Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 1 - Evidence - February 25, 2009
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 4:03 p.m. to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Art Eggleton (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to those who are making it to the first meeting — I think, Senator Dyck and Senator Martin. Senator Segal was not here last time either.
Senator Dyck: I was here.
The Chair: Oh, of course you were. Welcome to those that are coming to the first meeting today.
The orders of reference with respect to the three major studies that we started in the last Parliament were passed yesterday in the Senate, as you know. Now we need to organize to deal with them.
In the last Parliament, we dealt with a study on population health by the Subcommittee on Population Health chaired by Senator Keon. In the Subcommittee on Cities, which I chaired, we were dealing with the first segment on the cities agenda, which has five segments, on poverty, housing and homelessness.
The third reference study is on child care as it relates to the report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Starting Strong II. That study was dealt with in the last Parliament by the entire committee, and I propose that these three reference resolutions be dealt with in the same way in this session.
We can talk more about where the studies are, in terms of their completion. In general terms, the committee completed the hearings for the child care study in the previous Parliament, and the report was ready to table when the election was called. Subsequent to that, before the committee was organized, there was prorogation so the report has not yet been tabled.
Our researcher has been updating the study because there are comments in the report about provincial areas of action with respect to child care in early learning. That report is now updated and it is in translation at the moment. Apparently, it will be out Friday. I hope we can have it to you by the weekend, and then that study will be dealt with by the main committee.
Population health is well down the road. Senator Keon, unfortunately, is not here today, but the Subcommittee on Population Health will meet tomorrow. It will probably be able to wrap up its work in a couple of months because it is most of the way there now.
The Subcommittee on Cities is a much longer-term study, but the first segment will be on poverty, housing and homelessness. We have the issues and options paper, which was released last June. I hope everybody has had a chance to look at it. That paper will be followed up by a final report this fall. We will have hearings, including some cross- Canada hearings, to continue what we started last year in that regard.
We hope to complete that work by June and then have the report written during the summer — the researcher will have no vacation — and have it here in the fall. That is roughly where we stand on the study.
Are there any questions?
Let us go through the formalities, starting with the Subcommittee on Population Health. We have another resolution:
That the Subcommittee on Population Health be established to study matters which may be referred to it by the committee.
Let me go into membership. I asked each of you for your subcommittee preference. Seven indicated population health and five indicated cities. We can live with that membership. It makes quorum for the cities subcommittee a little more challenging because we need three out of five people. Three out of seven is a lot easier. However, unless somebody wants to switch, I will take the membership according to preference. We will try it with the seven and five.
It does not worry me too much because population health will be finished soon, and then maybe somebody from that committee will come over to the cities one. For a regional balance, I would like somebody from Quebec on the cities subcommittee, but I do not think we need to address that issue today, unless somebody wants to volunteer to switch over.
The people that have indicated they want population health are Senator Champagne, Senator Keon, Senator Eaton, Senator Fairbairn, Senator Pépin, Senator Callbeck and Senator Cook.
Then, following this resolution is the authorization to hold meetings, to print evidence and all these standard kinds of things. I will not read all of it. On the next page, there is power to hire and power to commit funds — that is if the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration gives us the funds to start with. It also includes the power to certify accounts, attendance policy, electronic media coverage and witness expenses — all standard items.
Are there questions or comments about the resolution with the names that I have proposed? Are members agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. The Subcommittee on Population Health is set up.
Honourable senators, is it agreed that the order of reference regarding the study on ``the impact of the multiple factors and conditions that contribute to the health of Canada's population'' adopted by the Senate on February 24, 2009, be delegated to the Subcommittee on Population Health?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
We will move to the Subcommittee on Cities. Once this is complete, we will break away into two groups to elect the respective chairs and deputy chairs of the two subcommittees.
The proposed membership for the Subcommittee on Cities is Senator Cordy, Senator Segal, Senator Dyck, Senator Martin and Senator Eggleton. The rest of the motion reads similar to the other one.
Are members agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Honourable senators, is it agreed that the order of reference regarding the study on ``current social issues pertaining to Canada's largest cities'' adopted by the Senate on February 24, 2009, be delegated to the Subcommittee on Cities?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Honourable senators, is it agreed that following the adjournment of this meeting, the Subcommittee on Cities and the Subcommittee on Population Health meet for the purposes of holding an organizational meeting?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
We will move on to the work plan before we adjourn as a main committee.
Does it matter whether this part of the meeting is in public or in camera? We are on the local system only but we can proceed either way.
Senator Cordy: One says we do, one says we do not.
The Chair: Let us carry on.
Following is the plan until June. There is an English copy and a French copy.
The green block begins with February 25, today, the planning meeting, subcommittees and schedules, what we are doing now. Tomorrow morning in our usual time slot, 10:45 to 12:30, Population Health will meet. I understand Senator Keon will be here as chair, although he has not been elected chair yet.
Senator Eaton: Does that meeting take place in this room?
The Chair: Yes.
On Wednesday March 4 we will meet on the child care study; and the witness is noted. This study was proposed by Senator Marilyn Trenholme Counsell, and carried to a great extent by Havi Echenberg from the Library of Parliament. It would be nice to invite Senator Trenholme Counsell to say something about the issue of child care and what she wants us to do. She can do it in one of two ways: She can speak to us in public on the general issue, but because the report will not be public, she cannot reference it; or she can speak to us in private on the report. We will work that out with her. The rest of the time can be spent with research staff reviewing the report.
The meeting on March 4 is to familiarize members with the recommendations. Committee members might not have the report much before that date and it is about 100 pages. It does not have many recommendations, as I recall. Nevertheless, perhaps the meeting can be used to hear from Senator Trenholme Counsell and for questions and answers with staff on the different aspects on the report.
On Thursday March 5, the meeting will be population health. On March 11, we will discuss the child care study. Following the break, on March 25, if you are ready, we can go through the process to adopt the child care study, make amendments or whatever else the committee wants to do. March 25 is the proposed final date for the study — one month from today.
As you can see on the calendar, there are many meetings on population health, including a round table on the Friday, which we have at times. Both subcommittees have held them but, by and large, other than the odd exception, we will keep to the schedule of meeting Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning.
Once we are into April, we return to the meetings on cities — the red portion on the calendar. Then we have a break week. During the second break week, it is proposed that we travel to Regina and Winnipeg.
Senator Segal: What week is that?
The Chair: It is the week of April 13 to 17. Easter and Passover are the week before.
Senator Segal: I cannot travel that week but be my guest and go anywhere you like.
The Chair: It is not always easy to travel when the Senate is in session. As well, we are behind in our schedule because of the election and prorogation, so we are trying to catch up to complete these hearings by June so that the report can be written during the summer. Therefore, it is proposed that we travel a bit.
Havi Echenberg, Analyst, Library of Parliament: My assumption is that we will need three days of hearings and site visits, and then travel for them.
The Chair: Travel to and from.
Ms. Echenberg: We may need four days and perhaps parts of a fifth.
Senator Eaton: Mr. Chair, as part of my education as a new senator, why do witnesses not come here to Ottawa?
The Chair: We have been having a lot of those meetings. We have had community non-governmental organizations and officials from provincial and municipal governments come to us in Ottawa. We have had more than 30 such meetings. Our travel allows us to perform outreach across the country for two reasons. First, after we heard from all the professionals, experts and government officials, we draft the issues and options paper and we look for feedback on it. Second, and more importantly, travel gives us the opportunity to communicate with people who cannot come here because they are experiencing poverty and homelessness; so we travel to meet with them. The committee realizes that it is important to hear from the people who have the problems that we hear about from the professionals and government officials.
We had two good outreach efforts — in St. John's, Newfoundland, and in Halifax, Nova Scotia — before the election was called and we had to stop. We were also able to visit with people and hear from people in focus groups who would not come out in public to talk about their problems — people who are homeless and people in conditions of poverty.
Therefore, travel is also educational for us. We have a chance to see the different programs, and what works and what might not. This view can be instructive in terms of our own recommendations. That is the purpose of it.
When we set up this schedule, we said we would start in Halifax and St. John's. However, we would also go to Montreal and Toronto. Then we would travel out west to Regina, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. We are not visiting them all at once. However, we are attempting to add Regina and Winnipeg. As you go through the work plan, you will see the other ones come up.
Senator Eaton: I realize the cities all have different problems that lead to homelessness.
The Chair: The travel was based on a feeling that we cannot prepare a study and report based only on what the professionals say. We need to see the circumstances under which some of these people exist. It is also important to hear from them.
Senator Segal: I understand that the committee did some of this work in other cities in the east. I was privileged to be part of the Halifax event. I offer for colleagues' consideration the notion that, while the costs associated with travel back then would not have been seen to be significant — and committee staff, to their credit, managed the travel well, in a way that was frugal and responsible — I am not 100-per-cent sure in the present economic circumstance that the costs of travel, however well managed, frugal and responsible, will pass the same test.
I know we have had this issue in other committees. Senator Fairbairn was good at arguing that, if we go to the West, the East and the South, we have to go to the North. There was some modest controversy but I think the trip to the North was seen to be of great value. That being said, costs are substantial.
In other committees, we have had OECD and other people appear via teleconference in ways that were financially efficient, provided a wide breadth of information and guaranteed the same level of respect for all witnesses. This work was accomplished under the distinguished chairmanship of Senator Fairbairn.
It is for colleagues to decide but I will be one to make the case that we might want to consider whether travelling in the present economic context will be as non-problematic as it was in the prior context of last fall and summer.
The Chair: Would anybody else like to speak on this subject?
Senator Cordy: I prefer not to travel. However, having said that, we are here to represent the regions, and I represent the Maritime provinces. I would hate to have all reports coming from the Senate be based on what we did in Ottawa, without seeing what is happening in the regions.
You were in Halifax to talk to the people who were homeless, who would never come to Ottawa to sit at a table like this because they would be totally intimidated by the whole experience. A whole list of issues would arise: what they would wear, going to an airport, et cetera.
However, it is valuable to sit in that room in Halifax on Gottingen Street and listen to people who have no homes, who have been homeless and did not have jobs and who are representative of the people living in poverty across the country. Hearing their stories was something that I valued. I am not downplaying any bureaucratic talk we hear around the table but I feel those voices had the most impact when I think about poverty in our country.
Senator Segal: We could set up a camera in a co-op in downtown Vancouver or in an appropriate community centre, and have people go there. We could have as intimate a discussion in that manner as we would if we were physically present, all at a fraction of the cost.
Senator Cordy: I am not downplaying the cost factor. I think we always must be concerned that we are not just throwing money out, and travelling here, there and everywhere. However, I think there is no replacement for sitting down face to face and talking to people. I would prefer not to travel here, there and everywhere, but I see the importance of it.
Senator Dyck: To follow up on these points, I agree that we must take cost into consideration. People look at what it costs to run the Senate and our work. At the same time, as Senator Cordy said, coming from Saskatchewan, I think it is important to visit a city like Regina. We will not receive the same kind of input through videoconferencing. The interaction of people face to face and the body language that occurs between the presenters and the committee members brings out information that I do not think we can gather by any other means.
Senator Martin: I am a new member of the committee and my question regards the colour coding. Are senators on the Subcommittee on Cities the ones expected to travel or is it open to all senators?
The Chair: It is only the Subcommittee on Cities.
Senator Martin: The plan would require a lot of travelling from those senators, correct?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Martin: I wanted to clarify that.
The Chair: I totally agree with what Senator Cordy and Senator Dyck have said about the value of meeting face to face. I do not think there is any way of substituting it. I do not think putting people in front of a camera will replace meeting face to face. You can put the professionals and non-government organization members before a camera. Maybe the compromise is to cut down on the number of government witnesses.
When we went to Halifax and St. John, we heard from a number of government people. We could meet with them by videoconference. There is no problem with that. We could do more of that.
I appreciate what you are saying in terms of the cost. The costs of this committee, though, are substantially less than the costs of many other committees. However, that fact does not mean we should not try to tighten a little further. Maybe we could use videoconferencing, particularly with regards to the professionals.
However, I think when it comes to the people on the street that need to be part of this study, meeting with them in person is important. For the report to have credibility in the community at large, we need to be able to say we have talked to the people that are affected by this issue and that we have some feeling for what they have gone through. Maybe we can find some way of using more videoconferencing with the professionals and the government types.
Senator Eaton: Mr. Chair, I do not disagree with what anyone has said. However, perhaps instead of five senators travelling, only two travel. They pick cities, for example, Senator Martin lives in Vancouver —
The Chair: We need three for a quorum, though.
Senator Eaton: Even on a trip like that?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Martin: Okay.
Senator Callbeck: For a meeting in Vancouver, sometimes the B.C. senators might attend.
Senator Martin: We cannot get around quorum. However, to follow up on the suggestion, perhaps if an assessment tool existed — several pages of what criteria we are using — and if we were to divide up these trips, then it would be less pressure on those senators on that committee. There are only five of us for all the travel. However, with me being in Vancouver, if we used a clear assessment tool to make certain visitations and report back to the subcommittee, that option would be one possibility to reduce costs as well as to make travel less onerous on senators in the subcommittees. I am thinking about the travel involved for the five of us.
If we can draft such an assessment tool or a package together, or if one has been used in the past, perhaps that option would be beneficial.
Senator Callbeck: I wonder if what I said is right. Is it not correct that if local senators from British Columbia or Alberta wanted to participate, they are part of the quorum?
Senator Cook: For clarification, Senator Callbeck, they must become members of the committee for that period of time.
The Chair: However, they are not part of the quorum.
Senator Callbeck: Are they not?
The Chair: I suppose we can do that.
Senator Segal: I was not a member of the committee, but I was put on the committee prior to the Halifax trip. Therefore, I think I counted as part of the quorum.
Senator Cordy: This option sounds great in theory — five senators meeting in Vancouver, four of whom live there and one who does not, and four senators meeting in Halifax who all live there. However, then we have to put a report together with people who are on the subcommittee that have not been to these places. That approach might sound good in practice, but the reality is that when we put our report together, we want to have visited as many of these outreach programs as possible.
The Chair: It does not mean that you cannot have one substitution here and there, but we need continuity when it comes to preparing the report so that people will have heard the evidence. That is the purpose behind having the committees do this work.
Senator Segal: I would be comfortable, based on the discussion with colleagues around the table — and staff has done good work managing costs — to have the steering committee develop a plan for some members of the committee to go to Vancouver and other places that would maximize flexibility, presence and respect for the people appearing before the committee. I would also recommend that we be careful about cost and travel time. I am comfortable with the steering committee sorting that plan out with staff. I am sure they will do a good job.
The Chair: We will look at that item and see how we can improve upon it. Remember that we must go to the Internal Economy Committee to have the budget approved. We have that other examination and overview of what is proposed. Having gone to the committee before, I know they ask detailed questions.
Let me move along with the work plan. That proposal is with respect to that particular week. Then, we are back in Ottawa for the usual meetings, Tuesday and Wednesday. We move toward the end of the population health report on April 30. Then, its final approval is slated for Wednesday, May 6. Unless there are reasons to continue beyond that date, that is the final approval for the study.
Following that approval, we have cities again, and the break week comes into play. This time, travel is to Calgary and Edmonton. I will consider again what Senator Segal has said, with respect to that travel. Then, you can see the different sub-subjects in the plan: national housing strategy and round table on income security. We had our round table on guaranteed annual income, Senator Segal's proposal, in the last session of Parliament. This discussion on income security is broader. That session is our only Friday meeting other than one additional one.
We travel to Vancouver. You will notice that several days are blocked out there. The Cities Subcommittee has traditionally attended the annual conference of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities because the FCM is the umbrella body for the large cities and municipalities. The Big City Mayors Caucus is held at that time and we interact with them since it is relevant to the mandate of our subcommittee.
The proposal is for those who want to go — I think two went last year — to go to the FCM conference. My intent is to go; I go every year. This year it is in Whistler. We can have the Vancouver meetings at the same time if we have enough people there from the subcommittee.
On June 10 to 12, we hold meetings in Montreal and Toronto, which completes the travel. On June 17, we have government officials here from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, HRSDC. Finally, on June 18, we give the drafting instructions to the researcher and company for the summer writing of the report.
Are there any further questions or comments about the agenda?
Senator Cook: I want to make a couple of comments, chair, for the benefit of our newcomers to the table.
While we have always been frugal on this committee, I will cite one report that I was part of, Out of the Shadows at Last: Transforming Mental Health, Mental Illness and Addiction Services in Canada. Had we not driven ourselves mentally and physically to search for the truth during that period, the report would not have received the hearing and attention of government that it did, and we would not have a wonderful Mental Health Commission of Canada today.
I say to senators: Be careful where you place your priorities because they are not always obvious. The other thing I would say is, yes, we are living in tough economic times. Who would not agree with that?
That means that the people we represent — the underrepresented people of Canada in the regions — are more vulnerable than they ever were before. We need to have our input into the pot, as it were, and to do something about these issues, or to look at them through a different lens.
On a practical note, I do not know if you have your VIA Rail passes yet, but they are available. We travel on VIA Rail. Therefore, when we go to Montreal and Toronto, they are usually day trips so we do not cost the taxpayer a lot of money.
I think we should be careful when we look at our priorities and what we are here to do. I think we need to put people first; seeing them where they are and meeting them. As you said, the professional is comfortable using a teleconference, but professionals are not the people we are concerned about at the moment.
The Chair: Does anyone else want to speak?
Can we agree tentatively to the budgeting provisions, which must come back here after they have been drafted, bearing in mind the comments of Senator Segal? Are senators agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
The next task is to adjourn this meeting and then convene two meetings of the subcommittees for the purposes of electing the chairs and deputy chairs of the subcommittees.
(The committee adjourned.)