Human Resources Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

[Sharon Manson Singer]

Certainly in terms of knowledge dissemination, the cuts to the policy capacity both inside government and outside government are significant. When you're talking about a new economy, a knowledge economy, you need to know before you can act. Particularly in areas where government is spending a great deal of money--billions and billions of taxpayer dollars--it's very important to have some wisdom and knowledge before you actually intervene.

[Barb Byers]

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.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Regan. Your time is up.

Mr. Lessard.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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.

[Bob Wyatt]

One's perception of waste will depend on where one sits. Was there evidence that these programs were wasteful? I take a look at the list. Is the program for RCMP training on driving impaired by drugs a waste or a frill? I don't think so.

Is the recruitment of volunteers, many of whom are delivering federal government programming directly or indirectly, a frill? I would argue not. I would argue that Canadians don't believe so.

Are there frills? I don't know, because I haven't consulted with the organizations involved and their clients. That's the problem many of us are talking about today. There was no consultation. There was no opportunity for us to produce evidence. We see programs that we in the sector believe are important to Canadians suddenly categorized as bad value for money, or non-core. We have very few vehicles within which we can have a conversation about where that came from. I think that's unfortunate.

[Monica Lysack]

Let me put this right down on the ground. We can talk about a higher level and the value at a higher level. Let me talk about the three-year-old with spina bifida who can't get into a child care centre. This little program that was funded through this partnerships program helped centres develop the capacity to be able to include children with diverse abilities in their program. Is that a waste? I say it is absolutely not. Every child has the right to a happy childhood in a place where they're cared for and people can adequately meet their needs.

Because of Canada's overall inaction in our early learning and child care policy, we have a workforce that is ill-prepared to deal with even the most typical children, never mind children with spina bifida. So in terms of waste and trimming the fat, if a government thinks that cutting the most vulnerable families with the most challenges is cutting the fat, then you're going in the right direction. This is doing it. This is achieving it.

[Phillippe Ouellette]

Thank 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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have for this round. I apologize.

We'll move to our next questioner now.

Normally we just have one person substituting, but I think Mr. Martin wants to share the question. I'm going to leave it to the will of the committee if they want to allow this.

Are there any issues there?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

No, but Mr. Martin looks confused.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

He's just trying to see what he can get away with.

Mr. Martin, we'll give the both of you seven minutes altogether. How does that sound?

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

She's out of line.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

“We just cut”--regardless of the impact, and that's it.

The question I'd like to ask is, what do you think the government is trying to achieve? What is the endgame? Does anybody want to answer?

[Barb Byers]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You have about a minute and a half left, Mr. Martin.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You have fifteen seconds for a real short answer.

[Barb Byers]

Fifteen seconds? I'll try to talk really fast.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

It was a long question.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

You can continue the answer later on.

[Barb Byers]

Quite clearly, the answer is that the minister said they're going to have national programs. If you don't have programs at the base—and that's both in workplace and community, because we know there are a lot of people excluded from the workplace, which I just referenced.... So you have to have both. You can't do one without the other; it's not an either/or. You need both and you need them at the base, as well as the national work that supports the people doing the on-the-ground work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Byers, for making that as short as you could.

[Barb Byers]

Fifteen seconds.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We're going to move to the last person in this round.

Ms. Yelich, you have seven minutes.