Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 21 - Evidence - Meeting of March 29, 2007
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 29, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8 a.m. to examine and report on rural poverty in Canada.
Senator Joyce Fairbairn (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Good morning, honourable senators, witnesses and all those people watching our Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
Last May this committee was authorized to examine and report on rural poverty in Canada. Last fall we heard from a number of expert witnesses who gave us an overview of rural poverty and based on that testimony we wrote an interim report, which we released before Christmas. By all accounts, our report struck a nerve, somewhat to our surprise because it was released late in the year. We are now in the midst of our second phase of the study, where we have been meeting with rural Canadians in rural Canada.
So far, we have travelled to the four Eastern provinces and the four Western provinces. Along the way, we have met a truly wonderful and diverse group of rural Canadians who have welcomed us with open arms into their communities and sometimes even into their homes.
The committee still has much work to do. We still have to visit rural communities in Ontario and Quebec. On that note, we are pleased to say we are travelling to Athens, Ontario, tomorrow morning. We want to hear from as many people as possible. In short, we want to make sure that we get this right and understand rural poverty at its core. To that end, the committee continues to hold meetings in Ottawa with expert witnesses as we have today.
This morning we have Harold Flaming, Executive Director of the Ontario Rural Council, Anita Hayes, Executive Director and Marjory Gaouette, Director of Programs of the Foundation for Rural Living.
We have two hours this morning to cover the wide variety of issues. I invite my colleagues, as usual, to make their questions as brief and crisp as possible, and allow the witnesses to respond fully for everyone to be able to contribute to the discussions this morning.
Harold Flaming, Executive Director, The Ontario Rural Council: Thank you for the invitation to appear before you this morning on this critical issue related to rural poverty in Canada and in Ontario. It is our privilege and pleasure to appear before you. I will begin with giving you a few observations on The Ontario Rural Council.
What are we about and why do we exist? We see ourselves as a key rural voice for rural Ontarians on a wide range of rural issues. We are a member driven multi-sector provincial rural organization, organized for the purpose of facilitating engagement on a wide range of rural issues. Our membership is composed of provincial organizations, private sector individuals and private sector organizations in five sectors including the resource and environment sector, the economic and infrastructure sector, community and human services, the government sector and individual and regional organizations. The reason we have broken up our membership in that way is to get a good handle on issues that are of importance to rural people in rural communities.
The mission of the organization is to act as a catalyst for collaboration, action and advocacy, for the purposes of informing, shaping and ultimately influencing rural policy, program and research development. We are a rural voice on a wide range of critical rural issues.
Over the past 18 months, we have held a number of rural issue forums. We engage in identifying critical issues on the environment in Ontario. We had the Walkerton water issue, so we held a source water protection issue forum. We recently held a successful rural youth forum in Belleville. We held energy forums and will hold a wide range of additional forums this coming year on emerging critical issues that have been identified by the members and rural stakeholders. These forums will be specifically related to rural entrepreneurship, renewable energy, community power and health issues. Our organization takes very serious the invitation to appear today.
In order to obtain input for the issue of rural poverty, we brought together a wide range of rural stakeholders from all regions of rural Ontario and Northern Ontario. Municipalities, municipal organizations at the county and the township level, United Way organizations, health units, social planning councils and employment agencies, represent these organizations. These organizations are in rural communities and deal with rural people on issues related to poverty. These people are the voice of rural stakeholders concerning this issue.
What did we hear from these people? The 20-25 individuals that appeared before us and participated in discussions clearly indicated that the committee's interim report was an excellent first step. The Senate needs to be congratulated; the committee needs to be congratulate for an excellent first step in addressing this very important issue.
We structured our dialogue with the people in attendance. We asked them three questions: What did the report get right? What issues may have been missing or under-represented? What would be their recommendations for action? I would like to highlight several key points.
What did the report get right? Certainly, it is acknowledged that the report was an excellent first step in recognizing that poverty is a key issue in rural Ontario. Transportation is a critical factor. Rural poverty is under-researched. It is hidden. People living in a farming culture do not say they have a major problem. It is hidden problem and the report identified that problem.
Rural poverty is not just an agricultural issue, primarily because rural Ontario is much more than just agriculture. Rural poverty is complex. In order to understand and develop policies and programs that address this issue, we need effective research in terms of dealing with the various complexities.
Those are the key highlights of what the report did get right.
What did the participants feel may have been missing or under-represented in the report? The participants felt there is a need to have detailed research and analysis of the complex issues. There did not seem to be a systematic understanding of the issue, it was fragmented. The participants, people working on the ground with local residents, felt the fragmented nature, which needs to be clarified so we have a much better handle on the exact issues, causes, and solutions. Certainly, there was a sense of inadequate gender analysis and data concerning Aboriginals.
In the participant's minds, the policies and programs tend to perpetuate poverty. Do we have policies at the federal and provincial level that are at cross purposes with one another? Several examples were given in terms of policies and programs that do not work together very well.
The participants pointed to the rural in-migration of poor people from urban areas. They coined the phrase, ``the ghettoization of rural.'' In many instances, people working with rural residents were saying that the poor in urban communities are leaving urban areas and coming into rural communities. As a result of this in-migration, the communities are charged with responsibility of supporting the new people.
The panel pointed to the emergence of the new poor and the working poor. The new poor relates to farmers who in many instances are asset rich and cash poor. Many farmers are forced to use food banks.
The issue of wealthy in-migration from urban areas tends to mask the degree of rural poverty issues in some communities. An example is Collingwood, which has many new former Toronto residents. Their wealth masks the statistics.
Seniors and homelessness are important issues. In early March we held a rural youth forum and it was quite insightful. The 125 youth that attended our youth forum indicated that homelessness for rural youth was an issue. They used the phrase ``couch surfing,'' surfing from couch to couch to find a place to sleep. The youth clearly indicated this is a challenging issue for them.
Geography matters across Ontario. Rural poverty is not ubiquitous. It is not the same throughout Ontario. That issue needs to be addressed in terms of truly understanding the problem.
We went through the report and asked participants to look at potential solutions clearly realizing that details would not be possible, but a number of key factors did come out.
There was a strong sense that there was a need for a national vision for rural and remote Canada. This vision needs to have community-based input, because community members understand their community and understand what approaches work and do not work. Both the vision and the solutions need to be much more community-based.
The panels stressed the importance of research. We mentioned earlier something that was missing or under- represented, the issue of truly understanding the complexity of rural poverty in its vast multi-dimensions and the need for evidence-based policies and programs. The research component, the organizations that dealt with poverty, felt they needed finer grained information to understand the local situation and thereby be able to develop effective local policies to address poverty. I believe it should be the same from a federal and/or provincial perspective. Good research leads to good policy came through to us over and over again.
We heard that rigorous policy and program analysis to understand where policies and programs are at cross purposes. Again, it did reflect an issue that seemed to be under-represented in the report. In truly understanding and analyzing policies that are intended to meet certain needs, are there other policies and other federal-provincial departments that seem to be at cross purposes with that objective?
Our panels mentioned a graduated guaranteed income for Canadians within a rural context and certainly, the participants that appeared before us supported that particular notion.
When we look at recommendations they can probably be divided into two areas. One, what are the types of government support systems in terms of supporting and enhancing those less fortunate? That is the government support side, but I do believe there is also a very critical piece in terms of job creation, entrepreneurship.
Through my work and my career I have had some fabulous opportunities of working with both federal and provincial colleagues. In my judgment and from discussions with colleagues, the investment that the federal government has made in the Community Futures Development Corporations across Canada and certainly in Ontario has been a good infrastructure base to help enhance job creation, employment development. I have had the privilege of working with virtually all of the CFDCs, or a good number of them in Ontario and they do phenomenal work. That kind of support, as an ongoing support, begins to provide opportunities for higher paying jobs, for jobs generally, so the support of the CFDC system in any economic and business development support is critically important.
There are some new models being introduced in Ontario. I have had discussions with colleagues in Kentucky; David Freshwater appeared before the committee. He is coming to Ontario to share their particular rural entrepreneurship coaches institute. They want to hear what we are doing in terms of supporting entrepreneurship. We need government support but we must also ask ourselves what type of entrepreneurship support can we provide to enhance local small businesses to encourage people to get into their own businesses?
Within rural communities, small business development is really going to be the backbone. We appreciate Toyota's coming into Woodstock and the auto parts plants, but when that happens we have just won the lottery. That does not happen that often. Entrepreneurship and business incentive support for depressed areas is critical as a potential recommendation.
Certainly greater communication of situations and increased access points was one message that came through very clear with some of our centralized activities. With the closing regional offices and bringing offices into larger centres, the people that live within the rural areas seem to be left alone.
Last, I would mention a national anti-poverty strategy, which includes specific strategies related to the issue of poverty. Broadband access is critical in terms of getting rural community residents onto the Internet and being able to make use of this key economic and community-development enabler.
Finally, the panel refered to transportation support in terms of the systems that are needed to support people in rural communities who have to get to jobs and job interviews, and who have to have access to services.
With regard to possible next steps, we intend to hold a rural poverty forum in Ontario to get a much better handle on the issues and what actions to take. We would be delighted to assist the committee in terms of connecting with organizations that could provide on-the-ground intelligence related to some of their experiences.
Anita Hayes, Executive Director, Foundation for Rural Living: Good morning, Madam Chairman and honourable members. Thank you so much for the opportunity to present before you today.
Understanding the issue of rural poverty and taking action to improve the quality of life for the rural poor is critical. Thank you for your leadership, but government alone will not shape a brighter future for rural Canadian communities. Government, business, and the non-profit and voluntary sectors must work in partnership.
Our mission is to advance the rural non-profit and voluntary sector and build sustainable rural capacity to enhance the quality of life for rural citizens. Our role in this endeavour is unique. You may be asking yourselves what is the role of the rural non-profit and voluntary sector in addressing rural poverty?
First, it provides programs and services that directly support the rural poor. Second, this sector plays an important role in building social and human capital in rural communities, capital that mobilizes communities to respond to its priorities, including poverty. It builds capital that attracts economic investment, promotes opportunities and generates prosperity.
How do we act on our mission? We deliver six integrated programs. Our rural-based research program initiated the first ever full-scale study of the rural non-profit and voluntary sector. Our virtual learning and resource centre provides hands-on support, research and resources, on-line learning programs and networking opportunities tailored for the dedicated staff and volunteers who drive the rural non-profit and voluntary sector.
Building vital rural communities is a program that invests in rural non-profit organizational capacity building with the aim of increasing philanthropic investment and increasing the sustainability of rural charitable programs and services.
Our rural development officer intern program places interns in rural non-profit and voluntary organizations at the community and regional level. Their roles serve a variety of capacities, including research, community investment, and organizational and fund development. Originally, this program was developed through the Job Creation Partnership Program that created opportunities for rural underemployed and unemployed people, but this program is evolving to include new strategies that will include college and university interns; a rural youth intern strategy; a rural women's intern strategy for those women who volunteer their time to their community but who work on their own family farm and are not eligible through the Job Creation Partnership Program; and, finally, a volunteer-led intern strategy.
Our award of rural excellence program recognizes and celebrates excellence in rural community initiatives and the people whose visions make them happen. Their successes showcase models of excellence to build capacity, address challenges and promote opportunities in rural communities, models to share with others.
Finally, our endowment and community funds program has and will continue to serve as a vehicle for donors to make contributions that support rural charitable programs.
The Foundation for Rural Living is engaged with rural communities and their networks at the grassroots level. We believe that the public, private and non-profit sector share in the responsibility to build a vital Canadian society because together we build on each other's strengths.
We engage with rural communities and their networks, partners, donors and funders who share in our values and our beliefs in building vital rural communities. At the community level, our programs have supported learning foundations, community centres, environmental preservation and education organizations, community health centres, municipalities, the United Way, community foundations, family service organizations, child abuse programs and rural relief.
The non-profit and voluntary sector has seen unprecedented growth in the last 20 years. Nationally, 180,000 non- profit organizations employed 2 million paid staff. They receive $8 billion in annual donations and represent 7.1 per cent of the GDP. The overall sector, which would also include hospitals, universities and colleges, is larger than the mining, oil and gas extraction industry, as well as the retail trade industry.
The smaller core sector — that removes hospitals, colleges and universities — is still two times the size of Canada's agriculture industry. It surprised me to hear that statistic. It is also larger than the accommodation and food services industry.
When we look at rural and urban comparisons, we only have information for Ontario, but in Ontario, 80 per cent of the non-profit and voluntary sector is urban based; only 20 per cent is rural-based. Of that 20 per cent of total charities, rural non-profit and charitable programs receive only 4 per cent of charitable revenue; 97 per cent of rural charities report revenue under $1 million, but 24 per cent of urban charities report such revenue.
Marjory Gaouette, Director of Programs, Foundation for Rural Living: The rural non-profit and voluntary sector is certainly a driving force in advancing our civil society in rural Canada. This sector touches every aspect of community life. These organizations have responsibilities for education, health, arts and culture, almost all of recreation. They are involved in public policy, advocacy and environmental activism. They deliver child care, run shelters, feed the hungry, build affordable housing and provide services for homeless. They provide supports for the elderly and hospice for the dying. They help us cope with life challenges for sure, and they inspire and teach us.
On a practical level, they bring us together to identify problems, develop innovative solutions, mobilize resources and provide programs and services that we know each of our communities need. They promote social change, willingly fulfilling their role as non-profit organizations or charities, serving the public good.
However greatly we value their contribution, the sector is struggling. Because they do not create and distribute profits, they are both undervalued and subsequently under-funded. At the same time, we rely on them to meet greater demands for services — the types of services that do not generate revenues and create wealth. In a market-driven economy, the non-profit sector is making an important social investment in our rural communities.
Improving the well-being of rural Canadians depends on investing in the health and capacity of rural, non-profit organizations. Let us make that investment. By doing so, we will be investing in the social and human capital necessary to stimulate the economic, environmental and political capital that we need to mobilize to mitigate poverty.
At FRL, our approach to building vital rural communities, the type of community able to build partnerships and create responses across all sectors, begins with capacity building. What exactly is capacity building in this context? The definition of ``capacity building'' is just evolving as we bring together what research suggests, how policy drives our actions and what it looks like in practice for non-profit organizations and for our communities.
The Foundation for Rural Living sees capacity building as a comprehensive approach where individuals, communities and organizations intersect, where they build strong and healthy organizations. These organizations build their capacity by becoming more relevant and responsive to the community needs and when they do that they become more effective, resilient and our communities become more vital.
The whole idea in the process of capacity building is to create safe and productive communities where people can work, live, play and develop to their potential — in essence, a vital rural community.
I wanted to touch on the concept of sustainability in communities, which is a term that can have different meanings and can be difficult to define. Two streams of thought emerge from literature on defining sustainability for rural communities. Sustainability is an outcome that is rooted in a financial model of sustainability and in the efficiency of organizational planning. Sustainability is a process that is rooted in the ecological model of sustainability that recognizes the evolving nature of organizations and how they interact in both the community and the social, human, economic and environmental sectors.
As we work with rural organizations, FRL has realized that there is a process to capacity building and building sustainability that involves individuals, organizations, communities and even society as a whole. However, it takes a long time, and usually much longer than you would hope it would take.
It is imperative that we invest in capacity-building initiatives. In the end, we want individuals who have the competencies to lead. We want organizations that can continue doing what they are doing and be responsive. We want communities that can build networks and collaborations to create the kind of community where you would want to live. Although we talk about capacity building as an ongoing process, there are also specific and appropriate interventions that have emerged from our projects and research and our participatory evaluation. Supporting the non- profit sector is a major strategy of the Foundation for Rural Living. In fact, it is our mission. We are doing it because it is creating solutions.
FRL is using an intermediary organizational model to provide capacity-building supports. Based on our research and practice, we use a structural framework that focuses our programs in the three main areas of creating financial resources, creating knowledge and infrastructure supports, and providing human resources.
While I sit here, I am thinking that what you are really wondering is what that might look like. We have realized that capacity building is driven by a few key philosophies. One philosophy is that it is comprehensive, so that there is more than one capacity-building opportunity or service that will support and provide non-profit and voluntary organizations with what they need to be successful. It is customized. There is not a one-fits-all solution for every organization. It is competency based, so that when we are delivering services and capacity-building activities, experienced, qualified professionals deliver them.
Capacity building activities are timely; you want them to happen when the organization and community needs them. They are peer connected through increased networking, training and learning opportunities to increase individual capacity and organizational capacity as well. They are assessment based, based on needs, assets, and strengths of individuals, organizations and communities. They provide opportunities to engage in activities that will add value and strengthen the organization.
They are readiness based. Effective capacity building happens when the non-profit and voluntary sector is ready to receive the services and when the community and individuals are ready to receive the services. That is when they are most effective.
They are also contextualized. Mr. Flaming mentioned that every community and organization is different, and every individual has different needs. By contextualizing our activities and services, we are more successful in coordinating and providing services.
Rural communities and organizations are turning to the Foundation for Rural Living because capacity building of the non-profit sector is critical to their efforts to build prosperous communities for everyone.
Ms. Hayes: As we conclude our presentation, we wanted to remind you of these four important messages. First, good research informs good policy, but investment creates change. Second, the rural non-profit and voluntary sector plays an integral role in building vital rural communities and creating opportunities for its rural citizens. Third, we must invest in the capacity of the rural non-profit and voluntary sector as an important component of the strategy that addresses rural poverty. Fourth, I will leave you with one final thought. In 2001, the foundation invested $10 million into a comprehensive, 10-year urban poverty strategy. Rural deserves no less.
Senator Segal: I wish to thank our guests this morning for their presentations and for the effort they put into preparing those presentations.
I wish to start with Mr. Flaming from the Foundation for Rural Living. I note in passing that Mr. Flaming is a long-time Ontario public civil servant, which is one of the finest public services in the world. I have some experience with the Province of Ontario, and I have some experience with the degree to which the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food had a long and detailed tradition, through agriculture representatives and others, of being there on the ground. I have a general worry that with the centralization and mechanization of government and the obsession with technology in government, some of those connectors that used to be such marvellous indicators, will no longer be there.
I remember that William Stewart, former Minister of Agriculture and Food, from Middlesex County used to stand up in the legislature every day and talk about what was happening on the farms because his agricultural representatives reported to him daily. That no longer happens.
I am interested in knowing your perspective on the extent to which governments are even close to understanding what is going on in rural life. I would like to know whether we still have the mechanism for such an understanding. Have we become so urbanized and the rural areas have so become so depopulated that we are like the blind man walking around the elephant? We continue to say that we need more research, as you suggested but, while we are doing that, the elephant is not doing so well. What is your assessment?
Mr. Flaming: I was with the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs for that 30-year time period, when the exchanges and switches were made. Many rural communities were quite concerned with the loss of the agricultural representation at the county level for precisely the reasons that you mentioned. Since then, and in my position now, that kind of comment often comes forward. Again, that connection seems to be lost.
The ministry has a system of regional information coordinators who are the eyes and ears of both the rural and agricultural community. The strong link to agriculture through the agriculture representatives has been lost. In many communities, the notion is that the ministry has changed and that its structure and function have changed. The role that the ministry played in organizational development and leadership development at a community level has changed.
Rural organizations have experienced a sense of loss and something is missing today. As a result, more and more organizations, such as the Foundation for Rural Living and other NGOs, are trying to fill that void. The original connection has changed and they are attempting to maintain it. There is truth to what you say.
Senator Segal: When Felix Rohatyn was in charge of rebuilding the finances of the City of New York, which had fallen into serious disrepute, he did a marvellous job of raising the cash to do that. One of the questions that he and those who were trying to rebuild the city asked was where to begin. Should they begin with the collapsing bridges or subway system that had not been properly maintained or with the police force?
Where would you start, given that you a list of problems? This committee is looking to organizations and people such as you to provide clarity on the issue so that we can develop the right recommendations.
Would you begin with income support or decentralizing government operations to small centres to generate a better job base? Would you begin with some of the isolation questions or by trying to install capacity, as your colleagues talked about with respect to people on the ground who can help to operate non-profit but important organizations?
Even the best governments with the best intentions and endless budgets could not do it all. I am interested in your best advice, assuming that we can always benefit from more research, working together and having an ongoing understanding of the problems and issues. In terms of making a difference, where would you begin?
Mr. Flaming: I have a colleague from Australia, Mr. Peter Kenyon, who works in small Australian communities. His experience is in supporting rural and small town development. In many ways, the Australian context is similar to ours. I had the privilege of spending three weeks with Mr. Kenyon in Australia. Our experiences in Ontario have shown that the capacity for providing leadership is critical in small, rural community organizations and in the municipal sector.
It would be most interesting to do a thorough research of successful rural communities across Ontario to compile the factors of success. We have done some work on that subject but the factors of success in communities often focuses on leadership capabilities and organizational structure and capability. That is an important piece. A community-based approach is a bottom-up approach. I realize that everyone knows that top-down approach does not work and community-based, or bottom-top, does work. That is a critical place to begin.
Provincial and federal levels of government can and should provide the right kind of support for various organizations. The value of decentralizing services and access points and of ensuring that those who have needs have easy access to those points was made clear by our Northern Ontario colleagues and, certainly, by those in Southern Ontario. If we decentralize, then we are providing new job opportunities in rural and small town communities. That role could be played by governments. I do not want to underestimate the role of entrepreneurship, small business development.
Governments do not create jobs, but build the environment; business creates jobs. Businesses provide employment wages, which means a cheque at the end of the day and at the end of the year. Any support we could provide for rural communities, such as incentives for small entrepreneurs and business locations in clearly depressed rural areas, would be a significant boost forward in addressing that issue.
Senator Segal: If a certain amount of money were made available for rural Canada, should that money be protected so that it is not sucked into the larger regional areas? How would you ensure proper distribution to the folks in isolation?
Mr. Flaming: There needs to be a place-based policy approach taken for support programs that clearly identifies the areas and why they are that way. The policies must be geared specifically to supporting those small communities. A blanket policy for the entire province is not suitable. Clearly, some communities are consistently depressed for a number of reasons, and they consistently face challenges. However, incentive programs can be put in place to at least shore up what assets they do have. It is necessary to work on the assets and support those communities by building on their existing assets.
The sucking up of rural businesses and communities by urban centres is an issue, and we need to be careful of it. From a rural regional development perspective, there is something to say about communities working in more of a partnership mode than urban centres work. Regional development is clearly a move in a positive direction.
I have looked at the work done by a number of communities in Eastern Ontario with the Ontario East Economic Development Commission, OEEDC. There is also the Southwestern Ontario Marketing Alliance, which is a group of four or five counties working together to attract investors from across Canada and in the U.S. Those strategies are working. A regional approach and anything that we can do to enhance and support communities partnering and working together would help. If we want to function effectively in a global environment to encourage job creation and a healthier more vital rural economy, we need to realize that we are competing against India, China and other countries. The greater our local effort, the greater the potential for a positive effect.
Senator Segal: The witnesses from the Foundation for Rural Living mentioned that one Toronto-based foundation, Maytree, made a $10-million investment. That was not government money; it was private money.
Are you comfortable that the present rules of our charitable certification provisions in the Income Tax Act are sufficiently flexible to allow what I understand to be an advocacy function on behalf of rural Canada and rural foundations to operate?
As you know, our present tax rules indicate that you can only spend 10 per cent of charitable dollars received on advocacy activities. I think the CRA has tried to be quite fair in allowing the term ``education'' to be quite broad. You can go very far on education on rural and other issues before it breaks into the advocacy limitation of the Income Tax Act.
As you know from your colleagues in the urban sector, there has been much work broadening the tax rules for not- for-profit organizations and charitable designation in the cities. Do you sense that represents a barrier, for the not-for- profits and the charitable organizations in rural Canada, to raise the cash they need?
Senator Gustafson frequently mentions that in some parts of the world and in rural Canada, which includes rural Ontario, mineral and resource extractors are taking food, oil, gas and minerals and leaving very little for the people who live there. Not as much as perhaps should be the case. Some countries require that the extractors make charitable donations equal to a percentage of what they are taking. In that way, the extractors get a tax break and the rural community receives a donation.
Would that be any more helpful or more constructive to the challenges that you and your colleagues are facing in rural Canada?
Ms. Hayes: We need to engage private sector business in understanding that they do have a responsibility to support the communities from which they draw their resources and from where they draw their wealth.
Imagine Canada and the Imagine Canada Caring Company Program was an important first step in profiling that responsibility. I think more needs to be done. In our work in the non-profit sector, it is very difficult to attract and engage large national organizations into local community-driven priorities. Greater opportunity needs to be available to business to encourage that kind of contribution back into communities.
Senator Mercer: Thank you, witnesses, for being here this morning. This is my area of expertise and interest, particularly in the not-for-profit issues.
Mr. Flaming we have talked about guaranteed income. We have heard about guaranteed annual income in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia. I was surprised at some of the people who recommended that we look at a guaranteed annual income. You used the word ``graduated'' in your presentation. What is your concept of graduated income?
Mr. Flaming: We heard that comment from a number of participants. Their notion was a guaranteed income would be appropriate but is there an ability to secure a job. If there is, then the amount provided would be related to that opportunity to secure a job. Certainly for individuals that have no opportunity to secure employment, they needed a higher graduated level of a guaranteed income. The notion from the participants was you are not necessarily giving a blanket income to everyone and anyone with no criteria. There certainly was the support for criteria under which that would be provided.
Senator Mercer: A means test, if you will.
Mr. Flaming: Yes.
Senator Mercer: One government department you did not mention was FedNor, the Federal Economic Initiative for Northern Ontario. Is FedNor working?
Mr. Flaming: Definitely. The reference I made to the community industry cooperation works through FedNor. Both in my past life and now with The Ontario Rural Council, Industry Canada has been a phenomenal supporter of rural economic community development through their Community Futures Development Corporations efforts as well as their support through this organization. It is a very positive federal agency.
Senator Mercer: It would be useful if there were examples of success stories. We would like to hear about them and we might go to see them as this study continues. We are not having difficulty finding problems; we are having difficulty finding solutions.
Mr. Flaming: From an organizational perspective, I would like to mention Opportunities 2000, which has done some great work on poverty in the Waterloo area. Their mandate is to work with the non-profit and private sector in terms of poverty. The Waterloo region has the three major urban centres but it does have rural areas as well.
The Community Opportunities Development Agency in Cambridge is a community-based organization that looks at the needs of people falling between the cracks. Their programming support is exceptional in many instances.
Senator Mercer: Ms. Hayes, when I give fundraising speeches on not-for-profit organizations, I use similar data to the data you have given us on page 5 of your presentation. People are startled that the non-profit sector is larger than the auto sector, oil and gas and certainly larger than agriculture. It is a very important player.
One of the difficulties is that approximately 60 per cent of Ontario charities in rural areas are classified as religious charities. During this committee's travels across the country, we have noticed the shrinking of that capacity. We are aware that churches are centralizing due to costs. The capacity to deliver services to rural communities is diminished by the natural deliverer of those services.
My question is not about churches, it is about the United Way and one religious organization, the Salvation Army. Has the United Way dropped the ball here in the context that they are global organization and service urban Canada?
Ms. Hayes: May I ask Ms. Gaouette to answer that question? She has more direct experience in that area.
Ms. Gaouette: It is interesting that you bring up the United Way and its impact in rural areas as compared to urban areas. Certainly in Guelph where we live, that is quite evident. The United Way has a capacity to raise $2 million within the urban centre, but very little in the county. I think the greater issue surrounding the United Way is that it concentrates on urban areas and on particular sectors of program delivery.
One of the greatest challenges in the United Way funding is that it is program funding based, where service delivery is incremental to an organization. Core funding, which is required to build a stronger organization, does not exist any more because funding is directed to service delivery.
When we look at rural communities and their organizations, the problem is compounded even more because the funding is getting smaller. If we do not provide core funding for an executive director, a manager, an office, a computer or to provide staff training or volunteer recruitment, all of the functions that we know make for strong organizations, it is harder to deliver services. It is our observation that the United Way is heavily engaged in funding programs, specific delivery, and that is a big issue for rural communities.
There has been a huge movement over the last 10 years, but to make better use of our funding, it needs to go directly to service. We do not need to fund all of those things that make a great service. That is a contributing factor in the crumbling of non-profit organizations in rural communities, including churches.
Senator Mercer: The United Way is an important organization. In my previous life, when I was vice-president of the largest YMCA in Canada and the third largest YMCA in the world, in Toronto, I used to speak on behalf of the United Way. In those days, one in three Torontonians in the GTA was touched by the United Way every year. These organizations can have a huge effect if they are operated properly. That is why I pursue this issue in the context of rural Canada, because I see it missing the mark a little bit.
You indicated that you thought the not-for-profit sector was struggling. I would say just the opposite; it is booming, and that is the problem with it. There are 180,000 non-profit organizations in the country, and everyone is fighting to cut that pie up in so many different ways. Rural Canada seems to be shut out, because according to your own statistic, 97 per cent of rural charities report revenues of under $1 million compared to only 24 per cent in urban centres. Those figures demonstrate the problem.
Senator Segal asked the question about advocacy. We have talked about rural poverty being hidden. No one knows it is there. Is the limit on advocacy holding back that identification of the problems in rural Canada?
Ms. Hayes: Senator, there are two important factors. One is that people who are drawn to the non-profit and voluntary sector and charitable programs are passionate about making and facilitating change. Their passion is drawn into their programs. That is why they volunteer to work in this sector. They care about making a difference. One of the challenges for many of us is that we look at the issues and the programs instead of also understanding that we have a responsibility as members of that sector to — and I will use a small ``a'' — advocate on behalf of making that sector stronger and more effective. We do not think about our role and responsibility as advocates.
The demands upon organizations and people who deliver programs are increasing to the point where it is becoming overwhelming. To take on the advocacy role takes them away from their under-resourced organization that is focusing on program delivery.
How can we support the non-profit and voluntary sector to a greater extent and help them become a stronger sector? If that involves advocacy, and I think part of it does, what can we do next?
Senator Mercer: That is a good question. One of the answers may lie with the CRA. Over the last several years, unbeknownst to the public because it is not a sexy thing that makes the front page of The Globe and Mail, the CRA did an excellent job of reaching out to charities, and to people in the industry, through advisory committees. Unfortunately, Canada's new government cancelled the committees. I hope they will restart those committees because they were beneficial. The issue of advocacy was on the plate.
How is the Foundation for Rural Living funded? Where do you get your money?
Ms. Hayes: Our organization faces the same challenges that many non-profit and voluntary sector organizations face. We are primarily government funded.
Senator Mercer: Are you funded by the Government of Ontario?
Ms. Hayes: We have received funding from the Government of Ontario. At this time, we are funded through the Rural Secretariat and its models for rural community capacity building.
Ms. Gaouette: Our projects are also funded by the Rural Secretariat and the provincial government through their new volunteer capacity initiative and their Ministry of Health promotion.
Senator Mercer: We met a similar group in Debert, Nova Scotia. They established a foundation and were issuing grants. That is another good example.
Senator Eyton: I am a new boy to the committee, so I have learned quite a lot in the 15 or 20 minutes I have been here. I happen to be a city boy who lives in the country. I am familiar with life in some of the lake areas north of Toronto, and for other reasons I am familiar with some of the rural areas in Northern Ontario. Listening to your remarks and considering the work of this committee, which after all is rural poverty, that requires some definition.
It is my experience or observation that in the rural areas that I mentioned, including the area where I live outside of Toronto, the cash economy is prevalent. I just want to know whether you take into account a very prevalent practice, particularly in rural communities, where workmen and others almost always are paid in cash and almost never are part of, let us say, the reported economy. Is that something that you have considered and have taken into account?
Mr. Flaming: No doubt, it does happen and it is part of the rural economy itself, but I must admit that we have never directly engaged or looked at that key part of the economy and how it functions. I really would not have a specific positive or negative comment to make on that particular point, other than it does occur.
Senator Eyton: I think it is fairly prevalent. I do not think it occurs only in the rural communities. I am sure it occurs in the urban setting as well.
I am interested in the description of your two organizations. It is quite clear that you have engendered much discussion, debate and understanding. It is my experience that you need a bigger target.
I want to pick up on Senator Mercer's suggestion of some examples. Could each of you provide me with one example of a target that came out of the discussions that you believe is positive and has made a good contribution?
Mr. Flaming: From TORC's perspective, the four recent forums were truly successful examples of the work of this organization, why we exist, and the value-added that we provide to rural stakeholders and to provincial, federal and regional-local organizations.
I mentioned the source water protection forum that we held in June of 2006. The issue of source water protection was identified as a critical rural issue as a result of the Walkerton water situation. Through our environmental working group, our organization decided that we needed to bring rural stakeholders together to hear what they had to say about the Ministry of the Environment's legislation to protect source water. Everyone agrees source water protection is critical, and we needed to do something about it.
Through that forum, we had a fabulous interchange and dialogue with landowners, municipalities and conservation authorities. We prepared a green paper with recommendations for the Ministry of the Environment. The people of Ontario said that some things were good and some things resonated with them. The rural stakeholders identified specific recommendations that they felt would enhance the government's move towards protecting source water. The Ministry of the Environment made some changes with regard to those recommendations. From a TORC perspective, that particular event was positive in terms of helping to inform policy and program development.
In Sudbury, we held a forum on local health integrated networks. The Ontario Ministry of Health is proposing the local health integrated network system as a means of delivering health services. Our forum focused on whether that structure addresses rural needs. Through panel presentations, we were able to share some of the good, the bad and the ugly from colleagues from Alberta who had implemented regional health environments. Again, through dialogue with community participants we were able to learn what the community stakeholders are saying and what recommendations they are making to respond to rural health needs.
Senator Eyton: Has that resulted in change or is it likely result in change? I am looking for measurable results.
Mr. Flaming: We are not quite there yet. We will be going to the individual rural lens and will respond to those types of rural issues.
Ms. Gaouette: As the director of programs, I would love to talk about the rural development officer program and our success over the last three years with our project in Ontario. We are expanding to Nova Scotia, which is supported by an extensive community network and provincial and federal funding from the Rural Secretariat.
With respect to the concept behind the rural development officer program, when we started working on what rural organizations need to be effective in their community and how can we help them, they said they needed financial resources, people and coaching, mentoring and support around gaining skills and knowledge in how to deliver those services. They also need infrastructure because there is a lack of core funding.
For the rural development officer program, we placed a person in three different types of situations. We placed one person in a non-profit organization where the rural development officer's role was to work with that organization to develop strategies around fund development. We found out quickly that when fund development is in a crisis funding situation where you are running special events, trying to get dollars in the door just to stay open, it is difficult to have a sound fund development plan. Much of the work shifted over to recruiting a strong board that understands what it needs to do to be effective. Let us make sure the strategic plan is easy to deliver on, let us create the plan and then look at short-term and long-term strategies. The rural development officer played that role.
Another person worked in a community health centre. The community health centre's mandate was delivering services to families zero to six. However, the centre also interacts with families with children six and over, but their funding is not able to deliver the services to 11-13 year-old children. The rural development officer recognized a need to engage other partners, and worked between the mandate of the health centre and the community groups that were able to provide those supplementary supports to those families. In that way, the officer increased the partnerships, received more funding and merged them. That is a successful capacity building project, where you are trying to bring resources together to deliver services to families zero to six.
The other model was municipalities. In West Lorne, we saw great success with this project. Many municipalities gave small community grants, for example, $500, to different volunteer organizations to help them with their volunteer activities. They had about $5,000 to deliver and they had approximately $200,000 in applications or ``asks'' for that money. They heard about the rural development officer program and looked at it as an opportunity to bring that person in and work with the organizations to sort it out. What do you need and what will you deliver? Can we make some partnerships? Where are other places we can get that funding? How can we get the non-profits who want to deliver sports connected to some larger pools of funding and bring that money in? Mary Lou Kominek, who was the rural development officer there in 2006, had a tremendous amount of success in helping the municipality make the best use of its money by bringing other funding into those community groups.
We are doing a three-year evaluation of the project. We just collected the data on our second year. Our research team will be issuing the second report in June 2007. Our organizations are saying that this project has definitely increased money coming into their programs, but it has also allowed the executive director, or the staff person, and the chair do that higher level funding development to engage more partners, look to government funding, work with the United Way and work with philanthropists in their area. It has made a difference financially, and it has made a difference in their ability to sustain their work.
Senator Eyton: Thank you for that complete answer. I have had some experience over the years with the Trillium Foundation. Have you had any experience with that organization?
Ms. Gaouette: Yes, in my general work of 25 years in non-profit organizations, I have had a great deal of experience with the Trillium Foundation. The Trillium Foundation has been looking at capacity-building activities, recognizing that some of the funding to organizations and projects could be more successful if it looked at more organizational capacity activities and more broadly centralized support that has a component of delivering to individual organizations.
Someone mentioned using technology as a solution. We use technology to help provide library resources and other opportunities for learning. We have learned through the rural development officer program that it is great to have those resources, but we are challenged with a lack of broadband dial-up services. No matter how many situations you provide in a training format you need coaching, mentoring and that hands-on support to help it happen. You cannot just read a book on strategic planning and write a great plan. It is not about the plan; it is about how you achieve it. I think the Trillium Foundation is moving towards that.
Trillium provides a great opportunity but, as with all funding sources, there are some big challenges. Its granting policy is such that they can only give one grant to your program in its lifetime. If they grant us money for a rural development officer program, they can give it to us for one year and then we need to find the funding somewhere else. Trillium can provide funding for up to three years, if it is a provincial level program. It does not matter if it is really successful or you have overachieved and you are doing a great job. That is their constraint. The challenge is the funding for the non-profit sector. Once you have an established a great program, where does the funding come from to continue running the program? Many of the funding policies with foundations and with governments are limited. The funding will start the program but not necessarily sustain the program. The other challenge of course goes back to core funding.
Senator Gustafson: I want to welcome you here. I have some problems. It seems that when it comes to rural poverty, and poverty in general, we deal with picking up the casualties, but do we really deal with the fact that the foundation of rural living is actually crumbling? It is crumbling. Just try to hire someone on these farms out here, unless it is altogether different from Saskatchewan, and you cannot hire them. I hear that in Ontario they want to bring in migrant workers to do the work on the farms. In a global economy, we are, as you say, in a free fall. Just to throw more money at an organization will not solve this problem.
The average farmer in Western Canada is 70 years old. They are working harder than they ever worked in their lives to try to hold that farm together. Unless we learn to compete in the global economy with the Americans and the Europeans, nothing will change. This situation will get worse and worse. The Foundation for Rural Living is shaken. It is one thing to throw money at the foundations, and I appreciate the work that the non-governmental organizations do, but this is picking up the pieces. How do we stop the free fall? Will the free fall ever stop?
Right now, Saskatchewan is booming, absolutely booming in every area but agriculture. The oil fields are going night and day. Even though the provincial government will not admit to it, the treasuries are recognizing the input that the oil and gas industry are putting into the economy. Agriculture, however, is in big trouble. It should be the very foundation of the economy.
As an example, in 1970 a barrel of oil was $2 and a bushel of wheat was $2. Today you know what a barrel of oil is, anywhere from $50 to $70 a barrel, and wheat is worth $3.50. How in heaven's name will we make that work with a bunch of worn out old farmers trying to hold the thing together only because they have a lot of pride? In Saskatchewan, even with the amount of sales that the Ritchie Brothers have, which is the largest sales organization in the world, they say they just cannot take on any more farm sales. I am looking for some answers; maybe they are not there.
Mr. Flaming: Thank you for the opportunity to answer that challenging question. I come from a farming background in Essex County and clearly understand the challenges of agriculture, of farming. Some sectors are doing well and others are not. I am not familiar with Western Canada, but from what I read there are some serious issues in the West.
We are in 2007 not 1920. Agriculture is part of rural and rural is not just agriculture. Agriculture is a very significant part of the Ontario economy in terms of gross domestic product. Recent research, by Dr. David Sparling of the Institute of Agri-Food Policy Innovation and by Statistics Canada, clearly shows that in Ontario a vast percentage of farmers require off-farm income to keep the farm lights on. That is the reality of life. That is what is happening. That is not to say that we should not have higher commodity prices for the farmers. There is clearly a need for a very effective agricultural policy to get the prices that the farmers need for their commodities. My dad would certainly strongly support that policy.
We must look at the realities of life. A significant percentage of Ontario farmers who make off-farm incomes say that there is a need for an effective rural economic development policy to provide off-farm income opportunities and other employment entrepreneurship opportunities for the husband or wife to work off the farm at certain times of the year. However, there needs to be the recognition of both in terms of addressing that particular rural economy.
Senator Gustafson: Right now in Saskatchewan, at least, and in Alberta, they cannot get enough workers off-farm or in the oil industry, gas industry, uranium industry, or the fertilizing companies. They just cannot get workers. They are bringing them in from the Maritimes, from all over Canada.
I flew out of Regina and was at the airport at four o'clock in the morning and there was a planeload of Saskatchewan young people boarding the plane for Calgary. Some were wearing working clothes and some we wearing office clothes. Soon, we will be bringing in workers from China. Of course, we are shipping all of our goods over there, having them processed and bringing them back. We are into a whole new global economy. I, for one, believe that the land in Canada is important. I believe that agriculture is the base and I think the Americans have captivated the reality of what it is to work for the heartland. I do not think we have done that.
Mr. Flaming: I have worked with colleagues in the United States who work in the area of rural development. They certainly see the interrelationship between agriculture and building strong, rural communities.
We can take lessons from a number of our Midwest colleagues — from the Rural Policy Research Institute and the Centre for Rural Entrepreneurship — and their strategies to support rural and small-town communities. We must acknowledge that in many instances, they are going through the same agricultural challenges.
Senator Gustafson: Interestingly enough, American farmers have had the three best years in their history and we have had the three worst. It seems almost impossible to jar our Canadian governments and bureaucrats to the reality of what we are facing. Unless that happens, rural Canada is in for a very serious time.
Senator Mahovlich: You mentioned migration to rural areas and the example of Collingwood. Many of my friends have retired to that area. I would think this migration would get rid of poverty, but you said it just hides it. More people, more hospitals, more cars, and more work — I would have thought that places such as Collingwood would be bustling and that there would not be any poverty. If moving into a rural area is not the answer, I am sure that we have a real problem.
Mr. Flaming: The reference related to wealthy urban people moving to communities such as Collingwood. Those who are not as well off tend to be hidden. That type of growth in Collingwood does support and boost the local economy. I am not denying that; it is a positive thing. However, the influx of wealthy people into poor rural areas masks the area's problem. All of a sudden, we no longer have a problem in that area when we in fact do. That was the comment from organizations working in those communities. The problem is still there, but it is masked.
Ms. Hayes: In that context, we need to recognize that there may be more jobs because of the influx of more affluent people, but many of those jobs are service oriented and offer lower-paying jobs. We see a growing population of working poor people who are working as hard and as fast as they can, but they are not getting anywhere.
Senator Mahovlich: It is like being on minimum wage.
Ms. Hayes: Yes, and raising a family on a minimum wage.
Senator Mahovlich: They need a food bank.
Ms. Hayes: Yes, and they need greater opportunities to earn higher levels of income.
Senator Mahovlich: You also mentioned that NGOs and other local outlets are delivery agents for government programs. An example was the post office. I always felt comfortable that the government was looking after my mail. Are we now going to the private sector for this service? Let us remember Walkerton where a private service there was looking after the water.
Mr. Flaming: Yes, that is true.
The reference related to Northern Ontario, where we had government service outlets that were dispersed at one point in time and now, because of retraction, they are regional centres. Still, people living in those outlying rural areas are not able to access government services easily. They have transportation problems. They do not have a vehicle and cannot get to these more centralized access points. A potential solution to that issue — particularly if government will not decentralize access points so that rural residents get the services that various government agencies provide — is to look at appropriate services where they can be appropriately provided, such as post offices and retail outlets. We must look at other innovative ways of delivering the services to communities and residents where they live as opposed to forcing them to travel two and three hours in transportation that they do not have. That was the notion in terms of an innovative approach.
Senator Mahovlich: In the U.S. Midwest, mail carriers deliver to farming communities. Does the government not do that in our farming areas? Does the government not deliver to farms?
Mr. Flaming: Yes, they do, but the reference was with respect to other types of government services that are now provided in a centralized location because of budget cuts. We seem to be retracting the locations of service access points. As opposed to requiring people to travel two or three hours to that central point, let us look at maintaining that particular government service within that broader area.
The reference to the post office was given simply as an example of a means to deliver a needed service to rural communities. I think it is a good example because some communities use retail outlets to provide that service. We need to look at other ways and options to provide that service.
Senator Mahovlich: I come from a mining community. The CEO of one of the mining companies thought it was a good idea to build a community centre. In that community centre was a hockey rink, bowling alleys, et cetera. He thought it was a good idea because it would keep up the morale of the miners. It was a profit organization, but they considered the morale of the people to be very important. Teams were sponsored by non-profit organizations such as the Lions Club, and the whole community was involved. I think that if we are to support our rural communities, everyone must be involved.
Mr. Flaming: I totally agree, given my background and experience in rural economic development with the ministry and in my current capacity.
Ms. Hayes mentioned partnerships. Some people are tired of hearing that word, but in today's economy I think it is critical. Partnerships between the private sector, the federal government and provincial and regional organizations are critical to moving the overall health of the community forward. I believe the private sector has a partnership role to play with the various levels of government. It is a fundamental way of providing a stronger rural community. Your example of that mining community and that mine owner is excellent.
Senator Mahovlich: Non-profit organizations had to get involved to sustain it.
Mr. Flaming: Yes, they would play a role.
Senator Mahovlich: Ms. Hayes, do you have a comment?
Ms. Hayes: I am not sure we can look to the non-profit and voluntary sector to keep enterprise sustainable. One of the cautions is that the programs and services delivered primarily by the non-profit voluntary sector are services that do not create profits or wealth. If they did, they would be delivered by the private sector. Thinking that the non-profit sector can make those programs sustainable is something we need to be cautious about.
I would like to comment on your example. The example of the mining company wanting to invest in a community centre, speaks to its understanding that it is important to build social as well as economic capital in a community. Putting that community centre in place brings the community together. When people start to come together, they create relationships across and among one another. They start to talk about their community priorities. They start to mobilize and to take on the priorities of the community. That is a wonderful example of investing in social capital as well as economic capital in communities.
Senator Mahovlich: I think we were all poor in Northern Ontario, but we did not know we were poor. We helped each other and got along, but I think we were still poor.
Ms. Hayes: That is one of the real strengths of the culture of rural communities.
Mr. Flaming: That point can also be clearly made with the agricultural sector. I remember growing up on our farm. We made it work by the skin of our teeth. In many cases, that is what is happening now. That is why the issue of poverty is really hidden. In farm communities, rural communities, there is a self-sufficiency and a culture of ``we can do it on our own.'' The participants we had at our round table were amazed that farmers and rural residents are hesitant to us the food bank. Accessing services in some ways brings shame. That is part of the ``hiddenness.''
Senator Milne: Having come in at the very end of your presentation, I am interested in what is missing or under- represented in the report.
Following on from Senator Mahovlich's question, there is an enormous difference between rural poverty in an area like Essex County where you have beautiful fertile, flat farmland, and Moosonee, where there is no farmland whatsoever.
When you are extremely poor in an area like that and scratching to make a living one way or another, there is not much of a volunteer sector because no one has time to volunteer. The problem becomes exacerbated.
Mr. Flaming: I will comment on that remark, simply to confirm your observation. That was the message that came through during our round table discussions with representatives from all over Ontario. Rural poverty looks different depending on where you are. We need to understand that so that we have the right mechanisms and right types of approaches to deal with the faces of poverty in Essex County versus Moosonee. That was a critical message that we heard from our stakeholders. Let us get that piece right and really understand the different faces of poverty.
Senator Segal: I want to ask about the dark side, or the elephant in the room that no one wants to discuss. The OPP have suggested that there could be as many as 20,000 grow-ops in rural Ontario. The grow-ops represent a serious criminal range of activity. We have no evidence to tell us that family abuse, drug use or substance abuse is any less prevalent in rural Ontario. In fact, there is some considerable evidence that, as a percentage of the available population, it may be substantially higher.
Part of the problem with a depopulated area — this is true of all parts of the country — is that when there are not people to see what is going on, things occur that people that you cannot do much about. I would be interested in your views on that topic.
Ms. Gaouette: I will talk a bit about the effects on families in declining communities.
I have quite a number of years of experience in violence and abuse prevention with the Canadian Red Cross programs and services. The whole concept of violence and abuse is not just an issue of poverty; let us make that clear. Violence and abuse happens in all sorts of families, and it happens in all communities.
One of the points in a declining community where your supports become less and less, as Senator Milne suggested, is that the human supports have less capacity to deal with community and other family problems because they are so engaged in their own situations that these become exasperated and hidden. This lack of support can push some families into abusive situations that may not have existed if adequate supports were available to them. I am referring to financial support and the ability to meet basic needs such as food, housing and clothing. Without the ability to meet basic needs people become unable to interact with the community and the social network that can help with these problems. It is a huge issue in isolated rural and Aboriginal communities that have few social networks and resources. As farm families become more isolated from the community and have issues with transportation, access to funds to engage in the services that are available in their program and so on, it becomes a bigger problem.
Besides addressing education around child abuse and what contributes to it and how we need to stop it, those social networks are critical to engage people. That is what is really crumbling in rural communities when you talk about poverty and access to services. It is not just having the services; it is being able to access those services. It is not just being able to get people to the recreation centre. After you get them there, what about the user fees? It all ties in together. You need to meet your basic needs and you need that social network to keep you healthy, active and engaged.
I do not know if that answers the question.
Mr. Flaming: I wish to add one observation. Stories are important, flesh and blood stories of people going through a poverty situation and the impact of it, the abuse, the violence, the substance abuse.
Through our conversations with representatives from public health departments, municipalities, the United Way and the social planning council, we heard story after story after story of people who were going through exactly what you are talking about. We heard about how they cope, respond and deal with these issues. Those are flesh and blood images that tell us that it is a critical issue in rural communities. Part of it is a lack of financial support, lack of family support, whatever it may be. Really understanding the depth of that kind of human suffering, and connections with organizations such as those that I have just mentioned, working with communities and residents on the ground, would enlighten and truly inform this dialogue.
That is one thing that TORC is intending to do, namely, to set the table to try to bring the dialogue in order that we can appropriately inform what is really going on. Discussions with organizations such as that would truly enlighten it. From a very specific perspective, we certainly have heard of examples of abuse related to the income situation and to the family situation.
Senator Gustafson: I want to pick up on the subject that Senator Milne raised regarding land prices. It appears to me that we in Canada have not given much thought to this very important area. I am now referring to the amount of acres that are coming under concrete in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Americans have already moved on this because they have so many major cities that land use has become a very important subject. It will become and is becoming more important in Canada as we become more environmentally conscious. I want to pick up on that point because I think it is very important. There are different income levels, first, for security. If you happen to own a piece of land that the bank feels is worth $500,000 or several million dollars, that person will not have any trouble with input costs, and so on. That point must be taken into consideration.
Senator Milne: You cannot farm the land if you sell it. The land provides the income.
Senator Gustafson: No, but that gives you collateral to borrow.
The Chairman: Travelling through parts of what used to be rural Ontario from Toronto to Sutton, you would go through gorgeous rolling hills and marvellous farms. This past year, I was travelled through that area and was both startled and saddened by the degree to which that land has now been taken up from the city, from people who do not want to farm the land but want to live out in that area. That is sad, in a way. You now see a total transformation from the rich farming area that you once would drive out to see. That is disappearing. That, too, must be an element in the concerns that we have in this committee.
Senator Gustafson: We found a similar situation east of Lethbridge. They said that the price of the land is getting so high that if one generation dropped out of that farm, that was the end of it. It would be owned either by an oil company or by a feedlot et cetera. That farm family would never again control that very good land. The situation in Saskatchewan is quite opposite in some areas.
Senator Milne: I live in Brampton on the Peel Plain, on the lovely Chinguacousy clay. In that area, most of the class A agricultural land is being paved over. People cannot farm there because they sell the land for millions of dollars. If they stay on the land to farm it, they cannot pay the taxes because the taxes are escalating.
Senator Gustafson: What position does the government take on these types of situations? That is something we will have to face sooner or later in Canada.
Mr. Flaming: When I began my career with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs the ministry was implementing the Foodland Guidelines and the provincial policy on protecting agricultural land. I began my career with a background in farming and with an understanding, vision and passion for protecting good agricultural land.
Senator Milne: My husband was an agriculture engineer with the department.
Mr. Flaming: Yes, you are right. I remember that name. I remember working in Peel Region and Halton and Waterloo-Wellington.
The issue of the protection of agricultural land is critical from a food security point of view. I want to bring it back in terms of urban people wanting to drive into rural areas and enjoying what they see there. In my mind, there is an interrelationship between the well-being of rural communities and rural Canada and what urban Canada desires. They do not want to go into rural communities that are decimated and falling apart. There is a symbiotic interrelationship between a healthy urban area and a healthy rural community. It is for that reason that I believe, from a holistic national and provincial perspective that there is a need for a strong urban agenda. There is equally a need and a desire for rural Ontario to have a strong rural agenda, a rural focus in terms of building strong, rural communities. It cannot be done just by NGOs and by local municipalities; it truly is a partnership.
If we have a strong vision for building strong rural communities in a partnership mode, understanding the issues and the innovative approaches, I think we can move that agenda further.
Senator Mahovlich: Are golf courses a problem?
Mr. Flaming: On good agricultural land, senator, yes. They do not belong there.
The Chairman: On that note, thank you so much, witnesses. This has been a good discussion today. You are very aware of the difficult task we have had and it is delightful to have you here. Thank you very much.
We will now deal with internal business.
The committee continued in camera.