A.  Background

Like individuals, communities may face challenges that can reduce quality of life and perpetuate the cycle of poverty. An inadequate transportation network, poor or non-existent infrastructure, and high crime and unemployment rates are examples of these community-level challenges.

To address some of these needs, Budget 2016 announced $11.9 billion over five years to fund infrastructure expenditures. This funding was augmented in the Fall Economic Statement (2016) with the result that total federal government funding will include, over 11 years, funding for specific streams, including: $25.3 billion for public transit infrastructure; $21.9 billion for social infrastructure, to include affordable housing, early learning and child care facilities, shelters for victims of violence, and investments for homelessness; $21.9 billion for green infrastructure; and $2 billion for rural and northern communities, for projects such as expanding roads and enhancing Internet connectivity. Funding for these infrastructure projects is provided through cost-sharing bilateral agreements with provinces and territories. Projects are selected based on priorities identified by the provinces and territories.[378]

Included in the social infrastructure funding stream are expenditures for Indigenous communities in the areas of expanding affordable housing, supporting early learning and child care, improving health care in Indigenous communities, and building more cultural and recreational infrastructure, such as community centres, museums, parks, and arenas.[379]

In addition to support for physical infrastructure, the federal government provides program funding for social supports within communities. ESDC provides support for community-based organizations through the Social Development Partnerships Program, which promotes the inclusion of socially vulnerable groups through targeted funding for non-profit organizations. Through these strategic investments, the program supports federal priorities regarding children and families, people with disabilities, the voluntary sector, official languages minority communities, and other vulnerable populations. The program also provides the opportunity to work in partnership with non-profit agencies to improve the lives of target groups.[380]

B.  What the Committee Heard

The importance of communities and neighbourhoods in addressing poverty reduction is crucial for several reasons. Communities bear many of the costs associated with poverty, such as financial and resource burdens for their social, judicial, and health care services. Moreover, communities are where those living in poverty reside and where they come in contact with front line service providers. This fundamental link was described by Sandra Datars Bere of the City of London who summarized the city’s poverty reduction strategy, “London for All”:

Poverty is a community issue. Poverty impacts all of us because a community experiences poverty and cannot reach its potential when people lack or are denied the economic, social, or cultural resources to participate fully....

... At the community level, poverty has economic impacts, because individuals and families living in poverty are less likely to work and more likely to draw on emergency and social services.[381]

1. Addressing food insecurity in communities

The Committee learned that the use of food banks in Canada has been nearing record levels for a number of years, with more than 830,000 people accessing a food bank monthly since 2010. Witnesses also stated that food bank use is currently 26% higher than it was before the global recession began.[382] The Committee heard that “while more than half of households accessing food banks are on social assistance or disability-related income supports,” one in six reported employment as their primary source of income.[383] The Committee was surprised to learn that single, unattached individual food bank users, as a proportion of the total, have increased from 30% in 2001 to 45% in 2016.[384]

The Committee heard that the disturbing increase in food bank usage has concerned and frustrated both community representatives and community-based organizations who work with those living in poverty. This is partly because of the need to use resources to meet immediate and urgent needs for food while realizing that this service does not have any lasting impact on reducing poverty. Some witnesses referred to the need to divert the resources used by food banks and other short-term measures to more effective measures that would prevent the need for food banks. The Committee was told that while Medicine Hat has a food bank, the executive directors of the bank believe that food banks are not the right means to reduce poverty and are changing their approach to how the bank operates and the type of supports it offers.[385]

The Committee heard that Indigenous communities have developed unique approaches to increase food security. For instance, some northern Indigenous communities have developed the means to increase access to “country food” through the use of community freezers and community kitchens, specifically aimed to reduce the consumption of processed food particularly among Elders and youth. Witnesses also described greenhouse projects in Nunavik, as well as the introduction of chicken coops, both aimed at increasing access to fresh food. In the case of Nunavik, other food security programs are also being considered, such as school breakfast and snack programs and meal delivery to those in need.[386]

2.   Needs for community infrastructure

The Committee heard that geographically based concentrations of poverty within communities have shifted over time, as rising housing costs and changing employment locations have pushed low-income individuals and families to neighbourhoods with more affordable housing. However, public transportation and other services and supports do not necessarily follow these population movements, with the result that neighbourhoods with a growing low-income population often lack sufficient community infrastructure.[387]

The Committee heard that communities need federal government assistance not necessarily in providing delivery of services, but rather in constructing and repairing the physical sites in which to base such services. Communities need centralized spaces, easily accessible for those who need them, where multiple services can be delivered:

... families need a place to go in their communities for resources, backup support, and assistance to help them navigate their communities. They're working across health, social services, and various benefit programs. They're falling through the cracks, and because they're falling through the cracks their kids are ending up in child welfare or in long-term care. The idea of community hubs as places that provide support for social enterprise and places for families to gather and to develop initiatives to provide them social support is the piece that's missing. It's not about delivering services directly but about giving a place in the community where people can gather to come up with creative solutions in their local communities.[388]

The concept and importance of community hubs for low-income neighbourhoods and the critical need for infrastructure to house them was further explained to the Committee by Pedro Barata of the United Way Toronto and York Region:

Community hubs are essentially community centres where agencies and various programs can come together and, in a one-stop shop format, provide opportunities for people to come in and get help with child care, employment services, and primary health care, with all of those under one roof. Building these requires an investment. We believe that investment is just as important as an investment in bridges, sewers, and other hard infrastructure, because what you're doing is essentially building a way to provide people with direct services and opportunities.[389]

Witnesses also identified infrastructure investments required to address the needs of certain vulnerable populations. For instance, the Committee learned that infrastructure for education was needed in the north, including new colleges with flexible programs tailored to the culture and social fabric of Inuit people. This type of investment would allow community members to remain in their communities and eventually to work there, bringing economic benefits as well as contributing to the safety net for suicide prevention and mental health promotion.[390] One witness advised the Committee that the federal government should develop an Arctic infrastructure strategy, which would move infrastructure planning from uncoordinated ad hoc projects to a means for planning northern community development in a way that meets the comprehensive infrastructure needs at the community level.[391]

Several witnesses told the Committee that their communities had determined that infrastructure was needed to address pressing needs for child and youth wellness services. For instance, the City of Medicine Hat identified the need to create a child wellness centre to address the increasing socio-emotional needs of young people in their region.[392] Representatives of Nunavut identified the creation of a wellness centre and youth centres in each of its communities as a priority for reducing poverty, in addition to the need for a substance abuse treatment centre, and spaces for not-for-profit organizations.[393] The City of Maple Ridge identified a similar need for youth in their community and raised money within the community to construct a youth wellness centre, which provides psychiatric assessment services, mental health services, primary care services and other supports for over 120 youth between the ages of 8-24. However, community representatives stated that they lack the necessary funds to sustain this centre.[394]

3.   Transportation

The issue of transportation was identified by several witnesses as a core need that was essential to include in plans to reduce poverty. Witnesses explained that physical and affordable access to public transit facilitates employment, education, and access to services and supports for low-income individuals and families.[395] The Committee was told that high public transportation costs in some municipalities may pose a barrier for those trying to access essential services, which may be situated in a number of neighbourhoods.[396] In addition to the high cost of public transit, inadequate coverage and scheduling pose additional challenges, which can impede those in poverty from finding or maintaining employment.[397]

Witnesses from smaller, rural communities observed that transportation is a particular challenge, as there is little or no public transit available, creating a barrier to employment and education for those without access to a vehicle.[398] The Committee heard that in New Brunswick, where 50% of the population lives in rural areas, inadequate transportation is the greatest barrier for low-income rural residents.[399] Similarly, lack of low cost transportation was identified as one of the largest barriers within the community of Medicine Hat,[400] where publicly funded transportation falls short of the needs of large geographic areas and where services are difficult to access for those in more remote areas.[401]

The Committee heard that transportation systems are also a challenge in the North, making transportation within communities more difficult for those without vehicles.[402] Elders in particular often face mobility challenges due to health problems and weather conditions.[403] While some Inuit communities have community buses to help Elders access food stores and health services, many seniors are dependent on the availability of family members.

4.   Service gaps for vulnerable populations

Several witnesses described the challenge of supporting older workers, who may be unfamiliar with the support systems in their communities and more likely to fall through the cracks. One witness noted that men (typically single) between the ages of 45 and 65 are the largest-growing population accessing the social assistance program in London. Those who have lost jobs from industry closures may not be familiar with the social support system in the community, never having accessed it before, and often lack family and social networks to help them navigate it.[404] Seniors were also a concern of witnesses in Maple Ridge, B.C, where 10% of users of its temporary shelter are seniors and 22% of regular food bank users are seniors.[405]

Some witnesses pointed to the need for active outreach and face-to-face community-based programs for vulnerable populations. Such programs linking seniors more proactively to services available to them provided greater accessibility for seniors than the often complex online applications processes which often overwhelm vulnerable seniors.[406] Other witnesses stated that this was also a problem for other groups living in poverty, commenting on the large number of forms required to access services and the need to provide one-on-one assistance with completing forms in order to help clients access benefits.[407] The Committee heard that many low-income parents in Saint John had never applied for the Canada Learning Bond, as they simply did not believe that the federal government would give them money.[408]

5.   Coordination at the community level

Several witnesses described the web of supports and services provided to assist those living in poverty. Rather than identifying concerns with individual component programs and services that comprise “the system” that most communities have in place, such as referrals for housing, training, health care, and employment,[409] witnesses focused on the lack of coordination and integration of these services. They explained that as result of uncoordinated programs and services, low-income individuals and families have to move from one location to another to access regularly needed services, and those with physical barriers as well as those unaware of services available may fail to access needed services altogether.

Community-based services are often not integrated nor located at the same location, requiring clients to take transit from one site to another. For those with disabilities, those travelling with small children, new immigrants without strong English or French language skills, those with mental illness, and seniors with mobility challenges, the barriers can be daunting and may prevent them from accessing supports available to them. One witness described a 2010 report entitled “It Takes All Day to be Poor”:

If we assume that people who are living in poverty are just lazy and wanting handouts, in fact they're probably the hardest working people in our society. It does take all day to be poor. You have to run around to food banks to get food, to get services, to go from point A to point B, and if you have bus tickets, you're lucky. If you have to tag along children, that can be a very challenging situation, particularly for single parents.[410]

The issue was echoed by others:

Here in Winnipeg you're going through a number of different systems. You may be trying to access social assistance or to find employment. You may be looking for a different agency to help you with housing or with family issues. You're trying to navigate all these different systems, and there isn't a central resource for people sometimes. This can be an intimidating factor as well.[411]

The Committee heard of similar challenges in the City of London:

... if you're in need of assistance for housing, social assistance, perhaps child care support, and food security programs, you probably have to open seven doors. I only listed three things, but you probably have to open seven doors. The reality is that as communities, we need to start looking at how we integrate that, how we put the client first, the individual first, the family first, and talk about what that means for that individual and the process that person goes through.[412]

6.   Flexibility and autonomy for communities

The need for greater flexibility and autonomy, including reducing the reporting burden required from all levels of government, was also expressed to the Committee:

We also have to free up the human resources of the local organizations. They are chasing their tails in trying to meet our reporting requirements. We all ask for different timetables, different fiscal years, and different budget templates. This is insanity. They are spending so much of their precious resources on accounting, measuring, and reporting—and often measuring things that actually don't matter—to keep us satisfied. That is wrong. We could easily free up 25% of that capacity. For those of you who have some business background, imagine that. Just like that: another 25%. Imagine a world where Erin's organization has to write only one report a year that goes to all funders. These things are completely within our control.[413]

One of the strongest messages the Committee heard was the need for communities to have direct access to stable long-term funding and the flexibility and autonomy to address unique needs as they arise and as they evolve. Witnesses explained to the Committee that the eligibility criteria for some government-administered programs was often outdated and did not reflect the changing needs, as seen at the community level, of those living in poverty.[414] Many witnesses expressed frustration at having senior levels of government create programs for their communities over which they had no ability to change to accommodate the unique needs of their citizens:

We know our community well. We work together, especially in this community, where we have a very connected environment of service provision. We have eyes on the ground all of the time. We know what we need in this community.[415]

One witness noted that while lone parents, families, and persons with disabilities were often eligible for targeted programs, the increasing number of unattached singles had few supports for which they were eligible.[416] Several witnesses told the Committee that often singles eventually stopped re-applying for social and affordable housing and fell off waiting lists as they had to wait years longer than other populations that were targeted priorities.[417]

C.  Approaches and Options

1.   General

a.   Physical infrastructure

Several witnesses stated that the federal government should ensure that investments in social infrastructure focus on priority needs as identified by provinces and territories and that transfers for infrastructure funding should be in addition to current provincial and territorial funding allocations rather than replace funding envelopes already established by provinces and territories.[418]

The Committee was reminded of the considerable employment opportunities associated with the federal government’s infrastructure funding for communities, which provide an opportunity to connect people, especially youth, to careers in the trades.[419]

b.   Creating community hubs

The Committee was encouraged to hear that several communities were providing front-line services to low-income individuals and families through community hubs, one-stop locations where people can access the range of services they need. One witness expressed the concept as “you need to have services to meet people where they are, rather than have people fit with a system.”[420] Some organizations, such as the United Way Toronto and York Region, have taken this approach in part to address inadequate community infrastructure in areas that have recently seen an influx of low-income residents.[421]

However, other communities with long-standing pockets of intergenerational poverty, such as Saint John, have created similar hubs in order to ensure that their low-income community members have better access to the range of supports available to them. The positive impact of centralizing services and supports was shown in Saint John, where the city created the Learning Exchange, an early learning and child care centre, as a hub. Shilo Boucher of the YMCA of Greater Saint John illustrated the benefit of this model through the story of a mother of three, including a child with autism, who was facing challenges navigating the system of services she required:

It felt like we were always running from place to place. A lot of times I just cancelled because I was too tired to go. Now our early interventionist, speech therapist, occupational therapist, physiotherapist and social workers all come and meet us at the centre.... I don't miss [my] appointments anymore.[422]

Several witnesses described how their communities were approaching the development of community hubs using early learning and child care centres, schools, and food banks as gateways to a range of other services. In the city of Medicine Hat, some services and supports are being provided to food bank users through a “Food First” pilot project to provide families who use the food bank with access to other support services.[423] Also, schools are being used as hubs through their Fresh Start for School program, which embeds community workers in schools, giving students and families access to the services of more than 35 federal, provincial, and local organizations, including immunizations, enrolment in and referral to services, and access to basic needs.[424]

In Saint John, Early Learning Centre, administered by the YMCA of Greater Saint John, is a pilot project embedded in St. John the Baptist School, a primary school in one of the poorest neighbourhoods in the city. The centre offers free kindergarten readiness programs, nutrition classes, and information for parents, connecting them with community organizations and resources such as food banks, parenting classes and case workers. They also assist those with low literacy skills with filling out forms. Twenty partner organizations work with the centre. Since its operations began eight years ago, the percentage of children entering primary school with age-appropriate cognitive and social skills has risen from 40% to 80%.[425]

The City of New Westminster is planning five similar child development hubs, based on licensed child care services that will provide “seamless access to a range of information, services and supports.”[426] In Toronto, the Christie Ossington Neighbourhood Centre operates a broad range of services including the Breaking Barriers program linked to its drop-in program that assists clients with housing, employment, health and wellness, and life management skills.[427]

c.   Funding community hubs

Several witnesses advised the Committee that federal government funding, coordinated with provinces and territories, was needed by organizations operating or trying to establish hubs. One witness suggested that the federal government should provide community-based funding using mechanisms similar to those under the HPS, but give communities greater autonomy under the agreements, in order to provide flexibility to better meet the needs of the community.[428]

Another witness proposed that a local innovation fund could be created, with pooled resources from the federal and provincial governments, community sources and the private sector, which could be deployed in strategic and flexible ways. This approach would facilitate projects and programs that do not fall under any single government department, jurisdiction, or mandate.[429] It would also enable smaller organizations to pool their expertise and respond to a local need.

Several witnesses noted that organizations responding to federal government Requests for Proposals are required to meet the federal government’s timeline and criteria. However, many lack the capacity to meet the timelines unless they have a project plan already underway at the time the proposal call is issued. The Committee heard that the concept of pooled funding could reverse this dynamic and help community organizations:

It's about changing the direction. Here's the local strategy, here's what we're working on, and here are the priorities, so how do the federal government and the provincial government engage and support this? It's really in the other direction from when government is ready to release money and then we try to scramble to get it.[430]

d. System navigation

Witnesses explained to the Committee that, in addition to service hubs, communities need “navigators,” people and programs that actively guide low-income clients through the range of supports available at the community, provincial, and federal levels.

I think there is a clear role for the federal government in supporting the key infrastructure that enables families to connect and provides those navigation systems. It's not just a social service. If families are going to be the social infrastructure that we increasingly rely on them to be, we need the federal government to invest in the capacity of communities to enable families to play that role. It's not a social service. It's a piece of social infrastructure.[431]

The Committee learned that a degree of system navigation involving collaboration between the federal government and provinces and communities is in place in some communities. While navigators may be located in a community hub, others helping low-income individuals access specific programs may be mobile and travel to various locations such as community centres or libraries. In New Brunswick, Canada Revenue Agency participates in a community volunteer income tax program for low-income populations, increasing registration rates for the program from approximately 13,000 to 22,000 people since the program began. Promotion for the program is done through Service Canada, ESDC, First Nations, and public libraries. Similar community awareness and support programs are in place with ESDC to promote the Canada Learning Bond.[432]

e. Working with the private sector

The Committee was reminded that the private sector is an invaluable partner in addressing poverty reduction. Several municipal poverty reduction strategies that witnesses described to the Committee, such as those of Saint John, Toronto, New Westminster, Langley, and Medicine Hat, were developed with private sector involvement and outline strategic roles for the business community. Pamela McConnell, Deputy Mayor of the City of Toronto, told the Committee that the private sector participation in TO Prosperity, Toronto’s poverty reduction strategy, included business community members from Bay Street, who have been employing 100 young people each of the five years since their strategy began.[433]

f.    Information sharing

The Committee also learned that the federal government could support communities by facilitating the sharing of information. Witnesses described how the federal government could have a key role in sharing research and evaluation findings, providing resources for interprovincial collaboration to address poverty, and hosting annual best practice forums so that communities and organizations could continue to learn of innovative ideas and practices.[434] It was also suggested that the federal government play a role in encouraging collaboration between provincial and municipal governments in addressing administrative challenges and barriers as well as collaborating in multisectoral initiatives and sharing examples of effective poverty reduction measures.[435] The Committee also heard that the federal government needs closer direct relationships with local communities and that federal-provincial-territorial discussions related to poverty reduction initiatives that impact communities should include the presence of communities to ensure clarity of communications and consistency in objectives.[436]

2.   Innovative concepts

The Committee heard many examples of innovative and imaginative measures developed by communities and non-profit organizations to address poverty within their communities. Some communities have had success with the Housing First model to address homelessness and have adapted the model for other areas of poverty reduction. The Committee also heard about a variety of approaches being used by communities which could be used by other governments and communities, based on their respective needs.

• Adapting the Housing First Model for systems navigation: Medicine Hat has adapted the Housing First model and is using this approach for other programs, providing gateways in schools and piloting a program in their food bank to link individuals and families with supplementary services.[437]
• Community collaboration to pool resources: The Committee heard a number of examples of front-line organizations cooperating to more closely coordinate programs and actively avoid competing with each other for funding. Using this collective approach, they described examples where they returned monies in order to allow other organizations with greater needs or more expertise to use them. In Maple Ridge, one witness stated:
• ... we've made a commitment to each other not to compete for funding when there are those provincial or federal grant opportunities, but rather to partner to see which organization has the competency to do that well. We support each other. We partner. We have found that we serve far more citizens and we address far more needs in our community when we work collaboratively through that community network.[438]
• Similar views were heard by the Committee in Medicine Hat:
• What I think tells you that story the best here is agencies in Medicine Hat going to Jaime and saying, “We have too much money; we want you to cut our budget, because we think you should invest in prevention in another area.” That tells you that a level of community planning is now bought into throughout the system of care, that they're moving forward along the same path, and that they trust that system planning is happening.[439]
• Community systems planning and mapping: The Committee heard several communities use similar approaches to maximize resources and target areas of greatest need. The City of Medicine Hat refers to this as “systems planning and mapping,” where a centralized administration pools funds and funnels them to those community organizations best suited to address the needed change.[440] In Saint John, this function is carried out by United Way Saint John, Kings and Charlotte, which changed the way it funded community organizations in order to focus resources on organizations with capacity and a record of achieving outcomes. It also provides an overall coordination function to ensure organizations are trying to achieve the same goal but without overlap and duplication:
• As funders, we need to create a greater discipline and a responsibility. Without innovation and discipline by funders and service providers, children will continue to go hungry and the fragile will continue to suffer indignities. We have to look at breaking the cycle. We have to stop driving projects that are independent of each other. We do not have the luxury to continue as though we are all on our own as funding partners. We must be interdependent if we are going to make any of these substantive changes. We have to align our efforts and our resources. We can leverage each other. We can leverage our money. We can leverage our expertise.[441]
• Community quarterbacks: The Committee was interested to hear how the City of Medicine Hat’s representatives described the management and control of the system planning approach and the integration of community services, using the analogy of a quarterback, which could be one individual or a team of key resources in the community brought into a formal entity and given the necessary authority:[442]
• ... there needs to be a quarterback who mans the game, who has the strategy, who tells the players where to go. Sometimes we think that's the funder, the person giving out the dollars. The problem is that there are so many funders. There are sometimes as many funding pots in a community as there are services, and sometimes there are as many services as there are clients. We have this mess of a patchwork approach to all of these integrated issues. [There needs to be] a designated poverty reduction quarterback at the community level whose sole responsibility is to make sure that players are doing what they're supposed to be doing....
• There needs to be somebody who implements the strategy and these common objectives at the community level and who has some accountability and power to dictate how this funding is doled out and to what purpose.[443]
• Innovative financing for on-reserve infrastructure: The Committee heard of innovations in financing housing and infrastructure projects in Indigenous communities. Officials from INAC described the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, which provides First Nations control over fiscal areas including taxation and provides First Nations the means, through the First Nations Finance Authority, to raise money in capital markets. Since June 2014, this mechanism has raised approximately $300 million in financing for housing and infrastructure projects for First Nations on reserve. INAC officials told the Committee that this Act could be a vehicle to help support more innovative financing structures for further infrastructure and housing projects.[444]
• Communications and NIMBYism: In their site visits, Committee members learned that two of the projects had resources dedicated to relations with the community. Both RainCity Housing, which manages a transitional housing facility known as the 3030 Gordon Project in Coquitlam, B.C., and the Christie Ossington Neighbourhood Centre, which operates a number of shelters and drop-in programs in Toronto, had staff members who were tasked with developing and maintaining relations with others in the community to overcome resistance, resolve problems and complaints, and address fears and concerns. In the case of 3030 Gordon, the organization was able to overcome community resistance to construction of their transition housing project in the neighbourhood. In the case of Toronto’s Christie Ossington Neighbourhood Centre, most of the neighbouring residents and businesses are now advocates for the centre.
• Changing food banks: Committee members toured the food bank in Medicine Hat and were shown the community garden built beside the bank. Food bank representatives explained that the garden has provided food bank users with social connections, reduced isolation, improved access to healthy food, enhanced users’ skills development, and been a source of pride, as participants grow their own food rather than accepting food donated by others. The food bank now provides cooking classes, as many of the food bank users had no cooking or food preparation skills. The food bank is also serving as a hub where clients receive support and referrals to other services, such as housing or assistance with income tax preparation.
• Increased access for early learning centres: In Saint John, the early learning and child care centre is available for all neighbourhood parents, meaning parents who are not employed or attending school may send their children there. This ensures a larger number of neighbourhood children receive nutritious food, as well as social and cognitive skills development, and more parents are provided access to other supports and services.