Human Resources Committee on May 26th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are going to continue our study of the federal contribution to reducing poverty in Canada.

I want to thank all my guests and witnesses for being here today.

How long are your presentations, seven to ten minutes? Okay. We'll get started, and then we'll have questions afterwards. We will have two rounds of questions--a first round of seven minutes, and an additional round of five minutes, questions and answers.

I will turn it over to Terry Anne Boyles, from the Association of Canadian Community Colleges.

Terry Anne, thank you for being here. The floor is yours.

[Terry Anne Boyles, Vice-President, Members Services and Public Policy, Association of Canadian Community Colleges]

Thank you. It's a pleasure to appear here on behalf of the Association of Canadian Community Colleges.

Our association represents Canada's 150 colleges, institutes of technology, CEGEPs, polytechnics, and some university colleges. With a thousand campuses in all regions of the country, we're urban, we're rural, we're aboriginal, we're francophone, and we're anglophone. We're based in communities, very tied to community economic and social development, so certainly in the context of the work of the committee on poverty, this is a key area of interest for the institutions. Our institutions embrace all types of learners. Indeed, low-income learners come to colleges and institutes in a greater percentage than they do other institutions in the country.

In our brief today, we just want to contextualize the way in which the demographic and economic transformation provides an opportunity toward poverty alleviation in the country. We believe that maximizing the skill levels for all Canadians is critical, and we cannot, as a nation, afford not to do such maximization of skill levels.

Notwithstanding the current downturn in the economy, there are critical issues with respect to the advanced skills that our industries need for productivity and competitiveness. We spoke to this before the downturn, and our industry partners, in a national coalition of employers on advanced skills, still speaks to that need, going forward, for their recovery.

With the decline in birth rates in the country, we really need to increase that productivity and competitiveness. We need to involve those from all groups within our Canadian society in those programs.

The knowledge infrastructure program has been a help to our institutions. We would like to acknowledge that.

There are massive wait lists for entry into colleges and institutes in Canada. Those wait lists were there and capacity was a concern before the downturn. With the number of people falling off employment and onto employment insurance rolls, those wait lists are growing. It is a significant concern for us in virtually all regions in the country, some more than others, depending upon what has been happening in the economy.

With respect to disadvantaged learners--I'm sure Paul Cappon will speak to this later--certainly there is that real relationship between poverty and levels of education. Lower-income individuals are less likely to participate in post-secondary institutions. In education, many need bridging programs in terms of literacy programs to address the low-skills gaps and to be able to bridge into the post-secondary programs. A number of other barriers to participation affect low-income learners and those within the poverty situation in the country.

The committee certainly would know, in terms of literacy statistics, that 42% of the Canadian population is below the international standard for participation in the economy and in society at large. Not paying attention to those literacy challenges is at the peril of our country, we believe.

In terms of employment insurance programs, even with some adjustments currently in the economic downturn, we're very concerned about the length of time for eligibility, not to get into EI but to be able to get into the advanced skills training programs that people need for the industry of the future. Often people are on wait lists. They become EI-eligible, are put on wait lists trying to get into the programs, and their benefits expire before they are able to complete those programs. That is a major concern going forward. Certainly we recommend a long-term expansion of the training eligibility period.

With respect to low-income learners pre-post-secondary, another area of major involvement of colleges and institutes in the country, there is a confusing complexity of fragmented programs across the federal government, provincial governments, territorial governments, municipal governments, and aboriginal governments. It's confusing and complex for our institutions and our financial aid officers. It's even more complex for the individuals affected who are trying to access ways to alleviate poverty.

There are also major inequities between the programs. For example, if you move off a social assistance program into another program area, you could lose your child benefits, health care benefits, and dental benefits. So that's a significant concern for impoverished people, particularly those adults who may be returning to post-secondary education or to the bridging programs.

We also want to flag a touch of concern, in that the Canada social transfer has the moneys for post-secondary education and social programs within the country. As people fall off the employment insurance rolls into more poverty situations, they often move to the social assistance programs. We're concerned that the increase in social assistance programs may result in a decline in funding available for post-secondary education in the country. We certainly support social assistance recipients being able to have access while they're on social assistance.

The need-based Canada study grants for post-secondary education are appreciated. We wish to flag that $250 a month for living expenses is inadequate, and we recommend an expansion of that program so that low-income participants, especially in the higher-cost areas of the country, can participate more fully.

The Indian and Northern Affairs Canada post-secondary student support program has been capped at 2% growth since 1996. According to the Assembly of First Nations, there are over 10,000 eligible first nations students who are unable to access post-secondary education in the country, and that's a significant challenge. We have people completing high school who are unable to move on to post-secondary education.

I want to draw your attention to a very complex graphic in your package. We undertook a study of the colleges and institutes programs and services for disadvantaged and low-skilled learners a year ago. The institutions and their community and business partners support learning through a whole array of programs and services. Our full report is also in our package.

One area that may be a touch unusual to bring forward when we're talking about poverty is the role of small and medium enterprises. Small and medium enterprises are the job creators in the country. One of the roles of the colleges is to work with small and medium enterprises to increase their innovative and productive capacities through things such as applied research. There's virtually no money to support the applied research of colleges and their industry lab partners, so we recommend that 5% of federal research dollars be allocated to colleges and their small and medium enterprise partners so the enterprises can create jobs and be innovative for the future.

In the last page of the report we have a number of recommendations, several of which I've already mentioned. We want to work with the provinces to ensure that the transfers for post-secondary education are allocated to post-secondary education and that the colleges and institutes receive a proportionate share. There should be a continued increase in investments in human capital and knowledge infrastructure, specifically physical infrastructure. Colleges and institutes were, for the most part, built through the federal technical and vocational act of 1960. That infrastructure is failing, and there's a dramatic need if we're going to have capacity for the current students and expanded capacity for the future. Of course we mentioned the fragmentation and the short-term funding mechanisms, particularly for people in literacy, adult basic education, and pre- and post-secondary programs.

We recommend an increase in funding for the Canada post-secondary grants. Colleges play an important role with small and medium enterprises, particularly in rural and remote and resource-based communities, but also in metropolitan areas of the country in applied research product development, the innovative capacity of those companies, and the support for learners to be able to access jobs in those areas.

We have a couple of other recommendations on the eligibility period for training under employment insurance and the possibility of a national summit. It would bring together the community partners, industry, the various governments, and the post-secondary and other sectors to really look at poverty alleviation in the country. We believe there is a huge jeopardy for the country if we don't address the poverty issue and the 42% literacy challenges going forward.

Colleges and institutes are real partners in poverty alleviation in the country. The institutions have played a critical role in poverty alleviation since their establishment, and our members look forward to continuing to work on this area with the federal government and all the communities they serve.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Boyles.

We'll now move to the Canadian Teachers' Federation. We have with us today Emily Noble, president, and Calvin Fraser, secretary general.

Welcome today. The floor is yours.

[Emily Noble, President, Canadian Teachers' Federation]

Thank you very much.

I'll make some brief comments and then pass it over to our secretary general, Dr. Calvin Fraser.

I want to thank you very much for the opportunity to have the Canadian Teachers' Federation make a presentation before you. Educators, whether they are at the early childhood or tertiary level, see the faces of poverty first-hand, so it is really important that we have a voice here.

I was pleased with the wording and want to commend and thank you for guidance on presenting. Where it says “how the federal government can contribute”, that would not have been the wording 20 or 30 years ago; it would have been “if”. So I applaud you. The “how” indicates to me that there is a strong commitment, so I thank you.

You have our brief before you, and Calvin will take us through that.

The Canadian Teachers' Federation is a voluntary organization representing teacher federations across Canada and comprises about 200,000 teachers at the elementary and secondary levels. We see the poverty, and it is important that every student has the right to the full benefits of a publicly funded education. So it's not only opportunity of access; it's opportunity of outcome too.

Teachers zero in on words, and the word “hope” is on the second page. One of the things educators give to children, their parents, and their grandparents is hope for a better future for them and hope that they can reach their potential.

On the last page are the recommendations.

I'll turn it over to Calvin to take us through some of the specifics.

Thanks.

[Calvin Fraser, Secretary General, Canadian Teachers' Federation]

Thank you, Emily.

Once again, thank you for having us here today.

I don't intend to read this particular document to you as a brief. It was provided to you in advance. I'm sure you either have had or will have the chance to read it, and I hope you use it in your own reports and in your activities apart from this committee.

I'll take you back to the first page. Looking at the titles there, we start with “Child poverty in the Canadian context” because of course child poverty is what affects us as teachers on a daily basis. Of course, child poverty is really just an extension of poverty throughout the entire country. We do, though, see working with children as being a joint responsibility of the federal government, the provincial government, and even organizations like ours to help build the future. That joint responsibility is the focus that we want to put on that particular section of this report.

Moving into the second page, the focus you'll see in there is the feelings, the sensitivities, and why we're saying we're losing some of our best and our brightest in this country. When a child is afraid to tell his mother he needs gym shoes because he knows the family simply can't possibly afford gym shoes, what other effects does that have on the child? Obviously, lots. I'm sure that in a very competitive global economy the federal government is as concerned as we are about losing the potential that's there, and that's a concern we're prepared to work on with you.

The call to action on the next page makes very clear to you that we're not abdicating responsibility but pleading for help for all the children in poverty in this country. As Emily said, we were quite gratified in looking at the guidance for witnesses and the focus this committee has already taken, the sincerity of the work; and the willingness to work together for common goals is noted, appreciated, and wonderful, because it does require the participation of everybody.

There are some particular areas in there, and this is picked up on in that page as well. The aboriginal groups and the immigrant groups would be prime examples of where clearly there's a larger federal responsibility than a provincial responsibility in meeting their needs. Clearly, responses are required from the federal government in those areas. Once again, a good place to start is with the youth and looking at school classes across this country, how they're composed, and how you can reach out from that way.

Page 4 acknowledges that the federal government is helping right now. We note in there that it would be at least 10% worse without the current federal government intervention. That is a good tribute. However, when you look at the fact that even with that intervention we're just holding even, we're not moving ahead, clearly we need to do more. We need to reach out and we need to work together more.

We also noted in your guidance sheet that this committee has already seen the benefits of a federal response. When you're looking at the U.K., Ireland, or New Zealand, you've already seen some of the possibilities out there and the benefits from working together.

The last page is worth spending just a couple more minutes on, starting with the National Council of Welfare cornerstones: vision, a plan of action, accountability structure, and indicators to measure four key cornerstones they bring forward that we strongly support and believe in. You see our recommendations below that would fit and tie right into that.

What is really significant below is that everything there grows from commitment. Once you develop the will, then there is a way to reach the goals. When you look at the goals and the recommendations there, it probably requires cross-ministry work, so it probably can't be pigeonholed into any single federal department. It probably needs to be looked at as a project with targeted goals that can be reached and achieved and built on. It probably needs to work from the existing programs that are out there and build on the success that has already been achieved. It probably needs to target education, and particularly education for those groups that are federal responsibilities, the aboriginal groups, the immigrant groups. And it probably needs to involve partners that haven't always traditionally been involved.

When I look across this table at the groups that are here to talk to you today, I think about the ability of these groups to identify needs and to identify the effects of efforts as they are being implemented. I think about these groups and their ability to communicate and to extend the reach of the federal government. I cannot emphasize too much that if the commitment is there, the way is there, and the people are here ready to help you.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

We will now move to the Canadian Federation of University Women. I have Ms. Susan Russell.

Welcome, the floor is yours.

[Susan Russell, Executive Director, Canadian Federation of University Women]

Good morning. On behalf of the 10,000 members of the Canadian Federation of University Women, I wish to thank you for this opportunity to present CFUW views.

CFUW is a non-partisan, self-funded organization of graduate women and students in 118 clubs across this country. We feel it is extremely important that the committee has chosen to study the issue of deep and persistent poverty within a land that is both abundant and prosperous. Today I would like to speak about poverty's connection to gender.

Women form the majority of the poor in Canada. One in seven, roughly, or 2.4 million Canadian women were living in poverty in 2004. Poverty affects women differently based on many factors. It's a complex issue that includes age, employment, race, sexual orientation, and the like.

I would like to share with you an excerpt from a 2005 edition of the “Women and Poverty” fact sheet from the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women. It says:

A single mother of one child in Ontario receives $957 per month of assistance before deductions. Then she has to spend $675 on rent, $200 on groceries, and has $82 left to pay bills (electricity, telephone, heat), laundry, transportation, school needs for her son.... She has to explain to her son why he can’t go on school trips like the other kids, why he is teased for being dressed in old third-hand clothes, why he can’t go to a friend’s birthday party because there’s no money for a little gift, why he can’t participate in hot dog day at school because it costs money, why the milk tastes different because she’s had to water it down, why by the end of the month they have to go down to the food bank because there’s nothing left to eat. She has to cope with well-meaning higher income individuals who give her suggestions like buying in bulk when she has neither a car nor the financial means to buy large quantities. All of a sudden, how she spends her money and who she dates becomes everybody’s business, and she is criticized if she splurges on a treat to relieve her depression or make her child happy. Being poor limits your choices and is not simply a matter of bad budgeting. Managing on a very low income is like a 7-day-a-week job from which there is no vacation or relief. Poverty grinds you down, body and soul.

This type of grinding poverty disproportionately affects women in Canada. In 2006 lone-parent families headed by women had median earnings of $30,958. In contrast, their male counterparts had median earnings of $47,943. With the number of female-headed families in Canada topping one million, this leads to disparity and drives home the reality that poverty that affects women inescapably affects children.

The Canadian Federation of University Women works at the international, national, provincial, and local levels to encourage elected representatives to stand up for the interests of women and girls. In our 90-year history the issue of poverty has always been with us. We have found, because of this long engagement, band-aid solutions do not work. The issue is complex, it is interconnected, and by this it makes certain groups of women more vulnerable to deep and persistent poverty than other groups.

Women in Canada continue to face a persistent wage gap, which has narrowed little since the 1980s. Today, full-time working women earn 71¢ for every dollar earned by men. Part-time and seasonal workers earn 54¢, women of colour earn 38¢, and aboriginal women a mere 46% of what men are paid.

The trend is worse and the gap is wider for women with post-secondary education. In 1985, university-educated women earned 75% of what men earned, a figure that had dropped to 68% by 2005.

This pay inequity has far-reaching consequences, such as smaller maternity and parental benefits and the greater likelihood of poverty in old age due to reduced CPP and QPP benefits.

CFUW believes that there is already a clear framework in existence to address pay inequity through proactive legislation by the federal government. The 2004 pay equity task force report recommends adopting a new stand-alone pay equity law that will cover women as well as workers of colour, aboriginal workers, and workers with disabilities. The recommendations outlined in the report are comprehensive, provide a clear way forward, and are useful models for proactive pay equity in Ontario and Quebec to build upon. This report has yet to be implemented by any government, and the recent inclusion of the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act in the budget implementation bill risks weakening what little recourse women currently have to pay equity.

High-quality, accessible child care is another important key to getting out of poverty, essential to support employment and learning, a strategy that is critical to women's equality, an important element of reconciliation with our aboriginal peoples, and a key to social inclusion for newcomers in Canada. In spite of this, Canada is the lowest spender on early childhood education of any country of the OECD and ranks last in international assessments of access to and quality of early childhood education and care.

The federal government must address this fundamental building block of poverty reduction through creating a national not-for-profit child care system. This process could begin with the restoration of multi-year federal funding to the provinces through dedicated capital transfers. This money should go to community-based child care services, so that the provinces and territories can begin to build this critical child care assistance.

Standards of care and services among the provinces and territories and between Canada and other so-called advanced countries, including the G8, call out for vigorous and broadly based action.

Currently, employment insurance is an essential program that allows unemployed women to support themselves and their families while they search for a new job. Unemployment benefits are spent on necessities and, when they are provided in adequate amounts, can prevent families from falling into poverty following job loss.

However, the EI program rules exclude or unfairly penalize women because they fail to take into account how women's work patterns differ from men's. While the great majority of adult women engage in paid work, their non-standard patterns of work exclude many from EI benefits, as do periods of time spent away from work while caring for children or others. These responsibilities make it even more difficult for women to qualify. After a two-year absence from paid work, the entrance requirement jumps from between 420 and 700 hours to 910 work hours, or more than six months of full-time work. Consequently, in 2004 only 32% of unemployed women qualified for regular EI benefits, compared with 40% of men who were unemployed.

The gap is much bigger when it comes to average benefits. In 2006-07 the average benefit for women was $298 per week, compared with $360 for men. Women qualify for shorter periods, on average. In 2005-06, 30% of women exhausted their regular benefits, compared with 26% of men. Most telling is the fact that only about one-third of the total dollar amount of regular EI benefits is paid to women, though women now participate in the paid labour force at almost the same rate as men.

CFW is strongly in favour of making three changes to the EI program: a cut-off requirement of 360 hours of work across the country to enable more women to qualify, should they be laid off from part-time or casual work; benefits for up to 50 weeks, so that fewer unemployed workers exhaust a claim; higher weekly benefits, based on the best 12 weeks of earning before lay-off. These changes to the EI program represent critical steps to prevent temporary job loss from becoming a sentence of lifetime poverty.

In closing, I would like to draw the committee's attention to the fact that in its response to Canada's May 2006 periodic report, the United Nations' Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights noted the absence of any factors or difficulties preventing Canada from doing what it needs to do to end poverty. The question, therefore, of ending poverty is not one of resources but rather of priorities and political will.

On behalf of the membership of the Canadian Federation of University Women, I urge you to consider these recommendations to alleviate poverty as it affects so many women in Canada.

Thank you for this opportunity to present.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Russell.

We are now going to move to the Canadian Council on Learning. We have Mr. Paul Cappon.

Paul, welcome back. You are the president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Council on Learning. The floor is yours, sir.

[Dr. Paul Cappon, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council on Learning]

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Chair, thank you sincerely for the invitation to appear once more before the standing committee. Permit me to make some observations about the committee's work and commitment before getting to the heart of the issue.

I would like to observe how much I value the excellent contributions to our population that are accomplished by this committee. Many of us, looking at the deliberations of the House and its various working groups, view the HUMA committee as one of the most effective, least partisan, and most thoughtful of these groups, with admirable process and collegiality and laudable results. I hold the time spent with your committee as time well spent.

I won't spend a lot of time in presenting; I'll be pithy and succinct, because I know you have some notes in front of you from us, and we'll have a formal submission.

The way in which I will contribute to your deliberations today is just to answer, one by one, some of the questions that you asked of the groups that have appeared before the committee.

The committee first asked how we feel that poverty should be measured. The CCL, of course, does not measure poverty directly. Instead, our approach to try to examine how learning can improve employment stability by reducing periods of unemployment, how it can increase earning potential, increase job prospects and contribute to a better overall quality of life and health for all Canadians. We also examine the contribution of learning to community and civic engagement. These days, people must pursue lifelong learning in order to keep their skills current.

To the question of what role government should play in reducing poverty in Canada, there is a list of bullets in your notes, six or seven or eight bullets. All of them revolve around the fact that we do some things, but we could do these things better. We could better connect Canadians to skills training and lifelong workplace learning opportunities. We could do much better to integrate labour market information with post-secondary education.

Let me just make a general remark to say that we have an ironic situation when we want to provide information and analysis to Canadians and that information and data are not readily available. There's an irony that data on poverty cost money. To extract data on poverty from Statistics Canada for use by this committee or by a research group or an activist organization in Canada, you have to pay for it, and sometimes the cost can be substantial.

It's similar for labour market information. You may have seen this in reports this week on the labour market information study that Don Drummond has been leading. Surely we want to connect Canadians to employment if we want to reduce poverty. It's very difficult to do that if it's difficult to access whatever information is available--which is not coherent and cohesive enough, and not accessible enough.

To the question on what more government should do to reduce poverty, I have 10 points--I won't call them commandments, because we are dealing with the federal government; we'll call them contributions--and then eight more specific considerations. We'll call them that.

First is to clarify and promote the benefits of lifelong learning. The Canadian Council on Learning does that through something called the composite learning index, which is a measure of the learning conditions in society. Our fourth annual index will be released on Thursday of this week. We need to pay attention to what other countries are doing. The U.K. has a complete report, which I hope this committee will reference, on lifelong learning as an important potential contribution to poverty reduction. Some of the recommendations that are made in the U.K. apply equally to this country.

Second, we can encourage employers to offer increased training opportunities, which will reduce poverty over the long run. CCL previously, in front of this committee, set out the five principles that we believe are relevant with respect to governmental support for employers who provide training opportunities.

Third, we need to create increased awareness and recognition of prior learning assessment and recognition. That is the learning that people have done formally or informally in the past, which often doesn't count, but should count. The Conference Board of Canada, as you'll notice in our notes, has suggested that this would give Canadians an additional $6 billion in income annually, and it would make a great deal of difference to some people who are now below the poverty line if their learning were better recognized.

Last year we produced, with some colleagues, a report that gives a lot of detail about prior learning assessment and recognition that is done in the various Canadian provinces, but it's not done nationally on a very strong basis at all.

Fourth, we can promote the recognition of informal learning--that is, outside the classroom. Our annual report on the state of learning does that, I think, on a very sustained basis.

Fifth, we need to encourage unions to foster strong working relationships with employers, aimed at effectively identifying training needs.

Sixth, we need a flexible and accessible delivery system for adult learning. The OECD, when it evaluated Canada's adult learning systems, thought that we lacked cohesion and accessibility because we weren't well organized for adult learning in this country.

Seventh, we need to encourage cooperation among stakeholders with respect to ongoing learning.

Eighth, we need to foster a culture of learning in the workplace. I've referred already to the need to encourage employers to do more in that regard.

Ninth--and this has been referenced by CTF and others already--we need to target the lower-skilled population through investments and initiatives in early childhood education and by increasing the general rates among adults of literacy, numeracy, and IT competencies. Although we need to do much more in early childhood, it's also true that learning has an intergenerational impact. If we can do more for parents and grandparents, they will do more for their children, because of course, the most important environment for learning for young children is the home environment.

Tenth, we need to recognize that it's not only the unemployed who are vulnerable. As of 2002, over 600,000 Canadians were working poor, and that number, I think, has probably risen since then.

With respect to more specific considerations for government, I have eight, and these would complement what's encompassed already in Canada's economic action plan.

First, we need to increase the strategic investment in Canada's human infrastructure, as we call it, to equal the current level of federal investment in physical infrastructure.

Second, we need to establish financial incentives that encourage businesses to offer training, and individuals to participate in adult learning. We need to do this carefully and selectively. We don't want to give money away to firms simply because they're in business, but that's why we've set out the principles that might govern the allocation of those resources to business.

Third, we need to provide non-financial support to employers. This is probably even more important, because they often don't know what to offer to their employees in terms of training. We need to give them information, advisory and referral service, and national recognition and qualification and certification systems, including recognition and prior learning, as I have mentioned. We need to support their innovative training approaches and help them to share and disseminate best practices. Many practices are useful in Canada; very few of those are well disseminated throughout the country.

Fourth, we need to support and promote the development of targeted, innovative, and accessible training and education programs for populations at risk, such as retraining initiatives for older workers and basic literacy skills. You may know that 42% of Canadians are below the international bar in adult literacy skills at the present time.

Fifth, and I've mentioned this before, we need to better match existing labour needs with existing labour supply through skills training and learning opportunities coupled with workforce adjustment programs and other measures.

Sixth, we need to facilitate decision-making by individuals, businesses, and stakeholder organizations by better integrating labour market information with post-secondary adult education and counselling and support services, along the lines of what I think we'll get as recommendations from the LMI committee.

Seventh, we need to fund research to determine which methods of adult learning promote resilience and combat poverty among Canadian workers and Canadian businesses. That kind of research is important because it enables us to set standards, measure and report on progress, and establish an authoritative body of information upon which to build future policies, programs, and services for Canadian workers and businesses.

Finally, the eighth point, we need to create forward-looking, evidence-based government policies that position Canadians and businesses with respect to emerging green technologies, services, and economies.

Lastly, the committee asked what strategies and solutions our organization is currently providing to reduce poverty. I feel that I have already mentioned our emphasis on the importance of education and learning. We believe that investments in measuring and promoting our own potential, our human infrastructure, offer benefits as significant as, and likely more durable than, investments in roads, buildings and equipment.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Cappon.

We will move to our first round. For the Liberal party, Mr. Savage. You have seven minutes, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for coming.

It's hard to know where to start. We have four organizations here that we all know do fabulous work in this country. It's a pleasure to have all of you. I think one of my favourite organizations in the Canadian Teachers' Federation. I will tell you why.

When the Canadian Teachers' Federation comes to MPs, they're not talking about teachers' pensions or teachers' pay or any of those other very important issues, but they talk about the bigger issues. The last couple of years it has been poverty. Either the last year or the year before it was international poverty and the work that the Canadian Teachers' Federation is doing in parts of the world that need help. Now there is also child poverty here in Canada.

Emily, you have done a great job as president, and I know that your successor is from Nova Scotia. Mary-Lou Donnelly will be the new president of the Canadian Teachers' Federation. She is a dynamic and determined spokesperson as well, so I want to commend you on the work you have done.

I have a question, first of all, for Dr. Cappon. When the minister came here in March after the budget, she was asked a question about whether your funding had been extended through HRSDC, a five-year funding. She indicated that it had. But a couple of days later, when officials came, we asked the question again and were told it had been reprofiled, which I think is bureaucracy talk for not so much.

What is your funding situation right now from the federal government? I realize you are not a partisan person, but please tell us what that is.

[Dr. Paul Cappon]

CCL, of course, is a non-profit corporation that does exist independently from government but obviously is very dependent on federal government funding. We're awaiting a decision by the Government of Canada, through HRSD, with regard to its continued funding support. What the Government of Canada has done, through HRSD, is agree to extend our ability to expend the initial five-year funding to March 31, 2010. We are continuing to do that on a budget of about 34% of our previous annual expenditures.

My view is that CCL is critical because it provides an independent assessment of Canadian learning at all levels--home, school, community, and workplace--and is fundamental to prosperity. I regard it as a service that's critical to the Canadian social fabric, but it is a service, not a lobby, so our view is that the people, through Parliament, will decide on its relative importance and on the added value that CCL represents. That's a decision we're waiting for.

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

Thank you.

So your five-year funding ended at the end of March.

[Dr. Paul Cappon]

But our ability to expend the funding that we were originally given is extended until March 31, 2010, so we continue to function.

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

But that's a dubious benefit. If somebody tells me that I'm going to stop getting paid but I can spend what I got last year, that's not particularly helpful. I know from talking to people like Marie Battiste, who does work with the aboriginal knowledge centres, that they're very anxious, as I know some members of the government side are, to see that we extend that funding, because the work you do is very important.

To ACCC, the community colleges, it's great work that you guys are doing. I really appreciate your coming here today on the issue of poverty. I know a lot of people involved in the community college network, as we all do. Ray Ivani is a friend of mine. Mark Frison runs a community college in Ed's province. Also, in Nova Scotia, we have one of the most impressive leaders in post-secondary education in Canada in Joan McArthur-Blair, who heads up our community college network.

I want to talk to you about that. I've talked to her a number of times as we've been dealing with this sort of recession in terms of ideas that ACCC has put forward. This is what she has said, very forcefully. She says that we're in a recession and we have to provide opportunities for Canadians right now so they can work, but we also need to train them for the future. For example, in Nova Scotia, if we decide that the infrastructure spending, the stimulus spending, is to build a new convention centre, which is one of the possibilities, in Nova Scotia we'd really be moving our skilled workers from one job into another job, as opposed to creating new opportunities for people.

In essence, here's what I think she's saying. Why can't we use this as an opportunity both to train and to educate, but also pay people right now? That can be done through the community colleges because of the nimbleness of the community college network.

Do you have any thoughts on that?

[Terry Anne Boyles]

Yes. Certainly, Joan is also a member of the national board of directors of our association. We work very closely with her.

Perhaps I can give another example. I was president of the college in Saskatoon, and during one of the downturns in the economy, what we were able to do in partnership with the industry--and this is indicative of the colleges and institutes across the country--is partner with the local industries to use plant facilities that were underutilized. We'd partner with municipalities if they were building new infrastructure in order to do fast-forward of training in the industry types of programs. We could use facilities and resource people. Laid-off and possibly laid-off senior people from industry would actually help with the teaching as well, and we'd move people off some of the welfare rolls, getting training supports immediately.

The best way of that being done is through a strategic discussion among the federal partners, the provincial government partners, and the aboriginal band councils, etc., who may be involved in the communities, to move it very quickly forward, rather than through individual decisions where people may just be in a lineup to get into programs.

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

A number of you mentioned the idea of early learning and child care in Canada. I think Susan referenced that. Paul referenced that. Perhaps Emily and Calvin may have mentioned that as well.

I want to ask you about this. Particularly for people who are living in poverty or working families that are really struggling to get a leg up at a tough time, I don't know the extent to which Canadians realize how little we actually invest in child care. We don't have a national early learning and child care system, as many other countries do, and that leads to a whole host of issues.

Is it true that all of you would like to see some kind of national system of early learning and child care in this country, not piecemeal and not by mailbox, but actually by building a national system of early learning and child care in this country?

[Emily Noble]

From the Canadian Teachers' point of view, yes. Dr. Cappon talked about life-long learning. I think it's quite important.

Calvin, you've done a fair amount of work on this. You may have a few comments.

[Calvin Fraser]

This is another issue that we are pressing forward on, and we believe it's part of an answer to the whole poverty question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Terry Anne.

[Terry Anne Boyles]

The colleges train early childhood educators. Our premise is that education during the first four years of a child's life is critical as an underpinning for future learning.

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

Are you suggesting that children don't start learning at six but actually earlier than that? That's radical.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You're a funny guy, Mr. Savage.

Mr. Lessard.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome and thank you for being here. There was something remarkable, I feel, in the briefs you have presented this morning: not only have you clearly identified the current problems, but you have also put them in context, which helps us to understand.

I am going to speak in global terms. Both the Canadian Teachers' Federation and Mr. Cappon pointed out what is being done in other countries, particularly in the European Union, the United Kingdom and New Zealand; the federation also mentioned the United Nations' position.

I have the impression that you have studied what is being done in those places quite closely, especially the Canadian Teachers' Federation. That is my understanding. At the same time, I have the impression that history is repeating itself. When we reread the brief that you presented in 1989, when the government was committing to a 50% reduction in child poverty before 2000, we realize that it is almost identical to the one that you presented today in terms of its recommendations. I am very struck by that.

You say that involvement from the Government of Canada is still noticeable, that it can be felt, that it makes about a 10% difference in the alleviation of poverty. Yet here we are with almost the same challenges, if we look at your recommendations. What are we to make of that? Have we made any progress at all, or are we running on the spot? If so, why are we not getting anywhere?

I have two related questions. What can we learn from the strategies and the legislation that the countries I mentioned earlier have put in place in order to eliminate poverty? Do we have things to learn, or do those countries have things to learn from our virtual failure to reach the objectives that were set?

[Calvin Fraser]

Thank you.

We often work with other countries. I believe that we are not without influence in Education International, the largest association of educators in the world. We work with all the countries mentioned in the brief. In Canada, it is interesting to consider the federal government's position because, often, our initiatives are provincial. However, there are still a lot of things that the federal government can do, working not only with provincial governments but also with other national and international organizations. That can contribute a lot to the eventual victory over the challenges.

In looking at what the feds cannot do, obviously they cannot come in with pat solutions. Even if we look to the other countries, the pat solutions aren't there. We must do the comparisons. We must look at what's appropriate for us and use it appropriately in Canada. But we can still, at a federal level, coordinate efforts, and I think that was mentioned by my compatriot here as well. We can cross boundaries. Whether those boundaries happen to be borders or languages or ethnicity and race or religion, the federal government is the only group that can really cross those boundaries.

We can stimulate. That also was previously mentioned. I think Dr. Cappon mentioned that. We can stimulate the efforts, both financially and in services that are not financial. I would have called that enhanced with the non-financial services. That is actually—call them financial if you wish—where I would put things like EI and child care, because on those things truly the federal government can have immediate benefit with strong intervention. The federal government can reward and celebrate success and make it visible from one part of this country to the other. I guess that's also part of the awareness. That's another side of the awareness that was previously mentioned. So that success becomes a model and a base that we work from.

The federal government can use stakeholder groups at the national level, and ultimately the federal government can collect the rewards of having a stronger country.

I had difficulty, Mr. Lessard, in hearing some of your words, because you tend to speak fairly softly, but I think I've at least partially answered your question.

If there is anything more I can tell you, please ask.