Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Cities
Issue 6 - Evidence, August 13, 2008 - Morning meeting
HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA, Wednesday, August 13, 2008
The Subcommittee on Cities of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 8:45 a.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: Good morning and welcome to the Senate Subcommittee on Cities, which is conducting a study of major Canadian cities with an initial focus on poverty, housing, and homelessness. In undertaking this study, we are building upon previous work by the Senate and the Senate committee on the matter of poverty. The 1971 report headed by Senator David Croll comes to mind, as well as the 1997 report by Senator Erminie Cohen entitled, Sounding the Alarm: Poverty in Canada. At the same time, our study complements the study on rural poverty recently completed by the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Our subcommittee has done a fair bit of work already in the past year on this study. We have had hearings of witnesses in Ottawa and at the end of June, we published A Report on Issues and Options. There are 103 options in the report that relate to the hearings that we have had to this point. Now we are into the second phase of our work and a cross-country tour to Canadian cities to hear what Canadians and their provincial and municipal governments have to say about the issues and options paper and the issues in general.
This morning we are pleased to welcome officials from the Nova Scotia Department of Community Services but before I introduce them I want to introduce my Senate colleagues.
On the left is Senator Jane Cordy, who is from Nova Scotia. She is from right here. She is a local.
Senator Jim Munson has a lot of New Brunswick roots and is a senator from Ontario. On the other side, also from New Brunswick, is Senator Marilyn Trenholme Counsell. Also, I am pleased to welcome to our group for the first time Senator Hugh Segal who joins us today. That is our subcommittee team. We are about to hear from Lynn Hartwell who will speak on behalf of the Department of Community Services of the province. She is Executive Director of Policy and Information Management and she is accompanied by Dave Ryan, Executive Director, Employment Supports, Income Assistance and Housing. At some point, we hope to be joined by Kristen Tynes, who is Advisor on Communications.
We have a packet of material here to start with, so welcome.
Lynn Hartwell, Executive Director, Policy and Information Management, Department of Community Services, Government of Nova Scotia: Thank you, senators, for the opportunity to appear before you today. We have a short presentation and we look forward to the opportunity to answer some of your questions. We have provided you with a thick package of material and a copy of a slide presentation as well. We will reference those slides as we go through the presentation.
I also want to extend greetings from my minister, the Honourable Judy Streatch. She regrets that is not able to appear and sends her congratulations on the work of the subcommittee thus far.
The work you are doing is timely for Nova Scotia. As you know, we are embarking on a poverty reduction strategy for the province and the opportunity both to inform your work and to have our work informed is wonderful for us. We will file a written submission following this presentation. Our hope is to address some of the options in more detail. The options are far-reaching. They have lots of implications and we will touch on them but we hope to provide a written submission as well.
Today, I will talk about three different areas. The first is the Nova Scotia situation. We will tell you a little bit about unique challenges and trends we are experiencing in Nova Scotia. We will tell you about the action that is underway in Nova Scotia, both a discussion of what we are doing and what we propose to do with our poverty reduction strategy. Then, finally, we will talk about how we are moving forward and how we hope to move forward with the federal government, other levels of government and the community.
Let me start with some promising trends. In Nova Scotia, we have a steadily growing economy and our growth is just under 2 per cent predicted for 2008 and 2009. That growth is in line with the Canadian average. Our unemployment rate predicted for 2008 is 7.1 per cent. That is the lowest in 25 years. That means that some groups have entered the workforce that have not been involved traditionally, or have had greater challenges being involved: people with disabilities, visible minorities and older workers. It is a time of opportunity and our government hopes to seize that opportunity. After-tax incomes have been trending upwards in Nova Scotia, as they have been in Canada. Right now in our latest data, 2006, 8.4 per cent of Nova Scotia's population lives in the low-income after-tax group, and that is down from 8.9 per cent in 2005.
Encouraging for Nova Scotia is the number of children who live in low income. Those are children under the age of 18. There were 19,000 in 2005 and are 16,000 as of 2006 data.
I reiterate those promising trends not in any way to indicate that we should rest on our laurels but instead to say that there have been positive gains. We need to understand what has made them positive and build on those things. For example, I believe that one key success factor in the decreased number of children living in the low income group was the federal-provincial partnership with the National Child Benefit and the Nova Scotia Child Benefit, so there have been examples of successful initiatives that have made a real difference in the lives of Nova Scotians.
We have talked about promising trends. I want to talk about persistent challenges. Some of them will not be new. You reference them in your report. They are consistent across Canada, although some are unique to Nova Scotia.
We have an aging population coupled with a low birth rate. We project that by 2016, one third of Nova Scotians will be 55 years or older. As you know, we are a popular retirement destination, for lots of good reasons.
Nova Scotia has the highest level of self-identified disability in Canada. Twenty per cent of our population self identifies as having a disability. That is one in five. The number is significant and as our population ages, we believe that number will only increase. In Nova Scotia, 9.5 per cent of homes are in need of major repairs. That number is more significant than the Canadian average, which is 7.5 per cent. Similarly, we are above the Canadian average in core housing need so 15.1 per cent of Nova Scotia households face core housing needs, compared to 13.5 per cent of households across Canada.
While, on the positive side, the trends show perhaps fewer people living in poverty relatively, those people who remain in poverty have an increased depth of poverty and those who are in the most vulnerable groups have more persistent poverty. We are finding that economic prosperity is not being shared equally amongst all and that those who are least able to benefit from the economic prosperity in the community are being left behind. That finding is similar to what you have found in your report, and that is the Nova Scotia experience as well.
One new and emerging trend that is not referenced on the slides, although I suspect you will hear about it even more as you move across the country, is the idea of energy poverty. With the increase in oil prices, people are challenged both to heat their homes and to maintain their homes. The latest numbers we have are that home heating oil has increased by 37 per cent in the last six months alone. Also, people are challenged to afford fuel to take advantage of the opportunities in their community so that challenge includes the price of gas to travel to work, to travel to school and to travel to other opportunities.
That is the situation we face. The question is, what are we doing about it?
In your package, you have a slide entitled, ``Nova Scotia is Taking Action: Organizing the Machinery.'' The graphic shows the weaving of the Nova Scotia tartan; the new Nova Scotia. I have a colleague who refers to this graphic as the most exciting one in government, which says something either about him or about government, I am not sure which. The symbolism behind this graphic may seem, on a surface level, a little fanciful but underneath it there is significant thought and hope for how we work together. You see the threads are woven. The tartan is woven by weaving together economic and social prosperity. You have in your package a document called, Weaving the Threads. It is our framework for social prosperity. We are excited about this document because it brings together the need for sustainable prosperity for Nova Scotia to be based on not only a strong economic foundation but a strong social foundation. It informs both our policy and our programs: how we need to act together and how we need to take advantage of the opportunity to weave them together. I could go further with the tartan analogy. We talk about no dangle and no tangle of the threads. No dangle means no gaps. No tangle means no duplication. The document is our government's articulation of how we intend to work across government and to respond to some of the challenges you reference in your report; that government traditionally has not been structured to provide holistic, across-the-board support to a person. Instead, we focus on departmental mandates. This document, which, by the way, was introduced to the senior civil service by the premier at an unveiling, is intended to be a new start in how we will work together. We have had some experience in our Nunn commission and in other cross-departmental initiatives where we are changing how we work together. I am happy to answer any questions you might have about that document as we move forward.
The next slide is a triangle, which I will not take you through in detail. You will note that this graphic was not called the most exciting one in government but on the left-hand side is economic and on the right-hand side is social. The idea is that both those things move together towards the apex, which is sustainable prosperity for the province. They are built on the same foundations: strong financial, natural and built capital, and strong human and social capital. This is now the way we will move forward.
Having talked about that strategic level, the strategic approach we are taking, I will share with you a few examples of action that are underway in Nova Scotia. I will talk about what we are doing now in terms of programs and services that are already offered. Then I will talk about the poverty reduction strategy that is underway.
We have but a few examples. I am part of an interdepartmental committee that is responsible for developing the poverty reduction strategy. One of our first tasks early in 2007 was to compile an inventory of what government was doing for people living on low income. What were the programs?
You will not be surprised to hear that we uncovered about 70 programs across the Nova Scotia government stretching across six departments, everything from our department, the Department of Community Services, to the departments of environment and labour. We need to build on what we are doing and probably change how we are doing it so that we coordinate all those programs better with the clear, articulated outcomes as we move forward at the same time.
Under the area of income support, you will see that we have invested $10 million over the last five years to index personal allowances for income assistance recipients. We are investing $45 million over the next eight years in the early learning and child care area, and you would be well aware of the federal investments in that area, which have allowed us to move forward. We have invested $5 million in our new child and youth strategy, and again, you have a copy of that document in your package and again, it heralds a new way of working together. To eliminate tuition increases over the next three years, $180 million has been invested in universities. On a smaller scale but no less important, we have invested $1.3 million in a wheelchair recycling program. That summary gives you a flavour of the size and scope of some of the different programs we have in place.
Under the slide title, ``Transitioning from Social Assistance/ Making Work Pay'' — another way people sometimes put it is lowering the welfare wall, making it easier and more feasible for families to move to employment — the government created a new department, Labour and Workforce Development, and that department focuses on building a skilled, competitive workforce, integrating labour strategy across the entire workforce and ensuring that workplaces are safe, fair and productive. The mandate of that department will fit into our new focus on labour market activity.
We have increased minimum wages, and minimum wages now are set to increase annually until 2011 so that the minimum hourly wage will be $9.65 by that time.
Then, I have listed in the slide a series of other measures that are in place. We have tax modification measures to increase the basic personal exemption and to provide other provincial credits that will benefit people with low income. We have instituted two Pharmacare programs, one specifically aimed at children in low income and one for families more generally, and working families. The response to those programs has been incredible. The Family Pharmacare program for working families, for example, now provides prescription drug coverage for 180,000 Nova Scotians who did not have drug coverage before. Significant gains are to be made there.
On the slide, I have included two perhaps dated pieces of work but they are significant. For the employment supports for incomes assistance recipients, we have restructured our entire income assistance program to ensure that people who can attach to the workforce are supported in doing so. Also, for the Nova Scotia Child Benefit program, I believe that the ability to create that payment on the back of the National Child Benefit has been a significant improvement for Nova Scotia.
In the area of housing, you will be aware that federal investment has made significant difference for Nova Scotia. To date, we have $45 million invested to create and preserve 1,200 homes. Another $11 million will be committed for this fiscal year. Through the affordable housing trust, we are building new rentals and we are modernizing and regenerating our existing public housing stock.
In the area of off-reserve Aboriginal housing, the Off-reserve Aboriginal Housing Trust was a significant investment, not only because it provided the funds but it also facilitated or caused the Aboriginal community government and community at large to come together and develop a model of how to deliver that program. It has been an excellent example of collaboration. You will see that we have planned another $21.6 million to be sent into other housing projects through the trust.
I will move on now to our poverty reduction strategy itself. If you think of the few examples that I have given as pieces that have moved us forward, the poverty reduction strategy aims to take those pieces and make them into a comprehensive strategy that will guide how we move forward and that will provide the measures and the accountability. Government has committed to a comprehensive, multi-year poverty reduction strategy. It is co-led by the new department, Labour and Workforce Development, and our department, Community Services. We have had the benefit of having a working group that was created by an act of the legislature passed with all- party approval. That working group, made up largely of community representatives with only two government representatives, has tendered recommendations to government. A copy of those recommendations is also in your package. I will go through them at a high level but those recommendations reflect, and are similar to, recommendations that we have received from other organizations. They reflect the best practices around the country and so I believe there is considerable material there for government to work with us as we develop our strategy.
The poverty reduction working group has made recommendations in eight areas. The first, awareness, engagement and collaboration, is deceptively simple. It hides a depth of feeling and thought on how government must engage the community and work with the community to achieve solutions. It also talks about the need for all levels of government to work together and engage with the community — federal, provincial, municipal and First Nations; the need to improve awareness of the causes and consequences of poverty; and the need to break down some of the stereotypes and perhaps de-stigmatize some of the programs that are available.
In the area of employment support and income assistance, the recommendation is that the province consider moving away from the traditional model across the country, which is a welfare model, a last resort, needs-based model, and to think instead of proactive solutions: What do people need to move forward, and not, what level of need have they been driven to that we now must respond to.
In the area of disability supports, the group's recommendation noted that significant gains have been made in the acceptance of and opportunities provided for people with disabilities. The mainstream inclusion in the economy has not been achieved and many people with disabilities still live in poverty, as you know.
Transportation is a huge issue for this province. Your counterparts looking at the rural issue would have heard from rural groups on that matter, and transportation is also an issue in urban areas. In the groups we have held and the conversations we have had, transportation was generally one of the top two or three concerns. People may not think that necessarily because Nova Scotia comparatively is a smaller province but the geography can be as extreme.
Housing, not surprisingly, was one of the key social determinants of health and one of the recommended areas for action. The working group recommends that the government take a holistic approach to housing, as they are taking with poverty, again in partnership with the federal government.
In the area of health, the group recommended that there be significant discussion about increasing access to health services, recognizing that people who live in poverty tend to have poor health outcomes.
In the area of education and skills training, we have found that education is the single most significant factor in determining income in Nova Scotia. About 70 per cent of Nova Scotians have high school education. Only 35 per cent of those in income assistance have a high school education so we know that educational outcomes will make a difference in Nova Scotia. Again, the detailed recommendations are in your package but I wanted to give you a flavour of what the provincial government heard from the community group.
A lovely slide highlights the goals that the community group put forward. It suggests that the provincial government should adopt that the goals of any poverty reduction strategy: first, to require collaboration and coordinated action; then, to alleviate poverty, so to alleviate the depth of poverty and the conditions in which people in poverty live; to reduce the number of people living in poverty and the incidence of poverty; and, finally the ultimate goal is to prevent poverty.
This committee tendered its recommendations in June. Government has committed to working with those recommendations and other material, and to developing a strategy this year.
That is how we are moving forward. It is an exciting time to be a public servant in Nova Scotia. The opportunity is there to make significant inroads into social issues.
As we move forward, the last piece I will say is that, in your report, you reference Neil Bradford and his description of income support programs as wicked problems. I would say that poverty, housing need and homelessness are the most wicked problems, or high on the scale. These problems are terribly complex and long-ranging and require concerted, aligned action from all levels of government.
I will reiterate the intergovernmental principles that characterize our relationship with the federal government. First, we are committed to partnership and engagement with the federal government. We believe that the federal government has a significant role to play both in providing stable, predictable, long-term funding but also in helping the provinces work to recognize and value the diverse provincial populations and the needs that we have in the provinces. Specifically, in the area of housing and homelessness, in your report, you repeat the request that has come forth already from the provinces to return to social housing contributions of $2 billion annually. We also hope there will be timely renewal of expiring agreements. As you know, the affordable housing agreement, the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, RRAP, is set to expire on March 31, 2009. The Canada-Nova Scotia Labour Market Agreement for Persons with Disabilities is also set to expire on March 31, 2009. Those agreements, and the funding that flows under those agreements, are key to much of our service delivery. The more certainty with which we can plan our future, knowing what exists, the better we will be.
In the area of income security, we would support moving forward with discussions on a national income security program, particularly for persons with disabilities. A national poverty reduction strategy would be welcomed. Discussions on a national Pharmacare program absolutely would be welcomed. As well, we would support any review of the Employment Insurance program, particularly how it might intersect with provincial programs.
I will say again that we have had significant federal and provincial collaboration, which has made a difference. I mentioned the National Child Benefit but I believe the Affordable Housing Program, the Canada Child Tax Benefit are Early Learning and Child Care are examples, and we can learn from successes in those areas. It is our desire that we can move forward in the areas of poverty, housing need and homelessness but we believe strongly that we can do it only with federal government, municipal government and the community.
The Chair: That presentation is a wide-ranging one, and we are delighted to hear about the Province of Nova Scotia moving forward on a poverty reduction plan. Thank you also for the report of the poverty reduction group. We have not had a chance to go through it yet but it is a lot of material for us to digest and you have given us a synopsis.
We recently came from Newfoundland and Labrador and that province, together with the Province of Quebec, already have strategies in place. They are still in the early stages, at least in Newfoundland and Labrador. However, the province has decided that its overall goal in terms of reduction of poverty, housing and homelessness is to be one of the best-positioned provinces by the year 2014. Do you have any specific goal like that? You said what we would all say in terms of wanting to reduce poverty and wanting to help solve some of these problems but is there some over-arching goal that either the government or the poverty reduction working group has said, and some sort of timetable? Are you working on the whole idea of goals, timetables and indicators so you can determine what kind of an impact, what kind of an outcome, all these good programs are having on poverty, housing and homelessness?
Ms. Hartwell: No goals have been set to date. I fully expect though, that the poverty reduction strategy, when it is finalized, will have targets. The recommendations come in short-term, medium-term and long-term achievables, and I believe we will take that approach as well; a multi-year approach with tangible targets. One thing we heard loud and clear is that the community expects and requires that government reports on progress, and the reporting, are based on indicators that mean something to the community; that they are not only dry statistics but actual progress can be seen in them. I believe that our strategy will have some of those measures and we will include a form of reporting. I do not know yet what that reporting will look like but the intent is that we will be able to engage the community on an ongoing basis, measure progress, or lack thereof, and be able to see what is working and what is not working, to change the course if need be, rather than continuing only to chip away it. I do not have a firm answer today, but I expect that we will go in that direction.
The Chair: You recognize that it is an important ingredient because it has a lot to do with confidence of the public that progress is being made. Regular public reporting is something also that Newfoundland and Labrador is doing. Another challenge in putting programs into effect that cover such a wide range of areas is that, in the government context, the programs come under different ministries. Having spent a number of years in the federal government including the Treasury Board, I understand the silo system all too well and the efforts to prevent horizontal linkages. We have this challenge in the system but horizontal linkages are an absolute must to execute a comprehensive plan. Newfoundland and Labrador has various levels of coordinating groups, starting right at the ministerial level. The minister responsible for this area has a specific mandate to bring all the different ministers together, and then in turn, the deputy ministers. There are communities, cities and municipalities, et cetera. Do you see something like that unfolding here?
Ms. Hartwell: I believe that is a possibility. We have had some success with ministerial committees. I am thinking of the Nunn commission, which resulted in a child and youth strategy. A group of ministers, and then a group of senior officials and deputies, met on a regular basis and were able to get over some of those departmental barriers. I think that approach is a possibility for a poverty reduction strategy. We may go that way. We have two ministers, the Minister of Labour and Workforce Development and the Minister of Community Services, who are responsible for the poverty reduction strategy. That approach, in itself, elevates the strategy outside of what might be seen traditionally as a social services area. It is already something more. We are having conversations with our Treasury and Policy Board about what structures might best fit at the deputy minister's level. One challenge in horizontal linkages is that we can all commit to acting together and sharing information. What is newer is sharing the work and not retreating to our silos when there is a crisis. I believe our social prosperity framework is the first step. We have to create structures that make it easier rather than harder to share the work together. We are well aware of that. Although I do not know what the final version will look like, I know there will be a cross-departmental response.
The Chair: Good.
I have one final question before I turn the floor over to my colleagues. You mentioned the federal role and the partnership with the federal government as being necessary. You talked about strategies at the federal level. What are the most urgent needs in terms of putting together this program? What do you think are the most urgent needs you have with respect to federal participation?
Ms. Hartwell: I will look to Dave Ryan to round out my answer but I believe it is in the area of housing. We are engaged already with the federal government in the housing area and significant conversations are going on. However, the expiry of those agreements at the end of March of 2009 leaves a great deal of uncertainty, so a more clearly charted course for housing nationally would be beneficial.
David Ryan, Executive Director, Employment Supports, Department of Community Services, Government of Nova Scotia: Yes, I agree that the biggest issue facing us right now is the expiry of at least those three affordable housing programs, which in phase 1 and phase 2, invested $56 million in Nova Scotia and allowed us to create almost 1,200 new rental units across Nova Scotia. The Affordable Housing Trust and the RRAP agreements expire on March 31. We have been successful in partnering with the federal government over the past three or four years with those programs, and they are a big part of what we have delivered.
Right now we are in a holding pattern. A longer-term provincial strategy would be based on a commitment from the federal government hopefully on where we are going with those three programs. From there, we can develop our strategies on how to deliver those programs. We are hoping, obviously, for an extension of those programs or new programs that we will add onto in a variety of different ways, in keeping with some of the new trends. That is the biggest need for housing with us.
There is also the partnership of the federal government with Service Canada, with the Labour and Workforce Development that Lynn Hartwell has already mentioned. The devolution of some of those services to the province is an exciting time for us because now those services will end. Some federal employees that deliver those services are coming into the province. Our department, in particular, is working in partnership with the new department to try to define and deliver those services in a new way, and the federal government has announced new funding in that particular area as well. We have a lot to be proud of and a lot of work to do as we try to develop the service delivery models for those services.
If I can digress to add to what Lynn Hartwell said before, she talked about the horizontal collaboration within our departments. We are partnering on a variety of different things. For instance, we partnered with Conserve Nova Scotia on energy audits and things where they go in and fund the energy audits and we come in through our various housing programs and grants to allow low-income homeowners to implement those changes for energy efficiency, and to allow for health and safety repairs. As well, in terms of making homes more adaptable for seniors, we partnered with the Department of Health to deliver programs of $3.5 million this year alone to allow seniors to stay in their own homes. Between the poverty strategies and the social prosperity framework, which guides our collaboration, there is a lot more emphasis now on these issues. They are collective issues and we have to tackle them together.
Senator Cordy: That presentation was excellent and detailed. I appreciated it. However, as the senator on the committee from Nova Scotia, I am somewhat disappointed that neither of the ministers responsible for poverty reduction could take an hour and a half to be with us this morning. Having said that, I thank the three of you for coming. I want to talk to you about are things that we discussed when we were in Newfoundland and Labrador because they are a little further ahead than Nova Scotia. They are on the road and a little bit more specific. I think one good thing about the government addressing poverty reduction is that it legitimizes the fact that we, as a province, have to deal with the whole issue of poverty. The issue of poverty is complex. We cannot say we will build 500 affordable, safe housing projects and that will solve the problem.
You made mention, Ms. Hartwell, of health and education, child care and a myriad of things we have to deal with to address the whole problem. In fact, I think if we talk to anybody, they will say they want to reduce poverty. In 1989, there was a motion in the House of Commons. It was the UN International Year of the Child to reduce child poverty, and the vote was a unanimous yes that it would be resolved by the year 2000. We are in 2008 and, indeed, we know that this issue has not been resolved and we know that children in poverty are living in families who are in poverty.
As a former educator, I am interested in the field of education. If we look at the drop-out rates in schools in Nova Scotia, which are not as high as Alberta but, nonetheless, they are a concern because you spoke earlier about the percentage of people living in poverty who have not completed high school, let alone post-secondary education, be it university or community college.
There are challenges for children living in poverty to continue in education. The family needs another pay cheque and it is helpful to the family and to the teenager who wants to have the same brand name clothes as their classmates to find a job and to leave the school system.
This question is specific, so you may not have the answer. As part of the poverty reduction strategy in the field of education, will you look at children at risk and how we can keep children in school for longer periods of time so that it is almost short-term pain for long-term gain? We heard from some young people that if they could have subsidization or if the family could have money for their children to stay in school longer, it would be helpful. Do you have any specifics in terms of education?
Ms. Hartwell: I may not have the specifics, but I can tell you some of the work that I am aware of.
First, though, one recommendation from the working group committee was that government spend time not only to allow young people to stay in school and support them, but to support their understanding of the need and benefits to staying in school. The idea is that breaking that cycle sometimes breaks a cultural cycle as well. People have to be supported to see that there is a benefit in the end.
That was one recommendation of the working group that government will have to grapple with. On our interdepartmental committee, we have a representative from the Department of Education, and the province has the Learning for Life strategy, which addresses children at risk. The Child and Youth Strategy, as well, focuses specifically on children and youth at risk.
I believe we are starting to see that population as a population in need of particular strategies. I cannot give you the specifics on what they might be. I know there are stay in school programs and we can address that issue in the written report. However, the concern you have expressed is a concern that I have heard expressed from the Department of Education officials that there needs to be as many incentives and supports as possible to take action early in someone's life, as opposed to providing the supports later on.
Senator Cordy: Going back to the chair's question earlier, will you use specific outcomes to measure poverty reduction?
Ms. Hartwell: Yes, absolutely; I believe educational attainment will be one of those outcomes. We monitor and review the educational levels of people who are on income assistance, and the reasons why people are on income assistance are broader than education alone. For example, about 9 per cent of people on assistance have some post- secondary education, so it is not as simple as education. I do not want to leave anyone with that impression.
We are aware of the education issue and we have programs within our income assistance program itself to support people to continue their education. For high school attainment, we have a Nova Scotia School for Adult Learning, which supports people to go back and achieve high school education as adults in a more adult-friendly setting. Then we also have support for people to continue with some post-secondary education. For example, children in care of the minister can pursue post-secondary education and those children would certainly be at risk.
Senator Cordy: Another thing we heard a lot of, both in Ottawa and in Newfoundland and Labrador, is something you talked about this morning, and that is employment support for income assistance recipients.
What we heard was the ``all or none'' factor. If they are on social assistance, they have a health card and various other supports; transportation, bus pass and whatever. Then, they find a job and, in many cases, I do not want to generalize but the jobs they find after being on social assistance are often minimum wage jobs.
They have their minimum wage job and then they have to start paying for transportation and their own medication. We heard this particularly when I was on a committee that studied the mental health system: Some of the drugs that people take for various mental illnesses are extremely expensive. They are trying to normalize their lives as much as possible and, as soon as they come off social assistance, all their support systems were cut off.
I see that in your presentation you talk about transitioning from social assistance to making work pay, and you talk about income assistance. What types of things are you talking about? Again, I am sorry for being so specific, but we heard over and over again about the ``all or none'' scenario.
Mr. Ryan: For income assistance clients, transitioning into the workforce starts, generally, when they first come in and they are assessed for employment. One of our objectives is to move and transition clients to employment.
We have a variety of supports. We have a whole team associated with providing, assessing, coaching and counselling income assistance recipients. We also have programs to look at the barriers to employment; for instance, how to resolve those barriers with technical aids, the support of employment, wage subsidies and things like that.
For those that are working to transition out of income assistance, we have what we call Transitional Pharmacare that allows clients to maintain their Pharmacare for up to one year with a $5 co-pay fee, as they move into the workforce. That program has been in effect for a number of years now.
We also have things like extended Pharmacare if they have higher drug costs in a short nature. For instance, they might have catastrophic drug costs and we are able to cover those for an extended period of time. Two years ago, we brought in the Low Income Pharmacare for Children for people that are not on income assistance, the group above those on income assistance. They now have access to Pharmacare programs. We use the same formulary we use for income assistance.
A few months ago, the province implemented the Family Pharmacare program that now allows access for, it mentioned, 180,000 Nova Scotians among the working and those above the income assistance line. I think they can be working and earn $100,000 and still have a graduated support for drug costs, depending on the value of their drug costs and what they have. In that program, we have a deductible amount first and then we have a co-pay fee, both of which are graduated based on income.
From a drug perspective, we are looking at merging those programs over the next number of years because they range from income assistance to the Low-Income Pharmacare for Children to the Family Pharmacare. Then we have Seniors'Pharmacare in the Department of Health and so on, so that program helps alleviate some of the drug costs.
Senator Cordy: If they have schizophrenia, for example, and if they are taking their medication, often they can enter the workforce. For the first year, their medication would be covered if they were in the workforce?
Mr. Ryan: Yes; it depends on the formula. I am not sure what drugs and costs are covered. I know the Department of Health has a drug formulary that we follow. There are exceptions to that formulary for catastrophic drug costs and things like that, and they are adding to that list as the issues come up. However, from the perspective of the Department of Community Services, we follow the formulary for the Department of Health.
The Chair: Is that $5 you mentioned per filling?
Mr. Ryan: That is per prescription.
The Chair: They pay that cost as well?
Mr. Ryan: Yes, that is with the income assistance Pharmacare program. The Family Pharmacare is for income assistance Pharmacare and it is for the low-income Pharmacare children. It is a $5 co-pay fee. The Family Pharmacare is graduated based on income.
Senator Cordy: We have heard, not only in this committee, but in many committees that I am part of, and you are explaining the programs to us, that sometimes government can be complicated.
I know in Newfoundland and Labrador, they have simplified their application forms. You talked about the various departments, for example the health department and the community service department. How easy is it for people to understand and to access these programs?
We hear the joke, ``I am here from the government and I am here to help you.'' I am part of the government, too, so I am being critical of the federal government as well. I remember sitting on a health care committee and somebody showing us a page this big of the various departments that could help. It might have been seniors; I cannot remember. I have tried 1-800 numbers and I find them totally frustrating. If English or French is not their first language, the frustration would be compounded.
Mr. Ryan: Lynn Hartwell may be able to add to this information, but we have plain language policy in our programs and bulletins, at least within income assistance. We have an income assistance handbook, we call it, which is a nice brochure which is in simple language. It is straightforward as to what their benefits are, what the eligibility criteria are, what special needs we provide, what Pharmacare drugs are available and so on.
We also have staff members that are readily available to answer any questions. We refer people and assist them with filling out forms. That includes federal forms, for instance, applying for the Canada Pension Plan Disability, CPPD, or for the Family Pharmacare. If any of our clients come in and ask at any of our offices, staff members are readily available to assist them.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I have been inspired listening to you this morning. Thank you to each of you for the presentation.
I have been sitting here reading much of this document and thinking that if anyone in Canada wanted to find a source of inspiration in writing documents on social issues, Weaving the Threads is a beautifully written document. I look particularly to the item on family capacity because that has been my focus for a long while. Were you involved in the big conference in the 1990s?
Ms. Hartwell: I believe so.
Senator Cordy: I think so.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: It is beautifully written, fostering a love of learning the wording. Then, community capacity is no less inspiring, but so it goes. You have touched me deeply and inspired me this morning.
No one is ever surprised when I focus on child care, and it has been mentioned a few times. Before I ask the question, though, the other words that they have determined here that I want to compliment you on is this parenting journey. It is beautiful. In terms of that journey, how extensive and significant are your prenatal programs?
I also want to know a little bit more about your early identification intervention programs. I looked at the people yesterday who we saw in Newfoundland and Labrador at a roundtable, and in each case, I wondered whether much more intensive early identification and early intervention could have made a difference for the many things that affect the course of our lives from early childhood, even from the prenatal period, and on.
We heard yesterday in Newfoundland and Labrador that the change and the emphasis in the federal government over the last several years in terms of child care funding and child care ideologies has meant millions of dollars less in money from the federal government, and this cut in funding was affecting their programming.
Can you give us in capsule form the state of your child care programming as it advances in Nova Scotia: what your emphasis is and what the financial aspects are?
Those are three things. A little bit about prenatal programs and how extensive is early identification intervention? In the case of early identification, I have found in the document that you are concerned about the gap. In New Brunswick, it is good until about three-and-a-half years and then it is weaker. When I was there as minister, we had no real links between the early childhood initiatives in the pre-school years and what happened in the school years. There was a break. I would appreciate hearing about a few of these things and I hope the others will appreciate hearing about them, too.
Ms. Hartwell: Certainly, my colleagues can weigh in. Again, I apologize that I cannot provide some of the specifics that you might be seeking. We will provide them in written submissions, but I can talk in generalities, which I hope will be helpful.
First, on prenatal care, I am aware that in the Department of Health and the Department of Health Promotion and Protection, there has been significant focus on prenatal care. Also, the home visitors and the public nurse support system have been increased and revamped over the past few years.
In your final comments, you talked about a huge push of support at the beginning, and then less support perhaps, as the child becomes older. We are aware of that concern and perhaps that trend, and I think we are taking steps to deal with it.
Recently, we have changed the age of school for children. Nova Scotia was either the last or among the last jurisdictions to require children who turn five after October 1 to go to school, as opposed to after December 31. That date has now been changed and so we have a cohort this year. My son is in the cohort of children that will go to school for the first time if they were born in November or December.
The intent, more appropriately, is to engage children in school where often the support and activities are picked up. Pilot projects have been run across the province for what we call in Nova Scotia pre-primaries, so there is a pre-school level of support, and they have been successful.
In our own early learning and child care program, we have created many new spaces with the federal funding, including a great number of infant spaces, which is where programs were lacking, as well as special needs spaces for children with special needs.
We have also moved the focus away from having the province decide what supports are required and then creating spaces, to focusing on the families and what supports they might need.
For example, we now have subsidized portable spaces that parents can take with them wherever they move across the province. They do not have to worry about finding a center that has a space available to them. Again, we are improving the quality of care, piece by piece. Our Early Learning and Child Care Plan, which is a ten-year strategy with its own funding — the provinces are supplementing the federal funding — is far-reaching and talks about all those old QUAD principles that existed. We still refer to them. We talk about quality and universally accessible daycare. I think we have managed to merge the best of what existed. Our plan going forward is aggressive and we have been able to make significant gains.
I believe we are in year four of that plan and, again, I can speak from personal experience that we have been able to roll out renovations and improved outside space grounds that have made a significant difference in the quality of care the children receive. We are now working on recruitment and retention in the child sector, which is a huge issue, as you know. We are aware of it and we are working on it.
I am not sure if I have covered all your questions. On the prevention intervention piece, in our department we have a division, our family and community supports division, which provides preventative and community supports. We have family resource centers across the province that provide programming, parenting programming and other types of supports. We fund hundreds of community agencies. Some that come to mind are women's centers across the province. They provide programming to assist women with children in the challenges and barriers that they face. We have that focus.
The fact that we have the Department of Health Promotion and Protection speaks to our intent to shift the focus from reacting to the issues that are in front of us to moving to prevent them. I believe we will move more on prevention.
I appreciate your kind words on the social prosperity document because I believe that framework tells us that we have to move more towards prevention and less towards reaction.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: On the community aspect, as I reflect on the wonderful experience we had in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador yesterday, while there is a cry almost everywhere for certainty and ongoing funding from the federal government for housing, what we saw there was a community initiative.
So many partners in that community are becoming involved and are making things happen. Of course, our chair is the former mayor of Toronto, but I think that gradually over the last decade, we have realized how important community is, whether we are talking about child care, early intervention, housing, poverty or all those things. What sort of value do you give this strategy and how aggressively are you promoting it in Nova Scotia? Whether it be children, seniors, housing or being there for those in need, in poverty, those disabled, et cetera, is this strategy a big thing in Nova Scotia?
Ms. Hartwell: I believe it is, and it will only grow. I am completely sincere when I say it is an exciting time to be a public servant in Nova Scotia because we are moving forward in a strategic, coordinated way. That is not to say that was not the case in the past, but I believe there is a bit of a new dawn. We are making inroads. We have so many pieces where we work with the community that it would be hard to articulate them. We have a vibrant community development policy and we work with the communities on a regular basis.
I was one of the two people, one of the two governments, who sat on the Poverty Reduction Working Group. That experience was an amazing experience, but it has confirmed what we believe to be true: Government has to play a leadership role, both in terms of providing funding, resources, support and perhaps, vision to some extent, but equally, government must be ready to engage with community to articulate that vision and to move forward.
I believe that, as the Poverty Reduction Strategy is finalized and is rolled out, because of the way we work, we will take all opportunities to raise the profile of that work. We will raise the profile at the social side of government's work, and the importance of that work as we move forward.
I did not mention that the companion to this document, Opportunities for Sustainable Prosperity, is an economic prosperity document. It is a few years old. It was written before this document, although we reference it throughout.
As the province defines what kind of province we want to be, we talk about moving towards 2020 and we talk about our vision for a new Nova Scotia and what that looks like for people. Sometimes people may default to what that means in terms of economic prosperity and I believe we are now starting to see what that looks like in terms of social prosperity: to make the case, which seems self-evident but perhaps not always so, that economic prosperity can only be gained when we have socially prosperous people and when there is true social inclusion. We will not have economic prosperity while a portion of our population is not able to benefit from that prosperity.
The flip side is that we will not have social prosperity unless we have a strong economic engine to provide the economic prosperity. We need look only at Ireland and other examples around the world where we can see that we have to move forward together. One recommendation from the working group was that government spend time doing social marketing, for lack of a better term: spend time talking about social issues in Nova Scotia, explaining some of the causes and consequences, and the benefits if we were all engaged in a discussion about poverty and other issues. I believe there is more work to come on that recommendation.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: We talked about silos within government. There are federal and municipal silos, and then the people of the community, so I think we all have to bring those silos together.
Senator Munson: I am startled by those figures that 20 per cent of the population identifies itself as having a disability. As well, you talked about the agreements with the federal government on disability, and how time is of the essence to patch this thing up, but I am still curious as to why it is taking so long to put this together. What programs do you have in place right now for disabled persons, particularly those who are in low-income circumstances?
Mr. Ryan: We have a number of programs within income assistance for people with disabilities, including additional transportation costs and rent costs, which have a higher monthly limit for people with disabilities.
We have the Labour Market Agreement for persons with Disabilities that allows us, in a partnership with the federal government, to provide technical aids and coaching, and support and wage subsidies for people with disabilities.
We have RRAP-Disabled, we have adaptive programs specifically for the disabled to the various housing programs, but our disabled population can also apply for roughly 13 different types of grants within housing for adaptation, emergency repairs, health and safety. Our disabled clients can apply for all those programs.
As well, we have specific programs for home adaptation, and to make homes more accessible for seniors that have barriers to staying in their homes longer. I mentioned $3.5 million was new from the Department of Health to allow seniors to stay in their homes and to overcome certain barriers and limits within the home.
We have a variety of programs are specifically targeted for people with disabilities, as well as the regular suite of programs.
Senator Munson: Is this approach a collaborative one with the federal government?
Mr. Ryan: The partnership through the RRAP programs and things like that are all federally funded and that partnership is a successful one. Some programs provincially are dedicated to people with disabilities. The Labour Market Agreement, again, is a partnership with Service Canada and the federal government.
Senator Munson: Every province seems to struggle with dealing with autism on its own particular level. It does not matter; there are no borders for autism. In one of our reports called Pay Now Or Pay Later, we recommended a national strategy, federal involvement and a knowledge-based center dealing with families with autism. As bureaucrats, it may be difficult to answer this question but I am curious: Would you be in favour of a national program because it seems to be every province for itself in dealing with autism.
Ms. Hartwell: I hesitate to speak on behalf of my colleagues at the Department of Health except to say that, to the extent that autism and the families with autism cross all those silos, our general approach is that we welcome national frameworks. There is always an opportunity to enhance and improve services. We can provide a bit more comment on that and there may be cases that I am not aware of, but I will make that comment.
If I could add to some of the things that Dave Ryan said, though, other departments, as well, provide support to people with disabilities. Again, it is a symptom perhaps, or an example, of how we all provide services and we are moving forward to provide them a bit better.
The Department of Education provides supports to students, obviously, with technical aids. Our Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations has a significant transportation support to services for persons with disabilities. In terms of funding, in the Department of Health and Health Promotion, we have mental health programs; in particular, club houses and other activities. Then, within our own department, we have a suite of residential supports and day programming supports for persons with disabilities.
In fact, we have a Nova Scotia Disabled Persons Commission. The commission met recently with a coordinating group of ministers from several departments. The ministers who attended were taken with the range of work that is going on. Our hope is that we can pull that work together and provide a bit of a framework for all those pieces of work that are taking place in the province to support persons with disabilities. I wanted to make sure you were aware of those pieces.
Senator Munson: I appreciate that. In your opening statements, though, you talked about how we are in a holding pattern. Will all the programs you talked about be in a holding pattern if these agreements that expire in less than nine months are not extended as you want?
Mr. Ryan: We will not just stop. A lot of our provincial programs for seniors, homeowners and things like that are running already.
However, the bulk of the funding is through the federal government and programs such as the Affordable Housing Trust and the RRAP agreements. Because these programs are a big part of what we deliver, we anticipate that there will an affordable housing, phase 3, and/or an extension of the trusts.
However, as a province, we will rally around and begin to develop our strategies with what we are given in the future. However, we hope, obviously, for the extension and release of those three programs because in the last three or four years, they represent in excess of $75 million to Nova Scotia.
Senator Munson: I can appreciate that.
I want to say sincerely that I appreciate the three of you coming here, but I want to echo the comments of Senator Cordy. I think it is a shame that on the political level, the ministers are not here so we can have a good chat about all these programs because the study is about political leadership, too. We received the same message from the Honourable Shawn Skinner, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment in Newfoundland and Labrador about that collaborative approach. I think it is important that one of you one day will sit down with the ministers or others in your government and discuss these important issues. I appreciate it.
Senator Segal: As a matter of record, I will disagree with my two colleagues, Senator Munson and Senator Cordy. I know them both and if the ministers are doing what I expect they are doing, which is fighting poverty out there and working to make things better in Nova Scotia, that is a better use of their time than coming here while they have outstanding public servants who are clearly outstanding and deeply committed to making sure they can do these sorts of things to be helpful to the cause. I do not expect you to comment on that, but I wanted to put it on the record.
I began my career in politics working for a Nova Scotian by the name of Bob Stanfield. I recall that in the 1960s, he led one of the most significant expansions of social services, health care and other initiatives in this great province. One of his rules was to make sure the money went to people and not to the bureaucracy and to program structure, so he would approve massive increases in programs providing there were no new telephones installed and no new offices built: Let the money go to folks who need it, which I know is your own bias.
Here is my worry, and it is not particularly about Nova Scotia. I think Mr. Stanfield, if he was watching from heaven, would be truly delighted, like my friend, Senator Trenholme Counsell, with these documents and with the drift, the direction, the vision and the commitment of the province. I think everybody who has been involved at the public service level, the political level and the community level deserves great credit for what is clearly a coherent strategy; something that other parts of the country can learn from in many constructive ways. My problem is that we have these outstanding documents here, and other provinces have tried to do the same, perhaps not as well. However, at the coal face, for people who are living beneath the poverty line, for unwed mothers who have their income support cut if they find a job that pays $100 or more, and for people explaining their situation to income support officers, I am not sure that we have evidence that their situation has improved, either here or anywhere else for that matter.
I congratulate those of you who worked on the report of the Poverty Reduction Working Group because, in one of the questions, you asked, ``How affected are you by poverty?'' Of the respondents, 12.6 per cent said they were greatly affected by poverty. If I can ask you to step back from your role as Nova Scotia public servants and join us all as citizens for a moment, that number is the same across the country. Despite the millions that are spent here and the billions that have been spent across Canada, we have not reduced the number of those directly and seriously affected by poverty beneath the 10 per cent to 12 per cent range, anywhere in the country. Some parts of the country are considerably worse, I hasten to add, and Newfoundland and Labrador that my colleagues visited yesterday was one of those places.
Ms. Hartwell, you referenced 70 programs operating in different departments, all with the same broad intent, but drilling in specific kinds of silo focus areas. Do you have a sense of how much those 70 programs now cost the taxpayers of Nova Scotia, and do you have a sense of what the return is on that money, in terms of changing the quality of life of people we are all trying to help through this entire process?
Ms. Hartwell: I wish I could tell you that a case has been made, that we have been able to assess what has worked and what has not and the difference that we made. We have not yet. We have not systematically gathered that data, but that is the intent, that we will be able to talk about the progress we have made.
I believe we have made progress. When I look at the number of people in our income assistance program, for example, and, again, I invite Dave Ryan to add more comment, the number of people on our income assistance role is the lowest it has been in recent memory. That news is good. For the people that remain, it does not matter much to them, though.
Senator Segal: Right.
Ms. Hartwell: They want to know what we will do to move forward. While I believe it is useful for us to gather that information, the hope is that we will be able to say where we are going, be able to measure the progress that we are getting there, and be able to answer the questions.
We invest hundreds of millions of dollars in income assistance and programming right now and we could provide you with all kinds of numbers and how much we spend in various social pieces. The question of whether it has made any difference at all is a harder one to answer, and our hope is that we will start to answer that question.
If I can beg your indulgence for a moment, when the National Child Benefit and the Nova Scotia Child Benefit came in, a woman who lived in a part of this province, in Yarmouth, called one of my staff. I was not in the department at the time, but my staff person has related the story to me. She was involved in the transition and people would know that this situation was changing. This woman called and said, ``Is this making any difference to me?'' My staff person said, ``Let us talk about your before and after; no, it is not making any difference now, but I believe it will.''
The woman asked when. The staff person said she though it might take a couple of years. The woman called back every year. She must have had it on her calendar. She called back every year, and the third year she said, ``Am I better off now? My staff person said, ``Yes, I am able to say you are better off now.'' The woman said thank you very much and never called back again.
People want to know that. They want the answer to that question. I agree with you. Even compiling the inventory of programs we offer and the significant amount of investment, millions of dollars that are invested in the social programs — everything from our income assistance program to providing septic system rehabilitation for people in low-income situations — all that range of programs, I believe, has chipped away at some of the problems, but they have not systematically attacked the problem and that is really what is needed.
I agree with your comments. I wish I had a more definitive answer. My hope is that we will have in the future.
Senator Segal: Can I ask you or one of your colleagues to help me understand the amount of effort that goes into enforcement and making sure that people meet the criteria and people are not gaming the system? For example, based on the existing laws in Nova Scotia and the rules and what exists in the income officer's manual of administration, do you have any sense of the kind of investment, as a gross number or percentage, that is called for under the rules of the present system as they now exist?
Mr. Ryan: We have eligibility criteria that are validated through various channels directly through our provincial partners, from Workers' Compensation and the federal government, Employment Insurance, Canada Pension Plan and so on.
We also have eligibility review officers in Nova Scotia whose job is to validate income circumstances of our clients, based on various referrals. I can tell you the number is small, less than 5 per cent or maybe even 1 per cent to 2 per cent of our clients. A lot of things occur because they maybe forgot to mention something in terms of income or things like that, so the number is small.
Senator Segal: Right.
Mr. Ryan: However, we have a team of individuals that assist our caseworkers and our clients because a lot of times going through the eligibility process, we have found that the clients are eligible for more money; in a small percentage of cases. In those cases, the clients are better off.
To add to some of your questions before, income assistance is a program of about $350 million in Nova Scotia for a total population of 900,000. That number of 27,000 is probably the lowest any of us have seen in our lifetimes. Obviously, that is the result not only of the province doing a good job, but we have some of the best employment support programs.
Partnering with Service Canada, we have paid for tuition and books to put over 400 people through community colleges; we have a lone-parent program where we partner with universities; and we have the career program for people on income assistance who want to attend university.
As a department, we have expenditures of almost $800 million towards social programs, from adult programs to income assistance employment support.
You talked before about an income assistance recipient worried about making $100 and having it clawed back. In Nova Scotia, we have a 30-per-cent wage exemption to allow people to transition into the workforce. Their first 30 per cent is exempted from the eligibility and does not affect their eligibility or their income assistance.
We hope as that exemption progresses and people transition into the workforce with the various Pharmacare programs and things like to assist people in transitioning, they will not be afraid of earning $100 and potentially even hiding it. For people with disabilities that are in support of employment, we also have a wage exemption of $150 per month first, and then the 30 per cent kicks in after that.
Senator Segal: I have two further questions. One of the great periods where we all have had a measure of success across the country and here in Nova Scotia was between now and the 1970s. In the 1970s, one of the most serious groups of indigent Canadians economically were women above the age of 55 or 60 whose husbands had died without leaving any pension of any kind. In fact, older females constituted one of the largest poverty-stricken groups. There was a movement right across the country: the guaranteed annual income supplement in Ontario, various similar programs here in Nova Scotia and a federal government program. While the situation is not perfect, our seniors are doing better than they were and much better than seniors in many other jurisdictions.
The principle of that program is that we do not ask them why they do not have enough money and we do not have an income support officer finding out if they meet the eligibility criteria. On their tax form, they merely file what they receive and if they do not earn enough from their various sources, they are topped up. Recently, that number was changed so they can earn even more and still be topped up. I think the federal government made that change. Does that approach attract you? As mechanics in the system, as policy developers in the system, is it something that might apply itself to other age groups, as opposed to only seniors here in Nova Scotia?
Ms. Hartwell: It absolutely does. When we look at the statistics, you are right that in Nova Scotia, as well, seniors make up a small portion of people living in poverty. That is not to say that the situation is not dire for those people, but the success of the federal programs, I think, has made a difference.
When we look at our caseload and at the people who are poor in Nova Scotia in the income assistance caseload, the vast number are single individuals below the age of 65, so they are individuals who have considerable work-limiting barriers; disability, mental illness, and a wide range. Many of them have multiple barriers, more than one. In fact, a little less than half our income assistance caseload is made up of people who have disabilities. In terms of populations that could benefit from a more coordinated approach, I put forward that population.
One thing I will add, though, and I am pleased to be involved, is that the province is looking at tax reform and I have been asked to join that group to meld the social and economic outcomes. We will see work coming out of that group in the next few months. I believe it will look at whether the tax system is an appropriate tool to achieve some social ends and even what that tool would look like. I think there is still work to be done there but I agree with your assessment of the federal programs for seniors. The programs have made a difference.
Mr. Ryan: To add to that, from a public policy perspective we are looking at the seniors population, especially in Nova Scotia, as being a higher percentage maybe than in other parts of Canada. To that end, we have a variety of programs dedicated to seniors. In our Senior Citizens Assistance Program, last year we helped almost 1,300 seniors with grants for their homes and things like that. We have the Home Adaptation for Seniors' Independence, again, a program for adaptability in their homes. We have almost 11,000 public housing units in Nova Scotia, and 7,000 of those units are dedicated to seniors.
We have programs for seniors in their own homes or seniors renting to make their homes and apartments more barrier-free as they age, for aging in place programs. As we move forward with the poverty strategy and with our housing strategy, and in partnership with the federal government, once we determine what involvement that is, we will see a lot of these programs enhanced. For instance, last year the Department of Health put $4 million more into their seniors' programs. Because of our service delivery network of 40 offices across Nova Scotia, we were able to deliver that program more effectively. On top of our regular provincial seniors' programs, this year, seniors programs received an additional $3,500,000.
The Chair: If I can interject one thing here, what about home repairs for seniors? The RRAP program, I take it, is part of that package, but do you have other programs as well?
Mr. Ryan: Yes.
The Chair: To keep them in their homes?
Mr. Ryan: Yes, all those programs are available to seniors and people in Nova Scotia. Some are dedicated only to seniors but all the other programs are available to seniors too, including RRAP.
Kristen Tynes, Advisor, Communications, Department of Community Services, Government of Nova Scotia: You mentioned trying to determine how much of a difference we are making. With that new money from the Department of Health this year, more than 400 additional seniors were able to stay in their homes because of the repairs made through this grant money. I had the opportunity to speak with one senior in the Cape Breton area and she was able to stay in the home that she has lived in for 50 years because she received grant money from the new help.
Senator Segal: I appreciate that reference.
My final question was the difference between what you planned for take-up of a program versus what happens and when do you, as senior public servants, find out about the difference? For example, some aspects of federal programming for senior citizens have been under-subscribed. Sadly, the way the federal government reports on its activities, they find out 18 months to 24 months later that for the program aimed at X number of people, only X minus whatever showed up. However, the legislators, senators and members of the House of Commons did not know anything about that. Media did not know. Our provincial counterparts did not know until some time later. How quickly do you know the gap between what you thought might be the take-up of a seniors program versus what happens?
You talked about your officers in the field. In some Service Canada offices, if seniors show up who think they are eligible for program A and they are not, the Service Canada officer tells them they are not eligible for program A even though the officer may have heard enough from the senior to tell them they are eligible for program C. However, officers are told that they are not in the sales business, they are in the service business, and they do not tell them to reapply for the program.
I am interested in, first, how Nova Scotia deals with both the difference between what they program for and who actually shows up to access the program, and second, what they do when someone applies for a particular program for which they are not eligible; however, their officer knows, or somebody should know, that they are eligible for another program. How do you effect that transition for that individual?
Mr. Ryan: Our caseworkers and our front-line service delivery people across Nova Scotia are trained to provide referrals over and above what our programs offer. For instance, take the example of a client who came in for income assistance and they had six children, were living in a trailer and did not have a car to go back and forth to buy groceries. The department, unfortunately, does not provide for a vehicle but a referral was made by the caseworker to a community organizer, more of a charitable organization that organization provided a van to that client. We take pride that our caseworkers provide assistance in filling in forms. If somebody comes in on income assistance and we think they might be able to access the federal CPPD, then we advise them of that. We assist them with the forms, and we will even fill out the forms with them and send them in.
Because those funds are better for people with disabilities, we have had a lot of examples of clients who come off income assistance, but move onto a higher income through the CPPD. Some of the referrals are community-based. We mentioned that a lot of community organizations like food banks and other organizations provide funding for, let us say, music lessons that we do not provide. We have referrals to these various community charitable organizations that vary across Nova Scotia so caseworkers must know within their community what type of services are available for clients, whether it be help with tuition, music lessons or joining a sports program. Our caseworkers, we think, do a good job of making those referrals, advising clients, filling in forms and in some cases, maybe even providing the transportation to bring them there.
In terms of your other question on how we gauge success in a lot of our programs, for instance, for the $3.5 million of new money for the seniors, one of the measurements is: We have this amount of money for that program; did we spend that money? We look at the uptake of the program. I am proud to say that all our programs, from RRAP to affordable housing, the trusts, the provincial programs with our senior citizens, provincial home energy and emergency funding, with few exceptions, are almost spent to their entirety and we have a waiting list, which is the downside of some of our programs. The success of some of the programs is based more on our ability to bring skilled tradespeople in to do the work on a timely basis.
Senator Segal: I understand.
Mr. Ryan: That issue is a big one in Nova Scotia so that is one measurement that determines success. If we have a program that is under-utilized, then we take a look at the reasons why. If it is over-utilized, then we will look at those reasons and try to develop new polices.
We are looking at raising income limits. For instance, through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, and our federal programs, the household income limits were recently raised to keep pace with increases in salary levels. Now, the program is available to a lot more Nova Scotians than last year, and Canadians because it is a CMHC federal program.
The Chair: I think that coming up with an alternative suggestion is still part of public service, as opposed to a sales job. I think it is appalling that it would happen, but thanks for raising the point.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: As a point of clarification, there was a figure about disabilities. Did I hear correctly that you referred to a 25-per-cent increase, or is it 25 per cent of the population is disabled?
The Chair: It is 20 per cent; one in five.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Does that include all of the seniors who get the card for the car because they have osteoarthritis of their knees, like me? No, I do not have a card. That figure, one in five as disabled —
Senator Segal: It is self-identified.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Yes, but what does it mean?
Ms. Hartwell: It is self-identified, so disability could include the range from a significant mobility issue and mental illness disability to someone who is HIV positive. It is someone who self-identifies.
Again, slightly less than half the people in our income assistance caseload have some level of disability that either affects their ability to work or affects their life in some way.
That number comes from the federal Participation and Activity Limitation Survey, PALS. The number is not instructive because it is hard to respond to it but when we compare ourselves with the rest of the country, we are the highest in the country. In terms of federal funding, for example, we always keep in mind that we will face particular challenges because we have such a high level of people who self-identify.
The Chair: This session has been a good one. Thank you for coming, all three of you, and for your contribution to our deliberations on the matter. We are travelling across the country. We will take all this input plus the input from our paper, Poverty, Housing and Homelessness: Issues and Options, and we hope to come out with recommendations directed, to a great extent, at the federal government because we are at the federal level but also, we will try to bring the picture together involving the other orders of government and the communities overall. Thanks again for your contribution.
We now shift focus from the province to the municipalities. We are the Subcommittee on Cities and we want to hear from those who are most involved in cities on a day to day basis in dealing with issues of poverty, housing and homelessness.
This is series of meetings is the second phase of the subcommittee's work. We have put out a paper on issues and options as a result of presentations to us from numerous government leaders, all levels, and numerous NGOs from across the country who came to Ottawa to make their presentations. Now we are going across the country to hear responses to this paper and other thoughts that those in our communities and different parts of the country have with respect to these issues.
Our format has been that we hear from the provincial officials, and then we hear from municipal officials. Later this afternoon, we will have a roundtable involving various community organizations and their different perspectives on the theme. At the end of the afternoon, around four o'clock, we invite anyone who wants to speak to us, to speak at that time. I say this for anybody that is here in an observation role.
We have a desk outside and a little registration form so we can have the name of any organization you want to represent, or you can represent yourself as an individual, and we are happy to hear from you before we close our program for the day.
City officials are here. We planned to have Mayor Peter Kelly of the Halifax Regional Municipality, and his intent was to be here. However, at the last minute he was not able to attend but he sent an able substitute.
Geri Kaiser is Deputy Chief Administrative Officer. Those of us who have been mayors know that last minute things can happen, and also those of us who have been mayors know that chief administrative officers or their deputies know the whole bag of what goes on better than anybody, so we are happy to have Ms. Kaiser here. She is here with Fred Wendt who is a planner in the regional municipality.
We also have the mayor of Charlottetown. I am pleased to welcome Mayor Clifford Lee. He was first elected to city council in 1986 and has served consecutive terms to date. He was appointed deputy mayor in 2000 and was elected mayor of Charlottetown in 2003. He has been employed with the Province of Prince Edward Island since 1979, and has community services involvement, including being coordinator and manager of the Charlottetown Minor Hockey Association and a board member of the PEI Action Housing Association. When I see the word hockey, I am from Toronto, I wonder if you are a Maple Leafs — no, do not answer that.
We are in Halifax. Let us hear from our host city.
Geri Kaiser, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, Halifax Regional Municipality: As Senator Eggleton mentioned, Mayor Kelly had hoped to be here today, but was called away on another matter, so sends his regrets. On behalf of the mayor, I will present his notes. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today and to provide input into the vital issues of poverty, housing and homelessness facing our various communities.
I am happy to see that the federal government is taking a pro-active role in tackling these issues. We have reviewed the report put out by the standing committee and I am impressed by the number and breadth of options presented. I am especially pleased to note that the committee recognizes the importance of Canada's municipalities in finding solutions for issues on poverty and housing.
As your report describes, cities are the key drivers to Canada's economy, prosperity, innovation and productivity. The Halifax Regional Municipality is fortunate to be in the position of being the economic center of Atlantic Canada. Despite that, we still are faced with issues of poverty and housing. In 2005, over 52,000 people living in HRM were living below the poverty line. What is more shocking is that 15.7 per cent of those living below the poverty line are children.
Feed Nova Scotia reports that there has been an increase of 12 per cent in food bank use in Nova Scotia between and 1997 and 2002. In addition, on any given night in the Halifax Regional Municipality, at least 250 people are homeless. This number likely does not provide a true picture of the total number of homeless people. It represents only those that participated in the one-night study.
Not included are people who are not in permanent housing for a variety of reasons, people in temporary housing situations, women leaving abusive situations, mental patients without the kind of support or care they need in the community and others. In other words, the most vulnerable people in our community are at the greatest risk.
Both the number and proportion of those living in core housing need is on the increase in HRM. More than 20,000 households now pay over 30 per cent of their income for housing. Most are single parents, seniors or people living alone. This situation is especially true for renters.
In 2001, more than 40 per cent of all rental households were in core housing need and that was up from 35 per cent in 1991. While housing is still relatively affordable in HRM, as compared to other similar municipalities across Canada, affordability is nonetheless deteriorating as both housing prices and rents have increased faster than incomes for the last number of years. At the same time, the availability of affordable housing is decreasing, and existing social housing is reaching the end of its lifespan and is in desperate need of repair and renewal.
Changing demographics also mean that different options are in need for housing. For example, the number of seniors in HRM's population has expanded and is expected to increase dramatically over the next few decades. This increase has implications for the type of housing and services that will be needed for HRM residents.
As your report notes, housing is a key determinant in well-being. However, housing policies too often are developed in isolation of social policies and plans for poverty reduction. Integration is essential to developing an effective and meaningful strategy.
Although HRM does not have direct responsibility for social assistance payments or delivering non-market affordable housing, the region has undertaken a number of initiatives relative to poverty, homelessness and housing. For example, HRM recently has adopted a 25-year regional planning strategy and this strategy provides a framework for the future of our region. A key part of this framework is an affordable housing strategy that will include incentives and initiatives to encourage affordable housing, affordable housing targets, encouragement of innovation and affordable housing and an investigation of potential use of HRM's own real estate holdings for affordable housing.
The regional plan also encourages compact development to reduce infrastructure costs and to make more effective use of our existing and future public investments. In the last three months, we have seen a flurry of development in HRM, especially in the peninsula area, which we are delighted to see.
Our regional plan also aims to ensure an adequate supply of land available for housing development. We encourage an efficient transportation network that reduces the costs associated with providing housing and we emphasize a strong economy to increase incomes in the overall community well-being.
Other HRM housing-related initiatives include the provision of grants to non-profit organizations who are involved in poverty reduction, homelessness and affordable housing. We give property tax exemptions to low-income residents and non-profit housing organizations.
HRM will provide almost $1.2 million in exemptions for up to 3,000 households in 2008 and 2009. We provide over $4 million in in-kind land donations at below market value for housing initiatives. Also, we have made a request to the province through the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities that the Municipal Government Act be changed to allow HRM to require that a certain portion of new development provide for affordable housing.
HRM also contributes to research and information available to stakeholders by participating in the homelessness report-card initiative, preparing studies and determining the extent of housing and poverty issues.
As we are all aware, the cutbacks of the 1990s affected the social programs of every level of government. These cutbacks led to a downloading of services between levels of government, along with their associated costs. Municipalities, in particular, faced increased obligations without adequate resources.
HRM has an additional financial burden in that it pays a mandatory contribution to provincial housing costs annually to the tune of $2 million. Contributions are now being phased out as of this year, and we are pleased that the province has undertaken that initiative.
Federal, provincial and municipal collaboration is absolutely essential and it will benefit everyone. However, some fiscal issues remain. In this case, the scheduled expiration of all federal social housing funding programs in March of 2009 will mean the termination of $2 billion in funding available annually.
In addition, ongoing federal subsidies for existing social housing are expiring. As federal spending is linked to provincial cost-sharing programs, provincial funding will parallel this reduction. The loss of this funding will undermine efforts to deal with homelessness and affordable housing issues, and will weaken the efforts of many cities to revitalize their neighbourhoods. I strongly urge the federal government to consider the need for predictable and sustainable funding for social housing.
As noted earlier, HRM does not have the financial resources of other levels of government. We also do not have the direct responsibility for housing and social programs, unlike many municipalities across Canada.
However, this council feels a moral obligation to those in need in our region and, as the level of government closest to the citizens, we are well-placed to have an important role in finding solutions and in program delivery and design.
Municipalities are ready, willing and able to fund, deliver and manage strategies and programs, but we lack the fiscal ability to do this effectively on our own. We feel there is a role for all levels of government. Each level is involved in housing through regulations, policies and funding. HRM strongly supports options that call for inter-governmental collaboration and that have the municipalities as full partners in the discussions.
HRM is already aware of the importance of partnerships. In recent years, we have strengthened our relationship with government and community partners and, as a result, we have worked together in many joint initiatives to benefit our citizens.
One such example is the Safe Communities initiative. This project began as a partnership between the Halifax Regional Municipality, the Halifax Police, the provincial Department of Community Services and Department of Justice and the Uniacke Square Tenants' Association. This project is a social housing program. Its aim was to improve the quality of life and safety in the Uniacke Square community by working together on shared priorities at the grassroots level and empowering the local residents to take a proactive role in improving their community.
This initiative was a success and paved the way for a new program that received $1.9 million in funding over four years from the National Crime Prevention Center. The funding will support our new Youth Advocate Program and we know we will create a healthier, more positive community for our young people.
These initiatives are proof of what can be accomplished when governments work together. The federal, provincial and municipal body proposed as an option in your report is a wonderful start. However, municipalities need more than one voice at the table to ensure the diversity and range of our issues are effectively represented.
In the context of HRM's needs, we reiterate the position the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has recommended in its national action plan on housing and homelessness. These recommendations include five target areas.
First, end chronic homelessness in 10 years.
Second, expand the stock of affordable, non-market housing by 15 per cent over the total annual housing starts each year. Over the next 25 years, HRM expects a demand of almost 60,000 new housing units or an average of 2,300 per year. Fifteen per cent of this total represents 350 units. We think that goal will be accomplished.
Third, reduce a backlog of core housing needs by over 25 per cent in ten years. In the Halifax Regional Municipality, there are over 20,000 households in core housing needs. While the ideal goal is to eliminate all core housing needs, this modest target can also be achieved but, again, not without help and clear public policy direction from senior governments. For example, the Nova Scotia Municipal Government Act needs to be amended to be more enabling in this area.
Fourth, preserve and modernize the existing social housing stock and renew existing subsidies. Existing social housing stock in HRM is at tremendous risk. Limited repairs and capital improvements have led to deteriorating conditions. Social housing already carries a negative stigma. Housing needing repair only increases that stigma.
Fifth, extend and revise the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, RRAP, to improve conditions of existing private stock. This program has provided assistance to homeowners and landlords to improve housing conditions and make sure adequate housing is affordable. This program is successful and needs to be continued.
All these targets are reasonable and achievable. However, municipalities cannot reach them alone. Housing policy and poverty reduction are linked and require a concerted effort among all participants. Canada lacks a national housing policy. While municipalities like HRM can undertake their own initiatives, funding must continue and even be enhanced. HRM is not mandated to provide subsidized housing or social assistance payments to individuals, but we have a role to play. Allowing municipalities to sit at the same table as federal and provincial governments will help ensure these types of issues are resolved to achieve our mutual goals of reducing poverty and ensuring everyone has decent housing.
The Chair: Thank you for the words of the mayor and his perspective on things. The city has a lot of key elements in play here to try to improve living conditions for people in the Halifax Regional Municipality, and I never knew before that HRM was the acronym.
Let me turn now to the mayor of Charlottetown. We could not go to every city in Atlantic Canada. We were able to go only to St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Halifax, but we have asked people to come to Halifax and we will have people later in the day who come from other municipalities. There will be people at the roundtable this afternoon from throughout Atlantic Canada, but we are pleased to have Mayor Lee with us.
Clifford Lee, Mayor, City of Charlottetown: Chair, I want to thank you and the honourable senators for the invitation to join you today to talk about the role that municipalities can play in addressing the issue of poverty in our cities. As well, thank you for providing me with a copy of your first report of the Subcommittee on Cities of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. I think it is important that we recognize and applaud your committee for recognizing the importance of this matter and the need to take action to eliminate poverty all across Canada.
I have used your report as a basis to offer comments. However, I also believe other issues need to be included and considered in discussing this issue.
The current report considers the Employment Insurance Program and the fact that back in the early 1990s the federal government created additional restrictions, which had a negative impact on members of our community who are in need of assistance the most. Recognizing the tremendous surplus accumulated in the EI account, it is my belief that that these restrictions should be eliminated and the original intent of the Unemployment Insurance program be reinstituted.
We need to recognize that Canada has a substantial seasonal workforce. We also need to recognize that the tourism industry of our country needs these seasonal employees in order to succeed. The federal government is responsible to ensure that we have employees available to work in these industries and that these employees are not be penalized in an unfair manner. These changes in the 1990s created more strict eligibility requirements, reduced payments and a shorter period of eligibility.
Your report also considers the role of social assistance programs. It is my belief that on Prince Edward Island, and possibly throughout Canada, little attention, if any, has been given to the welfare assistance program. Why is this? I suspect it is because the most vulnerable members of our society have little, if any, political clout and it is far too easy for our politicians to ignore these citizens.
If one was to look at the current rates that are allowed under the welfare assistance programs for such basic needs as shelter, food and clothing, one would conclude that with this income, they are definitely living below the poverty line.
By providing only these low allowances, governments encourage those who receive welfare assistance to find a way to beat the system. Simply put, no individual or family on welfare assistance is able to exist at this level. We need a complete review of the rates paid and an immediate adjustment to this program.
The report also considers the issue of a national minimum wage. Again, if we are to eliminate poverty, we need to ensure that employees are paid more than the current minimum wage. I support a national minimum wage of no less than $10 per hour. I strongly recommend that we compare how other countries approach minimum wage workers who work more than the average Canadian, with no benefits.
The Government of Canada, through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has different programs to assist those in need of decent, affordable housing. However, it becomes clear that when we consider the income level they must meet to qualify for assistance, they simply cannot afford to own a home.
Ultimately, I expect that few people qualify for these programs. It is one thing for our government to talk about these new and exciting housing initiatives. However, how many Canadians are able to take advantage of these programs?
The federal government has also offered assistance to community organizations to create shelters for the homeless. Again, unfortunately, the ongoing support for operational expenses simply does not exist. Municipalities then are expected to provide operating subsidies to ensure that these shelters continue to operate. This is a classic example of municipal governments being forced to assume federal and provincial responsibilities, when the primary source of income for a city is property tax.
The report also discusses the need for support in housing. Currently, in Charlottetown, and I am sure all across Canada, many families have adults with disabilities living with their elderly parents. Unfortunately, these elderly parents pass away and the young adults are institutionalized at tremendous cost to the taxpayer. A much more reasonable approach from a cost perspective, and more importantly, a much more compassionate approach, would be to ensure an adequate supply of supportive housing for our citizens.
Your document also acknowledges the need for additional support for addiction treatment. Society has achieved some level of success in dealing with the issue of addictions. However, more needs to be done. A concentrated effort in addressing the issue of addictions on a national basis is required. Until our governments address the addiction problem, we will continue to have poverty, homelessness and, unfortunately, an escalation in crime rates and death.
The sixth issue in your report calls for cities to become partners in poverty reduction. I applaud this approach and congratulate the committee for recognizing the role of municipal governments in addressing the most basic needs of our citizens.
However, we also need to recognize the financial positions of municipal governments in this country. It is no stretch of the imagination to say that municipalities are currently struggling with their ability to provide the current services to our communities. It has often been said that municipal officials are the level of government closest to the people. I mean no disrespect to our provincial, territorial or federal government officials, but the simple reality is that city councillors and mayors are much more involved in the lives of their citizens.
Charlottetown currently provides services such as police protection and fire protection, water and sewer services, street maintenance, parks and recreational programming and support to many community organizations. These services are services that you and I use every day of our lives. Without them, communities would not exist. However, when one considers the current taxation system that Canadians are obligated to support, municipal governments receive by far the lowest level of revenue. For example, the Government of Canada collects a GST, income taxes, business taxes and the list goes on. Our provincial and territorial governments collect provincial sales taxes, income taxes, health taxes, alcohol taxes and, in Charlottetown, they even collect a residential property tax even though they provide no services to properties.
For municipalities to play a meaningful and responsible role in eliminating poverty in this country, we require a review of the national, provincial and municipal taxation systems. It is unacceptable for the government of Canada to create massive surpluses annually while municipalities continually are forced to increase property taxes or not maintain our existing services. The current system is a complete failure and, as Canadians, we need tax reform in this country if this country is to continue as the best country in the world in which to live.
I believe other issues need to be considered when addressing poverty in Canada. Currently in Canada, the cost of gasoline and home heating fuel are in the extreme. We recognize that the argument can be used that people have the option of leaving their vehicles at home and using public transit. I accept this option as a possibility in some cases. However, it appears that we are also accepting the fact that there is nothing our governments can do to address the issue of rising home heating costs. In Charlottetown last winter, there were senior citizens who had to choose between buying their medication, buying food or heating their homes. In many cases, these people could not afford all three of these basic needs. With the increase in home heating fuel since last winter, this level of poverty will only increase.
As a country, we need to recognize that these seniors are the people who made our cities, provinces, territories and, indeed, our country the great place it is today. Some of these people were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, and some did make the ultimate sacrifice, so that you and I can live with the freedoms that we enjoy today. Is this how, as a country, we thank our senior citizens. I also recognize that the high cost of fuel affects not only our senior population, but every citizen in this country.
Much is made of people on fixed incomes, but how many people in Canada are not on fixed incomes? I call on the government of Canada to remove the GST immediately on home heating fuel, and to continue to explore other options to replace the cost of home heating fuel. This current situation only adds to the level of poverty in Canada, and it requires immediate attention.
In closing, I believe that to create the solution to cities in poverty must involve all levels of government in our country. We also must involve the people who live in poverty in the process as we must understand the realities of what it means to live in poverty on a daily basis. Again, I thank you all for the opportunity to make this presentation today and I will help to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you for your frank and direct presentation. After several years at the federal level, I still believe that municipal government is the closest government to the people.
On with questions: I will start and then my colleagues will ask their questions.
With respect to Halifax, we heard earlier today from the provincial officials that the report of the Poverty Reduction Working Group is out. They have indicated some of the programs they are undertaking, but they say they still have a while to go to put into place goals, timetables and things like that.
What is the involvement of the City of Halifax and its citizens in all this process? Is the process a collaborative partnership?
Ms. Kaiser: One goal of this council and this particular administration is to improve the relationship with our provincial partners. Having worked at the municipal government level yourself, senator, you know that it can be a bit fractured sometimes. We have discovered that without that collaboration, we cannot work together. We are repairing the relationships and we have been invited to provide input that we have never been invited to provide before. Our issues are being taken more seriously. We are in the midst of a significant tax reform review in HRM and the province is open to significant changes there. At the macro level, we have great cooperation and great input.
I will ask Mr. Wendt to speak to the details surrounding the provincial government program on poverty.
Fred Wendt, Planner, Regional Planning, Halifax Regional Municipality: The only observation I would make is from the Poverty Reduction Working Group. The Mayor of Charlottetown mentioned this as well. In the survey they undertook for that report, a lot of people expressed the opinion that some sort of employment income support would be the best way of helping people out of poverty. Providing market housing and that sort of thing is what municipalities do well here in Halifax but it rated a lot lower than some of the comments about income support. As an example, the question was asked in their survey, What is the one thing that governments could do to reduce poverty? Forty-eight per cent said income and employment supports.
The Chair: What is happening, though, in terms of collaborative, cooperative efforts in this poverty reduction program initiated by the province in terms of the municipalities, in terms of municipal officials like you? Are Halifax and its officials involved in this process?
Mr. Wendt: We are becoming involved a little bit. Again, social assistance is not our territory and social housing is not our territory, but we are involved with, for example, some non-profit organizations.
Ms. Kaiser mentioned the homelessness report card. We are working with non-profits on that process. We will work with the province on an affordable housing strategy, to work out where we can take initiatives and where the province might be the player.
Ms. Kaiser: As the mayor pointed out as well, unlike a lot of other Canadian municipalities, in the province of Nova Scotia we do not have the responsibility for social housing or social assistance. In HRM at the time of the service exchange and amalgamation, we transferred the responsibility to the province for those issues. In turn, the province transferred the responsibility for hard, tangible services to the municipality. Our focus is largely on those services but as I mentioned, council and staff feel a moral obligation to deal with these community issues because we face those people in our community everyday. We are coming at it from a higher level, at the deputy minister and the minister level. For the programs that I mentioned, community collaboration blossoms into a larger program, which then allows us to seek federal and provincial funding. It is through those community-based programs and then expanding them to broader programs, and seeking funding from the other levels that we seem to have our best traction at the community level.
The Chair: I appreciate that you do not have direct responsibility and funding for some of the social assistance programs, but as you said, Mayor Lee, you are the closest level of government to the people. You see the people in the community and their needs in a way that other government levels are unable to, so that you have that kind of perspective. You have the overall desire to see your community succeed and that means all parts of it and all government level programs.
I want to ask you about EI, which you mentioned. We hear frequently that we should bring it back to an insurance program. Aspects of EI that deal with maternity leave and training programs, for example, would you keep them in EI, or would you put them into some other program so that EI is strictly an insurance program?
Mr. Lee: No, I do not see a need to create another level of bureaucracy by separating the programs. I think we need to recognize that people drawing Employment Insurance benefits are people in need. We need to create an attitude of assisting these people. In some cases, if we look at the big picture all across Canada, we know that the skills and trades, such as plumbers, carpenters and that type of thing, are becoming more of a challenge for our industries to fill. I think we need to encourage more people to continue with training in between their jobs and that type for thing so they can better prepare themselves for other types of work down the road.
We all know what is happening to the population of Canada. That is why immigration is so important to Canada right now, to attract more people to move into Canada for the workforce and so on. Would I separate them? I do not really see a need to separate them. I think that by separating them, we create another level of bureaucracy and probably we do not see the big picture any longer. We will say, This group looks after that: We have nothing to do with them, so we will look at those that simply file a report every two weeks.
The Chair: You spent a great deal of your presentation talking about fiscal imbalance. Is this much more of a problem involving municipalities than it is a federal or provincial problem? It has been the subject of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, which I am also involved with. The committee has put out a report on that issue. This committee, also, will look further at that issue of taxation in one of its subsequent segments of dealing with cities' issues following poverty, housing, homelessness.
Senator Segal: I want to ask His Worship a question about where poverty is in Charlottetown compared to where it might have been 10 or 15 years ago. I ask both in terms of what he and his municipal officials see on the ground and whether, in his judgement, the combined efforts of the federal and provincial government are having any meaningful, positive impact on the percentage of people in Charlottetown who are living beneath the poverty line.
Mayor Lee was good enough in his presentation to say present welfare rates do not allow someone to live above the poverty line in most Canadian provinces — I agree, by the way — but that does not even embrace the larger question of the working poor. We have a phenomenon in many parts of Canada where people are holding down two or three jobs and not making enough to live on. The issue is not about lazy. It is not about they do not want to do their share; they are doing more than their share.
I met with some single mothers last night and I asked, if the Province of Nova Scotia increased the welfare income support they received, what would they do with the extra money? The answers were things like, I would save a bit so I might give my child a Christmas present, and I would save a bit so I might have a babysitter some night and go out with my girlfriends, which I cannot possibly afford to do on the present level. It is not only about Nova Scotia as I am sure we can find examples of that right across Canada.
As someone who is an elected senior official in the largest city in the province and the capital, the birthplace of Confederation where the whole idea started that we can do better working together than working apart, I want your frank assessment as to whether the situation is getting better or worse? Are we making no progress?
Mr. Lee: I have no figures to substantiate that it is getting worse, but if the phone calls I receive at City Hall are any indication, in Charlottetown, it is getting worse.
Senator Segal: Right.
Mr. Lee: As I said in my presentation, the cost of home heating oil is out of this world and there were people in Charlottetown last winter that had to make the tough decision, do I eat this month or do I keep my home heated so plumbing will not freeze up on me?
We continue to receive an increased number of calls from people saying they want to register their son for the minor hockey program or the minor baseball program, but they do not have the money to pay for the registration fee. They want to know if there is a way he can get in without all his other teammates knowing that someone else paid his registration fee because, unfortunately, as they say, kids can be cruel to each other. There are some things we do quietly, that we do not make an issue of, that nobody wants to hear about.
However, I have no indication that things are getting any better in P.E.I. I think they are getting worse and if we continue to ignore what is happening today, it will not get any better. Until we address the issue of what people pay for home heating oil, poverty will increase. It was great for the Government of Canada to announce a new tax incentive program to deal with the issue of child obesity, but how many people cannot afford to wait until income tax time to claim that tax benefit when they file their income tax return because they do not have the $200 or $300 to register Johnny or Sally in the minor hockey program?
We are making great political announcements. They look good and they sound great, but at the end of the day, there are too many people they are no good for. They do not matter to these people.
Senator Segal: Let me ask you then about the principle that was in your presentation, which, I think, the vast majority of Canadians would agree with: the principle that our municipal governments are closer to, connect more readily with and are better understood by the people than governments more remote, provincial or federal. One of the burdens of decisions made in Charlottetown some 140-odd years ago was that we have section 91 and section 92 of the Constitution, and the municipalities, under section 92, are creatures of the provinces. Without going into who is right or should have more or less, as the case may be, it strikes me that if we take your principle that for the people of Charlottetown, Halifax or Kingston, Ontario, where I come from, the best of all answers would be to have the revenue base and the cash at the most local level.
If you decided in Charlottetown that giving an advance, a quiet subsidy for kids to go into organized hockey was the right thing to do, you and your fellow city councillors can make that decision without somebody in Ottawa saying that it violates a section of the federal Income Tax Act.
Governments tend to use the instruments they have. Those instruments may be disconnected from the reality on the ground where people live their lives, but it strikes me that municipalities have more flexibility for the reasons that you and your colleagues in the senior public service of HRM have referenced. If that is the case, then, in terms of issues like poverty and homelessness, would we not be better off ensuring that the municipalities have all the cash they need and having Ottawa and the provinces withdraw a little bit from this area where they appear to have a chokehold on the revenue, and letting the municipalities get on with the task? It would have to be an equalized revenue base because of the constitutional principle of equalization, which we all embrace and accept, so that you could do the job yourselves. In terms of your tools and instruments, as duly-elected mayor of the sovereign city of Charlottetown, is that a better way to get on with the job than the world within which you now have to work?
Mr. Lee: Under today's circumstances, and I will not sit here and pretend that I have all the answers and that I can do a better job than the provincial or federal elected officials, as a country we need to understand that we have one taxpayer. The person that pays taxes to the government of Canada, to the provinces and to the municipalities is all the same individual. Taxpayers do not care who is receiving their tax dollars. They know how much money they are paying in taxes. As a country, we need to ask who provides the most basic services. If any community across Canada did not have a police department, fire department, water and sewer, the parks programs and everything, what kind of country would we have? Yet, at the end of the day, the percentage of revenue that the Canadian taxpayer is paying that goes to municipalities is unfair. We have heard for years of the federal government ending year after year with surplus budgets in Ottawa. We fail to recognize that surplus money belongs to the taxpayers of Canada, the same people that pay property taxes in Halifax and in Charlottetown, yet the City of Charlottetown and, I am sure, many other municipalities across Canada are struggling to provide the basic services we are expected to provide, such as police protection.
We recently signed a contract with our police union in Charlottetown and it calls for a 3 per cent wage adjustment year after year for the next three years. Where does that 3 per cent come from? I have the option of increasing property taxes 3 per cent, but that is not fair to the taxpayer because that taxpayer is over-taxed as it is today. We need to address the taxation system honestly in this country if municipalities will ever be able to play an effective, meaningful role in the bigger picture.
Should municipalities be more involved: definitely. I think it is irresponsible for any elected official at any level to pick up a magic book and say, this document says the City of Charlottetown can be involved only in these areas. Being a creature of the Province of P.E.I., we are not allowed to be involved in the social assistance programs. However, as an elected official, supposedly a leader in our communities, how do we pick up the book, then put the book down and say, talk to your MP or to your provincial MLA.''
Senator Segal: Right.
Mr. Lee: It does not work at the end of the day for that citizen and we fail to recognize that we are dealing with people and their lives. I do not believe in telling people, you are talking about an issue that is a provincial responsibility so go down the street and talk to them. It does not work.
I do not know if I answered your question.
Senator Segal: That is helpful.
I want to ask a question of Ms. Kaiser and her colleague from the City of Halifax. You talked about 52,000 people living beneath the poverty line. I think I heard officials from the province say earlier that the number of people on income assistance province-wide is slightly smaller. You are clearly talking about not only people on income assistance but about people in HRM who may or may not be on income assistance, and they are living beneath the poverty line, as far as you can tell. Using the Statistics Canada low income cut-off, I am interested in how you came up with that number.
Mr. Wendt: Senator, that is correct: We are using Statistics Canada low income cut-off information. I apologize. I do not have the definition.
Senator Segal: No, that is understandable.
Mr. Wendt: It is a number from Statistics Canada.
Senator Segal: Of the 350,000 that I think we are looking at, about 16 per cent of the population, that number is a little bit above the national average, but parts of the country are worse. However, that number makes the case that for all the billions we are spending, and the millions that are spent in Nova Scotia in good faith to solve the problem, the number is not getting any better. Is it your view that the number is not getting any better; that it is getting worse?
Ms. Kaiser: That is my view.
When I had said earlier that we are spending just under $2 million annually from tax rebates, $1.3 million I think it is, to assist people so they can stay in their homes, we do not have the capacity at the municipal level to expand that program. We have the demand. Ideally, every year we would like to increase the cap based on cost-of-living increases.
Senator Segal: Of course.
Ms. Kaiser: We are not able to increase that cap.
Senator Segal: That is because your revenue base does not move with inflation. It is tied to property tax, which is the most regressive possible source.
Ms. Kaiser: That is correct. We see that more and more calls are coming into our recreation department. Part of the municipal tax purse goes to a subsidy program for children and families living in low incomes in order to subsidize a recreation program, so I do not see that the situation is improving. I see that demand is growing. Because we are reliant by over 85 per cent on property taxes as our income source, we are in a position of being less and less able to respond to what we feel is our moral obligation to the community. The position is a difficult one for municipalities to be in; to take that phone call and listen to that resident pleading. As Mayor Lee said, we cannot say, sorry, that is the responsibility of the provincial or federal government; we will refer your call.
The citizens and the taxpayers want to go to their government, at whatever level government is most accessible, and there is an expectation that we will meet their most basic needs.
The Chair: Good answer.
Senator Munson: A theme seems to be developing this morning. In listening to Mr. Ryan from the Government of Nova Scotia, the term ``energy poverty'' was used, although I do not think we explored it enough. Perhaps Mayor Lee would like to address it as well.
In other words, Nova Scotia has a new program. Mr. Ryan talked to me afterwards and said, I wish we had an opportunity to explore energy poverty a bit more; we have these new programs in place; we are confident we can do this; and we can get things done.
However, with energy poverty, the concern is the same concern that Mayor Lee has, the challenges to heat people's homes and, of course, there is a worry and a fear out there. We have 103 options in front of us right now, which we will whittle down over a period of time and we hope to have a report completed in early spring.
In relation to energy poverty, Mr. Lee, you described clearly the choices that people have. What should we recommend? How should we approach this issue because more people within the homeless group and also other groups will face this issue? Thousands more across the country will go into this new group and somebody has to pay for this poverty. If you would both approach this issue, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Lee: From my perspective, the first thing we have to recognize is taxation. There should not taxes on any basic goods or services that we all need to live; things such as shelter including the rent or the mortgage, the home heating bill, groceries and those types of things. I do not believe there should be taxation on basic needs. Is there a way, through creation of other programs such as alternative heating, insulation programs, retrofits to homes and that type of thing, to make properties more energy efficient? Sure, but today, my concern, frankly, is that the summer is coming to an end. I know how many phone calls I received last winter from citizens of my community saying, I have no oil. What do I do? I do not have the name of an oil company that will provide free oil to people that do not have the money to pay for it. It will only be worse this year. I know a 5-per-cent GST elimination by the Government of Canada will not solve the problem, but it will assist, and it will send a message that home heating oil is a basic need. Why are we paying taxes on basic goods and services? I do not think we should. I know we need to continue to explore other initiatives such as energy efficient homes, renovations and that kind of thing, but I do not have all the answers.
The Chair: What percentage of islanders depend upon oil for their heating? Is it virtually all of them?
Mr. Lee: Yes, there are few who do not. Some rural islanders continue to use wood stoves and that type of thing, but clearly the majority are oil consumers.
Ms. Kaiser: I am not sure I totally agree that there should not be a tax on commodities that are required for basics because those who can afford them have the ability to subsidize those that cannot. I think it may be an important revenue loss to achieving our ends and so, possibly, there should be a way of making a subsidy available.
Something that Mayor Lee said is that for many of the programs that are offered at the provincial and federal level, they are refunded after they have done the work, paid the fee and undertaken the expense. For most of the people who are in poverty, struggling to stay in their own homes and to maintain a roof over their head, these programs are not available to them. The uptake is low because they either do not have the financial resources or they are coping with so much in their life, they cannot sit down and put together a business plan or an application to have their home insulated. For our elderly people, especially, living in their own homes is beyond them.
A solution may be to make the administration of the programs and the application for the programs available at the community level through the municipalities' customer service centers. We think, as more municipalities move to centralized customer service centers and we involve our provincial partners, there is a wonderful opportunity, too, to bring in Services Canada, so we provide one-stop shopping for our residents. We demonstrate to them that we are one government here for the good of the people. Those kinds of things make it so much easier for the citizen, especially those that are poorly resourced, to stop, feel welcomed, understand what the program is about and to have hands on deck to support them through those programs.
Senator Munson: Philosophically, I believe the federal government should play a central role in working with municipalities and provinces on national programs. That is where my political bias comes from.
I was struck by what Mayor Lee said about elderly parents passing away and young adults being institutionalized. I always need to mention my cause of dealing with autism and children with autism, and what may happen to them. In our report of this committee, we had a report called Pay Now Or Pay Later. The report said there must be national programs and that autism has no borders; poor, rich or whatever. First, do you or Mr. Lee believe in a national strategy and a collaborative approach to dealing with autism and that there be a level playing field across the country where, yes, there are provincial deliverables. On a per capita basis, as a nation, particularly in Atlantic Canada, people will not necessarily go to Alberta to make money in the oil sands or to British Columbia or Manitoba. We witnessed a story here in Nova Scotia a couple of weeks ago where a surgeon and his wife picked up and went off to Manitoba to access proper care. I want your perspective in dealing with that issue. I know the struggles that provinces and cities are going through in funding these programs. It is tough in P.E.I. and Nova Scotia.
Mr. Lee: Yes, certainly, I support a national program. However, I think the national programs must recognize that we need rules, regulations and everything else for any program but at the end of the day, there must be some type of flexibility for the caseworkers to make adjustments to fit individual circumstances. A national program sounds great, but at the end of the day, I think we need some level of flexibility so that the caseworkers and the professionals in the field are able to deal with individual cases and individual differences that may occur, as opposed to saying: you have to do this, this and this, and if you do not meet any of these requirements, then you do not receive consideration. I think some type of flexibility must be built in.
Ms. Kaiser: Nova Scotia probably has the greatest aging population. I expect the Atlantic Provinces do, which means that we are creating situations where more young adults with disabilities need to be institutionalized or need to have alternate care. When the per capita funding formula is considered, if the program is aimed at people with disabilities or an aging population, perhaps the whole demographic picture can be taken into consideration; need based on the demographics of the community. If the program is aimed at seniors, perhaps the more seniors there are in the community, the larger the share of money or provincial money that is transferred for those purposes.
Senator Munson: One of our options was to appoint a national poverty commissioner with the same status as an auditor general or an officer of Parliament, reporting directly to Parliament and dealing with this issue on a national level. Do you agree with that option, for the record, and also creating a ministry and secretary of state for poverty? In Newfoundland and Labrador, when we brought it up, somebody said, do not make it a junior ministry; make it a real ministry involving poverty reduction, housing and homelessness and the poverty commissioner. What are your views on those two points?
Mr. Wendt: The question to ask is, would it not be preferable to have a strategy integrated among all departments and all workings of government and all levels of government? We want to avoid silos so one department does not say, we do not have to worry about this issue because another department is taking care of it. My observation is that it is a risk in something like that.
The Chair: Now we go to Senator Jane Cordy, who is from right here in Nova Scotia, and she lives in the HRM.
Senator Cordy: Yes, that is another story, is it not?
These presentations have been excellent and you have all been open and direct in answering the questions, so we appreciate it. I want to ask about the issue of housing, and we have heard a lot about it, both in Ottawa and when we were in Newfoundland Labrador. You talked about it this morning and I know there are waiting lists for social housing. I was in Cape Breton last week and heard about somebody who is still waiting in the hospital for a senior's placement and they expect she will be in the hospital for two years, no less, which is not an optimum condition, but I will not go into that.
I will talk about the working poor, which was referred to earlier this morning by the panellists. I think the chair referred to it and it was one of the things we heard from municipal officials in St. John's. I am wondering if it is true in Charlottetown and HRM that developers are building condominiums now, and not apartment buildings. The challenge is that the working poor who are able to afford their own housing in an apartment cannot afford the down payment on a $200,000 condo. They are noticing a shortage of vacancy units in the city of St. John's and that was one of the suggestions we had heard before we went to St. John's. Are you seeing the same things in Charlottetown and HRM? One thing we heard previously was that there should be funding for developers or builders to build apartment units, not subsidized housing, as such, but affordable safe housing for the working poor in the cities. Are you finding this to be the case in the cities?
Mr. Wendt: Senator, on your first point, the latest report from CMHC, the Rental Market Report, shows that the vacancy rates across HRM have been steady over the last 10 years at about 3 per cent, which is what they describe as an equilibrium market. There are enough units on the market; there is enough supply and demand, if you will.
In pockets, that is a different story. For instance, the vacancy rate on the peninsula of Halifax is slightly higher than that. Nonetheless, vacancy has been steady.
The second part of your question, I think, dealt with tenure. Can we require developers to produce rental apartments versus ownership housing? Under the legislation we are covered under, we are not able to dictate tenure.
In fact, in a landmark court decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled some time ago that governments are not able to dictate tenure, so we do not have that ability. I guess that answers your question. We would like to do that, or we might think that we would like to do that, but we are not able to.
Ms. Kaiser: We are looking to the provincial government to change the Municipal Government Act to allow us to require that, when developing housing stock, a certain percentage of those units must be affordable housing.
As with many other municipalities across Canada, we want to avoid segregating the poor and low-income people into social housing complexes. We see the opportunity for integration into middle-income and upper-income communities as having a positive benefit for the whole community and for the diversity of the community.
Obviously, I expect there will be significant resistance from the developers as they are in business for their profit margin and they seek to make a profit. If the federal and provincial governments want to ensure that the municipalities move forward with that change, perhaps an income tax incentive to the developers to make that option more palatable might be something the federal government might consider.
Mr. Lee: From the perspective of Charlottetown, the situation is probably similar to Halifax. I do not think we have a major vacancy issue in Charlottetown. I think the units are available. In regards to condominium development in Charlottetown, it has become a relatively new option for housing in the last four or five years. Working poor and people in poverty will not live in a condo development. However, I do not think we need to eliminate or discourage condominium development because it is an option that a lot of people are interested in pursuing and taking up, especially in later years of their lives when they are able to sell their family homes because all their kids have moved on in their own lives with their own families.
I do not think condominiums are part of the issue at all. I am not sure I understood your suggestion that if someone was prepared to build rental units that were not subsidized, that some type of incentive would be offered to those developers. My initial reaction would be, why offer someone an entitlement if there is no social gain to it? At the end of the day, the developer ends up putting up a 20-unit apartment building. They will still charge market rents and if the rent is $800 or $900 a month for an apartment in those developments, we still are not addressing those in poverty and the working poor because they are not able to pay $800 or $900 a month in rent. Yet, the developer ends up with a tax incentive or a grant.
The Chair: At one time, programs like limited dividend or multiple unit residential building, MURB, programs put on a cap to ensure that the rental units would be at the low-end of the market, and that is what the tax incentive would be provided for. That is the kind of scheme.
Senator Cordy: We heard this suggestion in some of our hearings, so it is good to hear those responses from the smaller cities in our country. I was also on a committee dealing with aging and the aging population, and we talked about the standards for safe, affordable housing that would meet the needs of those with disabilities and would meet the needs of us who are fortunate enough to be aging. Is that a municipal responsibility to determine standards? Are you involved at all? I know the province builds the housing, but are you involved at all in the criteria for the standards of the apartments and units that are built?
Mr. Wendt: We address standards in the building code and I have the feeling we have limited ability to require a higher standard than, for instance, wheelchair ramps and that sort of thing for private homes. We might be a little hamstrung to require those things.
Ms. Kaiser: We have two types of developments: as-of-right development and then the development that depends on the development agreement. Where a development agreement is required, the developer meets with the community, and the community dictates as much as they can or it influences a type of development, the nature of the development and the composition of the housing stock.
Because of that high level of community development, often the community is able to encourage the developer to move beyond what is required by law or by standards to provide accessible housing. We have found that the developers in our area are open to that input.
Mr. Wendt: One point to add, though, is that notwithstanding Senator Segal's suggestion that municipalities have a lot of flexibility, unfortunately, we do not have a lot of flexibility. We are dictated to by the Municipal Government Act and we are not allowed to do things that are not enabled in the act. We would like to have it the other way around: You can do all of these things except this. Unfortunately, it is the other way around: We are able to do only these items. For instance, a developer might want to put in a senior citizens apartment building. They agree to that and the community is in favour of that, but we cannot hold them to that requirement. We are not able to do that.
Senator Cordy: Halifax has been designated as an age-friendly city and many of the things they would do for the aging population are wonderful for the rest of the city. In relation specifically to housing and transportation, what makes Halifax, as an age-friendly city, different from another city that is not designated as an age-friendly city? What types of things are you doing?
Ms. Kaiser: Our mayor is aging as is our senior staff and 58 per cent of our senior administration can retire within the next two years, so are we totally committed to it. I do not think we are doing enough. We are delighted to be able to say that Halifax is an age-friendly city. Given our topography and those who have to walk uphill and downhill, we darn well better be doing as much as we can. We do what many other municipalities typically do with the low-floor buses, accessible transportation, Access-A-Bus for those with disabilities and moving into the rural transit system. However, I think we may not deserve the reputation as being age-friendly when I look proactively at what we are doing for housing and things like that.
Again, it goes back to the fact that under the Municipal Government Act, the province prescribes what we can do, and there are limitations to being more effective in determining what we want for our communities.
In asking the provincial government for our own municipal charter, we have taken a page out of Toronto's book. It did not pass third reading at the last sitting of the house. We will continue to lobby for our charter, which should be more enabling for our municipality.
Senator Cordy: Does that mean we will not have an escalator from Water Street to Brunswick Street?
Ms. Kaiser: Maybe we will. I need one.
Senator Segal: I want to drill down for a second into the housing issue. It strikes me that if we look at the sort of broad sweep, the last 25 years, when various jurisdictions brought in rent control, a lot of developers said, why would I build apartments when I cannot get the return that I need? They built condominiums and other things. We have seen that. In Canada, we have tended to use instruments like rent control because we concluded that a lot of people do not have what they need. They cannot pay the rent that has to be paid, and we want to help them out.
The other thing we have had is federal, provincial and municipal programs to build low-cost supply, so that people can afford that supply.
Another approach, of course, is an approach that we see amongst our European friends, which is to say that if anybody's rent rises above a certain percentage of their total income, whether they be aged, a young working couple, a couple who may be in difficulty or a couple who may have various disadvantages, then the tax system gives them the amount necessary. Some call it a rent subsidy. Some call it a housing allowance. By the way, in Europe, in some jurisdictions, they can apply before they file their tax in 12 months time, so they receive the cash in advance, as we do now with the GST tax credit, which is called something else here in the Maritimes.
However, it strikes me that we have to think about it. We cannot do both things. We cannot find a subsidized supply so it is affordable if we do not deal with the fact that individuals will have circumstances that change. If people are in poverty, they work their way out of poverty, but sometimes they slip back in. We also know, as good social policy, putting all the seniors in one part of town and all the low-income people in another part of town — warehousing them — is the worst thing to do; isolating folks from each other and breaking up the whole idea of community.
From the point of view of efficiency on the ground, for you as mayor and you as senior municipal officials, would it not be better if we knew we had a system in place with respect to housing that meant Nova Scotians, Islanders and Canadians whose rent rose above, let us say, 25 per cent of their total income, would receive systemic support through taxes so they would have the money to afford the rent?
We would not need separate deals with separate developers to produce special projects, which are never enough, if I understand the numbers. Are we ``piecemealing'' ourselves to death when there is a more fundamental answer that relates to what poverty is, which is not having enough money for the basics of food, heating, clothing and shelter. I worry that we are walking around the elephant and dealing with this toe with a broken nail and this tail, but we are not actually dealing with the core question which, for 12 per cent to 15 per cent of our population and in some cases more, is that they do not have enough to cope. Can you give a quick reaction because I know the chair will cut me off instantly.
Mr. Lee: In P.E.I., we still have rent control. It is administered through the P.E.I. Regulatory and Appeals Commission. The landlords must go through the commission on an annual basis and the commission makes their ruling that rents are allowed to increase by 2 per cent across the province this year. It seems to me that if we are talking about a program to assist with keeping individuals' rents in check with their ability to pay, then maybe the system should be set up to deal with the individual or the family, as opposed to developers or the landlord.
Senator Segal: Fair enough.
Ms. Kaiser: Agreed.
Senator Munson: I wanted to ask the mayor a question because he did not have an opportunity to respond to the two options about a poverty commissioner with the same powers as an auditor general, a ministry dealing with homelessness and housing and so on. What are your views on poverty reduction?
Mr. Lee: My view is that we can create as many departments, organizations and divisions as we want. What we need, though, is an organization where all three levels of government truly work together to address the issues seriously. If that means we create a brand-new organization, then so be it, but I think the mindset has to be there. I am not sure at this point that it is a continual mindset across the country.
Great things are happening in Canada and I do not suggest they are not. I mentioned earlier about the tax credit when they file their income tax for kids that are registered in sports programs. That is a great initiative. I support it. However, I think we need to recognize that a lot of people in Canada cannot reach that point. They cannot pay the minor hockey fees and everything else. I think the mindset has to change, and I think all three levels of government have to be part of that change.
The Chair: An instrument called an Urban Development Agreement has been used in Winnipeg to some success, and also in Vancouver. In these cases, they have taken specific issues and, by and large, they are poverty and homelessness issues, but they have taken it on a place-specific kind of basis.
They have brought together, through agreements, the different orders of government. They sit at the same table — they have community people there as well — and they have goals and objectives with respect to dealing with the issues.
The agreement in Vancouver deals with the Downtown Eastside, which is a complex, challenging endeavour. In Winnipeg, in the downtown, there is a substantial Aboriginal population and that becomes a focus of a lot of the work they do.
Thinking about what Mr. Wendt said earlier that this is a horizontal kind of approach, does that have merit, do you think? Would you like to see urban development agreements for some of these key issues? They would be place-specific. Poverty, housing and homelessness are broad issues across the whole country, but there are pockets in my city, for example, and we have identified 13 neighbourhoods particularly that are having difficulty in this regard. What do you say about urban development agreements?
Ms. Kaiser: I think the concept is a great one. I think it requires the three levels of government to collaborate. The municipality is extremely well-positioned to deliver services on the ground and to work with the provincial partners in ensuring sustainability of the initiatives that are undertaken. With a federal framework of funding and predictable funding to support these kinds of urban renewal initiatives, I think it is a sound instrument and has a possibility to make significant impacts at the community level.
Mr. Lee: Yes, I tend to agree, I think. In Charlottetown, we have development agreements as well, and they are all part and parcel of the zoning and development by-law. In Charlottetown, we have an area that is designated as a comprehensive development area, which means nothing can happen in that area without approval of city council. That gives council in the neighbourhood, the citizens, the opportunity to have a lot of input into the exact development. It can control things such as the height of the building, number of units and the amount of green space surrounding development. A lot of developers come in and want to pave everything. They put up their building and everything else is pavement. As a result, there is no place for the youth and the people that live in that complex to enjoy the outdoors. We utilize development agreements in Charlottetown, and a lot of them are controlled through our zoning and development by-law.
The Chair: Thank you to all three of you. You have been helpful to us. You have brought us the perspective of the level of government closest to the people and we appreciate your time with us today.
The committee adjourned.