Proceedings of the Special Senate Committee on the
Charitable Sector
Issue No. 5 - Evidence - June 11, 2018
OTTAWA, Monday, June 11, 2018
The Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector met this day at 4:04 p.m. to examine the impact of federal and provincial laws and policies governing charities, nonprofit organizations, foundations, and other similar groups; and to examine the impact of the voluntary sector in Canada.
Senator Terry M. Mercer (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I welcome to you this meeting of the Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector. I’m Senator Terry Mercer from Nova Scotia, chairman of the committee. I would like to start by asking the senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.
Senator R. Black: Robert Black, Ontario.
Senator Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
The Chair: I’m here to balance it off. That’s Ontario, and I’m the rest of the country.
Seriously, thank you, colleagues, for being here. Today, the committee will continue its study to examine the impact of the federal and provincial laws and policies governing charities, non-profit organizations, foundations and other similar groups, and to examine the impact of the voluntary sector in Canada.
For this meeting, we will focus on the contribution of charities and non-profit organizations to government service delivery and policy consultation.
We’ll go to questions after the presentations. During the question and answer session, I would ask senators to be succinct and to the point when asking their questions, and I would ask that the witnesses do the same when answering.
We will introduce our guests for today. From Global Affairs Canada, we have Mr. Dave Metcalfe, Director General, International Assistance Operations; and Mr. Joshua Tabah, Director General, Inclusive Growth and Governance and Innovation. From Correctional Service Canada, we have Ms. Amy Jarrette, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Communications and Engagement; and Mr. Patrice Miron, Director, Citizen Engagement.
Thank you for accepting our invitation to appear. I would like the witnesses to make their presentations, and we’ll follow those with questions and answers.
[Translation]
Joshua Tabah, Director General, Inclusive Growth and Governance and Innovation, Global Affairs Canada: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. I am going to begin with a few words in French, and my colleague Dave Metcalfe and I are going to share our speaking time. Thank you for having invited us to take part in your study of this topic.
Global Affairs Canada engages with Canadian non-profit and charitable organizations across all of its business lines, but these remarks will focus on international assistance programming, which represents the bulk of the financial support provided to this sector.
Global Affairs Canada engages with a diverse range of Canadian, international and local civil society organizations. On average, the department is funding the projects of over 140 different Canadian charities and non-profit organizations at any given time. These organizations play a valuable role helping Canada achieve its international assistance priorities. They bring knowledge and technical expertise, financial and volunteer resources to develop and manage projects in developing countries. These organizations also engage Canadians directly through volunteer and youth programs and raise awareness of global issues here in Canada.
Funding to non-profit organizations is used to implement international assistance projects that will achieve results that are aligned with Government of Canada priorities. It is provided in accordance with the Treasury Board Policy on Transfer Payments, and where applicable, the Government Contracts Regulations and Treasury Board Contracting Policy.
[English]
If there were translation questions, I can come back to these remarks afterwards, of course.
Dave Metcalfe, Director General, International Assistance Operations, Global Affairs Canada: Global Affairs Canada uses a variety of merit-based mechanisms to select the projects and organizations that receive funding.
These mechanisms are governed by a standardized set of processes and tools. There are funding application forms and assessment criteria posted on the Global Affairs Canada website, along with instructions on how to apply for funding. Projects can be considered for funding through different departmental selection mechanisms, including the following: A request for proposals is a competitive process to select an organization to execute a project on the department’s behalf. A call for proposals is more of a comparative process than a competitive process that is used to select a number of projects that will achieve a set of results defined by the department. Unsolicited proposals are proposals submitted by an organization where the department has not solicited an actual project and organizations submit based on alignment with the department’s priorities. Department initiated is when the department invites an organization with particular expertise to submit a proposal to achieve a specific set of results that the department is trying to achieve. Institutional support is when the department funds a national, institutional or global strategy to achieve results that are aligned with the department’s priorities.
If an organization’s project is selected, the organization signs a financial instrument with the department — a contract, contribution or grant agreement — that sets out the amount and the conditions of the funding. It includes the terms related to, among other things, payments, eligible costs and reporting on the results achieved. The department also compensates Canadian organizations for overhead — those indirect project costs — applying a formula based on the actual direct project cost to determine that overhead.
In accordance with the Financial Administration Act, the department also evaluates the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of all its programs on a five-year cycle. These evaluations include the results of projects implemented by charitable and non-profit organizations.
In consultation with Canadian organizations, the department is working to simplify and rationalize its existing requirements to reduce the burden of applying for and reporting on funding, increase predictability and transparency and apply more flexibility based on assessed risk.
Global Affairs Canada also engages regularly in policy dialogue with Canadian charities and non-profits to discuss global development challenges and how to make Canada’s international assistance investments more effective and innovative.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Metcalfe.
Amy Jarrette, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Communications and Engagement, Correctional Service Canada: Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Correctional Service Canada, or CSC, to discuss the committee’s study on the impact of public policy on charities and not-for-profit organizations and the impact of the voluntary sector.
[Translation]
My name is Amy Jarrette and I am the Acting Assistant Commissioner of Communications and Engagement at Correctional Service Canada, the CSC. I am joined today by Patrice Miron, Director of Citizen Engagement at CSC. Together, we oversee the management of volunteers at CSC.
Today I will provide you with an overview of CSC’s volunteer programs, how these volunteers are chosen, the type of work they do, and the framework for the delivery of the volunteer services within our sector.
[English]
As you may know, CSC is responsible for administering the sentences of offenders serving two years or more in federal correctional institutions, at varying security levels, as well as supervising federal offenders in the community.
There are approximately 6,000 volunteers at CSC that contribute towards this mandate and make an impact on many offenders’ lives, whether the offender is in the prison or in the community. Volunteers with CSC dedicate their time to helping offenders become law-abiding citizens, as well as supporting families of incarcerated offenders and helping offenders reintegrate into society upon their release.
As such, volunteers not only provide this invaluable service to offenders and Canadian society, but their involvement also helps CSC fulfill a key principle from its legislative framework, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or CCRA. That principle is principle 4(e) of the CCRA, which states that CSC must facilitate the involvement of members of the public in matters relating to its operations.
It bears emphasizing that CSC and its staff are deeply thankful to its volunteers for their ongoing contributions to the organization and to public safety. Volunteers help bridge the gap between our correctional institutions and the Canadian communities, and their positive presence at CSC allows us to successfully fulfill our mandate and help offenders safely reintegrate into the community. We estimate that these 6,000 volunteers provide in excess of 550,000 hours of their time on an annual basis, and we would add that their true value in touching human lives is incalculable.
Let me emphasize that CSC would not achieve its current level of success in its correctional results without the invaluable contribution of our volunteer partners.
At CSC, the management of volunteers is guided by Commissioner’s Directive 24. Under the Commissioner’s Directive, a volunteer is considered to be an individual who provides their time without remuneration at CSC. All individuals are risk-assessed and approved by CSC prior to beginning their volunteer work.
Among other requirements, volunteers must be the age of majority in the province in which they wish to volunteer and complete CSC’s national volunteer orientation and any applicable training, which can vary depending on the type of volunteer work they are going to be doing.
As CSC volunteers generally have access to protected assets, they must maintain reliability status, which includes a criminal record check. Volunteers are also supervised throughout their time with CSC and often work directly with CSC staff. All volunteer activities are coordinated at the regional level, whether the work takes place inside an institution or out in the community.
Where CSC volunteers tend to have a close working relationship with their supervisor, they may receive an informal type of evaluation or recognition. However, there is no formal evaluation of individual performance at CSC.
Volunteers come to CSC from all walks of life. Some are students looking for experience working in prisons, and others are more senior who choose to invest their time in relating to offenders. While CSC occasionally recruits volunteers, very often recruitment happens organically through word of mouth, and formal campaigns are not required. CSC volunteers, by nature of being volunteers, are not compensated monetarily for their time, but if called for specific meetings, they may receive compensation for travel, although this is rare.
There are a number of valuable and diverse ways in which volunteers are able to get involved at CSC, so I will provide a broad overview of some of our core volunteer programs. First, many of CSC’s volunteers are involved in the provision of ongoing services to offenders during their time of incarceration. This can include tutoring, mentorship programs, social and cultural events, faith-based services and substance abuse programming, just to name a few.
Volunteers in the community also support families of incarcerated offenders and help released offenders readjust to life in the community. For example, volunteers are able to join regional ethnocultural advisory committees whose mandate is to ensure that multiculturalism is included in the correctional process. It should be noted that CSC is committed to achieving a skilled and diverse volunteer base that is reflective of the community that it represents.
Active communications help to make the public aware of the need for, and the importance of, volunteers in making our correctional work successful. While some of our institutions are located in areas that don’t have a large population, we are still able to draw on the local communities for volunteers.
Additionally, CSC recognizes that citizen engagement is vital to the federal correctional process, and the CCRA requires that CSC sustain active communications in order to elevate public awareness of, and involvement in, CSC operations. As such, the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations indicate that CSC may require that a citizen advisory committee work in each operational unit of an institution.
Volunteers involved in citizen advisory committees provide CSC with advice on the implementation and development of correctional facilities and programs. They act as impartial observers on day-to-day operations and liaise with CSC and the communities in order to raise awareness, understanding and support for the correctional process. Currently, there are approximately 75 citizen advisory committees across Canada with about 400 active committee members appointed for a term of at least two years.
Citizen advisory committees are governed by Commissioner’s Directive 23, and I should say that all of our CDs, including 23, for citizen advisory committees, and 24, for volunteers, are publicly available on our website.
[Translation]
I will conclude by reiterating how grateful CSC is for the valuable work that volunteers perform within our correctional facilities and in the community. Their dedication and hard work help us create safer communities and institutions for all Canadians.
[English]
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and we welcome your questions.
The Chair: Thank you all for your presentations. We’ll now go to questions right away.
To Global Affairs, our friends from Correctional Service Canada outlined some of the programs they do. Perhaps I could go back and ask you to tell us some of the programs that Global Affairs is involved in specifically that will give my colleagues and our viewers an idea of what we’re talking about.
Mr. Tabah: In my opening remarks, I framed that our focus today in terms of what we would address would be specifically our international assistance programs, which is where we primarily use Canadian charities and non-governmental organizations as implementing partners for international development activities.
We have a new international development strategy that Minister Bibeau released a year ago, and it identifies a series of priority action areas. In the branch that I work in, we manage a number of specific programs that are aimed, in particular, at Canadian NGOs and charities for implementation overseas. One of them relates specifically to the deployment of interns, volunteers and technical experts.
We do those in partnership with Canadian civil society organizations. So we have initiatives with organizations like WUSC, CUSO and CESO, who identify and deploy Canadian volunteers and interns into their operations overseas to work with local partners to support international development results.
Similarly, we have other programs that support Canadian NGOs with direct funding to support our overall priorities in relation to women’s economic growth, inclusive governance, health and education. A variety of different sectors have been identified as priorities for reducing poverty and enhancing human dignity, and the operational model, as my colleague explained, is to in some sense source these project ideas from Canadian partners, make recommendations to the ministers about the most meritorious project ideas and then enter into a financial arrangement with them to support their activities overseas.
The Chair: That’s exactly what I wanted to hear.
Senator R. Black: Thank you very much for your presentations. You talked about merit-based applications. Has that changed? You told us about RFPs and calls for proposals, unsolicited proposals and departmental initiatives. Has the idea of merit-based applications changed from days gone by, or has it always been that way?
Mr. Metcalfe: The way we apply it might have changed a bit, but merit-based has always been the way that we’ve selected our projects based on what kind of results and value for money we can achieve in the fields and the priorities that we’re trying address.
Senator R. Black: Thank you. You told us overhead is covered. That’s terrific. We have heard in previous presentations that in some cases it’s tough to carry on operations. You can do the project, but it’s tough to cover overhead. So I appreciate that it gets covered.
Who are your applicant NGOs? Are they from across Canada? Are they centred in Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver, or will you get applicants from other geographic or regional areas?
Mr. Tabah: A concentration of funding goes to 25 of our largest partners, and they are generally housed in some of the larger cities in Canada. Those include large international organizations that you will know, like Oxfam, CARE or Save the Children. Other partners include the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which, for example, is a significant partner, as is an organization called Grand Challenges Canada.
We recently launched a call for proposals, though, to support the minister’s desire to diversify the partnerships. I mentioned that we had 140 operational partners; some of them are much smaller and do come from across the country. Lots are from the East and from the West. We don’t have as many from the North as we would like.
We recently launched a call for proposals aimed specifically at smaller organizations, organizations that do not have a large relationship with the department right now. We received applications from nearly 200 organizations. Those really were coast to coast to coast, and we’re in the process now of assessing those proposals. We do want to ensure that we tap into the capacities from across the country in support of our development objectives.
Senator R. Black: That’s exciting.
Moving on to Ms. Jarrette. You talked a bit about recruitment. Can you expand on how you recruit? I’m assuming that you’ll focus in the Kingston area or you’ll focus in the Waterloo, Cambridge and Kitchener area. If I live outside those areas, what can I do?
Ms. Jarrette: First, I’d like to say that in our Commissioner’s Directive for volunteers, the individual responsible for recruitment is the operational head, so that would be either the warden or the district director, as the case may be.
There are a number of folks that can assist in recruitment of volunteers. The citizen advisory committee members often go out, and ethnocultural advisory committee members will often go out and recruit volunteers.
In terms of the really remote areas, it can sometimes be more of a challenge finding volunteers in those, but we do find, generally speaking, that members of the community are ready to step up and get involved. There’s quite an interest from people from a variety of walks of life that are really interested in volunteering at CSC.
Patrice Miron, Director, Citizen Engagement, Correctional Service Canada: And there is also recruitment done online.
Senator R. Black: I’m amazed at the numbers: 6,000 volunteers, 550,000 hours of volunteer time and 74 or 75 committees, I believe you said, across Canada. Is there more than one committee at an institution? You talk about each operational unit, so is an institution one unit, or might there be multiple operational units?
Ms. Jarrette: There could be. If it’s a clustered site, or a maximum-, medium- or minimum-security institution, then there could be.
Mr. Miron: An operational unit is an institution, but it may include, as Amy said, a parole office or a district office. It could be many things. The CD that governs the structure of CSC is actually under review because in the current CD there is some degree of flexibility as to whether one committee could serve for more than one institution, whether it has to do with challenges related to remote communities or difficulty in recruiting volunteers.
We’re throwing a lens onto this process to make sure that what is most important to us is not so much the number of committees, both in terms of numbers and the number of members on a committee; for us it’s not so much a question of quantities but rather a question of quality and making sure those committees, whether there’s one or two for an institution, are representative of their community. Ideally, there should be one per operational unit, but that may vary, and there is some flexibility in that.
Senator R. Black: My last question centres around the volunteerism and the number of hours. Do you ever promote that or share that? That’s wonderful information, but I didn’t know about that.
Ms. Jarrette: We actually have a communications plan centred around thanking volunteers. There are pins to thank volunteers for five, 10 and 15 years of service. There’s National Volunteer Week every year in April. We have several awards for that. Honestly, we can’t do enough to thank our volunteers. I think they also find it incredibly rewarding working with offenders because they are changing a life, and that is, quite frankly, the biggest reward of all for them.
We do quite a bit to promote it ourselves internally, as well.
The Chair: We hope that your appearance here will also help promote that because it’s wonderful. Quite frankly, I was startled at the numbers, as well. I think that’s a good thing that you have so many.
Senator Deacon: Thank you for being here. I’m actually reflecting on the same point: the stories of the work that you’re doing and sharing with us today are quite incredible. I like the combination of the two groups here together today. Sometimes you don’t know that, but it’s great to have Global Affairs and Correctional Services together.
As this team listens to a variety of witnesses and speakers over time, the area that I want to ask about today is for a bit of a better understanding of who is doing what. We know that many federal government departments and agencies, including yours, deliver government services through non-profit organizations. That’s a reality, and it helps makes this country function.
This is for all of you. In your organizations, what’s the breakdown of services delivered by not-for-profit organizations? What are the benefits of providing services through this not-for-profit organization? I’m trying to get a sense of that piece. I have one other question, but I’ll wait until I hear from you on that.
Ms. Jarrette: We do work with a number of organizations. One of them is the National Associations Active in Criminal Justice, and they are an umbrella organization that represents about 22 not-for-profits across the country, including the John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry and so on.
The work is invaluable, whether it’s within the institution or primarily in the community. I don’t know that I could put a value on that. I don’t think we have anything that really monetizes that, but we work incredibly closely with them in the communities. Operational heads are responsible for maintaining those community ties with those organizations. They will come into the institution, as well, on their own, so they bring a number of volunteers into the institutions as well. I’m not sure if that answers your question.
Senator Deacon: That’s helpful in trying to understand a bit deeper.
Mr. Tabah: For Global Affairs, we have a very rough breakdown that is really an approximation.
The Chair: Your secret is safe with us.
Mr. Tabah: About 30 per cent of our work is carried out in partnership with Canadian not-for-profit organizations. We work very rarely with Canadian for-profit organizations. I would say there is actually a growing interest in trying to mobilize private sector engagement in support of our international development priorities.
As more private sector entities become committed to the social development goals, we’re looking to see how we can partner with them, but there isn’t a lot of investment or resource flow going through there.
The bulk of our funds that don’t go through Canadian organizations either goes through multilateral organizations, like the United Nations network or the World Bank, or it goes to local organizations in-country. That can be a host country government but, often, also not-for-profit organizations in developing countries.
One of the keys to sustainability for us is to ensure when we’re working with Canadian not-for-profits that they partner with developing country not-for-profits to ensure that they’re building capacity as they’re achieving results.
Senator Deacon: I would like to know what is in the way of your doing your very best work. What is that barrier, that challenge, or that piece? I’m not saying you’re not doing your best work, but you know what I’m talking about: that thing that really takes you to that excellence-of-service level.
Ms. Jarrette: It’s funny because we were chatting about what the barriers are. By and large people are stepping up. I think I touched on remoteness earlier. That could be a factor. There are isolated areas where we need more volunteers.
Mr. Miron: I would say the security concern is a barrier, but it’s a barrier that we overcome. We wouldn’t be overcoming it if we didn’t have such a large volunteer base of 6,000 people, but it could sometimes be an obstacle in the process that becomes slightly more stringent in terms of security clearance with recent changes in Treasury Board policy. But I’m resistant to establish this as a barrier. It’s a consideration and a challenge, but we will make it happen.
Senator Deacon: Maybe it is something that keeps you awake an extra hour at night.
Mr. Miron: Could be.
The Chair: You said in your presentation that you do a criminal check on all your volunteers, which seems natural since it is Correctional Service Canada. However, would it not be, in certain cases, that some of the best volunteers may be people who have been in the system and who have had some experience and understand what it is like to be on the other side of the bars?
Mr. Miron: Perhaps it could be seen that way. We have had offenders in the past who have been involved with programs with some people who are currently incarcerated. A lot of our volunteer base comes from a mix of people, as my colleague outlined at the outset. It is a mix of people that are retired and have more time to offer; also, a lot of people are interested in the correctional field. When I say “the correctional field,” it is a vast area of study that could be of interest. If you are studying criminology, it could be of interest, but you could be studying to be a nurse or a psychologist. It is a wide array of studies that could be attracted to our organization. We try to strike this balance between those skill sets.
Mr. Metcalfe: You asked about barriers in terms of doing our work. It is not a barrier, but I would say it is a big challenge with our international mandate. We work in a lot of complex, fragile, conflict-affected contexts. Therefore, there are a lot of great ideas, but to be able to implement them in a lot of these contexts is pretty tough. Our mandate may be different than yours, and we have a lot of great Canadian organizations that are working in some tough places and doing great work there. But in some places, it is difficult to do the work you want to do when you have things happening around you.
Senator Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thank you. I am pleased to listen to the witnesses today and your presentations.
This question can only come from a researcher — and that would be me. You mentioned evaluation programs. Do you have certain protocols for evaluation? Do organizations evaluate themselves? I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with that, but do you have particular requirements for evaluating programs? You mentioned the evaluation, and it was an important part of what you are doing.
Mr. Metcalfe: A bit of all of the above in terms of the protocols.
There are requirements for third-party evaluations. We will do evaluations in-house, and we will have third parties do evaluations, but also an important piece is organizations themselves evaluating their own projects to look at what kinds of processes, structures and frameworks they have in-house to do that. All of that information we triangulate to get a full picture of what is happening, not only so that we can see whether there are things that can be adjusted and how we are doing in terms of results, but also what can we use to apply to future programming? What can we learn from those evaluations in terms of moving forward?
Mr. Tabah: To complement that, you might be interested in knowing that we rely heavily on our network of international embassies and consulates as well as our staff who travel to the field to actively monitor projects. We accompany our partners closely in the funds that we allocate to them. We spend a lot of time on field monitoring so that there aren’t surprises when the evaluations come. We tend to be very involved in the programming that we do as a department.
Senator Dasko: You are not just looking at evaluation reports. You are digging at it in different ways is what you are saying.
Mr. Metcalfe: Absolutely. To add to what Joshua was saying, horizontal evaluations as well, so not only looking at one project, but maybe looking at a full sector to see how certain projects are achieving results. What can we apply and share with not only our Canadian partners but international partners as well?
The Chair: What is the training of the evaluators? I assume your evaluators are employees of Global Affairs. That is not a volunteer organization, and you are evaluating volunteer or not-for-profit organizations that are doing work for the government.
Do you give special training to the evaluators?
Mr. Metcalfe: We do. We have a full evaluation team of professional evaluators with certification, and we also use third-party evaluators as well when we are looking at different specialties where we don’t have the specialties in-house to evaluate those sectors.
Senator Dasko: Both departments have had tremendous, long-time experience with non-profit organizations. Stepping back, is there anything about the larger relationship you have had with non-profits that you think should change? You have been in this field for so long, and sometimes the word “status quo” doesn’t sound very good, but from listening to you, the status quo sounds pretty good, from your descriptions and your statements today.
Do you think anything needs to change in your relationship with non-profits or with volunteers in terms of how you are carrying out government mandates and needs? Do you have any thoughts about that? Is it a little bit of tinkering that is involved? Do you think you have got the relationship pretty well figured out, and you have a good way to deal with it and you don’t really think a lot of change is needed?
Ms. Jarrette: For the relationship, there are two aspects. One is what happens at NHQ and how we engage these organizations from that perspective, and continuing to ensure that the lines of communication are open and that we are strategic in our approaches.
One thing we have talked about with some of our partners is coming together with a few key priorities. At the local level, there are all kinds of activities going on, and there may be a thousand things happening, but where collectively are we interested in going over the next year or two?
If there is one area we are interested in looking at, and we are already well down that path, it is leveraging technology to see how we can communicate with our stakeholders a little more easily. For example, if you have a calendar of events, you put it on a portal and you can update it, and stakeholders and your partners know what is going on. We have a stakeholder engagement portal that is in the final stages of development. We are hoping to give birth to it later this year. That will help keep those lines of communication open, because we have so many partners, and help us manage that relationship even better than we are now.
Mr. Tabah: Relationships and dynamics ebb and flow with time. Right now our stakeholders in the sector would be appreciative of the level of engagement that they have with the department and with our international assistance work.
This policy that I spoke of involved a very in-depth consultation process that all of our major stakeholders were involved with; so over 15,000 individuals made submissions. A lot of those submissions were on the basis of the charities or non-governmental organizations they represent. That very active and open dialogue around both reforms internally and programs we run externally has continued.
Clearly, our stakeholders continue to be interested in more, but I think the level of discussion and transparency we have now with our Canadian civil society partners is probably at a high level, at least in the 20 years that I have been involved in the sector.
The Chair: Correctional Service Canada, you said you have approximately 550,000 volunteer hours. That is a pretty impressive number.
From the inmate side, what percentage of inmates take advantage of the volunteer programs and interact with these volunteers?
Mr. Miron: I don’t think I could come up with a precise number, sir. It varies a lot. It is important, as Amy illustrated, that we factor in the fact that the correctional process is a process of continuum. We often say at CSC that reintegration starts at intake, and it does, but it varies a lot. Also, the type and degree of involvement of volunteers varies a lot. It could take the form of someone who comes and volunteers in the institution. I will give you an example. It could be a book club, for example, people who come and read books with volunteers. It could take the form of assistance with unescorted temporary escorts that have a security level that allows that to happen. In the community, it varies a lot.
To measure some of those things and in terms of identifying the numbers, that is one of the things that we hope the portal my colleague mentioned will help us improve, because measuring engagement is not an exact science. This is something we feel we need to make inroads on. We have this calculation in terms of raw hours, which is good because it is a quantity, but in terms of getting more acute in our ability to measure that from a quality perspective, there is room for growth there, definitely.
The Chair: We have heard from others about barriers to volunteerism. I am guessing that volunteering for Correctional Service Canada would present different barriers. Are there barriers that are there for volunteering that could be easily addressed by a change or two?
Mr. Miron: I wouldn’t have anything specific that comes to mind, sir.
The issue of security clearance is something that we have mentioned before. It is there, but it is far from being insurmountable. Access to the institutions in remote areas can also be a problem. Sometimes travelling is involved, and that can be seen as a barrier, perhaps.
Overall, our volunteer base is well governed, and I think those things are fairly well managed at this stage.
The Chair: I should say to all the witnesses that when we finish, if you think of anything that you haven’t told us, don’t hesitate to get back to us through the clerk, and he will share that with all of us.
Senator R. Black: As budgets are cut over the years, are you seeing the use of volunteers increasing? Has that 550,000 hours increased over the last 15 or 20 years because of budgets being cut and using volunteers more, or because you are using volunteers better, in general terms?
Ms. Jarrette: Not to my knowledge. I think it has been fairly stable. Certainly the CDs and the policies governing them haven’t fundamentally changed in some time. In terms of the programs that are available, I don’t think it has had much of an impact.
Mr. Metcalfe: In our world, it would be more demands increasing versus budgets being cut, and not necessarily looking for the use of more volunteers but for innovative ways for funds to go further.
Senator R. Black: We heard at a previous committee meeting about private sector engagement. I think you mentioned briefly that that is coming to the forefront. Can both organizations speak to how you are using that and what the potential of private sector engagement is? I am thinking of companies that are saying they will make sure their employees commit to a certain number of days, hours or weeks per year. Help me out here.
Mr. Tabah: I’m happy to begin. There was a meeting in Charlevoix this weekend, and one of the outcomes was a statement on innovative financing for development, so our Prime Minister mobilized the other leaders in support of the idea that we have to mobilize greater volumes of private finance to eliminate poverty overseas. They are less looking at technical expertise, so that’s one piece, and technological transfer is another one. The current focus is more on unlocking the patient capital that sits in the large investment and pension funds and encouraging them to look at potential investment opportunities in frontier and developing markets.
That is the kind of initiative we think could spur growth in developing countries and create a more dynamic economic situation for some of these economies and, as a result, reduce poverty. It is less about individual Canadian companies and more about trying to unlock the potential of private and sovereign wealth.
That is an interesting piece of work that the international community is engaged in, in terms of how we can use our international development assistance to try to offset some of the risk that prevents these funds from investing in developing countries. We are looking at different tools and mechanisms that might enable a greater engagement of the private sector and capital in developing countries.
Mr. Miron: Our focus in terms of the private sector is more about getting them engaged in employment for offenders at CSC. A couple of years ago, the director of our department developed CSC’s Integrated Engagement Strategy, the objective of which was to engage with a lot of partners, stakeholders and volunteers. As our previous commissioner used to say, we have a footprint that is wide but not necessarily deep. We tried to identify key engagement priorities, which is not to say we don’t engage with partners who are not focusing on these, but we define those key priorities to bring focus in engagement with partners. Those three key priorities were and still are mental health, employment and housing for offenders; they are identified as being three key factors to support successful reintegration.
If I come back to your question about employment per se, we have a separate operating agency industry at CSC called CORCAN that has workshops in some of our institutions and develops the skill sets of offenders and gets them sometimes certification. That is an example where this entity has its own work with the private sector.
We also have also ventured into other opportunities where we try to focus on getting the private sector interested in providing opportunities for employment for offenders because this is key to their successful reintegration. It is not that much to get them to give volunteerism hours to us; it is more to get them interested in supporting the successful reintegration of offenders to employment.
Senator R. Black: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, thank you very much. Witnesses, thank you. It has been very informative.
Senator R. Black: I have another question, if I could.
The Chair: All right.
Senator R. Black: We will do a report at the end of this series of committee meetings. What would you like to see us include in that report from each of your perspectives? What one or two things should we make sure are included?
Ms. Jarrette: For us, it is the fact that we could not do our jobs without the support of volunteers. If you think about it, we have 18,000 employees and 6,000 volunteers. That is significant. Also, the range of activities that we perform and the fact that it is a different relationship. When you have someone coming in from the community, there is someone that you don’t know and it is a different relationship that the offender may have with that person than, say, with their parole officer or other people from CSC.
It is very validating for the offender to have someone from the community giving up their time to spend with them. It is incredibly helpful for their reintegration potential, and we can’t put a price on how much we appreciate it and how much it is valued.
Mr. Miron: If I may add two words to support what Amy just said: acknowledgement and recognition. Not that there isn’t recognition, but we need to acknowledge the work of these people, and by acknowledging it means we will facilitate it to the best extent. In our operational setting it is not obvious, but we need to acknowledge their contribution and recognize it.
Mr. Metcalfe: One of the things that I think is important is the recognition of the use of Canadian not-for-profit and non-governmental organizations. It’s not only about using Canadian expertise abroad but also about mobilizing the engagement of Canadians and the communities that they work within to support international development abroad. The recognition of that is key and important.
Senator R. Black: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. It has been very informative. Speaking on behalf of my colleagues, we have all learned a good deal this afternoon, and I hope our viewers have learned a lot. I hope your being here today goes some distance to the recognition of those 6,000 volunteers at Correctional Service Canada. It is a testament to the goodwill of Canadians who want to get out there and help all of our communities be better and help individuals restart their lives outside of the correctional system on a better footing. I want to thank those volunteers on behalf of all of us.
Global Affairs Canada, I think one of the things we didn’t discuss was the effect on the ground of some of the work that you do. You mentioned at the end that there are some economic opportunities on occasion, but I think it’s more important to talk about the effects on the individuals on the ground in the countries where we work.
Thank you all.
Before we hear from our next group of witnesses, I want to recognize in the audience today a pioneer in the Senate in community outreach and improving the image of this place many, many times over: former Senator Landon Pearson. Welcome, Landon.
Colleagues, I am pleased to introduce to you, from Employment and Social Development Canada, Heather Sheehy, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Service Policy Branch; Ms. Karen Hall, Director General, Social Policy, Strategic and Service Policy Branch; and Mr. Blair McMurren, Director, Social Innovation, Income Security and Social Development Branch. And from CMHC, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, we have Michel Tremblay, Senior Vice President, Policy and Research.
Thank you for accepting our invitation to appear. I remind you that we want concise and short statements that will allow us some time to get to questions. I remind my colleagues that we would like the questions to be concise so that we can get as many questions in as possible.
I understand that Ms. Sheehy will start us off.
Heather Sheehy, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Service Policy Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: Thank you for inviting us here today. It’s my pleasure to be here. As you introduced me, I’m the Associate Assistant Deputy Minister at Employment and Social Development Canada. I am responsible for supporting the Honourable Jean-Yves Duclos, Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, with his mandate for the development of the Poverty Reduction Strategy.
You’ve already introduced my colleague, so I won’t go there. I understand that you are interested in learning more about the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Poverty and, more specifically, how and why charities and non-profit organizations and/or their representatives were selected to participate in the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Poverty. You also wanted to know the contribution charities and non-profit organizations and their representatives bring to the process.
With that in mind, I’ll start with providing you with some content around the creation of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Poverty and how it is contributing to the development of the Poverty Reduction Strategy.
As you know, ESDC is working on the development of a Poverty Reduction Strategy that sets targets to reduce poverty, aligns with existing provincial and municipal poverty reduction strategies and includes a plan to measure and publicly report on progress.
To ensure that the Poverty Reduction Strategy reflects Canadians’ diverse needs and approaches to poverty reduction across Canada, the government established a Ministerial Advisory Committee on Poverty. The Advisory Committee on Poverty is a forum for information sharing and independent discussion on poverty and poverty reduction. Its members act as a sounding board and provide advice to the minister on a range of poverty-related issues. It has been set up for a period of one year, from September 2017 to September 2018.
The work of the advisory committee complements other engagement activities, which we can speak about if you’re interested, that have been undertaken to support the development of the Poverty Reduction Strategy.
These engagement activities include ministerial and community round tables with local organizations, Indigenous national organizations and people with lived experience of poverty, as well as a robust online public submission process.
At this point, to the question I understand you’re interested in, I’d like to go through some of the key steps that were put in place regarding the selection process of members of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Poverty.
First of all, there was a public call for nominations. That was held from February 13, 2017, to March 27, 2017. It invited interested individuals who have experience with poverty and poverty reduction to apply to be a member of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Poverty. The call for nominations required people to apply as individuals and not as representatives of their organizations or affiliations.
Each application was assessed using a blind assessment approach by departmental officials based on the applicant’s personal expertise, experience with poverty reduction or lived experience of poverty.
Applicants had to apply under one of several streams, each of which had specific merit criteria that they had to demonstrate in their applications. The streams were academia; international academics and researchers on poverty; service providers, so front-line staff; business leaders involved in poverty-reduction activities; and people, as I mentioned before, with a lived experience of poverty, which was defined as someone who was living or who had previously lived in poverty for at least three consecutive years over the last 10 years and was in receipt of government or private programs that helped reduce poverty.
Individuals applying to academia, international, service delivery and business streams submitted their applications through an online nomination questionnaire. However, to simplify the process for those individuals with a lived experience of poverty, they could apply by letter of nomination, which they could write themselves, or they could have a local service provider nominate them. So there were two streams for that.
National non-profit organizations, academic institutions and business organizations working in the area of poverty and poverty reduction also played a role in the outreach. They were sent an email asking them to share the information about the open call for nominations within their network in order to generate applications.
However, as I stated earlier, applications were individual, and the assessment was based on the applicant’s individual experience or expertise, and they weren’t assessed as a part of an organization.
On September 22, 2017, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development announced the 17 members of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Poverty. They were chosen from over 400 nominations from across Canada and internationally. The advisory committee brings together a committed and diverse group of leaders, academic experts and practitioners working in the field of poverty and those who have experienced poverty first-hand. Members are also representative of Canada in terms of diversity, gender, ethnicity, regions and official languages.
The committee has met several times, since being formed last September, to discuss issues related to poverty and to provide advice to the minister.
Members participate in the committee as individuals and not as representatives. I’ve already said that. While members of the ministerial advisory committee do participate and provide independent advice, we acknowledge that their personal experiences and expertise in the area of poverty reduction may be to some extent most likely influenced by their past or present involvement with charities and non-profit organizations.
In such cases, this involvement would obviously enrich their advice and make it reflective of their communities’ realities. That is, obviously, a tremendous asset.
I would also like to bring to your attention that even if charitable and non-profit organizations do not participate in the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Poverty, they have been extensively consulted for the development of the Poverty Reduction Strategy. These organizations and their representatives have made a valuable contribution to the broader process that will inform the strategy.
I can provide more information about how charitable organizations and non-profit organizations have been part of the consultation process. I’ll try and keep my remarks as short as possible.
The advisory committee, charities and non-profit organizations and their representatives and other stakeholders have been an important part in the nationwide engagement process that was launched on February 13, 2017. It gave Canadians an opportunity to have input into reducing poverty. Engagement activities were diverse, including ministerial and community round tables with local organizations, national Indigenous organizations and people with lived experience and living in poverty. There was a Tackling Poverty Together research project as well as an online engagement platform.
Charities and non-profit organizations participated in a number of these round tables and were invited to submit their input, including detailed briefs, through their engagement website. The list of their participation is available.
On February 20, 2018, a document entitled What We Heard About Poverty So Far, a summary of what Canadians have said they are looking for in the Poverty Reduction Strategy, was released. The feedback and suggestions received are informing the development of the strategy. A complete list of organizations that made formal online submissions is included as part of that report.
The government also hosted a National Poverty Conference last September which brought together academics, Canadians with lived experience and other key stakeholders, including charities and non-profit organizations, to discuss the results of the national engagement.
I will conclude with a couple of other things that we’ve done. There was a research project that was also undertaken called the Tackling Poverty Together research project. It assessed the impact of federal poverty reduction programs locally in communities based on the opinions of citizens, including people with experience of poverty, with case studies in Saint John, Regent Park in Toronto, Winnipeg, Trois-Rivières, Tisdale in Saskatchewan, and Yellowknife. This research was conducted by Ference and Company consulting firm, who had partnered with charities and non-profit organizations in each of those communities in order to complete the research. The final report was also released in September 2017, and it also includes a complete list of community partners.
Finally, Tamarack’s Vibrant Communities Canada network, which includes charities and non-profits, hosted 33 community conversations in nine different provinces and territories to support the consultation of a Canadian Poverty Reduction Strategy. The ESDC has also used a public call for nominations approach to recruit members.
I should also mention — and this is why my colleague is here — that we’ve also used a public call for nominations to recruit members of other advisory-type committees over the last 18 months, including the Social Innovation and Social Finance Strategy Co-Creation Steering Group, which includes individuals from stakeholder organizations in the charitable and non-profit sector.
This particular co-creation steering group was appointed by Minister Duclos and Minister Hajdu in June 2017 with a specific mandate to examine federal laws, regulations and policies that have an impact on the ability of community organizations such as charities and non-profit organizations to participate in social innovation and social finance initiatives, amongst other issues.
The Social Innovation and Social Finance Strategy Co-Creation Steering Group brought together 16 passionate and diverse leaders, practitioners and experts, including the community, philanthropic, financial and research sectors. Its mandate came to an end just last week, and its recommendations will be submitted to ministers shortly.
My colleague Blair McMurren is Director of Social Innovation at ESDC. If we have questions with respect to that process, we’d be happy to address those questions as well.
This concludes my presentation. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Michel Tremblay, Senior Vice President, Policy and Research, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation: I am pleased to be here today on behalf of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the CMHC.
[English]
The non-profit sector and the charitable sector both play a very important role in housing in Canada. Their collaboration is essential to CMHC’s mission to help Canadians meet their housing needs.
CMHC is Canada’s national housing agency. Many know us through our commercial activities like mortgage loan insurance which helps Canadians to access the housing market. We also provide market data, analysis and research to help businesses, governments and the public make informed decisions about housing. We are the most comprehensive and trusted source of information on housing and housing markets in Canada.
We also fund affordable housing solutions. To that end, we work in partnership with all orders of government, the private and non-profit sectors and charitable organizations.
In Canada, non-profit and charitable organizations are the main providers of housing for people whose needs aren’t met through the housing markets. These organizations include housing cooperatives, community associations and women’s shelters, to name but a few. They access our funding programs to develop affordable housing projects, often with the help of mortgage loan insurance from CMHC. We work closely together to give people from our most vulnerable populations safe, adequate and affordable places to call home.
Let me give you a few recent examples of projects developed by charities and non-profit housing providers with CMHC’s support.
The Storeys housing complex in Richmond, British Columbia, was made possible through a unique partnership between three levels of government and five non-profit organizations: Coast Mental Health, Pathways Clubhouse, S.U.C.C.E.S.S., Tikva Housing Society and Turning Point Housing Society. This 129-unit building not only provides affordable housing for some of the area’s most vulnerable residents, but it also provides valuable community and outreach services right on location.
YWCA Moncton recently opened a centre with CMHC funding that supports women and children in need.
[Translation]
A housing cooperative in Repentigny, Quebec, the Coopérative de solidarité Havre du Petit Village, has become a senior community model, with special programs that are organized and created by the residents themselves.
[English]
Given our experience and existing relationships within the sector, when we set out to develop Canada’s first ever National Housing Strategy, we knew our charitable and non-profit partners had to be at the table.
We knew that we didn’t have all the answers, nor do we have all the tools to address persistent housing problems on our own. We needed the involvement and support of many others.
In June 2016, we launched a four-month national consultation on housing called Let’s Talk Housing. These consultations directly informed the vision, outcomes, themes and principles for the National Housing Strategy.
The strategy is a comprehensive 10-year $40 billion plan to give more Canadians a place to call home, focusing on supply-side solutions to meet the housing needs of the most vulnerable populations.
The plan has been well received across all sectors and by stakeholders in the housing system. This spring, we recently launched major pillars of the plan. There has already been great interest in the programs, and it builds on a $2.3 billion investment made in 2016 on housing.
We recognize that we could not have developed these initiatives without insights and expertise from the non-profit and charitable sectors.
I will share one specific example that I think exemplifies how a charitable organization contributed to the development of the strategy.
Initially, our focus was on rental housing. However, Habitat for Humanity made a strong case for expanding the National Housing Strategy to include funding for projects that give a hand up to families who could not otherwise enter the housing market.
Habitat is a long-time partner of CMHC. As we continued conversations, we recognized the value of their recommendation and how it could help us go further and faster towards meeting the ambitious goals of the National Housing Strategy. Ultimately, we made home ownership projects for families that would be otherwise shut out of the housing market eligible under our National Housing Co-Investment Fund.
We also heard during our consultation that many data gaps exist that prevent us from addressing some of our major housing challenges. As a result, the strategy includes funding for non-profit research organizations to help us better understand Canada’s evolving housing system and to provide alternative perspectives to complement existing government-sourced research.
[Translation]
At CMHC, we know from experience that non-profit and charity organizations know the communities where they provide their services well, and are very engaged. In many cases, they have the same objectives, and hope to achieve the same results. And most importantly, the majority of them are powerful voices for those they represent, and they contribute enriching and innovative ideas to discussions.
[English]
This concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chair. I would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have at this time.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentations.
Mr. Tremblay, you said that the National Housing Strategy includes funding for non-profit research organizations to help us better understand Canada’s evolving system and provide alternative perspectives to complete existing government source research.
What type of research are they providing?
Mr. Tremblay: That initiative, Mr. Chair, has not been launched yet. This will be a call for applications. They will submit research on —
The Chair: What do you envision it doing?
Mr. Tremblay: I think I envision them partnering with research universities and coming up with research that will be more focused on their particular needs in local areas across the country. There are different needs for seniors than there are for people with disabilities. I think I envision more focused research.
Senator R. Black: Thank you very much. I had no idea that CMHC was involved in the areas that you explained. My question is for both groups, and it comes from being a municipal councillor in my past.
How are you involving, engaging, collaborating with and picking the brains of municipal government across the country? There are 420 municipalities in Ontario, and that’s just one province of many. I know in my home community municipalities are working together, amongst themselves and with other organizations in their communities, to alleviate housing problems and issues. How are you engaging with them so that we’re not reinventing the wheels and so that you’re getting their best insight as well?
Mr. Tremblay: As part of the National Housing Strategy, similar to the poverty strategy, we had an exhaustive consultation process. We consulted through our websites. Canadians could complete surveys and also make submissions, as could organizations. We received almost 500 submissions, including from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We are also always in communication. We have people across the country — and municipalities. We met with the caucus of large city mayors, and we’re continually in conversations with the municipalities.
Under one of the flagship initiatives under the National Housing Strategy, municipalities will be able to apply to the National Housing Co-Investment Fund. The co-investment fund, as the name entails, is a partnership between the federal government, municipalities, provinces and territories, and one other entity. Either the municipality or the provinces will be involved in the project. That’s so that we align our efforts better between federal, provincial and municipal governments.
Ms. Sheehy: We also undertook a very extensive consultation process. In the document that I referred to that is public — it’s been released, and we can get you a copy; it’s the Canadian Poverty Reduction Strategy: What We Heard About Poverty So Far —we list all of the consultations we did, which were very significant. It also specifically notes that we had 29 meetings with different levels of government — federal, provincial and territorial, including Canadian municipalities. It also lists some of the municipalities that we specifically heard from.
I’m not going to give you the complete list right now, but it is available, and I can certainly get it to the committee. It includes organizations such as the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association, for example. In some instances individual municipalities also participated. For example, I’m just choosing from the list that I have: the City of Calgary, the City of London, the City of Montreal, the City of Vancouver — and it goes on it to some extent.
This makes a lot of sense, because municipalities are very involved. They are actually the front-line delivery of services to those who live in poverty, so it makes sense that we would want to engage with them and hear what they are learning. That’s a great source of information for us.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities was also one of the groups that provided input into the consultations.
Karen, I don’t know if there’s anything else to add. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a specific example. They are part of the broad engagement. It’s really important that we hear those interests.
Before turning to Karen, I should note that we also looked at the poverty-reduction strategies that have already been released across the country, some by provinces and some by municipalities. We’ve looked at those because we can learn from what other jurisdictions are doing. That’s very informative for us as well.
Karen Hall, Director General, Social Policy, Strategic and Service Policy Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: I think you covered it well.
Blair McMurren, Director, Social Innovation, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: I would just add that where the Social Innovation and Social Finance Strategy Co-Creation Steering Group is concerned, municipalities are absolutely on the radar in terms of best practices for trying out some of these new approaches. That is particularly true with regard to what they described as social procurement, which is the extent to which governments like municipalities are buying their goods and services from diverse community suppliers of different kinds, such as non-profit social enterprises, and how that could be done on a larger scale. It’s also about how that market could be built up in local markets, like municipalities with different kinds of capacity supports.
The Chair: One of the things I’ve heard in both your presentations was the quote from the CMHC presentation: “We knew that we didn’t have all the answers, nor did we have all the tools to address persistent housing problems on our own.” The government didn’t have all the answers. Canadians will be shocked. But it’s a breath of fresh air to say, “Okay, we don’t have all the answers. Let’s find them together.”
Senator Dasko: Thank you for your presentations today. One of our topics this afternoon is the engagement of non-profits in an advisory capacity in terms of policy development. I’m really asking about your reflections about the capacity of the non-profit sector to engage in policy. Policy development is a sophisticated activity. It usually takes a lot of resources to actually work on policy issues, study them and come forward with proposals. I’m really asking for your reflections about the capacity of non-profit organizations in Canada to engage in this.
Many senators, including me, have been involved with charities that are very small and that would love to have some sort of impact on policy but don’t quite know how to do that or don’t have the resources.
I’m asking for your reflections on that particular topic. We are talking about the relationship and the engagement of non-profits in the policy-making process. Any thoughts you could share with us would be appreciated.
Mr. Tremblay: You’re right, senator, that the capacity in the non-profits and charitable sector varies greatly. Some are much bigger than others.
Some of the approaches — for example, if we look at the National Housing Strategy consultations, we received almost 500 submissions. I’d say approximately 40 per cent of those came from the non-profit and charitable sector. We also did round tables and invited them. That’s basically a day of them just having discussion topics and their suggestions. Although they have limited financial capacities sometimes, and even resources, they are on the ground and they know what’s going on. They give valuable “lived experience,” so we really value their input. They gave us some great ideas throughout the process and continue to do so. I don’t think it’s a situation of consulting once and never consulting with them again. They continue to give us good feedback and things to consider in the future.
Ms. Sheehy: Senator, thank you for the question.
With respect to the Poverty Reduction Strategy, one thing we have learned from the process is that we’ve engaged in multiple ways. To your point, there are different capacities that exist in not-for-profits but also among individuals. A tremendous amount of effort has been made to ensure that those with lived poverty experience and those who live in poverty now can be heard. It’s very important that a Poverty Reduction Strategy takes into account those experiences. Obviously, that is the far end of the spectrum in terms of not having resources to contribute.
The Poverty Reduction Strategy took a very diverse approach. I’ll give you a couple of examples. We certainly did lots of officials-led sessions and meetings. Some 600 Canadians were consulted through 33 conversations in nine different provinces and territories. As I mentioned, that was done for us through a third party. We also did email submissions. That’s pretty low-tech in a way, in 2018. We did surveys. We invited stories and comments. We even invited youth to have a contest; we had a contest and told them to give us great ideas on how to address poverty.
Capacity varies across organizations, but by having a multi-faceted approach, we were able to engage a wide array of organizations, some bigger and some smaller, that have different abilities to participate.
Senator Dasko: You’re pulling out ideas.
Ms. Sheehy: Exactly.
With respect to poverty, talking to people who wouldn’t necessarily otherwise be normally consulted is and was very important. Even on the Advisory Committee on Poverty, we have people with lived experience of poverty.
Mr. Tremblay: When Heather is talking about people with lived experience, it’s not always easy for government to find people who are willing to talk to you about a lived experience, and charitable organizations are key to facilitate these things. This week, as part of the rights-based approach to housing in Toronto, the YWCA is helping us organize a session with women to talk about that. You’ve got to come at it, as Heather said, from a totally different perspective than when you’re consulting with academia or people who have a lot of means. Different approaches really help. The charitable organizations have been key in helping us get to the right people, so that’s been refreshing.
Senator R. Black: Can you assure me that you are also hearing from rural communities as well? I bring a rural perspective; so assure me that rural is being looked after in your consultations.
Mr. Tremblay: I will speak for CHMC. Absolutely, we can. We have consulted across the country by various means, whether it be websites, submissions, surveys, but also our round tables were across the country. We even went up North to Whitehorse and some other areas up North, Winnipeg, across the country.
Ms. Sheehy: We have consulted broadly, yes, and we have, absolutely, taken into account some of the rural issues. Poverty manifests itself differently in rural in areas than it does in urban areas. It is important to note that we have looked at poverty in the North as well, which is not rural. Perhaps it is more remote. That is another facet that we looked at.
I mentioned the five communities specifically that we did in-depth studies on, and some of those were more rural. I don’t know your definition of “rural,” but I think it is Tisdale, Saskatchewan, for example. That is an example of a community that has more rural heritage.
Senator R. Black: Yes. We will do a report at the end of this, and there will be a number of recommendations, I would anticipate.
What are one or two things you would want to see in that report based on what you told us today?
Mr. Tremblay: That is a good question. I am not sure that the committee can help with it, but one of the things is that some charitable organizations are sitting on a lot of assets. It could be land. But because they are limited by their charitable purpose, they cannot necessarily help with affordable housing because they have received their charitable status based on certain criteria where the rules are governed by either the federal or the provincial government. In some cases, there is an appetite to help, but there is potentially not the ability to help.
Ms. Sheehy: I want to jump off from what Mr. Tremblay was saying. We have a lot to learn from the charitable and not-for-profit sectors. They have a lot of data that we, in the federal government, may not have access to, for one reason or another. That is data that can be very rich. Working with them to mine that data would be something; we are always interested in working with them and learning from their information.
The Chair: To follow up on Senator Black, he talked about urban and rural. We need to make sure we are consulting with the North and the Aboriginal community and new Canadians. We welcome new people to this country every year. Sometimes we find out that they slipped through the cracks because, in many cases, there’s another barrier of language in that they don’t speak either one of our official languages.
We also have the real problem of youth poverty, young people, and then the ever-growing much larger population of elderly people who, as they approach the end of their lives, may have been not well off but doing reasonably well, but now they have retired and their income has been reduced, and they suddenly find themselves in poverty. I hope we are reaching out to them and talking to them as well and involving them in the strategy.
Ms. Sheehy: Thank you for mentioning Indigenous Canadians. We have done quite a bit of work specifically to look at poverty from that particular lens. I will use my notes, if I can, in terms of all we have done there because it is fairly extensive.
There were ministerial round tables, community-level discussions led by federal government officials as well as First Nations, Inuit and Metis partners. There was collaboration within the federal government as well as with provincial and territorial governments. There were actually ministerial round tables, and, as I mentioned, there were sessions. In addition to that, ESDC provided funding to the five key national Indigenous organizations to engage with their members and communities in order to ensure that that particular viewpoint was heard as part of the consultations around the national poverty strategy.
To your point, many different facets of Canadian communities — you mentioned youth and seniors — have lenses into poverty. That is why it has been so important that we take this multi-faceted approach. If you link with only one aspect, I don’t think you get that fulsome voice in terms of poverty.
The Chair: The tendency is, when you are looking at poverty, that if you don’t look at rural poverty as being different than urban poverty, you won’t come up with the right answers.
For example, transportation is a critical thing. To solve poverty, you have to find jobs. If you can’t get to the job, if you don’t have a car, and if you live in rural Canada, there is only one rural bus line in this country that works. I could do the advertising because it is in the Annapolis Valley, my home province. It is the only one that I am aware of that works. I have been involved in a study in the Transportation Committee talking about it. It is a significant problem. If you are unemployed and want to find a job, you have to be able to get there. If you live in rural Canada, the bus or the subway isn’t going by your front door. Everyone needs to factor that into our thought process as we talk about poverty reduction.
All my life I have lived in cities, except for the last 10 years. I now live in a small community of a couple thousand people. There is no public transit in my community, and I am sure the people who are economically challenged have a difficult time getting to the big city, which is 40 kilometres down the road.
Thank you very much. You have enlightened us a great deal and added a lot to our study. We appreciate that.
As I have mentioned, to all of our witnesses, if, when you leave here, you say, darn it, they or I forgot this, please don’t hesitate. As you said in the CHMC presentation, you don’t have all the answers. Neither do we. That is why we are here asking the questions. We need your help, and we appreciate what you have been able to give us this afternoon.
Ms. Sheehy: Senator, we will make sure that we get hard copies of the What We Heard report to you and the committee members. Hopefully, that will be helpful to you.
(The committee adjourned.)