:
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), study on Government funding cuts to the Human Resources and Social Development Canada Department. That will be our agenda for today.
First of all, I’d like to welcome the members of the committee. I will be replacing the Chair for some time. I’d also like to take the time to welcome each person that has been invited to speak today.
Members of the committee have received briefing notes, and I’d like to mention that although the witnesses that are appearing before us today were selected beforehand, certain last minute changes have been made.
And so, some of the briefing notes aren’t necessarily based on what we will be hearing today. You may consult them, but in certain cases they may not correspond to this morning’s presentations.
[English]
Before us this morning we have five different groups of witnesses: the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, the Canadian Policy Research Networks, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, and the Muttart Foundation.
[Translation]
Each group has seven minutes. I would now invite the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations to make its presentation.
:
Our members believe that education is the key to a healthy, prosperous society. We believe that post-secondary education is the path that will allow all Canadians to reach their full potential. But before many Canadians can even dream of going on to college or university or of studying a skilled trade, they must improve their basic education. Literacy is the key to academic achievement; youth with low literacy scores are unlikely to go on to post-secondary education. Low levels of literacy are one of the main reasons we see such a disappointing participation rate by aboriginal youth in our universities.
This issue does not just concern youth, however. Students continually hear governments across Canada talk about the importance of lifelong learning. Yet this remains largely lip service; governments remain extremely biased towards traditional students who graduate from high school, go on to college or university, and then enter the workforce.
Canada needs a real strategy on lifelong learning. To our members, post-secondary education means not just traditional college and university, but also a true culture of learning that helps all Canadians realize their potential. We should not abandon adults with low levels of literacy. Not only can adult learners complete high school education, but they can also improve their education and advance their careers throughout their lives. We must focus on a high-quality post-secondary system, but we must also focus on the basics, such as literacy. It is for this reason that our members are deeply concerned about the announced cuts to adult learning and literacy programs.
The cuts that affect Canada's students most directly are the $55 million from youth employment initiatives. It seems the cuts will mainly be from the summer career placement program, with this program's budget being cut in half. The SCP program provides employers in communities across Canada with funding to hire students for the summer. These jobs provide students with career-related work experience, mostly in non-profit organizations. The program is extremely successful, with over 50,000 students being hired every summer. Research has shown that both students and employers find their experiences with the program valuable: 91% of students enjoy the jobs they get and 95% of employers are pleased with the performance of the program. It's difficult to think of another government program with a success rating like this.
The program is an engine of job creation. The large majority of employers could not have hired a student without the program's funding, and many more could not have paid the student the same amount of money.
The benefits of this program for Canada's students are significant. First of all, students receive not just a summer job but also a quality summer job, giving them their first career-related work experience. Secondly, the income students receive from summer jobs is vital in order for them to pursue their studies. The benefits of earning a decent wage while also working at a job that provides career experience cannot be exaggerated.
Employers benefit by getting energetic young employees who are committed to learning and developing new skills. Thanks to the funding provided by the government, employers get a summer worker who they would otherwise not have been able to afford.
Canadian communities benefit in many ways as well. Employment increases, which is especially important for rural communities, where students may otherwise have had to look for work in cities. Much of this funding goes to community-based non-profit groups. The jobs created by SCP can help to improve programs in the community. I personally benefited from the SCP program after my second year of university. I was hired by a community group in rural Alberta. My job involved running a youth employment centre that helped other rural youth find jobs and start their own businesses. This was an incredible experience for me, but also a tremendous benefit to the community as a whole.
Implementing these proposed cuts will be detrimental to Canadian students and communities. The cuts are being done in the name of value for money. With the program having such a high success rate, it's difficult to see how the program is not currently delivering value for money.
Some in the government have made arguments that funding should be diverted away from federal ridings with high employment, and from private corporations, towards areas of higher need. Now, there's a legitimate argument for making the SCP program more targeted. Certain areas of the country may have a greater need than others for funding to increase student summer employment. Funding could also be better focused on improving opportunities for groups such as aboriginal students. Improved targeting of funding does not necessitate a cut in funding; in fact, better targeting of the existing funding would produce better results.
I'll now pass the floor over to Mr. Ouellette, who will leave you with some finishing remarks.
:
CASA strongly disagrees that the current student career placement program does not deliver value for money. While some funding does go towards private businesses, it generally creates jobs that otherwise would not have existed. The program is beneficial, even in prosperous areas such as Calgary, to use an example that the minister brought up in the House.
Non-profit organizations must compete for workers and pay competitive wages on restricted budgets. The program helps these groups hire summer students that they otherwise could not hire. Even in Calgary, it can be difficult for students to find summer employment, especially jobs that provide them with valuable career skills.
If the government goes ahead with these cuts, there will be several consequences. It will surely mean fewer jobs for students. Even with a more targeted approach, cutting the funding in half will mean half as many jobs. This will mean higher unemployment for students who will have a harder time financing their education. More importantly, these students will be missing out on valuable career experience. They will have a disadvantage in starting their careers. Non-profit groups in the communities they serve will suffer. An extra employee for the summer can make a world of difference to community groups. This is important for groups from Toronto to Labrador.
These cuts to human resources and social development come along with the cutting of the youth international internship program and proposed cuts to the Fulbright and Commonwealth scholarships. CASA is deeply concerned that the government is cutting programs that provide Canadian youth with valuable career experience. We would expect the government to place value on employability and career skills, and we hope the government reconsiders these cuts.
Thank you very much for your time.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Arthur Kroeger. I'm the chairman of the board of CPRN, and I have been the chairman for the past seven years. I was associated with CPRN when it was first created by Judith Maxwell twelve years ago, and I have been on the board throughout. I have watched it evolve from a bit of a shoestring operation into what I think can fairly be described as the major social policy research organization in Canada.
The coming into existence of CPRN met an important need. Organizations such as the C.D. Howe Institute, the Fraser Institute, and now Mr. Manning's foundation find it fairly easy to raise a lot of money from the private sector. It's quite different in the area of social policy research: business says it is the government's job. Indeed, governments have supported us throughout, and they have been an important base upon which we've conducted our operations. As you know, the announcement ended government funding effective from the current year, and we will be on our own as of next April 1. We're currently evaluating how we might function.
With respect to the history of CPRN, from small beginnings we have had two evaluations. Both of them covered a wide range of people--supporters, provincial governments--across the country. They were very positive about the quality of our work, and they vote with their feet. We get 1.6 million downloads at our website every year. I would compare that with 900,000 for the Institute for Research on Public Policy and about 430,000 for the C.D. Howe Institute. We do have users, and we have been filling a purpose.
We have prided ourselves on providing neutral space for dialogue. We are not ideological. We are not the Centre for Policy Alternatives, on the left, nor are we the Fraser Institute, on the right. We try to conduct very objective research about matters, such as policies that are best for children. We think our work has been well received.
We are assessing our future now. If, in the worst case, CPRN was to disappear, it would leave a very important void in the area of social policy, and it would leave most of the research output to the organizations, such as the C.D. Howe and Fraser Institutes and Mr. Manning's institute. That is the issue before us.
I'd like to ask our president now to elaborate on the current situation.
Thank you to the committee for inviting us here today. We're delighted to return.
As you know, when you first met, we were one of the very first groups you called upon for advice in your deliberations, because of course of the quality of our research and its stellar contribution to thinking in Canada about these important issues.
I just wanted to say how vital it is for governments at all levels to have good information and good policy advice, speaking as someone who has worked in governments as well as taught in the policy arena and now is the head of a think tank. In Canada we spend a great deal of money in the areas of social policy—on education, on student supports, on loans, on welfare benefits, on children's benefits—and it is very important I think for all of us to understand what the best outcome and the best effect of these billions and billions of dollars of Canadian taxpayers' money that are spent are. We like to say it's important to think before you act, and to do your research and have a very steady stream of knowledge that helps to inform decisions.
Right now, we are serving a number of different provinces in providing this function. We are also serving the federal government, and we will continue to do so. We provide good quality advice on the best inputs and ways and mechanisms of ensuring that Canada is making the right decisions for its people.
CPRN is unique in Canada in that not only do we take our evidence--credible research that has been pulled together--but we work directly with Canadian citizens to ask them for their opinions about the choices that need to be made in very controversial public policy areas. This unique opportunity to bring together citizens from across this country and to have them tell us and tell you about the Canada they want is really an important contribution, particularly for ministers who are having to make difficult choices.
As you know, Canadians don't always believe the evidence that's put in front of them, but they certainly know what they want you to do. We are a remarkable people, and that is I think a great opportunity to assure that Canadians are directly involved in some of these public policy issues.
That unique advantage is something that governments have valued very directly because in fact this is where the money is being spent by governments in social policy. Having that opportunity to have a neutral, non-partisan, third-party public space for dialogue and inviting Canadians from all walks of life to make comment here means in fact that you have the best advice possible.
The job of CPRN has really been to lead public debate on social and economic issues and to ensure that there are very innovative approaches available to us as Canadians to continue to provide the kinds of services that make Canada extremely productive.
Recently, we were here to testify before you on the situation of vulnerable workers in Canada. We found that more than half of the vulnerable workers in Canada lacked literacy levels that were important to ensure future productivity. This is good information that allows us, then, as Canadians, to determine what the next steps should be, what programs and policies should be put in place to assist Canadians to raise productivity levels so that we are all able to enjoy a sense of prosperity and inclusiveness in our country.
Having said that, I want you to know that we will continue, as an organization. It is going to be very difficult. It will significantly reduce our capacity to make the kind of contribution that we have made in the past. I think that overall it is an important function of government to ensure that this kind of relevant, credible, neutral, non-partisan advice is available, because truth only stands up when it's been battled. When you have that opportunity to come at it from all sides, then I think that you have a very robust piece of advice that is allowed.
I want to thank the members of the committee very much for the opportunity to be here today, and I look forward to your questions.
:
Merci beaucoup. Bonjour.
The cuts announced by the federal government in Budget 2006 and on September 25 amount to an attempt to silence the voices of Canadians, especially those who are not yet able to exercise their full citizenship because of barriers in their way: women, immigrants, workers of colour, aboriginal workers, persons with disabilities, young workers, and those who lack the literacy skills they need to fully participate. Today in my seven minutes I'm going to try to address the cuts and the needs of average Canadians in the areas of training, literacy, and the equality-seeking group rights.
In terms of training, despite record high profits and growing complaints about skills shortages, Canadian employers spend less than 1% of total payroll on training. That's well below the OECD average. The lack of access to training leaves workers trapped in low-paid, dead-end jobs, especially those four in ten Canadian adults who currently have literacy and numeracy levels too low to qualify for more than the most unskilled labour.
Meanwhile, a lack of opportunities for internationally trained workers to have their credentials recognized and develop technical language skills in English and French leaves many highly skilled workers underemployed. Barriers to post-secondary education mean almost half of young adults enter the workforce with no more than a high school diploma, if not less.
Compounding the lack of employer investment in skills training, which includes workplace-based skills development, apprenticeships, and literacy, are the federal government's cuts to spending on training. The cutbacks have amounted to more than $10 billion since the mid-1990s.
The previous government took the following modest steps beginning in 2004. It allocated $25 million to a training centre infrastructure fund. The funds have gone to match investment in training facilities, including some run by the building trades unions in support of apprenticeship programs.
There was $30 million over three years allocated in Budget 2005 for the National Literacy Secretariat. Approximately a 25% increase, the new money was to be focused on building community partnerships in support of literacy programs.
There was $125 million over three years allocated in Budget 2005 for a workplace skills strategy focused on building partnerships between employers, workers, and training institutions, including through financial support for innovative pilot projects.
There was $3.5 billion over six years promised in the economic and fiscal update of November 2005 for labour market partnership agreements with all provinces and territories. These moneys were aimed at expanding apprenticeship programs, literacy, essential skills programs, workplace skills development, and improving labour market integration of recent immigrants, aboriginal peoples, and marginalized groups.
By the time of the election of the government in January 2006, a small portion of the LMPA funds—just over $1.6 million—had been committed by the federal government to the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, and preparations were being made for other provinces and territories to sign their agreements and access the much needed funds. But shortly after taking office, the Conservatives put on hold the entire $3.5 billion in promised funding, despite signed agreements with three provinces. And then there were the further spending cuts to training and literacy programs announced on September 25.
We call for a reinstatement of the $3.5 billion federal commitment to labour market partnership agreements. The agreements would provide six years of sustained funding, which is crucial to begin to address the training needs of the most marginalized workers. This includes lower-skilled workers, underemployed internationally trained workers, and those facing some of the highest unemployment rates in the country, namely workers with disabilities and aboriginal workers.
Additionally, we call for the $35 million cut to be reinstated to literacy programs, the training centre infrastructure fund, and the workplace partners panel. In unique ways, each of these programs was an innovative model of cooperation between workers, community groups, government, and employers. If Canada is to achieve its full potential in an increasingly global competitive economy, such models of cooperation must be developed further and applied to all aspects of economic development.
On literacy, our provincial and territorial federations of labour have been active partners with business in successful arrangements to deliver workplace literacy programs. These may be poised to lose their funding. Rather than cut the funding, the partnerships need to be celebrated and strengthened, and this model of excellence needs to be adopted by other jurisdictions.
Treasury Board President John Baird is quoted as saying he doesn't want to waste money on the repair work of adult literacy, and he wants to support children's literacy. I would say it isn't an either/or situation. We all know that children's literacy blossoms when the adults in their lives read and engage with them around literacy-based activities. Parents often choose to improve their skills so they can read to their children, help them with their homework, and set an example for them for lifelong learning.
On the cuts to women's programming, I want to speak briefly about the cuts to the Status of Women budget and the changes to the mandate. Despite the recommendation of the parliamentary Standing Committee on the Status of Women that their budget be increased by 25%, the government announced a 40% reduction. The cut will severely reduce the ability of the Status of Women to continue gender-based analysis of the federal government's programs, and policy and research. Both are essential tools that allow Canadians to monitor the progress or the lack of progress of women's equality.
On other equality-seeking groups, there was a $10.8 million cut to stop smoking programs focused on aboriginal and Inuit people. It sends a clear message of what this government values and who they don't.
There's a $5.6 million cut eliminating the court challenges program. This is a not-for-profit organization that for nearly ten years enabled Canadians to advance equality and language rights guaranteed under the charter. The minority government is ending a program that can legally and with civility redress historic wrongs, as well as improve Canada's public policies for the benefit of all Canadians. That act is going to be very tough on all Canadians.
We condemn the new government's actions and the callous and exclusionary decision-making progress it has used to slash funding for numerous programs that make a difference to all Canadians. These are very tough decisions that are going to impact a lot of people, as you've already heard this morning.
Thank you. Merci beaucoup.
My name is Monica Lysack and I am the executive director of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee. I commend the members who have initiated these hearings with the goal of better understanding the programs and the impact of the cuts. I do apologize. We were one of the last-minute changes, so you don't have my notes.
I want to be very clear at the outset that the CCAAC is both an advocacy organization and a policy shop. We are almost 25 years old, and our vision has not changed, though it has become more refined and more clearly articulated over the years as we have developed policy expertise, learned from research, been informed by citizens, and collaborated with various levels of government to examine the child care policy and funding approaches that the evidence shows are most likely to advance an effective child care system.
The CCAAC works for a child care system that is high quality, inclusive, affordable, publicly funded, non-profit, and that serves as a cornerstone for progressive family policies.
Our membership reaches more than four million Canadians, including parents, caregivers, researchers, and students, as well as women's, anti-poverty, labour, social justice, disability, and rural organizations at the provincial, territorial, regional, and pan-Canadian levels. We are working together to bring about that which most other industrialized countries already have: an early learning and child care system that supports children's healthy development and parents in all of their roles, at work, at home, and in their communities.
Our contracts with the social development partnerships program advance specific areas of child care research and policy analysis of interest to both government and our membership. Currently, we have a citizen engagement project that supports communities to analyze child care policy and funding changes under the federal-provincial and territorial agreements and works with governments to advance effective, accountable child care policy in the future.
On the other hand, our advocacy activities are funded through membership fees and donations. The CCAAC has survived many challenges over the years and will continue to advocate for our vision, regardless of the actions of government that may hinder our work or attempt to silence our voices.
It is not the CCAAC as an organization that will be most hurt by potential cuts to SDPP projects such as ours. It is the citizens of Canada who will be the real losers. Those child care experts, Mum and Dad, will have fewer resources available to support them in the most important role of their lives. Children with disabilities will be turned away from programs that can't meet a range of developmental needs. Rural communities won't have the opportunity to develop models that address the special challenges of isolation and small, sparse population bases. We will lose the opportunity to learn of the economic impact of applying different policy options, and, most significantly, Canada will lose the opportunity to advance public accountability for the expenditure of child care funds.
I could go on and on with examples of what will be lost, but in the short time available, I want to move to higher ground. How do governments make policy decisions? Certainly decisions are influenced by political ideology, but when we look around the globe, particularly focusing on the member countries of the OECD, we see that the most progressive countries engage in research and analysis to inform their policy-making.
The Government of Canada, under the former administration, volunteered to participate in an OECD review of early childhood education and care. Canada, as it turns out, came in dead last out of twenty countries for our spending on children's programs, which was lower even than Mexico. By international standards, Canada's policy decisions put us behind every industrialized nation in the study. Why would a government voluntarily expose itself to such scrutiny when it is clear that we lag behind? I hope it was to learn how to strengthen and improve future investments to ensure that they are made wisely and that they achieve the outcomes we all strive for: healthy, happy, well cared for children and support for our economic productivity as a country.
Countries that operate in the most democratic way are most likely to engage in research; research and public dialogue are valued the least in autocratic countries. Is this where Canada is heading? Do we have a government that knows so much that citizen and community engagement is seen not only as unnecessary but as interference when government knows best?
Important research happens at various levels, from peer-reviewed work to community action--research that takes academic findings and turns them into practical, real-life models. The CCAAC has engaged in both of these forms. Our benefit cost analysis falls into the former category. Our strategy document, “Patchwork to Framework”, builds on research findings along with a pan-Canadian consultation to provide a practical working document that puts research into practice.
Our benefit cost analysis was done by two prominent economists, one whose previous work supported our position and one whose position was in opposition to ours. We're not afraid to have our policy recommendations scrutinized. Our goal was to learn from the experience. Incidentally, in this case it was the opposing economist whose position changed once the evidence was examined.
To summarize, the CCAAC is both a policy shop and an advocacy organization. Successive federal governments have contracted with our organization to carry out research and policy analysis, and Canadians from coast to coast to coast rely on us to advocate for the quality universal child care services so common to our peer nations.
We're a frugal group. The CCAAC is very good at stretching a dollar, and our own accountability is above reproach. If our project funding is cut, it will be because we are too effective--compiling solid evidence on best investments and practice that this government is choosing to ignore--not because we are wasteful or irresponsible with public funds.
I'd like to close with a plea on behalf of those who can't appear before you--children and parents who have benefited immeasurably from this program. I urge this government to reverse the decision on the cuts and challenge them to give up their “government knows best” approach by continuing to allow the engagement of citizens in public policy dialogue.
Thank you.
Voices: Hear, hear!
:
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My hope is to leave you with you two key messages.
First, there has been, is, and always will be an intimate relationship between the federal state and the more than 160,000 voluntary organizations in Canada. There will always be a myriad of bonds between the nation and the 12 million Canadians who contribute their time to the public good through voluntary organizations. The challenge is to make that relationship strong, effective, and efficient, in an ongoing way.
Second, the voluntary sector initiative of 2000-2005 left us with the accord as well as the codes of good practice on funding and policy dialogue. These and the other legacy pieces were developed through working groups, involving equal representation from government and members of community organizations. That process was a profound step forward in forging the kind of approach to community organizations I just mentioned.
The recent decision to alter funding arrangements did harm to that relationship—a harm that must be rectified.
I appear today as a representative of the Muttart Foundation, a private foundation based in Edmonton. For more than a half-century, our foundation has been making grants to charities across Canada to help them deliver new or better services to Canadians.
Most if not all of you have worked with voluntary organizations in your constituencies and in your communities of interest. You will know, therefore, that the voluntary sector in Canada employs about 10% of all working Canadians, that it is responsible for almost 8% of the gross domestic product of the country, and that 45% of all Canadians donate time, while 85% of all Canadians donate money to the voluntary sector each year. But I would remind you that the community sector is, according to Statistics Canada, four times larger than the agriculture sector, more than twice as large as the mining, oil, and gas extraction industry, and more than 50% larger than Canada's entire retail trade industry.
This is all to say that there is, and must be, a relationship between Canada and the community groups and organizations described as the voluntary sector.
Canada and the voluntary sector share some common goals. Both want opportunities for people to improve themselves physically, mentally, spiritually, and economically. We both want people to have the opportunities to contribute to their communities and to be full participants in their communities and in our country.
To be sure, we will not always agree on the best methods to accomplish our common goals, but there are right methods to deal with those differences, and there are right methods of working together despite those differences.
In 2001, Canada and the voluntary sector signed a document that established the framework of the relationship that should exist between them. The accord and the accompanying codes on policy dialogue and funding did not seek to freeze in time any funding commitments, to hamper the development of new ideas, or to fetter the executive's right to make decisions. Instead, those documents speak to how we should work with one another for the benefit of all who live in this nation.
These commitments seem to have been forgotten during the expenditure review exercise. Programs were reduced or eliminated with no consultation, no forewarning, and no discussion of alternatives. That is inconsistent with the accord, it is inconsistent with the codes, and it is inconsistent with the positive relationship that should, and must, exist between the state and the voluntary sector.
To take but one example: cancellation of the Canada volunteerism initiative affects every voluntary organization in this country. Its work at the national and regional levels was meant to address a growing problem in recruiting volunteers and in training voluntary organizations in the most effective means of managing and utilizing those volunteers.
The cancellation of this program, the suggestion that the program is non-core, risks undoing much good that has already been done. It risks the very viability of the one national organization whose role is to encourage volunteering in all its many forms.
Similarly, the elimination of the Charities Advisory Committee to the Minister of National Revenue has destroyed another vehicle for ongoing dialogue. This committee—emanating from a recommendation of the joint regulatory table, which I co-chaired—provided an avenue for conversations about the complex and confusing regulatory regime within which charities must operate. I served as a member of the founding advisory committee. The twelve of us came as volunteers to help build and maintain the relationship between the regulator and the regulated. As with the Canada volunteerism initiative, much good had already resulted, and more was forthcoming. And we have now lost that, despite the commitments in the accord and the codes to open, respectful, informed, and sustained dialogue between government and the sector.
Mr. Chairman, we know that governments must make difficult decisions, including decisions on spending, and we know it's unlikely there will ever be unanimity on what should be cut, but it is not in anyone's interest, not the government's, not the sector's, not the nation's, that we leave as damaged the relationship between Canada and the millions of people involved in voluntary organizations. No amount of saving will justify the harm that could result to programs and, more importantly, to the people we are all committed to serve.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the Muttart Foundation encourages this committee to recommend to the House a recommitment to the principles of the accord and its subsidiary codes. We encourage you to reinforce to the House, and through the House to all Canadians, the importance of the community sector to the quality of life we have come to enjoy in this country and the central place that community organizations make to that quality and way of life. And we encourage you to hold all future governments to the responsibility of working constructively and diligently with the voluntary sector for the benefit of all Canadians.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
:
Take a look at the infrastructure program, for instance, that was cut in apprenticeships. While we have employers and governments talking about skills shortages in the labour force in this country, the infrastructure fund couldn't have been seen to be lobbying in that, other than to get us more skilled apprentices.
If you look at the literacy work that's done by organizations all around this country, there is work done in the delivery, but there's also a lot of work that needs to be done in the background to know that we're heading in the direction we need to.
The workplace skills strategy, which actually brings employers and unions together to help work in governments and in other places, and determines what needs to be done across this country, provides for vital work that must be done. How often have you heard government say that employers and unions won't cooperate? When they do cooperate, they have their funding cut.
Regarding the literacy programs, we see on a day-to-day basis what needs to be done and the support for student programs. We just had an example here of someone saying they got a start because of something they did in the student program. There's probably a long list we could give you.
First, thank you for accepting our invitation. What you have told us this morning has been very enlightening. Naturally, our role is to advise the House of Commons and to give our opinion. The decision that was taken concerning funding cuts seems to be extremely important for all groups concerned.
I must say we were quite surprised to hear that as a 13 billion dollar surplus was being announced; funding cuts totalling one billion dollars were being made to the various programs you’ve described. As we mentioned earlier, we certainly don’t object to the disappearance, in whole or in part, of certain programs that serve no useful purpose. However, you seem to be saying that cuts have been made to certain essential services.
I believe it was Mrs. Lysack who asked how the government went about taking such important political decisions. At the very least, we know that this government doesn’t consult the main stakeholders. That being understood, one wonders why this step was taken. I think one must refer to the document that came with the government’s financial reference table and annual financial report that were tabled on September 25th. One can also refer to the press release.
My question is for all of you.
A press release from the Department of Finance and the President of Treasury Board announced that the new government has cut back programs that serve no useful purpose and are a waste of public funds; in fact, the government was cutting the fat. You mentioned that some very important programs were being targeted and that they shouldn’t be. Are these cuts targeting what the two Departments have called useless programs, thereby cutting the fat? The Ministers still insist that they are cutting back on program spending, thereby ensuring a leaner government and more resources for programs that really matter. -
I’d like to take this a bit further so as to get a better sense of what is happening. It’s your turn, so to speak. Mr. Wyatt was telling us earlier that four million Canadian citizens are volunteers, in some way. If I understand correctly, this amounts to 7% of the GDP. That’s extraordinary. We’re talking about a generous social safety net, but it seems now to be at risk, because of this operation.
In conclusion, I’d like to ask you if you think that cuts were made to the fat, to useless programs. This question is for all of you.
We’re talking about inefficiency and waste, but it’s quite difficult to prove with regards to the 50,000 student jobs in Canada. The whole of the postsecondary educational system must be taken into account. For 10 years now, government student grants have been diminishing, mostly those grants to the postsecondary educational system.
We were already requesting more funds and now we are learning about new cuts. The system needs more financing. Il will be very difficult for students to find a job without the help of the government student placement system.
Perhaps students, rather than supporting themselves by having a job, will resort to student loans. At the end of a four year bachelor of arts program, they will have a 35,000$ debt, a tremendous amount for a student.
:
Thank you. I'm just confused about these cuts.
I want to thank the folks who came today to present. I'm not going to repeat any of the questions that have already been asked. You've put on the table the most immediate impact you see from these cuts and how they will affect communities and the social economy sector across the country.
For me the question is, what is the government trying to achieve here? It's probably a question you're asking, and I think all of us should be asking: what's the endgame? If the CPRN doesn't get further funding, their future is in jeopardy as of April 1 next year.
The Canadian Labour and Business Centre didn't come today because they've shut their doors. They will be done at the beginning of December.
This was a coming together of differing perspectives and views on some really important issues, particularly when you consider the employability study we're doing here, trying to bring the various partners together. People like Perrin Beatty, who is not on the ideological left, was very critical. He seemed to think this agency was a good agency, was doing good work, was very valuable, would have been important moving forward, and it's gone now, for all intents and purposes.
Agencies we talked to that we wanted to bring before the committee have now gone underground. The chill that has gone out is unbelievable.
As some of you know, I served as a member of the provincial Parliament for thirteen years. I remember when the Conservatives came in, in 1995, and they began to do some things. The first thing they did was cut 21.6% out of the income of our most at-risk and vulnerable citizens. It was suggested at that time that was to send a message, “Don't mess with us. We have an agenda here. This is where we're going.”
I remember sitting and talking to Mr. Harris in the airport one day, before he became the premier, and he said, “You know, Tony, I really feel sorry for you guys.” This is when we were government. He said, “You guys are trying to do things and make things happen and work with groups and fix things.” He said, “We just cut.” I guess if--
An hon. member: There must have been more to that story.
:
I started that in my presentation. The effect of this will be that if they want to silence people, to drive people underground, to make sure we are not just stalled on equality issues and access to job issues but move backwards, that's exactly what these cuts are going to do.
We take a look at who's going to be the most affected. It's going to be people who want to get jobs, young workers, aboriginal workers, workers with disabilities, immigrants, workers of colour, a whole range of people who have been excluded from the workplace, from our perspective.
When you're excluded from the workplace, you're excluded from a piece of society as well. What's the first thing somebody says to you after you introduce yourself? “Hello, my name is”, and the next question is, “What do you do?” That's what's happening.
The programs that have been cut are programs hitting a broad range of people. The fact that the Status of Women has said their mandate is no longer equality is absolutely shameful to anybody who knows what the Status of Women is in this country. We may say women are equal, but the reality is that in our workplaces and our communities we're not treated that way at all. We're not treated that way in the House of Commons and we're not there in the House of Commons.
It's all those sorts of things. What's happening is people are being silenced, and it's about driving people underground and backwards.
:
All we have to do is listen to the tone in the House of Commons to appreciate that there are not enough women there.
I wanted to link the issue of community sector and literacy, because it seems to me these cuts have made a real deep cut in the community sector, linked to student employment, literacy, child care, and many of these programs.
For example, some of the community groups I've met in Victoria that are involved in literacy called me and indicated that the workplace literacy, which the minister referred to, will leave a whole group behind—those who are not at work and those who fall at the lower levels of functional literacy, levels 1 and 2. So by dealing simply with the minus 3 levels of literacy and by not attaching that to the community sector, we will be leaving a whole sector behind.
I'm wondering if any of you would comment on that disparity or discrepancy between workplace literacy programs attached to private sector and literacy as a broader concept.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have one more question.
You said every volunteer from coast to coast is affected by the cuts. Could you forward a document with a list of these? There were others who had made a really blanket comment about...I think one of you said as many as 100,000 people--or organizations--would be affected. I don't want the answer now; I would like to have it in writing. Exactly which organizations were affected, and how were they affected?
We, too, are policy-makers and advocates, as you are, and we hear some people applauding these effects, and some of those that were not cut felt that their work was good and they impressed upon the Treasury Board not to cut their program.
So I would like to see who you represent, categorically.
That's all I have for questions, and I'm sure Brian will ask the next one.
:
Thank you for the question.
Yes, you're right. CPRN does have a unique formula for funding, and it has grown over time. Again, this third-party, independent evaluation really looked at the specialized functions of the Canadian Policy Research Network, that it's an important resource for the Government of Canada in informing the policy-making process.
I think that's been critical, in terms of our assistance to the Government of Canada as a neutral, non-partisan source of credible and highly relevant research policy-making. You can't get that kind of resource inside government and it doesn't exist elsewhere outside of government. The lead time in academic research is very long, and it's often not policy relevant.
So it makes it very important for the Government of Canada.
We will continue to put forth contracts, but contracts or project funding do not provide the kind of core infrastructure support that allows us to become an information broker for Canadians on this credible research, and in particular allows this knowledge dissemination in both French and in English, in 1.6 million downloads. That's incredibly heavy traffic for any think tank, and we are robust in that area--very robust.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you very much for organizing this panel, which I think, in its makeup, is representative of the fact that Canada is a pluralistic society, one in which the power of the state is restrained by active and engaged citizens who join into groups to accomplish their aims. I realize that this restraint on the power of the state is very disappointing for my friends across the way who have just come into government, but it's a reality that those of us on the Liberal side are very aware of and one that I think makes Canada a much richer country.
We see before us, Mr. Chairman, a network--kind of a virtual network--connecting scholars doing research, volunteers, who are often working to fill gaps in our human service sector, workers trying to maximize their ability to contribute, and students trying to move forward.
One of the witnesses was surprised by the cuts. I think that would suggest that the person did not live in Ontario when we had the same finance minister, because surprise is one of their favourite tactics. Those of us who lived through it have simply been waiting for the axe to fall, and I would predict that the next budget will be a hundred times worse.
So yes, I do think it's sending a message, Mr. Martin. We've all heard of the book and the movie that came out called Manufacturing Consent.
Now, considering what Mr. Regan said about squelching advocacy and that kind of thing, I'd like somebody to comment on whether this set of cuts, probably followed by further cuts, could be interpreted not as manufacturing consent, but rather as crushing dissent and the capability of citizens to express their dissent with government programs.
Then I'd like to ask Mr. Kroeger a question. If the government continues in a direction that is symbolized by these cuts--that is, cutting the work of scholars and the information they can provide, cutting the work of the Labour Congress, cutting help to students, and so on--what do you think, Mr. Kroeger, the result will be for social cohesion in this country?
That's all I have.
:
Again, this is creating dissent. Earlier there was a reference to value for money. Well, there is nothing to say that any of the programs being cut weren't valuable. There is no evidence to show that. What there is evidence to show is that these groups being affected take a dollar and stretch it and make it two dollars. They work very, very hard at the community level to do that. And what this is going to do is create a country where the gap between those who have and those who don't have gets larger. And yes, there will be resentment.
The social problems we talk about now in terms of need, in terms of young people, or people who are excluded from citizenship in this country, are going to get worse, and we're going to have larger social problems to deal with.
My background, my previous life, is as a social worker. I worked with kids on the street for many, many years, and I know that it takes a long time to have some sense of progress, but if you don't put the money into child care at a young age, if you don't put the money into communities, if you don't put the money into literacy, you're going to have much larger, much more expensive programs and problems later on.
:
I have a couple of things, and then I want to put three quick questions. If you can answer them quickly, we can get through them.
In terms of who the government consults, some of the commentary that's been made out there, and the long-term impacts of these decisions that they're making, certainly the Ottawa Citizen is on the record as saying the $3 million a year the federal government has provided to the CPRN has been well spent on social science and research, whose results have sometimes told the government things they'd rather not hear. That money is going to be eliminated. It seems that the government would prefer to hear from bureaucrats whose work they can control, but that's a dangerous habit if they're hoping to make sound policy decisions.
In some instances, we know who the government is listening to. For example, they've just signed a $24 million contract with a firm from Chicago to advise them on procurement policy. They're not talking to Canadians or Canadian firms with the mandate to do the kind of research you've been mandated to do. They're out there contracting with American firms.
Having said that, to the Muttart Foundation, in the letter you sent to the Prime Minister—I have a copy of that letter too—you went on to say:
...that funding cuts...that affect voluntary non-profit organizations—amounting to some $200 million of the $1 billion total—will hurt some of our most vulnerable citizens and will create social deficits that will require far more than $1 billion to repair.
So of my three questions, one is to CASA. Do you think the private sector will in fact do the hiring that is now being done through the student summer career program?
The second question is to the Muttart Foundation, on the contract you signed in April. Do you have any legal recourse if the government signs a contract with you, walks in, and unilaterally breaks it? Maybe others might want to comment on that. That presents to me as a little strange.
And I would want some comment, if we have time, on the comment you made in your letter that this would take $1 billion to repair if we go ahead with these cuts.