Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 22 - Evidence - Meeting of March 30, 2007 - Morning meeting
ATHENS, ONTARIO, Friday, March 30, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 9 a.m. to examine and report on rural poverty in Canada.
Senator Joyce Fairbairn (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Good morning and welcome to our witnesses and audience. Committee members are pleased to be here in your community this morning.
Last May, the committee was authorized to examine and report on rural poverty in Canada. Last fall, we heard from a number of expert witnesses who gave the committee an overview of rural poverty in Canada. On the basis of that testimony, we wrote an interim report, which we released in December 2006. We thought the report might drop off the sidelines and no one would take note of it but it truly struck a nerve. Senators heard from people in their regions who were surprised that anyone cared enough to undertake such a study.
We are in the midst of our second phase of the study, whereby we meet with rural Canadians across rural Canada. To date, we have travelled to all the provinces in Atlantic Canada. We are not sure how we got in and out in the wonderful blizzard but folks came out and the effort was terrific. We also travelled to the four western provinces. Along the way, we have met a wonderful and diverse group of rural Canadians, who welcomed us with open arms into their communities and sometimes even into their homes.
On that note, we are pleased to be welcomed in Athens, Ontario. This morning's witnesses are Sue MacLatchie, Vice-Chair of the Board of Country Roads Community Health Centre; Jen Bergman, Health Promoter, Country Roads Community Health Centre; Irene Selkirk, Administrator of Loaves and Fishes; and Dianne Oickle, Registered Dietician and Public Health Nutritionist, Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit. Following presentations by the witnesses, we will open the discussion with senators.
I am Senator Fairbairn, Chair of the Committee, from Lethbridge, Alberta. Other members of the committee here today are Senator Catherine Callbeck from Prince Edward Island; Senator Terry Mercer from Nova Scotia; Senator Hugh Segal from Ontario; and Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool, Speaker pro tempore of the Senate, from New Brunswick.
Ms. MacLatchie, please proceed.
Sue MacLatchie, Vice-Chair, Board, Country Roads Community Health Centre: I will follow the notes that we handed out, although I might digress. As you might know, there are 52 health centres in Ontario. The Ontario government recently agreed that another 22 be established this year. It is one of our ways of delivering services in the communities. Community health centres are usually put into areas where there is a barrier to health. In rural areas, it is necessary because of the problems those people have. I will speak to those problems today.
I glanced through the interim report and I agree that a true sense of poverty is well reflected in it. The report is a good start. I worked as a social worker in a community health centre in Ottawa on poverty issues. In particular, I was on the Task Force on Poverty for the City of Ottawa. Ms. Bergman is a health promoter with Country Roads Community Health Centre, CRCHC, and holds a BA in Social Work from the University of Calgary. She has worked with people living on low income. Between the two of us, we have much experience.
The CRCHC serves 3500 residents of Rideau Lakes and part of North Leeds. We have doctors, nurses, social workers, practitioners, health promoters and a registered dietician. Many people living on low income find it difficult to come to our centre because of lack of transportation and affordable child care. Often, they do not have enough money to pay for prescriptions and other devices. I have seen staff dig in their pockets to find money for prescriptions for people.
We believe employment, isolation, income and education affect a person's health. For these reasons, a community health centre is about working with a community about the root causes of ill health. In other words, we do not confine ourselves to the doctors and nurses in primary care. In rural areas, poor people face more stigmas than they do in urban areas. There is a huge difference between the two. I have worked with people in poverty in Ottawa, and poverty is deeper in the rural areas. As people live farther away from each other, isolation is increased. The lack of social contact decreases one's self-esteem and, when neighbours realize someone is living in poverty, they look down on them. For instance, there is no place where they can be anonymous and everyone knows when they visit the local food bank. That adds to the problems. In an urban centre, such as Ottawa, they can hide so people do not know who they are.
Our centre has community programs to address poverty but more needs to be done. We have facilitated the Good Food Box Program, which provides fresh vegetables and fruit at a low cost. Our registered dietician works with the local community to set up and enhance the food banks in the area, and facilitates communities working together on food issues.
The CRCHC works with local schools and parents to explore setting up a before-and-after-school program because a parent's working day includes extra time to drive the long distances to work beyond the school time. No other resources are available for these parents.
To reduce people's isolation, Low Income Networking and Communications LINC, projects were formed. Local women, many living on low incomes, meet to explore ways to help themselves find employment, perhaps in small business, and to bust the myths around poverty because the stigma makes their lives that much more difficult. We will address some of the key issues that reduce opportunity in this community. Our material comes from our discussions with members of LINCs and; other members of the community. The first issue I will address is employment.
Many people are highly skilled, creative and looking for employment opportunities. The biggest problem is the lack of stable, year-round jobs that pay reasonable incomes. Seasonal jobs are available in tourism and services to cottagers. People do not work long enough to qualify for Employment Insurance. Changes need to be made to the EI policy to shorten the number of qualifying weeks. In rural areas, there is no work in the winter and people must apply for assistance.
Employment is hard to find so people accept work at less than minimum wage. Small businesses might collapse if they had to pay as much as minimum wage. This dilemma in rural communities worsens the health of the community. We do not know what to do about this issue. We recommend more federal funding be made available to local groups to establish community economic development businesses such as small restaurants, which has been talked about by LINCs; taxi service; ecotourism; hot house gardens, such as the one near Glenburnie; and shops, where people can sell local crafts.
I ask Ms. Bergman to start the second half of our presentation and speak to the second issue, transportation.
Jen Bergman, Health Promoter, Country Roads Community Health Centre: I will begin by pointing out something that is important. In my experience working in the city, I see that people in poverty are the largest marginalized group in our rural area. Although there are other marginalized groups, those in poverty compose the largest group.
The second key issue is transportation. In our rural area, people must drive everywhere to access services for anything. We have no taxis or buses. We recommend that the federal government assist local organizations and health provider services to acquire vans and buses to increase mobility in the community. For example, vans would be used for medical appointments, grocery shopping, children's programs, adult education and health courses.
The third key issue is child care. The lack of affordable/subsidized child care deters women from working outside the home or going back to school to continue their education. When people are working, they often need a program for their children before and after school. We recommend that more subsidized child care be made available. The fourth issue is that student loan repayment needs to be restructured. People often live in poverty or on low income for extended periods of time based on the amount of money they are required to pay each month on their student loan debt, and I can speak to that from personal experience. I am a single parent and still paying off a huge debt, which I do not mind paying because I have a great education. However, I have no money and that will continue for many years. There is a need to look at not only the expenditures but also the income in determining the repayment schedule.
When there are no well-paying jobs in the rural area, people who graduate probably will not return to the community because there are no suitable jobs. Therefore, we lose our highly skilled and educated people to the cities. We recommend more bursaries and lower interest rates on student loans.
The fifth key issue is human services. A lack of importance is placed on providing human services such as counselling in the schools, which can help to prevent social problems such as violence in the home, addictions and unaddressed mental health issues, which can lead people into poverty if they are not already there. They have difficulty rising out of poverty if they are struggling with these issues. We recommend that more social services be located in rural communities and not in the closest, biggest town one hour away.
The sixth issue is dental services. Visiting a dentist can become expensive, not only for basic dental needs but also beyond that. For example, if they do not have teeth, how can they get a job? It does not matter how educated they are, people will not hire them. Although social services and other programs will pay to have teeth extracted, there is no money for new teeth.
We recommend that the federal government work with the provinces to make dental services available, especially in rural areas. Cliff Gazee, reporting to the City of Ottawa Council in 2005, said: ``Teeth are the only bone in our bodies which are not covered by provincial medical insurance.''
The seventh and last key issue is food security. As we mentioned at the outset, food is a big problem in our community. The CRCHC is working with the community volunteer and church groups to operate food cupboard initiatives in local villages but people can visit them only once per month. Even some of the programs that we offer are accessible on a monthly basis.
We recommend the federal government encourage partnerships with local growers, farmers and food cupboards to enhance the quality of food and the local market. We can encourage people to eat locally grown foods.
Irene Selkirk, Administrator, Loaves and Fishes: Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning. Loaves and Fishes is a non-profit restaurant in Brockville, Ontario. I studied food and nutrition management at Kemptville College of Agriculture and Technology and I have extensive food experience.
After reading the interim report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, there is no doubt that poverty exists in rural Canada. What will we do about it and how can we help? Loaves and Fishes started as a dream of two people who saw a need simply to feed the needy. We opened our doors in April 1999 and started serving dinner three days a week, feeding 20 to 30 people each day. Three years ago, we opened five days a week, Monday to Friday, 4 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. and we serve 80 to 90 people on average per day, which equates to more than 70,000 meals last year.
We have two paid staff, an administrator, a cook, a volunteer base of approximately 300 people and a board of directors. The concept of the restaurant is to provide nutritious meals to low income individuals and families at a cost of $1 per person, and children under age 10 eat free. No one is turned away.
At Loaves and Fishes, we realize that without the benefit of a well-balanced diet, chronic disease and poor health will occur. We strive to provide our patrons with nutritious balanced meals, making sure that all food groups are covered. Meals consist of soup, salad, a main course, dessert, juice, milk and coffee or tea.
Our clients come from many social groups, such as families, single parents, unemployed, those with addictions, widows, widowers, senior citizens, students, the mentally challenged and the working poor. Families with one or both parents working for minimum wage or with more than one part-time job, those lacking the knowledge to follow basic cooking instructions and seniors living alone all find it hard to cook a nutritious meal. Some might not have the facility to cook because, for example, they live in a boarding house. The meal at Loaves and Fishes might be the only one that some people have in a day.
Over the past six years, we have noticed that more families with children are eating at Loaves and Fishes. It is not unusual for children to come on their own. At first, we found this situation strange but quickly realized that these children might have been home alone until mom or dad arrive home from work. I was a single parent with four children and I wonder today if I might have used such a facility when they were younger. Some regular clients join us for dinner every evening and stay to socialize with guests. Loaves and Fishes is not only about feeding people in need but also about developing a social network for people who have little contact with the outside world.
Many schools in Brockville have joined with Loaves and Fishes to raise money and have food drives. They have toured the restaurant and enjoyed a meal. Some children have come back with their parents for dinner in the evening. Loaves and Fishes is not only a place to eat but also a caring and social environment. Loaves and Fishes is founded on the belief that in the sharing of bread, a community is built where barriers between people vanish, where dignity and respect flourish, where service and acceptance unite and where warmth and understanding prevail. We do not receive any government funding, and depend on the community to help us with our mission. The community does not failed us. Thank you for the privilege of speaking to the committee.
Dianne Oickle, Registered Dietician and Public Health Nutritionist, Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit: I want to take this opportunity to thank the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry for holding these hearings. It is fantastic that you have come to a small town such as Athens, Ontario, to hear firsthand what happens in a local area.
I am privileged to work with both agencies sitting with me at the table. With CRCHC, I too commend the committee on its interim report released in December 2006. It is fantastic and accurately reflects the health concerns of rural poverty. I will find it useful in much of my work.
I am proud to be here representing the Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit. We are the public health agency responsible for public health programming for the three counties of Leeds, Grenville and Lanark. The geographical area is huge. To drive from our northern-most point to our eastern-most point takes upwards of three hours. The population is more than 156,000. There are massive concerns in terms of the distribution of services in such a large rural area.
I am a registered dietician and much of my work is in the area of food security and social determinants of health. I want to build on some of the points in the interim report and discuss how they apply locally, to provide a picture of our local health. We all know that living in poverty directly increases an individual's risk of chronic disease and poor health.
When it comes to socio-economic status, a community's economic well-being, the share of people living below the poverty line, in particular, greatly influences the health and related concerns of all residents. Within this tri-county area of Leeds, Grenville and Lanark, we have five distinct communities with a poverty level higher than the provincial average of 14.4 per cent. These communities are small, with a population of less than 10,000, fitting within the definition of ``rural community.''
In addition, a number of pockets of population suffer crippling poverty. Some smaller communities have upwards of 25 per cent of their population living below the low income level — fully one quarter of the people. In some pockets, it is spread out, so it is often hard to have a true picture. Food insecurity is defined as when an individual or a family has limited access to sufficient foods to maintain their health. Within Leeds, Grenville and Lanark counties, we have families at risk of food insecurity and lack of access to health services. There are high levels of low education and unemployment and a high proportion of lone-parent families — almost 13 per cent of the population. Of these families, 44 per cent live in a low income situation, as opposed to a small percentage of the two-parent families. That fact speaks to the adequacy of income.
Specific to the issue of food insecurity, almost 14 per cent of the entire population do not eat the quality or variety of foods that they would like to eat because of the lack of money. In this area, many people simply do not have enough food to eat on a daily basis. As the level of food insecurity worsens, dietary intakes worsen. For example, fruit and vegetable consumption is lowest among men and women who live on a low income. Compromises are made in dietary intakes in terms of nutrient quality, which can greatly increase an individual's risk of chronic disease as well as the day- to-day health to avoid colds and viruses, and to maintain sufficient energy to get through a day. Those things are affected each day by nutritional intake.
Cost of living contributes to the level of food insecurity that a family experiences. Housing is considered unaffordable when the cost of housing exceeds 30 per cent of the family's budget. Within the tri-county area, 80 per cent of our low income families spend more than 30 per cent on housing due to the lack of affordable housing in rural areas. This situation translates into less money being available to pay for basic health needs and to pay for food.
The cost of food is on the rise. Nutritious food basket data that we collect on a yearly basis reflects a 19-per-cent increase in the local cost of food over the past nine years. While much of this increase can be attributed to normal economic fluctuations such as inflation, it is interesting to note that other costs of living have also increased such as gasoline, home heating and electricity. However, people's incomes have not increased proportionately. This situation translates into less money for food and health needs. A rural family's ability to obtain enough food to eat can be affected by low income, poor health, disability, lack of transportation, access to an affordable grocery store and lack of stable employment and security, to which the CRCHC alluded.
Leeds, Grenville and Lanark have higher rates of several chronic diseases, such as cancer, heart disease and obesity. Contributing to this problem is low consumption of fruits and vegetables among the local population. Fewer than 38 per cent of our adults consume a minimum of five servings of vegetables and fruits each day. Research shows us that low consumption of fruits and vegetables increases the risk of cancer. Along with this risk, those that consume fewer fruits and vegetables are more likely to have health problems, a higher body mass index and to lead a less healthy lifestyle.
Children compose the group that is most at risk due to the health effects of rural poverty. In Leeds, Grenville and Lanark counties, almost 12 per cent of our children live in a low income situation, which equates to 4200 children. We know that when children have enough food to eat, it reduces their risk of developing mental health problems and social and emotional problems. However, children are the fastest growing users of local food banks in Canada, which is a well-known issue for our local emergency food providers.
It is well known that healthy eating and activity go hand-in-hand when it comes to healthy childhood weights. In rural areas such as ours, there are many barriers to families accessing recreation for the adults or the children, such as lack of transportation, high fees for participation, equipment costs and lack of awareness.
Children living in low income situations are more likely to experience illnesses such as colds and ear infections, and they are less likely to go to the emergency room for treatment because of lack of transportation.
A family's income level determines what they can afford and, consequently, the options they have about how to raise their children. Families living in rural areas spend a higher proportion of their income on goods and services such as transportation, leaving little money available at the end of the month for food.
In conclusion, I want to refer senators to two items that I have left with them: a report that is the executive summary of a food security assessment prepared by our health unit in 2006. As well, I have left everyone with a bookmark because literacy is so important, and mostly because it also has a reference to the website address of our health unit. On the site, you can find copies of our community health status report and more specific statistics on high risk groups in this area, should you choose to follow up on that.
Thank you for the privilege of being here today.
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Oickle. I am glad to hear you mention literacy because it seems to weave its way through all these issues, and it has been an issue for me.
Ms. Oickle: It is one of the determinants of health.
The Chairman: Literacy has been at the centre of my life as a senator.
Senator Segal: I express my thanks to our witnesses for taking time from their important work to be here today to give us their sense of reality. I am sure I express the view of all committee members, without regard to political affiliation, when I say thanks for the work that you do each day to make life better for people who face difficult times. The purpose of the reference given to the committee was to do a detailed study of rural poverty, understand what the determinants are and develop solid recommendations as to what government can do relatively quickly to make a difference in ways that count.
I will focus on two parts of the testimony we have heard this morning. The first one was the nutritional side, which was referenced by a few of you. We sit and listen to the notion that fellow Ontarians and fellow Canadians do not have enough food to eat. We listen to it as if we are listening to a weather report. However, the reality is that we are sitting in the middle of some of the richest and best farm and grazing land and dairy country in the world. Clearly, we have a distribution problem and a fairness problem.
Ms. Oickle, what one significant change could the government make that would have the most measurable and rapid impact upon the client base that you serve? I am putting you in the position of a politician who must make choices at times.
Ms. Oickle: We all have many ideas but I am not sure how feasible mine is to do in a hurry, and I am not sure how you would get there.
When I work with families who live in poverty and struggle to have enough food to eat, the thing I hear from them most often is how the less healthy foods are the cheapest foods, and the healthiest foods are the more expensive foods. Whether it is locally grown produce, which we most certainly want to support, or whether it is produce or foods brought in from other places, those foods that have lots of calories but not a whole lot of nutrient value cost less money. Out of necessity, these families are eating lots of those foods, and fewer of the fruits and vegetables that I talked about.
My dream, or my one thing, would be to somehow make the cost of those healthier choices more feasible for families regardless of income. I am not sure of the best way to do that: if it is to subsidize those foods, to give families more money, or if it is a matter of policies in terms of distribution whereby more local foods are made available to the local communities at a lower cost. I am not sure of the best way, but the reality is that those healthier foods need to be less costly, or at least more feasible for people to buy, than those foods that do not have high nutrient value.
Ms. MacLatchie: Speaking to some of the women in the community, employment is extremely hard to find in this area and that is one of the things that many of them are struggling with. They are working at small jobs and being paid less than minimum wage, which does not cover expenses. It hardly pays for the gas to go to the job but they are desperate enough to go to work.
I like partnerships, perhaps between farmers and organizations such as health centres. Some seed funding could be made available for community economic development. If the expertise is not there with the group of women who are looking for work, maybe the expertise is there within a community health centre. We have social workers, administrators and people who do accounting. There are small business people around who understand how to do a business plan. Maybe through a community effort, in that sense, something like that could work. I understand that community economic development sometimes falls because of the lack of expertise within the people applying.
I was trying to help out with saying that there might be other organizations that could work in the partnership with them.
Senator Segal: Are there regular connections between your organizations and the local welfare administrations and social services?
Ms. MacLatchie: Not that I am aware of. I sit on the board but I am sure that people working at the front line who are doing this would be in touch with that department. It is at the municipal level, in Brockville. I hear about the impact of welfare on the women's lives, but I do not know about the links.
Ms. Oickle: Certainly, at a public health level, mostly at the front line, we have regular working relationships with Ontario Works social services and social workers. We share clients. Our public health nurses work closely with social workers to help individual families and, as well, with child and family services in various parts of Ontario. It is mostly at the front line.
Senator Segal: Ms. Bergman and Ms. Selkirk, how many of the client base that you serve come from homes where a classic farm income is still an important part of the base. Is it a much broader mix beyond the agricultural sector to people who might be there because they worked in a factory when there was a factory, or they are there as a bedroom suburb for Brockville? What is your sense of the mix, to the extent that you can figure it out?
Ms. Selkirk: With Loaves and Fishes, the issue is mainly unemployment. We do not have as much of the rural farm industry. We have mostly people within the city.
Ms. Bergman: We have a mix, but from the year and a half that I have worked in this rural community, I have seen that many of our clients are generational. Their families have been here for generations. You see the same names over and over again. They might not be directly related, but they go back far enough. Without giving percentages, a large portion of our client base are generational, probably farmers that are not farming now but started that way.
Senator Segal: I am interested in how your organizations are funded. I assume that the health unit is funded by government at some level.
Ms. Oickle: There is municipal and provincial funding.
Senator Segal: Are there donations?
Ms. Selkirk: We have monetary and food donations.
Senator Segal: Are local churches involved?
Ms. Selkirk: Yes, all churches are involved in giving money and food. Our local grocery stores supply us with food and we have individual donations. It is run totally on donations.
Ms. MacLatchie: The community health centres are funded through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, and there is the new system. As of April 1, our funding will come to the local level.
Senator Mercer: This is interesting. A number of words and phrases keep popping up as we travel across the country: Child care, transportation, literacy and employment have been heard in most communities we visited.
With respect to child care, the current government has a program whereby $100 per month per child is paid to qualifying families. Has this money had an effect in the community? Has it created any more daycare spaces in the community, to your knowledge?
Ms. Bergman: At the moment, I would argue that it has not changed anything. There is a lack of professional child care services in the area that are subsidized by the government. Although there might be day homes, et cetera, that people utilize, they are not necessarily qualified to meet the subsidy standards. I would argue that money has not changed anything that I can see as a worker in the communities.
Senator Mercer: You recommended changes to the Employment Insurance program by shortening the number of qualifying weeks. This issue exists in Atlantic Canada as well because of the seasonal nature of fishing and tourism. When you say shorten the number of weeks, do you have a number in mind? How many weeks do you think are realistic for someone to qualify for EI?
Ms. MacLatchie: I am not sure about that. I can see the effects of no jobs, no work and people trying to live 12 months of the year on what they earn over the summer. I am sorry, I do not have any idea of the number of weeks.
Senator Mercer: That is fine. As I have always said about this committee, we are not having trouble finding the problems, rather we are struggling with the solutions to the problems.
Ms. Bergman: Adding to that, in our area, many seasonal jobs come from tourism or businesses related to cottagers. That work does not mean six months of employment at 40 hours per week. Often, it is part-time employment or for only four months. It is difficult to say how many weeks to qualify. I know that you need suggestions but the qualifying period needs to reflect the reality, perhaps a system for rural communities only. I do not want to go down that road necessarily but it certainly affects us in that way.
Senator Mercer: One word bureaucrats do not like is ``flexible,'' but that is what is needed to make EI work in rural areas.
I have a question about Loaves and Fishes. First, the work you do is absolutely fabulous. It is so important to have such a service in a community. You said that you serve 80 to 90 people per day. That is a high number and I commend you for the accomplishment. It is important, for the record, to note that no government dollars go into this service, and that is a credit to the community.
Can you give me a bit of an age breakdown? I think Ms. Oickle mentioned that children are the fastest growing group using food banks. What is the age breakdown for Loaves and Fishes? I am particularly interested in knowing how many seniors and how many children use the service.
Ms. Selkirk: In an average evening, we have about 10 to 15 children under the age of 10. That does not include children over age 10 and into the early teens, some of whom come by themselves and bring their siblings. We usually have about 15 to 20 seniors come in each evening. They might be widows or widowers and some are couples.
Senator Mercer: Loaves and Fishes is located —
Ms. Selkirk: It is located in Brockville opposite the VIA Rail station.
Senator Mercer: Where do your clients come from? Ms. Oickle said that the size of this rural community is significant.
Ms. Selkirk: We have a client who drives in from Athens. I think he is a widower. He comes more for the social time. Some of our clients also make donations. They will pay more than $1 for their meal, if they are able. We also have clients who do not even have $1, and we do not turn them away.
Most people are able to walk to our facility, so they have a room in a local boarding house. We have low-income families in subsidized housing and they can walk to Loaves and Fishes as well.
Senator Mercer: Later this morning we will hear from people from the United Way and from the Salvation Army. As we have travelled, we discovered churches have always pitched in to do what they can do. The United Way in rural communities sometimes seems to be invisible. The campaigns to raise money are focused around the towns, for example, Brockville and Gananoque in this region, and the services do not seem to spill outside the towns. Is that the case here?
Ms. Selkirk: We have no funding from United Way. I am not sure how to answer that question. We apply for grants from different trusts or from the Brockville community association, which has given us grants and such for equipment. I do not know if that is what you are looking for.
Senator Mercer: Have you seen evidence of the United Way in the two larger towns?
Ms. Bergman: Our rural community is under-serviced in every way. People have to travel for everything. There is some local recreation but recreational activities for children involves travel. As well, they need to travel to see their social service worker. Some services are in the community doing outreach, perhaps in an office a couple of times a week. Typically, we are under-serviced or there is no local service.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you for the work that you do.
Ms. MacLatchie, I will ask you about one of the recommendations you made for more funding for economic development. You spoke about the group of women that is exploring a way to set up small businesses.
In 2003, I was involved in a task force on how to involve more women in business and how to help women entrepreneurs that are in business. One recommendation that we heard from time to time was that micro-credit should be available, whether it was from the Business Development Bank of Canada or other responsible agency. There are so many situations where women need a small amount of money to get a business up and running.
In my province of Prince Edward Island over the last couple of years, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, ACOA, has made money available in each of the four Atlantic Provinces to business women's organizations in the form of program delivery and small amounts of money. The number of women who are successful entrepreneurs has increased dramatically. Women are good at small business.
Do you see a need for some kind of micro-credit for women?
Ms. MacLatchie: That would be one solution for the small group of women that I was talking about. Many of them do crafts and one lady is a good baker. There are skills that could be built upon in a small business. The barrier to that is having enough money to start it.
Senator Callbeck: That is right. In many cases it takes only $1,000 or $2,000 but they have no access to that kind of money.
Ms. MacLatchie: Not that they have found to date.
Senator Callbeck: Ms. Selkirk, I want to ask you about your project. I believe the literature says there are eight churches within the area. You said that the churches are very much involved. The committee has been hearing right across the country that there is a decline in church attendance and some churches are closing. Is that happening in Leeds, Grenville and Lanark counties? If so, is that having an effect on you? In other words, is it getting harder every year to keep going?
Ms. Selkirk: It is always hard to keep going. We always find that we are down to our last penny before something happens to keep us going. It is the same with food. Our refrigerators will almost empty when we might need an onion and, suddenly, someone comes in with a bag of onions. We are fortunate in that way.
The churches are great supporters and most of our 300 volunteers come from those local churches. I cannot talk about attendance in the different churches. My church that I attend has about 900 in attendance every Sunday and it is in rural Brockville.
They are a great support to us in every aspect of our operation. Without the churches and the volunteers, it would be difficult to keep going.
Senator Callbeck: Is it any harder to keep going now than it was five years ago?
Ms. Selkirk: I have been with Loaves and Fishes for only a short time but I have seen the statistics and the paperwork indicating its growth. We need more money today than when we started because our location needs to grow. I do not know where the money comes from and it truly is a miracle to see it happen.
Senator Callbeck: Ms. Oickle, you mentioned the statistics. I do not recall the percentages of low income people that spend a certain percentage on housing. Could you repeat that?
Ms. Oickle: The figures are that 80 per cent of our low income families spend more than 30 per cent of that income on housing costs. Housing is considered unaffordable when more than 30 per cent of income is spent on it. I wanted to make the point that the majority of our low-income families have to exceed that affordable housing portion of their income to have a place to live.
Senator Losier-Cool: This is my first experience with this committee and I must say that I am enthused. I congratulate you for your great work. I come from a region of Northeastern New Brunswick where we have all the same problems that you talked about today — EI, nutrition, health, et cetera. I taught in a high school for a long time and saw many of the problems.
I would like information on women and their health. The Senate made a thorough study one or two years ago on mental health. The committee travelled across the country to hear from many witnesses on mental health issues, including those that pertain to women.
Is the mental health of women in rural areas more fragile? I would ask the same question on breast cancer. What about teenage pregnancy? I have a list of many but I will stop there.
Ms. Oickle: I do not have any statistics with me but I can speak to the large number of clients in our public health unit. I work with many teenage and young moms, women living in poverty and single moms in various family structures. Anecdotally from the clients that I have had, I can tell you that a large proportion of those moms, whether teens or adults, live rurally with limited transportation. ``Rurally,'' for some of our clients means down a dirt road in between the gas station and the town that is 20 kilometres down the road. It is very rural. Beyond the typical physical health risks that they face, they are at increased risk of becoming caught in a violent family situation, for instance, because they do not have the transportation to escape it. They face an increased risk of violence. A large proportion of my clients suffer depression of varying degrees and other mental health issues. In rural areas, it is difficult to access mental health services.
I also have had a number of clients with eating disorders in combination with a number of other mental health issues, for whom there is limited access to services. A large proportion of those people live rurally and with low incomes. Some clients live in a room in a house or building somewhere. I once had a client who was 15 years old and pregnant. She lived in a room with no running water, no refrigeration and no cooking facilities. There was one toilet available down the hall but it had no running water. There are varying degrees but, certainly, mental health is an issue across the board.
Senator Losier-Cool: You mentioned teenage moms. Do more teenage girls make the choice to keep their babies?
Ms. Oickle: Sometimes they do and sometimes they do not. It is individual. There are services for them. I often work with those moms when they are pregnant, and we refer to them as moms when they are pregnant. What happens when they have the baby, varies.
Senator Losier-Cool: Would you say that teenage pregnancy has increased from 10 years ago?
Ms. Oickle: I have been in this community for eight years but I do not know the statistics. There are more supports for those young women who choose to keep their babies but I am unsure of the statistics. There are many more reasons than unprotected sex that teenage girls become pregnant. There are societal issues.
Senator Losier-Cool: I ask that question because five years ago I had a study in New Brunswick that showed a decrease in teenage pregnancy. Today, the statistics and the information from the advisory council indicate that the numbers are on the rise. Perhaps it is a trend.
Do you have information on the incidence of breast cancer?
Ms. Bergman: I do not have those statistics with me. We know that social determinants of health — income, education, social isolation and lack of social support — will determine health. Social isolation is an issue in our area. If we have an increase in social issues, I would argue that over the long run we would see increased numbers. That comment is based on my experience and knowledge only.
The women at the health centre and those involved in our programs and our anti-poverty coalition are accessing services and are involved in social supports through those programs so it is difficult to know. Are these groups huge in comparison to our client base? Absolutely they are not.
We have a depression group. We know there are mental health issues. Most of our groups are populated by women, although there are men in some of our groups. The reason is employment, for example. I see a greater need to have people come out of their isolation and become more involved.
Senator Losier-Cool: I have a last detail on dental services. I appreciate that recommendation because it is so important for teenage girls. We know how much it costs and I will use that information. I will check to learn what is happening in my province in that area.
Ms. Oickle: If you are looking for specific statistic on rates of breast cancer and teen pregnancy, our website might well have that information available.
The Chairman: Thank you for being such a great panel to start off this day. These issues are difficult. We have learned from you and we appreciate your work.
We will move to our next panel of witnesses: Judy Baril, Executive Director, United Way of Leeds and Grenville counties; Sandy Prentice, Home Visitor and Playgroup Organizer, Community Action Program for Children, Perth Connections, Lanark Health and Community Services; Randy Gatza, Community and Family Services Officer, Salvation Army — Brockville.
Mr. Gatza, please proceed with your presentation.
Randy Gatza, Community and Family Services Officer, Salvation Army — Brockville: I have had various experiences when dealing with people that come to us for assistance. In my 14 years as a Salvation Army officer, I have lived in five communities, Brockville being the most recent. We were appointed to North Sydney, Nova Scotia, for three years; Amherst, Nova Scotia, for three years; Dauphin, Manitoba, for five years; and Winnipeg, Manitoba, for two years. Last summer, we moved to Brockville. The five appointments varied in terms of population, with North Sydney being under 7,000 and Winnipeg being under 700,000. I have been in a variety of settings, atmospheres and demographics.
Throughout those years, I was hands-on in helping clientele who came to us for practical assistance from within the geographic region. On occasion, people come to us from rural communities for assistance. I would say more than 95 per cent of our clientele that come to us for practical assistance come from the immediate area or the community in which we operate.
From that small group in the rural community, I have heard about some of the issues. Transportation is always an issue. Recently, someone came to us from the community in an old beat-up pickup truck, which is expensive to run.
I find that people that should come to us from the rural community do not do so, and pride is part of the reason. They probably grew up in the rural community and lived off the land, so to speak, if they had a farm, and they want to retain their independence. However, things have changed over the years.
Some people come to us not for the usual things that we provide, such as food assistance, but for requests that are out of the ordinary. For example, I recently saw a gentleman from Delta, Ontario. His pipes were freezing up and breaking. He was on a limited income. He had to go to the hospital for a certain reason. I could see he was emotionally disturbed when he came to us. I offered him direction for the particular assistance I assumed he needed. He was upset and threw the paper on the floor. He was becoming more vocal and using profanities. I decided to listen to him for awhile to determine the real issue. He was looking for very little, a couple of electric heaters to heat his house. A restriction prevented him from putting a wood stove into his house that he was renting from a relative. Everything was going against him. I could see that if something were not done to help this gentleman, a crisis would come to fruition, either suicide or harm to someone else. He was becoming that aggressive. I managed to talk to him for a while until he calmed down.
Once we arrived at the nuts and bolts of his situation, we bought some heaters and I gave him some food from the food bank, which he did not request. I offered it to him. That help got him by and I never saw that gentleman again. This kind of situation arises at times when we see people from the rural community. We might see them once or twice and that is it. They normally do not come to us, although it is not because there is no need. There is a definite need but, as I said, there is that pride of independence.
I grew up in a rural community in Cape Breton so I can relate somewhat. My family situation was such that we never did without. Provision was always made through the head of the household, my dad, given that he was a coal miner. In rural communities today, more people are living in poverty. In my opinion, they come far and few between. I conclude that eventually, the generations coming up will move out of the rural community into more populated communities where more assistance is available and the social network is more pronounced to provide assistance. I sense and fear that many rural communities, years down the road, will become nothing more than ghost villages. People will congregate in the populated areas to have that social network where support is available practically, fiscally and probably emotionally as time goes on.
The Chairman: That is a new direction that we have not heard before. When you put it on top of other things across the country, it is probably similar among the regions.
Judy Baril, Executive Director, United Way of Leeds and Grenville: Thank you for inviting the United Way of Leeds and Grenville to attend this session to talk about poverty in Leeds and Grenville. Our United Way has been participating in a project called Community Matters for the past 26 months. This project, funded in part by the Ontario Trillium Foundation, has funded the work of 17 small United Ways across the province of Ontario, with our United Way in the lead position. The opportunity that funding has provided us across the province has been phenomenal. Each of the 17 United Ways serves the rural population, and the exercise over the past 26 months has uncovered some like trends across the province. It was no surprise to many of us who have served our communities over many years that we would find challenges with a call to action.
The Community Matters project has been structured with four phases. The first three phases involved community conversations, community-wide surveys and town hall meetings in all sub-regions across the united counties. We asked hundreds of residents that attended our sessions what made their communities special, what challenges they have within their communities, what would make a difference in their communities if change could be effected, and what their vision was for their communities for the next three to five years. Our conversations led us to people from all walks of life: young and old, employed and unemployed, wealthy and poor. The results we uncovered were both expected and unexpected.
We learned that there were eight core issues that people living in Leeds and Grenville are concerned about. In order of ranking, they are children and youth, transportation, poverty, economic development, employment, communication, access to health care and seniors. Issues identified across the 17 United Ways that represent rural communities have been similar to our United Way results. There have been some regional idiosyncrasies where a region would be expected to differ from ours. For example, in the northern United Ways, significant poverty was identified within the First Nations communities.
The rural poor face a large number of socio-economic restrictions including lack of assets such as affordable or satisfactory housing, lack of access to services, non-existent or sporadically available technologies and markets, and lack of skills and organizations. Many issues that have been identified have their roots in poverty. The poverty issue that rose to number three after our consultations is multi-faceted.
Within this issue rests a lack of affordable or satisfactory housing, which was identified across all regions. Families, single-parent families and individuals identified to us a serious problem finding housing that affords people the ability to live in a community of their choice, while allowing them to have the necessary resources to provide other necessities for their families, such as food, hydro, heat, personal care provisions and recreational opportunities. These individuals find themselves trapped. They live where they cannot afford to live, which on a daily basis plunges them deeper into debt, and they live in homes that would not be acceptable to any of us. Lack of affordable housing traps people in poverty and, if not addressed, keeps them there.
Housing quality and the cost of housing in larger centres has been greatly improved, but housing affordability is a critical issue for many rural dwellers because wages and salaries, even for those who work full time or more, are insufficient.
Everywhere we went, we heard the need for better jobs, higher paying jobs and jobs that paid more than minimum wage. Many adults that we spoke to, who were earning minimum wage, were forced to have second or even third jobs to make ends meet.
Probably the most difficult conversations have been with children and youth. Through our work, we have gone into 21 schools throughout the area, both secondary and elementary, to have conversations with over 1,200 children between the ages of 12 and 19. While their requests and needs were different from those included in our adult conversations, many of their issues stemmed directly from poverty issues. Students were concerned with the lack of affordable, healthy food choices available in the school cafeterias. They asked for the driving age to be lowered or for buses and taxis to be available in the rural areas. Rural students mentioned that food banks were often too far away to access.
There was a demand for jobs from kids as young as 12 and 13. Children and youth are concerned that activities and entertainment are too expensive to participate in. Hockey and fitness programs were named as too expensive. Senior members in high school have a heightened concern for tuition costs and living costs associated with post-secondary education. Gas prices were mentioned by a majority of students discussing transportation as an issue. Even if they are interested in programs, they are unable to attend, given the additional cost of transportation. Students mentioned that the cost of student cards in high schools is rising, causing them to be unable to participate in extracurricular activities and programs.
Education has improved but without meaningful job opportunities in their communities, many of the better educated youth leave for the cities to achieve lifestyles that are impossible at home. United Way is concerned about the brain drain that exists throughout the community. Young people expressed that they did not feel there was anything to come home to. They are looking for more than they are seeing here.
When we spoke to young single parents living in rural communities, they spoke about feelings of isolation and about feeling trapped. Many wanted to better their lives for their children but were unable to go to larger communities to continue their education because of poverty-based issues. Many have no means of transportation, no available bus service, no access to day care in their community and no jobs in their respective communities where they could stay and earn a living.
In order to make it, their only educational opportunities are in the city, along with better paying jobs, and affordable and subsidized daycares, but they cannot get there. To move is not seen as an option because rents are much higher than where they currently live, and so those feelings of being trapped and isolated emerge.
Seniors living in rural areas are more likely to have limited access to transportation. Seniors whose mobility was limited, and particularly those who do not have access either to a household vehicle or public transportation in any form, are less likely to leave their homes for social experiences or to volunteer. Many seniors told us that the lack of transportation clearly affected their lives in many respects. For example, many found it difficult to get to medical appointments, to visit family and friends, to participate in social activities and so on.
Transportation provides improved access to regional cities and shopping malls but further drains local economies of retail dollars and empties the vitality out of the downtowns of small towns. People with the least income find it hard to reach shopping opportunities or jobs that would help them out because limited mass transportation is available. Traditional rural development policies do not address the powerlessness and lack of hope that are handed down from one generation to the next and do not touch the root causes, instead tackling limited issues that are symptoms and consequences of the underlying disease of poverty. Even then, these policies address symptoms and consequences in an incomplete way.
While traditional rural development programs meet worthy and pressing needs, and enhance the lives of the impoverished, the programs frequently contribute little or nothing to alleviating the causes of poverty. As a result, they leave the impoverished vulnerable to a continued existence on the margin of safety. A growing consensus is that resources aimed at poverty reduction must focus more on agricultural and rural development.
What is missing in rural policy is a concerted effort to engage individuals and communities living in poverty in their own economic and social enhancement. What is missing is the willingness to face up to the root causes of poverty, which are often an outgrowth of historic and contemporary social divisions that cut the poor out of opportunities to share power, equal opportunities and, in the end, hope. Poverty is still largely a rural phenomenon. The poorest people we spoke to live mainly in rural areas. Rural poverty must be addressed in Leeds and Grenville by those in service delivery in the united counties.
What can we, the United Way, do about these issues? We are trying to address the issues that have been identified by our youth and work is progressing in many areas surrounding poverty. As well, we are actively working on a model to resolve many transportation issues that have been identified across Leeds and Grenville. We are actively pursuing partnerships and collaborative opportunities to address bringing services to people in remote communities, especially educational and recreational opportunities. We have engaged a resource team in our community conversations and some of the issues such as lack of daycare have begun to be addressed.
This is our fiftieth year of service to our community. It will likely be the most important year of action because of the current information that we now have about our communities. It will take a great deal of time, effort and, most likely, a lot of money and collaborative action, but we are committed and prepared to invest in all.
Sandy Prentice, Home Visitor and Playgroup Organizer, Community Action Program for Children, Perth Connections, Lanark Health and Community Services: Thank you for inviting me to appear today. This forum is an excellent opportunity to discuss what is happening in our counties. I live in the Leeds and Grenville area and I work in Lanark County. My office is in Perth, Ontario, and I work in Perth and in areas north of the islands.
By way of background, I have 13 years' experience in working with young families in the rural population around Perth. My co-workers work in all of Lanark County. I have 20 years' experience living in three different rural communities. My experience is personal and professional.
The families I work with want me to be here today. They think it is absolutely wonderful that people are looking at this situation and taking it seriously. They do not feel that they can come because they do not acknowledge that they have a voice; they have asked me to be that voice. That speaks volumes as I can hear them say: I cannot go; I do not belong; I cannot fit in; and what would I wear?
What does poverty look like? I work with families that are young, for the most part, aged 15 and over. The current families are mostly in their 20s and 30s. They all have young children under the age of six. Most women I work with are overweight, overstressed and suffering from mental health disorders. Many of them are on anti-depressants and lithium, they have anxiety, they have extremely low self-esteem and they feel that they have little control over their lives.
I have single parents, double-parent families, working families and families on Ontario Works. In almost every family, someone is on continual medication of some kind, whether Prozac, lithium or asthma puffers. To me, poverty affects health, and I see it everyday.
In our area, we have a shortage of doctors. I will speak more anecdotally and present individual stories. They will be representative and not specific to an individual. A young family has a two-year-old who does not have a doctor. The doctor that delivered the baby said that he would take the mother as a patient but then the doctor moved 50 kilometres away. The mother and child cannot find a doctor in their own area because, technically, they have one.
Fortunately, our community health centre in North Lanark recently hired a nurse practitioner to fill long-time vacant position. Now, that mom can see the nurse practitioner with her child until the child reaches the age of six. The mom has three and a half years to find a doctor in her area. This family lacks transportation. The nurse practitioner is only 15 to 20 kilometres away, rather than 50 kilometres.
I have listened to much of what has been said and I have read the report of the committee. I think we are talking to the converted here and I truly appreciate the work that is being done.
We live rurally and yet the families that I deal with always lack healthy food. Most of them use the food bank regularly. Often, I call the food bank to see if the family can come a second time because their time is not up. When they go to the food bank, they receive about three days' worth of food. When they must wait two weeks to receive some money, three days will not take them far.
People do not have much control over what they receive from the food bank and often it is something they cannot use so they take it back so someone else might use it.
Transportation is an issue so I will drive people to food banks. We live in an area such that if anyone has access to food, it should be the rural populations. I will say that in some families, the rural aspect is positive because they have access to meat when someone in the family has cows or chickens. At times, they hunt squirrels as a food supply. Even when they live in the city or in the town of Perth, they might use that skill of shooting and skinning squirrels, much to the chagrin of the police. The children will proudly declare, ``That is my daddy. He is a little different from city folk.'' However, it is meat that they can eat.
Living conditions are atrocious. Many rural people live in old houses that can be mouldy. I have had families who have moved. I have had families who ask, ``What can I do? I have complained and the landlord will not do anything about it. I can't move because where can I move to? Anything else I can find for this amount of rent will be the same.''
In deep rural areas, some live in two-bedroom trailers that house two families, which would be extended family. There might be the parents, their children and their grandchildren. Two sisters and a couple of children might share one bedroom.
There are few occupations and jobs. Of the families that I work with, those who are working find employment at the local Mac's Milk or Tim Hortons. They work shifts, including weekends and midnights, when no child care is available. For families trying to find subsidized daycare, it does not exist. We can obtain subsidies for families when there are spaces, but there are no spaces for people who work odd hours. The daycares work from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., which is long, but not long enough.
I work with families that are in the cycle of poverty. A three-year-old in one of my families has been on the wait list for some time for two days of daycare to meet their needs. He will start school in September and he is so far behind. He has in-home support from my program and some support from the infant development program, which is providing speech and language. Due to the mother's lack of ability, she is unable to do more. This child does not qualify as high risk, so he has not been apprehended by the children and family services because his basic needs are being met. The child needs support for his own brain development and we are waiting to get him into a daycare space.
The families with the greatest needs access services the least. Mr. Gatza mentioned that when he talked about the real rural populations. They are independent and proud and they want to do it alone. Within that cycle of poverty, they might have some family supports but they are not sufficient to take them out of the cycle of poverty. More supports are needed, and the families that have moved closer to town often find it easier because they might have only a four- kilometre walk into town. Before, they could not even consider walking because they were too far away. Isolation has diminished.
There is no money for recreation or anything that aids stress reduction. I am also a yoga teacher and have been conducting a group with some of my moms. They have found it totally amazing that they can learn some skills that can help to reduce their stress on a daily basis — to take only a few minutes to breathe. Finding a bit of quiet time for themselves is totally new to them because their needs are always the last ones considered.
I see the income gap growing. Our families that live in poverty might have enough food to keep from starving, although not the best and most nutritious. They might have a house, be warm most of the time and so they are not doing too badly on a global scale of poverty. However, we live in Canada and when we look at where they are compared to the rest of the population, the stress becomes visible. They want the same things that other people have, such as a vacation or even a movie? To go to a movie, they need to think about not only money to pay for the movie but also to pay for a way to get there.
The economic system that we live in creates the situation. We need that low-income poverty group to work at Mac's Milk and Tim Hortons. Certainly, the economic structure needs to be addressed.
On behalf of the families I work with, I thank the committee for doing this work. It is absolutely amazing and I handed out a paper with their direct quotes.
The Chairman: Ms. Prentice, you mentioned that you are talking to the converted. That is true. We are converted but we still need to be more educated on these issues. The testimony we heard today will help in that direction.
Senator Segal: Thank you for taking time from your important work to give us your perspective, and for the work that you do on behalf of people who need your support and who benefit immensely in ways that I am sure you might not see yourself, from a helping hand and a bit of advice and solace in difficult times.
Is it only about the money? That is a core question. I am always amazed by the fact that when people make more money or earn extra money from a second job, Her Majesty takes more in taxes because that is how our tax system works. The more we earn, the more we pay. When for some reason we run out of money — job loss, handicap or illness — then before Her Majesty helps, either through welfare, Ontario Works or others, she has, through her civil servants, many detailed questions. Why do we not have the money? Is it because we cannot work? Are we handicapped? Did the plant in our little town close? Is the farm not viable? It has always struck me that the issue is, in terms of sitting around the family table in Canada, which should be large enough for everyone to have a seat, about the money. For various reasons, often through no fault of their own, people will end up with not enough money for proper health, food or heating.
We have a Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors. It does not solve the entire problem but the situation is much better than it was for seniors 20 or 30 years ago. We have a GST tax credit for people who earn less than $30,000 per year that provides some help. In your client base, you see, or come into contact with, the people that your organizations serve every day. If they had the necessary money to meet their own needs based on the real costs of their community, would that go a long way to solve the problem, or are some problems about things that are more profound than not having enough money? I am interested in your respective perspectives on that.
Mr. Gatza: Money is part of the issue but many other dynamics are at play. We deal with so many different personalities with a variety of coping skills. Coping skills is one issue that I have come across in some people who have a dysfunction. Sometimes it is obvious and sometimes it is not so obvious. Over the years, as I have learned to study people, I have come to the conclusion that at times coping skills are a hindrance.
Another frequent problem is the sense of self-worth and that is critical in many areas. I do not think there are enough support mechanisms in place, or at least made apparent to people. The services might be available, but not apparent to those who need them, to help people to develop the life skills to be able to say, ``Yes, I am important: Yes, I can do this.'' A system such as welfare, for example, is generational in that the reliance passes from one generation to the next. I do not think the recipients consider that in general but rather they simply adapt to the lifestyle, and that is where they find themselves stuck.
In my experience, I have learned that people feel they cannot do it. Even though they might have an average to above-average intelligence, they think they are caught in a trap whereby they sense an inadequacy or a lack of importance in their ability to handle a task, a duty or a job that could help to lift them up out of their situation.
I call it a ``lift and redemption situation'' whereby a father, for example, might get out of that cycle of impoverishment. As a result, he becomes a more productive citizen in society and his family members become more productive citizens in society. Maybe it is a combination of systemic supports, demographics and their own support systems where they grew up over the decades. A person's sense of self-worth is so important.
When I was in training college on Bayview Avenue in Toronto for two years, we had on-the-job-training with Corrections Canada. Some of the initial steps we went through included self worth and dealing with life development skills. These things seem to come to the forefront. How they feel about themselves becomes evident in how they treat others. It emanates beyond themselves.
Ms. Baril: It is not always only about the money. If we threw money at the problems of people who are trapped in poverty it would not solve the problems. We have been looking at the root causes of why individuals are where they are in their lives, and we do not have all the answers. No one will have all the answers surrounding poverty. We are looking seriously at the root causes to see why people in different communities are where they are. Throwing money at the problem will not solve many of the issues that we are experiencing. If the golden nugget could solve everyone's problems, then we would have been able to do it a long time ago.
We have much more work to do, particularly in the rural environment. Leeds and Grenville is classified as 95 per cent rural. We have a huge issue all across Leeds and Grenville counties and with a population of 100,000, we find ourselves dealing with some significant issues. It will take a great deal of collaboration and teamwork to help lift some people out of the situations they are in. They need a hand up, rather than a handout.
Ms. Prentice: Money is not the total issue but I find that it alleviates much of the stress. It is great when they know they can pay their bills, buy groceries, pay the rent and even do the laundry, which can add up to $40 per month if they use a coin wash; and that is not calculated into expenses.
If we can reduce stress by providing enough money on which to survive, then people will be able to work on the next step, and self-worth is a huge part of that.
Senator Mercer: Thank you for the work that you do in the communities. It is obviously important and vital.
Ms. Baril, the Community Matters program is funded partially by the Ontario Trillium Foundation. Trillium funding, if I recall, is limited to one year — or up to three years, depending on the program. What happens to Community Matters when Trillium funding stops?
Ms. Baril: We are hoping that Community Matters will continue. The project is set to complete itself on June 30, 2007. We have already started talking to the Ontario Trillium Foundation about where we go from here.
My hope is that the next proposal will involve another three years of funding. The grant we were fortunate enough to obtain was a province-wide grant, based on the collaborative work we had pulled together. The Ontario Trillium Foundation was not sure we could accomplish a group of 17 United Ways working together, but they are pleased with the results. They are looking forward to the results we will provide for them.
The United Ways that are part of my collaborative work are in all parts of the province, serving the rural environment. The results we have been able to achieve will become important information for the Ontario Trillium Foundation when it comes to future grants. The United Way of Canada is interested in our process as well. We are seeing the Community Matters project replicated across Canada in many of our provinces.
Senator Mercer: I have asked this question a number of times of groups such as the United Way and the Salvation Army, as well. You are located in towns. I appreciate that you must be located physically somewhere; I have worked for United Way agencies in my career, so I understand the process. However, it seems to me that to reach out from the towns to rural areas is a challenge for the United Way — and for all churches, but, in particular, the Salvation Army.
How do you do that? You cannot have an office in every small hamlet in Leeds and Grenville, or in Perth and Lanark counties. How do you address this issue?
I am concerned that people see the United Way, Salvation Army and other agencies as the solution, but the solution only happens in the towns. That young woman with two children living down that dirt road is not being serviced.
Ms. Baril: I appreciate those comments. Our United Way funds 28 organizations all across Leeds and Grenville. I am proud to say there is not one community across the two counties where there is not some sort of program or service happening on a daily basis that is funded by the United Way through the agencies that we support.
Some of those services are quiet services. They may happen as a result of someone perhaps working for the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, CNIB, that helps counsel or teach someone who is losing their sight in how they can achieve a high standard of living through CNIB support. It could be through Big Brothers or Big Sisters having one of their matches in one of the communities. We are everywhere across Leeds and Grenville, in every single community, and we are proud of that.
Some of my agencies' offices might be based in Brockville, but their outreach is amazing and they are doing a better job each day. Last year, they served 29,000 clients. In a population of 96,000 people in Leeds and Grenville, to have programs and services offered through funding from United Way programs and services to 29,000 people is truly amazing and they are doing an amazing job. We are proud of the work they are doing.
Mr. Gatza: If someone lives in a rural community and they want help, they may be aware we are there. They contact us directly and we make arrangements for them to come to us, in this case, in Brockville. Frequently too, people will contact other agencies who will say, we cannot help you with that but we know the Salvation Army can, so they refer the people looking for help to us. Working with the other agencies works well.
An ongoing concern of mine is, how do we make ourselves more available to those in the rural community so we are there for them? It goes back to other issues I addressed in my opening remarks about people wanting to be independent and to also have that sense of pride.
The same concern goes as well for the working poor. People who receive assistance, sometimes they are on social assistance and so forth, seem to be better off than those who are trying to work and are receiving the minimum wage. They have trouble making ends meet. Those people almost fall in the same category. They want to be independent and they are too proud to come to us.
I have had people say, this is the first time I have ever had to do this. They feel awkward and out of place. I say, do not worry, this is why we are here, to help, and I am glad you came to us.
The question is how to get that message out more, and not only at Christmastime. It gets out at Christmastime when people apply for Christmas hampers and toys for the children. A fair number of people come at that time of year. Then, throughout the year, a minimum number of people come for help. We may average six to 10 people or families a week. It is a small number compared to what we get at Christmastime, when they look for special help in trying to meet the family's needs for Christmas.
That is how it works for us. Hopefully, we can develop a way, when I have spent more time in the area, to reach out to people. At present, as I mentioned, it works through referrals and, if people are already aware, they contact us directly.
Senator Mercer: Ms. Prentice, you mentioned nurse practitioners. We have heard this service mentioned in several communities. It is becoming so important in small, rural communities.
They hired a new nurse practitioner in North Lanark. How many patients can she handle? There is only so much one nurse practitioner can do.
Ms. Prentice: I do not know if Ms. Bergman is still here from the CRCHC in Portland, but she might be able to answer that question better than I can.
I know that this nurse practitioner works three days a week for families with children, because her funding comes from the Early Years stream, which are families with children under six. Then she works one day a week for the general North Lanark population: That is only for people who live in the Lanark Highlands. I have no idea how many people she would see.
Senator Mercer: Could you use more?
Ms. Prentice: Yes, we are eagerly awaiting a satellite community health centre that is opening in Smiths Falls, because that nurse practitioner now also serves Smiths Falls. When that centre opens, hopefully that will free her. It is the same with our social workers attached to the community health centres: All the supports are highly needed.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you for coming this morning. I commend you on the great work that you do.
Mr. Gatza, you mentioned that you see few rural poor people. Is it easier for a poor person to go to a government office for social assistance than it is to go to the Salvation Army, or do they not go there either?
Mr. Gatza: In some cases, I think people go to their caseworker for social services. On occasion, people say they have gone to them and presented their dilemma, and there is so much that the caseworker can do for them as well. However, I do not find it is prevalent. I find that is an exception to the norm.
In Brockville, people go to so many agencies and churches — I am not sure what their statistics are — so they have that route as well. People come not only to us for help, but to the other churches and agencies. I do not think the majority of people do, but that is available. Some go through that cycle as well. I think they are more inclined to go that route than through their caseworker or social worker.
Senator Callbeck: I come from P.E.I., and I think they would feel much more comfortable going to the Salvation Army than to the government.
You talked about self-worth. What do we do about that?
Mr. Gatza: I know there are different support groups. You see them in the paper all the time — anxiety disorder groups and those who may be going through other issues as well. How we deal with that issue is a growing dilemma because people do not always say, here I am, I need your help. That issue is ongoing.
How do we reach people who should receive support and they do not want it? It is a personal choice of the individual. How do you get to those people?
The only off-the-cuff solution I can think of is perhaps having more meetings in the community to address these issues: brainstorming and opening it up to the general public. People will come in and we will have the attention of some of them; they will not go directly to us, but they will be curious and will come to the group, the community or the town meeting and listen to what is available. Through that process, people will be more inclined to go to the agency or the support group for the support they need. If the groups advertised themselves more in the various communities, especially in smaller communities like this one, that advertising may open the door for people to come for the support they need.
Senator Callbeck: Do you think government has a role to play there?
Mr. Gatza: I would say so. I am not sure to what level or scale, maybe all the levels — municipal, provincial and federal. I think they do to a certain degree, at least to promote that train of thought and to inspire people to be more involved in that area. They need to advertise themselves and make themselves more available to people rather than only putting a notice in the paper or maybe a monthly bulletin that may go to certain communities and not all of them.
Senator Callbeck: Do the other witnesses have anything to add?
Ms. Prentice: We work with a hard-to-serve population that does not want service. I work in their homes; they have to invite me into their house.
We find it is a relationship-based approach. We run groups and they do not come to our groups until they know us. I run a yoga-based group and I phone them on the morning of the group to remind them to come. I drive them and will even take their child to the child care provider if they need that to come to the group.
Putting an ad in the paper does not work for that population. The more service they need, the less they will access. Those of us who are already thinking that way will access those kinds of focus groups.
I think the approach needs to be relationship-based — the church member they are a friend of, for example. Someone brings them to a service or lets them know about it or has used a service. The more people in the community that know of services, the better it is.
Ms. Baril: One thing we discovered during our community consultations is that communication in the rural environment is a huge issue. There are not a lot of opportunities. As Ms. Prentice said, an ad in the paper talking about a program does not always work. People living in poverty cannot afford to buy a paper. There are issues surrounding that approach.
Communication is the biggest way to bring people into the programs to help build self-esteem. One thing we have discovered, even through our community conversations, is that we have been enabling people to help talk about the things that would make a difference in their lives. Then service providers that are part of that process as well are realizing they have an obligation to deliver some of those things back to those rural communities.
In the early 1990s, a lot of my agencies provided outreach to communities and then pulled back due to lack of funding. They are going back to rural communities now to provide that outreach. That has a huge impact on helping people build their self-esteem, coming out to programs designed and developed specifically for their needs.
Senator Callbeck: Ms. Baril, I want to ask about volunteers because United Way has a lot of volunteers. We hear about some areas in rural Canada where volunteers are burning out, one of the reasons being that the older people tend to stay in rural areas and the youth leave for jobs, education, et cetera.
What do we do about this? How do we reverse that trend in these areas where the volunteers are burnt out or feeling they have had enough?
Ms. Baril: We mobilize the largest group of volunteers in Leeds and Grenville to enable us to do our campaign on an annual basis. We are happy with the work they do. They do a phenomenal job. However, you are right. People have a tendency to do the job over and over again and they burn out.
Going back to the root cause, why people do not volunteer as much as they could, we have developed a program called Caring for Others, where we go into the fourth grade and talk to children about what they can do even at age 8, 9 and 10 to make a difference in their community.
We try to sow the seeds of volunteerism in children that young so when they reach high school, they can take part in the wonderful programs that are there to help them volunteer and to engage them in their community. We try to sow the seeds as early as possible. It does not matter how old they are. They can make a difference by helping someone next door, across the street or in the classroom environment.
We hope those seeds of wanting to make a difference in their community will grow. When they reach high school and those agencies take over the responsibility of placing these young people, we hope it will make a difference. We think it already has.
Senator Callbeck: I am sure it has. That is a great idea.
Ms. Prentice, how many families do you work with? You say you must be invited in by the family. How does this come about?
Ms. Prentice: Our program has different aspects to it. Part of it is a prenatal nutrition program. They go to a group with a dietician, a public health nurse and those kinds of supports. They are given a food voucher. When we started, they were given a bag of milk, fresh vegetables and produce. We found it easier to give them a gift certificate for their local grocery store.
They have come under the program with support and some real help. Then they hear about our other programs and choose to be involved, or not.
We also work in conjunction with the public health nurses. They have the Healthy Babies Healthy Children program. In Lanark County, connections workers are the ones who do the in-home support. We meet the families when they first come home from the hospital that way.
We are not threatening and we are supportive. We look for positives and try to support the families so they will continue with services and then attend our groups. At the groups, they meet other families in similar situations so it ends the isolation a bit. They are not the only ones suffering this way or struggling to pay the rent.
Senator Callbeck: Do most families invite you in?
Ms. Prentice: As I say, people with the highest needs do not. There are people who like their privacy and do not want anyone in their house. We always struggle to find ways to assist them more. Hopefully, if nothing else, we can bring them into the prenatal nutrition program so there is a positive outcome for the baby.
Senator Callbeck: You mentioned mental health problems. We completed a report a year ago on mental health. What mental health services are available to your clientele?
Ms. Prentice: I try to help them access our mental health services. The community health centres have a social worker for families with children under the age of six. Several of my families access that counselling, and we have Lanark County Mental Health. I have made referrals there as well, and some families continue accessing that.
Senator Losier-Cool: I have a quick question, only to Ms. Prentice. What is the average size of the families you see?
Ms. Prentice: For most families, the average size is two. The families I work with, which are a small percentage of our whole program, mostly have two children. I have had some families with four and some with one. A lot of twins have been born in the last year in Lanark County. I do not know what is going on with the well water there, but there are a lot of twins.
Senator Losier-Cool: There is a larger population?
Ms. Prentice: There have been a lot of twins this past year.
Senator Losier-Cool: That is interesting because I am checking on New Brunswick twins also.
The Chairman: We will now split and have a 10-minute health break. We need to be quick, so we can do everything.
Our next panel is a formidable bunch. This panel is the third one this morning. I apologize if I mispronounce a name or two. We have Geri Kamenz, President and Chairman of the Board of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, OFA; Adrian Wynands, Regional Director and President of the Grenville Federation of Agriculture, OFA; Bill French, President of the Leeds Federation of Agriculture, OFA; and Yuergen Beck and Jane Monaghan, who are both here as individuals. Welcome, everyone.
Geri Kamenz, President and Chairman of the Board, Ontario Federation of Agriculture: Good morning and thank you for providing this opportunity.
Senator Fairbairn, like many of us in agriculture, I wear a number of different hats. The last time I had the opportunity to see you, it was in your area, Lethbridge, at the sugar beet annual a year or so ago, and it was on environmental issues.
Senator Segal: I am glad you will not get the senator going on sugar beets because we will be done. We do not have time.
Mr. Kamenz: We will say that sugar beets are a real success story that we need to keep our eye on.
The Chairman: This is great. Keep it up. You are absolutely right, though. It is a special industry in this country and it, too, is under siege. There are people out there who are very much like people here — on the edge.
Mr. Kamenz: Nonetheless, out there I was wearing my other hat, which is chair of the environmental science committee of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
My comments will be brief, and obviously through the lens of those of us that are not only food providers anymore but are positioning ourselves as the providers of food, energy and a basket of ecological goods and services. I think part of the solution lies in that basket of ecological goods and services.
I know it is easy to appear negative about the problem you are trying to deal with. However, I reflect back on a meeting I had with Premier McGuinty a week or so ago before the budget. He said to me, it is not for us, with the responsibilities we have, to despair but to provide hope. This problem is a serious dilemma in rural Canada and rural Ontario, but I will approach it because I do think we have the capacity, the tools and the resources necessary to solve a great deal of this problem.
I will throw out something right off the bat because I know it is making its way through a number of discussion circles at your level and other levels. It is simply this: I think a guaranteed farm income is abject failure. It will do more to create a welfare state than resolve the issue of rural poverty.
Having said that, yesterday afternoon when I sat with the new deputy minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, I think we all concurred that the options program that the federal government introduced in the budget of May 2006 was a resounding success throughout Canada; 17,000 farm families triggered payments under that program.
You must look it and say what a wonderful success story that is. However, we should not confuse that program with a farm income support program. It was an excellent social program but we are trying to create opportunities for agriculture to provide real services and real opportunities for profitability.
In the absence of that, there are many lessons to learn when we look at other jurisdictions, namely the European Union, EU. In Britain, 40 per cent of gross farm receipts come in the form of payments that producers receive for a variety of ecological goods and services.
The public agenda obviously is focused now on environmental issues. People are looking at their water and saying, there is tremendous value to having clean water. There is tremendous value to having clean air. There is tremendous value to having green space, biodiversity and the protection of endangered species.
In Canada, it is most apparent to provinces such as Prince Edward Island and Ontario, where a large part of the developed landscape is managed by farmers. That value implies that farmers are in the business of protecting these resources and providing them to the greater public.
If we look at the issue of rural poverty, obviously we need to change many of the things we are doing. There are some tremendous success stories in Canadian agriculture and there are successes yet to be found. However, it is difficult to pursue new initiatives and new business opportunities — and I am sure you have heard this many times before — when the country is coming off its worst three years of net farm income.
In agriculture, we look at the situation and say, we do not want and expect big bailouts for an indefinite period, but we need strategic investments to be made. When we travel the back roads and look at the resources not only in terms of physical resources, but the ingenuity of farmers that are on the landscape, they are prepared to generate new wealth, but they need strategy investment to do that.
The other thing is all of these ecological goods and services, as I said. All of us enjoy water equally. All of us benefit from clean air equally. All these different environmental and ecological goods and services, we enjoy equally. The challenge is to spread those costs equally across the tax base, and not place a disproportionate burden on my shoulders by virtue of the fact that I happen to own 1,000 acres and you live on a lot in a subdivision. The benefit is the same.
I will cut it off there. I think that point provides food for thought and discussion, and I look forward to your questions.
Adrian Wynands, President, Grenville Federation of Agriculture and Regional Director, Ontario Federation of Agriculture: Mr. Kamenz made the presentation for the three of us in agriculture.
Yuergen Beck, as an individual: Thank you for coming and listening to us today. While many issues need to be addressed, I am happy to bring one solution here.
First, I want to highlight what I think are two contributing factors that create the rural poverty that we are faced with today: unfair competition from big business and a lack of infrastructure for small business.
I am here as a citizen. I am a home inspector and a licensed carpenter. I am in the homes of many families every year, from the very wealthy to the poor, and I have listened over the years because a story needs to be told.
I am self-employed and I love the ability to get up in the morning and make as much or as little money as I want to on a particular day. I do so, however, with a focus on providing my community with a good service while still making a living.
What I despise is how big business is drawing the lifeblood out of our local communities only for profit, with little regard to the effects it has on our rural communities. They do so by using unethical business practices that small business owners have neither the ability nor the conscience to compete with.
In the agricultural sector, for example, a producer in Athens should be able to bring a product to market for less than a large corporation in Toronto. Why is the opposite happening? It is my opinion that big business does not play by the same rules that small producers do, who are subsequently unable to compete with big business in local markets.
For example, with a large corporate farm, typically here is what happens. They buy the local hatcheries that raise the chicks and then sell them to the farmers. Then they buy the local feed mills that produce the feed and sell that to the farmers. Then they buy back the birds from the farmers and take them to their huge factories that process them. Finally, they market these birds back to the consumer. In one area of farming, one large corporation has taken away four sectors of business from local business owners.
Why should one not be able to do this in a free market? Here is the harsh reality. Whenever one partner finances this entire relationship because they can, they call the shots at their pleasure and the farmers always lose.
Leaving this situation alone, let us look at where the money goes after the fact. If farmers made the bulk of that money, farmers would reinvest it in the business or help their children start their own operation, and the money stays in the community. With big business, the money is concentrated back to one individual or group and typically is not reinvested in the local economy. Underselling small producers by bringing product to market for less erodes the ability of small business owners to compete.
I believe we are seeing many years of a lack of strong policy that protects and supports the ability for small businesses to prosper or survive. If our government would create an environment where a local community could produce and market its own goods and services for a profit, our citizens would support these efforts and we would be more self-sufficient.
The second area — a passion for me personally — is the lack of support for small business across Canada, which are largely based in rural communities. Historically, our nation is laid out within a rural landscape. The businesses that operate in these locations are, for the most part, small — meaning $5 million or less in annual sales.
The infrastructure that is in place to support us is, comparatively, far less than the infrastructure in urban centres. Large corporations continually receive tax breaks, grants and subsidies, which are fed from our tax dollars, to help them not only to survive but to expand.
Seemingly, historically, the logic was to protect jobs. Unfortunately, with all the talk about global markets, the manufacturing jobs that we financed are being ripped out of our communities and moving to Third World countries. This situation has left us with more unemployment, rather than protecting the jobs, as hoped for.
Simultaneously, small businesses across our nation are closing their doors and the argument given is always the same. You cannot fight these trends: It is the way things are. The resulting negative effect on rural Canada is an unnecessary race to the bottom.
Self-employed people in rural Canada, which includes not only farmers, but tradesmen like me and retailers, have long since been the largest generators of jobs, wealth and tax base in Canada. We need infrastructure and we need help today to survive.
There is an absence of good, long-term business strategies in government policy today. This lack systematically ignores the needs of self-employed people, who create the majority of wealth in Canada.
Three years ago, I started writing a discussion paper, which I have included for you today, outlining the reality of life for the self-employed. I have given it to every politician and business leader I have run across since then because I believe the discussion needs to begin for fairness to happen.
We are treated poorly by our system: yet, according to Revenue Canada statistics — which, incidentally, took me 14 months and a personal audit for asking to find out — suggests that Canadian small business generates over 81 per cent of the GST collected in this country.
Further, the Ontario Small Business and Entrepreneurship website, which covers Ontario, states that the percentage of tax collected by small business is actually 99 per cent. In spite of this revenue, schools are closing in our communities and people are leaving because it is too hard to scratch out a living today in rural Canada with so little help from existing policy. Our reality is such that we receive absolutely no benefits or incentives for creating this wealth year after year.
Governments of all stripes have historically disregarded the efforts made by these hardworking dreamers because we have been too busy working to demand fairness. It makes good business sense to treat the wealth generators with respect and fairness.
Imagine, for example, in Canada, if farming was a profitable option for somebody leaving high school today. The spin-offs for our economy and communities would be incredible. Government policy designed to strengthen small rural businesses could create positive results if there was enough honest discussion and political will to make it happen. Again, days like today are awesome because they show that this discussion is happening.
We do not need to discuss global issues to make this result happen. Allow us to provide goods and services on a level playing field nationally and let us see what can happen. We do not want to take away the profits or market share of big business. We simply want a piece of the pie while supplying our own communities with goods and services we generate locally.
The Chairman: You may know this is the first time in our Parliament in Canada that either House of that Parliament has chosen to explore this issue. We appreciate your support and we appreciate your presentation here today.
Jane Monaghan, as an individual: I want to tell you a bit about my background and where I am coming from. I will describe my community and then give you a couple of ideas I have had after reading your interim report.
I am a small town lawyer and have been practicing in Elgin, Ontario for 27 years, ever since I was called to the bar. Elgin is a little village to the west of here in the township of Rideau Lakes. I have enjoyed an opportunity to become involved in my community in other ways than my profession. I have been involved with libraries, both locally and also for my law association, which is centred in Brockville.
I have enjoyed working with many local heritage societies, preserving our local history. I have worked with various organizations to do with the Rideau Canal, which is a wonderful federal resource in our community. I have also been involved with the local Chamber of Commerce, and most extensively, with an organization called the North Leeds Community Development Corporation, which was started about 20 years ago to promote social services being available in our North Leeds community.
Until that time, and even currently, people went to the larger centres to access social services. It was our idea to try to bring some of those services, such as family mental health counselling and the Victorian Order of Nurses, VON, senior support services, to our community so people could access those services right here.
We purchased an old Victorian house in Elgin. It has become a community resource centre where people can access those kinds of services. The other advantage is that, because several services are in the one location, it preserves a bit of confidentiality in that people do not know why someone is going into the facility.
In addition to the social services, we are also interested in economic development in our community through employment. Our feeling was that having a job helps with a lot of other aspects of life, such as self-esteem and so on. We were lucky to have the assistance of the federal government in starting a job search resource centre, which provides employment counselling in the North Leeds area.
The township of Rideau Lakes, contrary to the trend identified in your interim report, is increasing in population. Over the last five years, there has been an increase in population of little bit over 6 per cent. It is said to be due to the seasonal residential people becoming permanent residents in our community.
As I said before, we are lucky enough to have a good portion of the Rideau Canal in our jurisdiction, which attracts many cottage owners and tourists.
Many of those people who own cottages then retire to our community. We receive a lot of benefit from those people who then want to contribute to our community when they come to live here. We also have the typical agricultural community within our community.
I have read your Understanding Freefall report and found it to be insightful. I have a couple of other issues that might be addressed at some point. They are access issues. The first is access to financial services.
In Delta, Ontario, which is west of here, the Toronto Dominion Bank branch is scheduled to close in May. This will be a big blow to that community in that store owners and so on will have to travel far to access a bank, which affects store deposits, loans and all those kinds of things.
Also, within the last couple of years, Delta has had its local public school closed. Those kinds of things are a blow to a small rural community.
We have heard a lot in the last year or so, with the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded, about micro-credit. I understand, although I have not had a chance to look into it in great detail, that those kinds of micro-loans could be used in a rural community in our country, not only in African countries.
The other access issue I am concerned about, because of my profession, is access to legal services. The courts in this area are all located in Brockville. I would not anticipate courts being moved around the county; but as well as the courts being there, the Legal Aid office and the Family Law Information Centre, which people can access for advice from lawyers about family issues, are in Brockville as well.
It is difficult for someone in this area, because of the transportation issues you have identified, to access those services in Brockville. They either may not have a vehicle or, if there is a vehicle, one of the family members may be using it for a job and the other members of the family cannot go into Brockville or the other centres. You would think, in this day and age, with computers and the Internet and so on, there could be something where people could access those services somehow in the community.
That concludes my remarks. I saw a couple of issues that I felt had not been mentioned in your report and I thought they were worth consideration.
Senator Segal: I want to ask our friends from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to help me with the strategic investment reference in the presentation by Mr. Kamenz. You were clear in saying that income support for farmers in terms of a basic income floor would be an admission of defeat.
I guess what you are saying is that for people in the cities to have a basic income floor that helps them live with dignity is okay, but to do that for farmers is an admission of defeat. Implicit in that is that farmers do not have basic economic needs that we all have a duty to respond to because they are part of the family.
Help me understand how strategic investment will deal with the farmers who, this year, needed to apply to the Canadian Farm Families Options Program for support. I am delighted they were able to do so. I think that sort of program is long overdue. However, it is, as you have correctly identified, a program about admitting that one did not make a core amount of income in one year. It does not provide investment capacity for the future.
I am interested in understanding better what, in your view, the strategic investments would be that the government could help with, help facilitate or do on a partnership basis.
One area where everyone is now abuzz is the cellulitic, waste-based, farm-based energy business — ethanol and others. My worry is that — along the lines of the same comment made by Mr. Beck a few moments ago about how that industry ends up being controlled — the farmers may end up being excluded from that business. They will not be paid sufficiently for the due diligence done before the farm gate. They not only are there to supply the raw materials, but they should be there, in my judgment, to benefit from ethanol stations around the country, the network that supplies the ethanol. In that way, they are, in the old sense of the co-op, owner operators and benefiting as shareholders for the work they are doing beyond their own farm gate.
I am interested in your views on that. I do not know if it is true in Leeds County, but I know in Frontenac County, various farming activities have declined over the last 15 or 20 years, which troubles me immensely. We have had far fewer farms passed on intergenerationally. Any advice you can give us as to things we could say in our report, recommendations we could make that could arrest that, I know we would appreciate.
Ms. Kamenz: I am glad you asked the question. When you look at rural development in all of Canada, obviously, we are an agrarian society at our base. We built this country on our agricultural, mining and forestry resources. I will not talk about mining and forestry but about agriculture.
What has transpired in this consolidation, in this reduction of the number of people who are producing the food we eat, is not a surprise to anyone. We can look at the chart since the turn of the century and one might suggest we can project it out and have a fair picture of where our industry is going. Where we struggle is, we try to accommodate both into farm programs, which is to say we look at agriculture as an industry and we try to create industry tools. Then we confuse the industry tools with that social element that speaks to the family.
That is why I was careful to say that the options program was a tremendous success, because there is this need that is called ``rural poverty.'' However, to stabilize family incomes at slightly above the poverty line does nothing but perpetuate the problem.
When we talk about strategic investments, we go back to the nub of the problem, which is a lack of profitability in agriculture. If there was profit in the industry, we would not be struggling with this intergenerational transfer of this huge resource. The problem we are struggling with is the investment is no longer cash flow. You are absolutely right in identifying the ethanol industry, which is a feed-grains-based industry to date. Tomorrow, hopefully, it will be a cellulose-based industry.
We do not need to create co-ops across the country. Culturally, co-ops are successful in parts of Canada. In Ontario, unfortunately, our experience has been that for cultural or any number of reasons, co-ops do not have a good track record. However, if we bring profitability back to the industry, then the grower can look at the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan and say, I want to integrate myself into that value chain. If the grower bought stock a year ago at $123 a share, today it is around $185 a share.
If we give the industry profitability, the industry is like any other: The business acumen exists that people will look at the opportunities to extract value and income from the value chain other than only primary production. It comes back to making those strategic investments.
Right now, a classic example is, we have an entire industry on the verge of collapse in the province, which is called the tobacco industry. A number of years ago, money was put on the table for people to transition out of that industry, and we saw some successful transitions out. However, at the end we were left with a number of business plans and business proposals on the table where growers said, here is something I can do that will bring value back to my community. It will create jobs in my community, but if I do not have strategic investment, I will be undercapitalized and set up for failure and it will not happen.
If we look at those growers today, those business plans are still intact. Those opportunities are still on the table. If we want them to succeed, they need help in doing that. That same approach can be extended to many other sectors of farm production.
When we talk about this, we always have to come back to the one shining example of success in Canadian agriculture, which has and continues to be supply management. It is not to suggest that it is the cure-all for all sectors, but to recognize that even in those sectors, it is a low-margin business. However, if we bring that predictability and that small margin of profitability into any sector, producers are aggressive about saying, how can they do a better job, how can they increase productivity and how can they increase profitability?
We can bring back that stability and predictability into agriculture through strategic investments. It cannot be done with a paint roller: It will be clinical, sector by sector, individual business plan by individual business plan. I appreciate that it does not fit well with the way we like to deal with problems. We like to deal with problems in a global sense but if we truly want to navigate out of where we are, we need to be prepared to deal with problems on an individual basis.
Senator Segal: I want to deal with the issue of financing in the farm community for business plans, both small business and farming activities. By all means, if Mr. Beck wants to join in, I would appreciate that, but I will address the question directly to Mr. Kamenz first.
After the Depression, the Province of Ontario Savings Office was established, by a United Farmers government, to have places that farmers could deal with and obtain credit in difficult times. That was many years ago. Is the mix of banks, co-ops, caisse populaires in the francophone part of Ontario and Farm Credit Canada providing the flexibility and the long-term view, the valuation of assets, long haul, which helps the farmer? Should we look at an agricultural bank run by farmers that understands farming issues? Should we look at a bank that would provide some presence in the marketplace that is not tied to the typical quarterly reports, but rather to the realities that farmers and small business people in rural Canada face, which is good years and bad years, ups and downs and having to find a way to bridge and still to invest for the future?
What would your members say if you asked them about their relationship with their banks? Ms. Monaghan made the reference to the bank that is closing down the road in Delta. I am interested in your views on that.
Ms. Kamenz: One must give credit where credit is due. In agriculture, we recognize Farm Credit Canada as a true leader in recognizing the challenges that agriculture deals with. If we look at the instruments and the tools that they have developed over the last 10 years for the industry, they have done an exceptional job. They are, without a doubt, the leader in challenging banks to raise the bar.
The reality is, we have a major presence in agriculture, and from time to time — we have seen it over the last couple of years — with the CIBC. Different chartered banks get into this business of rebalancing their portfolios. Sometimes they do it on a provincial basis and sometimes on a local basis. Frankly, it leaves people high and dry.
It is a corporate decision made on Bay Street, and it is an unfortunate reality of a free market. However, it is still a free market. As I say, Farm Credit Canada has truly provided leadership in developing those instruments.
As for the idea of a farmers' bank run by farmers, I think Farm Credit Canada is as close as we would want to get. To extend it any further, do we want to give people a whole lot more rope?
Mr. Beck: To answer that for the small business, I can sum it up that when we need a bank, they are typically not there for us. We have to prove to them we do not need them with years and years of records. Then, when we do not need them, they are willing to work with us.
I do not know how to explain it any more than that.
Senator Mercer: I am always frustrated when we sit down and talk to people in the farming industry about the problems. Down Highway 401 in Oshawa, if the government gives money to General Motors, it is an industrial strategy. If the government gives money to farmers, it is a handout. The other frustration is that the guy working on the assembly line at General Motors does not have to take a job after work to help keep General Motors competitive with the Japanese competitors, unlike farmers and their families, who have to work off the farm.
I am curious, however. In my part of the world, co-ops are a good thing; we helped to invent the Credit Union Movement. I am concerned, when we go into biofuels, that if producers are not directly involved in the ownership, the ownership will be owned by the big oil companies and they will control where the profit will go. There is nothing wrong with the profit going to Calgary, but I would much rather it go to the farm gate than to the already rich oil companies.
Meeting with some of my colleagues in the United States, they tell me that where they have been able to have producer-owned plants, they have been extremely successful in putting money back into the farmers' hands. It allows them to continue to produce corn or whatever for biofuels, but also allows them to survive to do the other things they do well.
In saying cooperatives do not work well in Ontario, will we allow this opportunity to slip by with the energy opportunities? You used three important phrases in describing what farmers do: food, energy and production of ecological goods and services.
Ms. Kamenz: I draw your attention to an example that I think everyone in this area is familiar with. Many years ago, in 1992, a local cooperative initiative embarked on a plan to build an ethanol plant. Understandably, in 1992, we were probably many years ahead of our time. Nonetheless, it gathered all sorts of support in the local community, and the equity drive was successful. As the business plan progressed, it became apparent that there was more equity that was necessary.
The best thing that happened at that time was Farm Credit Canada stepped in and said the cooperative could borrow money from them to invest in what we now call a new generation co-op. They said they will secure that loan and hold that money to ensure that if the plant never materializes, Farm Credit Canada will return that money back to the cooperative. Immediately, the equity targets were met.
Since that time — I know it even appears in the Ottawa newspapers — the plant has continued to struggle. In the meantime, we have seen another company, Canada's largest ethanol producer, come into our area and, in a short time, say here is what they will do: They are off to the races and they are doing it.
To build that community support and provide the opportunity for farmers to benefit, not only from a demand- driven price cycle but to benefit from the actual operations of an ethanol plant, they say, we will give you the opportunity to invest members' equity. Then we will treat you the same as we treat our private shareholders.
It is not abject failure: It is working with the business partners out there and saying if a pure co-op does not work in our area, what are the opportunities where I can integrate myself more into the value chain? I think companies are open to doing that. It is recognizing what works where and, again, saying, but right here it is prone to failure, so let us not frustrate ourselves with continuing to think that the cooperative model that works exceptionally well in other parts of the country will work everywhere. Let us look at each area, based on the cultural realities that we are dealing with, and say, let us design something that fits for the people in that area. They will respond.
Senator Mercer: You mentioned two important topics that we have not covered much; one is the lack of availability of financial institutions in rural Canada. The TD bank closing in Delta is a big issue for the people there, and these closures are happening all across the country. As well, there is the lack of access to legal services. Nobody wants to go to the bank or the lawyer, but we all must go to both.
Do you think one of the solutions might be if we had high speed, broadband Internet access in rural Canada? Would that help us solve part of the problem?
Ms. Monaghan: Yes, I think that would assist with that issue. I know in my community, I think through Industry Canada, the Community Access Program, CAP, has introduced computer and Internet use to the rural communities. It has been well received and useful. I think more along that line would be of value.
Senator Mercer: To carry on the discussion with respect to legal services, has the Ontario Bar Association addressed this issue specifically with respect to rural Ontarians? There are a lot of lawyers in this province — some would say too many — but they are not located in rural Ontario. They are not where some people need them.
Has the bar society addressed this issue? How do we provide services to rural Ontario and how do we make services accessible, perhaps via the Internet?
Ms. Monaghan: My understanding is that the small town rural lawyer is a dying breed because the rewards, for whatever reason, of a rural practice are not seen by young people becoming lawyers. They are more interested in being in the larger centres. It is more rewarding in various ways.
I think the Law Society of Upper Canada, which is the governing body for lawyers in Ontario, is looking at that. It is maybe a bit grandiose in that they are saying that not having small town lawyers like me is an access-to-justice issue, and that if there are not lawyers in small towns, people do not have access to justice. They are only starting to address that issue.
I do not know if Internet and computer use is the total answer for that kind of problem, but it would be of some assistance for getting advice.
Senator Mercer: I am sure the lawyers will find some way to get around the billing aspect of Internet access, which is important.
Ms. Monaghan: Yes. Although, to give credit, many lawyers —
Senator Mercer: I am being as nice to lawyers as I can.
Senator Callbeck: Ms. Monaghan, continuing on with the lack of legal services in rural areas, even if there is a lawyer, a lot of people cannot pay for one.
I was talking to a woman the other day that is presently in the courts. She has been there three times now and she is representing herself. There is something seriously wrong with that. I would not want to go to court and defend myself without a lawyer. What do we do about this legal aid situation?
Ms. Monaghan: I wish I had the answer. I went to law school at Queen's University in Kingston, and at that time there was a student-run, rural legal aid service. Those of us in that service had a van and we went to various small towns, rural areas in Frontenac County to the north of Kingston, and provided legal advice.
That seemed to work well and to be valuable. It was low level, but it provided people with advice. Something like that might be a partial solution.
An unrepresented person in court is a big problem for the courts, not only for the people trying to access the courts but for the judges. How do they deal with people fairly but not over-help them when they go to court without their own lawyer?
Senator Callbeck: It is a real problem.
Ms. Monaghan: Yes, it is, especially in family situations.
Senator Callbeck: You mentioned the TD bank closing. Is there the possibility of a credit union being established?
Ms. Monaghan: My understanding is that a credit union looked at the possibility of replacing the Toronto Dominion bank in the Delta community and decided, for business reasons, that it was not viable.
Senator Callbeck: The other thing you mentioned was micro-credit. That was a recommendation in the Prime Minister's task force for entrepreneurs, that it would help women entrepreneurs a great deal, especially in rural areas. That is something I support.
Ms. Monaghan: That would be interesting to explore.
Senator Callbeck: Mr. Beck, I only received this document this morning, so I have not had time to read it; but I was glad to see the part about maternity leave for women entrepreneurs or self-employed people. The task force has recommended that as well.
You also talk about a tax credit for legitimate volunteer work performed. How would that work?
Mr. Beck: I am sure a lot of people can explain how it cannot work and why it should not work.
Simply, if somebody offers a professional skill or hours of their time, why not give something back to them, whether it is 10 cents or 20 cents on the dollar? As we heard today, a lot of our stuff is community based. It would be a way to say, if you in the market charge X dollars per hour for legitimate work you do for your community, we will give you a small percentage of that back as a tax credit against your personal income tax.
What would it do? I do not think it is as much about dollars as about appreciation. You talked earlier about burnout for volunteers. I think it would go a long way to help people that are already working hard in their communities — to say, thanks for doing something for us, here is a little token. It does not need to be a big thing but only a gesture saying, thank you for helping our communities grow.
Senator Callbeck: It would be to recognize their contribution.
Mr. Kamenz, you said Farm Credit Canada has been a leader. They have challenged the banks to raise the bar. Can you give me some examples of that leadership?
Ms. Kamenz: The farm improvement loans, which are supported by the government, are one of those examples, as well as the flexibility that the chartered banks extended to the cattle industry through the bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, crisis. Those courtesies or flexibilities would not have been extended, were it not for Farm Credit Canada providing leadership and recognizing the cyclical nature, in that it is not always lost: There would be opportunity for profit ahead. Thankfully, we sit here today and cattle prices are the highest they have been since before the border closed in 2003.
I do not know that one could point to concrete examples, other than to say the chartered banks — and Farm Credit Canada, to some extent — are profit driven. The chartered banks are a dominant lender in agriculture. Obviously, they provide services comparable to services provided by the competition. Farm Credit Canada, in many cases, is the competition, so I suggest to you that is a wonderful thing.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, colleagues. That draws to an end our morning discussions. I thank all of you for appearing. We never know, coming into communities, whether this issue will interest people. It is gratifying to have you all here.
The committee adjourned.