:
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 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.
:
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--
:
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. and 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 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.
:
Good morning. Rather than reducing CMHC's budget for social housing, the Parliament of Canada should instead be rallying behind Bill , the private member's bill tabled by Bloc Member of Parliament , 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.
:
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.
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?
:
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.
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.
:
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.
:
I would like to give you a concrete example of the impacts of the cuts.
The AlphaPlus Centre, originally founded as Alpha Ontario, is an organization that deals in four streams: a deaf stream, a native stream, and francophone and anglophone streams. It's a support organization. According to the Government of Ontario, its resource collection is the largest adult literacy resource collection in the world. They are closing their library; they are dismantling their entire collection. They have to apply to the Trillium Foundation to get funding to distribute the collection basically to libraries across the province.
As to the uniqueness of this organization, let's say you're a practitioner in northern Ontario, in a town that just recently experienced a mining operation close-down. In a Toronto program, obviously the needs would be different. You have called the library, and they cater to your needs; they send you the necessary resources.
You're a practitioner; you give them a call; they send you the materials according to your needs. This is a huge loss, and it's real. It has been announced they're closing down by the end of March.
:
So much for the minister's comments of books, books, books, and more books. It sounds like books and fewer books, and fewer resources.
Mr. Williamson, I and I think our side of the House certainly don't disagree with the efficient use of funds, but we believe this is just a cover for having the federal government remove itself from social programs and social issues such as literacy, with the impacts that doing so is going to have on productivity.
I'm wondering—and would like to hear from any of you—whether you believe that re-targeting is needed to better serve people, with the cutting that's going on. We know that literacy funding was inadequate, judging from Claudette Bradshaw's recommendation from the previous government. It was already inadequate—$1 per Canadian per year—and as you pointed out, it wasn't keeping up. So I'm wondering whether “re-targeting” was just jargon for cutting.
Can you re-target with this kind of cutting in areas such as literacy, or Central Mortgage and Housing, and the student placements?
:
First, there's actually one correction about how Revenue Canada treats advocacy versus charitable organizations. If a charity exists, they're permitted to issue a tax receipt in their work. Their advocacy organization, their lobbying, if you like, is limited to 20% of their budget. Advocacy organizations do not have charitable status, but they then have no limitation placed on their advocacy of ideas. So there is a difference between charities that are actually doing work or educational work and are delivering services and an advocacy organization, which is what the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is. We promote ideas, we push ideas, and then we talk about them in the public square.
Every year, the Government of Canada spends $26 billion on grants and contributions to organizations large and small, big businesses, libraries, up and down, throughout society. Of that, $6 billion to $8 billion goes to fund activities of special interest groups, non-governmental organizations, and third party groups. I can't stand before you here today and say that all of that $6 billion to $8 billion is being used for political pressure, and it would be irresponsible just to cut it out, because in that there certainly is some good work being done.
Having said that, the Government of Canada—or any government, for that matter—should not be funding political opinion. Far too often, what we hear from some of these groups being cut is that they truly believe they are actually neutral, that they are independent, and that they come to their conclusion without any political viewpoint, which is completely false.
:
Thanks, Ms. Kirk. I have such a short time.
I would take issue with one of the witnesses who thinks the government has a deep misunderstanding of the activities of civil society. I wouldn't call it a misunderstanding; I would call it ignorance, and a misunderstanding, therefore, of the impact of the cuts. But I don't think it's that. We have a government that does not want to be burdened by the facts. The proof is the cutback to the Canadian Policy Research Networks, and the new examples we found out this morning, to the Alpha database and library.
They don't want to know, and the reason is that they have a different view of society than the healthy, pluralistic society that Canada has become, with all this activity among volunteers and citizens interacting with each other to build a civil society. The proof of that is the Prime Minister's own statement before he was the Prime Minister, when he said that if he became the Prime Minister of this country, in two years we would not recognize the country. No one really knew what that meant at the time, except those of us who had heard some of his earlier speeches.
The lack of respect for civil society and the volunteer sector that is shown by these cuts, the lack of consultation, the lack of discussion, the lack of consultation with those who deal with many volunteer groups, like Ms. Kirk, suggests that it isn't a misunderstanding. It's the moving forward to a different kind of society, one that is characterized more by huge expenditures into the military. There was $1 billion announced on Monday or Tuesday of this week. That is probably the same $1 billion they're saving, taking off your backs. There is much more money put into police and much more money set aside for more prison cells for the anticipated increase in prisoners—this is taken from the budget speech.
Mr. Roy and Mr. Laporte are absolutely right. You put the money in to keep people busy and helping one another, training them to do good work, or you put it in at the other end. This government's own budget suggests that they are going to put it in at the other end, with more police, more jails, a bigger army, more deadly equipment.
A voice: Get the American crime rate, right?
Ms. Bonnie Brown: Exactly.
The interesting thing is the states in the United States, often referred to as the red states, that have those very strict and punitive laws and large police forces also show the highest incidence of social problems, the kinds of social problems that your organizations are trying to prevent or eradicate.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to close by putting a question to Mr. Williamson.
You represent the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. On September 25, you issued a press release stating that you were delighted to see the government making budget cuts of $1 billion. You also said earlier that you didn't know where those cuts had been made.
I just want to be sure I understand, because we will be held to account for the seriousness of the presentations made this morning.
I have received a great many letters from people in Quebec. The petition circulated by the Coalition québécoise contre les compressions fédérales en alphabétisation was signed by central union organizations and literacy and community groups; four million of the seven million people who live in Quebec are angry. They have written to the Prime Minister of Canada and have sent me a copy. I have also received letters from women's groups and community groups in Quebec.
When you say that you're delighted that these cuts are being made, on whose behalf are you making that statement? Who gave you that mandate? The people I referred to got together in the capital of Quebec to voice their opinion and examine the situation. And yet you are saying that even though you don't know what has been cut, you are very happy that these cuts have been made.
:
Fair enough. I don't want to misrepresent myself. The area we spend more and more time on is that of a watchdog. While we promote certain tax reforms, the watchdog component is growing.
I'll speak on behalf of my members, but also, from what you hear on talk radio, most Canadians are oblivious to these billion-dollar cuts over two years, half a billion dollars a year. That's because the Government of Canada didn't cut services or programs that directly affect Canadians. There are groups representing literacy organizations here, but if you look at the provincial groups, most of them have stepped up and said they actually receive funding from the provinces. But the federal government is funding literacy advocacy, so this does affect people who work there, but broadly speaking across the country, I don't think there's great outrage over the billion-dollar reduction.
Let me give you another example. Mr. Brown mentioned it. The Policy Research Network--that's exactly the type of relationship that should be cut. It presses a political, left-wing agenda and it promotes national day care. You're free to go out and promote national day care that advocates that we put our kids in institutional day care, but to do so on the public dime is just wrong, particularly when it runs counter to the government's own policy. That is just a waste of tax dollars, and I think that budget was being cut by $3 million. That is a specific example of a political organization that sees itself as being independent, but is anything but.
:
Thank you, Mr. Lessard.
I'm sure you understand that cannot be considered a point of order either. Because the second round is now ended, does the Committee want to deal with the motions, or should we go to a third round of questions?
I want to thank all our witnesses today.
[English]
I would like to thank each and everyone for coming before us this morning. I know your time is—
[Translation]
I know that your time is very precious. So, thank you for coming today and have a pleasant afternoon.
I would ask everyone to leave the room now, so that Committee members can get on with their business.