|
|||
|
< Back to News Release Executive Summary Assigned the task of studying social conditions in Canadian cities, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology’s Subcommittee on Cities chose to begin with people whose lives in those cities are marginalized by poverty, housing challenges and even homelessness. The most vulnerable among city-dwellers in Canada were our starting place. We set out to determine how governments, businesses and the voluntary sector were able to help people escape poverty. To our distress, we found that decades of social policy making at different levels of government have had two possibly devastating results. First, when all the programs are working, when the individual gets all possible income and social supports, the resulting income too often still maintains people in poverty, rather than lifting them into a life of full participation in the economic and social life of their communities. While the Committee heard from and met with a wide range of people with direct experience of poverty and homelessness, government officials, voluntary sector organizations, and analysts who described remarkable initiatives and results, these are generally small scale and exceptional, rather than usual and expected outcomes. Second, at their worst, the existing policies and programs entrap people in poverty, creating unintended perverse effects which make it virtually impossible for too many people to escape reliance on income security programs and even homeless shelters. Their escape into employment should allow them to support themselves and their families with an income adequate to meet their basic needs. The programs that entrap people also provide too little income to meet those same needs. The Committee does not believe that these outcomes are inevitable. In fact, the federal programs designed to bring older Canadians out of poverty have proven to be enormously, if not completely, successful, lifting many seniors out of poverty, and ensuring that none are in deep poverty. While federalism can result in complications in programming, it has also proved highly effective when there is a shared goal. For example, many provinces have tailored the Working Income Tax Benefit (a federal program) to build on existing or new initiatives to supplement the income of low-income workers, resulting in enhanced benefits to eligible people in those provinces. We know that the federal government can make a big difference, and that collaboration among government can enhance the benefits from federal programs. Yet, this has often not been the case. There are federal instruments that supplement incomes of virtually all Canadians, except those who are adults and considered capable of earning a living. The National Child Benefit for children, the Old Age Security/Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors, the Working Income Tax Benefit for low-income workers have all proven to be effective, though the benefits to children and workers are not yet sufficient to truly lift them from poverty. The Committee has also noted that some groups are particularly disadvantaged, in terms of income and housing inadequacy: unattached individuals, persons with disabilities, Aboriginal peoples, some newcomers to Canada (recent immigrants and refugee claimants), and lone parents. They are over-represented among the poor, the homeless, high school dropouts and people with limited literacy skills. Despite an extensive array of programs targeted to assist them – especially newcomers, urban Aboriginal peoples, and people with disabilities - the results being sought are not being achieved. Gender and race seriously complicate the challenges for these groups, resulting in even greater discrimination. Particularly in the time of recession and economic upheaval, the Committee recognizes the urgency of providing remedies to these groups. The Committee seeks to ensure that the programs and policies in place serve to provide hope with a commitment to education, training and employment as a way out of poverty and into their place in jobs, schools, and communities where they can benefit from the opportunities that must be available to all.
In more than 35 hearings, five roundtables and site visits to 20 agencies in nine cities across Canada, the Committee had the opportunity to hear from more than 175 witnesses, some living in poverty and/or homeless themselves, others working for community agencies, and some analysts from universities, think tanks and national voluntary organizations. For each site visit and each hearing, the Committee also read syntheses of recent and seminal research on the three main themes. We relied on testimony of personal experience, conversations with people living with these problems in Canadian cities, and policy experts, relying on up-to-date data and information. We considered how people are affected by current policies and programs, and we welcomed suggestions on how these could be improved to create real opportunity for those currently marginalized by homelessness and poverty, or the threat of these conditions. In its research, hearings and site visits to agencies, the Committee learned of “promising practices”, programs and initiatives that were demonstrating remarkable success in taking people out of poverty and insecure housing or homelessness, and supporting them into economic and social security. The full report identifies these community responses in each section, and provides more detailed information about each in an appendix to the report. The full report which this Executive Summary seeks to summarize provides the testimony, examples and data that support these recommendations.
As the Committee studied income security programs, including tax-delivered benefits, social assistance, Employment Insurance, and OAS/GIS, our focus was on adequacy, reliability, and effectiveness of these programs. Did people have enough money to live on? How did the policies and programs fit together? Did all Canadians have an opportunity to upgrade their education and skills, at any stage in their lives? Could people struggling with health and disability issues get the income and services they needed without giving up the possibility of returning to work or school? Did the programs and policies create opportunities or obstacles? Were parents of children in low-income households able to provide for their children’s needs, including their readiness for and completion of school? An important observation, of particular interest to the Committee, was that many income programs sustain people in poverty, rather than lifting them out of poverty. The Committee therefore offers the following general recommendations with respect to poverty. The Committee recommends that the federal government:
The Committee recommends that provincial governments increase current limits on assets for qualifying applicants for the first six to 12 months, to allow those relying on social assistance for short periods of time to retain the assets they need to re-engage in the labour force and regain their economic footing [Recommendation 2].
The Committee has heard strong recommendations from national organizations in particular for a national poverty reduction strategy. The Committee has studied provincial and local poverty reduction strategies, with a particular focus on what their recommendations are for federal policy and programs. The Committee has chosen to focus on concrete changes to federal programs, some of which were recommended by provincial and local initiatives, to raise the income of Canadians through federal income and social insurance programs, and to support the work already underway in more than half of Canada’s provinces and many local communities. Detailed recommendations with respect to these income security programs follow; in the short-term, the Committee offers the following recommendation with respect to supporting provincial initiatives. The Committee recommends that the federal government target "shovel ready" social infrastructure for investment, with their provincial counterparts, specifically housing, income security, and social agencies, whose ability to serve can be quickly enhanced through increased and accelerated investment in the Canada Social Transfer, to parallel its investment in "shovel ready" physical infrastructure, to combat recession [Recommendation 36].
The Committee found that federal programs generally provide the instruments needed to achieve the results that every Canadian would like to see; their failure often rested in program design: eligibility criteria, level of supports or benefits, and duration of support. No-where was this more true than with Employment Insurance. Recent extension of benefits to all eligible claimants, with a special benefit for those with long employment and short EI claim periods, were welcome antidotes to the short-term crisis, but do not address longer term insufficiencies and inequities in the program, particularly with respect to access to training funded through this program. The Committee also heard evidence about the expansion of EI beyond its social insurance beginnings, to support people working in seasonal industries, and to offer benefits for some intentional periods of unemployment, including parental benefits and compassionate benefits. There were some differences of opinion among witnesses about whether these programs should be maintained within EI or moved to other social programs; the Committee has opted for the short-term expedience of sustaining these initiatives within EI. Therefore, the Committee offers the following recommendations to improve EI, and contribute to poverty prevention. The Committee recommends that the federal government:
The Committee’s hearings and research also painted a clear picture of the importance of education and training to household income, and the disturbing reality of barriers to access for many, especially those groups over-represented among the poor, whose under-representation in training and education programs is a tragic contributor to their persistent poverty. The Committee learned about and witnessed the importance of middle-school supports for vulnerable children and supports for high-school completion and literacy upgrading for young adults, about the high costs of dropping out of high school for individuals and society, about the importance of skills-building for adults of all ages as they enter the job market or lose a job in a declining industry, and about the strong correlation between post-secondary education and adequate family incomes. The Committee built on that evidence and research, and recognizing the role of both provincial and federal governments in education and the importance of early intervention, makes the following recommendations. The Committee recommends that the federal government:
The Committee conducted a study on population health concurrent with this study on poverty, housing and homelessness, often holding joint hearings and benefitting from the testimony before both subcommittees. In addition, the Committee held a hearing specifically focussing on the connection between living in a low-income neighbourhood or having a low income, and disproportionately negative health outcomes. Despite the universal health care system that provides access to doctors and hospitals, the evidence demonstrate that results are not the same for rich and poor. The Committee also recognizes that illness can exacerbate existing poverty and can lead individuals and families into poverty. In recognition of the contribution of poverty and homelessness to health challenges, and in keeping with this Committee’s recent report on population health, the Committee recommends that the federal government:
Increasingly, the federal government has relied on income support programs triggered by or delivered through the income tax system. Credits and deductions, of course, are available only to people with enough income to pay taxes. However, many credits are now “refundable”, being paid to people who do not owe taxes but who file tax returns. Examples include the Goods and Services Tax (GST) refundable credit paid to low-income tax filers. Creative use of tax credits have been important contributors to putting money in the hands of low-income individuals and households. These include the National Child Benefit Supplement, described by witnesses as offering the potential to take children out of poverty, and the Working Income Tax Benefit, offering the potential to “make work pay.” To realize that potential, and to contribute to lifting all households out of poverty, the Committee makes the following recommendations. The Committee recommends that the federal government:
The Committee’s study of housing and homelessness focussed on these as separate policy areas, as many federal programs in particular separate the two. During our research, hearings and site visits, the Committee learned of important and exciting initiatives at the local and provincial levels, and how local and provincial governments, as well as private-sector and voluntary-sector developers, are sometimes constrained by regulations, time-frames, and declining operating support from the federal government. As well, it has become clear to the Committee that a more integrated consideration of both housing and homelessness offers a better chance of implementing a “housing first” approach. With this approach, individuals who are homeless or at risk of homelessness are stabilized with affordable housing, offering a base from which any other complicating factors in their lives can be addressed. Further, the Committee is aware that unaffordable and inadequate housing, even for those who are currently able to meet their needs and aspirations, can contribute to poverty, and to a spiral that can include losing jobs, dropping out of school, and being unable to sustain families. Not all solutions address both the needs of those who are currently homeless and the importance of a housing “system” that supplies affordable and adequate housing to those who are currently housed. With respect to housing, the Committee recommends that the federal government:
With respect to homelessness, the Committee has heard of the effectiveness of the Homelessness Partnering Strategies and its predecessor programs in supporting communities to reduce homelessness and to move people from the streets into housing. The Committee recommends that the federal government:
With respect to an integrated approach to housing and homelessness, the Committee recommends that the federal government:
While the Committee has chosen to consider impacts of general, or “mainstream” programs on the groups over-represented among those experiencing persistent poverty (i.e. Aboriginal peoples, people with disabilities, unattached individuals, and newcomers to Canada), only some have been addressed in the previous sections of this Executive Summary. Other policies or programs, specific to these groups, are addressed below. Aboriginal peoples The Committee’s city study has focussed on urban Aboriginal peoples, a group that includes diverse cultures and varying levels of economic and social challenges. The Committee understands that the lives of many Aboriginal people are not lived out exclusively on-reserve or negotiated land claims land on the one hand or in cities on the other; rather transitions to and from traditional lands and cities are common. Both on-reserve and in cities, Aboriginal people are generally poorer and less adequately and affordably housed than their non-Aboriginal counterparts. Federal policies and programs have sought to redress this differential; recommendations with respect to those policies and programs follow. The Committee recommends that the federal government:
Newcomers to Canada The Committee recognizes the primary responsibility of the federal government with respect to policies and programs for refugee claimants and immigrants to Canada. The Committee is also aware that these refugees and some immigrants face particular economic and social challenges. The Committee also learned that the networks within immigrant communities often prevent absolute homelessness among newcomers, as recently arrived immigrants are often welcomed into the sometimes over-crowded homes of newcomers who arrived weeks or months before. In addition to the tax measures proposed to ease integration to appropriate employment in Canada, the Committee believes that other initiatives are needed to redress these hardships. The Committee recommends that the federal government:
Whether the subject was poverty, housing or homelessness, many witnesses described the problems in terms of rights denied. Pointing to both domestic human rights legislation and international commitments made by Canada to United Nations declarations and conventions, these witnesses identified the failure of governments to live up to these obligations, and the importance of providing access for individuals to hold governments accountable and to claim rights in appropriate courts and tribunals. The Committee understands that these commitments are important – both in terms of assessing governments’ performance with respect to international and domestic law and agreements and in the context of defending one’s rights. The Committee recommends that the federal government:
The Committee believes that lifting Canadians out of poverty, ensuring they are adequately and affordable housed and eliminating homelessness is the work of all sectors, working in harmony wherever possible. In addition to the recommendations already provided above, the Committee wishes to support such collaboration wherever possible. In particular, the Committee has noted the critical contribution of local agencies, both voluntary and municipal, to supporting people in their transitions out of poverty into appropriate and affordable housing and into social and economic participation in their communities. The 20 agencies visited by the Committee and the dozens of agencies that submitted briefs, participated in roundtables and appeared as witnesses, all inspired the Committee with their innovations, passion and effective programs. The Committee recommends that the federal government:
The Committee has recognized throughout its study that the best and most successful approaches to the problems of poverty, housing and homelessness, emerge and are implemented when all levels of government, employers, and community agencies are all involved. Whether co-ordinating efforts among government departments, finding employment for youth on the streets of Halifax, or connecting newcomers and employers in Toronto, or providing appropriate learning and employment opportunities for Aboriginal youth in Regina, collaborations inside and across governments and across sectors have had remarkable results. The Committee has seen that no single department, level of government, or sector can solve these problems alone. The Committee recommends that:
In its hearings and submitted briefs, the Committee has noted the reliance of individual citizens, local and national voluntary organizations, think tanks and universities and private-sector organizations on data provided by federal departments, notably Statistics Canada and Canada Mortgage and Housing. The Committee also heard repeatedly that these and other data shared among agencies allow governments and community groups alike to anticipate needs and respond more appropriately to people with problems with poverty, housing and homelessness. The Committee recommends that the federal government:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
