Human Resources Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee is continuing its study of government funding cuts to Human Resources and Social Development Canada.

First of all, I would like to welcome our witnesses. I also want to welcome Committee members.

I will just quickly explain the procedure: each of the six groups appearing today will have six minutes to make a presentation, following which we will open it up for questions and comments.

I invite the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada to do their presentation, for a maximum of seven minutes, please.

[Janis Douglas, Manager, Capacity Development and Community Affairs, Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada]

The Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada appreciate the opportunity to present to the committee today.

We have a 106-year history of providing support and services dedicated to improving the health and well-being of children, youth, and families in diverse communities across the country. We're an association of 104 clubs in 700 service locations that provide safe, welcoming, and affordable environments to over 178,000 young people and their families.

We have witnessed the positive outcomes for Canadian children, youth, and families, which are the direct result of the federal investments through HRSDC. These include investments through the youth employment initiatives, particularly the summer career placements program, and support to the national organization through the social development partnerships program.

Our members and the young people who have received funding through the summer career placements program are very concerned about the enormous impact that the $55.4 million from investments in youth employment would have on the young people and families served by our clubs. While young people in Boys and Girls Clubs benefit from a number of federally funded youth employment initiatives—such as the youth skills link, youth employment and referral programs, and the summer work student exchange—by far the largest is the summer career placements program, about which I will make most of my comments today.

The majority of clubs, in both urban and rural communities, receive wage subsidies through SCP to create summer jobs for students. These jobs are as day camp staff, providing safe and valuable summer activities for children. They offer affordable spaces that provide tremendous support particularly to low-income and working families.

The number of students hired varies for each individual club, as does the number of children served by the summer camps. Collectively the total number of summer student placement positions is in the hundreds, with the number of children and families served through the programs in the thousands.

Nationally our collective experience has demonstrated that SCP programs create meaningful employment and skills development for youth—skills such as team work, leadership, mentorship, and role modelling for younger children. The student program is an excellent leadership and training tool for future employment. The students learn practical skills, such as problem solving, effective child management, program planning, teamwork, interpersonal skills, etc., as well as develop their confidence, self-awareness, and self-esteem.

The predominant proportion of students hired through this program wouldn't have found jobs easily without these opportunities. Many of the students hired at the clubs face real challenges, whether that's because of where they live, their ethno-racial or socio-economic backgrounds, or other barriers. Without the youth employment programs, many of these young men and women would not be able to further their education. As well, many youth employed through the SCP return to volunteer or work on a casual or part-time basis through fall and winter program opportunities. Frequently the summer students return for a few summers in a row, and also they often continue their education in the fields of child care, recreation, and education, as a direct result of spending the summer working through this program.

As a not-for-profit organization, Boys and Girls Clubs hire many young people through SCP who otherwise they would not be able to afford to hire at all. What is clear is that without this program, these local organizations would not be able to afford to hire students. Also the hiring of these summer students plays a role in strengthening families and communities. The support SCP offers is a direct benefit to children and families who are the beneficiaries of quality programs primarily during summer camps.

The cuts in funding to the summer placement program would have drastic effects on young people, their families, and communities served by the majority of clubs. The opportunities for meaningful employment for young people and the need of local organizations for subsidies are great, regardless of whether or not the community is productive or economically challenged, whether we're in somewhere such as Preston, Nova Scotia, or in Calgary, Alberta. Based on about 60% of our clubs, funding cuts to the summer career placements program would affect approximately 600 student employment positions and 7,200 day camp spaces.

First and foremost, the cutting of the summer student positions would adversely affect students both financially and personally. Of course summer employment provides financial means for many students to further their education and the opportunity to learn skills in a positive environment, which will benefit them in all future employment. It also engages them civically within their communities.

A number of summer students and Boys and Girls Clubs have given testimonials. There is a handout in the package, where an executive director and a number of the youth have spoken to the benefits of the program.

Many of the clubs would have to reduce their child care spaces, so the impact on children and families would be enormous. As we can't increase the fees, we'd have to reduce the number of spaces available.

We believe there is proof that the investment through HRSDC to youth employment initiatives, such as the summer career placement program, yields an incredible return on investment. It provides tremendous value for money. We urge the Government of Canada to work collaboratively with not-for-profit organizations such as Boys and Girls Clubs to deliver meaningful youth employment opportunities. We also urge continued investment in organizations such as ours to ensure that we are in a position to support innovation and responsible approaches and opportunities that have a positive benefit for young people, families, and their communities.

Boys and Girls Clubs recommend that the summer career placement program be maintained, with the focus on placements in the not-for-profit sector. While we understand the possible need for improved targeting, we do not believe that such targeting equates with funding cuts. Over the past few years, we've already seen a decrease in allocation of funding, when in fact there has been an increase in the demand within communities across the country, and increased needs of many people for hope and opportunity.

I understand the committee has put forward a recommendation that the summer career placement program stay in effect with the same level of funding. We affirm this recommendation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We will now hear from the Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec.

Mr. Huddon-Gagnon and Mr. Laliberté-Auger, you have seven minutes.

[François Laliberté-Auger, Vice-President, Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec]

The Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec has more than 40,000 members in 19 CEGEPs located in more than ten different administrative regions of Quebec.

First of all, we would like to apologize for not providing you with a brief in advance. The fact is, we had trouble obtaining information about the cuts made by the government. Even yesterday, we were still waiting for someone to call us back to provide more information about the cuts, but unfortunately those calls never came, despite repeated requests for information from the Department of Human Resources. That is also the reason for our lack of information, to a certain extent, about programs that have been affected by budget cuts.

Other programs with respect to which we were unable to obtain any information are those dealing with literacy and learning. I won't mention all the programs about which we were given no information — that would not be useful — but at the same time, it is distressing to see that a month and a half after these cuts were announced, no information is yet available.

Indeed, we are concerned about the fact that we are being told, with respect to many of these programs, that these measures involve only targeting or administrative cuts, when in actual facts, these programs are losing more than 50 per cent of their budget. In our opinion, the result of these budget cuts will be to abolish these programs or, at the very least, seriously weaken them.

I will turn it over to my colleague to continue our presentation.

[Étienne Huddon-Gagnon, President, Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec]

One of the programs we believe to be important, and which will probably end up seeing its budget cut back, is the Summer Career Placement program. I'd like to briefly remind Committee members of the three objectives of this program: to help students prepare their entry into the world of work, to create additional jobs that would not be created otherwise, and the third objective — in my opinion, the most important one — is to provide students with income with which to pursue their post-secondary studies.

Having myself benefited from this program, I can assure you that it does allow young people to gain work experience in their specific field of study. It provides an initial work experience in anticipation of a professional career. It's worth repeating some of the statistics: 51.6% of job offers are from non-profit organizations; 31% come from the private sector; and 41.2% of the young people who take part in the program are between 15 and 19 years of age.

In our opinion, cutting the budget of this program is tantamount to cutting future prospects for young people. This program has its place and has proven itself. I do not understand why there is a move to cut back its funding when the money is available. The government claims that these are purely administrative cuts that will allow for greater efficiency, as François said. But we do not believe that is the real purpose. Rather, we believe the government wants to cut the budget of a program that has proven itself and could mean a better future for young people in Canada.

Thank you.

[François Laliberté-Auger]

In closing, I would just like to mention the elimination of the grant provided to Canadian Policy Research Networks. We have talked to people at CPRN and they told us that they signed a three-year funding agreement in April and that a study of the program's performance had yielded positive results. They learned subsequently that their budget would be cut. Although we have been unable to obtain additional information, we do not believe that is appropriate.

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

Thank you very much.

We'll go now to the Ontario Literacy Coalition's Ms. Brown and Mr. Taner.

[Lesley Brown, Acting Executive Director, Ontario Literacy Coalition]

Literacy is defined as the different ways that people use information in their lives, their workplaces, and their communities. Today, 42% of Canadians have challenges with literacy. Four out of every 10 citizens have some difficulty taking in and using written information and math in their everyday lives. This is a significant portion of our population, and the economic and social impacts are not something that can be ignored.

Many year ago, the Conservative government, under Brian Mulroney, recognized the importance of literacy by instituting the National Literacy Secretariat and establishing a network of coalitions in each province and territory. Federal funding was also made available across Canada in an effort to build the capacity of the literacy field.

In 2003, this committee presented a report titled, “Raising Adult Literacy Skills: The Need For A Pan-Canadian Response”. It recommended that the National Literacy Secretariat's annual grants and contributions budget be increased to $50 million from $28.2 million; that new funding continue to be delivered through the national funding stream and the federal-provincial-territorial funding stream; and that the federal government increase spending under part II of the Employment Insurance Act by $100 million for literacy and numeracy programming.

In 2005, another report was tabled by this committee titled, “Towards a Fully Literate Canada--Achieving National Goals Through a Comprehensive Pan-Canadian Literacy Strategy”. This report called for the adoption of a pan-Canadian approach to literacy and sustainable funding approaches by the federal government.

In an age of increased economic competitiveness and globalization, more investment in literacy is imperative. Therefore the $17.7 million in cuts to literacy do not make good economic or social policy sense. The rationale for the policy cuts from the federal government were said to be found in three areas: value for money, unused funds, and efficiency. I will argue that this reasoning does not hold true for the cuts to literacy spending.

With respect to value for money, Imagine Canada's report on investing in citizens and communities states that governments benefit from partnering with the community non-profit sector to deliver programs. Non-profit organizations add 60% of the value to government investments in non-profit service delivering, through their initiatives and the support of their donors and their volunteers. Literacy organizations provide cost-effective services for the public. Their rates are lower, they are supported by countless volunteer contributions, and they work on a not-for-profit basis.

I will give you one example from Ontario. The provincial government developed outcomes to measure skill areas and progress in adult literacy learners. The Ontario Literacy Coalition took the government's approach and made it into an accessible and tangible resource. We then trained 600 teachers across this province for $190,000. This resource is still in use, and it is a good tool for measuring accountability. This is just one example of good value for money; there are countless other examples from all the other literacy organizations across Canada.

I want to address the unused funds. The rationale for funding shortfalls with unused funds is not applicable in the case of literacy spending. For the most part, literacy organizations fund portions of their work through projects. A call for proposals is done on a yearly basis. This year the call for proposals was severely delayed and then cancelled altogether a week after the deadline for the proposals was reached. Therefore literacy organizations never received the opportunity to bid for new funding opportunities, let alone use unused funds.

The argument that literacy programs have been cut because they are inefficient cannot be supported on any grounds. Literacy organizations are funded on a yearly project basis. Therefore each year they have to prove their worth. In order to be approved for funding, organizations need to submit comprehensive proposals. I have a copy with me today, if anybody want to look at it. There is a stringent review process whereby proposals must demonstrate, based on current research findings, the need for the particular project. They must include references, and they have to support their work through extensive project timelines, project plans, communications, sustainability, and partnership plans.

All funded projects require external evaluators to assess the effectiveness in meeting the deliverables of their project, and a report of these findings is submitted at the end of the project. So the determination of efficiency is built into the application process itself.

Furthermore, literacy organizations have not been provided with an outline indicating what constitutes effective programs and projects upon which the determination of ineffectiveness has been determined. The only rationale that the government thus far has made is that literacy organizations are being cut because they are not effective, based on findings from the IALS study between 1994 and 2004, which indicate there's been no marked improvement in literacy rates.

This is not a valid method by which to make this argument. The statistics don't tell the whole story. A direct comparison is not possible because Canada's population increased 10% between 1994 and 2004, from 29 million to 32 million. According to Satya Brink, from the learning policy directorate of the HRSDC, at the current rate of investment in the current programming, any improvements achieved are slower than the population growth nationally. If we keep doing what we do now, the number of people with low literacy skills will increase at the rate of 100,000 a year.

Other factors that contribute to these findings that need to be considered include an aging population. Findings indicate that the average Canadian worker begins to lose prose literacy at the age of 20. Literacy skills are like muscles. If they are not maintained and strengthened through regular use, they will be lost.

We need to go beyond simplistic interpretation in our analysis of progress in literacy levels in Canada and take into account Canada's population growth. In addition, without comprehensive planning and a robust policy framework in place, Canadians do not have adequate opportunities and support to maintain their literacy skills throughout the course of their lives.

Decreasing investment in literacy will have a substantial impact on program delivery and the adult learners themselves. Without the infrastructure in place to support the capacity and continuous improvement of literacy programming in Canada, the programs will not have the valuable support they require. Any teacher is only as good as their ability to access ongoing professional development, research, resources, and curriculum.

Some of the tangible losses we face include the loss of provincial and territorial coalitions. They provide an important interconnected link between the provinces and territories and the national organizations. They also include coalitions that have been set up for the francophone community, the deaf community, and the aboriginal community to meet the specific language and cultural needs of these groups. Adult learner networks that allow for the input of adult literacy students in assessing and determining programming needs...and there are many more, but in the interests of time I will move forward.

There's also been a major policy shift whereby the federal government has now moved to supporting projects with only a national focus. The federal government has substantially withdrawn from its involvement in coordination and capacity-building efforts within the provinces and the territories.

Without funding that supports provincial and territorial initiatives--

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

Ms. Brown, I'm sorry, you will probably have to answer during the question period, because we're already past your time.

[Lesley Brown]

Okay, thank you.

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

Now we will go to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Mr. Williamson, for a maximum of seven minutes, please.

[John Williamson, Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation]

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank committee members for having me here today. It's always fun to come the Hill and appear, on the surface anyway, to defend the shooting of Bambi.

I'll be happy to answer questions with respect to specific programs—why, for example, it's not necessary to fund literacy advocacy, or why it's not correct or necessary to provide wage subsidies in some of the hottest markets in the country—or the role of the federal government vis-à-vis provincial governments in delivering some of these services or programs.

I'm actually going to start today by really taking us up to a macro level, perhaps as a starting point, but as I said, I'll be happy to answer questions afterwards.

I found that it was a bizarre line of attack on the government's plan to chop a billion dollars over the next two years and then find another billion dollars in efficiency savings over the same period. Opposition members questioned the necessity of trimming fat when the government is in fact sitting on bags and bags of surplus dollars. In fact, what the opposition was telling Canadians is that using tax dollars responsibly is just not a priority when the federal government is swimming in excess money. It seems to them and their supporters that a surplus means Ottawa can afford to fund everything and anything, regardless of necessity. This is an absurd belief, but it does explain why the previous Liberal government was a far better steward of tax dollars when faced with annual deficits than when handling surpluses.

When in the red, the Liberal government had to make choices and spend more prudently, which they did, and our organization commended the previous government for its commitment to balancing the budget and pulling this country out of deficit. When the Liberals assumed office in 1993, program spending, which is government spending on everything except debt interest, stood at $122 billion a year. In 1999, program spending was $119 billion, or 3% lower. Holding down the size of government was an impressive accomplishment requiring fiscal discipline. It resulted in a more resourceful federal government.

Moderate budget surpluses were recorded beginning in 1997, but the cash really started to tumble in when the surplus hit $14 billion in 1999. Spending soared with this turnabout. In 2004, program spending hit an all-time high of $176 billion, an eye-popping 48% increase in just four short years.

Excess tax revenues do not give lawmakers licence to start wasting money. Canadians understand that saving diligently and living frugally are what underpins wise financial planning. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Treasury Board President John Baird are to be congratulated for trimming program spending, albeit by a tiny amount. Let's not forget, a billion-dollar cut represents approximately half of 1% of Ottawa's total program spending.

Similarly, it was pleasing that the Conservative government reported that program spending fell to $175 billion last year. This was actually a drop of $1.1 billion versus the 2004 fiscal year. The reduction marked Canada's first year-over-year decline in nine years. Government shrunk and the sky did not fall.

Regarding the spending reductions that were announced, I think there was a credible case made that they really fell under three categories. The first was duplicate, redundant spending that was refocused on priority areas. Number two, the money simply was not used. It was lying around in bank accounts. In fact, this was one way the previous government was able to report surpluses at year end: by looking at this excess money, banking it, and often applying it against the debt. The Conservatives have in fact adopted the policy of the previous government in both these cases.

The third one, though, is the one we're really talking about today, and that is cutting the funding of advocacy organizations in this country. There is a belief in this town that not-for-profit organizations expect a constant draw from the government to fund themselves so that they can then go out and promote their pet causes.This is one area where the new government has actually not done enough in terms of pulling back some of this funding. I don't believe an advocacy organization that is Conservative, Liberal, left, right, or you name it, is entitled to turn to the federal government and demand its funding so that it can then go out and push its pet cause in public.

So I'll leave it at that. Those are my brief remarks, but as I said, I'm happy to address any of the programs that were reduced within this department.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Williamson.

We will now hear from the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, or FRAPRU.

I would ask Messrs. Roy and Laporte to make their opening presentation in no more than seven minutes.

[Jean-Claude Laporte, Organizer, Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain]

Good morning everyone.

The Front populaire en réaménagement urbain, or FRAPRU, is a Quebec coalition of 120 organizations that work mainly in such areas as housing and, more specifically, poverty and respect for social rights.

There are two main reasons why we find it somewhat paradoxical to be appearing before your Committee to present our views on cuts to the Department of Human Resources and Social Development announced by the government.

The first of those reasons is that these budget cuts coincide with the Conservative government's announcement that there will be a $13.2 billion surplus in fiscal year 2005-2006. Surpluses of that magnitude would, on the contrary, have warranted reinvestments in social development, as opposed to budget cuts.

The second reason relates to the total contradiction between these cuts and the recommendations of a UN committee, made barely five months ago, with respect to respect for social rights in Canada. That committee made a whole series of recommendations that should have had quite different budgetary repercussions at the Department of Human Resources and Social Development: an increase in federal transfers for social assistance and social services, improvements to the Employment Insurance program and, finally, recognition that housing and homelessness are a matter of national urgency — as stated by the UN committee — which should normally result in reinstatement of social housing programs.

The Harper government which, it should be said, has not even deigned to respond to the UN report, has chosen the opposite direction, by introducing a billion dollar's worth of budget cuts that have more to do with ideology than with budgetary requirements.

And I want to emphasize that point: cutting spending by $1 billion, when there is currently a $13 billion surplus, is beyond all comprehension. However much we may try to see some logic in this, from both an economic and social standpoint, the fact is that it makes no sense whatsoever. So, at some point, someone will have to provide us with an explanation that goes beyond pure ideology, because we simply cannot understand why these cuts are being made when the government has such enormous surpluses.

What other opinion could one possibly have of the cuts being made to grants for women's groups, or the abolition of the Court Challenges Program?

But, strictly in terms of cuts to the Department of Human Resources and Social Development, FRAPRU is particularly opposed to efficiency gains of some $45 million at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC.

CMHC has told us that these cuts will have no effect on programs or on existing social housing stock. That may be true, but if CMHC is capable of realizing certain efficiencies — for example, because of interest rates that are lower than expected — any money that is saved should be used to provide additional assistance to families and individuals.

Do CMHC's own estimates not show that some 1,484,800 households are in serious need of housing in Canada, and that there are 150,000 homeless people in this country? That last figure is the number of people it would take to fill three football stadiums. So, just imagine three stadiums filled with homeless people. That is what that figure represents here in Canada.

In fact, CMHC could provide more appropriate support for the current social housing stock, which is not only aging but also experiencing serious financial difficulties.

[François Roy, Representative, Outaouais, Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain]

Good morning. Rather than reducing CMHC's budget for social housing, the Parliament of Canada should instead be rallying behind Bill C-285, the private member's bill tabled by Bloc Member of Parliament Christiane Gagnon, which is currently at the second reading stage in the House of Commons.

As a matter of general policy, the bill proposes that any profits realized by CMHC as a result of its economic activities be used to provide adequate funding for its social activities.

It is important to remember that in 2005, CMHC's net after-tax profit was $1 billion and that it now has an accumulated surplus of $4.4 billion.

Is it too much to ask that part of that money be used to provide housing to individuals and families who are not certain to have a roof over their head and are forced to spend up to 60%, 70% or 80% of their income on inadequate housing?

In a different connection, FRAPRU is also against the $17.7 million budget cut, including $5 million in Quebec, to funding for literacy.

According to the Regroupement des groupes populaires en alphabétisation du Québec, these cuts represent almost half of the annual budget of the Regroupement and the entire budget of grassroots-based literacy organizations working in this area as part of federal-provincial joint literacy initiatives.

These cuts come at a time when efforts in this critical area are yielding results. But there is still so much more to be done: there are still 800,000 adults in Quebec aged from 16 to 65 with low literacy skills, compared to 1 million ten years ago.

When it signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 30 years ago, Canada made a commitment to the international community to ensure over time that the rights set out in that covenant could be fully exercised. In that respect, we are taking a step backwards at a time when the federal government is swimming in budget surpluses. This is not only unacceptable, it is absolutely indecent.

In closing, I would just like to mention that we do, of course, share the views expressed by others with respect to cuts to the Summer Career Placement program. Again, given the considerable surpluses now available to the government, it is completely indecent in our opinion to be cutting the funding of such an important program as this.

Thank you.

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

Merci, messieurs.

We will go now to Imagine Canada. Ms. Kirk, for seven minutes.

[Teri Kirk, Vice-President, Public Policy and Government Relations, Imagine Canada]

Thank you, monsieur le président, mesdames et messieurs, députés.

Imagine Canada appreciates this opportunity to appear before this committee on the important issue of cuts to both funding and advocacy activities by Canada's community non-profit organizations.

Many of you will be familiar with the work of Imagine Canada. We are largely supported by 1,100 members that are themselves charities and community organizations drawn from diverse communities--from sport, to Christian charities, to health charities. We also work with corporate Canada through our Imagine Caring Companies program. We work with companies like EnCana, Bell, and the Royal Bank, which, as some of Canada's largest and finest corporate citizens, commit to giving 1% of their earnings back into our communities.

Many of you, I know, are very familiar with the depth and breadth of this sector. Defined most broadly, it is truly Canada's third sector, so it captures economic activity that falls outside the direct scope of business and public service. What always enchants me most about the sector--and this is data collected by Statistics Canada--is that 22.2 million Canadians make donations into this sector every year. With a population of 35 million Canadians, that's virtually every adult Canadian voluntarily making contributions to support their churches, sports organizations, and charities.

I'd like to address the issue that's being raised today and is increasingly raised. I think the federal government doesn't have an active role vis-à-vis this sector. When one looks at western democracies around the world, they're generally characterized by a public-private partnership vis-à-vis this sector. Even countries like the United States have a more generous culture of giving to their community non-profit sectors than we do here in Canada--more corporate contribution, more individual contribution. In the U.S., the state contributes more than 50% toward the cost of maintaining a vibrant third sector, this set of activities.

In particular in Canada, many of the activities of the sector fall very squarely within the jurisdiction of the federal government. They relate to immigrant settlement. They relate to reintegration of criminal offenders back into the community so our communities can be safe. Therefore the relationship of the sector to the federal government is indeed a very important one.

I'd like to address specifically the question of the cuts. Those in the sector understand it's very complex for government to make difficult financial choices and measure balanced spending versus taxation. We very much appreciate the government's tax measures in budget 2006 to support capital gains exemptions, which have indeed brought forward significant new giving in select public charities.

On behalf of our 1,100 members, I can say there was upset with the cuts, as one can imagine. They felt the process was at odds with the accord that the sector negotiated with the Government of Canada. Many of these organizations financed themselves to come to Ottawa to work over a two-year period with the Government of Canada to say how they will partner with the federal government to make sure this sector remains viable and strong in Canada.

We're not a federal department and we're not businesses, but we do have a special kind of partnership with the government. We would like to work constructively with you in negotiating very significant policy changes. That's important to the sector. We felt the changes to the important research and public policy role that sector organizations feel they carry out was done outside the scope of that kind of partnership.

Secondly, the language that was used was certainly clear, but it did offend many. Many in the sector are people who volunteer their time and work at below-market rates to help carry out these activities in their community. To have the spending described as having a lack of value or being redundant offended many in the sector. We'd like to work with the committee, work with members of Parliament, work with the government to try to repair some of the damage that has been done to that important partnership.

In that spirit, the sector feels that the maturity of the sector now in Canada--its importance to the day-to-day quality of life of Canadians--does merit a view. It's not clear where accountability for this bundle of activity, which employs 2.2 million employees and accounts for 8.6% of economic activity, of GDP in Canada, really lies and therefore it tends to be disproportionately subject to cuts. We'd like to work with government to have a clear view of what the nature of the partnership with the sector is. We can be a very viable alternative service provider to governments in many instances.

John Howard is a viable alternative to help criminal offenders reintegrate into their communities as an alternative to using the Solicitor General or the Department of Justice, for example. These are viable alternative service delivery models that can be used very effectively. Canadians say over and over again that they trust charities and non-profit organizations to deliver these services in their communities more than they trust governments to do so.

We're not asking for a big, new department, or a lot of spending in order to do this. We like the blue ribbon panel. We think it had, on grants and contributions, which was struck by Treasury Board, three excellent people working at a dollar a year. We had to encourage the government to strike that kind of longer-term committee to look at a new partnership and some new ways in investing in this sector.

Thank you very much.

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

Thank you, Ms. Kirk.

We will now open it up for questions and comments.

We will begin with a seven-minute round. I would ask Mr. Regan to begin the questioning.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank all the witnesses for being with us today.

As members of this committee when we have our time allotted--I have seven minutes here--we actually control that seven minutes and we decide with whom we want to share it, and for how long.

For starters, I want to share about three seconds of it with Mr. Williamson. I would like to ask him whether he was or was not--yes or no--consulted by the minister or the department in relation to these particular cuts we're discussing here today, before the cuts were announced.

[John Williamson]

Was I consulted?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Yes.

[John Williamson]

No.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

It seems to me we have a difference of opinion, Mr. Williamson, about whether learning to read or write is trimming fat, and about whether there are enough summer jobs in the country, and let's say, outside Alberta you couldn't have moved the money elsewhere--there was certainly a lot of need for summer jobs elsewhere--and whether there was enough money at all, in total, for summer jobs.

It's surprising to me that an organization like yours, which has credibility nationally, comes here and suggests that the Liberal opposition is against trimming the fat. That's a bit like my suggesting that you advocate letting people starve on the streets, and it detracts from your credibility before us today. I suggest you consider that in the future.

Let me ask this of the other groups who are here today.

In relation to the cuts that were announced, has the minister consulted you prior to these cuts being announced? Do you know anybody else she's consulted with? And how did you find out about the cuts?

Why don't we start over here and go around?

[Teri Kirk]

I'd be pleased to answer that.

No, we weren't consulted and we're not aware that any of our member organizations were consulted. Most of the organizations found out in ways that were very upsetting to them. These organizations tend to function on a shoestring. In many instances, their funding had just been renewed and they had entered into some long-term commitments, had found out through websites, and are still in fact finding out the extent to which the cuts were made. This is something where, again, in the spirit of partnership, I think we can learn and work together more constructively to find ways to go about managing changes in financial and public policy that are less disruptive to a vulnerable sector of the economy.

[Jean-Claude Laporte]

No, we obviously were not consulted.