Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Cities
Issue 4 - Evidence, June 3, 2009
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 3, 2009
The Subcommittee on Cities of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 4:15 p.m. to examine and report on current social issues pertaining to Canada's largest cities.
Senator Art Eggleton (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I call this meeting to order.
[Translation]
Welcome to the Subcommittee on Cities. We are presently studying poverty, housing and homelessness.
[English]
Today we will focus on local poverty reduction strategies in the first segment. We will adjourn no later than 5:20 and then we will have a provincial government perspective, with the Honourable Deb Matthews from the Government of Ontario.
I will introduce our witnesses, who will contribute to our understanding of local poverty strategies today. First, on our screen from Montreal, Alain Noël, who is a professor in the Department of Political Science and Director of the Centre of Research at the University of Montreal.
[Translation]
He is the Director of the Interuniversity Research Centre on Economic and Social Change at the University of Montreal.
[English]
He is also a member of the Advisory Council of the Institute of Intergovernmental Relations at Queen's University in Kingston.
Tom Gribbons has a long history in the financial service industry in Saint John, New Brunswick. He currently chairs Vibrant Communities Saint John Leadership Roundtable, an organization dedicated to drastically reducing poverty in that city. He is also director of the Greater Saint John Community Foundation, past president of the Saint John Board of Trade and finance director of Enterprise Saint John.
Here at the table with us in Ottawa is Liz Weaver, who is the director for the Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction, which is a cross-sectoral community initiative with a strategic focus on poverty reduction and the aspiration of making Hamilton the best place to raise a child. She is also currently a member of the board of directors of Parks and Recreation Ontario and is involved in the Ontario Task Group on Access to Recreation for Low-Income Families.
Welcome to the three of you. We will start with Mr. Noël.
[Translation]
Alain Noël, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Montreal: Mr. Chair, I will address the committee in French but I would request that you ask your questions in English since I will only listen to the English channel and not the French one. Is it possible for me not to hear the translation of what I am saying?
[English]
The Chair: I could not help you on the technicalities. While you are speaking you could remove your earpiece.
Mr. Noël: I will speak in English because the echo is a bit disconcerting.
Three questions were proposed for this exchange today. The first question was whether provincial poverty reduction strategies are supported or hindered in one manner or another by the programs or the policies of the federal government. The second question was whether the federal government should do more or better to sustain provincial strategies. The third question was whether the federal government should adopt a pan-Canadian strategy for poverty reduction.
On the first question I will basically refer to the Quebec experience because that is the one I know best and also because it is the longest, followed by Newfoundland and Labrador, in terms of having a concerted effort at poverty reduction, which started with the law in 2002 in Quebec and then with an action plan in 2004. We are entering into discussions and exchanges across the province on the next action plan, starting with a broad national forum on June 15.
The Quebec government has undertaken a number of measures to address poverty, to reduce poverty, and many of these measures have to do with the restructuring of transfers to persons and families. The results are positive. In recent years we have seen a decrease in poverty rates in Quebec that is unmatched by other provinces' trajectories, so we can see that the policies have made a difference.
A question was raised as to where the federal government fits in this picture. In a way, it does not. This is not only because of the role the federal government has played or not played, but the Quebec government has not followed its strategy in reference to federal policies, and so it has basically been designed on two separate tracks.
Nevertheless, the federal government obviously plays a role because transfers to persons come from Ottawa; transfers to the provincial government come from Ottawa. Ottawa has policies regarding children, daycare services, education, of course Employment Insurance; and last in this list but not least, the federal government is also responsible for Aboriginal peoples in Canada who face major problems with poverty.
The two governments have basically acted on separate tracks, and this has not hurt as much as hindered Quebec's strategy because it was premised on basically Quebec jurisdiction; nevertheless, some coordination could have been achieved and the federal government could have acted with more purpose in its own competencies.
On the second question, what should the federal government do to sustain provincial poverty reduction strategies, I think I am quoted in the previous report of this committee as saying the federal government should primarily do what it does well, what it should do. That is to say, it should focus first on its jurisdictions, and there are many. I mentioned various issues. There is one success story in federal intervention against poverty, and it regards people over age 65: pensions. Canada is sort of a success story internationally with respect to the income support for people over 65. This is not a success that we can rest assured is sustainable. It is to some extent sustainable, but a crisis is unfolding in private pensions that will have very important consequences for people over 65, so that is an issue that the federal government should be concerned with.
Of course, on the agenda now is Employment Insurance. I will not say any more.
I mentioned Aboriginal peoples. The way taxes, income and other taxes, are structured is extremely important, and taxes have not been designed or thought of so much in relation with the distribution of income and poverty in Canada, and we should think more about this.
Finally, a very important role for the federal government is played through Statistics Canada, which provides us measures on where we are and how we have been doing and so on; Statistics Canada has a role to play. In Canada we have relied for too long on a measure of poverty that is outdated and unsustainable — the LICO measure, the low income cut-off.
Now provinces that are beginning to think about poverty are proposing different measures. In Quebec we are very interested in the market basket measure that was developed by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, HRSDC. Statistics Canada should play a role in building up this measure. Ontario is more interested in the low-income measure similar to what Europeans use, and perhaps a deprivation index. There is a very important role for Statistics Canada in coming up with measures that would be of interest to the different governments in the country.
The third question is whether there should be a federal strategy. New Brunswick is in the consultation phase now, so six provinces with New Brunswick have manifested an action plan, a law or a strategy. Obviously, given what I have said about the important role the federal government plays, I think it would be a good idea for the federal government to address the issue explicitly, to give itself clear objectives, clarify the instruments that are within the jurisdiction of the federal government and that should be used to reduce poverty in Canada. It needs clear objectives with timetables and a strategy to measure the results and so on to achieve accountability.
The federal government could also play a role in encouraging the exchange of information across governments in Canada, coordination between federal and provincial governments more than now and collaboration across governments around best practices information and so on and finally in the development of indicators and measures through Statistics Canada.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. You have given us some basis for questions. I am sorry about the problem with the feedback, the electronics. We were able to translate at this end as you were speaking in French, but I understand the problem you are experiencing.
I will now go to the other side of our video and ask Tom Gribbons from Saint John, New Brunswick to give us his opening remarks.
Tom Gribbons, Chair, Vibrant Communities Saint John Leadership Roundtable: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the invitation to participate. I spoke to another subcommittee back in June of 2007. I represent a group called the Business Community Anti-Poverty Initiative, and we would like to congratulate you on your report on poverty that was issued a year ago. We think it is an excellent compendium of issues and options going forward.
If we can leave you with one mention today, you have done your homework and now we urge you to convince your colleagues on the Hill that poverty reduction must become a national priority and push for change.
I applaud how the province of Quebec has led the provinces in the country with their poverty reduction strategy. We in New Brunswick are simply going through the process now and hope by the end of this year to have a provincial strategy in place, but certainly in the case of Saint John and our businesses, we have stepped up and have a poverty reduction strategy. We eagerly anticipate working with the Government of Canada.
I will give you a little bit of background. The Business Community Anti-Poverty Initiative, BCAPI, started 12 years ago when a group of business leaders in the city came together to address the serious issue facing the community. At that time, more than one third of our city's children were living in poverty; well over 28 per cent of the population of the city was living below the poverty line. As business leaders, we knew very little about it and how to fix the problem, but we knew we had to do something to help, so we formed the Business Community Anti-Poverty Initiative.
The first important step was to undertake a study of poverty to find out more about it. We engaged Deloitte and basically learned that women and children were the most affected, particularly single-parent families. We also learned that low-income families were clustered in the oldest and poorest neighbourhoods of Saint John, neighbourhoods that our communities are ashamed to call ours. Our study concluded that single-parents, despite their best efforts, were stuck in poverty and that if we could change their future, poverty would be drastically reduced in Saint John.
The second important step was to focus our work, because poverty was too big and too vast to tackle all at once. We had to focus on a number of key areas. Our research told us that education is the key to economic self-sufficiency. Our job was to put in place the right combination of services and support so that children in poverty could succeed in school and their parents could train for decent jobs. We have chosen to work in five low-income neighbourhoods where investments are most needed and we can work alongside families to learn together how to do this better.
The third step was to acknowledge that we could not do this work by ourselves. We had to rally and engage Saint John's leaders and experts from every sector to help create the changes we were aiming to achieve. This whole multi-sectoral concept was very important. That has been the key to any success we have had thus far.
Where are we? It is a decade later. More children are graduating from high school. The lives of some families are improving and so are Saint John's neighbourhoods.
However, there is more to do. Today, the number of children who live in poverty in our city has dropped from one in three to one in four. We are making progress. Ten years ago the rate of poverty in the city of Saint John was over 28 per cent. The latest Statistics Canada information from 2006 indicates that we are down to 21 per cent. Therefore, it is moving in the right direction.
We have three recommendations for you. First, in order to sell the concept of a poverty reduction strategy, we need to strengthen the economic argument for reducing poverty with established goals, targets and measures that have economic implications. Reducing poverty needs to be looked at as more than simply a social value or charitable good. Yes, it is the right, ethical and moral thing to do, but it is also a serious economic issue for Canada.
We need better measures to help us understand the economic cost of poverty and the economic benefit of helping particularly our children and young families to get out of poverty. Although people want to do social good, we are even more compelled to act when the business case is made that poverty reduction means that some form of economic gain will be there for all. It is not only social improvements.
Our businesses are facing a future where the demand for a skilled and ready workforce will exceed the supply. While immigration is one solution, we have amazing talents in our backyards waiting to be unleashed. When labour force participation rates increase in our communities, our tax base grows and more people have more money to spend.
We also believe that Canadians appear to be unaware of the public costs of poverty — at least this is the experience we have in Saint John. It is time to describe this cost to taxpayers and show how poverty reduction strategies will benefit all.
Our second recommendation is that poverty reduction work requires dedicated leadership and resources for communities. Cities are the engines of Canada and are the most affected by poverty. Our communities need senior levels of government to agree to make poverty reduction a national priority. We need to be rowing in the same direction.
Our work in Saint John would be progressing at a much faster pace if there were a federal-provincial program in place to help our city undertake this work. Tripartite agreements would be an effective way to help cities reduce their poverty rates. Why is this? Poverty reduction solutions are different for every city, every neighbourhood and every family. It is at the local level that diverse sectors are best able to join together to understand how to interlock services and fill the gaps.
We have learned that cookie-cutter and top-down programs delivered by various government departments in isolation of one another are not working very well. Our experiences have shown us that funders must collaborate at a community level in order to provide meaningful, cost-effective, flexible and comprehensive solutions.
Our third recommendation is that we believe that we need to add a springboard to the social safety net, particularly for children and families. Fundamentally, people do not want to live better in poverty, they want to get out of poverty. Our public policies and institutions are not designed, in our opinion, to help people get out of poverty. They are designed to allow them to live better and stay in poverty.
We pump an extraordinary amount of public and charitable dollars into managing the effects of poverty — illness, addictions, crime, illiteracy and long-term dependency on social assistance and social housing. Very little of this money improves the socio-economic conditions for low-income families. This has to change.
The Business Community Anti-Poverty Initiative firmly believes that it is our collective responsibility as businesses, communities and governments to help children and families get out of poverty. This takes dedicated leadership and resources.
Thank you for taking on this challenging and complex work. We share your passion. We celebrate your progress and invite you to adopt our motto at BCAPI, ``We must refuse to fail.''
The Chair: Thank you. The work you are doing is terrific. I have seen few business organizations that have tackled poverty in the way you are. It is good to hear that you are making progress.
We will come back to both of you with questions. We have heard from the province of Quebec and the city of Saint John. Now, we will hear about the city of Hamilton, Ontario. Liz Weaver will tell us about what they have been doing and what she thinks the federal government should be doing in this area.
Liz Weaver, Director, Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction: Thank you for inviting the Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction to speak this afternoon.
This is a pivotal time for our cities. Cities are trying to deal with very complex issues like poverty. The leadership that you can show at the federal government level will complement what we are seeing in the province of Ontario and in the city of Hamilton. That is transformative leadership. Together, we can make a difference on poverty reduction.
I will give you some background on the Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction. Similar to our colleagues in Saint John, the Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction was born out of a concern for our community's poverty challenge. It came together in May 2005 to understand and to act on Hamilton's high poverty rate. It wanted to bring the community's attention to the issue of poverty, to focus action and to find solutions.
It was initially co-convened by the Hamilton Community Foundation and the City of Hamilton. It is a multi-sectoral table, like our colleagues. It has 42 members around the table including business, government, the voluntary sector and 10 individuals who have the lived experience of poverty. We also reach out and include about 900 other organizations in the community. Our aspiration is to make Hamilton the best place to raise a child.
Similar to Saint John, one of our first steps was to develop an understanding of what poverty meant to Hamilton. From 2001 Statistics Canada data, we concluded that Hamilton had one of the highest poverty rates, with approximately 20 per cent of our residents living below the low income cut-off and one in four children growing up in poverty.
We adopted a framework for change that focuses on the life of a child from birth to employment; we call it ``cradle to career.'' We have identified critical points of investment through life. If we can leverage resources and focus our community's energy on these critical points of investment, we can change the trajectory for children and their families who live in poverty in our community.
The critical points of investment are quality early learning and parenting; skills through education activity and recreation; targeted skills development; those years when children transfer from high school into the workforce or post-secondary education; employment; and then asset-building and wealth creation.
This framework for change has been a seminal piece of work for us because we have been able to focus our community around these critical investment points. Focusing on poverty reduction at a municipal level can make a difference. However, we believe it can make the same kind of difference at the provincial and federal levels.
We have seen significant shifts in our community as a result of not only the roundtable's work but also the community's work collectively. We have seen a reduction in our poverty rate from 20 per cent to 18.1 per cent, which results in 6,000 fewer citizens living below the low income cut-off. This is at a time when other communities in Ontario have experienced an increase in poverty.
We have also seen 175 community-led solutions driving forward change, and 47 households, consisting of children, youth and their families, who have now increased assets, which will make their circumstances better in our community. These assets are across the range of the perspective. There are increased opportunities for early learning and parenting, increased after-school programs, and more access to skilled training and affordable housing.
We have seen a focused investment in neighbourhood leadership and the delivery of more effective and collaborative services. Over $10 million has been leveraged across the city of Hamilton through a variety of funders and both levels of government.
Those of you who know the Hamilton community will know that The Hamilton Spectator, our local media source, came on board very early. They launched their investment in the poverty reduction strategy with a blank front cover of The Hamilton Spectator. In the middle of the front page was a little box that said that the stories of people living in poverty in Hamilton do not often make the pages of The Hamilton Spectator and they aimed to change that.
In fact, over the course of the last four years, over 600 articles and blogs raising the issue of poverty in our community have happened. That has been very significant and has allowed our community to learn more about this issue and to become focused on it.
Like our colleagues, we believe that a national poverty strategy is needed. We see a lot of provincial movement, but we need the support of our federal colleagues to move this forward.
With nearly 89,000 Hamiltonians and 3.5 million Canadians living below the low income cut-off, our federal government should commit to a comprehensive and measurable poverty reduction strategy. We think the investments that the federal government makes in early learning and child care, affordable and accessible housing, employment opportunities and meaningful income supports are essential components toward moving families out of poverty. Like my colleague in Saint John, we need to focus on how to not only improve the circumstances, but also help families move across that poverty bridge.
Recently, the Ontario Association of Food Banks developed a report and looked at the cost of poverty. They identified that poverty costs the residents of Ontario a staggering $32 billion a year, the equivalent of 5.5 per cent to 6.6 per cent of the provincial GDP. The report concluded that poverty was too expensive and that society can no longer afford the cost. They called for action; and I think that this report has been instrumental to the Government of Ontario's poverty reduction strategy.
We are suggesting that a Canadian poverty reduction strategy have six key elements. The first is to establish an interdepartmental secretariat on poverty reduction. We certainly acknowledge the work that the Senate Subcommittee on Cities is doing and also the work of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
We believe a cross-sectoral approach or an interdepartmental approach to poverty is the right kind of strategy. We know that poverty is complex; it has multiple root causes, and many federal ministries and departments are engaged in some kind of income transfer that impacts individuals who live in poverty.
We also suggest that, similar to the Vibrant Communities Saint John Leadership Roundtable and the Hamilton round table, a national multi-sector panel on poverty reduction be established. When we brought the business community, government, the voluntary sector and the voices of individuals with the lived experience of poverty to the table, it enriched the understanding of Hamiltonians and the understanding of the Hamilton round table around this work.
At the round table, we have adopted a no-blame approach, which can be challenging for individuals who have the lived experience of poverty. However, it is important for us to have their voices at the table and have them join us in identifying not only the challenges that our community faces but also the solutions and to have them engaged in the solutions.
We agree with our colleagues that measurable indicators and timelines to reduce poverty are critical.
One point I would like to note is that the Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction recently listened to the Social Planning & Research Council's report on incomes and poverty in Hamilton. This report is based on data from the 2006 Census. We know that since that census data has been released, the economy has shifted significantly.
While that information is helpful to us in terms of marking trends, it is not as current and timely. However, we would advocate that the release of that data to communities to help drive change at a community level, and also at a provincial and national level, is critical. It takes a long time for that information to be transferred down to local communities.
We recognize that there will be a need for investment of resources and the creation of policies, which will help reduce and prevent poverty. We encourage you to advocate for flexible and sustainable funding and investments that will ensure maximum impact over the long term. Too often, local community efforts are hampered by short-term, focused projects, as opposed to long-term investments in communities.
Where we have seen a bit of a difference is around the national Homelessness Partnering Strategy, where there has been flexibility for local communities to help design what the community requires. There is some challenge around the shortness of that funding option, but it has allowed government, citizens, service providers and the development community in Hamilton to come together and identify strategies for that whole continuum of social housing that is effective and relevant to our community. That is the type of solution we are looking for.
My last recommendation is to recognize that while there is a need for national investment, there is also a need to look at how cities, neighbourhoods and citizens can play an instrumental part in the poverty reduction equation. We have seen citizens in our community, along with businesses, government and educational institutions — all of our partners — step up to the plate. That is both the opportunity and the challenge of focusing on cities.
The Chair: Thank you very much for those initial submissions. We will now get into the questions.
Mr. Noël, I understand you can now speak French without there being a technical feedback problem. You are welcome to do that regardless of what language the questions come in.
I will start by asking a question of all three of you. Ms. Weaver, you mentioned the need for a national poverty strategy. I thought Mr. Gribbons said much the same thing; and Mr. Noël, you specifically referenced goals and timetables at the federal level.
The solution to the issues of poverty involves people at all three levels of government, plus the community. Most of the solutions are going to come from the bottom up. I think that is recognized; you have the Hamilton round table and the Saint John effort, which are at city levels. In Quebec, there is an advisory committee that is part of the consultation for the minister with respect to the implementation of the action plan and the law in Quebec. There is recognition of the need to have a ground-up action plan.
If we get the federal government involved in a national poverty strategy, is there not a risk that there is too much top down? How would you balance that? How do you think we can get a national poverty strategy — or goals and timetables, whatever you want to call it — at the federal level without diminishing the local involvement?
Mr. Noël: First, I would not call it a national strategy. I would call it a federal strategy. It is a risk, indeed, that it is simply top down. It is especially a risk at the federal level because that government is more distant from the local communities across the country.
The only way to work with this risk is to engage in an effort to devise such a strategy in consultation and collaboration in a multi-sectoral process, where you involve social actors from across the country. That would be not only consulting them but also involving them in designing and defining the strategy. I think this is feasible.
The idea is not so much to have the federal government design what everyone in the country should do but at least have the federal government consider the implications for poverty reduction of its own policies, which are there nevertheless and have to be considered in that light. It is well worth thinking about this risk, but it should not prevent an effort in designing some plans or thoughts about a federal role in this.
Mr. Gribbons: It comes down to the fact that we need to see leadership from Ottawa; we need to see leadership on a national level, and we need to hear a statement from the Prime Minister and all senior levels of ministers in government that poverty is a cost to the country and it is holding us back. It is not in our national interest or in our federal interest to have 14 per cent or 15 per cent of the population living under the low income cut-off. Ms. Weaver described the statistics of the cost for the Province of Ontario, and we can extrapolate that over the entire country. We have not yet heard about that part of it from our national leaders on a concerted basis.
To ensure we do not diminish the effect and the enthusiasm on a local level, it then behooves the government to sit down with the local communities, or if it is a province such as Quebec or Newfoundland and Labrador where they have a provincial strategy, and work with those jurisdictions and provide the funding.
When we first started this 12 years ago, we thought we could seriously reduce the level of poverty in this community simply by providing jobs. We are business people; we thought it would be a simple, clean-cut solution. Then we learned about how this is such a difficult and complex issue. It is not just providing a job: it is child care, transportation and education. Everything else comes into it. There is no simple fix, although we thought there would be one.
Then, when we got that through our minds, we thought there would be one fix for Saint John, and we realized we had five different neighbourhoods with five entirely different sets of problems. Here we are in a small community of 130,000 people and we have to have at least five different solutions.
That is the dilemma you will run into. Therefore, there will have to be, first, will on the part of the federal government to provide resources because it is in the national interest to do so and then, through negotiation, providing the resources to let the local people get the job done. Then you get into all sorts of federal-provincial issues and negotiations that make it murky, but I think at the end of the day that is how you have to fix it.
The Chair: Mr. Gribbons, you talked about tripartite agreements, and Ms. Weaver, you talked about integrated policy and program delivery approaches. Maybe Ms. Weaver you could talk further about what vehicles might bring about that kind of cooperation and coordination without there being the threat of this top-down, run-the-show kind of thing.
Ms. Weaver: One vehicle we have adopted in Hamilton is bringing together around the same table senior level civil servants from three levels of government. We have people from the federal government, from the province and also from our municipality to look at how to plan together and grapple with this issue of poverty together and to look at what opportunities there are where investments might be leveraged particularly that will help individuals in our community.
Certainly, decisions made at the federal level have a direct impact on individuals in Hamilton, particularly around this changing economy. Many of you know that Hamilton is one of those communities that have been hit hard by the changing economy. In fact, we have been on that trajectory for a long time. We have seen a real decrease in the manufacturing sector in our community, the steel industry primarily. We have seen the increase in some other areas of employment, but over the last couple of months we have seen a huge increase in the number of Employment Insurance applicants in our community.
If these individuals cannot get access to Employment Insurance for one reason or another, then they look for help through social assistance. The social assistance rates are cost-shared between the City of Hamilton and the Province of Ontario, so the costs then are borne by our municipality, and we have seen a significant increase in our costs over the last couple of months. Since about November of last year, we have seen a significant trajectory both in Employment Insurance and in the number of applicants for social assistance benefits in our community.
There is an example where decisions that are made at a federal level around access to employment and some of the restrictions on access to Employment Insurance have a direct impact on how a community is able to cope with the individuals in the community who are facing the stress of a job loss or a layoff or the stress in their families of trying to make ends meet and having to look for sources.
I would agree with Mr. Gribbons that the federal government needs to play a role in a poverty strategy and to acknowledge that there are costs that all of us face as taxpayers by not addressing the issues of poverty in our communities.
Senator Martin: Thank you to all three presenters today. I thought you made a distinction between federal strategy and national strategy, and by that I mean with each of the provinces having developed a provincial strategy, and that model was designed with the province and the specific municipalities in mind and did not include the federal piece in there other than the fact that we have the programs that exist.
My question is regarding the federal presence. I liked the phrase ``tripartite agreement.'' Are there some things you feel the federal government could do across the provinces as opposed to specifically with your province? Also, how would the federal government work with specific provinces to ensure that it is regional and it is meeting the needs of that particular province? Each of your programs will be different and specific to your province. What role do you see our federal government playing in each of your provinces specific to the strategy that you have already designed?
Ms. Weaver: We will be hearing from Minister Matthews to discuss Ontario's Poverty Reduction Strategy in a few minutes, but certainly the federal government plays a role in early learning and parenting and investments there. We identified in our brief to you a number of areas where we think the federal government could really assist the work that is happening both at the provincial level and at the municipal level.
Certainly there are the early learning and parenting, the skills training that you provide and the programs that you provide in that area, the work that the federal government does around new Canadians and the urban Aboriginal populations and, most recently, there was an announcement around a Southern Ontario development agency in the last federal budget. We believe that that will be seminal for the region of Southern Ontario, of which Hamilton is a part, for looking at how we deal with our economic prosperity.
At the Hamilton round table we believe that prosperity and poverty are two sides of the same coin. If you do not deal with the issue of poverty in your community, you are in fact hampering the prosperity of the community. You have to look at both sides of the coin in order to build that ultimate prosperity for your community.
Mr. Gribbons: I mentioned the tripartite agreements, and we talked about them two years ago with the committee as well. We looked to the West, Senator Martin, and Western Economic Diversification Canada, which is equivalent to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, ACOA, that we have in Atlantic Canada. They have the facility to enter these tripartite agreements in urban centres, and some innovative things are taking place in Winnipeg and, if I am not mistaken, in Vancouver to try to rebuild the city centres.
Our particular federal presence through ACOA is really geared to the rural areas. We would like to be able to enter into these sorts of agreements and allow us to use it in the urban areas. The problem we have in Saint John is a little different. So far, and touch wood, the economy is very good here. We have not had the downturn in our manufacturing sector that has been witnessed in Southern Ontario. Our energy sector is very healthy and we are expanding it now, in fact. That part is good. The unemployment rate is still very low here.
In the five neighbourhoods I described earlier, four of the five have housing stock that goes back to 1938; 50 per cent is older than the Second World War. We need to rebuild this. If we could have some sort of an agreement with the federal government in conjunction with the provincial government to focus on housing through a tripartite-level agreement, that would seriously improve the situation for people who are presently living in poverty and, in our belief, give them a real leg up to get out of poverty if we have some improvement in that housing area. That is one area we think the tripartite agreement or the three-party agreements would make some sense.
Mr. Noël: I would not place as much hope on formal or tripartite or intergovernmental agreements. Some of you probably remember the Social Union Framework Agreement, but not many Canadians do because it basically did not succeed in having an influence. It was a long intergovernmental process that did not really yield results.
Of course, if we do not have agreements, as Senator Martin mentioned, that means each province will have its own way of doing things, its own programs. To me, that is perfectly fine and actually is what we should seek for many reasons. First, I think that is what federalism is about and that is a good thing in itself.
Second, we deal here with a situation where we are moving, because cities like Hamilton and Saint John and provinces like Newfoundland, Quebec and now Ontario are taking initiatives, and I think it is thanks to our federal system that this is possible. Maybe for one reason or another the federal government is not on cue on this issue, but action is taking place nevertheless because other governments are innovating, and that is the beauty I guess of federalism.
The third reason is that this is an area where we are not too sure what is best. We know about our values; we know about the costs of poverty; we know that in the end poverty is a matter of income, and so you have to think about the income transfers, but the exact workings of the programs and the best way are not so obvious.
The Europeans have tried, through the open method of coordination, to provide guidelines to the different countries, members of the European Union, with respect to social inclusion and poverty. These guidelines turned out to be fairly vague because, in a way, we are in the process of experimentation. If you think of poverty by different types of households, as I mentioned earlier, in Canada we have not entirely but largely eliminated poverty in the age group that was the worst affected by poverty until the 1970s, and that was 65 and over.
We are improving now, not fast enough, but we are making progress with families that have children. The new transfers are focused on children, and we see the difference in many provinces for families with children with one parent or two parents at home.
Where we are not so sure, and you see this in the policy debates in Canada, is what happens to working-age adults, especially single, unemployed working-age adults. How do we best support them? How do we find the right balance between redistribution and work incentives and training employment? Should we subsidize low-paid work or improve minimum wage and labour standards? There are many questions. If you look at the international literature, there are no strong conclusions on this.
It is very good that all provinces are doing different things because we will see what works.
[Translation]
Senator Segal: I have a question for Mr. Noël. If other witnesses have a comment to make, they are more than welcome. Professor Noël, in the case of seniors, we used money to deal with the problem of poverty. Today, we have less poverty among seniors than we had in the 70s.
As a federalist, I want to ask you the following question: Why is the federal government not doing the same thing for other groups living in poverty, such as older unemployed people, as it did in the case of seniors? Are we not willing, as a society, to make the same commitment to people other than seniors who live in poverty?
Do you agree with the programs launched by the federal government to deal with social issues which are under provincial jurisdiction? I do not think this is what you are looking for.
Why can we not deal with the financial issue the federal government is facing without getting into trouble with the provinces?
Mr. Noël: I think we can. This is a matter of political will. The federal government can use many tools within its jurisdiction to help people of working age who are unemployed or live in poverty, starting with the tax system.
In our society, income distribution is partly determined by the market and by governments — the federal and provincial governments, but the federal government is the main actor. The federal government determines in large part after tax income distribution for Canadians. In recent years, federal budgets introduced transfers to the working poor. These are very small, but there is an opening in that area. Transfers for children were restructured. Obviously, taxes were also reduced for people like me but there were no balancing measures for poorer people.
There is also the new tax-free savings account or TFSA. A study by Pierre Fortin said it was a good thing to introduce the TFSA to allow people to have tax-free savings.
But there should have been a similar instrument for people who cannot afford to save any money, who are poor and who are the losers with this innovation.
Thus, in many ways and within its jurisdiction, the federal government is playing this role. There is also EI. Should the federal government also intervene in areas of provincial jurisdiction, mainly through welfare? This is another matter. There is already an indirect federal intervention since transfers for children have somewhat reduced their reliance on welfare. It would be unwise to go any further because existing programs should first be improved.
I suppose the second part of the question refers to the notion of a guaranteed minimum income or to a larger federal income support program that would replace several smaller programs. I am rather skeptical about that in as much as existing programs, with all their shortcomings, reflect security rights that people fought for. You have to think carefully before turning things upside down. In public policy proposals, you say you will change this and that. However, each and every program has major implications for someone's life in Canada. You have to be careful not to change too many things all at once.
[English]
Senator Cordy: We know when we hear witnesses like you that there are good things happening across our country. Mr. Noël, you said that we should encourage the exchange of information. The federal government can do that if we are looking at which jurisdiction is responsible for what. It is one thing to say we should exchange information; it is another who will be responsible for it.
How can we encourage this exchange? Do with do it through a ministry, agency or another alternative?
Research is another jurisdiction for which the federal government can be responsible. A couple of you discussed this in your presentations. The economics of poverty is a great sell to the Canadian public. Mr. Gribbons talked about springboards out of poverty. We give enough money to keep people in poverty, but they never get off the treadmill. Do we have enough research on the economics of poverty and the springboards out of poverty?
Statistics Canada has research capacity. They could be doing the research, but it is no good if they do not get the research out to agencies and organizations at the community level to use it in the best way possible for their communities.
The Chair: Before you answer, I will ask Senator Keon to pose his question, because we will run out of time shortly. Then I will ask the three witnesses to respond to both Senator Keon and Senator Cordy. They may say anything they want then until 5:20 p.m.
Senator Keon: My question is for everyone, but particularly to Ms. Weaver and Mr. Gribbons.
Mr. Gribbons, I am familiar with your community models. I looked at them closely through another committee. Ms. Weaver, you mentioned that you want to alleviate poverty city-wide in Hamilton.
My own belief is that Mr. Gribbons has the answer. I think these community models that they have are superb. Are you effective working at the city level, or is your base too broad? Are you able to break this down to communities and get in there to roll up your sleeves to correct the problem?
The Chair: I will go to each witness. Please answer the questions of both Senator Cordy and Senator Keon.
Mr. Noël: Regarding Senator Cordy's question on whether we have enough research on the issues, as a scholar I would tend to say no, we should fund more research. However, that is not a very informative statement.
Ms. Weaver mentioned something very important. It is nice to know that things have changed between 2004 and 2006 for people who work on the ground. However, we are in 2009 and we cannot expect the impossible from Statistics Canada and other, similar agencies. At the same time, it would be very helpful if some sort of early warning or rapid information process was designed to support local and provincial poverty reduction initiatives. Perhaps the data would not be solid and would have to be revised in further years, but it would be very helpful to know what is happening in the current crisis. That would be an extremely good development.
Many processes or structures could probably be used to coordinate or exchange information. There is a place for better economic statistics and information, but there is also a need to hear from local experience and people in situations of poverty.
We have started to work on this in Quebec. Part of the fight in poverty reduction is about representation. Advisory boards involve people in poverty who are present and stating their views. It is extremely important to give a voice and to integrate this thinking. Ms. Weaver mentioned that the newspapers start discussing it. It is about self-esteem and the right to full citizenship.
Mr. Gribbons: Regarding Senator Cordy's question of whether we have enough research, we do not think there is enough research from an economic perspective. It goes to the argument of why should we do this. We are fighting poverty for all the right reasons, but the economic argument is one that gets more people like me involved. That is very important.
We have analyzed Statistics Canada data extensively. I agree with Professor Noël that it is not very timely. That is simply a factor of its being very large and cumbersome, but it is also very expensive. If you are a non-profit group and would like to study poverty in your community, it is a very expensive process to get the data and break it down neighbourhood by neighbourhood. Perhaps the federal government could address making that information more affordable for non-profit groups to obtain.
Regarding the springboards out of poverty, I may have misspoken. We do not think that our present policies are designed to keep people in poverty, but we think that is the result.
We are moving into a very different demographic era in this country. We cannot afford to have people living on social assistance in poverty. We need them in the workforce.
I think we will get there if we take that mindset and look for solutions. We have done much work locally on the concept of the welfare wall. There are disincentives to get into the workforce. We need springboards to get people over that welfare wall. For example, we are working extensively with the Province of New Brunswick on health cards. Someone leaving social assistance may have a job that pays only $10 an hour. That is not a living wage. However, if they can still get health benefits from the provincial government, it might be enough incentive to stay in the workforce and not go back on social assistance.
Senator Keon mentioned that he thinks the way we are doing it works. We think it does, as well. We think we are making progress.
When we talk to policy-makers and decision makers, whether in city hall in Saint John or with our provincial government in Fredericton, it helps that we have people from the business community come in along with people who live in poverty, people from the non-profit sector and people from the faith community all going at this from the same direction. It makes our politicians step up and take notice that this is different. We can leverage the ability that we have in the business community to open doors, and I think it is working. We have a long way to go, but so far so good.
Ms. Weaver: People in our community who live in poverty would say that there has been too much research and not enough action. We hear them say that all the time.
There is a need for research, and the economic case for the cost of poverty is pivotal research. We are seeing an emerging body of that coming out of Ontario, but we see it coming out of the U.S., as well. I think we need a balance.
A lot of research has been done about what are the springboards, what are effective strategies; but this is emergent stuff. This is not one easy answer that if you do this, this will solve it for this individual. I like to say that if there are 89,767 people living in poverty in Hamilton, there are 89,767 individual solutions that we have to conceive of.
In Hamilton, with our framework for change, we have chosen to focus on the policy and systems change. However, we also recognize that there is a need to do things at the local level and the neighbourhood level because that is how people connect in communities.
We are a community of 500,000 people, but there is a higher incidence of poverty in certain neighbourhoods in Hamilton. The round table is looking at how we can lift all neighbourhoods up. Then we are working with our partners — a community foundation, the city, the faith community or other partners in our community — to get neighbours engaged in what they need in their neighbourhoods, what solutions they are looking for, and then how do services wrap themselves around the neighbours. It is a localized solution; but with many partners, we are able to see some emerging change happen at that level.
I think there is the grassroots work happening in cities and the work happening at the provincial level. However, there is also an important role that our federal government can play in all of this.
I would like to quickly address the issue of income and income supports. In the last income and poverty report in Hamilton, the single largest drop in terms of the numbers of poverty was within our seniors' population. I am sure that if you did income reports for across the community, you would see that.
The investments in guaranteed income for our seniors' population have made a significant difference. I know that if we could have the political will and the commitment to provide those kinds of income supports for single moms, for single individuals, male and female, who are on social assistance, for our seniors, for the children in those families, that would make a substantial difference in their journey out of poverty. It is not the only solution, but it is a critical part of the equation.
The Chair: We have run out of time, unfortunately; I am sure my colleagues would have more questions. I want to thank you all for participating. You each have talked about programs that are making progress in poverty reduction. The people involved in these programs, whether in the province of Quebec or in Saint John, New Brunswick, or Hamilton, Ontario, are to be congratulated for the leadership that is being provided here.
You know as well as I do that there is still much more work to be done. I hope we will end up with all three levels of government being partners with you, people in the community, to help bring about further poverty reduction.
We have with us for the next half hour the Honourable Deb Matthews, Minister of Children and Youth Services for the Province of Ontario, also the Minister Responsible for Women's Issues. She is the chair of the Cabinet Committee on Poverty Reduction and also the MPP for London North Centre. Welcome, minister; the floor is yours.
Hon. Deb Matthews, M.P.P., Minister of Children and Youth Services, Government of Ontario: Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you about this.
I was honoured when the premier asked me to chair the Cabinet Committee on Poverty Reduction. It was an enormous opportunity to do some good work but also a huge challenge, and I was blessed to have a terrific group with me on the cabinet committee, one of the rare times when people lobbied to get on a committee. There was a lot of enthusiasm about being part of what was seen then and has turned out to be a transformational piece of work.
The first step in our process was to listen to people, and we travelled the province and had all sorts of consultations across the province. We went to shelters and youth employment centres and so on. Then of course we had more focused conversations with other people who have been engaged in poverty reduction for some time.
We ended up choosing to focus on child poverty, although I have to tell you from the consultations that there is no question there is far more to poverty than child poverty, but we were aware that we wanted to make an impact, and to do that we had to focus our attention, so we chose to invest where we would have the greatest impact, and that is of course with children.
Our strategy, at its foundation, has the understanding that there is no better protective factor against adult poverty than a good education. We know that kids growing up in poverty are less likely to be successful at school, more likely to drop out and less likely to go on to post-secondary education for a myriad of reasons. Attachment to the education system and success in school is very much part of an underlying foundation of the strategy.
We also were very affected by the stories we heard about there just being not enough money in the pockets of people living in poverty. Poverty is complex, but it is also very much about not enough money. In the end, when we were making our decisions on where to spend the money we had allocated to us, of the $1.4 billion contributing to the strategy, $1.3 billion is in the form of the Ontario Child Benefit, which is money that goes to low-income families. It is a maximum. We just announced a speed-up of it. It will go to a maximum of $1,100 starting this July. As part of our five-year strategy, we will take it to $1,310 per child per year.
It involves a transformation of our social assistance system so that people on social assistance take that child benefit with them as they leave social assistance into employment, but there is much more to this strategy than that. A range of programs will increase attachment to schools: before-school programs, after-school programs, summer programs. It includes jobs for kids facing particular challenges to employment.
We really understand in a way that we did not know at the beginning how important place is to this whole conversation. We learned that there are many fragmented, stand-alone and difficult to access programs out there. We want to bring services to people in their communities.
We understand schools differently than we did at the beginning. I think historically we think of schools as belonging to the school board, that they are used for education for part of the year for part of the day. I tell you, we found a real appetite to expand the role of schools in communities, to open them up to communities in after-school and community programs, so that is also part of our strategy.
We recognized that government, despite our best intentions, has actually produced a fragmented system of programs, so we are committed to reviewing our social assistance rules that in combination can trap people in poverty. We are undertaking what we call a person-centred review so that we understand the range of programs available to a person as opposed to from the government perspective, which is a fairly siloed perspective.
Importantly, we did define poverty. At the beginning, when we started, there was no generally accepted definition of poverty. We spent probably too much time trying to define poverty and ended up using the low-income measure of 50 per cent of median income as our measure of poverty. We are committed to reducing the number of kids in Ontario living in poverty by 25 per cent over the next five years. We laid out a plan on how to get there. It involves both federal and provincial investments, but we know that we can achieve it if we all do our part.
We will report on eight indicators annually from these groups: education, income, health and housing, and we are creating a new indicator. For lack of a better word right now, we are calling it the deprivation or standard-of-living indicator; it is questionnaire-based and done through survey by Statistics Canada asking people about what they are not able to have because they do not have enough money — diet, housing and so on. We are excited about that indicator because it measures a richer understanding of what poverty is.
We are asking the federal government to increase the National Child Benefit Supplement, NCBS, by $1,200. We were happy that the Working Income Tax Benefit, WITB, was increased in the last budget. We would like to see it go to $2,000 with housing initiatives and so on; but on the income indicator alone, increasing the NCBS and increasing WITB would take us where we need to be to reduce the number of kids living in poverty by 90,000 or 25 per cent over the next five years.
Finally, we passed legislation a couple of weeks ago that will require future governments to consider poverty reduction to be part of their core mandate. They will have to refresh or renew a strategy or come up with a new strategy to reduce poverty every five years in consultation with community. It is very important. Our strategy was very much grounded in consultation with communities. Future governments will be required to set a target and come up with measures so that we can report back on how we are doing in poverty reduction. Therefore, future strategies might or might not be focused on children. They could be focused on another group or whatever that government decides to do, but government will be required to bring in a new strategy with annual reporting.
I am ready to receive questions now.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Let me start with a request. After some analysis and deliberation, you came up with a low-income measure. There are the LICO and basket measurements. If you could send us any information about how you came to that selection and what analysis you did, it would help us not to reinvent the wheel. That is an issue we will have to look at. Many take the after-tax LICO; you are taking the low-income measure; and Quebec is taking the basket measure, as I recall.
We hear often from people who deal with provincial welfare systems not only in Ontario but in other provinces as well. We hear the usual things: that they rob people of their dignity; they stigmatize people; assets must be given up. Some people would get you off the hook entirely by suggesting that a guaranteed annual income at the federal level would solve the problem. You are reviewing it. Can you give an indication of the timetable or any particular architecture you have in mind?
In the list of things you want the federal government to do you want the federal government to continue to support the Affordable Housing Program. We heard about an income tax credit program for low-income housing in the United States, which they have had for a couple of decades. The C.D. Howe Institute came out with a report this week touting that. Do you have any comment about that?
Ms. Matthews: Let me do my best. You will be underwhelmed by the analysis on how to measure poverty. After much conversation, I dusted off a paper I wrote on how to measure poverty when I was at the University of Western Ontario. There is no easy way to do it. Ultimately, you have to choose a method and work at reducing it. It is also important that we are able to explain it to the public, and one of the difficulties with LICO is that it is difficult to explain. However, we will send you what we have on that issue.
We are currently working on developing the scope and terms of reference for the social assistance review. I will highlight what I hope we will be able to achieve through the review.
We have assigned different ministers responsibility. The lead minister is the Minister of Community and Social Services. We heard not only that the social assistance system itself was very cumbersome, but that the 800 rules were complex. Even the workers cannot keep on top of all the rules. Therefore, different workers have different advice for people. I do not know how we can expect people struggling with financial issues — many of them people with disabilities or new Canadians — to understand the rules. It is beyond me.
We then have other income-tested programs that include rent-geared-to-income housing, child care, subsidies and student assistance. These different programs layered one on top of another make it difficult to move out of poverty because you are penalized every time you earn a dollar.
We also heard about respect and dignity of the clients within the social assistance system.
However, simplifying the system is what we want to do. It is cumbersome and complicated. We want to simplify it and remove the barriers to getting on with life.
The Chair: The low-income housing tax credit is used to assist both profit and not-for-profit organizations to build rental housing in the United States. They say it works.
Ms. Matthews: That is a new idea for me, so if you could send me information on it, I would appreciate that.
We are now undertaking a review of affordable housing. Minister Jim Watson is the lead on that review. We have 34 different housing programs in the province. We want to take a look at those. We know we have problems when it comes to housing.
The Chair: I will send something to Minister Watson on that, too.
Senator Segal: As a senator from Ontario, I want to express my profound admiration for the leadership you have shown, the personal initiative and the thousands of hours you have given. It is a remarkable expression of your own commitment to public service and a long tradition in your family of commitment to the best interests of this country. I am appreciative of that without regard to partisan distinction of any kind.
When Bob Nixon and Stephen Lewis pushed Darcy McKeough and Bill Davis to deal with seniors' poverty during a minority government in the 1970s, the decision was to initiate a guaranteed annual income supplement for seniors to deal with the money part of the problem. In your eloquent introduction, you indicated that poverty is actually not having enough money for food, housing and other issues. It is fair to say that you have gone a different route, although you have focused on some benefits issues by increasing the numbers.
Was your judgment that the complexity of the present system is best served by a series of program changes, or was it that, not having seen the size of the GM bailout at the time of your early work, you thought we could not afford to deal with poverty for other groups in the same way we dealt with it for seniors in the 1970s?
Ms. Matthews: I often talk about seniors as an example of how we can make a difference if we decide to. Poverty rates among seniors are low relative to other people in this country. It is a good success story. Many seniors think we need to do more. I would agree with them, but that experience showed us that we can reduce poverty amongst a particular group.
The Ontario Child Benefit supports those families that need it the most. Families with income under $20,000 get the full benefit. It will be increasing to $92 per month. I think about that in terms of groceries. It is $92 worth of groceries multiplied by every child. That goes to all children in low-income families regardless of the source of their income.
There was no way for the province to support the working poor before the Ontario Child Benefit. If someone could work, there would be no way to support those children. If they were on social assistance, they got extra money for every child they had. The Ontario Child Benefit goes at least part way to addressing that issue for children.
The NCBS increase takes us to the point where we can take children off welfare. The children's portion of the social assistance cheque is equal to the Ontario Child Benefit that will stay with the family as they move off social assistance. It is a big step forward in ensuring that people have that money regardless of where their income comes from.
Senator Dyck: You were saying that the province will focus on child poverty. You were also talking about how education is a key factor in overcoming poverty. Will you look at high school graduation rates?
You also mentioned that you have asked the federal government to look at the Kelowna Accord. With regard to the Aboriginal population, are there things you think the province will do that will be directed to Aboriginals? Is there a program in there that will address their concerns more specifically?
Ms. Matthews: Absolutely, a renewal of the Kelowna Accord is essential. I do not have to tell you that poverty rates are higher among the Aboriginal communities than any other community.
To go back to the education measures, we are measuring the EDI, the early development indicator, which is for six-year-olds; it is a kind of readiness-to-learn indicator. We are measuring Grade 6 EQAO scores on the assessment of reading, writing and mathematics, and also graduation rates, so we have a heavy education focus.
When it comes to Aboriginal kids, we are increasing our investments in programming for kids through the Indian Friendship Centres across the province. Our education minister is absolutely focused on improving educational outcomes for Aboriginal kids. She is doing work that is within her work as Minister of Education but absolutely is part of the poverty reduction strategy. We really need to do better when it comes to Aboriginal kids.
I am the Minister of Children and Youth Services, so child welfare and youth justice are both under my ministry. We acknowledge that we have a long way to go. However, the investments are worth it because if we can build resilient kids, we will not need to have the youth justice facilities for them later.
Another approach we took was that we have a moral imperative to reduce poverty; but there is an equally compelling economic imperative to reduce poverty because poverty is expensive for all of us. You may have seen the report The Cost of Poverty, which indicates that the actual amount we all pay as a direct result of poverty is about $3,000 per household in Ontario. We have an economic imperative to do this work, as well as the moral imperative.
Senator Dyck: You were also talking about schools and opening the schools up to the community. My guess would be that that would be very important for families. The school becomes like the second home for people who do not have those opportunities at home. For Aboriginal communities, I suspect that is even more important. Would there be, in your view, a need to improve the actual schools, as well as the programming?
Ms. Matthews: Yes. One thing we are doing is tripling, to bring to 300 the number of parenting and family literacy centres. These are based in schools and designed for preschool-age kids and their caregivers. It is good programming and it is a place where they can access services, but it also creates an attachment between the family and the school.
Often in families where the parents grew up in poverty, they did not have a particularly good relationship with school. If we can open the schools up, where parents start to understand that schools are a good place, that teachers are there to help the kids, we are accomplishing that attachment to the school as well. Does that mean that the schools have to be ready to accept the community? Absolutely, yes.
The Chair: I hate to do this to the next two for the second time in this meeting, but they happen to be on the end of the list. I will ask Senator Cordy and then Senator Keon to ask their questions and then I will go to the minister for a response.
Senator Cordy: There are three teachers sitting around this table, so we all agree wholeheartedly with your comments about making the school a welcoming place to be.
In Ontario, does social assistance have to be an all-or-nothing program? By that, I mean are there incentives to stay in the workplace or disincentives to get back into the workplace?
I remember a few years ago hearing a story in Nova Scotia about the gentleman who was making enough money to feed and clothe his family, but he had a daughter who was chronically ill and he could not afford the medication because he was a cab driver and had no health plan.
He went to the government and asked if he could have just his medical coverage and they said no. He had to quit his job because he could not afford to pay for the medication.
What is your plan in Ontario? Is it all or nothing, or can you be partially in and partially out?
The Chair: Senator Keon just tabled a couple of reports I should mention to you, minister, which might be of some help. Senator Keon just introduced a paper from our parent committee, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, on population health. He is been working on that for some time. Also, a couple of weeks ago, we filed a report in the Senate called Early Childhood Education and Care: Next Steps, which puts a lot of emphasis on the early learning part of that. I will send you copies of those.
Senator Keon: I had the privilege of talking to you within the last month or so; I think it was down at Mount Allison.
Ms. Matthews: It was at the airport, senator, in Moncton.
Senator Keon: I am sending you a copy of the report, as I promised.
I am advocating getting to the ground. The report has everyone from the Prime Minister to the premiers involved, but get to the ground when it comes to population health. Are you getting to the ground with poverty — community organizations?
Ms. Matthews: Let me respond first on child care.
We have a real problem in Ontario, with the ending of the federal funding for early learning and child care. We are facing some very difficult decisions. I want to stress how important it is to kids in this province that the federal government reconsider the decision to cancel the early learning and child care agreement. It is important for the kids in terms of their early development; but if a mom cannot get access to child care, she will not be at work. She will be on social assistance. It is as simple as that, so it is very important.
Senator Cordy, on the drug issue, we changed the rules a couple of years ago for people on ODSP, the Ontario Disability Support Program. If they are on that program and leave for employment, they get to keep those drug benefits as long as they need them. If they need those benefits, they are there. They have to have been on ODSP before they get the drug benefits, but if they leave they get to keep them.
That is an important difference for people with high drug needs. People with HIV/AIDS, for example, may have high drug costs, but they are perfectly capable of working, so providing that drug card is good.
We have a drug plan called Trillium, which is there for people with high drug needs. It is an income-tested program. More or less, you have to qualify for social assistance, which means bringing your assets down very low before you are eligible for some of those benefits.
The more we can do things like the Ontario Child Benefit, where you just get it if you need it — you do not have to qualify on an asset basis — that is the best.
Senator Keon, getting to the ground, the community — this is very important. People know what their community needs. They understand. I think government has a role to play to facilitate the development of community initiatives and to support those community initiatives, but we have tremendous untapped potential in our communities right now.
I am inspired by some of the work going on in Hamilton, for example, where the community decided that they would collectively address poverty in a coordinated way. I have enormous respect for what they are doing there and in other communities.
Absolutely, we get great leverage out of supporting communities to do what only communities can do. I think we sometimes over-professionalize some of the community supports we provide. The community could do so much more if we would just free them up to do it.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate your time and your contribution to what we are doing. We put out an issues and options paper last June and we have been getting feedback on that. You have given us more today, some very precise suggestions of what you think the federal level should do, and we appreciate that.
We are finishing up on our hearings and our site visits by the end of June. The report will be written over the summer and we will have it out in the fall.
Ms. Matthews: Thank you very much. This is very important work.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
(The committee adjourned.)