Human Resources Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean-Claude D'Amours]

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.

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.

Each group has seven minutes. I would now invite the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations to make its presentation.

[Phillippe Ouellette, National Director, Canadian Alliance of Student Associations]

First, I wish to thank you for having invited the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations. Our Alliance represents nearly 300,000 Canadian students of postsecondary school level.

A few weeks ago the government announced that it had secured $1 billion in budget savings over the next two years. The students we represent were shocked to hear that much of those savings were being cut from education and youth programs. Over the next two years we will see $17.1 million cut from literacy programs and $55.4 million from investment in youth employment.

Our members and the students of Canada have several concerns about the announced cuts. So CASA would like to discuss how Canada's post-secondary students will be affected. My colleague, Toby White, will run through our major concerns related to the recent announced cuts.

[Toby White, Government Relations Officer, Canadian Alliance of Student Associations]

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.

[Phillippe Ouellette]

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.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean-Claude D'Amours]

Thank you, Mr. Ouellette.

Now, I will ask the Canadian Policy Research Networks to give their presentation.

You have a maximum of seven minutes, please.

[Arthur Kroeger, Chairman, Board of Directors, Canadian Policy Research Networks]

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.

[Sharon Manson Singer, President, Canadian Policy Research Networks]

Thank you very much.

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.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean-Claude D'Amours]

Thank you very much. I would now ask the Canadian Labour Congress to make its presentation.

[Barb Byers, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress]

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.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean-Claude D'Amours]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Byers.

Now I will ask the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada to make their presentation.

[Monica Lysack, Executive Director, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada]

Thank you.

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!

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean-Claude D'Amours]

Thank you for your presentation.

As a matter of propriety— and with regards to that question, our procedures are the same as those that apply in the House of Commons— I would ask our guests to please refrain from applauding.

We will now hear the last presentation.

Mr. Wyatt.

[Bob Wyatt, Executive Director, The Muttart Foundation]

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.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean-Claude D'Amours]

Thank you, Mr. Wyatt.

I would like to thank all of the witnesses for your different presentations.

Now we will go to questions by members of the committee. First it will be a round of seven minutes.

Mr. Regan, please.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup, monsieur le président.

Thank you very much to all the witnesses who've come here today on very short notice. We really appreciate your taking the time and arranging your schedules to make it possible to be here. I know there were others who were also invited who couldn't come this soon, but I hope we'll have a chance to hear from them in the future.

The first thing I'd like to ask each of you is, what, if any, consultations or meetings have you had with the minister or her staff in terms of these issues, in advance of the cuts that were made in September? What consultations took place that you're aware of?

[Sharon Manson Singer]

If I could begin on behalf of Canadian Policy Research Networks, this government signed our contract, the agreement for four years' worth of funding, in April of this year. We were not consulted, nor did we have any opportunities for discussion with the minister or senior bureaucrats. We in fact learned of this cut through a posting on the Treasury Board website.

[Barb Byers]

In terms of the Canadian Labour Congress, we didn't have any consultations either in terms of what cuts were coming down or the change in the mandate, obviously, of Status of Women. So there weren't consultations. But certainly, since the government was elected, we've consistently sent over our positions on a number of issues to this minister and other ministers, so that people clearly understood the things we saw that were working in the Canadian context.

[Phillippe Ouellette]

On our end, there has been no consultation either in this form at all. In fact, we've been trying to get a meeting with the ministry for quite a while now to discuss a variety of issues, obviously, not just specifically what we have before us now.

[Monica Lysack]

The CCAAC, as well as our partner organizations, have requested repeatedly to meet with the minister and have been met with flat refusal. We've also requested to meet with Prime Minister Harper and were also flatly refused, despite repeated requests.

[Bob Wyatt]

Mr. Chairman, the Muttart Foundation wouldn't have expected to be consulted, but we're certainly not aware that any of the agencies we know of who are affected by these cuts were consulted in advance. It came as a bit of a surprise on the 25th of September.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, one of the things the minister said in response to questions in the House of Commons about these cuts is that, “We are not going to invest...in advocates and lobbyists who do not get any literacy results on the ground”. I'd like each of you to comment in relation to the cuts you've seen and on whether you think that's an accurate analysis by the minister of the impact of these cuts, and what your view is on that.

[Bob Wyatt]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Regan, I see nothing wrong with lobbying for literacy. I see nothing wrong with lobbying for equality. The lobbying isn't always done with government. Some of my colleagues in the field of literacy will spend much of their time advocating with employers to allow time for their employees to take the training. I see nothing wrong with suggesting that children deserve quality day care, and lobbying and advocating for that wherever it takes place.

One of the concerns of our foundation is that the Minister of Heritage announced in the House that there would be changes to the terms and conditions of grants and contributions and that now no federal money could be used for lobbying or advocacy, although those terms are not defined.

If we understand correctly what's being proposed, Mr. Chair, it may well be a breach of contract for anyone who receives any federal funding to appear before a parliamentary committee or even to go to the project manager and say they need more money because this new need has emerged. I don't think that's what's intended. I think that may be the result, and I think that destroys public discourse in this country.

[Sharon Manson Singer]

On the issue of advocacy, I'd just like to add, Mr. Chair, that Canada has a bijural Constitution. In other words, we have two forms of law, and there is no barrier in Quebec civil law to advocacy for charitable organizations. So it is an unusual step for a minister to take to make that kind of statement on behalf of one side of government rather than on behalf of both of our governments. So with respect to the bijural situation, I think it is a point that needs to be brought forward.

Regarding our own case, with respect to Canadian Policy Research Networks, we are neutral, non-partisan. We do not advocate policy positions. It is not just me as the president who says this. I am repeating to you words that have been used in third-party evaluations of the work we've accomplished. CPRN has had third-party analysis from various sources, which was commissioned by the Government of Canada to evaluate whether or not we've provided value for money. The overwhelming result was that yes, indeed, we are innovative, non-partisan, and neutral, and we are a place that allows Canadians to really understand what policy options are going to mean for them.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I appreciate Mr. Wyatt's comments, and I agree with them, but is it your assessment that the preponderance of the funds that have been cut were going towards lobbying and advocacy, or did they have other impacts?