Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Cities
Issue 5 - Evidence, June 11, 2009
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 11, 2009
The Subcommittee on Cities of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 10:47 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: Welcome to our Subcommittee on Cities that is studying poverty and homelessness. Today, we have officials from the government.
When we began this study a couple of years ago we had the interruption of one election and two prorogations, so we have had about one year of work in a two-year time frame.
When we began our study, we had officials in from CMHC and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, so we are doing it again at the end, after having heard from many people here in Ottawa and across the country in our visits.
Of course, we have put out our Poverty, Housing and Homelessness: Issues and Options report with its 103 options. We are doing an update on that report, and would like to hear any response the officials might have to the work, testimony and options that have come before the committee.
Frank Vermaeten, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss items of income security as you prepare to finalize your report entitled Poverty, Housing and Homelessness: Issues and Options.
My name is Frank Vermaeten, and I am the senior ADM for the Skills and Employment Branch at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.
Specifically, I have been asked to focus my attention on Employment Insurance policies; active employment measures; senior pension and policy issues; homelessness and partnering strategy; and housing policy and planning, which will be discussed by my colleagues from CHMC.
Before I begin, I would like to introduce my colleagues who will speak to the implementation of various programs pertaining to income support and homelessness.
I have here with me Frank Fedyk, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister for Strategic Policy and Research at HRSDC, who can speak to the elements of the report regarding poverty and income support related to families with children. We have Dominique La Salle, Director General, Seniors and Pensions Policy Secretariat, who will speak about issues related to seniors and income support for seniors and persons with disabilities; and Jane Weldon, Director General, Homelessness Partnering Secretariat, and she will respond to issues related to homelessness.
[Translation]
As you may be aware, Canada's Economic Action Plan, as included in the 2009 budget, launched several initiatives that benefit Canadians and their families, particularly in the current economic context.
These initiatives include tax relief for Canadians, improvements to programs for older workers and to the terms of the employment insurance program, new investment to help families and investments in social housing.
[English]
These investments build upon and are in addition to the existing programs within Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. They provide assistance to the most vulnerable among Canadians, such as those mentioned in your report, particularly low-income families, seniors and the homeless.
Honourable senators, today I will provide an update of these measures, demonstrating how they complement the recommendations in your report.
I will start with the Employment Insurance program. As you know, in an economic downturn the EI program is the first line of defence. The government has improved EI by providing more benefits, easier access and helping preserve jobs. Before discussing the impact of the Employment Insurance measures that were introduced, I would like to tell the committee how the EI program is adjusted every month to ensure it is providing benefits to those who need it most across the country.
The Variable Entrance Requirement allows the program to respond automatically to changes in regional unemployment rates. Simply put, as the unemployment rate increases in a given region, the number of hours required to access EI is reduced and the duration of benefits increases. This reflects the current reality that in the hardest-hit regions, for example Ontario, it is harder to find and keep a job.
As a result of this flexibility, since October 2008, more than 85 per cent of Canadian workers now have easier access to EI regular benefits and for longer periods of time. For example, in Ontario, B.C. and Alberta, all provinces hit hard with the current recession, the number of insurable hours required to qualify for EI benefits has fallen by up to 175 hours, while the length of the benefit has increased by up to 14 weeks.
Now turning to the enhancements of the EI program, the government is making major investments to ensure Canadians receive timely and quality services, particularly given the significant increase in demand. By March 31, 2009, over 3.1 million claims had been received, almost 20 per cent more than in the previous fiscal year of 2007-08. The department received over $60 million for 2009-10 to obtain the necessary resources to respond to the increased volume of EI claims across the country, the administrative costs related to the expanded use, the extension of work-sharing agreements and the increase in duration of EI benefits.
With these additional resources, the department was able to hire more staff, extend the hours of operation for the EI call centres to include Saturdays, and update the Service Canada website to make it more user-friendly.
Not only is the government making investments to ensure timely delivery of EI benefits, it is also providing up to five extra weeks of EI benefits to support Canadians who lose their jobs. This new measure has an estimated cost of $1.15 billion and came into effect on March 1, 2009.
The Career Transition Assistance initiative launched at the end of May, in partnership with provinces and territories, is designed to help laid-off workers, particularly those with many years of experience who need to change occupations and industries to find a new job. It will provide EI income support to an estimated 40,000 long-tenured workers, with many years of experience, who require new skills to find a new job.
The Work-Sharing Program is helping to preserve jobs and is providing support to thousands of businesses and employees. Beginning February 1, 2009, the government has extended work-sharing agreements by 14 weeks, up to a maximum of 52 weeks for the next two years. In addition, access to the program is being improved with greater flexibility in the qualifying criteria and the streamlining processes for employers. The number of Canadians benefiting from work-sharing arrangements is up more than fourfold since January to about 120,000 in May.
I will now turn to Training and Skills Development. The government is making significant investments in training and skills development, both to assist Canadian workers hit hardest by the economic downturn, and as an investment for the longer term.
HRSDC is working with our provincial and territorial partners to provide funding to support training and program services they deliver for their citizens. Specifically, the government is investing an additional $1.5 billion through agreements with provinces and territories to assist up to 150,000 individuals, both EI and non-EI eligible, over the next two years to access training. To date, nine agreements have been signed to support the Strategic Training and Transition Fund, and the increased funding delivered through the Labour Market Development Agreements. The remaining agreements are anticipated to be signed later this month.
The government is also providing provinces and territories with an additional $60 million over three years for the extension of the Targeted Initiative for Older Workers that supports up to 7,300 older workers.
HRSDC is also working with provinces and territories to improve the recognition of foreign credentials across the country, starting with the development of a federal-provincial-territorial framework, as committed to by first ministers. The draft framework has been developed with the final framework expected in September.
The government is also making investments to support training and skills development for populations traditionally considered more at risk, such as youth, through the increased investments in the Canada Summer Jobs program and the creation of the YMCA and YWCA Grant for Youth Internship; and for Aboriginal people, through increased investments in the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Partnership, ASEP, and the creation of the Aboriginal Skills and Training Strategic Investment Fund.
I will now turn to seniors. Over the last decades, there has been a dramatic improvement in the economic well-being of seniors. The low-income rate for seniors has fallen from 21.3 per cent in 1980 to 4.8 per cent in 2007. As mentioned, the Economic Action Plan made investments to support training for older workers. The government is also making investments to support seniors once they are no longer in the workforce.
The Old Age Security, OAS program, provides partial income support to Canada's seniors in recognition of the contributions they have made to Canadian society, the economy and their communities. In 2007-08, a total of $32 billion in OAS benefits was paid to 4.5 million seniors.
In addition to investments in OAS over the past few years, the government has substantially increased financial support for seniors by increasing the Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits, GIS, by 7 per cent over and above quarterly indexing since January 2006. Budget 2008 increased the maximum GIS earnings exemption from $500 to $3,500 to help low-income working seniors keep more of their GIS benefits.
Honourable senators, last month the federal and provincial ministers of finance agreed to a set of changes to make the CPP fairer and more flexible for those transitioning from work to retirement. These changes will continue to keep the CPP on a solid foundation.
I will now turn to homelessness. In a time of economic uncertainty, housing is of particular importance to Canadians. The government has an obligation to protect the most vulnerable citizens in this country. In September 2008, the government committed $1.9 billion over the next five years for affordable housing for low-income Canadians and to help homeless people.
The Homelessness Partnership Strategy, HPS, put in place longer-term supportive housing solutions to help homeless individuals move towards greater autonomy and self-sufficiency. The strategy has been extended for two years, until 2011, with an improved federal commitment to continue funding for housing and homelessness programs until March 2014. Budget 2009 includes other housing commitments and my colleagues from CMHC will speak to these shortly.
Before I conclude, I also want to highlight some other investments the government is making for persons with disabilities and families, including those with children, given the focus of your report.
The government spends more than $9 billion a year on disability related benefits and programs. Budget 2009 announced the Registered Disability Savings Plan, RDSP and the Canada Disability Savings Grant and the Canada Disability Savings Bond, as a way to help eligible people with severe and prolonged disabilities, their families and others to save for long-term financial security. More than 28 federal departments and agencies provide a variety of benefits, supports and tax measures to help meet the needs of people with disabilities.
The government is also making significant investments in families and individuals. Budget 2009 committed $550 million through the Working Income Tax Benefit, the WITB, to encourage low-income Canadians to find and retain a job. Actions have also been taken to support families with children. In 2006, the government introduced a Universal Child Care Plan, which includes the Universal Child Care Benefit, UCCB, and support for child care spaces providing parents with choices in deciding what is best for the children.
Through the UCCB, 1.5 million families with young children are receiving $2.5 billion each year. This is in addition to over $1.1 billion that is transferred annually to provinces and territories to support their priorities for learning and child care. This amount will increase incrementally to $1.3 billion by 2013-14. This investment has resulted in several provinces and territories announcing plans for new child care spaces, over 60,000 so far, with others investing and enhancing the quality or affordability of existing spaces.
The Economic Action Plan builds on these investments, providing increases to child benefits for modest- and medium-income Canadian families under the National Child Benefit Supplement and the Canada Child Tax Benefit.
Effective July 1, 2009, the level at which the National Child Benefit Supplement for low-income families and the Canada Child Tax Benefit are phased out will be raised, allowing families to earn additional income and still qualify. This will provide an additional benefit of up to $436 for a family with two children.
[Translation]
In response to the report Poverty, Housing and Homelessness: Issues and Options prepared by the Subcommittee on Cities, I briefly reviewed the contribution of Department of Human Resources and Skills Development programs that aim to support Canadians and their families.
[English]
Honourable senators, the Government of Canada is supporting and will continue to support and provide assistance to all Canadians to help them face the difficulties during the economic downturn while preparing them to take advantage of future opportunities in the labour market once the economy recovers.
John Black, Director, Housing Needs Policy, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and honourable senators.
On behalf of CMHC, I want to thank you for this opportunity to explain how CMHC works with provinces, territories, municipalities, stakeholders and First Nations communities to help address housing needs in Canada.
My name is John Black, and I am the Director of CMHC's Housing Needs Policy and Research. With me on my left is Debra Darke, Director of CMHC's Community Development Division.
[Translation]
Having a safe, affordable place to call home is vital to the health and well-being of each and every Canadian family, and the communities they live in.
[English]
The Government of Canada has a multi-pronged housing approach that provides housing for Canadians from all walks of life and in all parts of the country. This approach has made significant contributions to the creation of an efficient housing industry, an effective system of building standards and a well-functioning housing finance system. It has also ensured that most Canadians are well-served by Canada's housing markets. In Canada, the housing needs of 80 per cent of Canadians are met through the marketplace.
Helping our most vulnerable is a shared responsibility that requires the participation of provincial and territorial partners, First Nations, the private sector and community groups.
[Translation]
The Government is making significant investments to address the housing needs of Canadians and to improve housing choice and affordability.
[English]
For those Canadians who need some help to find housing they can afford, the Government of Canada, through CMHC, provides $1.7 billion each year to help support almost 625,000 existing social housing households. This includes ongoing financial support to many non-profit and cooperative housing projects across the country.
In 2006, the government made a one-time investment of $1.4 billion to help Canadians find safe, adequate and affordable housing. This included $800 million in an Affordable Housing Trust for all provinces and territories, $300 million in a Northern Housing Trust for the three territories and another $300 million for off-reserve Aboriginal housing.
Budget 2007 included a $300 million First Nations Market Housing Fund to give First Nations people living on- reserve a better chance to own their own homes. This fund will help provide for up to 25,000 new homes on-reserve over 10 years.
In September 2008, as mentioned by my colleague from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, the government committed to investing more than $1.9 billion over the next five years to improve and build new affordable housing and help the homeless.
In addition, Canada's Economic Action Plan will provide $7.8 billion to build quality housing, stimulate construction, encourage homeownership and enhance energy efficiency. This funding includes $3.7 billion for the Home Renovation Tax Credit and tax measures to help first-time home buyers and enhance the energy efficiency of our homes.
[Translation]
In total, CMHC is responsible for delivering up to $4 billion of federal economic stimulus funding.
[English]
It includes a one-time investment of more than $2 billion over two years to build new and renovate existing social housing for 200,000 Canadian households. Much of this investment is being delivered through existing arrangements with provinces and territories so that we can make a difference quickly.
Out of this $2 billion amount, $1 billion will be invested in the renovation of existing social housing. Much of this housing is getting older, they need major repairs and upgrades and they need to be more energy efficient. We are already accepting applications for these funds.
We are also investing $475 million across the country for new housing for low-income seniors and persons with disabilities. We also know it is important for seniors on fixed incomes to live with independence and dignity and remain in their communities. We know that people living with disabilities often have difficulty finding housing that meets their specific needs.
A total of $600 million will be used to build much-needed new housing and to repair and modernize existing social housing in First Nations communities and in Canada's Far North. This funding will also provide an economic stimulus for many First Nations and rural areas by creating jobs, developing skilled trades and helping small businesses.
Up to $2 billion is available for low-cost loans through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to fund housing-related infrastructure that is ready to go. The first two cities were recently approved for loans under this municipal infrastructure lending program. Saskatoon was approved for more than $33 million to build a new water intake treatment plant and develop new residential green space. North Battleford was approved for $2.5 million for sewer replacement.
CMHC looks forward to working with our partners to help stimulate the economy and create jobs, to improve housing options for Canadians and to continue building the best housing system in the world.
[Translation]
In addition, CMHC will continue to help families to find housing in the marketplace.
[English]
For many working families, homeownership is the preferred option. We recognize that it is not available to all and may not be the first choice of all, but we know that for many families, buying a home is their dream. CMHC helps those who qualify for a mortgage to purchase a home with a minimum of a 5 per cent down payment at interest rates reserved for those with a 20 per cent down payment.
CMHC also makes more funds available for borrowing through mortgage-backed securities and mortgage bonds. These instruments help lenders increase the supply of low-cost funds that are available to buyers, further improving affordability.
We know that there are some homeowners who may be experiencing financial difficulty. To help them, CMHC launched a consumer awareness campaign designed to encourage borrowers to speak to their lenders at the first sign of trouble.
It is important to remember that mortgage loan insurance also benefits those who choose to rent a home. Many witnesses who have appeared before this committee pointed out that more rental units need to be built. CMHC is the only insurer in Canada who provides mortgage loan insurance to the builders of large rental projects and nursing homes.
[Translation]
In closing, CMHC works on a variety of fronts to help Canadians find a home in a safe neighbourhood where they can build a life and, perhaps, raise a family.
[English]
At CMHC, we will continue to work with our partners to continue to strengthen housing and improve the quality of life for Canadians.
The Chair: Thank you very much to both of you. I take it the remainder of the officials will be here to respond to questions as necessary.
Those are the two presentations, with a multitude of figures in both of them. Whether those figures are effective enough and sufficient enough to deal with the problems that we face, of course, is another matter. We are looking at a number of other options that we might get into in addition to these programs.
Let me begin by asking a couple of questions built partly on the testimony that we have heard from various organizations and individuals across the country.
Mr. Vermaeten, you touched on EI, which is a very hot political issue at the moment. It has been said that the number of unemployed and who actually qualify for EI are a minority of the people who are unemployed. This is when you bring into consideration that many Canadians are self-employed. They are not eligible for EI; yet many people are forced into that condition by the fact that we no longer have the traditional hiring practices that existed decades ago or a number of years ago. People are getting little jobs here, little jobs there, but by and large, they are on their own.
Of course, there are other people with part-time jobs that would, I suppose, pay EI but not necessarily be eligible for EI. There are many women in that circumstance, for example, that we have heard about.
What about all those unemployed people? We are in a recession, an economic downturn, and you say at one point in your presentation that we have an obligation to protect the most vulnerable citizens in our country.
People who are unemployed cannot feed themselves or their families. They are vulnerable. What do we do about all these people who do not qualify for EI? Some people have suggested that only 40 per cent of the unemployed are getting EI.
Mr. Vermaeten: That is a very good question and one that we are often asked. As a starting point, you have to consider that the Employment Insurance program is an insurance program. People pay into it. If they meet the qualifications, they receive benefits when they are unemployed. That is the starting point.
Eighty per cent of the people who have lost their job, not because they quit voluntarily or went back to school but, through no fault of their own, are eligible and receive EI. That is probably the key statistic. That is true for both men and women. The Employment Insurance program is quite successful in that way.
It is true that there are people who do not receive Employment Insurance benefits when they lose their jobs or are unemployed, but the majority of those people have never paid into the system. It is not designed to provide benefits for those who do not pay into it, whether it is students or recent immigrants or the self-employed. There are a range of other programs to support those people.
The Employment Insurance program cannot be everything to everyone. It is there to support those who pay into the system. When you look at the eligibility, it is actually quite high.
The Chair: We have heard it is as high as 87 per cent for the people who qualify. As I said, there are many more people unemployed who do not qualify. As you point out, it is an insurance program, but if we are to look after the most vulnerable people, then what are we doing for these other people? If it is not some expanded form of EI, then what is it?
You say there is a range of other options. I suppose there is always provincial welfare, which does not exactly help those who are temporarily unemployed in a recession in the best of ways. It pretty much forces them to give up their assets. If they were not totally poor before they went on welfare, they certainly would be poor when they hit welfare. Getting over that barrier from behind the welfare wall is a formidable challenge for many people.
What kind of program might we have that might help those many more unemployed who do not qualify for Employment Insurance?
Mr. Vermaeten: Senator, I think you know there is a whole range of programming out there to support people, including, as you said, social assistance, which is designed by provinces. That is one of their responsibilities. The provinces design them in terms of whether they want an asset test or not. That is up to the provinces.
There is a wide range of income support for seniors. We have programs such as WITB and the Canada Child Tax Benefit. There is a whole range of benefits and assistance. There is also a whole range of training available to people to help them find jobs. One of the things that the government did recently was create a new program called labour market agreements to provide funding to provinces to help people get back to jobs, even if they did not pay into the EI program. Canada's Economic Action Plan provides for training and income support for people outside of the EI program.
I have to come back to the EI program and ask you if you would want an Employment Insurance program where people who have not paid into it receive Employment Insurance. I come back to the more than 80 per cent who pay into it and who lose their jobs and receive EI benefits.
The Chair: Perhaps not, but we still have many people out there who are suffering. That is my point.
Let me go on to homelessness. We heard general praise for the Homelessness Partnering Strategy around the country. I think that communities thought that program had enough flexibility in it for them to be able to operate within it. There was good feedback on that program, but we need to do much more.
The number of homeless is rising in Calgary and again, that could be recession-related. I think we are hearing that in a number of other cities. Is this program doing enough if the number of homeless is rising?
Also, please comment on the question of the hidden homeless. We have a lot of focus in some of these programs across the country on the chronic homeless. That is only the tip of the iceberg. They are some of the more vulnerable and more difficult situations, but still there are many hidden homeless as well.
We also have been hearing about "housing first." The last time you were here, I do not think this phrase was yet quite as prominent as it is today. The City of Toronto has done a lot of work in that regard, but everyone else seems to be coming on to this housing first part of the model as well.
Jane Weldon, Director General, Homelessness Partnering Secretariat, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: Thank you for the positive comments about the reception of the HPS across the country. As an official, it is gratifying to hear that the public reception to the program is positive. We tend to focus on what we can do to make it better.
With respect to your point about whether we are doing enough, it is a little bit like the question of EI. Is it ever enough? As long as there are still homeless people, is it enough?
The intent of the Homeless Partnering Strategy, HPS, is not to resolve the problem of homelessness itself, because many of the antecedents of homelessness fall under provincial jurisdiction. With the federal program we are trying to fill in gaps where things are missing between provincial and municipal activities; to try to put in place pilot projects to give people new ideas and to "incent" the not-for-profit sector; the faith-based sector; and most important, the private sector to get involved. You will see in the program in the last couple of years we have been becoming increasingly involved in partnerships as ways to get other sources of funding into resolving the issue.
With respect to the hidden homeless, it is very difficult to count people. We certainly talk to Statistics Canada and to various cities regularly about how to count the homeless. We have been providing them some support on that problem. They are difficult to count because, of course, they do not have an address and that is the traditional counting methodology. With the hidden homeless, we rely on various other counting techniques being put in place in various communities, and try to ensure that the services are in place in the communities so they are able to come out of wherever they are staying, be it couch-surfing or in cars, to access the services. We are keeping an eye on the service utilization across the country to get a sense of the percentage of the hidden homeless.
Finally, with respect to housing first, there is a tendency in society to want to have a buzzword for everything. In my view, "housing first" has been a bit overused by some people. When we talk about housing first, we mean that if you take an individual and try to provide them with services, employment or counselling to help them deal with the issues that have caused their homelessness, if they do not have secure housing to go to, those activities are less likely to be useful. It is hard to benefit from an employment program, for example, if, at the end of your day on job training, you have nowhere to go. The concept of housing first is to ensure that the person has some reasonably secured tenure and then to add the services that the individual needs along with the housing.
We see homelessness as having three pillars. There is a housing component, a social services component and an income support component. If you do not have all three issues addressed, you do not have a solution for the individual. Some individuals with housing will not need other services, and the housing first model hopes to help those individuals move straight to housing and avoid other services. Similarly, those chronic homeless people, for example, that you referenced will always need other services, and those services need to be tied to that housing.
Senator Segal: Here is my problem with your testimony: I heard nothing inaccurate, nothing that was not offered in the best of faith, but it dealt with inputs. That is what we do in government; we make a list of what we are spending and what the program calls for. Much of our debate in Parliament, which sets the parameters of the programs you have to administer, is also about inputs. There is often a bidding war among political parties as to how much they will spend or invest. It is a natural process.
I am worried about the absence of any discussion of outcomes. Here is what I think we know: I think we know that the raw numbers of people living beneath the poverty line are really not getting much better. We can have a debate as to whether that is federal or provincial jurisdiction, but those numbers are not improving.
We know that amongst our First Nations, the numbers are at Third World levels. It is also not surprising that if swine flu has a particularly corrosive outbreak — guess where it will be. It will find its way to people with rotten housing and no income to speak of. That is an outcome. It may not be for millions of people, but for those people the situation is very real.
We know that on the housing side, the amount of money it now costs to deal with a homeless person in most of our cities — emergency hospital calls, police involvement, drug abuse questions, and so on — far exceeds the cost of actually housing that person. We know, as Ms. Weldon was good enough to point out, that for many of those people, a housing answer, in and of itself, would make a big difference; not for all, but for many.
I do not have any difficulty at all with the superb job that you are doing as public servants managing complex and difficult programs. What anxieties do you have about the mismatch between what your programs do, how they do it and the relative lack of any meaningful change in the outcomes for the people whom we all serve?
I understand the constraint that you cannot talk about what politicians decide; you have to live with their decisions. However, it strikes me, in my experience with the federal public service, and certainly with the provincial public service, that hard-working, distinguished public servants do worry about the gap in outcomes. In their advice to ministers and in their advice on program design, they address some of those gaps. They make a series of suggestions about options that government of any political affiliation might choose to consider.
I am not asking you to share with us what you have to share in confidence with your respective ministers, but I would be interested in your sense of the gap between what your programs seek to do, what the actual outcomes still are at street level in our cities, and what advice you might give this committee as to the sorts of issues that we might consider that would help, in terms of policy changes, to reduce some of those gaps.
The great tradition of parliamentary government is that experts who work in areas of public service acquire a grinding facility with the hard-core constraints of the programs that they ably administer, and they can give advice on that. I understand that the advice you give to a minister or to cabinet is not the same advice you might be able to give us; I respect the differences. That being said, what advice would you give us?
Mr. Vermaeten: That is a tough question. Perhaps we could each provide some comments in our area of expertise.
Senator Segal: Sure.
Mr. Vermaeten: I am not sure whether it is advice, but allow me to speak about training. Training is one avenue where you find people who are unemployed, underemployed or, in the recent context, have lost their jobs and need to go through a significant shift in what they will do. These are real challenges that governments have been grappling with for a long time. As Ms. Weldon said, it is never enough, but the government is trying to respond and is having some success. However, of course, this is an ongoing process.
Take a look at the training that the government is doing. They are trying to do more training, and they are trying to do it in a better way and in a way that is coordinated with the provinces and territories.
You spoke about Aboriginals, for example. Certainly, I think no one in Canada is satisfied with the outcomes. Training is one of the areas in which government has invested as part of the Economic Action Plan. They have tried to align the training to make it more responsive to the actual jobs.
Look at the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Partnership, ASEP, program. This program attempts to provide training in real projects. It is not just training in a classroom for a skill that might never be used; it is participating in actual projects. The trainees are gaining real work experience. Preliminary evaluations show success in terms of people taking the training and then staying on that project and getting jobs. There is training when it comes to Aboriginals.
I mentioned training for the general population, both in terms of EI-sponsored training — there is additional money for that — but also training for non-EI eligible people. The provinces are delivering that training and they are constantly trying to figure out how to make it more effective. By allowing the provinces and territories to provide the training, they are trying to do it in a way that is responsive to the local labour market needs. That kind of training is important.
There is additional funding for special groups, such as older workers. There is additional funding for project-based training. For example, in remote communities, it is not simply a matter of sending a person to a computer course and hoping they will find a job. It is a more labour-intensive program where they are working in groups with people.
There is additional money for the Canada Summer Jobs program, which will help people gain experience. When you bring young people into the workforce early, they tend to stay in that workforce.
The government has invested more and has tried to improve that training. Of course, this is an ongoing challenge. This government and future governments will continue to look at the issue. There is no magic bullet, but it is a process, and a process that I think is going in the right direction.
Frank Fedyk, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: Perhaps I could address this from a poverty situation: How do we know that what is happening on the ground and what is being provided, whether from the federal government or from provinces and territories, is having an impact? Much of it is research and analysis. As you know, a big part of what we have available to us comes through Statistics Canada. We are doing this work in collaboration with the provinces and territories. We are describing the nature of poverty, the incidents, the depth and duration. We have identified five target groups that are of interest, both at the federal level and provincial level in terms of a program response. It is the group that you have highlighted; the 45 to 64-year-old, the unattached, who may be at risk of losing a job, a long-tenured worker, as Mr. Vermaeten as elaborated, for whom a retraining program may be necessary. Aboriginals, new immigrants, single parents and the working poor are the biggest challenge groups for all governments. For the working poor, we identified the gap and the government responded with the Working Income Tax Benefit. We have looked at what other countries are providing to help the working poor get into work and retain that job to get over the welfare wall.
We found our benefit, by international comparison, was not at the same level to provide the incentive for people to move, when there are jobs, into work. The government responded, based on some of the advice, with the increase in benefits. That is the kind of work that we attempt to do. We attempt to get to the better identification of the root problem and present some options.
Dominique La Salle, Director General, Seniors and Pension Policy Secretariat, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: I wish to add to what my colleague has said from the seniors' perspective. On the seniors' front, we have achieved a lower level of poverty, year after year, since the advent of the GIS. We are now at 4.8 per cent in 2007. This is a dramatic improvement compared to the 1980s, when we did not look very good.
Senator Segal: GIS is Guaranteed Income Supplement?
Mr. La Salle: That is right.
Senator Segal: The word "guaranteed" is in that.
Mr. La Salle: Yes. For all intents and purposes it is a guaranteed-income scheme for seniors. There is no question about that.
Senator Segal: I have to get that on the record here as often as I can.
Mr. La Salle: By any measure it is a great success.
Where we could improve and where there is a gap, we are not reaching everyone that we should. Some people decide they do not want to declare their revenue, perhaps to access some of these programs, which require a person to fill out an income tax form, et cetera. There is certainly that aspect.
Where we could make headway, however, is in information-sharing with provinces. We provide provinces with data related to who receives the Guaranteed Income Supplement, so lower-income Canadians.
Senator Segal: Is that anonymous, or is it the names of the people who are recipients?
Mr. La Salle: It is data provided to provinces. There are MOUs and privacy considerations, and so on. They use that information as eligibility criteria for a set of benefits.
There are two issues. Sometimes the marginal dollars that a senior gets at the federal level may have an impact on in- kind services that are received in the provinces. The other aspect is that it would be very nice to be able to get the social welfare roll of the provinces to do data comparisons in order to reach people who may have fallen between the cracks.
There are people who are, unfortunately, not on the radar screen — the homeless is a case in point. We reach these people by partnering with community agencies that deliver these types of services. We have some success there. It is almost done on a case-by-case basis.
There are pockets of poverty that remain with our large programs. These large statutory programs do not lend themselves very well to targeting. If you increase the general level, it is extremely costly.
By way of example, in 2006 and 2007, the level of the GIS was increased by a real 3.5 per cent each year. That is in addition to the indexation. That was a real bump up. In total, that represented $58 per month and cost $2.7 billion over five years.
Senator Segal: That is an income-tested program.
Mr. La Salle: Yes. That is for $1.5 million; that is right.
Ms. Weldon: With respect to the homelessness programming, to build on Mr. La Salle's point, the community based nature of the delivery facilitates the program running as efficiently as possible.
The other thing that has happened during the tenure of this government is the move from focusing, to a large degree, on emergency-based solutions, towards focusing on long-term housing solutions, meaning transitional and supportive housing. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's world is the permanent housing.
However, in the movement away from an emergency reaction on the street to a individual — although you need a certain amount of that — trying to focus the federal dollars towards long-term housing solutions with supports for those chronically mentally ill or severely addicted is a way to look at a long-term solution to the issue overall. This will permanently remove those people from the homeless population more than emergency-based solutions which may improve the quality of life of a person but does not resolve the situation in the long term. Those are the two things I would say to this committee.
Mr. Black: With respect to the outputs, we know the amount of money the government is spending on housing. Given the decision of last September and other things that I discussed in my opening remarks, the government is spending a tremendous amount of money making significant investments in housing.
This, as we were saying, will have an impact, even through the economic stimulus measures, on 200,000 Canadian households through new construction and renovation on the existing social housing stock that will improve their housing conditions considerably.
The federal government does this through cost-sharing arrangements with the provinces and territories. That means the federal government is able to leverage its money. Through the affordable-housing initiative we have a cost matching of 50 per cent federal and 50 per cent provincial, which allows all jurisdictions to reach even more households.
The other interesting thing about outputs is that, through our program evaluations — and we evaluate the programs, as you know, senator, on a regular basis — we know that our programs are meeting or addressing needs. They are helping the most disadvantaged in society. We are talking about Aboriginal Canadians, mother-led families, seniors and other people who are disproportionately represented amongst the disadvantaged population. Those are the very client groups that the federal government's housing programs, in partnership with the provinces and territories are helping. Not only are we talking about outputs in terms of widgets, we are also talking about outputs in terms of helping people on the ground.
You mentioned Aboriginal Canadians. You specifically referenced First Nations communities. The last time Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada were before this committee we spoke about some federal efforts with respect to on-reserve housing. CMHC and Indian and Northern Affairs make a significant contribution each year. In 2007, the government did bring in the First Nations Market Housing Fund. You discussed this the last time. This is an innovative instrument to try to bring private financing into First Nations communities through a credit-enhancement initiative. This is expected to help the housing situation in First Nations communities significantly. Both CMHC and INAC work closely with First Nations communities and the Assembly of First Nations as well to enhance capacity in the area of housing.
We are talking about creating a housing managers' association, and also an association of building officers in First Nations communities to improve First Nations governance, expertise and management of First Nations housing. A lot of money goes into First Nations housing. If we can enhance the management and governance of that housing, then the outcomes, as you have described, will improve immeasurably.
With respect to outputs compared to outcomes, you discussed the dynamics on housing affordability the last time that Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation were here. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has since done additional work on the dynamics of core housing need, which is a different concept than affordability.
As you know, there is tremendous dynamism. If we look at the core housing need of roughly 1.5 million households, that number does not change much from census to census. Statistics Canada provides a survey of labour and income dynamics. We were able to do a longitudinal analysis that showed tremendous movement over time. Only about one third of the entire population stays there in a permanent manner.
This is dramatic when looking at immigrant statistics with respect to core housing need. A significant number of immigrants come to Canada every year — Canada is a country of immigration. Unfortunately, a significant number of those immigrant households fall into core housing need. Approximately 35 per cent or 36 per cent of immigrants who have arrived in Canada over the previous five years are deemed to be in core housing need. That number drops significantly. The immigrant population basically looks like the general population after about 20 years.
At Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, we did work with the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, LSIC. These results were for 2001-2005. Some of the statistics show 80 per cent of tenant immigrant households paying 30 per cent or more after six months. It was 39 per cent after 48 months — less than half. Those having difficulty finding housing were 29 per cent after six months and eight per cent after 48 months. The rate of home ownership was 18 per cent in six months and 52 per cent after 48 months.
That demonstrates significant movement and dynamism in the entire structure. Sometimes when we look at census statistics, which are cross-sectional in nature, we do not perceive that things are moving. However, there is significant movement at the individual level. That would also suggest that efforts of the federal government to ensure the housing market functions properly and that there is enough money in the housing market would also have an impact on overall housing conditions. This was witnessed by the significant increase in home ownership rates in Canada between 2001 and 2006.
The Chair: Could you share that research with the committee and give the information you have to the researchers?
Mr. Black: Yes, absolutely. We will make that available to you.
The Chair: I hear you saying that people are moving in and out on an individual basis. Yet I keep hearing a statistic in Toronto about people in core need on the housing waiting list. Some have been on the list for years and have been waiting for years. How does that correspond with your findings? How do you explain that?
Mr. Black: I cannot speak in detail about waiting lists. As you know, senator, those are controlled either by the provinces or municipalities. You would be extremely familiar with issues of waiting lists.
However, if we are talking about the movement in and out, one third of the core need population has remained in core need over the three years of the longitudinal study. If there was a direct correlation, it would be that one third that we are talking about on the waiting lists.
Senator Cordy: I would like to talk about the training program. Do you have to be on Employment Insurance to qualify for the training?
Mr. Vermaeten: The federal government funds several kinds of training in a wide range of programming. The largest share of funding is for EI eligible individuals.
Senator Cordy: Do they have to be on EI?
Mr. Vermaeten: They have to be on EI. That has been the major support provided by the federal government for years in terms of training.
Budget 2007 introduced a new type of training called labour market agreements to address those who are not EI eligible, which is probably what you want to discuss. The Economic Action Plan provided additional funding and that gives provinces the flexibility to provide training to those that are not eligible for EI.
Another training program not specifically linked to the Employment Insurance program is the Targeted Initiative for Older Workers. There are other programs for Aboriginals, youth, et cetera.
This additional support for non-EI eligible clients is very important. It is also something that provinces and territories feel is important. It will make a difference for many people.
Senator Cordy: Was that $1.5 billion for the labour market agreements?
Mr. Vermaeten: There is $1 billion for Labour Market Development Agreements, that is, Employment Insurance. There is $500 million through a strategic fund for labour market agreements. Both of those amounts are over two years.
Senator Cordy: How much of that money has flowed to the provinces?
Mr. Vermaeten: We have made a lot of progress. We are fortunate because provinces and territories recognize the importance of this training. We have signed agreements with nine of the provinces; the tenth may be signed today. There is a lot of progress for both the labour market agreements and Labour Market Development Agreements — both for EI and non-EI clients. Once we sign that agreement, it is a legal obligation. That is the commitment. They will begin training immediately based on that money.
Senator Cordy: Does a province receive money as soon as they sign?
Mr. Vermaeten: The actual cheques are going out this week and next week. They are not waiting for the cheques. They wait for the commitment of the signed agreement. That is done, and on that basis, they start the training.
Senator Cordy: I do not understand the difference.
Mr. Vermaeten: Once there is an agreement in place, it is an iron clad commitment. We have a long-standing relationship with provinces and territories. The federal government pays its bills.
Senator Cordy: They can go ahead with it once the agreement has been signed by a province. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Vermaeten: Yes, absolutely. We are getting that now. We have their plans and they are enhancing their training right now.
Senator Cordy: This is not a partisan comment because it has happened in other governments as well. I have heard in the past that the training is not "worthwhile training." That does not sound quite like the word I want to use.
For example, when the fishing industry went under a number of years ago in my province of Nova Scotia, we had 25 hair dressers trained in a very small community. There was not the population for 25 hair dressers, nor could many people afford to go to a hairdresser. We also heard testimony from a witness who was a single mother with young children that was offered training as a personal care worker. Such a job would be impossible for a parent of young children to do.
Where are the decisions made about what types of training are offered? Is someone simply told that they are training as a hairdresser or a personal care worker?
I know decisions like that are not necessarily made at the federal level because you have partnerships with the provinces. However, sometimes I hear about training dollars being wasted for jobs that are not marketable. Either they do not fit the situation or there is no job in the community for them.
Mr. Vermaeten: That is an excellent comment. It is something that all governments are aware of. The efforts are to make training more responsive to the labour market needs. I talked about that earlier in the changes we have introduced for Aboriginal training.
I think provinces are also doing that and we are facilitating it. We are providing funding both for EI eligible clients and non-EI clients. We have also provided provinces with a lot of flexibility to provide that training.
Given the division of responsibilities, we provide the money to the provinces and territories and they, in turn, make those decisions. Provinces are aware of the things you are talking about and trying to make improvements. They provide a range of services. It is not just training for a hairdresser, but people have the ability to go to colleges, to universities and to private colleges. They provide wage subsidies and job placement. There is a whole range of possibilities and over the years, it has improved.
The federal government has provided a new measure in the Economic Action Plan that I would like to mention briefly. It is called the Career Transition Assistance initiative. It provides Employment Insurance benefits, so income support, for up to two years to allow people to go on provincial training. They go to their local service provider. In Nova Scotia, they go to one of the Halifax offices, for example. They talk to somebody and explore a range of possibilities as far as training. Some of that may be, in some situations, "We will help you write your CV, because you are qualified already and there is a job in your field. We will get that done very quickly." In other cases, people will have to go through significant life changes in terms of going from one industry to another.
The Career Transition Assistance initiative provides those employment benefits for two years so they can undertake significant training. Yes, it is done in consultations with the service provider, but it is the individual who needs to make that decision.
Senator Cordy: Can an individual say, "No, that is not what I want to do"?
Mr. Vermaeten: Absolutely.
Senator Cordy: You said they could go to universities and colleges, but they only have payment for two years. University would not be two years.
Mr. Vermaeten: That is a good point. We mentioned a while ago that there is a range of programs. There is financial assistance for students, and that provides funding for people who will do a four-year degree, but many people are looking for a two-year retraining, and many of these will be college-type courses targeted for somebody who wants to go into the trades, for example, and so two years is a significant amount of funding.
Senator Cordy: One of the things we have talked about in the housing market is that most people want their own home, and that is great, but many people are looking for rental units. We have heard that there is a great shortage of rental units. In fact, we heard that in 2006, for the first time in history, the rental stock has gone down. In a city like Toronto, the working poor cannot afford the exorbitant rent. What are CMHC and the government doing in terms of rental units for those in need?
Mr. Black: Thank you very much for that question. With respect to the rental market, it is important to recognize that the rental market itself is also very, very complex. CMHC produces a rental market survey twice a year, both in April and in the fall of the year. That rental market survey is of purpose-built, rental units of three units or more, but we know that it represents probably a little over one-half of the entire rental stock in the country, according to the census. Of course, the other rental stock comes from condominiums, which are often bought by investors and then rented out. In the secondary market, we have single homes, row housing and others, which would also be rented. The rental stock itself is a complex market.
The second thing you are referring to is the affordability. Affordability is an issue, as we know from all the statistics, and I know that your committee has discussed this in the past. With respect to the various programs that the federal government delivers in partnership with provinces and territories, many of those units are for rent. Those units would increase the rental stock. They would also increase the number of affordable rental units in that given marketplace.
CMHC, as I mentioned in my remarks, also works with the private sector. We do provide mortgage insurance for rental projects. We are the only mortgage insurer in Canada that does that. We provide mortgage insurance for private rental, for retirement homes and also for nursing homes. If the developer wishes to provide affordable housing, in other words, slightly lower than the market rent, then we actually provide certain flexibilities in our mortgage insurance premiums to help make that rental housing even more affordable.
Debra Darke, Director, Community Development, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation: As Mr. Black said, CMHC is involved in a variety of different programs and initiatives that are aimed specifically at increasing the supply of affordable rental housing. He has talked a little bit about the programs. You have probably heard about the Affordable Housing Initiative, which was extended back in September 2008. Funding is available, delivered through provinces and territories, which helps increase the supply of new affordable rental housing.
We also had our renovation programs extended for two years last September. While those do not create new affordable rental stock, they do help to avoid a loss of affordable rental stock by helping to keep what is already out there in good repair.
The economic stimulus measures, of course, also include some significant programs that will help to create new affordable rental housing for seniors and for persons with disabilities.
Mr. Black has talked a little bit about mortgage loan insurance, so maybe I can close off by just talking about some of the things that we do in the Affordable Housing Centre.
CMHC has a small group of people located in our regional offices across the country who work with a range of different groups including the private sector, and community-based, non-profit groups, to try to help facilitate the creation of affordable housing. In many cases, that includes rental, although it is not just restricted to that. From time to time, some projects are aimed at providing affordable homeownership. This group of people does a variety of things.
We have done market research in this area, talking to both non-profit and private sector proponents. They have told us that one of the real barriers is a lack of knowledge about how to go about producing affordable housing. What different approaches have people taken? How can I learn from others? They have also told us, intriguingly, that one of the real incentives or motivators is recognition amongst peers and amongst the community.
The Affordable Housing Centre staff tries to share information across the country on approaches that have worked for two things. It helps to address what has been identified to us as a barrier, plus it has the added benefit of giving recognition to those who have successfully implemented affordable housing solutions.
If you go on our website, you will see something called Project Profiles. We have a series of different profiles. In total, something like 130 different projects are featured. Many of these are rental, although, as I said, not exclusively. Many of these involve private sector groups in different ways. Sometimes these are private-sector only projects. Sometimes the private sector is working in close partnership with non-profit organizations as well.
The Chair: You have talked about the Affordable Housing Initiative and the money that is being invested in it. Of course, you deal with the provinces in this regard. It is a fifty-fifty proposition, as I recall.
Ms. Darke: Yes, it is.
The Chair: You have been rather prescriptive about it. Of the $2 billion, for example, $1 billion is for renovation of existing social housing, $475 million is for low-income seniors and persons with disabilities, and $600 million is for First Nations communities.
What about all those other people who are in core housing need, those people that are waiting to try to get into decent affordable housing who are paying more than 30 per cent of their income for their present accommodation? Where are we meeting their needs at this point in time?
Ms. Darke: One way to think about it is to look at the various measures you have just outlined that were in the Economic Action Plan as building upon the two-year extension of the Affordable Housing Initiative and the renovation programs that were announced last fall. While it is true that there are some particular groups targeted with the economic stimulus funding, in large part because of the nature of the needs amongst those particular populations, it is also the case that groups, for example, low-income families, can still benefit from the funding that is available under the Affordable Housing Initiative. The provinces and territories are responsible for delivering the Affordable Housing Initiative and will continue to do so under the two-year extension.
They cost match the federal contributions, so that means there is twice as much money available, and they will continue under the Affordable Housing Initiative to design and deliver the particular programs that are funded. Provinces and territories will make choices about the groups that they will target, the programs that they will fund under the Affordable Housing Initiative.
The Chair: Is it just within those groups that you have designated?
Ms. Darke: No, for the Affordable Housing Initiative itself, it is not just targeted to those groups. Under the Economic Action Plan, you are right. There is a particular pot of money that is available for seniors and persons with disabilities, but that same targeting does not apply to the two-year extension.
Senator Martin: As a former teacher, I am reminded of the importance of validating and highlighting the achievements and positives as we also talk about what more we need to do to improve. In going to some of the different cities across Canada heard, as others have indicated, that in terms of the seniors' initiatives how successful that has been. Many seniors are saying the government needs to highlight them a bit more because that is something we have done very well.
You talked about the community groups working and how they really do fill the gaps and they are doing very good work. Many of them are receiving the kind of funding they need to achieve those goals, but we also heard them say that they want long-term, more secure funding in that they can do the long-term planning as well.
The provincial-federal partnership was something that we also heard, and how having very workable, positive provincial-federal relationships really benefits the communities in that province. When we were in Montreal, they said they have seen the improvement with our government and that it is helping them do their work on the ground.
My first question is about that relationship. Is there a province that has been receptive or quite willing in that the federal-provincial relationship has been a good model for others? Is there one that you would like to highlight?
Mr. Vermaeten: I do not want to single out any one province because I think there is a very good relationship between the federal government and provinces when it comes to solving problems and when it comes to delivering programs.
As I said on the training, for example, we have a significant increase in funding. There is base funding of which we had agreement with all provinces. There is the additional funding, which has some slightly different terms and conditions. We have signed agreements with nine provinces and the tenth might be signed today. I feel that we have a very good relationship and there is a lot of cooperation.
There were consultations before the Economic Action Plan was released. I can tell you that there were genuine consultations on what needed to be done. When we introduced the budget and had our subsequent discussions with provinces, at least from my perspective when I am dealing with issues such as Employment Insurance and training, they were very satisfied that the federal government had listened and had worked closely with them.
Mr. Black: I would like to echo Mr. Vermaeten's comments. On the housing side we have excellent working relations with provinces and territories. There has been a longstanding relationship. The ministers have met. We had a housing deputy ministers' meeting on May 20. We are now working towards a potential meeting of the ministers later this year. There are, from time to time, specific working groups of officials which are struck to deal with specific issues. Right now, in particular, a working group of officials is looking at the existing social housing stock, the 625,000 units that I mentioned.
Just to echo Mr. Vermaeten's comments as well, another element that demonstrates the good working relationship we have had is that the economic stimulus package has created a challenge for all right across the federal government, and the provincial and territorial governments. Ms. Darke can speak eloquently to this, but as in labour we also entered into agreements with provinces and territories. I believe that all of the agreements have now been signed except for one, and we hope that will be finalized in the very near future.
The fact that these agreements were negotiated in a short time frame allowed us to deal with all the issues the provinces and territories put on the table. They were working in partnership and cooperation with the federal government because they knew it was important to get the stimulus money out. That demonstrates the excellent relationship we have with the provinces and territories.
Mr. La Salle: In the case of seniors, there is a forum of ministers responsible for seniors that Senator LeBreton co- chairs. They meet about once a year. The next meeting is in September. Issues such as elder abuse definitely require collaboration and partnership between levels of government and so on. They have been discussed there and in the round tables held by the National Seniors Council. Those issues include the multi-year funding to which you referred, for example, the New Horizon Program for seniors. The collaboration is very good in those forums. There are work plans and officials are working at doing the sort of mapping between the existing services. Beyond that, we partner with organizations such as the Assembly of First Nations on the reaching into communities.
Like my colleague, Mr. Vermaeten, I do not think I would highlight a particular province.
Senator Martin: That is a good answer.
Mr. Fedyk: There are forums, both at the ministerial and official level, across the whole spectrum. We have one on the labour market, which Mr. Vermaeten co-chairs at the senior official level. We have deputy-level and ministerial- level forums. We have similar in the social service field, as well as learning where we collaborate with the provinces and territories.
Senator Martin: As you mentioned, it has been a long-term process of relationship building.
Another concern is that many families deal with family members with mental illness. That issue came up repeatedly. We heard that we need initiatives to support Canadians with serious mental illness. Many of them end up homeless and it puts a strain on the whole society. I am sure that there are such initiatives, if you want to comment on those.
I want to ask Mr. Black a very specific question. What would be the solution to such a scenario? What about a senior facility that is in great need of renovations but so run down that it should be torn down and rebuilt. Under the renovation program, would such an enterprise receive funding? The funding would have to cover energy efficiency, et cetera. Would a group such as that qualify for this program?
Mr. Black: I would have to defer to my colleague, Ms. Darke.
Ms. Darke: That is a tough question to answer without knowing the specifics of the project itself, but let me try to give you a bit of a general answer.
It is possible under the renovation and retrofit of existing social housing initiative to fund regeneration or redevelopment. In addition to doing general repairs or making improvements to building components or worn-out systems, it is recognized that there are some instances where, either because of functional or physical obsolescence, it just makes more sense to rebuild.
There are maximum-per-unit levels of assistance that are available. Provinces and territories have some degree of flexibility within those levels. Without knowing the ins and outs of the project —, I am sure you have a specific one in mind — I would suggest that the best bet is probably for the group to talk to the province directly and find out the particulars of the project.
As I said, it is recognized that, from time to time, there is a need to redevelop rather than simply to repair.
Senator Martin: Thank you.
You mentioned foreign credentials improvements. We had heard the term "international credentials" being more empowering. The word "foreign" implies that the people here remain foreigners with these credentials. We understand what we mean by that, but I would really like to see more movement on that file. Almost 40 years ago, my own father came to this country, and what he had to endure and the challenges he had to face are still being faced by many new Canadians with these international credentials. I am glad to hear that we have made improvements, but I would like to see them somehow move further along in that direction.
Mr. Vermaeten: We are extremely pleased that progress is being made to develop a framework. I know people use the word "historic" often, but it really is historic in terms of for so many years very little progress was made. Now, first ministers have agreed to work towards a framework.
We will find way to help those people who have those credentials recognized be recognized in a systematic, fair and timely manner. It is something important for Canada and for new Canadians and immigrants.
Senator Martin: Thank you.
Senator Dyck: Thank you for your presentations this morning.
In view of the seriousness of the H1N1 epidemic in Manitoba, I will focus my comments on housing. I think that overcrowding and poor construction, the mould and so on have probably aggravated the severity of the disease.
In your presentation, Mr. Black, you talked about how CMHC has standards so that housing is well constructed. On reserves, there can be individually owned homes as well as band-constructed homes. Who ensures the standards of construction on the band-controlled homes? Does CMHC have a role in ensuring that the homes are built in such a way that they do not become mould infested? I will let you answer that one first and then go on with my other questions.
Mr. Black: It is the responsibility of the individual First Nation to ensure building standards in that community.
Senator Dyck: You note that in Budget 2007 there was money set aside for a First Nations Market Housing Fund that would enable up to 25,000 new homes over a 10-year period across the country. That works out to maybe 40 homes per First Nation because there are over 600 First Nations across the country.
Do we know how many new homes are needed on-reserve? Do we know how many need fixing? Would that information be useful in terms of setting aside funds to address those issues? With respect to that program, has it been successful? How many people have applied for it? Has money gone out the door? Is it making a difference?
Mr. Black: With respect to First Nation communities, you are quite right; we do compile statistics based on the housing conditions in First Nation communities. We all know that they are worse than in the general population. Overcrowding is a specific issue in First Nation communities, and we all hear the reports in the media. Also, there is a significant lack of adequate housing. A significant number of units in First Nation communities are in need of repair. As you said, mould is a particular issue in a number of First Nation communities, especially on the West Coast where it is very damp.
As I said earlier in my opening remarks, there are a number of initiatives that the federal government undertakes through CMHC and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. We work very closely with First Nations, the Assembly of First Nations and the regional First Nation organizations.
Between INAC and CMHC, the federal government invests I about $270 million a year directly into housing for First Nation communities. That allows for the construction of a little over 2,000 units and the repair of a little over 3,000 units per year.
Through the CMHC investments, we built up a social housing portfolio in First Nation communities of, I believe, if I am correct, slightly over 28,000 units, which represents a great portion of the overall housing stock in First Nation communities.
I think there are issues with respect to the indoor air quality. One of CMHC's capacity development initiatives with First Nations is an indoor air quality initiative. We have entered into memoranda of understanding with a number of First Nations to go through a fairly intensive series of courses with the entire community. It could be the chief and council; it could be the housing manager; it could be the occupants as well, in order to assist them to be better able to manage their housing.
I also mentioned that we have developed a national association of inspectors and building officers called the First Nations National Building Officers Association. We are also working with First Nation housing managers to create a national housing managers association for First Nation communities because, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, we are working very closely with First Nations to improve the overall governance and management of the housing. All of these things can be improved at the same time.
There are efforts being made to improve the housing and a significant amount of investments are being made, but we recognize that more needs to be done with First Nation communities.
CMHC and INAC are undertaking an evaluation of the on-reserve housing programs. This is an evaluation of the policies that were put in place in 1996, and we are working very closely with the Assembly of First Nations. We have an advisory committee with a number of representatives from First Nations, not only from AFN here in Ottawa but right across the country.
Finally, you mentioned the First Nations Market Housing Fund. The fund does not provide money. The fund is a credit-enhancement facility. As you are very aware, it is extremely difficult for someone to borrow money for a private sector financial institution to lend on reserve because, of course, you cannot seize assets in a First Nation community.
The First Nations Market Housing Fund is intended to be a credit enhancement facility that would reduce the risks for private sector financial institutions that wish to lend.
There has been, I believe, one First Nation community in Newfoundland and Labrador that has already been rendered approved for the fund, and a number of lenders have also been approved for efforts under the fund. You would have to talk to the fund directly with respect to activity.
We are working with INAC and First Nations on a series of measures across the board to try to improve housing conditions in First Nations communities, but we recognize that this is a serious issue.
The Chair: May I interrupt and ask a supplementary question here about the urban Aboriginal housing program, which, we are told, allows up to 100 per cent rent- geared- to-income units. The concern is that the operating subsidies will expire. What will happen then? What existing programs or anticipated programs will cover off that need?
Mr. Black: The urban native program is part of what we call the existing social housing stock. I mentioned the 625,000 units across the country. As you are aware, these projects were built under long-term agreements with the federal, provincial and territorial governments. The agreement can go anywhere from 25 years up to 50 years, depending on the specific program under which the project was developed.
A federal-provincial-territorial working group of officials is looking at the very issue of the existing social housing stock. The issue is whether these projects will be viable once the agreements end and they come off subsidy. That is an issue that is being addressed multilaterally.
The Canadian Housing and Renewal Association has come out with a study. There are some indications that a number of the projects will be viable, post-subsidy. Others may not be. We will take a close look at the urban native projects.
The Chair: When do you anticipate there might be some response? There is obviously some angst in the community about the expiration of these operating subsidies.
Mr. Black: It depends upon the project. Some projects are coming off subsidy now; other may be on subsidy until 2020, 2030 or 2035. They are spread out over a significant length of time.
The Chair: Obviously, the sooner projects are of concern to people.
Senator Dyck: I was going to ask about off-reserve housing, too. Before I get to that, from your answer it sounded as though the First Nations Market Housing Fund is still in the initial phase of setting up and getting everything in line for it to proceed and that there have not been a significant number of individual First Nations people stepping up to build homes on the reserve.
Mr. Black: I cannot speak directly for the First Nations Market Housing Fund; the committee may wish to have them appear here as witnesses.
First Nations must qualify for the fund. There is an assessment that the fund will go through in order to qualify a First Nation, and the lenders as well.
Senator Dyck: Do we know how many homes are band-owned versus individually-owned? Will it actually make a significant difference in terms of the overall health of the community if we increase the number of individually-owned homes?
Mr. Black: The objective would be to increase the total number of homes in a First Nations community, be it homes that are individually owned or homes that would be owned by the band. This would help address the overcrowding issue. It would also have a significant economic impact on these First Nations communities. The intent of the First Nations Market Housing Fund is towards home ownership but it could support private rental accommodation in a First Nations community as well.
Senator Dyck: What sort of relationship do you have with off-reserve people? There is a jurisdiction between the provincial governments and the federal government, I would think, and some of the off-reserve people might fall through the cracks where Indian and Northern Affairs is responsible for those First Nations people living on-reserve, but those people living off-reserve would not tend to receive the same level of funding. What sort of coordination could there be to improve the situation for off-reserve people?
Mr. Black: Off-reserve Aboriginals are eligible for all of the federally financed housing programs that are available off-reserve.
As I mentioned in my remarks, in 2006 the government made available a $300 million off-reserve Aboriginal affordable housing fund. There was also $300 million made available at that time for the North. Of course, there is a high Aboriginal population in the three territories. In the Economic Action Plan in Budget 2009, $200 million of federal funding was set aside for the territories — that is, for Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
CMHC provides subsidies to the tune of $150 million per year in support of Aboriginal households off-reserve. That is part of the overall $1.7 billion that the federal government spends through CMHC in support of the existing social housing stock.
As I said at the beginning, Aboriginal Canadians can certainly benefit from all of the federal programs, the Affordable Housing Initiative and our renovation programs. Our understanding, based on preliminary evaluation results, is that the programs being delivered by our provincial and territorial colleagues are indeed serving the Aboriginal population off-reserve.
Senator Dyck: It may seem that way, but it is not necessarily a level playing field with regard to the household income or levels of education. Your household income may be such that you cannot afford to buy your own home, and we all know that the income levels and employment rates amongst Aboriginals is well below the average for other Canadians.
Mr. Black: That is true, senator. Our affordable housing initiative and the social housing programs are designed to assist people of lower income. Aboriginal households do indeed benefit from these programs.
The Chair: Regarding CMHC, we have heard a couple of comments about the Low Income Housing Tax Credit in the United States. It has been in effect for about two decades. I just read a report from the C.D. Howe Institute on this subject, and that institute advocates a similar credit for Canada, although they point out there are some shortcomings, particularly in the early stages.
Are you familiar with this program? Does it have some possibilities for Canada in helping to deal with low income housing needs?
Mr. Black: Yes, we are familiar with that program. I hope you do not ask me too many detailed questions about the program design, but we are familiar with it.
This is a tax credit program. It is a policy instrument that a government may wish to adopt. There are pros and cons to going a tax route. Right now, the government has made a decision to go follow the route of direct support to affordable housing projects. We are achieving results with the various affordable housing initiatives and the others in which the federal government has invested heavily.
The Chair: You talked about the child benefit programs. Child poverty was addressed by the House of Commons in 1989 as something to be eliminated by 2000. Today, we look to be in about the same place that we were in 1989. According to Statistics Canada, at that point, 11.7 per cent, or 776,000 children, were living in poverty. Today, it is 11.3 per cent, or 760,000 children. Child poverty went up and then it came down. One could always argue that child poverty is down from its peak in 1997, but it seems to be virtually at the same level it was in 1989.
Why has there not been more attention paid to dealing with the issue of child poverty?
Mr. Fedyk: Thank you for the question. You are correct in terms of the trend for children living in poverty. As we know, children are in families, so with respect to the initiatives, you must address the needs of those parents. A significant number of those parents, as we know from our analysis, are single parents. The government is providing support for training, as well as providing support and benefits for families with young children. You are well aware of the enrichments that were made in terms of the Canadian tax benefit that supports low- and modest-income Canadians. As Mr. Vermaeten mentioned, for a family with two children, there is an additional benefit of $437.
Obviously, poverty is a complex and challenging issue. A response in terms of income alone is not sufficient. We must address the root cause, which often, with respect to children, means addressing the working parent who may be of low income. We need to address the training needs. Through the Working Income Tax Benefit, as we described, we are encouraging and ensuring that work pays.
There is no simple solution to the children living in poverty issue, but the government is taking action to deal with the particular needs of the child, as well as the family.
The Chair: This falls into Senator Segal's point about looking at the outcomes and the gaps. There certainly are gaps. The current numbers, of course, are pre-recession numbers.
This brings us to a conclusion for today's meeting. Thank you very much for the work you do, and thank you for coming here today. We hope that we can come up with some ideas. We will come out with a final report in the fall, which will give you more to work with. Of course, we understand that money must be allocated as well. I hope that the report will help some of the people in this country who experience poverty and homelessness.
(The committee adjourned.)