Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Cities
Issue 5 - Evidence - Afternoon meeting
ST. JOHN'S, NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR,
Monday, August 11, 2008
The Subcommittee on Cities of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 1:20 p.m. to examine and report on current social issues pertaining to Canada's largest cities.
Senator Art Eggleton (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to the Senate Subcommittee on Cities, a subcommittee of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. I chair that committee as well as this subcommittee. The committee, by the way, is the same committee that tabled the report, Out of the Shadows at Last, under our previous chair, Senator Kirby.
The subcommittee is conducting a study of major Canadian cities with an initial focus on poverty, housing and homelessness. In undertaking this study, we are building on previous work done in the Senate. The 1971 report headed by Senator David Croll comes to mind. There was also work in 1997 by Senator Erminie Cohen entitled Sounding the Alarm: Poverty in Canada. At the same time, while we are focused on the urban, or cities, agenda, the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has been doing work on rural poverty, so we hope to bring a lot of these thoughts and ideas together.
Our subcommittee has completed a series of hearings in Ottawa. A number of organizations and governments from across the country have made their presentations, and out of that input we produced a report, which I think you have. The report lists 103 options on what we have heard to this point in time.
Today, we start the next phase of the subcommittee's work, which is to go across the country to hear more concerns about poverty, housing and homelessness and most particularly, to obtain input about the 103 options.
This morning we heard from the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment for Newfoundland and Labrador, Shawn Skinner, and from municipal officials. Councillor Shannie Duff was here on behalf of the City of St. John's.
This afternoon, we have invited you, about a dozen representatives, to participate in a roundtable discussion on the issues. During this session we want to encourage open and constructive dialogue about what steps ought to be taken and what we should do in regard to the issues and options. We are not asking for presentations but rather a free- flowing exchange of ideas building on the comments of other participants. We will go back and forth as you put up your hands and indicate that you want to speak.
We will divide our session into three sections. First, let us have a general discussion about poverty, housing and homelessness. Then, let us focus on the poverty and income support systems, things like Employment Insurance, EI, or social assistance, welfare or ideas about guaranteed annual income. In the third and final session, let us focus more on housing and homelessness. You can contribute in all three sections or in whatever way you want. I urge you, though, to make your comments brief and to the point so that we can obtain as much input as possible.
Following the roundtable, we will provide an opportunity for persons from the public who are not at the table to make presentations of five minutes. We have a couple of microphones back there. We are especially interested in hearing from people with personal experiences relevant to poverty and lack of affordable housing and homelessness. Persons interested in participating in that session should register at the table outside the entrance to our meeting room and we will hear from people on a first-come, first-served basis as soon as this roundtable discussion is complete.
I will introduce everyone here so that we have some understanding of who all the players are at the table. Barbara Reynolds is our clerk. Brian O'Neal and Havi Echenberg are our two researchers from the Library of Parliament.
Senator Marilyn Trenholme Counsell is from New Brunswick. She has a keen interest in early learning and child care.
Next to her is Lana Payne, who is the representative from the Make Work Pay Coalition. She works in communications and research in the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union. She also writes a biweekly column on labour, politics and social justice issues in The Telegram in St. John's. If I have anything wrong, correct me as I go.
Charmaine Davidge is Executive Director of the St. John's Status of Women Council and Women's Centre. She has 20 years of experience working with non-profit groups, with a focus on social justice and anti-violence work.
Heather Pollett is Policy Analyst for the Newfoundland and Labrador Division of the Canadian Mental Health Association. A graduate of Memorial University, she has been working at the CMHA since December 2006.
Nancy Healey is the Chief Executive Officer of the St. John's Board of Trade. She has over 15 years experience with not-for-profit industry associations in advocacy and policy development, focusing on economic development for the capital city and tourism industry development for the province. St. John's Board of Trade represents 750 companies that employ about 20,000 people.
Annette Johns is a social work consultant with the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers. Her interests are in the areas of social policy analysis and development, poverty reduction, community development, research and social work education.
Egbert Walters is General Manager of the Community Food Sharing Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. He spent some 25 years in the financial services industry before coming to the association in 1992. He has served in various capacities on the board of the Canadian Association of Food Banks and is currently a representative from this province.
Next is Senator Jim Munson. Senator Munson has his residence in Ontario and his heart in New Brunswick.
Eileen Joe is the Shanawdithit Shelter Coordinator at the St. John's Native Friendship Centre. She is originally from Conne River. She worked as a teacher's assistant before graduating with a diploma in community recreational leadership. She serves on several local committees, including the St. John's Community Advisory Committee on Homelessness.
Barry Galloway is with the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities, COD. It is an advocacy organization concerned with all persons with disabilities; promoting their rights and raising public awareness of their needs. He is a board member of the Independent Living Resource Centre.
Barry Galloway, Board Member, Coalition of Persons with Disabilities and Executive Director, Independent Living Resource Centre: Actually, I am Executive Director of the Independent Living Resource Centre.
Barbara Reynolds, Clerk of the Subcommittee: I am sorry, that was my error.
Mr. Galloway: I am a board member with the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities.
The Chair: Penny Rowe is not here, but I will introduce her anyway. Hopefully she will be here shortly. She is Chief Executive Officer, Community Services Council of Newfoundland and Labrador. Much of her professional time is invested in leading innovative programs and research projects. She is Director of the Values Added Community University Research Alliance and Co-Director of the Atlantic Region Social Economy Research program hosted by Mount St. Vincent University.
Kerri Collins is Outreach and Youth Engagement Coordinator at Choices for Youth, which was mentioned a couple of times this morning, so we have been awaiting her arrival. The organization is a non-profit, charitable, community- based agency that provides housing and lifestyle development supports to youth in the St. John's metro area. The organization was founded in 1990 as a result of an identified need among youth, the community and government to have an empowerment-based program available to youth for whom home was not an option.
Bridget Foster is Executive Director of the Association for New Canadians, an immigrant settlement agency in St. John's. She has led the organization for nearly 30 years and in that time, she has created a broad array of activities, programs and partnerships.
Penny Rowe is now here, but I already introduced her.
That introduction puts everything in context.
Senator Jane Cordy is from Nova Scotia. She is an educator, so she has a lot of interest in education. All my colleagues have a general interest in this subject matter, but specific interest as well.
We heard before we arrived here today, and it was spoken of considerably this morning when Minister Shawn Skinner was here, about the efforts of the government of Newfoundland and Labrador to combat poverty with a poverty reduction program. In fact, we know of only two provinces in Canada that have one: this one and Quebec. A number of provinces appear to be working towards them, but this province seems to have made the commitments fully. There is a coordinating committee at the cabinet level and coordination that goes on underneath the committee, which seems like a good thing if it works.
As one who has been involved with government for a long time, it is hard to overcome silos that exist in government and create horizontal linkages that bring together all aspects of issues such as poverty, housing and homelessness. These issues go into many different areas of concern that involve different departments of government: housing, education, health care and so many other aspects.
Maybe you can tell me whether you think this program is working. I have heard about a lot of programs, but I have not heard about the results yet and I do not know what the measurements are. They say that they want to take Newfoundland and Labrador from being a province with a lot of poverty — one of the worst when they made the commitment a few years ago — to being the best or certainly one of the best by 2014 in terms of having dealt with it. I also asked them how they will know when they reach their goals, how they will arrive there and what the measurements are. I think they are still working on a lot of that.
Senator Munson: In terms of specifics, Shannie Duff talked about the housing program. In referring to the federal government, he said, ``I do not know what kind of game they are playing but I do not like it.'' It seemed to me there were strong words about the lack of federal intervention or that powers are being devolved and there should be some kind of housing program not only in Newfoundland and Labrador but all across the country. Then the minister talked about the unacceptable position of the federal government: that they are not here; they are not at the table. We are all at this table. The minister talked about the federal government leaving them hanging. From my perspective, I want to know your thoughts not only about the federal government, but also about the provincial government, and whether the provincial government is fulfilling its role to the degree that you think it should. The minister and his officials laid out the groundwork for us this morning and perhaps whoever would like to can fill in some blanks for us.
The Chair: At the end of the day, we hope to come out with a set of recommendations. A lot of the focus of the recommendations will be on collaborative efforts between the different orders of government — federal, provincial and municipal — because we think poverty, housing and homelessness issues need that kind of a focus and attention. We are working towards a set of resolutions: recommendations that will finish this next phase in the early part of next year and we have these 103 thoughts at this point that we are working on. Does anybody want to pick up from that thought?
Egbert Walters, General Manager, Community Food Sharing Association of Newfoundland and Labrador: As a network of food banks across Newfoundland and Labrador, we have seen a slight reduction in the usage of our services over the past few years. We are probably talking about 3 per cent to 5 per cent a year. From our perspective, taking into consideration the government's Poverty Reduction Strategy and the high economic benefit of the offshore industry, particularly on the East Coast, something is working. I cannot put my finger on exactly what it is other than the stronger economy but from our perspective, we are seeing less poverty. If we could look at statistics from food banks across the province, there is a gradual decrease in that type of poverty.
The Chair: Can you tell us whether others are seeing that in the areas that you are involved with?
Mr. Galloway: Through a project, I had the opportunity to travel across our province, including Labrador and a number of communities. You talked about the Poverty Reduction Strategy. Our organization, the Independent Living Resource Centre, received three-year funding of $850,000 to hire 10 people with disabilities each year and train them as independent living interns. They are placed throughout the province. One component of this project was to go around the province and talk to consumers, people with disabilities, to find out about the barriers that they currently face. I recently returned from that, so I have a lot of ideas fresh in my mind.
I will tell you that people with disabilities in this province are living in poverty. There is no doubt about it: The majority of people with disabilities are living in poverty. Yes, I believe strides are being made through the Poverty Reduction Strategy, but there is a long way to go before people with disabilities are reached.
In Canada, over 500,000 people live with disabilities and the supports are not there for them. I heard stories from people across the province that would truly curl your hair.
I will give you one example. A woman talked about her husband who was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS. In order to obtain supports for her husband while he was dying, they had to make the decision that he would leave the family. He left his family and died alone so that he could obtain the supports he needed and so the family would not be burdened with this. Those are the types of things we heard. There is a long way to go, particularly around housing. There is virtually no accessible housing outside of St. John's. It is ridiculous. I know we are not talking about transportation today, but transportation is a barrier for people with disabilities.
I could go on and on, but I am sure other people want to add other things. I want to say that the majority of people with disabilities are living in poverty in this province. Our centre provided 25,000 services last year and of those services, I would say 20,000 of them were issues around poverty.
Lana Payne, Representative, Make Work Pay Coalition: There is no doubt that our economy is doing better here. All you have to do is look at the provincial government's coffers to see that something is working well. Most of that money, by the way, is coming from the oil and gas sector. We have seen tremendous surpluses provincially.
I think the question becomes, is the increase in GDP that Egbert Walters referred to being shared? Are we seeing that increase reflected in people's incomes and in their ability to support themselves and their families? I am not sure that is the case yet. It will probably take a while before that increase in GDP translates into actual income for people, and it will not happen unless we do something to make it happen, whether that is through improvements in wages and benefits in the workplace.
Newfoundland and Labrador has among the highest incidence of low paid work in the country compared to any other province, and that has not changed in the last decade. Almost one third of people in our province earn under $10 an hour. At the same time, our GDP growth has increased substantially in the last decade. We have gone from a GDP per capita of $10,000 below the national average to $10,000 above the national average. The question becomes, how do we make sure the wealth is shared and that everybody benefits from this economy? That takes a certain amount of effort.
The Poverty Reduction Strategy is a good start in the direction of ensuring what I would refer to as the social wage such as the cost of child care and the cost of housing: that we invest in these things so that incomes then are not as important. Obviously incomes are important, but reliance on income is not as great if we are doing something around affordable child care and housing, and at the same time, making sure that people's wages keep pace with the cost of living. I think the cost of fuel, food and all that is borne disproportionately by those lower income folks; that one-third of our workforce. When it comes to women, it is much more substantial: 40 per cent of working women in our province earn under $10 an hour. We have a lot of work to do.
The Chair: What is the minimum wage in the province?
Ms. Payne: It is $8 an hour now. Through the efforts of some people around this table, we had a strategy to talk with our government to put in place a schedule of increases to the minimum wage, so our minimum wage will be $10 by July 2010. That increase is from $6 an hour in 2005, so it represents about a 60-per-cent increase over a five-year period.
Annette Johns, Social Work Consultant, Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers: I agree with Lana Payne's comments. We talk about some of those things as an organization with regards to poverty reduction. While economic equality lays the foundation for a healthy population, we cannot forget about the other health gradients, as Lana said: child care, education and so forth.
In terms of what is working and what is not working, I have a general comment. We commend the provincial government, its Poverty Reduction Strategy and its commitment to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour in 2010. However, from a provincial and federal perspective, one thing that always catches my attention is the lowering of tax rates. While it is seen as positive by many people, our position is that, generally, tax rates tend to help those with higher incomes versus those with lower incomes.
Recently, I read a report of the federal Department of Finance stating that tax rates have been lowered, there is less funding and there is actually a deficit. What does that report say in terms of social spending and where the priorities are? We tend to think that prosperity should be shared equally. However, sometimes we look at the principle of equity and sometimes we have to treat people unfairly in terms of bringing them up to an equal level: for example, looking at tax rates that are a little bit different than lowering general income tax.
Bridget Foster, Executive Director, Association for New Canadians: I am not certain if I should bring this item up at this point, but my area of expertise, if I have any, is linked to immigrants, new Canadians. Under Canada's program, I think we bring in 7,300 people a year across the country that are destined to be looked after for a period of at least one year. These people are referred to as government-assisted refugees, GARS. Currently, in Newfoundland and Labrador, 155 people a year are destined for this province. One thing that has become noticeable over the last few years is that, historically, the federal government support program for those people, which lasts one year, was meant to exactly mirror, maybe to be slightly better than, the provincial income support program. The federal program has fallen behind so that their income for that one year, which provides money for rent, food and everything else, is not on the same level as the provincial income support. This situation is beginning to cause serious problems.
For example, we have large families, families of eight, coming from Afghanistan, as well as some of the roamer people, and the amount allocated for rent is $433. It is difficult to find landlords who will take in eight people for $433. They can move money from their other allowances and so on, but it strikes me that something is wrong with this picture. We undertake to provide help as a humanitarian gesture and we immediately say to people that the money they receive for rent does not actually pay for the rent, so they need to take money from somewhere else. We are dealing with people who, in many cases, have never been to school and that, certainly, English is not their first language. It is hard to explain this situation and it is sad because they are immediately on a downward path before they have even had a chance to start.
Charmaine Davidge, Executive Director, St. John's Status of Women Council and Women's Centre: I can build on Bridget Foster's comments. The provincial government has been improving what they are doing towards addressing poverty and homelessness. The real issue is the federal government's abdication of its responsibilities. They are doing a poor job with child care. Social housing is left by the wayside and more is left for the province to do. I think the gains we have been given by the province would be greater if the feds were to put in their share of the responsibilities. Child care alone has been abysmally handled.
The Chair: I do not think you will hear a lot of disagreement from some of us on those issues. I want to hear about some of the challenges that youth face. In term of homelessness, I understand a lot of youth couch surf. Education- wise, there is the problem of not completing high school education.
Kerri Collins, tell us a little bit about some of the issues facing youth, if you would.
Kerri Collins, Coordinator, Choices for Youth: From the perspective of the coordinator for the outreach program, we have had over 8,000 contacts with youth between the ages of 16 and 29 since we started the program. I guess we have been in operation now for about two years. We average about 45 young people a day. We experience much the same as what Bridget Foster talked about, when we look at the funding they receive through the provincial Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education and the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, HRLE, Income Support Program.
The reality of the housing market right now in St. John's is that we have difficulty finding housing, period, for young people. It is not something they are able to afford. We often talk a lot about having safe and affordable housing with young people and right now there is no such thing. They can have housing. Typically, with the young people we work with and the rates they receive through income support, we are looking at bed-sitters in the downtown area. Complications come along with that. With young people who are struggling with mental health and addictions issues, low education levels and unemployment, it is a real recipe for those cycles to continue. It does not get any better for them.
Really, when we look at those numbers, walk the streets of St. John's and talk about homelessness, I think it is still a hidden homelessness. People do not typically say, yes, it is an issue for the city of St. John's. When I say we have connected with, or had contacts with, over 8,000 young people in the last two years, then obviously it is an issue for our young people in this city and in this province.
When housing becomes an issue for young people across the province, in both Newfoundland and Labrador, and they have nowhere to go, they are sent to St. John's because the shelters are here.
Senator Cordy: I thank each of you for helping us to work through our report and eventually make our recommendations. Some of you have already alluded to the challenges from the federal perspective, which is the perspective that we will look at mainly because we know that in the past couple of years, social spending has been reduced significantly.
In terms of literacy funding, we cannot talk about helping those in poverty without talking about education and literacy. Several of you have mentioned child care, and $100 a month is great but it does not provide child care spaces or choices for families. The Court Challenges Program of Canada has been eliminated and again, that program helped people in need, women and minorities. We heard about the challenges of the housing agreements set to expire in March of 2009, which is not that far away. We heard about the challenges this morning from your minister and also, the challenges that we have heard before of getting the federal government to sit down. March, 2009 is seven or eight months away. That is not a lot of lead time. You cannot plan for housing projects if you are not sure whether the programs will continue.
I would like to hear about one thing from Eileen Joe. I sit on another committee dealing with seniors and we had the opportunity to travel to several communities in Manitoba and we looked at homes specifically related to seniors and long-term care. We visited one community and they had a new state-of-the-art physical facility. They had security systems for seniors with dementia; it was wonderful.
Then, the next day we went to an Aboriginal community outside of Winnipeg and the care givers in the facility were absolutely wonderful, but the facility was in such disrepair and was so old, it was a total contrast in what one group of people from Manitoba had for their seniors and what a group of First Nations people had for their seniors, even to the point where the nurses working on the reserve were paid less than the nurses who were working off reserve 10 miles down the road. It seemed totally, totally unfair.
I know that housing is a problem across the province. Safe affordable housing is a problem across the country. What is the situation for members of the Aboriginal community and First Nations communities in Newfoundland and Labrador?
Eileen Joe, Shanawdithit Shelter Coordinator, St. John's Native Friendship Centre: Yes, there is a problem with housing for Aboriginal people that live here in the city. Our shelter is small, but we try to capture as many coming through as we can. Now, our shelter consists of a lot of clients, Aboriginal clients travel from Labrador, as well, so a lot of times we do not have room for Aboriginal people and we have to try to find somewhere else for them to live, but the problem is there, for sure.
Senator Cordy: Is there funding from the federal government for Aboriginal peoples living off reserve to live in urban areas because this is happening in Nova Scotia, which is where I live? The population is remaining steady across the province, but most of the people are moving to the city, to Halifax, so the population in the rural areas is diminishing. The population in the rural areas tends to be the older people. I think the same thing is happening with the Aboriginal community.
Ms. Joe: A lot of the homeless Aboriginal people we see living in St. John's are on social assistance. I guess that is how they survive. It does not matter if they come to our shelter; it still must be approved by social services. I think a lot of the people that come to St. John's get by on social assistance; the ones we see, anyway. That is not to say that everybody does, but a lot of them do.
Our shelter is not government funded; we do not have any funding from the federal government. I made a few notes before I came here. Our revenue consists of per diems by clients that stay at our shelter. If, at the end of the day, the shelter has no clients, then we are left holding the bag and staff still must be paid. Our doors are open 24/7. Funding is a big, big problem.
Penny Rowe, Chief Executive Officer, Community Services Council of Newfoundland and Labrador: Senator, I wanted to come back to your first question about whether the provincial government's Poverty Reduction Strategy is making a difference, how it will be measured and are we feeling any impact from it. When I think back to the length of time I have been working in this field, one remarkable change I think, generally, is that now the public at large acknowledges that poverty does exist. Even as recently as 15 or 20 years ago, a lot of people did not believe there was such a thing as poverty. We would look at the statistics but we did not have any kind of a public face that people could feel in terms of how people lived when they were poor. I think we have come a long way. In many ways, the Poverty Reduction Strategy is important because it speaks to all sectors of the community. When a government comes out and says it wants to make a decided effort to reduce the numbers of people living in poverty, at least that is a guideline, a guidepost that we can work toward. On the other hand, what we are hearing from people sitting around the table is that the benefit has not necessarily trickled down to everybody yet.
When I listen to people sitting around the table, it certainly indicates that one thing we probably have not done well yet as a country is to sort out the various reasons why people are poor. Now, perhaps in an ideal world we would not have to do that. Some people may be poor for a short period of time whereas other people, people with disabilities, even when they start to have a greater income, will still be poor because they have to spend their income simply to look after themselves. We cannot look at it only as one flat measurement; people below this income level are poor and people above that income level are not poor. I think we must understand individual circumstances.
I want to make a couple of other comments. I am speaking now to some extent in regard our work around Vibrant Communities, which you have probably heard about in other communities across Canada, as well. Vibrant Communities is an effort to bring the community together as a whole to say what the issues are and how we can make distinct differences and changes in people's lives. One thing that is important in that effort is the attempt to bring together people who are living in poverty themselves or who have had that experience, people from the business sector, people from government and people from community agencies to see how the whole community can look at these issues in a comprehensive way.
When I think about Senate committees and what Senate committees can do or cannot do, and the amount of influence they can wield, obviously details are important, but sometimes the big picture is important, as well.
One suggestion is that we should encourage our federal government to have a poverty reduction strategy and to try to look comprehensively at whether the money needs to be spent on early childhood education, housing, refugees, new Canadians or youth. If we have a strategy, at least we can see where the gaps are and we can see where we need to start doing things. Otherwise, little efforts will always be just that; little efforts that leave people slipping through the cracks. I urge a poverty reduction strategy at the federal level.
The Chair: How do we make it an issue or something the federal government will pay attention to? When we ask the public through the different opinion polls what the top issues are, usually poverty does not show at all on the scale.
Ms. Rowe: It does sometimes show higher than it used to, but it may be the way in which those surveys are done. Results can be shocking, I agree with you, and that is why I think if we ask that question in Newfoundland and Labrador today, we may have a different answer in terms of where poverty fits into the scheme of things than we did a few years ago; I do not know.
The Chair: Is there a greater understanding and appreciation of the problem?
Ms. Rowe: Yes, I think there is a greater awareness that there is a problem. I do not know whether others agree with me. I see Lana Payne nodding her head.
Ms. Payne: Yes, I think a poverty reduction strategy legitimizes the issue in the sense that we recognize we have a problem and we need to fix it.
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Rowe: It is not something we do simply through continuing social programs, but something that we need to look at in the full context of what is happening in society.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
I want to ask a question of Nancy Healey, St. John's Board of Trade. Successful business people can be powerful in dealing with issues; certainly they are in their own businesses. In the United States, the fellow who is head of the homeless issue for the president of the United States has marshalled business leaders into a plan to reduce homelessness to zero within a certain targeted number of years; five years or something like that. I do not know how successful he is, but from what I have heard of early reports, a number of communities do really well when they marshal the business community. What can the business community do here in terms of dealing with these issues?
Nancy Healey, Chief Executive Officer, St. John's Board of Trade: That is a good question. Businesses are there to run their businesses and that is what they do. They hire people like me to do their advocacy work on their behalf because they do not have government advocacy. I represent a lot of small businesses who do not have human resources or marketing departments; they have small mom-and-pop but a coordinated effort is needed, for sure.
Penny Rowe stole some of words right out of my mouth. The Poverty Reduction Strategy for the province is symbolic and helps to coordinate efforts. The committee's discussion paper talked about the need for a strategy at a federal level. An awful lot of efforts are taking place at the various levels of government, even within the federal government, towards things that can help to reduce poverty. However, if we focus and we have a strategy, we can make things happen.
The chambers of commerce across Canada are always concerned about how our tax dollars are spent, and they want tax dollars spent where they will have the biggest effect. We live in Canada. I do not know where we rank in the UN as the most liveable country in the world, with liveable cities, but I believe we have slipped in the last few years. I think that is important for us. I want to be part of a country that honours and cherishes its social programs, a country that wants to be the best place in the world in which to live. A sign of a country, and of all of us as stewards and leaders in our communities or in our country, is what we do for those that are the least of our neighbours. That is a true indication of who we are as a society, as a business community, as a city and country and the like. I think that is important for all of us. However, sometimes we need to be focused or coordinated by having a federal government that puts a strategy in place. I do not know whether that is done by making a minister responsible for poverty. We did not name it that way, but we have a lead minister in charge of the strategy here in Newfoundland and Labrador and it helps to focus the efforts.
Senator Munson: If I can follow that and what Penny Rowe said, we have all these 103 options. Obviously, as you said, as far as what senate committees can do and push for, things do happen. Sometimes governments, no matter what stripe, listen to what we have to report. The Canadian Mental Health Commission is an example. Option 85 of our report is to create a ministry, a secretary of state for poverty reduction, housing and homelessness. Option 86 is to appoint a poverty commissioner. Obviously, we have to pare down these 103 options into something specific. If we pushed these two options, I am curious whether we would have the support of people around this table to focus on them? I have been on this committee for a year and a half and was partly responsible for our study, Pay Now or Pay Later: Autism Families in Crisis. For every autistic group in the country, that word ``national'' comes into play every time, because governments have a tendency to split communities if they do not speak with one voice. I am trying recently to bring all the autistic communities together, the six or seven groups, but they come back to that national business that there must be national standards of some sort to tie this country together socially. Are those two options conducive to your thinking, or would the commissioner option, for example, be only another commissioner reporting and not having teeth?
Ms. Rowe: One thing that many of us have learned over time is that a minister without a big department is weak.
I am not sure what a commissioner can do other than to draw attention. If we had a minister responsible for poverty reduction, housing and homelessness, I would want to know whether that minister has a lot of money in the department and things that the minister can do. I would want to incorporate a few other comments in there like perhaps early childhood and some of the other areas where the federal government has the right to spend. As a couple of people have commented earlier, the bottom line is that if the federal government walks away from some of these issues, the provinces are in a dreadful pickle because they do not have the resources to deal with them. I say this because it is something I believe, and not because it is something I believe that you will ever be able to do anything about.
Canada faces the huge challenge of jurisdictional issues. They occur at a provincial government level, federal government level and municipal government level. Everything is so divided up that it is hard to take the comprehensive approach that we were talking about before. People can deal only with the issues for which that department or agency is given some authority, and not only given some authority but given some money. To make any radical changes, we need to think a little out of the box and perhaps we need to be talking about jurisdictional issues, not the federal and provincial, but within federal, provincial and municipal governments.
The Chair: Those comments are helpful. I may be down to 101 options now.
I want to hear from two other people and then I will come back to a couple of others. Then we will go to the next session. We have not heard from Heather Pollett yet. I am interested in how she sees the situation with people in poverty who have mental challenges to deal with. I know in Toronto, my city, a lot of the people that are homeless are people that have different kinds of challenges in that regard. Some of them are addiction. However, we have a lot of people who are hard to house and require specific individual support systems and advocacy on their behalf. There is something different here in terms of homelessness. It seems to be more hidden. I do not know whether these same kinds of challenges present themselves.
Heather Pollett, Policy Analyst, Canadian Mental Health Division, Canadian Mental Health Association — Newfoundland and Labrador: A lot of people with mental illness, and particularly, severe and persistent mental illness live in poverty. Of course, that makes it hard for them to find housing. Oftentimes, as you said, a lot of our homelessness here is hidden. People are living with friends, relatives and things like that. They do not have housing of their own. Otherwise, they are cycling in and out of the Waterford Hospital, in and out of jail and things like that. It is much more expensive to house people in hospital or in jail than it is to give them the supports they need to live independently in the community.
From our perspective, in addressing the many barriers that people face, the biggest one is probably stigma, which, in the first place, prevents people with mental illness from even seeking treatment in many cases. Then, of course, if a person receives treatment for their mental health issues, then it might be a matter of finding work or looking for housing but there are barriers and negative attitudes that come with those things, as well. People face a lot of different barriers when they have mental illness but stigma is one of the biggest things to address that would go a long way.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: It is wonderful to hear all of you.
I have been working with my colleagues to prepare a report on early childhood learning and child care in Canada, and it is interesting and perhaps heartening to hear so many people mention child care. I want to ask Charmaine Davidge about her statement that child care has been abysmally handled, and I think she meant by the federal government.
Why was there so little reaction from people like you, from advocates and so on when the federal, provincial, territorial child care plan using the principles of quality, universality, accessibility and development, QUAD, was cancelled? Is there any opportunity for momentum around what you are talking about to develop from the roots up?
Certain people and political parties want to see action on this front, and it may or may not be contained in any future election platform. I am not able to speak to that. Is there a passion in the country, in Newfoundland and Labrador — if there is passion anywhere, I think it will be in Newfoundland and Labrador — to demand the involvement of the federal government, not necessarily for the same program that was begun in 2004 and cancelled in 2006? The provinces, one by one, and the territories to perhaps a lesser extent are starting to get the message and they are making brave and sometimes even bold steps with regard to standards, curricula, new ideas and new initiatives. Why has there not been more of an outcry, and is there the possibility of a demand for federal involvement?
Ms. Davidge: I hesitate to speak for anyone else, but I come from the non-profit sector and we are underfunded. Every day, the staff answer phone calls, work the frontline, provide direct services, regularly do not have lunch breaks and frequently work overtime. For many reasons, we are underfunded. Currently, we have no core funding from the federal government, for instance, and there are many other agencies that are underfunded. The choice is between working with a person who is directly in front of us or saying no, I have to lobby instead.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Yes.
Ms. Davidge: A lot of non-profit groups are restricted in the lobbying they can do.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I know, but I wanted to hear everyone's reaction to this question.
I know Claudette Bradshaw, former member of Parliament from New Brunswick, very well and perhaps some of you know her. She would say amen to what you said, because she said that non-profits have no energy left. They are tired, worn out and poor, so yes, that is a compelling answer.
Ms. Davidge: There is a lot of energy in the non-profit sector.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Well, yes, the energy.
Ms. Davidge: However, there is not a lot of time in the day when they have a lot of work to do.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: They become tired.
The Chair: three people wish to speak, and then I will close this part of the session and go to the next part, although it will overlap anyway.
Mr. Walters: I have three comments. Lana Payne mentioned housing. We are finding in St. John's that the economic boom in the oil and gas industry has created the housing market. Housing prices are going up so it makes it more difficult for anyone who is less fortunate and does not have a lot of income to have housing. We all know that an economic boom is a double-edged sword. Combined with increased prices, a lot of the units in the downtown core area of St. John's are being purchased and put into high-end condos. Consequently, our social housing is compressing at the same time the price is going up.
The second comment is that Kerri Collins mentioned education with our younger people, and it is an issue. I was fortunate enough to sit in on a roundtable discussion several months ago on seniors' issues and, there are about 130,000 seniors in Canada who are eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement and are not receiving it. Part of the main problem is lack of understanding, education, access to computers and being literate.
The third quick comment that I will sneak in is one on the question about the power of the business community, one that Nancy Healey answered. From our perspective of food banks across Newfoundland and Labrador, the business community takes a major part. When the oil and gas industry has a food drive, when the Food and Allied Workers, the Canadian Auto Workers and the Social Justice Fund have a program, when Downtown Development has a big Santa Claus parade and when, this week, we have McDonald's and Tim Horton's doing a big food drive, every component of that program tells people that we have poverty in our region. Lack of food is only a symptom of a much bigger problem.
Mr. Galloway: I have three comments. I wanted to start with Penny Rowe who mentioned the difficulty with working with levels of government. I heard that comment loud and clear when we went across Newfoundland and Labrador, and we have experienced it as well. It almost seems like it is convenient for one level of government to blame another level of government for things not done rather than moving forward on what has to be done.
To respond to the senator about why the non-profit organizations have not responded to changes around child care and that sort of thing, I want to pick up on what Charmaine Davidge said. In the non-profit community we are underfunded. The federal government recently and this government have made it difficult for the non-profit community, particularly because they will not fund anything where an organization does advocacy. It is like a dirty word with the government. That is what our jobs are most of the time. I have a bit of an issue with that approach.
The other thing I wanted to say is around paid strangers because, frankly, people with disabilities are a little tired of paid strangers making all the decisions for them. Consultations are not happening directly with people with disabilities. Decisions are made by governments and by health care professionals. Seldom, if ever, do people talk directly to people with disabilities.
I clearly heard from people with disabilities that there are no accessible apartments in our province. There is a one- year to three-year wait period for an accessible apartment and they have to move to St. John's for that. People from all over the province are forced to leave the communities where they have grown up, if they want an apartment that is accessible. They have to move to St. John's and then they have another three-year wait on top of that to try and find housing. Young people cannot leave their homes and their parents because no supports are available to them. We talked about funding and disability related supports like, for example, Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefits. Someone may obtain funding through that program but it is clawed back by the province. These sorts of inconsistencies with funding between the federal and provincial level make living as a person with a disability next to impossible. Unless the federal and provincial governments come together and agree on a few things, nothing will change for people with disabilities.
Ms. Payne: On the child care issue, I think a lot of people in this room have dedicated a lot of time to child care advocacy in the work that we do. I do not know how much ink I have written in the newspaper on child care alone, probably more than on any other topic. Being a working mom of a seven-year-old turns you into an advocate. I think what happened with child care is that the wind was taken out of the child care advocacy movement across the country when those agreements were cancelled. In our own province, I know it took the wind out of our sails. We lost $53 million worth of funding when the agreements went. We had to rebuild and say, now we now have to go to the province to ask them to step in. I think we saw the federal government, or it became, a waste of time. It was not receptive to any arguments on early learning and child care, so people in that movement refocused their efforts and targeted provincial governments. That is a shame because the federal government has a clear role to play, as Penny Rowe and others have said, in early learning and child care. I am not sure that the current government will ever make any movement on that issue whatsoever. People became strategic about what they needed to do and they started targeting their provincial governments to fill in the gap.
The Chair: I want to go into the next segment, although you can still raise anything you want; discussion is not exclusive to this segment. I want to add the question of income supports. There is more to a poverty reduction program than income supports, but that issue has a number of options in our report. For example, we have heard about imperfections in Employment Insurance: supports vary across the country and between men and women, et cetera. Some people think we need to go back to the basic insurance kind of scheme and that we have gotten too far off track. Different regions of the country benefit less or more from it. There is the whole question of welfare and social assistance that frequently misses the target in terms of the people it should help. Getting off the welfare systems and into sufficient supports in the working world; that kind of transition is a big problem. There was talk about minimum wage and the child tax benefit being more. There is guaranteed annual income, which was raised by Senator Croll's committee and was the first report on poverty back in 1970. Some people are talking about it again. There are some possibilities in this report as to how that program might be designed. In terms of income support systems, what works, what does not work, is it all broken and is it all bad? Penny Rowe, what do you think?
Ms. Rowe: Am I allowed to take a breather?
The Chair: After you answer.
Ms. Rowe: Some people would say they are not working effectively at all because they are not giving people enough income to live adequately, but that is because we have this patchwork. We have come a long way. When we look at the child care benefits and some of the other benefits in terms of abject poverty, the country has moved forward substantially. I do not think the system is entirely broken, not at all. I think it needs a lot of enhancements and a lot of improvements, and it needs to be pulled together better.
I think it was Egbert Walters who said people do not even know what is available to them. If we look at the Guaranteed Income Supplement, GIS, all kinds of senior citizens are not making application. I know from one of the programs we operate, which is exclusively about helping people understand their rights under the social support system, the income maintenance system here in Newfoundland and Labrador, people do not know their rights. Is that a problem with the programs, communication or individuals? I do not know but I know that the programs are not being used to the fullest extent, so I think we have an information gap. How we close that gap, I do not know.
The Chair: You say we have made progress, but in 1989, the House of Commons passed a motion saying it would eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. The rate of child poverty today is about what it was in 1989, so that initiative has not worked.
Ms. Rowe: Yes, but I would ask the question and I will probably answer the question with a story.
In the mid-nineties, I travelled around the province, going into lots of small communities, speaking to young people, old people and very old people. I was startled to hear a lot of senior citizens talking about the poor little children. Now these people would have grown up in straightened circumstances in small rural communities in this province and it was hard for me to understand when they talked about the poor little children in the mid-nineties compared to what they had experienced. I finally started to ask them, how come you see children as so poor now compared to what you must have grown up with, when you had virtually nothing compared to what people have now? Their response was clear that when they were children, all their fathers had to do was put a roof over their head, put enough fish and potatoes aside to feed them and a bit of wood to keep them warm. That was it, whereas now if something goes wrong, they still have their car payment, their telephone, their cable, their mortgage and their children. In other words, everything that everybody needs has changed, so I do not think we can compare it. I know you probably are working with low income cut-offs, LICO, and various measures, but the reality is that poverty is different now than it was. That does not make it any better; it is still poverty, but I think we have to take things into account and the issue that these women were coming to is the issue of inequality. When some people are doing extremely well and others not doing well, that prosperity gap is every bit as painful as the genuine poverty, the kind of poverty people saw in the 1920s or 1930s. We have to put it all into perspective. When I say we have come a long way, I genuinely believe we have come a long way. I think probably more people are finishing school, more people are going to university and more people have better lifestyles, but still there are people who are not as far along the track as others.
The Chair: Okay, you can breathe now.
Ms. Foster: I wonder if there are lessons we might draw on.
Ten years ago, maybe more, in every agency across the country working with immigrants like the agency I am involved with, we desperately tried to promote people who were coming here with good qualifications that were not able to find jobs. We were out there in the wilderness; nobody wanted to listen to us and we were told to go back to where we came from and be quiet. Then, suddenly there was a realization that Canada has a terrific skills shortage right across the country. Without immigrants — and that is not because I have a bias — we cannot possibly fill the needs that there will be. I think every new job by 2012 will be filled by an immigrant. Because this was a realization on the behalf of, I suppose it was the federal government that took this initiative, suddenly, a lot of money and resources was released to deal with this issue so that now the departments of Human Resources and Social Development Canada, HRSDC, as well as Citizenship and Immigration Canada both have large budgets, in my terms anyway, to deal with this issue. If people are homeless or living in impoverished circumstances, I think their main reason for getting up in the morning probably is only to survive. I wonder why we cannot look at it as helping people and perhaps increasing their incomes and so on so they can think that maybe they can do a job. That would be another way of help because one cannot find anybody in St. John's to paint a wall or cut grass. I am sure if some of the youth were perhaps more comfortable with their situations or saw a bit of light at the end of the tunnel, that might be something we could all benefit from.
Senator Cordy: When we talk about income support programs, we have been talking about social assistance, but we also look at programs we have in Canada. Employment Insurance benefits would be one example. One thing that I have heard, and I cannot remember whether it was in this committee or another committee I am on, was the question of whether maternity and parental benefits, compassionate leave and leave for illness should be part of the EI program. If we look at maternity and parental benefits as an example, the Province of Quebec, because it runs its own program, has a far better program than the other provinces and territories in Canada. The province has choices for parents in this field. When we look at maternity and parental benefits, it is amazing that almost 50 per cent of the people do not qualify to receive EI benefits. That might be because they are self employed or they do not have the required number of hours. In fact, the people who are most likely to be eligible to receive parental and maternity benefits are those who are older and better educated. Those who are most in need are those most likely not to be eligible to receive the benefits. One thing I read in material about this subject is that these programs — maternity and parental benefits, compassionate leave and leave for illness — should be removed from the EI file or program and put into a separate one that does not have all these qualifying hours and that type of thing.
I can see that Lana Payne is anxious to talk about this. I only opened the door for her.
Ms. Payne: First, I want to know where you will get the $3 billion to $5 billion to pay for those programs if the money does not come out of the Employment Insurance Fund, because I think we have to think about that. I doubt that this current government or any other, for that matter, has an appetite to come up with an alternative program. Secondly, I think those programs belong in the EI program.
Senator Cordy: It was only a question, by the way. I was not saying how I felt. I was only looking for input.
Ms. Payne: For one, we should have some credit for tying together the children, the workplace and all of that. Delinking again is a huge problem. Talk about having a fight on your hands. You might not have seen the fight around child care the way you would have liked, but you definitely would see it around maternity and parental benefits if they were taken out of EI for what would be, I think, a worse benefit. We should not throw the baby out with the bath water; we should fix what we have. The EI program is not horrible. A number of improvements have been made since 1996; changes that have been made right up until 2004. Some changes were done through pilot project measures and some through amendments to the legislation. There is still a lot of work to be done. Why not fix what is there instead of trying to create something totally, totally new? I think the program is fixable, and there has been plenty of money to fix it. We recently wrote off a $54 billion surplus in that fund, a scandalous thing, frankly; money that could have been used to invest in that program to improve benefits and training and increase maternity and parental benefits or whatever you want it to do. There was so much money that we could have had the best program in the world. It is not too late to do that. I think we still need to improve what we have.
The Chair: Should we spend money out of EI on training programs? We spend a small percentage of EI on training programs. A lot of people who need them are not eligible for them.
Ms. Payne: That is true.
The Chair: Should we have a separate fund for training or should we, again, keep that in EI?
Ms. Payne: I think we can do two things with training. One, we used to have a separate fund. The federal government used to put about $1 billion into training programs across the country outside of EI and once all those changes happened in the mid-nineties, it became solely the responsibility of the Employment Insurance program. Part of the problem is that they have to be EI eligible to access those funds, which leaves out a lot of people that need access to training. Of course, training is being devolved to the provinces through the negotiations of the labour market agreements. Pretty much every province has signed on. I expect our own province will probably do so. The problem is that it is a minute amount of money and once that is gone in the year we have nothing else. If any amount of economic restructuring happens in a province and they need to do adjustment programs, that money will be eaten up quickly. I think it has let the federal government off the hook for training, a labour market strategy and any of the things that Bridget Foster was talking about: How do we ensure that immigrants find jobs, and good jobs, and become integrated into the labour market? All of that now has been pretty much left up to provincial governments. I do not know what the federal government is doing any more, frankly, on any of these issues.
Senator Cordy: The federal government, this government, is talking about removing EI — not talking about it, they will remove it. Basically, they will privatize EI. I think this move will hurt us.
Ms. Payne: So that you know, in our province, including the labour market development agreement, we probably access about $900 million to $1 billion in EI that comes into our province every year. It is a huge income support program, particularly for rural areas where most of the work is seasonal. That move would be devastating. They might as well lock the door on rural communities if that was to happen. I believe that EI should be a social insurance program; that is what it was designed to do. It should not be what you are talking about; a private insurance program where we pay as we go like we would with our fire insurance. That would wipe out the income distribution aspect of that program. They would not be able to stabilize communities any more, which is what it has done up to this point. It would be disastrous.
Senator Cordy: I agree.
Senator Munson: I was curious, as well, about what we do about another lost generation; those men and women between the ages of, say, 50 and 64. I know we do not necessarily want a cradle-to-grave protection program for our society, but I think Penny Rowe alluded to the fact that, yes, there are programs. When they become 65 there are good things for them if they know that the programs are there and there is a child benefit and they know that it is there. However, there is a generation out there that has lost its way. I said to the minister this morning that we all have personal friends who work until the age of 60 or 55. Then somebody says they are no good to work any more, and therefore they are gone, whether they are a high-tech person or wherever they work. That person holds on for dear life, living with their parents at 61 or 62 or collecting welfare. Then, all of a sudden at age 65, what everybody had fought for kicks in. Does that issue exist in Newfoundland and Labrador where people, during that 10- or 15-year period, live in the shadows, in a place where they are considered an outcast?
The Chair: Does anybody want to pick up on that issue?
Senator Munson: That is happening in Ontario a lot, in a lot of places. What do we do for people who are —
The Chair: They are not quite eligible for the Old Age Security or the Guaranteed Income Supplement, but are reaching the end of their work life and finding it difficult.
Ms. Foster: Persuade them to come to St. John's. I can take four tomorrow. We cannot find people to drive our vans and do general maintenance and such.
Senator Munson: I thought I would throw that out there for another day.
Mr. Walters: I want to pick up on the comment that Penny Rowe made about when she went around rural Newfoundland and elderly people talked about the poor children. We have all seen movie reels of the dirty thirties, with men in tweed caps and long tweed coats, hunched over in a soup line. We do not see that any more. We see people going to soup kitchens and going into food banks dressed not as dapper as you but as dapper as me. This is what we are seeing. It could be your next door neighbour. That is something.
A gentleman once said to me, I grew up around the Fogo, Tilting area. We were not poor until we realized that everyone else around us was in the same boat and everyone was poor. They had their fish and their potatoes. We do not really have that now, but it is a spin-off of it.
If we talk about homelessness, some people in St. John's will say there is no homelessness here. There is no visible homelessness but we have it. That is one you mentioned as well. Something has to be done about all those issues, whether it be at a municipal, provincial or federal level. More heart and soul must go into this issue.
Mr. Galloway: Regarding the idea of a guaranteed income, particularly for people with disabilities, I think that is a step in the right direction for people with disabilities. I do not say it is the be-all and end-all because I think there is a danger that this guaranteed income becomes both a floor and a ceiling for people. There needs to be adaptability. Ultimately, for the complex issues around people with disabilities, there needs to be a disability lens applied to everything. In Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, we are talking about the availability of jobs. People with disabilities must have access to their community or they cannot go to work. Sometimes people cannot get out of their homes and they do not have access to transportation to go to a job. The disability-related supports that they use are so costly that if they start to work, every cent that they make goes to paying for their supports.
One woman, for example, told me she was offered a job at $10 an hour. She said she accepted the job and started work. Immediately, her supports were all cut. She pays $9.37 or something like that an hour for a support worker to work with her. Essentially she was able to keep 70 cents out of a dollar; that is what she would keep if she kept the job. She ended up having to give up the position because there was no way to compensate for her supports.
I think that a guaranteed income could be a positive thing for people with disabilities. I just worry that it would not be a ceiling. There are so many other factors that affect someone living with a disability that I would not want the situation to be, Okay, you have your guaranteed income and that is all we have to worry about.
The Chair: There must be the support services, as well.
Mr. Galloway: Yes, I know that in B.C. they have two levels for people with disabilities and if someone has a certain level of disability, yes, they will pay for everything, but it also means that those people are not given opportunities for training for employment; they are not viewed as valuable citizens.
I do not know if you are familiar with the five-year independent living strategy instituted in Great Britain recently, about a year ago. It is endorsed by the Prime Minister. It is an exceptional document. It speaks directly to the fact that people with disabilities need to be consulted in everything. They need to be in control of their own lives and make the decisions for themselves.
I recommend highly that you have a look at it because it is the way to go in the future for people with disabilities.
Ms. Pollett: I want to make a comment about income support as it relates to people with mental illness. In this province, of the people who are affiliated with, using the services and programs of, the Waterford Hospital — our province's mental health facility — 40 per cent to 50 per cent are on income support. That number is high.
The Canadian statistic is that 80 per cent to 90 per cent of individuals with severe and persistent mental illness are unemployed, but that does not mean that they cannot be employed. My point is, that is a lot of people to be living on income support who can work. Given that our province is becoming more prosperous and that we are having a harder time finding people to fill roles, I think we need to be careful in thinking about that issue. People with mental illness could fill these jobs. People with mental illness who want to work, can work and have the skills, passion and everything else to work need meaningful work, as well, and they need good wages.
We need to think about people with mental illness and supporting them and helping them to move off income support and into meaningful work. We need to be careful about the types of work they would do, and not think they are limited in what they can do. Some people might need certain supports. Other people might need workplace flexibility in some way.
The Chair: Good point.
Ms. Foster: Let us never lose respect for people who are in need of supports and so on. This issue is reflected to me almost weekly in that the federal government for immigrants has an interim federal health program that looks after drugs and other needs and the province obviously has a program that helps people on income support. I never thought I would live to see this — I suppose I have been lucky enough to survive and I am into the 60s now, so I will be looking for another job, maybe — but someone with the federal program is entitled to only one hearing aid. If that person can leave that program and go onto the province income support, that person can have two hearing aids.
We have a situation now where people want to leave the federal income support and go onto the provincial one because it covers more options. Something is terribly wrong with this picture. Either someone needs two hearing aids or they do not. It is like they can have one set of teeth; they cannot have top and bottom, they can have either/or.
Mr. Galloway: But that is the reality.
Ms. Foster: I think that is awful. That is not treating people with dignity or anything else.
The Chair: That is the point. Treating people with dignity and removing stigmas are an important aspect of what we are looking at here.
We have talked about people with disabilities, and people with disabilities are a big part of the social assistance or welfare caseload. I do not know what the percentage is here versus my province of Ontario, but it is high in Ontario. If people with disabilities were on some sort of a guaranteed annual income, that would remove the stigma. It would be based on income tax and it would be refundable or they would be in a negative income tax position; they would receive money back if they have a low income. Those are only some of the ways that we have been looking at.
The Caledon Institute of Social Policy has come up with a whole framework of how it would see different income support programs. It would say, let us put people who have severe disabilities onto a guaranteed annual income program, but for people who have a possibility of being in the workforce, even with some handicap, some disabilities, more needs to be put into training programs and that kind of thing. They suggest a new architecture.
Ms. Collins: I have a couple of comments. In thinking about the comment on hidden homelessness in St. John's, I had the privilege of doing research a couple of years ago before starting our outreach program. I had the opportunity to travel across the country to look at different programs operating in some of the larger urban centres like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.
I think one of the things we will find as our economy improves is that the gap between the haves and have-nots will grow. I know personally through the work that we have done that the hidden homelessness in St. John's is not so hidden any more. If you look in our downtown core, there are obvious unhidden signs of the homelessness issue in our city.
For the second comment, I know I alluded earlier to the fact that over the past two years we have had 8000 contacts with young people. We have come to meet and work with over 600 individual young people in St. John's in terms of some of the barriers they face. For these young people, 68 per cent have dropped out of school and 73 per cent have never been employed. I think those numbers largely represent the youth population. For us, for the most part, these young people have not been able to grow up with their families for a number of reasons, or as they have become older, they have chosen to leave or they have been asked to leave. When we start to work with young people, we find that a lot of them come from an income support with the youth services program. We are seeing the different variations there even with the provincial legislation that some young people are eligible until they are 18 and some until they are 21. It is a two-tier system right from the get-go for them. Then, once they transfer to the adult income support system with HRLE, whether that be at age 18 or 21 when they are no longer eligible for the youth services program, the income rate significantly drops. We work with them hopefully until they are 21 and support them at a level of income. Then, they experience a huge decrease in the income support they receive. Again, much like support for persons with disabilities, a lot of support will start to come away because no funding is in place.
The Chair: There needs to be bridging.
Ms. Collins: Yes.
The Chair: Let me ask Nancy Healey something. Earlier, Lana Payne mentioned the progression in the minimum wage increases. What does the business community say about minimum wages? How receptive or non-receptive are they to this present government plan because we will face this issue in other parts of the country. The government in this province has a plan but not every province does and some provinces are concerned about it. They hear on the one hand that we need to increase the minimum wage so people have a decent living. On the other hand, we are told by some that increasing it can have a damper on the economy.
Ms. Healey: The average weekly earnings in this province have increased 18.9 per cent in the last five or six years. I will pull out the exact figure from Statistics Canada. In terms of increasing minimum wage to $10 an hour, wages were increasing, maybe not as fast as some would like, but there was an increase in the amount that people were paid. The average weekly earnings went from $568 in 2002 to $675 in 2007, an increase of 18.9 per cent. However, increasing the minimum wage is not the only way to reduce poverty and lots of studies show how. Reducing the taxes on what low income people earn is important as well. Increasing the minimum wage is not the only tool. A number of other things need to be done such as tax decreases and investment in education.
I want to mention one other point. I do not disagree with the social objectives we are trying to achieve, but I do not necessarily agree that the EI program is the right one to achieve all those objectives. There are other ways to achieve some of these objectives. In terms of the EI program, employers pay 1.4 times the premium that employees pay. When all taxes are reduced or eliminated on wages, payroll taxes, the money goes back into the pockets of the employees; businesses invest in their businesses and they pay people more. Those things all must be considered.
Whether we use the EI program, I do not disagree that we value these programs and as a society should keep them. However, I do not necessarily agree that the EI program is the right one to use.
Ms. Payne: Keep in mind when we use average income that the other thing we have seen happen in our province is that the people at the top in the last four years are doing a lot better so when we average people's incomes, it looks like everyone is doing better. However, when we pluck it out and look at the wages people are making, we have not changed in terms of the incidence of low-paid work. In our province, it has stayed the same for 30 years. One third of our workforce makes what would be considered a low wage. We can average it out all we want, but the increase is mostly because people at the top are doing a lot better.
Ms. Jones: I want to comment further on that, in terms of the economic gap that is widening. We have seen different things come out in our province recently. For example, a carton of milk rose by eight cents. It does not sound like a lot, but to a person trying to feed a family of four or five, those costs are significant. I have a 15- month-old. It struck me when I was shopping at Wal-Mart that when I looked at the cost of child care, nutrition for my infant and everything else, I could not imagine how a family living on a low wage could factor that increase in. While raising the wage is one factor, we also need to look at policies that govern the cost of fuel, cost of housing and income security. Food insecurity is a huge issue. We need to take all those things in context, as well. We talk about raising the minimum wage, which is a great first step, but unless we look at all those other factors, the gap will continue to widen because people's income will go up, but at the same time, the cost of living will go up so people will not be any further ahead. We need to keep that in mind, as well.
Senator Cordy: I want to go back to Kerri Collins and Choices for Youth. I was on the board of the Phoenix House in Halifax that runs that program. What does Choices for Youth offer for the young people who are homeless in your community and how do you go about getting somebody to look for help? Is it the young people themselves who come in and talk to you and say they need help because they do not have a place to live? Is it social workers, schools or all of the above? How does the program work?
Ms. Collins: Choices for Youth offers several different programs. We have a shelter for young men, nine emergency shelter beds for young men between the ages 16 and 29. We have a supportive housing program that was developed in response to the closure of Mount Cashel back in the early 1990s where basically we work with 45 young people on an outreach model. We work with independent landlords in the community to support young people living independently. The landlords have youth services agreements. Again, the challenge is that there is no housing. It is becoming more and more challenging to find landlords who are open to supporting young people who are living independently in the community.
The Outreach and Youth Engagement Program is primarily the one that was developed in response to the fact that there were young people in the community who were not connected to anybody. The whole idea of the youth services site on Carter's Hill in the downtown area was to bring youth servicing agencies together so that when young people walk through the door, they can access a multitude of supports in terms of what their needs might be.
With the outreach program, it is a real combination of going out into the community to meet with young people. For the most part, we do not advertise what we do at all and not advertising, we see an average of 45 young people a day. We are looking at a continuum of support that provides everything from basic needs like food, laundry and shower facilities to needle exchange, referrals to addiction treatment programs and trips to the short-stay psychiatric assessment unit at the Waterford Hospital. It is whatever that individual's needs require at that moment in time and that changes from moment to moment, depending on what kind of crisis the young person faces. The program is designed to be flexible.
Senator Cordy: They have to come to you?
Ms. Collins: They do not have to come to us. Most of them do, but sometimes a friend of a friend will say they are concerned about a young person, and we have some flexibility to go to that young person, check in with them and say, how are you doing and what can we do to help you. Sometimes they are not ready and they do not want help at that point in time, but, usually all we ask for when we meet with them is their first name. Then, as we get to know them and build a relationship, which is primarily what we do, we can do all kinds of other wonderful work with them.
The Chair: Toward the beginning of the session this morning, Senator Munson mentioned to the provincial and municipal officials that were here that we heard some concern about the federal government housing programs with respect to the fact that they are all due to sunset at the end of March next year, which is the end of the current fiscal year. So far, the federal government has not told anybody what its intention is. We have heard, both this morning and in previous sessions in Ottawa, a considerable concern about that, particularly since we are running out of time. Housing programs are not something they can turn on and turn off overnight. The damage is already occurring in that people are uncertain about planning ahead in terms of meeting affordable housing needs. The issue of housing and homelessness also forms part of our mandate. A number of options in the paper deal with those issues.
What are your feelings about that: How do house and homelessness affect the communities that you work with, and how do you see this current situation in terms of no federal funding at this point in time beyond March 31 of next year? If there is not any funding beyond that point, how do you see it affecting the affordable housing and homelessness problems in Newfoundland and Labrador?
Mr. Galloway: Currently, people with disabilities pay, on average, 30 per cent more for housing than anyone else because of accessibility features that they may require in their home. No housing developments are being done now that focus on universal design. I think a comprehensive housing strategy needs to be implemented that enables people with disabilities to live independently and it has to incorporate universal design.
I was speaking with the clerk during the break and we talked about the fact that these features are beneficial to anyone, particularly to an aging population: things as simple as wider doorways and grab bars in a bathroom. They are simple things to do, but they have to be incorporated in any sort of a housing strategy.
The other thing I want to mention is that currently in Newfoundland and Labrador, people with disabilities, particularly youth with disabilities, are often forced to live in old age homes and that sort of thing for seniors because it is the only thing available. Young people with disabilities should not be required to live in a home with the elderly if that is not their choice, but often that is the only option available. What I have heard from people is, what do I do; I can go on the street or I can live in this less desirable arrangement. Often people's accommodations are not being met physically in their housing and that is the choice. They have nowhere to go. Do they choose to live in something that is not suitable or do they live on the street? People always say there is a choice. That choice is the only one available right now.
The other thing we think is that a system needs to be advanced that allows people with disabilities to become homeowners. In Ontario, there was a program called Options for Homes. It was a great program because it was fully integrated. For example, when condominiums were developed, a certain number went to people who were living in poverty, et cetera, and they bought it at a reduced rate. They did not know if they were living next door to a doctor, lawyer or whoever. That was kind of nice. I think the construction industry has to be held accountable and needs to implement universal design.
Ms. Davidge: It is not only the issue of lack of affordable housing. Barry is right; it is affordable housing that is appropriate. Also, when it comes to people with disabilities who have complex mental health needs, it is not only a matter of finding affordable housing, but also being able to stay in the housing. Many people may be able to access a place, but if they do not have the supports they need around them to stay in the housing they have obtained, probably after being on a lengthy waiting list, then many people will lose it quickly. That is a big part of poverty. If you understand the housing-first concept, the best way for people to be independent and to avoid or get out of poverty is to have housing that they can be sure will be there for them in the following months. We work a lot with women, mostly, and women are disproportionately affected by poverty.
Housing is even a more delicate issue for many women because there may be bed-sitters in the St. John's area, but they may share it with three or four men. A lot of our work is around Marguerite's Place, which is affordable housing for women that has universal design but also puts in place the supports to allow women to live comfortably and safely. It allows them to be able to look into housing options if they want to move on or to look at employment supports and obtain the counselling they need to maintain housing. It is not only about housing, and I guess that points to a need for a housing strategy. We talk about a poverty reduction strategy, but we also need a housing strategy. It would be of incredible use to many people who work with homeless people if they could count on the future, if they did not have to worry about funding and support only up until this date. Everybody needs to do long-term planning. It is one thing to say that groups are short-sighted because they are not thinking of the future, but it is hard to think of the future if the funding is not in place to think of the future.
The Chair: Supportive housing is something for people with mental health challenges.
Ms. Pollett: Yes, I want to build on comments by Barry Galloway and Charmaine Davidge, the whole idea of choice. The position of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation on housing for people with mental illness is that they can choose where they live. I think that position is a big thing; being comfortable in where they live and having the supports that help them to be comfortable in where they live. Of course, it goes back to people with disabilities having the right; the universal design and all that. I think it is important, rather than putting people in housing, that we let them choose where they want to live and support them to live there. I know that is not always possible for everyone, but I think, overall, it is important for all of us to keep it in mind.
Ms. Foster: One thing that is beginning to trouble the organization I am with is providing housing for the newcomer. As Egbert Walters mentioned, the fact that St. John's is experiencing an economic boom means that the amount of housing available to people with a limited amount of money for rent is shrinking. In many cases, we are forced to see people go into housing that is not adequate and in some instances, it is not safe. Yet, because it is all that is available, the people have no choice. If they say anything, then the landlord is likely to say, okay, on your bikes. I think that is unfortunate because it is not a good start for a newcomer and it is not good for somebody who is from here. I think at the moment, the person who is in this situation has little recourse. It is something that nobody wants to be involved in. There was a case in the paper recently where somebody complained and the next week, I think, he received his eviction notice.
Mr. Galloway: It was the next day.
Ms. Foster: Yes, so you know what I am saying. There is this form of blackmail. It is bad enough that they are in inappropriate housing and have nowhere else to go. Then, suddenly they are told they will be evicted because they dared speak out. That is not a nice situation and I think, in Canada we need to do something about it.
The Chair: Maybe that becomes a question of rights legislation and protection of people in that regard.
Ms. Collins: I have a couple of comments with regards to supportive housing. Senator Cordy talked earlier about Eva's Phoenix in Toronto. Choices for Youth will replicate that project here because we see a lot of young people who are coming from foster care, group homes and the youth correctional facilities in the province into independent living. Aside from the challenges around finding private landlords to house young people in the community, many of them would find it difficult to maintain their housing successfully at the age of 16 or 17. They have not lived on their own before. Trying to maintain housing has been difficult. We often see young people move on an average of 5.3 times a year, so being able to maintain their housing in the community is a challenge. One project we are working on is looking at a community housing model that would be staffed to support young people between the ages of 16 and 24 in terms of that transition period to acquire the skills that they need to be successful in independent living in the community.
Another initiative we have been working on is a partnership with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, NLHC, where they have presented us with housing units in the community that we then become responsible for. They are rent-free to us. We have two different housing units for young, single parents. The units are not staffed. They are independent in the community, but as an outreach model, we provide support to the young people and their children who live in those housing units. We have another staffed NLHC housing unit for three young people with complex mental health needs. We have moved forward now to work with the provincial government, with the Department of Health and HRLE, around funding. Right now, we are calling it a case management model in terms of young people with complex needs where nothing is available in the community for them. It would be similar to Stella Burry's Community Support Program, only the specific age group targeted would be the younger 16-to-24 population in terms of helping those young people acquire the supports they need. Right now, they are typically housed in hospital or in the correctional facilities because they are not able to maintain housing in the community without those supports.
Senator Munson: I want to ask Eileen Joe a question dealing with housing, and the question has not been asked around the table today. We talked about stigma, mental health and so on. I want to broach the subject of racism and issues dealing with persons that go to your shelter and stay a period of time. Do you try to facilitate finding this kind of housing for that person, and does that person face another barrier, another door of saying, no, — maybe not directly — you are not welcome here? Is that an issue?
Ms. Joe: No, when we have Aboriginal clients, we work with Department of Social Services to find them housing. I have not heard of, or come across, anything that deals with racism. I am aware of it, and no one has ever said anything. All Aboriginal clients who come to our shelter have probably been in the community before and they know what the housing issues are like. They only want to stay at the shelter and we cannot keep them for a long period of time because most of our clients are short-term.
I do not know about racism, but I guess they know what they need to move into, in regards to what a housing unit would be like. They know it is not appropriate for them to be there because the housing is not kept up well.
Ms. Collins: I know from the young people that I work with that probably it would be more along the lines of discrimination. A lot of the young people who come through our outreach program who are looking for housing are either discriminated against because they are young people or because they are receiving income support. A lot of doors are shut in their face because they are either connected with Choices for Youth or because they are young. There is a stereotype around a young person with regard to renting a property or the fact that they are in receipt of income support. A lot of judgments are placed on them around those stereotypes, and doors are closed for them with regard to housing.
Senator Munson: I think I should have used the term discrimination. It is there but you do not see it, you only feel it.
Ms. Collins: To give one example, I went on a visit with a young person who I connected with through our outreach program. She has been connected through various agencies here in the community in terms of the young women's shelter and Addiction and Mental Health Services. She has a lot of challenges in her life. She came asking for support around housing. I did my best considering the amount of complex needs she has. Considering her literacy issues and some of the learning disabilities, she managed to set up a couple of appointments with landlords to view apartments. In terms of transportation issue, I went with her. For the first appointment, the landlord initially saw me and, I think, assumed that I was the person who was interested in the apartment. Then, when she came around the other side of the vehicle and presented herself, the demeanour of the landlords — the body language, the expression and how they spoke to her — was different from how they approached me. If I had wanted that apartment, I am sure I could have had it, but all of a sudden it was not available to her, so I have witnessed discrimination myself.
Mr. Galloway: On the question of discrimination, Senator Munson, I want to pick up on what Kerri Collins said. I have heard that from people with disabilities, as well. Often people are looking for board and lodging because maybe that is the only thing that they can afford, or they are looking for a one-bedroom or whatever. However, often once the landlord sees that it is someone with a disability, the landlord will say it is no longer available because we have been hearing that they are looking for someone to rent to who is not there during the day. If someone has a disability and may not be working, they are there all the time, and landlords do not want people around like that. That is a concern, and discrimination in a big way for people with disabilities.
I managed the Eva's Phoenix project in Toronto, so I know that what Choices for Youth is doing is incredible, and I think it needs to be applied. Eileen Joe talked about the limited stay in shelters. If you want to see people moving out of the shelter system and into housing, you have to move beyond that. People need to be able to stay in a shelter if it is necessary for a longer period of time. Some sort of a transition plan needs to be put in place so that people can move out into the community in an effective way so there is not this constant rebound back into shelter.
Ms. Joe: Even though I said they want to stay for a longer period of time, it all goes back to social services. Social services will not approve their stay. They have to leave and take whatever it is available. A lot of times, it is not suitable to live in, but they have no other choice because social services will not approve their stay at the shelter and they have to leave.
Ms. Collins: One issue with our shelter is that we are single staff. With the increasing complexities of youth who access our shelter, it becomes ever more challenging for a single staffing model to respond to those young people and support them in the way that they need to be supported without jeopardizing the safety of the single staff and the other young people who stay at the shelter.
I think it was Charmaine Davidge who talked earlier about the positive energy that exists within the non-profit community in St. John's. I think the non-profit organizations in the city are doing phenomenal work and there is a great positive energy. I think the negative energy comes from the lack of funding, lack of staffing resources and one person trying to do the work of three or four people. I think what we are lacking is the financial support to the programs and organizations that are doing great work to continue to do what they do and do it well.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Have there had been any new models tried for young people? I think of the other end of the spectrum where there is so much passion and so much investment in housing for seniors. The difference is that seniors have a stable, albeit low, level of income through pensions and other supports. I think units should be designed, at least as a pilot project, where housing, education and social services are combined. In Newfoundland and Labrador, where they seem to be doing more than some places, is there any sort of model? I am not talking about a shelter. I think a shelter is for overnight or maybe for a few nights. I am talking about something that would be much more, and would have a much more positive image. Probably, it would be a shared room or even a dorm-type of situation, but would have a more positive and more hopeful quality to it than a shelter. Would there ever be any money available for that kind of thing?
Ms. Collins: That is the new project we are working on. Right now, we have hired 10 young people to complete the renovations on a building that Choices for Youth purchased. The young people will renovate that building so it becomes a community of transitional housing units. They will be single apartment units within a community, so the building will be almost like an apartment building, similar to Eva's Phoenix in Toronto.
The other nice thing about that project, besides training young people in the trades so that they have skills in terms of the employment, is that a youth I Promise Program will also be housed at that site. That program was probably talked about earlier today in terms of the math and literacy learning education program. It will help young people have success with their education so they can move forward with the goals they identify.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Do you think that if this project is a success, others might follow? Do you see it as a model that can be expanded upon?
Ms. Collins: Very much so: We are expanding on some of the work that Eva's Phoenix had done in Toronto. That is where the idea came from. We are taking the model that they used and expanding it to St. John's. I think there is definitely room for that model to grow.
Ms. Johns: I want to mention four points in terms of recommendations to the federal government. We need a commitment to renewed funding for the housing initiatives. We need a commitment to develop more supportive housing, and that commitment includes development of rental standards and so forth, and also support for community organizations like Choices for Youth, which is doing phenomenal work from the ground. If we look at community capacity building and focusing on a community's strengths, it would be a good idea for the federal government to invest more in these community programs so that organizations do not have to struggle from project to project and funding application to funding application. With core funding, this great work could continue on an ongoing basis because that is where the creativity is. Solutions come from the community. Also, federal government funding would help in terms of not looking at supportive housing in isolation from education.
Kerri Collins brought up that point in terms of the project they are working on. Because young people who struggle in the mainstream education K to 12 system and are not able to go through that system are often the ones that find themselves struggling with housing, living on the streets, going from house to house, unable to find employment and so forth. We need to have strategies in place to address education that are not mainstream. Some community organizations provide that education and do a great job working with young people who are not able, for one reason or another, to go through the K to 12 system.
Senator Cordy: I am wondering about the changes, like standards for housing, particularly for those with disabilities. I attended a conference that dealt with seniors, and they talked about what seniors' apartments or housing should look like so that it is safe. Comments were made at the time that these suggestions were applicable not only for seniors and for those with disabilities, but for the overall population.
I am older than most of you around the table, but when I look back many years ago, the challenge was having governments agree that one of the standards for public houses was for ramps to be put in place. There was a big hue and cry at the time that this could not work. Another big thing was the ramps on the sidewalks at intersections. There had to be ramps so that those in wheelchairs or those who had challenges of travelling would be able to cross the streets more easily. Again, at the time the reaction was how will we do this and it will be expensive. However, it happened and now, in fact, we think nothing of it. These things are in place everywhere and they have become part of the building codes and part of the development when governments put in streets, sidewalks and so on. It happens automatically.
In dealing with people within the construction industry and dealing with governments, I wonder if some of these things can become a natural part of building houses or building apartments; these things are naturally put in place. Do you have any comments?
Mr. Galloway: You hit the nail on the head. That is exactly what universal design is. It will work for everyone; that is why it is called universal. It will be beneficial to everyone: the aging population, people with disabilities and everyone.
Again, I will reference Great Britain. They have a policy where, for example, all new buildings must have at least one entrance on ground level. There must be one way to enter without stairs. People with disabilities appreciate that policy because we have been forced to use back doors for so long to enter a building, if we can enter at all, or a freight elevator or whatever.
People sometimes think that we are being unreasonable because people are making efforts to have an access to a building for people with disabilities. It goes back to the whole Rosa Parks thing. We are tired of being forced to sit at the back of the bus. We want to be treated the same as all Canadian citizens. Unfortunately people with disabilities have not had that opportunity. I think you are totally on the right track. It is about applying a disability lens, using universal design and holding people accountable. You spoke of the construction industry. I have met with a number of people in the construction industry. If they are not required to do these things, they will not do them.
The Chair: If we have exhausted the housing and homelessness part of the topic, let me throw it all together again and come back to the overall picture of poverty, housing and homelessness. Let me ask if anybody wants to take on this question. There are so many elements to all of this subject; so many things we could do.
This Senate committee is a federal entity. We are interested in coming up with recommendations that will speak to a collaborative approach of all levels of government and the community. However, we also recognize that the federal government will not develop a lot of the detailed on-the-ground type of programs. It will take a bigger picture — income redistribution or a national housing strategy perhaps — but the implementation largely and appropriately will happen at the local or provincial levels. What one or two things, more than anything in the big picture situation, might the federal government do? Does anybody want to tackle that question?
Ms. Payne: The choices the federal government has been making are lacking in a lot of ways. I think Annette Johns referred to this point earlier, but we seem to be on this path where public policy has become tax cuts and we do not look at anything else. I think a report recently said that since 2006 we have had $200 billion of tax cuts, many of them in the corporate sector. Yes, the GST cuts are included in that number. What is happening is that the federal government is losing the fiscal capacity to fix any of these problems. I think we all face that serious challenge, as social advocates, when we look for ways to fix this situation.
I know I am stating the obvious, but we are one of the wealthiest countries on earth, yet we are here talking about poverty, homelessness and being able to feed our citizens. This is a deplorable discussion even to be having in our country. Can you imagine if we used only 1 per cent of that tax on housing? I think that $2 billion would go a long way. We could have used another 1 per cent on people with disabilities. Can you imagine the programming we could have built?
I think our priorities are so mixed up now at the national level that, as a federal government, we are not even seeing what we could do and what we can build. We have lost sight of the fact that the role of the federal government is to build our nation and to make sure that citizens are not left behind. This committee could make a statement about the role that our nation should play to make sure people do not have to come here with their hands out saying, please put funding into housing, please put money into this and stop this silly game of handing out billions of dollars in corporate tax cuts, for example, that mostly benefit the oil and gas sector and could have been used to help others even in the corporate sector that probably needed it more. Priorities are totally mixed up.
The Chair: I think we have agreement on that. Maybe even the two cents on the GST, which has lost over $10 billion in revenue to the federal coffers, could have been better used. I think every economist in the country thinks it could have been better used in terms of the income tax cuts for low income people.
Senator Munson: Kerri Collins mentioned negative and positive energies. I do not know if they will see it here, but in some of the groups I work with in autism and in Special Olympics, people say quietly that they am totally burnt out, beat. Because of their dedication, others say, you are doing a great job, keep it up. However, people are reluctant to volunteer or become involved. They say, you are doing well.
I think you alluded to the fact that two or three more people with the kind of money that we are talking about in all these things will stop this kind of burnout, which is a burnout across the country. People want to do good things for the common good, but I detect it is becoming frustrating, fatiguing and tiresome. I throw that out for the record.
Ms. Johns: Some of the ways that governments have been handling poverty are piecemeal, at best in terms of looking at different programs, putting funding here and taking funding from somewhere else. Clearly, that approach is not working from a holistic point of view. We need to have government commitments. The federal government has to commit to a poverty reduction strategy.
That is one message I would like to put across; that we need a poverty reduction strategy at the national level and a commitment behind it. It is no good to have only a strategy in place and then try to go back to our old routine of piecemeal funding and putting band-aids on. True commitment and funding is a direction the government needs to take. We need to look at other options. We know there is less funding for social programs with tax cuts. We need to find different ways of doing business. I think Canadians are on board for that change at this time and have been for a number of years. We need only that government commitment.
The Chair: Another way of putting that question is to ask what the federal government could do that would make your job easier in terms of the people you are trying to serve? Take it from that perspective if you want to, as well.
Ms. Foster: I would like to see the federal government perhaps come and see what some of us do. Often it is hard, and I am sympathetic up to a point, but I deal with citizenship and immigration. From 200 Kent Street, it is hard to know what goes on here with a family of 12 or 8. I think we have gone back. There is not as much interest, involvement and wanting some sort of firsthand knowledge of what is going on. I do not know if we are caught in a situation now where perhaps Ottawa is not pleased with Newfoundland. I do not know if that could be the reason, but it seems that there is a little bit of disinterest. There has been a noticeable lack in the number of times I have had to serve tea to ministers of late.
The Chair: Maybe it is a personality clash.
Ms. Foster: I do not think so because I am becoming nicer as I get older.
The Chair: I do not mean with you.
Ms. Foster: The other point I want to make, and I do not expect everybody to agree, is that if Canada continues to accept 7 300 or 7 500 people who have been deemed refugees by the Geneva Convention, and these are people in need of protection who cannot stay in their own countries and so on, do not bring them here if they are forced to live in poverty and to become part of continuing that group of people. I am pleased for once that the U.K. has a couple of pluses — thank you for that; I sometimes think we are out — but sometimes it is silly to be penny wise and pound foolish. If we bring people in, put enough money into the program so that people can go back on the road to working, contributing and feeling part of the community, province or whatever. Then, these people will be much less of a burden on the medical system and on all sorts of support services. If we bring in people, make it so they can live in a decent way.
The Chair: We have to address the credentials problem for a lot of these people.
Ms. Foster: That is all part of it. However, do not initially bring people in and give them $433 for rent because that will not do it.
The Chair: Talk about government, the Prime Minister is here tomorrow.
Ms. Foster: Yes, he is in Renews. I have good friends there, so does Lana Payne, and there is a biggish cliff there.
The Chair: Does anyone else want to pick up on that question of the federal priorities for your area, or in general?
Ms. Pollett: From a mental health perspective, the federal government could make my work easier by thinking like we do. In our national framework for support, our model for support and recovery in the community is called the community-resource-based model. That model has a person at the centre and then things like supports and services for mental health treatment and family and friends. Outside that group, in the outer ring, are four key parts of the foundation for recovery in the community for people with mental illness. Those four parts are work, education and the two that we have talked about here today, income and housing. Those things should be seen as basic rights. Those things are necessary not only for people with mental illness to recover in the community but they those should be basic rights for everybody all across the country.
I know that everyone, or most people here today, do not think about these issues in isolation. We all see that there are a lot of different social determinants of health. These issues are complex and they all operate together. I read somewhere the other day that our houses, our homes and our housing are the places where all the social determinants of health operate, so housing is important so the other parts of our lives can fall into place and we can live successfully in our communities. I want to make that point that we need these basic things to live, recover and do well.
The Chair: Have we come to the end?
We now have an opportunity for people to come to the microphones and speak to us for five minutes. Maybe we can hear from clients and people that you work with. It would be good, too, to hear from people firsthand who have experienced challenges with respect to poverty, housing and homelessness.
I hope you can stay, but let me, at this point, thank you all for your participation and for your input, both from your personal perspectives of the things that you and your different organizations do and from the broader perspective of dealing with these issues. The study is a major undertaking for our committee, and we hope to come up with the right set of recommendations that we can then present to the government early next year that hopefully will bring about some improvements in dealing with people's lives. As Lana Payne, I think, said, it is a shame that in a country as well off as we are that we should have these kinds of people in the desperate straights many are in.
We have a lot of room at the table, so our presenters might as well sit at the table. We will hear from you one at a time.
Derek Winsor, Program Director, Bridges to Hope: Thank you very much. I am Derek Winsor, director for a group here called Bridges to Hope Food Aid Centre. You have probably heard from Egbert Walters about the various food banks and so on, and we are part of that organization, but a little bit more. I am also a business person in the community and a trustee for the Eastern School District here in the province. When it comes to my background as far as poverty and so on is concerned, it is becoming fairly extensive.
I found out about these presentations yesterday in the newspaper. I had not seen any notification earlier, and that is probably because we are in the middle of major changes in our organization, but I wanted to take an opportunity today to give you — and I listened to the last bit of the last presentation — a sense of what is happening right on the street.
Our organization has been around since 1989 as a food bank, but now we want to move into reversing the trend of people coming to food banks, or food pantries, as we consider them because here in Newfoundland pantries were part of people's homes. Your next door neighbour would borrow something from your pantry and you would borrow something from their pantry. That is the philosophy of our organization so that people do not feel uncomfortable coming to see us.
I brought with me a copy of a presentation that was prepared for our annual meeting last year and I would like to leave that with you because it gives you a little bit more information.
My purpose in coming today is to say, look, dealing with poverty is not an easy question and how does the federal government fit into this picture. I sit back and say, I do not have that answer but I looked at some statistics that we keep for our own organization. In July 2007, we served 466 people — children and adults — and in July 2008, we served 785, which is a 70-per-cent increase. This country, this province and this city are in the best economic times in our history, yet we have a major gap in the area of poverty and people going without food or heat. You are always asking why this is happening. I do not have the answer, but I do have some ideas.
I think the problem is that our policy-making is done at the wrong end. We have policy-makers at the upper level of government who have no idea what goes on at the street level. I would like to have an assistant deputy minister at the federal and provincial levels come and do my job for one day. I think that will change the way policy thinkers in this country devise policy on how we attack this particular issue of poverty. Come and see those extra 319 people that came to our organization because they did not have enough food on the table. Find out that one lady, because she could not pay her light bill, had her social assistance cut back, and she and her children lived for two weeks on $19.95. I would like to see a minister, deputy minister and all the bureaucrats at any level of the government who make policies understand how they affect the individual. Every politician in this country gets up on a platform when it is time for an election and they look for that one vote, because one vote will bring them closer to the 50-per-cent-plus-one. However, that one vote does not make any difference once they are in that seat, or that is the impression that is left. When it comes to making that policy, it does not seem to be there. I could be coming off in a high-horse way here but I want to bring it back to reality. I am known to be straightforward or a straight shooter, so anything could come between these two lips. My reason for coming here today is to provide this information.
Our report has good information that I hope you can take some time to go through. Yes, it is specific to our organization and it is a small amount, but based upon my conversations, the situation is similar across the country.
I had an opportunity to be in Regina in the first week of July for the meetings of the Canadian School Boards Association and I saw firsthand that what we are dealing with in St. John's is not any different than what they are dealing with in Regina. In Saskatchewan, they are dealing with this gap of poverty because they are going through an economic boom, as well. The federal government must take leadership in their policy direction in this area so that provinces can do the same.
This province has done well and has a great poverty reduction strategy in place. Is it perfect; no. Can things happen with it; yes. Is there support from the federal government that can help make that happen; yes, I think the support is there. Should there be support; yes.
The biggest thing for organizations like ours is how we continue to operate because we have that almighty struggle of how much it costs for us to do business. Our organization recently went from working out of a church to owning a building, or being able to own a building and move forward in what we want to do to reverse this poverty.
We believe in education. We believe in teaching an individual how to cook versus having someone cook for them, because we think that is more productive. How does the federal government tackle that?
I read this report for the first time this morning, or breezed through it. I cannot say that I read every word of it, but the report deals with unemployment insurance, housing, health, education and so on. Some great options have been put forward. I hope you are able to act on them, and that the federal government acts on them, in a positive way so that the individual who came in to see me last week and lives on only $19.95 because she does not have the education, that whatever policies and whatever recommendations will affect that individual in a positive way. I feel passionate about this issue. That is why I am a trustee at the school board. I believe in education and I believe we can eliminate poverty in this country if every single child is given the best possible education and every single adult who has not had an opportunity to have that good education is given the education to be able to make a good living.
One last statistic that is important to know is about the working poor. This group was addressed in the report. The biggest increase that we see at the ground level right now is the individual who earns minimum wage, is only able to work 25 or 30 hours a week and cannot make ends meet. Those are the people who are coming to us. They are coming to us because in November 2007, a litre of oil in this province was 73 cents. Now a litre of heating oil is $1.27. Oil companies will not deliver to them unless they have $200 worth delivered. They used to have $100 worth delivered, half their tank of oil. Where do they come up with that extra $100, because they do not have it? Every single politician and every single senior bureaucrat down through need to be able to understand those issues because it is easy to become comfortable — I am being direct — with a larger salary and think that they are doing the right thing for the individual. However, you never know if you are doing the right thing if you do not ask them.
The Chair: Thank you for a valuable contribution. Colleagues, do you have any questions for Mr. Winsor?
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Thank you so much. You have touched our hearts. It is wonderful that you took your time to come here today. I agree with everything you said. It is very moving.
You are obviously dedicated to education and I agree with you. I think the number one solution is education, all types, levels and so on. Because you are on the school board, I wonder what is happening in your schools with regard to breakfast programs, et cetera? Do you do well here on that? Is the need increasing? I suspect from what you said it is increasing, but I would like you to talk a little bit about that kind of thing. We have the Breakfast for Learning program across the nation and a few other things, but I want to know a little bit about your experience here.
Mr. Winsor: It depends on the area. Some urban schools have the School Lunch Program. A separate organization operates that particular program and they serve a lunch throughout the schools. Whether they are able to do that depends on the facilities available at the school, and they vary. Other schools have their own individual breakfast programs that are made available to the students. There is a concentrated effort to work on that, but it is not spread through all schools. That particular part is concentrated in some of the low economic areas of the city or some of the rural areas but it is happening.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Some people are cynical about these breakfast programs. They think a lot of kids who can well afford to eat at home will come and have it because it is easy and it is there. Do you believe that it should be more readily available more, I do not know whether you can say more universally, and more available than it is now? Does it make a difference, in your opinion?
Mr. Winsor: I think whatever programs are put in place should never show any discrimination, so they do not have to be a social service recipient to have it. Many kids and parents fight over breakfast in the morning because the kids are not interested in eating, but by 10 minutes to nine, they might sit down and have a yogurt or something in school. I think it should be readily available to them if it gets them through the day. There are all kinds of reasons why kids do not eat in the morning, poverty and attitude issues, but we have to work with those issues, as well. I hope that answers your question.
One reason why I do what I do is that we also have a Christmas hamper program, as many other cities around this country do. To let you know, I had a lady come in to see me two Christmases ago to register for a hamper. She was always a strong person in her community. She was from rural Newfoundland and had to live in St. John's because of a health issue. She was going through chemotherapy and found herself on social assistance because of that. She came in to our organization as a good member of her church and always the person who helped put the hampers together. She apologized for coming in and asking for help. We never turn anybody away no matter what the reason but this lady came to me apologizing. At the end of the day, the reason was because she was in St. John's and she could not return back to her rural community. Her daughter and granddaughter were coming in and she wanted to make sure that she had a Christmas dinner ready for them because the doctors told her it would be her last Christmas. Ladies and gentlemen, I can tell you, if I had shares in Kleenex that day, I helped them go up because it was heart wrenching to listen to that story and it is heart wrenching to tell it, but that is why I do what I do.
The Chair: Thank you for doing it and please keep doing it.
Mr. Winsor: Thank you.
The Chair: Please leave us with a copy of your submission and the video. That would be great.
Mr. Winsor: I hope the electronic one works. I am not good at making CDs.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Winsor.
I have two more people, Lorraine Best and John Eddy. I can take you either separately or together. You have 10 minutes if you come together so do not worry, I will not touch your time. You are both from the Seniors Resource Centre of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Lorraine Best, as an individual: Is this working because I want to be heard?
The Chair: Yes, that is working.
Ms. Best: I am a member of the Aging Issues Network of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am also a volunteer at the Seniors Resource Centre and a senior. I am not 65; I am well over that. You may not think so, but I am.
The Aging Issues Network was funded through the Public Health Agency of Canada and the funding then was funnelled through the Seniors Resource Centre. We started in 2004 and now it is province wide. We have 100 members, with 30 seniors' organizations and groups represented.
Mainly this report focuses on housing. I want to focus on a couple of points, one being income. We found that economics pose the greatest challenge to providing appropriate housing for seniors. Although there has been a general increase in seniors' income, poverty is still an issue. In 2000, 46 per cent of unattached women and 31 per cent of such men were poor. Because of the growth in numbers of people at that age, the absolute number of these seniors living in poverty has risen to approximately 1.2 million men and women. Most seniors, 93 per cent, live in housing that is owned or rented by them or a family member.
In terms of gender, the number of senior households with affordability problems has increased with three of every four senior women living alone in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I will not go through the whole report because I do not have time, so I will take pieces of it.
In terms of social environment, seniors need to feel connected to their community to be healthy. They need support from their family, friends and community to be able to handle difficult situations and to feel that they have some control over their lives.
In February of 2006, we held an Aging Issues workshop in St. John's and these three priorities that came out of that workshop: affordable, supportive housing; affordable and accessible subsidized housing; and a provincial home maintenance and repair program.
As I said, I volunteer at the Seniors Resource Centre. I have been there for 14 years. I am on the information line. When a senior calls me and tells me that when she wakes up in the morning, water is running down her face, that is homelessness. It is also elder abuse. When seniors have respiratory problems because there is mould and dampness in their apartment, and I know people right now that this is happening to, this is poverty, homelessness and elder abuse. I do a lot of work with elder abuse; that is my main concern. Many of our seniors today have to choose between food, medication and shelter because they do not have enough money. Many of them go to the malls in the wintertime to keep warm.
The key theme dominating academic and policy research is aging in place, which CMHC defines as a process which enables elderly people to grow older in the familiar and comfortable surroundings of their own home. That is what we want. We want to stay in our own home, but we need supports. We need finances to help us do that.
Affordability poses a challenge in providing appropriate housing for seniors. Although there has been a general increase in seniors' income, poverty is still an issue. The number of senior households in Newfoundland and Labrador with affordability problems has increased with three of every four senior women living alone. Women in this province tend to live longer than men. That seems to be the trend, does not it? Significantly higher proportions of females remain in the lowest income brackets and few achieve the higher incomes.
What has been done and what works? According to the 2001 Census, 84 per cent of seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador own their own home, compared to 71 per cent of seniors in Canada overall. In this province, 93 per cent of seniors live in the community; that is to say in residences other than institutions. However, the high rate of home ownership does not mean that the housing available to seniors is affordable, supportive or adequately meets their needs.
In terms of home maintenance and repairs, the Provincial Home Repair Program — I guess you are aware of that — was announced in 1998 to provide repairs, renovations and accessibility adaptations. This program replaces the CMHC Residential Renovation Adaptability Program, RRAP, and Housing Adaptability for Seniors Independence, HASI. The Provincial Home Repair Program provides financial assistance to new homeowners, enabling them to make essential repairs so they can continue to live in their own home, but priority is given to repairs requiring immediate attention.
I am thinking of a gentleman that called me on many, many occasions and he was waiting about five years to have his taps fixed. He had arthritis and he could not manoeuvre his taps. In rural areas, of course, there is more demand for the home repair program. I checked this out with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing today. Out of 4,000 people on the wait list with Newfoundland Labrador Housing for home repairs, 1,000 to 2,000 are seniors, and 99 per cent of these seniors are in rural areas. The wait time is significant — 2.5 to 3 years for regular repairs. One third of the Provincial Home Repair Program is funded federally and two thirds provincially, but as of March 2009, the feds are getting out of it with no indication of plans to extend this program. I was told to make this situation loud and clear.
The Chair: We have heard it before today; we know this. Yes, it is true. They have not made any announcement one way or the other. It is in limbo.
Ms. Best: I double-checked on this information today because I was not sure.
What do we think should be done? Housing and services need to be developed with consideration of seniors' dignity and respect. According to the Canadian Mental Health Association, aging in place is a critical element in the health and independence of older people. Are you all familiar with that phrase, aging in place? Most older people want options so they can live in their own home within a familiar community where they know their neighbours and have access to services and transportation. I have my own home and I have a good income, but it is getting harder. My oil bill last year was $650 a month. I do not know what it will be this year. It is becoming harder for everybody. Aging in place requires affordable, accessible home maintenance and repairs combined with community supports in age-friendly communities.
In summary, our focus again is on support for us to stay in our own homes and development of a variety of housing and community support options. We need options. We need to show that there are options between being able to look after yourself and moving into a nursing home. Seniors are not all in nursing homes, as some people think we are. Most of us are out in the community. Creation of affordable, accessible, supportive houses for seniors and housing development need to happen in conjunction with increased access to home support, and that is lacking in this province. We have no federal funding as of 2009 and we have no federal funding for large senior housing projects.
Do you have anything to add?
John Eddy, as an individual: I have only a couple of words concerning affordable housing. On our committee, we like to have affordable rental units. What we would like to have would be within the city, a seniors' village complex. I do not know if any of you are familiar with Masonic Park or Glenwood, St. Luke's. They have seniors' rental complexes. Right now, my wife and I have applied to the Masonic Park for a two-bedroom cottage. They have an apartment building, cottages and apartments, but we want a two-bedroom cottage. We put our name on the list, September of 2001. I phoned today before I came, and we have probably another year or two years before we are eligible for a cottage. The need is there for that kind of complex.
At the centre, we said that if the federal, provincial or municipal government and a not-for-profit organization could get involved — with the non-profit organization the rents would be a little lower than if it was a private concern — that is what we would like to see. Like Lorraine said, funding is supposed to finish in 2009, so we would like to see that funding extended. The provincial government has three parcels of surplus land within the city, which was three hospitals that were closed and will be demolished. Maybe the federal, provincial and municipal governments can come together and make some kind of a deal to see if more seniors village complexes can be established within the city because the city offers everything for seniors, from shopping centres, to hospitals and whatever.
Ms. Best: I want to say something. It may not have anything to do with you people, but all kinds of seniors complexes are going up privately, built by private individuals with provincial government money, but the seniors cannot afford those places. If they make $1,100 a month or $1,200 a month, and a lot of seniors do, how do they pay $700 a month for rent?
I understand — and correct me because I would like to know this — that when the federal government gave funding for larger projects like this, the federal government had some input into how they were built. Remember we talked about that?
Mr. Eddy: Yes.
Ms. Best: That meeting we were in?
Mr. Eddy: Yes.
The Chair: Generally, the federal government provides funding, but the province makes the deals and goes into that kind of detail.
Ms. Best: Okay.
The Chair: I do not know if the federal government through CMHC would become involved.
Ms. Best: They have no input into the type of building that goes up?
The Chair: They have input into whether it is a seniors' project or whatever. It depends on the funding envelope it is provided under. However, in terms of working out detail of design and things like that, that is usually done at the local level or the level of non-profit organizations, the municipalities or the province.
Ms. Best: To me, if the government puts in money, it should have input into the project. How can we afford to rent these places?
Senator Cordy: Thank you for your comments. I am also on a committee that deals with aging, with Senator Carstairs as the chair. You made reference earlier to the fact that we sometimes stereotype what ``senior'' is and we forget, I think, that Mick Jagger is now a senior citizen; he recently turned 65.
Ms. Best: However, he has lots of money.
Senator Cordy: Yes, you are right; he has lots of money. Would it not be great if we all had his money? Given the fact that we stereotype, I think we have to remind people sometimes that some of the greatest things have happened when people reached an older age.
I think your comments about aging in place are extremely important, and on that other committee, we heard that over and over again. I think one of the issues is that it is much cheaper for governments if they can keep seniors in their homes for longer periods of time.
Ms. Best: Absolutely.
Senator Cordy: The senior is happier and it is less costly to the system.
You made an excellent comment when you said that we need to have support systems in place and that includes repair of their home if they are in their own home. I am from Nova Scotia. A higher percentage of those from Atlantic Canada own their own homes because often the property was handed down, particularly in rural areas. Nonetheless, homes require repairs to be a safe environment for them to live.
Ms. Best: That is right.
Senator Cordy: You gave good examples earlier. We need to have money available for those kinds of things. It is scary to me when I think of the housing agreements with the federal government expiring in March 2009. To date, the challenge is to have the federal government sit down and talk to people. It seems to have no desire to do so, and March 2009 is not that far away.
Ms. Best: That is right.
Senator Cordy: It is challenging for provincial and municipal governments to start plans for any type of housing development if they are unsure of the funding.
I do have a question here for you. While we are talking about support systems, I sponsored a bill in the Senate that came from the Minister of Veterans Affairs when Mr. Chrétien was the Prime Minister, and it dealt with the Veterans Independence Program. That program is for people who have served in the military overseas, and it is wonderful for keeping people in their homes. It started many years ago because there was not enough room in the veterans hospital, so they started this program to keep people in their homes until there was space in the hospital. Then, when there was space in the hospital, people said, forget it, I love what is happening now, I love aging in place, and all I needed was a support system so I could stay longer. What we have heard was that this model should be followed for all seniors in Canada, not only veterans. Are you familiar with the program and how would you would about an independence program that would allow seniors to stay in their home safely? The home must be a safe place in which to live and the Veterans Independence Program helps with things like snow removal, housekeeping and repairs to their home.
Ms. Best: I do not know if this program the same one, but I have had veterans' families call wanting support and some help. However, it goes by their income and some cannot have that support. It could be a different program you are talking about, but I know that has happened and they receive little home support because of their finances.
The Chair: Would you be happy if a broadened program like that was available to the people in the seniors community?
Ms. Best: Well, yes. I had somebody in this afternoon, a son and a daughter. She was from Nova Scotia and the daughter was here visiting. They are trying to put something in place for their mother when the time happens. Her mother will not do anything right now, although she is 85. I cannot blame her. Anyhow, she was surprised and disappointed at the lack of home support in Newfoundland and Labrador. Are you from —
Senator Cordy: I am from Nova Scotia.
Ms. Best: She said that is one thing they have there for seniors.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I am delighted with your presentation. The laughing was because we were talking about those who have help mowing their lawn and those of us who do not.
Ms. Best: I do not mind laughing, my dear. That is wonderful; laughing is good for us.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: No, it was not laughing at you; it was laughing about getting help. I need help with mowing my lawn and I am very much a senior.
I wanted to ask the same questions as Senator Cordy asked about home support. Maybe you can tell us a little bit about what is available in Newfoundland and Labrador as an example, since we are in your lovely province?
Also, I have heard that because gas is so much more expensive, Meals on Wheels is being affected adversely; negatively, in other words. There is not the availability of drivers for Meals on Wheels. This situation would be terrible because I think that program is a wonderful one. So many people have found it helpful in the communities that I know best. Senator Cordy has asked many of the things I was going to ask but maybe you can tell us what the costs are of having support in seniors' homes, like someone coming in to help them, be it with a bath, shopping or whatever, and secondly, the Meals on Wheels situation.
Ms. Best: I do not know about the Meals on Wheels. I have not heard, but I would not be surprised that it is happening. For the home support, they are assessed financially for that. It goes by their finances and every individual is different, so I do not know how much they would receive or how many hours. It would depend on how much money the government gives and how much that client needs — I hate that word ``client'' — that person needs. It would go through the Department of Health and Community Services on an individual basis. They would be assessed, but there is less and less home support here. With seniors making $1,100 or $1,200 a month, how much can they pay for home support?
The Chair: When you made your presentation, you had a document in front of you. Can you give us a copy?
Ms. Best: Sure, I will ask them when I go back.
The Chair: It is so that we have something for the record.
Ms. Best: Yes, indeed I will.
The Chair: You made some good points and you gave statistics and good information.
Ms. Best: Some of it, examples, et cetera, was not in the report. That information is from my information line.
The Chair: Okay.
Ms. Best: I can put that in.
The Chair: Can you take a photocopy and give us a copy.
Ms. Best: Yes, where will I send it to?
The Chair: Our clerk will give you a card.
Ms. Best: All right, sure.
The Chair: That concludes our program for the day. Thank you both for coming.
The committee adjourned.