Human Resources Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[Askin Taner, Public Policy Analyst, Ontario Literacy Coalition]

No, the OLC was not consulted in any capacity. I think we could have really contributed some valuable information. I'm no legal expert, but to the best of my knowledge, Revenue Canada limits the advocacy dimension of non-profit organizations to 20%, so when we paint the literacy organizations as advocacy groups it's simply inaccurate.

Advocating for adult literacy, from a policy perspective, makes us smart professionals who are in tune with the OECD. I was at the OECD conference with a member, Ms. Savoie, in June. One of the four pillars of OECD's job strategy is training, and adult literacy is definitely part of that.

From an advocacy perspective, advocating for some of the most underprivileged Canadians makes us compassionate Canadians.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

By the way, when you say “advocacy”, it reminds me of a point about advocacy. It seems to me that Mr. Williamson is not against advocacy, because that's what he does for those who can pay for it. That's what it seems like—and I'm sure my friends opposite will give you a chance to respond to that in due course.

[John Williamson]

Aren't you going around the table?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I'm going to those other groups that actually are affected by these cuts.

[François Laliberté-Auger]

No, we were not consulted, and the groups that we contacted were not consulted either, just as they had no detailed information about these cuts.

[Janis Douglas]

Likewise, like other people at the table, we weren't consulted. I think Teri did a great job of describing what we would say.

As well, I think we're still somewhat unclear on the particular details of the cuts, so to contribute--which I think we can—it's more helpful to have some of that information in order to be able to work collaboratively.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

It strikes me that it makes sense to look at an organization, to look at the expenditures that it has, to examine what it's doing, to look at each program and see if there are things that don't need to be done. But it strikes me that this is not what happened here. There was a decision that the government was going to cut this much and the department had to find it in their budget and then do it. I have an impression that the minister and the cabinet did not really do much to understand these programs before making these cuts. That's a very important point here.

Let me ask something of the groups here that have experienced these cuts, the groups affected. Here is how the minister described the impact of the cuts when she appeared before this committee last week: “If you think about your own personal budget, can you cut out a coffee a week? Because that's just about what it works out to.”

Can I ask for comments on what she said from those groups here that have been affected by these cuts. What's your reaction?

[Teri Kirk]

Obviously, for many organizations, the impact of the cuts was much more extensive than that. For Volunteer Canada, 85% of their budget has been removed. More importantly, for all of these organizations, it's not necessarily about preserving jobs; it's truly about delivering services in their communities. That's what motivates them.

Again, Imagine Canada tries to work very constructively with the government, and we're not here to criticize. We understand that governments do have difficult decisions to make. But I think what it does speak to and what all of us have learned from this is that we do need to have a strategy in place for how we are going to deal with this sector in Canada.

There are some very significant threats on the horizon. Number one is the major indicator for Canadians and around the world to get involved in giving their time and writing cheques. And by the way, Canadians write $9 billion in cheques to these organizations every year. The major driver is religious participation. We may not like that, but that's what the data shows. But religious participation is in massive decline right now.

So if we care about this sector, what activities will we be doing to ensure that it carries on?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

[Jean-Claude Laporte]

In terms of the Minister's analogy, my response would be that in terms of cutting out a coffee per day or week — I believe that was the analogy — if the coffee pot is full, I won't have to cut my consumption; indeed, I'll even offer some to others. And that's what I think we should be doing with these budget surpluses — we should be sharing them, not using them for ideological purposes.

[Lesley Brown]

In terms of the literacy field, it impacts about half the budget that they're working with.

Another important thing to note, too, is that there is a policy change here that has tremendous impact, because the federal government will only fund those programs with a national interest. This now takes away all the programming across the provinces and the territories for local and regional needs, because the provinces and the territories do not have large enough budgets.

Let me give you an example. For shared projects, the federal government gave $4 million in Ontario to go with the $1.5 million the province was able to contribute, so that's a substantial decrease in the amount of funding and the amount of work that could be done. I think it's more than a cup of coffee.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Reagan, you can come back on the second round. We are now going to a second seven-minute round.

Mr. Lessard, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to begin by welcoming the witnesses and thanking them all for being here this morning. We may be able to improve our understanding of the situation somewhat.

This week, the Minister appeared before the Committee. I believe she was here on Tuesday. We systematically asked her, for each and every one of the budget items that are affected, what had been cut. But the Minister was unable to provide answers. She didn't know, even after checking with her officials.

In the House of Commons last evening, we had a four-hour debate on the Budget Estimates. It ended around midnight. But the Minister still didn't know what she had cut. Do any of you know?

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

Does someone wish to answer?

[Étienne Huddon-Gagnon]

Well, as we said earlier, rumours have been circulating with respect to the Summer Career Placement program. We actually spoke to the person in charge of the program, and she told us its budget would be cut. But the Department was in no more of a position to answer our questions than Cabinet.

Once again, I think it's extremely unfortunate that people who are illiterate and students are being compared to a cup of coffee.

So, the short answer is that we do not know either what specific amounts or what specific programs are involved.

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

For our part, we see this as an incomprehensible situation that can only be explained on the basis of an ideological choice — the term used earlier by Mr. Laporte. But let's leave that aside for a moment, since we have to deal with a very concrete reality here.

A very important Canadian organization reminded us that there are some 160,000 volunteer and community organizations out there. We're talking about 7 million volunteers, which is quite extraordinary. That social fabric has been built up over the years. It is both strong and extremely vulnerable. Indeed, to work miracles, people very often need only small amounts of money.

Ms. Kirk, I found you to be extraordinarily polite and diplomatic as you extended a hand to your government partners. I see something very noble in that. But the fact is that they're not interested in a partnership with you. Can we come right out and say that? Now that I have given you my take on this, perhaps you could let me know whether you agree or not.

I am not new to this life, but I am new to politics. I have been here since 2004. I find it absolutely incomprehensible that the grass roots of the social solidarity movement would not have been consulted before the government made one billion dollar's worth of cuts. We are talking about $152 million, but that is only the amount for Human Resources and Social Development Canada. Let's not forget that the total amount of the budget cuts is $1 billion.

As regards literacy programs, we're talking about cuts totalling $17.8 million out of an overall budget of $80 million, approximately half of which goes directly to organizations to help them carry out their work. That is not a huge budget, but it certainly is a huge cut. If I understood correctly, according to Alpha Ontario, if we slow or break the pace of literacy training, the number of people who are illiterate will increase by some 100,000 per year, all because of socio-demographic changes occurring in society.

I would be interested in hearing other comments on that. Someone talked about the way the process works. I would like to hear more about that. I hope our Conservative friends who, even though they're honest people, share an ideology that is devastating for our social fabric, will clearly comprehend the extent of the damage that has been caused.

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

Mr. Roy.

[François Roy]

My colleague talked about an ideological position, and I would just like to add that in this case, that position is based on a lack of awareness or a profound disregard for what is going on and what is being done in civil society, as well as by community organizations. To actually believe that cuts of this magnitude will have a minimal impact is tantamount to believing in magic. The impact will be far more significant than just one less cup of coffee.

Social issues will only get worse. And how will we address those issues? Are we going to invest more in social control and criminalization? The role of literacy organizations is important in terms of our social and economic development, and the same applies to programs such as Summer Career Placement. We are talking about volunteer and student organizations that are seeking work experience.

[Askin Taner]

Let me speak to your question. Dr. Satya Brink is from HRSDC. She is the director of policy research for national learning, and I'm quoting her: “At the current level of investment and with current programming, any improvements achieved are slower than the population growth nationally. If we keep doing what we are doing now, the number of people with low literacy...will increase at the rate of about 100,000 a year.” That's a direct quotation from her.

There are two aspects to this.

One, Canada grows about 1% a year. Between 1994 and 2004, we grew 10%. We need to take this into consideration when we look at literacy performance and say there is no improvement. Second, as my colleague mentioned, literacy is like muscles: without the robust policy framework, without means and programs out there to maintain your literacy skills, as you get older you simply lose them. Take that into consideration.

We can successfully claim that we are performing well, but given the current level of programming and funding, we can only do so much.

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

Thank you, Mr. Lessard. Your time is up now.

Ms. Savoie.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

I want to go back to what Mr. Taner said. I was indeed at that meeting and remember very well the comments about the importance of investing in training if we want Canadians to remain competitive, and about the importance of these basic skills.

I believe, though, that the government has fundamentally misunderstood the impacts of the cuts they're making—for example, to literacy; to the summer placement programs; to Central Mortgage and Housing, which is another completely separate issue that I'd like to deal with later. It is clear that the importance of the work of the provincial coalition to support delivery on the ground has been overlooked and just put under the heading of “advocacy” or refocusing on national programs or not supporting advocates.

I'm wondering whether either of you would comment on what learners will lose on the ground, in local delivery capacity, from these cuts.

[Lesley Brown]

Thank you for that question.

There are a few things. It's very easy to get caught up in the idea that literacy classes will not be cut, but what will be cut is the entire infrastructure that supports a literacy program.

Let me give you an example that may be closer to home here, in terms of running a government. You do not run a government with just a Prime Minister. You have your ministers, you have your researchers, you have your analysts, you have your lobbyists. You have an entire component that actually supports the work that needs to be done.

Taking it back to literacy, an instructor will not be able to deliver the same kind of programming—and also volunteers, because we have a lot of volunteer tutors—without tutor training, without practitioner training, without the research that looks at what the needs of this population are, without the outreach to try to draw students into programs.

Right now, only 10% of people who actually need literacy programs are identified and come to programs. For the type of outreach you need, you cannot send out flyers. You have to be very creative in how you highlight the opportunities for people.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Maybe in this case we do have a government that's just run by the Prime Minister, with no research, no analysis.

I have heard from some provincial and territorial literacy coalitions that, first of all, they were under the impression they could no longer apply, but they've received phone calls in the past few days telling them they could indeed apply. What do you make of that, and what's your understanding of this turnaround or this kind of sudden change in direction?

[Lesley Brown]

Just to go back, the call for proposals was severely delayed. It usually should come out in early January. The call did not come out until August, and at that time the deadline was September 15. People took a lot of time—talk about accountability—and used a lot of resources to write those proposals and submit them, and a week later they were told those proposals were not going to be even considered. As I said earlier, the provinces and territories do not have the budgets to support that project work.

There was a conference call from HRSDC to the coalitions yesterday that was a bit ambiguous. It said that those proposals previously cancelled will be reviewed, but they mentioned that the $17.7 million cuts are still on the table, so there's no change to the cuts.

I'm actually unclear what this means; if they're going to be reviewed and there's less money to fund them, I don't know what will happen. It's for this year only, so I don't know whether or not they will honour agreements this year but we will have the full impact of the $17.7 million next year.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

It sounds as though there may be more applications considered, with a smaller pot of money. It's interesting.

Mr. Taner?