ms. Gushue pretty much covered everything, but I do want to say that, personally, I feel much of the problem lies in the education department. I would strongly recommend early learning, because we see cycles. The cycle is being repeated over generations.
I wanted to mention the challenges. I hear their stories, such as a mother telling me that she had to keep her children home from school for two days because she had nothing to give them for lunch. Wow! That makes my hair stand on end, and then not being able to help, because I am in the business of providing only in an emergency.
We have, as Judie said, made some effort to try to recommend budgeting classes and so on, even on site at one of our food banks. The plan is to have classes such as that on site. That would be great, but, again, we can only recommend. These are the two frustrations I experience as someone who works directly with the clients.
I do not know everybody's background. I just hear stories from time to time; single men on very limited budgets, for example, and it is frustrating to know their stories and not be able to do anything.
The Chairman: Thank you very much and I can share your pain in my own area of Canada, which is the southwest corner of Alberta. For the first time, we are seeing food banks in the little towns that are all around that rural area. That is new in recent years. This a tough issue.
Sister Alicha: In addition, our communities are fishing communities: Cox's Cove all around the bay, down to Lark Harbour and Frenchman's Cove. They are fishing communities, and that has had its effect on families.
The Chairman: We will move on to the Fish, Food and Allied Workers.
Jason Spingle, West Coast Staff Representative, FFAW — Fish, Food and Allied Workers: On behalf of my colleague, Ms. Payne, and our members, I would like to extend our appreciation for the opportunity to present to you today. Over 90 per cent of our members are from rural Newfoundland and Labrador fishing communities, and this issue is of utmost significance to them and their future.
Listening to the previous discussion, I am proud to say that I am a native of a small fishing community in the Labrador Straits just north of here, L'Anse-au-Clair. Also, I am proud to say I was one of the first graduates of the science program here at Memorial University — up here on the hill, as we call it. I am still here, which is a good thing. I will follow very quickly through the presentation, which we have handed out to everyone. It is fairly extensive, so we will not be able to hit on every detail. I will just give a summary as we go through.
Our membership consists of over 20,000 working women and men throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. The vast majority, of course, are employed directly in the fishing industry either through the harvesting and/or processing sectors. I would like to reiterate the rural component of our membership.
Rural communities are a very significant issue, as we know, and a part of our Canadian identity. Much of the impact on the primary industries that sustained rural communities in recent years, in particular, has been the macro- economic factors: the high Canadian dollar; globalization — I often reference the example of the cheap labour in countries like China; regionalization of services, something that is tremendously significant from our perspective; low incomes, particularly in the aging and declining population related to the demographic that we have; and an out- migration of younger people — the younger demographic. However, clearly, the issue starts around valuing the rural component of this great country. We feel that that is a starting point.
The difficulty, in particular, for families in rural communities has been the cost of living: oil, housing. We just heard about the aspects of daily nutrition and services. The regionalization of services away from these communities is having a tremendous impact.
On the last statistic there, I guess one could argue that the drop in the savings rate is all across the country. I feel it is worth noting that if you really check out the details, from a period such as 1993 and earlier, you would have seen that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on a per capita basis had some of the highest savings. Therefore, it is just the circumstances that have forced people to be in these difficult situations.
I have a breakdown on the statistics related to the rural jobs. I would like to focus on the last bullet: Industries are seasonal, not workers. The three major industries are fishing, forestry and tourism. In addition, these industries bring in the new dollars, so they are tremendously significant. However, we just cannot prosecute them all year round for obvious reasons. The three major rural industries, specifically, have been hit hard by the Canadian dollar.
If you look at some actual numbers tied to it, you have heard reference up until a couple of years ago that the Newfoundland fishery was worth a billion dollars, that just shows its significance. It is still the largest industry, most prominent industry — or it was — at a billion dollars a year. It has gone down some since then with these factors, but the perception is that the fishing industry, for example, is only a small component of what it was. In some contexts, you could argue that, but it is still what sustains rural communities in this province. It is tremendously important.
In regard to the factors related to what we have experienced in the past couple of years, our export value has declined more than $300 million since 2004. The vast majority of that is related to, for example, the fact that we export most of our product to the U.S. and Europe. These are the two most significant, as well as some in Asia. If we look at the price of crab, which goes mostly to the American market — that would be snow crab, which has been the highest valued resource, along with shrimp — in 2006, there was a difference of $47 million because of the increase in the Canadian dollar. That is just in the landed values, and that is money directly that goes into rural communities. Therefore, that is a tremendous impact on communities where these resources are paramount.
With respect to the Bank of Canada statements, we truly believe that the Government of Canada has the responsibility to deal with this high impact of the Canadian dollar and the subsequent need for adjustment for workers and their families in all of Canada. We cannot reiterate that point enough.
We have provided some statistics on the changes we have seen since the cod moratorium, the groundfish moratorium, which was implemented in 1992 and 1993. I believe we are all well aware of the significance of that particular event. We see that the processing sector has declined significantly. There have been declines in the harvesting sector as well, in terms of numbers of people involved, but the processing sector, in many contexts, would be argued as decimated. Therefore, the impact there is tremendously significant.
Another issue is unemployment. We have 24,000 people employed directly in the fishery. If we consider that the processing employment has been cut in half, a significant component of that is that the highest percentage of processing workers is women. They have had the biggest impact on their component; on their jobs.
Of course, just to reiterate, we have gone from groundfish, such as cod and red fish or ocean perch, which were high volume and more labour intensive, to crab and shrimp, which require less processing and have much lower volumes, but are higher valued. This has been part of the dynamics.
Not surprising, there is a profile of people working in the fishery. Thirty per cent are over 50 years of age. The average income right now from all sources — and I want to really reiterate that — including EI, was just over $17,000 last year. Again, note that over 50 per cent of processing workers are women, and that is significant and has a lot of merit to it for examination.
The average age of people involved in the harvesting sector is over 50 years of age, and we still have a significant number of women, an increasing number of women in this sector as well. The average income is quite a bit higher, on a relative scale. Again, that would include EI — and boat owners as well. The processing industry is more productive, less labour intensive and more wealth generated, but the quality of jobs has deteriorated significantly and incomes have declined throughout the process.
If we look at the moratorium that came into place in 1992, everyone involved in the adjustment programs that occurred thought by 2000, not 2002 — or even before then — that all of these fish stocks would recover. We talk about the forecasts, and, quite clearly, the government did not prepare for the fact that these stocks might not recover. If a plan is made based on speculation of what will happen, then a backup plan should be in place. Clearly, there was not one here, and that has left many people in a very difficult situation.
My comment on the Human Resources and Development Canada evaluation, which was made after the fact, if they had made that statement in 1992, it might have held a little more water. However, they predicted the problems after the fact, when we certainly know that that is the case. We are still dealing with these issues, and we feel that these issues cannot be allowed to work themselves out. We need government response: Both levels of government are required to stabilize this industry and the hundreds of communities that depend on the industry.
I will just make a footnote to the final bullet. You also have a copy of a release of a recent policy paper, called "Stabilizing and Strengthening the Newfoundland Fishery: Fighting for the survival of our coastal communities." We just had our convention, which is held every three years, in late November or early December of last year, and this was a major focus of the convention as we looked to try to stabilize this industry and save — and grow in the future — our rural communities.
We cannot just leave this to the marketplace. Self-rationalization will occur. That is inevitable, but the impact that it will have will be devastating from our perspective in a number of ways. We cannot retrain everyone, and we have got too many people leaving now. These are issues that we need to come to grips with in terms of saving rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
There are significant barriers to retraining. We just looked at the demographics and the average age of people in the industry. Of course, I did not focus as much on education levels, but it is a well-known issue, for obvious reasons.
I want to focus particularly on the aspects related to women with the tremendous family and household commitments, such as the care of their elderly family members, that constrain their ability to retrain and move. These are issues that we usually will not see in economic graphs in the back of The Globe and Mail, but they relate significantly to this issue.
There's a quote in the handout from a plant worker in Marystown, which puts the situation in perspective for where people are at this stage. What is needed? Clearly, we need a program of industry renewal. We feel that will be the catalyst for revitalization of the industry and the communities. Some suggestions are: retirement or buy-out programs for harvesters — and that can come in more than one format; retirement for plant workers, for people that have contributed to our economy tremendously and are at a very difficult point right now; and retraining for those who want it. There are a lot of people who do want to retrain, and there are opportunities there.
I want to focus really quickly on a bullet that we missed with respect to fisheries policy — and you can read about that in detail in our paper. There are two Fisheries and Oceans Canada policies brought in during the 1970s called the owner-operator and fleet separation policies. Quite simply, the owner-operator policy states that, for the inshore sector, the person who owns the licence must operate the licence, which, if implemented correctly, would eliminate corporate ownership and control of that resource. The other one is a fleet separation — an extension of that — which outlines a system where fish harvesters who own a licence will fish and catch the fish, and then the buyers will buy and process the fish. That is a system that we know is best for communities. The other system leads to corporatization, quite frankly. There are many examples of what that does to rural communities.
For some of these other issues that often receive significant debate, such as less dependence on EI, if we strengthen the economy through adjustment, then there will be less dependence on these programs. They would still be required nonetheless, but the dependency will change.
In conclusion, there are some reality checks that we feel are important to outline. For people who will retrain, if we look at processing workers — and harvesting as well — someone who spent 35 years on a concrete floor of a fish processing plant, even if it is for six months of the year, let alone the full year, the majority of people will be left with physical difficulties, such as arthritis. We are well aware of the issues around that for people in most industries, in fact. If, at 55 years of age, a person retrains, then there are some very basic questions, but very fair questions: How well do most employers look at people who retrain at these ages? It is difficult to retrain and move forward.
I want to refocus on the gender differences there. It is much more difficult for women, given all the difficulties for everyone in this demographic. It is much more difficult for women, who quite clearly have the community and family resting on their shoulders in many aspects.
On a final point, we have given many suggestions on how to deal with rural poverty through the components we have outlined here — and I will not read those out specifically. There was a very interesting presentation made by a professor up here in Sir Wilfred Grenville College, who is actually studying the subject. I would like to, before we leave, give you the reference for some of his work. He gave a talk last fall, I believe the question was: Rural, in a Canadian context, is it worth saving? You could look at his work. It is tremendously significant, I feel. The issue — and I have thought about this quite a bit myself — being a young Newfoundlander and Labradorian, and also a young Canadian, is quite simple. I believe we have a choice: to pay now and deal with these issues, invest money into our communities and into rural Canada as a whole, or we can pay later.
Something that stuck with me personally is an old adage: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I would often see that an ounce of prevention is worth much more than that. I would like to thank you very much, and look forward to the continued debate here.
The Chairman: I noticed that you have education in early childhood learning very much woven through this report. Ms. Payne, do you want to say something before the folks get into questioning?
Lana Payne, Research and Communications, FFAW — Fish, Food and Allied Workers: I will just briefly add to the early learning piece because I know it was mentioned earlier by some of the panellists during the early discussion, and you brought it up as well. I believe one of the biggest problems we have in rural communities is that many of the services that people take for granted in larger centres are just not available. In our province about 80 per cent of child care and early learning programming takes place in larger centres, although there has been an attempt now by the provincial government to address this.
Unfortunately, the cancellation of the early learning bilateral agreements with this current federal government and the provinces has really kind of devastated the plans that they had. We lost about $55 million over the following couple of years in that agreement, and much of that money had been earmarked for rural early learning programming. Therefore, we have had to go back and start from scratch.
I know there was a discussion earlier about education, but it really is key. We need to make sure that it is accessible to people who live in rural communities. Currently, everybody knows it costs a lot more for young people in a rural community to get an education. They have to travel to get that education, and the chances are that that means their debt load at the end will be considerably more, which often is the catalyst for why they end up moving to Alberta to earn big wages, because they have got a big debt to pay.
Therefore, spend money early, and spend it on education.
Senator Mercer: Thank you for appearing. I feel that Ms. Payne's last line should be the opening line of a report. That is: spend money on education and spend it early.
The Chairman: Well you certainly would not hear anything negative from me on that.
Senator Mercer: That would be a great opening line to our final report. I noticed on page 18 of Mr. Spingle's report it says, "Not everyone can move to Alberta (as C.D. Howe would suggest)" — or Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, "C.D. Howe East" as I call them.
Mr. Spingle, you made quick reference to the owner-operator and fleet separation policy. You seem to endorse both of those policies. Can you give me a quick expansion on that? What about quotas? We have heard testimony from people in Nova Scotia having difficulty with people selling quotas and quotas being owned by people who are not from the community. The best example is Canso, Nova Scotia, where the people can watch people from some other area fish off their front yard and take the quota they used to have.
Mr. Spingle: Well, what we have seen here is, of course, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has created two groups in a fishery. At face value, what they call the less-than-65-foot sector, which are our members here in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is where fish harvesters are licensed individually and quotas are shared up amongst fleets. Then the other component is the offshore sector, which are the companies basically. In that context, we have to look at the details of why that was done, historically. If we look at Fishery Products International, of course, given the quotas for some of the species further off shore, the decision to do it was in proper context at the time. However, we have seen corporatization of those resources.
I will hit on the latter one first. For example, a quota that sustained one community, the corporate ownership changed and then the fish was moved out of there. That was never the intent on that aspect. However, that is what we see as we get fewer players through amalgamations and such. We see the community interests diminishing dramatically, and it has a tremendous impact on people.
The owner-operator and fleet separation policies have been brought out by the fact that it has been very difficult — enhanced in recent years, but not necessarily a new problem — for our members to access capital. Quite often, based on their business plan, banks will not look at them. Therefore, where do they go? They go to companies, the very same companies that are part of this issue. Of course, the companies have no problem giving the money, but our members have to practically signs over everything to get their money. That is a major issue we are trying to deal with now. In the end, that is diminishing the community interest in the fisheries.
We have seen it go two ways. We have seen places such as Australia, where this has gone full-blown, and the owner- operator and fleet separation are out. There is no competition from processors because the processors become the harvesters, so to speak. They do whatever they want versus somewhere such as the Faroe Islands. There is a case study there where they have really focused on bringing the fish back to the communities. I believe, both for the fish, but, more importantly, for the people who make a living from the fish, that the latter example of Faroe Islands is something that is much more sustainable and — if I can use too strong a word — sensible.
Ms. Payne: Otherwise Bay Street owns the fish.
Mr. Spingle: Yes.
Senator Mercer: I thought Bay Street owned everything. They are working on it. In your mention of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, you did not give any reference to the science that comes out of that department, which is a constant debate in Atlantic Canada whether that science is to be believed or not.
Mr. Spingle: These are issues that I have dealt with primarily during my tenure over the last eight years. Actually, science is my background. It is a shifting paradigm now, because, we are trying to promote a new system and move forward with that. Programs that I have been involved with, the Groundfish Sentinel Program and the Fisheries Science Collaborative Program, were meeting the challenge to do science that involves both the scientists at Fisheries and Oceans Canada as well as fish harvesters. We are slowly trudging through that. I believe that, in the end, good science is about data. It is about getting the best determination of what is happening out there, whether that is good or bad.
Before the moratorium — that is why some of this changed — Fisheries and Oceans Canada had a closed in-shop system. They released their report and decisions were made accordingly. Fish harvesters fished. The moratorium opened everyone's eyes. Since then, through the programs, which that I just noted and have been ably involved with, we have been working to have fish harvesters not only involved with the collection of data, but also the analysis and interpretation of that data. I just got back from the Northern Gulf cod assessment in Mont-Joli, Quebec, an annual event with which I have been involved, and we are starting to see, and through other programs, that that is benefiting the overall system. This is something that many people are not aware of, but we are more involved and we feel that fish harvesters need to be at the table. We are not there yet, but we hope to get there.
Senator Mercer: It is good that you said the science is better than it used to be. That is good news.
Ms. Gushue and Sister Alicha, I read your report, and I was troubled by it. Actually, when I started to read your report, I did not believe I was would be troubled by anything, but I was troubled by your preoccupation with emergency food assistance, the frequency of people visiting the food banks and your reference to families accessing the food banks every eight weeks. You tried to emphasize to them that the food bank is for emergency. Is it not possible that families at this level of income and this level of crisis, that they can have an emergency every eight weeks? I get the impression from your report that if I go to the food bank every eight weeks, there is something wrong with me.
Ms. Gushue: We do not believe there is anything wrong with them coming every eight weeks. Behind the scenes, we want that to stop because we want to do more for the clients. It is the cycle where we are frustrated that we cannot help them. They do have issues that are very important to them, but we do not know what these issues are; what brings them to the food bank.
We do know that there was a dilemma about being assertive about the preservation of the resources, but the depletion of those resources at the time seemed to be the priority. Our priority was not to turn anyone down, which we did not, but we were greatly concerned, in 2002, that there would not be a food bank to help anyone. We felt that maybe, with a conscious effort, if we could help people make some wise choices; not force them to make choices. We did not turn anybody down. We would just talk with them as much as we could, as much as our mandate would permit.
Senator Mercer: Is that part of the issue you raised under "Unused Talents/Resources" about the confidentiality policies preventing you from integrating what you know about the client and what you might know about other aspects? It seems to me that Feed Nova Scotia, which is the one major food bank in Nova Scotia, has done some stuff where they have integrated the policies of other food banks with other social services, including the literacy program, et cetera. Has that happened here? Have you tried that?
Ms. Gushue: Yes, we started a process in 2002. Once we realized, in the last three or four years, that our resources are now secure, our financial resources are secure, the community support is continuous and has not waned at all, we feel quite comfortable to move away from that issue and to make relationships. I alluded to the fact that we had met with the Department of Health and Social Services in June 2002, and, at that time through the board, I proposed that we establish a relationship with the various government departments. We are not looking for funding; we would not want to get that. However, we would like to have a relationship with the people who provide the services to the clients, and we would like to communicate what we know and how we can help them in the circle of the client, us, government agencies and community groups, who all help the same clients pretty well.
About ten years ago, we also started something called the Community Resources Network, which is a loosely held community group. It is listed there as one of the groups that we had worked with as a food bank. Community Resources Network is a loosely formed organization of 25 or 30 community groups at all different levels of government, business communities and private citizens, who met once a month and shared programs and services. Therefore, if the food bank had a special program such as our thINK FOOD, a recycled ink jet program, we shared that with all the community groups. If the College of the North Atlantic had a special career skills program we would promote that and put brochures in the client food bag, so there was collaboration between groups. We would like to encourage that more. Now that we feel secure financially and with our food resources and community support, we will certainly encourage that. We have to broaden our mandate as well. I am not sure if the confidentiality issue is an issue for the clients themselves at all.
Senator Mercer: It is an issue for the people who make a living practising privacy law.
Ms. Gushue: Yes, exactly.
Senator Mercer: Exactly; it is always a bunch of lawyers, Ms. Gushue.
Senator Mercer: Sister Alicha told the story of the mother who kept her child home a couple of days because she did not have enough food to put in her child's lunch. I will go back to the testimony of a previous witness this morning, who talked about the very high absentee rate in kindergarten. We have the full circle here. I believe it was the Sister who made reference to the cycle of poverty. It is a huge issue.
Sister Alicha: I just wanted to add something to what Ms. Gushue said. If you have the same, let us say, 10 families coming every eight weeks over a period of 10 years, would you not wonder, is the system not serving them well? Is there something wrong with their money source, or income source, that would cause that to happen? That is what we are talking about and the frustration of not being able to address that on site.
Senator Gustafson: I would like your comment on China because I feel we look at the problems here, but we do not look beyond. Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney used to say, "Don't tell me where we've been; tell me where we're going." That could not be truer today.
It is interesting how close your witness is to what we have in agriculture, in Western Canada at least. We are dealing with food. Canadians eat for 10 per cent of their income. The only country that has cheaper food is the U.S.; they eat for about 9 per cent. It seems we cannot deal with something as important as agriculture and fisheries, and yet it all comes from the land. Those are my two questions: China and food.
Ms. Payne: Some of our quotas ends up being secondary processed in China, which is taking jobs out of rural communities. Now, obviously the people in China need jobs too. However, do we prosecute and catch Canadian fish for that purpose, or de we try to do something else? We are saying that we are not getting the full benefit of that fish, in terms of the jobs that could be created from it here. Mostly, it is because we have a corporate structure in place. In some of the cases, these companies, which we referred to earlier, are exporting part of that fish to China for processing, and as a result we have fewer jobs in fish processing here. It is a problem because if we want rural communities to survive, then we have to think about the kinds of jobs that are will be there, and fish processing is one of them.
We have to look at adding value. That was talked about earlier this morning, and we have suggested in our policy paper that we look at a marketing structure; that we do more to get value out of our resources and not just have a helicopter-type economy where the profits go someplace else. As of yet, we do not have a seafood-marketing structure in place. We will keep pushing for that. Maybe that could be part of your report. Certainly, it would be good. It would mean that you would have to invest in one; that there would have to be money available, not just from the private sector, but also from governments to make it fly.
Mr. Spingle: On that point, we tend to focus on the short to medium term. I feel we tend to forget. We are looking at policy that will shape the future here, the long term significant importance of fish and food. Right now, the Hibernia oil field is a lot more significant than the northern cod stock, for example, which is arguably the largest fish stock; one of the largest sources of protein potentially. It is a renewable resource. It is difficult right now; I can only assume that it will come back. It is sustainably 300,000 tonnes of prime, low-fat protein. We are focused now on non-renewable industries and how that will sustain us. We tend to overlook the long-term significance of what could really sustain us.
Senator Peterson: Ms. Gushue, are you the only food bank in this area?
Ms. Gushue: Yes, we are. The nearest one would be in Pasadena and another one in Deer Lake. We have two outlets here in Corner Brook.
Senator Peterson: How far would it be to Deer Lake?
Ms. Gushue: It is a half hour drive. We do not serve that area. They have their own community support, as well as Pasadena, which is about a ten minute drive from Deer Lake.
Senator Peterson: I was wondering if there was any overlap; if the people from here drive to Deer Lake or vice versa.
Ms. Gushue: Well we hope that they do not do that. We hope that they do not come to us, and then go to Pasadena. There is not a relationship between our food banks and those of Pasadena and Deer Lake.
Senator Peterson: Is there a school food program here in this area?
Ms. Gushue: There is a breakfast program for children.
Senator Peterson: Is that done separately?
Ms. Gushue: It is done separately. There is another program called Kids Eat Smart Foundation. It is a breakfast program that is in the area.
Senator Peterson: It is fairly continuous? Has it been going for a while?
Ms. Gushue: It has existed for about eight or nine years.
Senator Peterson: Mr. Spingle, I am from Saskatchewan, so you will have to help me a bit here. In the fishing industry, are they all corporate licences, or corporate and individual?
Mr. Spingle: Our membership is individual, at least on paper. There is a reference to trust agreements that have increased in recent years. There are other sectors; it depends on the resource, the actual species. Some of it is corporate, so there is a combination. It is separated by what is called the inshore and the offshore.
In most species, there is a combination, and in some there is either one or the other. The snow crab fishery, for example, is all owner-operator licensed. However, many of the groundfish quotas, such as the yellowtail flounder on the Grand Banks, which sustains the Marystown plant there, is basically 100 per cent offshore, owned by corporate interests.
Senator Peterson: Your concern was that individuals get in trouble and then they sell corporately? Is this the point?
Mr. Spingle: On paper it may seem that the inshore, the owner-operator, owns the fish or controls the fish, but he or she really does not because of the agreements. He or she is forced to go to the corporate interests to obtain money and then signs an agreement.
The other aspect, clearly the intent of the corporate ownership at the time, was for the benefit of regions and communities. For example, I will take this fish from Newfoundland and move it to a plant in Nova Scotia, or vice versa — or China.
Therefore, if I am given a quota of fish to operate a plant here in Corner Brook and better business says I will take it and move it to China, then that will not benefit this region too much. That is the definition of the issue, the problem and what needs to be fixed, so to speak.
Senator Peterson: Is the industry oversized? How much would have to be reduced so that it would be viable for everyone?
Mr. Spingle: It would have to be reduced significantly. I am glad you asked that question, senator, because one of the points is that we had a buyout in 1992, with the moratorium. We had The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, TAGS, program and such, and now we are still talking about buybacks. Where will it ever end? The point is that it went a long way to diminishing the fleets, to get to where we need to be. We just need to get somewhat further, I believe. That is the point, right? We do not want it to be something that we will be looking at 10 years from now. If the appropriate measures are taken, we will have a sustainable industry, based on the numbers, from which we can earn a decent living. On the scale, on the percentage, I do not feel there is a direct answer for that obviously. I will not give a number, even though that is quite often my tendency. The number will be significant, I would say, but achievable at the same time.
Senator Callbeck: Senator Mercer referred to the situation that you raised, Sister. The food bank, it says here, has a mandate to provide emergency food assistance. To me, that is an emergency, the situation where the mother does not have any food for the children. However, the food bank is not set up to deal with that type of situation, is that correct? I do not have a food bank in the my area, so I do not know, but I take it that the food bank is open just so many days and that people get food every two weeks. Therefore, there is no way that the food bank deals with the type of situation you are talking about.
Sister Alicha: In what sense?
Senator Callbeck: That the mother is out of food, and she cannot go to the food bank.
Sister Alicha: Yes, she can.
Senator Callbeck: I understand.
Sister Alicha: What we are saying is we are trying to discern what it is that causes people to come regularly over extended periods. We to try to get to the basis of the problem, but we have no access or no way of doing that. As a food bank outlet supervisor, that is all I can do is provide for the emergency and ask the questions.
Senator Callbeck: I understand what you are saying. I just misunderstood.
Is the food bank open six days a week?
Sister Alicha: No, it is open four days a week.
Senator Callbeck: You are a registered charity, and the value of the food that you gave out in 2006 was $120,000. What value of that, percentage-wise roughly, would come in as food as compared to money?
Ms. Gushue: We probably get close less than $40,000 in cash donations.
Sister Alicha: I was going to say 70 per cent would be community donations.
Ms. Gushue: Yes, somewhere in there.
Senator Callbeck: Has there been a change in that since you became a registered charity?
Ms. Gushue: No, not really; we have always been a registered charity since we started in 1994.
Senator Callbeck: I see it was where you became incorporated in 2006.
Ms. Gushue: If I could just go back to your question and the explanation of the emergency status. The churches in the area all provide on the weekends or during the late night hours if there is an emergency of some sort. The Department of Health and Social Services also has a telephone number that people can call in the middle of the night for oil. We also do oil subsidies for clients, so there is that as well, under the auspices of The Bay of Islands Ministerial Association. However, if any church in the area is called they will provide food assistance at any time to any person with any religious background or not. There are no limits on that.
The situation of the mandate being an emergency food service is sometimes uncomfortable because the food bank is only open certain hours during the week. It is a volunteer network with a paid coordinator, and the coordinator's salary is minimal. It comes out of the resources we get from the public. However, it does not address the emergency situations. We cannot address those because we do not have the resources; although, we will not turn anybody down, if they have an emergency. As Sister says, they will discern the emergency and chat with the client and, more often than not, they are not refused help.
We will still always have people who need assistance on a regular basis, and there is a contradiction in our behaviour. Some people build up a dependency on it, and then it is no longer an emergency food supply. I would almost rather for the discussion — certainly discussion for the board — say that we provide food services as needed, and not really discuss the emergency aspect, because it feels a little negligent not to be able to do evenings, not to be able to do weekends, and we are not open on Wednesdays. Therefore, how can we say we are an emergency food provider? There are situations that come up everyday of the week, which are probably being handled by the churches and other organizations that will help people as well.
Senator Callbeck: I just have one question on the profile of fisheries workers. In the average income, $17,000 including EI income, roughly, what percentage of that $17,000 would be EI?
Ms. Payne: About half of the income is from EI.
Senator Callbeck: Fifty per cent of the income is earned and 50 per cent is from EI.
Ms. Payne: You can see, then, when the EI income is not there how deep the poverty would be for those people.
Senator Callbeck: Right.
Senator Mahovlich: I was wondering about the food bank. Is there anything such as Meals on Wheels? I know in Toronto we have Meals on Wheels, where every week someone, who is not able to cook his or her meals because of physical limitations — maybe she or he is in a wheelchair or has arthritis — is able to get a hot meal delivered to the home, and they really look forward to it.
Sister Alicha: Yes, the Victorian Order of Nurses provides that service.
Senator Mahovlich: Is that out in the rural areas too?
Sister Alicha: I am not sure how far they would go. I doubt it.
Ms. Payne: I do not believe so, either.
Sister Alicha: They may go as far a Pasadena, but I do not believe they would serve the same area that the food bank would serve, for example.
Senator Mahovlich: I see that the Salvation Army is active with this food bank. They have been around a long time. I can remember 40 years ago the Salvation Army was involved in distributing food. Are they still active? Are they still increasing?
Sister Alicha: Yes, they are still active. In fact they have just opened a new building here. Well, they moved to a new building, and they have all their services centralized in that building in downtown Corner Brook. They have a family services centre, so all their services are in the same building, including a food bank; that is only one of two. They are very active.
Ms. Gushue: That is one situation that we are actively working on with the Salvation Army family services. They have an outlet as part of a network, and we are actively working with them to be able to provide the workshops, life- skills training, coping skills and budgeting through them. Through the outlets, we would promote the activities that are happening. We would present the workshops, and we would not know if they were public clients or food bank clients; it would not matter to the presenters at all. Therefore, that is a really good relationship that we have there and a good opening to that door of being able to produce these activities for food bank clients to help them.
Senator Mahovlich: I was wondering about the cod stocks. Are they coming back? Does anybody take measurements? I have not heard too much about the cod lately. I used to enjoy coming down here. They would have cod tongue for me.
Mr. Spingle: I believe you can still get cod tongue at most restaurants.
One of the stocks that gets the most focus, and arguably it should in the large context, is the northern cod stock, which is southern Labrador Sea and the East Coast, because we are dealing with different components here. We see the cod stocks rebuilding in the inshore. The large offshore component that used to sustain the large plants — a big part of that reduction by 59 per cent — we acknowledge has not returned, but we are seeing some strong components to the inshore.
Over here in the Northern Gulf, here on the west coast of Newfoundland, southwest coast and the Quebec North Shore, we are seeing a rebuilding of this stock at a fairly positive rate; nonetheless, we have got a fishery that is building. There was even a closure in 2003, which was clearly unwarranted. I appreciate Senator Mercer's question on the science here because I have been heavily involved in this one. That is part of the debate as we change and as we are more involved. We are seeing a rebuilding here. It is extremely significant to the fish harvesters, to the communities.
Finally, the other stock adjacent to Newfoundland is the South Coast stock, and that has been doing better — at least on paper — than the others. I would look at it as stable right now. Cod is still the backbone, and, in the long term, we see it as one of the species, in particular, that will be part of the renewal process because of the aspects we discussed.
The Chairman: That will end this part of our hearings. I really appreciate that you came out today. I know it is supposed to be some kind of a holiday, so thank you for coming and spending it here. This added a great deal to our study. Thank you, and fight on.
The committee adjourned.