Human Resources Committee on March 22nd, 2007

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I think that is absolutely critical, because you're there and there are partnerships you've established. I see it, in my area at least, as a very valuable instrument that should be capitalized on.

Are my three minutes up?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You have another 45 seconds.

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Go ahead.

[John Kozij]

I'd like to clarify on the ASEP moneys: $5 million this fiscal year, $30 million the following fiscal year, and $70 million in the three years remaining of the five years.

I have a point of clarification. The friendship centres are AHRDAs in some cases, in some urban centres. In addition, there are also subagreements—I know Peter knows that.

[Peter Dinsdale]

I don't think that was the question, sir. Frankly, I think he has asked us what we would need across the board.

We may have a partial agreement in one region. If you want to get into the technicalities of what that is, in Ontario we have an agreement under which people who do belong to a first nation in Ontario but are not affiliated with a first nation there have an opportunity to access an AHRDA in that community. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about full, open, and inclusive employment training opportunities.

Basically, if someone walks through our doors, they get transferred somewhere else because they're not a member of that group. So I appreciate the clarification, but I don't think that really gets at what I was trying to get to.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

It's always the follow-up questions that take us over time.

We're going to move to the last three minutes, and Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Dinsdale, you spoke a little bit about Alberta. I know that in northern Alberta, particularly in Edmonton, there are a lot of people taking a serious look at the win-win of offering opportunities to aboriginal workers and benefiting from the skills and hard work they can provide. It's something our mayor, Stephen Mandel, takes very seriously. I think of my foster brother Randy, who comes from a native background and is one of the hardest-working guys I know. He's working in the construction industry, and what he is able to contribute is just phenomenal.

Sometimes we're so focused on the problems that we don't take time to look at the good stuff. Maybe you could take this last moment to just speak on some of the success stories, some of the things that are actually working out there. I think that's a good place to finish.

[Peter Dinsdale]

One of the success stories is seen when we partner, either as first nation urban people or with women's associations or with employers, to have more successful outcomes. On our own we're silos, but when we better case-manage in communities and when we partner, as friendship centres, with other community agencies or other employment training partners, that's when we're going to have success, frankly.

We have to focus on education, as we do in Ontario. There are a bunch of alternative schools there that take kids who have dropped out of the public education system, get them back into the friendship centres and into schools, partner with local school boards, and actually graduate kids. They're getting those kids on into post-secondary educations.

There are some kids in downtown Toronto who were street kids. After two years of going through an alternative school program, they ended up getting into an access program at the U of T or into other programs, with Lori Budge, at Humber, and elsewhere. It's a tremendous success story.

If you want to talk about employability, I would argue that the number one priority this committee should have is single women with children. If you get that young mother graduated through a program and into a well-paying job, you change her life and you change her child's life. Having been raised by a single mother, I can assure you that this mother will not allow her child not to succeed. She'll know the benefits and what it takes, and it will be a remarkable outcome for all of Canada. That's what I would say would be the ultimate success story.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Thank you all for coming. This was a good meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I would also like to thank our witnesses today. This is a very important issue, so we thank you for taking the time and for being flexible with your schedules in terms of finally getting here.

The witnesses are dismissed, but the members aren't. We have some business to take care of.

Thank you once again for being here today.

If we can move on, I believe we have a motion before us from Mr. Lessard, and the second thing we have is the fifth report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

Mr. Lessard, we'll deal with your motion at this point in time, and then we'll deal with the timetable over the next couple of days, which is what the subcommittee on agenda and procedure meeting was about.

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

Fortunately, we're finally debating it. It concerns the Summer Career Placement Program, which has changed names.

Mr. Chairman, we all know the Summer Career Placement Program. That program has undergone some changes recently, not only with regard to its name, but also concerning its budget and, more particularly, the way it will be managed. It has been implemented with considerable delay this year.

It will result, if not this year, then next year, in a decline in the number of students who can be employed during the summer. It is therefore important that we make adjustments with regard to this program. That is why we have introduced the motion that is before you today and that reads as follows:

That the Committee recommend that the Government maintain, as is, the budget and format of the Summer Career Placement Program, that the Government transfer the administration of the program to the provinces that so wish, and that a report of the adoption of this motion be made to the House as soon as possible.

With your permission, I will speak to the nature of this motion.

With regard to the first part of the motion, I've previously said that it was important to protect this program, because it has the highest success rate. An analysis was conducted under the previous government, and the success rate, with respect to its objective, was 95%, which is not negligible. It is one of the most effective programs, but its survival is jeopardized every year. For example, provision has been made to cut $10 million this year and $45 million next year, out of a budget of $97.5 million. That budget will be further reduced by 50%, which is simply not recommended in the circumstances.

The purpose of the second part of our motion is to proceed with the transfer. This comes in the wake of two trends, the first of which, which has already been implemented by the previous government, is to transfer management of the initiative to the provinces that so wish. As regards Quebec, all manpower training was transferred in 1997, except for three blocks that were reserved and that concerned Aboriginal people, persons with disabilities and older workers. There were also immigrants, for a certain period of time. We think this transfer should be completed.

For the moment, the transfer of the Summer Career Placement Program should be made in that sense as well, particularly since the present Canadian government is jeopardizing it. That is why we have introduced this motion and we ardently hope that it will be carried by this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

We have Mr. Savage, followed by Mr. Lake and Mr. Chong.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

I entirely support the principle of the motion as put forward by Mr. Lessard, but I would have to vote against it as it is currently written. I would propose to amend it, if Mr. Lessard is agreeable to that. If he wishes to go ahead with it as it is, I would have to oppose it as is, and I would put my own motion on the floor after that.

The summer career placement program has been a phenomenal success in Canada, and I don't see any reason that any part of it should have been changed. It's been pulled back and re-gifted—we know that—but as it was, it was a hugely successful program that helped many Canadian students. As a by-product of that, it also helped a great many not-for-profit organizations, community groups that came to rely on that summer placement. Students found it useful and quite often found work in an area of their study, so it benefited in that way as well.

We definitely would support the motion if it were amended to reflect the fact that the summer career placement program as it existed before the cuts of last fall should be maintained.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Savage.

We have Mr. Lake, followed by Mr. Chong and Madame Savoie.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Are we debating the amendment now? Is it an amendment, or are you discussing the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

He has not put an amendment on the table yet.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Okay.

I want to talk about a few things. First of all, the first time I saw the summer career placement program as a member of Parliament, I was very surprised that we would fund businesses to hire staff during their busy summer periods. As I looked at some of the organizations that got funding, I thought, these are organizations that would otherwise probably be paying for their employees anyway, and I thought it odd that we would fund some of them.

In the case of some of the organizations I saw, it made sense. They're not for profit, and it totally made sense that there might be some kind of program. But I don't think Canadians want to see tax dollars subsidizing private industry when it has said it would create jobs in any event. I just don't believe in that.

As I understand it, the new Canada summer jobs program maintains 100% of the funding for the not-for-profit sector jobs, the ones Mr. Savage says are so important, and I'm sure those are the ones that are funded in his riding. What we're saying is that the Government of Canada has no business subsidizing business for the purpose of hiring people they would otherwise hire anyway.

We have some examples. I look at a company like Safeway, for example—and these are just a few examples of many—receiving a total of $232,000 from this program, or a company like Wal-Mart receiving about $266,000 from this program. With what's been done by way of changes in it, the Canada summer jobs program now, I think, is going to be more accountable; it's going to support the not-for-profit sector; it basically has preserved all of the elements that Mr. Savage has talked about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

We have Mr. Chong, Madame Savoie, and Mr. Savage.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we should oppose this motion for two reasons.

The first is that this is a federal program. It's a program run by the Government of Canada, and to avoid a patchwork of programs across the country that have different standards and different criteria, I don't think we should agree to have it transferred to provinces that so wish it.

The second reason we should oppose this motion is that the original program, the old program, had some problems, and we had to change it. The new program is a significant improvement over the old. As my colleague Mike Lake just mentioned, a lot of major international companies that make billions of dollars a year received public money to hire staff.

I see the list here. Here are just a couple of examples that were pointed out to me by the government: over $10,000 for Rogers Television; over $24,000 for Ford Motor Company of Canada; over $20,000 for Bacardi International, which is a major manufacturer of libations. Clearly these companies should not be receiving public money to hire people. They're for-profit companies that have a very good bottom line, and the money should be better targeted toward not-for-profit companies.

In fact, what the new program will do is target most of the funding to not-for-profit organizations. Significant moneys have been allocated for the government to do that. In excess of $80 million this year will be allocated to companies to hire summer students. Specifically, the latest budget allocates $77.3 million for not-for-profits, and $8.6 million for public sector employers and private sector employers with fewer than 50 employees, so as to remove the criteria that allow a company with 50,000 employees, or over 100,000 employees, like some of the larger multinationals, to take public money to hire people when in fact they can do it on their own dollar.

For those two reasons, I think we should oppose this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

Some may argue that Ford has become a not-for-profit these days, so they may need all the help they can get.

Madame Savoie, and then I have Mr. Savage, Mr. Ouellet, Ms. Yelich, Mr. Lessard, and Mr. Brown.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

To start with, the government should have achieved its objectives without cutting the funding of this program. However, I'm concerned, because I thought the committee had unanimously decided to review the criteria. Committee members agreed on the need to add certain criteria such as the high unemployment rate, the rate of violence and a few others.

I think it would be hard to say at this point that we don't agree on some of the criteria on which committee members agreed. However, I have some fears that these new criteria might be applied too narrowly. For example, in my riding, there definitely isn't any unemployment problem, but there is a poverty problem. So, if these criteria are narrowly applied, that will definitely cause a problem for young people looking for work, who are living in poverty and who are vulnerable.

In my view, rather than request that this program be cancelled, it would perhaps be preferable for committee members to agree to revise the criteria. Once we have seen it applied this year, we could meet to revise and re-evaluate the way it operated. I thought I understood what Mr. Chong said, as well as the people from the minister's office, who answered me that they had cut $1.6 million and that the rest had been added. They specified that 77.3% would go to non-profit organizations and the rest to the public sector or to small business employers.

I wonder whether it wouldn't be preferable for the committee to simply request a re-evaluation of the program's operation at the end of the summer. Perhaps we could introduce another motion to that effect. I believe that committee members agreed that it would be necessary to change certain criteria of this program.

I'm interested in hearing the comments of my colleagues who were perhaps here and who perhaps read the previous reports, as I did.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Madame Savoie.

We're going to move to Mr. Savage, followed by Mr. Ouellet, Ms. Yelich, Mr. Lessard, and Mr. Lake.

Mr. Savage.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I can't speak to what the committee did; I wasn't here when the committee did their discussion of that. If there's an issue, if the government is saying there is a percentage of this money that's going to large corporations and that's not appropriate, then put that stipulation in the program—just put it in the program.

I wouldn't oppose that, and I don't think any Liberal would oppose that. I'll be honest with you: if Service Canada comes to me and asks what I think.... I've told Service Canada that I'm not picking winners and losers in my riding. I think it should be not-for-profit. I gave them the criterion that it should be youth, seniors, persons with disabilities, mental health issues, and there are two or three others. Not a single MP in the country knows every organization in their community. But it should be for not-for-profit. That's all I've said.

If the government has a problem with that, just say that it can't go to a multinational or national employer with more than 50 people. That's not a problem.

The point is that they've cut the amount of money. There will be fewer students hired. First and foremost, the program is to provide support in the summer for students who need to make money, primarily for tuition, and also to get some practical experience in an area of interest where they're doing their studies.

That's all that has to happen, and we wouldn't have a problem with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Ouellet, Ms. Yelich, Mr. Lessard, and Mr. Lake.

Go ahead, Mr. Ouellet.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I entirely agree with my friend Mr. Savage. If there have been any abuses in a few large companies, let's stop them; that's all.

In both my riding and neighbouring ridings, very few projects have been handed over to the private sector. You have to draw a distinction between those who work for large companies and those who work for small companies. It also has to be admitted that hiring a young person is not necessarily productive for the company.

Mr. Lake says there are abuses, and yet he has never hired any young people. Over the years, I hired young people to work at my architectural office. Those young people cost me more than the small amount I received from the government. Why? Because other employees had to show them the work; they had to be constantly coached. So it wasn't profitable.

Last year, people in my riding who produced water-lilies and water flowers received some projects. They had to take time to show the young people what to do. They learned to work, but these people didn't make any money.

As a general rule, the projects were mainly directed toward the NPOs, not to the private sector. I agree with Mr. Savage that the purpose of these projects is to show young people how to work, not for the private sector to make profits. It's a community-focused educational and support program. It's important that it be delivered as it previously was, because it's the people from the community who know the priorities best and who are best able to provide training to the right people.

There have definitely been abuses. No system in the world can prevent abuses. I note that the Conservatives would always like to prevent the slightest minor thing from going wrong, and that disappoints me. They'd like to have a perfect world. In a perfect world, another system would prevent abuses. However, that perfect world does not exist.

Why change a program that works very well and that the communities are satisfied with, and that they moreover expect to have? It's being almost completely cancelled so that it can be decided at the national level, at a level entirely beyond the scope of the people who know the situation in the ridings?

I think this motion is excellent. We have to go back to what was previously done. It was one of the federal government's good programs, so let's keep it.