Evidence of meeting #16 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cuts.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
Thank you.
I have a couple of questions. First I want a point of clarification from Ms. Byers. What did you say about the aboriginal smoking programs that have been cut? Were your remarks exactly that we, the Conservatives, don't care about aboriginals?
12:10 p.m.
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress
I think it shows quite clearly what the government values and who they don't value. I think it's a matter—
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
That's all I wanted. I wanted to hear the clarification, and that is what you said. I take real offence to that, because I come from Saskatchewan, which I believe you do too—
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
—where aboriginals are allowed to smoke in places where non-aboriginals aren't. Does that mean Saskatchewan doesn't care for their aboriginal people either?
12:10 p.m.
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress
I might have some things to say to the Saskatchewan government, but this is about the work that you've done.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
I would like you to take your campaign there, thank you.
I would like to go to the Muttart Foundation. First, do you accept that a new government has the prerogative to deviate from the spending priorities of its predecessor, and should they be able to chart their own course in terms of allocating tax dollars?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
Then you can quite agree that some of these are new and innovative ideas that we're having more focused spending.
I also want to quote a letter that you wrote on the 29th to the Prime Minister about programs assisting the disabled. In that letter you said the programs were being eliminated.
We had Ms. Caroline Weber here, the director of the office for disability issues in the Department of Human Resources. Mr. Lessard asked her pointedly about the allocation and how it affected people with disabilities. Her response was, and I quote, “I can assure you that no programs explicitly targeted for people with disabilities were cut.”
In light of Mrs. Weber's statement, I respectfully ask for a clarification of what exactly you are referring to when you state that programs assisting the disabled have been eliminated.
12:10 p.m.
Executive Director, The Muttart Foundation
Mr. Chairman, Ms. Yelich, I'm delighted the department is telling me that. It's more than the Treasury Board told us; it's more than the department has told us. The Treasury Board told us that $13.8 million was being taken out of the social development partnerships program. That program makes it very clear that a major part of its role is to serve people with disabilities. Absent any further information, one has to assume that some disability programs are somehow going to be affected.
Going back to your first point, I certainly don't disagree with the right of any government.... The budget process is about government deciding what its priorities are. What I object to is government ignoring commitments that the state has entered into. The accord and the codes were not documents that belonged to the previous government. They are state documents; they were commitments by the state to a relationship with a sector that is critical to this country. That's what I object to, Mr. Chairman.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
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.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
I would like the two who made a statement in the presentation. It's unfortunate we don't have copies of their presentations here, because there were a few of the representatives who said there were 100,000 groups that were affected. I would like to see who they are.
12:10 p.m.
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress
Mr. Chair, can I just suggest that as a starting point, the members of the committee might like to refer to the news release that was sent out by the Movement for Canadian Literacy and ABC Canada, which sent out a comprehensive list about a week or ten days ago of the literacy groups across this country--I believe there was only one province that they didn't have the stats on at that point, and that was New Brunswick. But in every province and territory there was a cut in literacy alone.
So that's a good place to start.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Does anyone have that information to forward to the clerk? At some point in time, that would be great.
Mr. Storseth, you have a minute and fifteen seconds, if you want to finish off.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Perhaps I'll address my question to the Canadian Policy Research Network. I have a couple of questions.
I was looking at your grant funding, and maybe it was just me, but I couldn't find any other organization similar to yours that has a funding arrangement in the same manner that you have.
I was wondering if you could explain a little bit to the committee about the funding arrangement you set up with the federal government. Also, are you going to continue to put in proposals for new grant funding?
12:15 p.m.
President, Canadian Policy Research Networks
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.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you.
That's all the time we have.
We're going to move to our second round, which will be five minutes of questions and answers, and we'll start with Ms. Brown.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville, ON
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.
12:20 p.m.
Chairman, Board of Directors, Canadian Policy Research Networks
The principal effect of the cuts, as I read them, is first of all that governments will be making more decisions blindly, because they will not have the base.... There's a lot of talk about evidence-based decision-making, and the less evidence you have and the less research you have, the more you are making decisions by the seat of your pants. I can't think that this would be good for social cohesion. I cannot think that for governments to function on the basis of ideology or preconceptions, rather than on good evidence, is a good way to foster social cohesion in Canada. And I would hope that ways could be found by which these organizations could continue to function as they have in the past, because they have made very important contributions.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville, ON
Would you like to comment, or would somebody else like to comment on this idea not of manufacturing consent, but rather of crushing dissent?
12:20 p.m.
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress
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.