Human Resources Committee on Nov. 29th, 2011

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Could you maybe submit, as well, the locations, the areas in Canada? That would be great.

I want to follow up on the aboriginal component. I'm really glad that there was a focus on the aboriginals today.

Mr. Clarke, you mentioned De Beers. We have to also mention Attawapiskat, because that was one of the main communities that could have, or should have, benefited greatly from that project. And as we see, that community is certainly not in a position to be benefiting at this time, from what we can see from the housing conditions, the infrastructure, and the education.

We know that aboriginal peoples have lived and continue to live under fiscal restraints, and in many cases in third world conditions.

You said that holistically, within the federal government, there needed to be a different approach. I'm just wondering if you are hearing the wording “fiscal harmonization initiative” a lot within your department.

Are there going to be any cutbacks to these first nations initiatives and programs?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Point of order, please.

Mr. Chair, I think we're here to study what we might be able to do for remote and rural communities. We're not here to discuss fiscal cutbacks in any departments. And certainly I don't think it's fair to the witnesses, frankly, that they be asked such a question.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

I want to maybe remind my colleague across the way that the study basically talks about fiscal restraint. That is part of the title of the study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

It's a point of order, so it won't be something we'll debate.

I think it would be difficult for the witness to answer that question, because that's not under her purview or area of responsibility. That would be a government directive of her responsibility.

You will not need to answer that specific question.

If there's another question, you can go ahead.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

I'll reword that, then.

With respect to the skills development programs out there, is there any money...? You indicated that you are reviewing the programming.

I'm just trying to think, because I took a whole pile of notes. I'm just trying to figure out where I put that piece.

You did indicate, Mrs. Murphy—

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Just a moment. As a matter of clarification, if the question relates to funding cutbacks that may or may not happen in the future, that would not be appropriate. But if this witness is aware that there were funds that have been reduced up to this point in time, that would be an appropriate question.

I just wanted to clarify that. Carry on.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Basically, what you mentioned was that the expenditures across the country were what you were looking at for these programs.

[Sheilagh Murphy]

I'm not sure what you're referring to, because you started with Attawapiskat. If you're talking about education and investments in education, we are looking across all of the jurisdictions to do comparisons between first nations education and how provinces fund the education.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

What are the factors for those comparisons?

[Sheilagh Murphy]

I would have to get back to you on that. I don't have the details.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Okay. Can you send that back to the committee?

I was just wondering, in looking at the comparison and the expenditures, are there any dollars being cut back out of the skills development programs and the education portion? Are you aware of that?

[Sheilagh Murphy]

I can't answer in terms of reductions. I can certainly say that our intention in looking at K-to-12 education is to get to comparable outcomes and good outcomes on reserve. There are a number of ways we can do that, including partnerships with provinces and with first nations. We can look at whether there are other ways of delivering the service on reserve to get to those outcomes. That is something the K-to-12 panel has been going across the country trying to elicit as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you. Your time is well up. I didn't count the interventions as time against you.

Go ahead, Mr. McColeman.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Thank you all for being here.

I want to weave a couple of notions into my questions and for you to perhaps consider them when you answer.

First, are there expectations from remote rural communities we should know about, that you see as different from others? We can accept the fact that people traditionally have lived in these areas and continue to choose to live there, but are there expectations we should know about and are not aware of--because many of us are not from remote rural areas--that flavour the things the federal government would do? I don't know whether that word makes sense, but perhaps you could consider that notion.

I'd like to pursue the idea of the partnerships. It seems to me that in a lot of situations, not only remote and rural, there's often difficulty, especially if it has to do with resources and such, in harmonizing federal, provincial, and regional government jurisdictions that exist within remote rural communities. I want to explore that idea. It goes beyond red tape. It goes beyond the duplication of services that perhaps happens not only between departments at the federal level but also between departments federally, provincially, and regionally and municipally. I'd like to explore that question with each one of you, if I might.

Are there unique things we should be considering as a committee as we look at this study, specifically dealing with trying to work towards better coordination, harmonization? What are some of things we might be able to do?

[Janet DiFrancesco]

In terms of broadband connectivity, one of the things we've learnt from the program is that every province and territory is different in terms of their needs and requirements, so when you're looking at broadband's connectivity, the first key factor to consider is the population density. Low population density presents a significant challenge when you're talking about infrastructure to support broadband.

The second factor is just that geography across the country also can change significantly. It presents its own unique barriers.

Thirdly, the state of broadband infrastructure in each province and territory differs significantly as well. For example, when you consider the north, the Yukon territory is heavily connected by DSL wireline broadband infrastructure, whereas the Northwest Territories has a mix of the two technologies. Northern Ontario has a completely different challenge from that of the B.C. corridor, where you have little pockets of communities in really challenging conditions, around mountains and trees and those kinds of things.

Provinces and territories and municipalities are best placed to really understand the situation on the ground and what the unique needs are in each of those jurisdictions. That's the value of the FPT process that is ongoing right now. For example, in Alberta they have what they call the Supernet. You might be familiar with that. It was a significant infrastructure program on behalf of the Government of Alberta, which deals with what we call backhaul, or the very basic connection requirement. In some jurisdictions the real challenge is that last mile, or what we would call the connection from those pipes, from the backhaul to the individual business or household.

What we've learned is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for broadband connectivity across Canada. The challenges are many, and the solutions need to be focused on the specific challenges in each jurisdiction.

[Sheilagh Murphy]

In terms of what we've learned and what we know are some of the expectations of first nations communities, it would be being able to access skills training and development close to home or in their home communities, especially when they have other barriers that may not allow them to leave their home communities to access that skills training and development. So it would be finding ways we can do that.

In much of our work these days in the area of education, in the area of social development, and in the area of economic development, we find that the partnership approach is the one that is effective. It's not all about the Department of Aboriginal Affairs being able to address the needs of rural communities. We have a role to play, but provinces have a role to play. They have access to programs and services, and deliver those. First nations have a role to play in articulating their needs and finding ways they can deliver them within their communities as well as accessing programs. And the private sector has a role to play in terms of providing access.

So we really do look at partnership approaches, and we're using that as part of our reform agenda. We have high interest among communities for that. It creates expectations. But we find that is a route that is helpful in our making some reforms to programs to get different outcomes across our program areas.

[Louis Beauséjour]

When we look at the kind of programming we have in skills development, in fact we do recognize that partnerships are really key in all our programming. As I did mention, a lot of the programming is in terms of developing the training per se, and that's why the need is delegated at the provincial level, and in the case of aboriginal communities to the aboriginal group itself, to ASETS holders. I think it's recognized that the need is better defined at the local level.

Also, in terms of our own programming, we strongly believe in partnerships. For the aboriginal community we have the strategic partnership fund. Basically, it's based on a strong partnership with the private sector. Also, when we try to identify the demand for skills and people, we basically work with the sector council, a partnership with private sector education communities and other partners to identify the needs for the future. It's another way we build strong partnerships.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you, Mr. McColeman. Your time is up.

Does anyone else want to make a comment on that? If you do, this would be your opportunity.

Go ahead, Mr. Sutherland.

[James Sutherland]

You were asking about some of the expectations from some of our remote communities. Many communities have approached us in our aboriginal programming from HRSDC to say that contrary to much of their recent history, they now have opportunities that never existed before and they're ready to take advantage of those opportunities. Many of those opportunities are for today, but they stretch into the future. And they're seeing that future. They're looking to us to facilitate the development of their skills and the training required to take advantage of that. That's probably one of the unique things. And I think the reference earlier was to hope. Many of the communities are seeing that and they're looking to us for that.

Our programming really does focus on partnerships. In fact, it's a requirement in all our programming right now. In order to apply for the skills and partnership fund under our ASETS program, partnership is a key component to that. In fact, in the projects that we do and with our asset holders, that's with the provincial governments, with the regional governments, with private sector training institutions. Everything we do is basically done in partnership, and our greatest successes are where those partnerships are the strongest.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

We will move to Mr. Cuzner.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you very much.

I just have a couple of quick questions. I'll start with a statement first, for Service Canada, for HRSDC.

Are all the provinces now in a situation similar to what we are in Nova Scotia, where the province is responsible for skills training, and under the LMDA they've assumed full responsibility? Are all the provinces in that same situation?

[Louis Beauséjour]

Yes, all provinces now are completely responsible for providing training to LMDAs and LMAs.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

This is just sort of how that emerged. We went through a rough spot, and I'm not qualified now to say whether it's working out well. I hope it works out well, obviously. Before the province took over, as Mr. Sutherland says, working in partnership.... The more intelligence you have on the ground in those local communities, I think the greater success, whatever the project might be. I think we moved away from that before we turned it over to the province. I think we moved away from that, where it was taken out of the hands of the local HRSDC people and sort of centralized more in Ottawa. I think we lost there. I see that with the summer student program as well: when it was in the hands of the local people, the administration of that program, I thought it had more success.

Tell me a little bit about the Nunavut project. Was the outreach project there a pilot project? I mean the one you referred to in your comments.

[Louis Beauséjour]

In Nunavut, no. I think in there it says it's the way Service Canada provides services to a remote area. They have officers who travel and go to those areas to present what the programs are and what this will do for the communities.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

We've obviously got an office in Nunavut. So they just get out of the office more? They get up to Rankin Inlet or something, and they weren't doing that prior to this?