Finance Committee on Oct. 28th, 2009

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

It's people on the ground, basically. That's what's really helpful.

[Iain Klugman]

Yes.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

On your third point, your change to the tax measure is to encourage foreigners to invest and make it earlier in comparison to others. What are we doing wrong, in your view, or are we doing anything wrong, or is there something we could be doing to get Canadians to be investing in Canadian technology--other than government money?

[Iain Klugman]

Yes. I think things such as an angel tax credit is something that's been talked about for a long time, which would incent people to make investments into companies in Canada. It would also provide a first reporting opportunity for us to truly recognize the impact that angel investment makes in this country, because until we have a way of capturing those kinds of investments, we have no idea how much it is. It's been estimated to be close to $3.5 billion.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I appreciate that. It's an area where not just investment but our entrepreneurial class could be a lot more risk-taking and so on, and we need to find, hopefully through the tax system, a way to encourage that over time. I have no answer at this point.

My question then is for our medical laboratory technologists. My local association or group had me come to my local hospital and took me through the lab and so on about a year ago and gave me the same spiel you've just given now about what the needs are, which is good. I certainly understand the internationally educated medical laboratory technologists and us working at identifying those credentials and making those skills available to actually be in the lab here, for certain individuals.

My question then is on the other side—the Canadian-developed and -educated lab technicians. What do you want the federal government to do to be involved in that area? I'm not sure where the federal government's role is in that. Are you just looking for a strategy from us, as our other health care professionals are looking for in terms of an overall...? Are you part of their bigger strategy or do you have something of your own desires?

[Moira Grant]

Our organization is a member of HEAL and we fully support the infrastructure proposal they bring forward. So we certainly advocate that kind of measure to address health human resources, and as I mentioned in my presentation, we also know there are strategies in place with the pan-Canadian framework document to address some of these health human resources issues on a national basis.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

And that includes the medical laboratory technician area also. Is that right?

[Moira Grant]

That's right.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I appreciate that.

Very quickly--and I apologize to our friends from the climate and atmospheric sciences--this $25 million or $250 million over 10 years, that's in addition to the asks we've received from the other funding agencies. That's in addition to that. Are you adding to their money, or do you have your own ability to steer where that money goes on your own, separate from those other agencies?

[Dr. Marlon Lewis]

The intention would be that we would have our own ability to steer that money as we've done in the past. The other funding agencies have a very clear role to play. NSERC, I would say, is the envy of the world in terms of their operations and their support for Canadian science. Their greatest strength, however, is also their greatest weakness, in that they're a bottom-up driven organization. They respond to scientists who are making application for funds, and they lack the ability that I think we have to make sure the results get translated into a format that can be useful for policy and also for informed business decisions.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

We'll go to Mr. Martin, please.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

I too would like to begin by recognizing and welcoming the commissioners of the BC Treaty Commission. I think it's entirely fitting and appropriate that you bring your message here before the finance committee of the House of Commons. I sincerely hope and I will commit to you that when this committee does write its final report of recommendations in regard to the pre-budget process, your message will find its way in there. We'll be pushing for that, to recommend that the government recognize the importance of concluding treaties for all the good reasons that you point out.

I think it's important that you're here for another reason. I'm not sure the Canadian public or even policy-makers realize what an oppressive instrument the Indian Act has been in terms of stifling economic development amongst aboriginal peoples, first nations. A modern-day treaty, such as the Westbank, the Nisga'a, or the Maa-nulth agreement, constitutes economic emancipation for aboriginal peoples.

I've been here since 1997, and I note that the Nisga'a agreement was like pulling teeth every step of the way. It was resisted; there was a fight back. As you point out, most recently, this spring, the Maa-nulth agreement or treaty was ratified by Parliament at the snap of a finger when the will was there. I put it to you that Parliament has no right to hold up, block, or delay, or even to recommend amendments to a treaty that was negotiated nation-to-nation between the crown and a first nation. That's not our role. I don't think we even have a role to play there.

I would ask you to comment. First of all, how many outstanding treaties are there yet to be dealt with through the BC Treaty Commission; and if you choose to take a minute to elaborate, what difference does this make in terms of economic development and the freedom to develop your own land, your own resources, etc., within the community once the treaty has been ratified?

[Sophie Pierre]

Thank you very much for your comment and your question.

I will be very happy to give the example of Tsawwassen. The Tsawwassen agreement was finalized, and it was enacted on April 4.

Tsawwassen, as a first nation, was able to access the economic stimulus package that was put out by the government to the tune of $6 million, because they are a local government. If they had remained an Indian band, such as my community, they would have had no access to that. Indian bands do not have access to that. We're not considered local governments in that same sense. When Tsawwassen signed their treaty, they immediately went down that road of having independence and self-government.

So you're absolutely right. In this day and age, to continue to have Indian bands that are totally regulated under the Indian Act, which has no room for economic development, just doesn't make any sense. What makes even less sense is that there is $7 billion that goes to continue to support the Indian Act bands. It doesn't make sense.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you.

But even further, my understanding is that an Indian band, as such, is not allowed to cut down a single tree, even on a status reserve, without the express permission of the minister. This is baffling to most of us.

[Sophie Pierre]

I served as a chief in my community for almost 30 years. We started a gravel pit four years ago. We still don't have authority today to sell that gravel. We have lost so much money in that. We were able to do our own roads. We borrowed money to do our own roads, because we figured we were opening a gravel pit, we would have an economic development opportunity there, and we could sell the gravel to pay back the loan. We still don't have the licence to do that. It is absolutely frustrating.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

This is the thing I find in my home province of Manitoba. Those people who might say, “Why don't those first nations pull themselves up by their bootstraps,” don't understand the barriers that are in the way, the archaic, oppressive barriers that are in the way by virtue of the Indian Act.

[Sophie Pierre]

They usually say it in much more colourful language too.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Anyway, I want to thank you for being here. It is a great message you have brought us today.

I also want to comment on Mr. Howlett's presentation. We were all happy to vote for John McKay's excellent bill dealing with development aid, but the domestic poverty is what we are more seized of in my communities now, because 47% of the families in my riding live below the poverty line, and 52% of the children. In the richest and most powerful civilization in the history of the world, those are embarrassing statistics. In some western European countries and Scandinavian countries, the incidence of child poverty is zero, absolute zero.

My colleague Tony Martin, who I know you work with and know, is developing a bill modelled after Quebec's legislation: that there will be a poverty reduction strategy so that we can set targets for reducing poverty in the same way as we set targets to reduce the deficit back in the 1990s; that everything we do should be viewed through the lens of what this will do to effect the social change necessary. Is your organization in favour of the language being developed associated with Tony's bill, or are you aware of it and working on it?

[Dennis Howlett]

Yes. Make Poverty History is in support of a plan to reduce poverty in Canada and was a key group to campaign in favour of a poverty reduction plan in Ontario, which, we are happy to say, got all-party support finally in the Ontario legislature as well. We campaigned hard for a poverty reduction plan in Manitoba, which just got announced earlier this summer.

So we are working on both global and domestic poverty. We don't think it is fair to say you can choose one or the other. You need to do both. We have appeared before the other committee that Mr. Martin is on as well, and we support initiatives there toward a national poverty reduction plan as well.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you.

Do I have a moment left?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have two and a half minutes.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Excellent. I would like to deal with the presentation of Professional Institute of the Public Service, PIPS, somewhat.

I want to thank you for bringing to the attention of committee that nowhere is there any empirical evidence that this frenzy to privatize everything they can possibly lay their finger on is financially prudent. You point out that the Auditor General herself was denied the information to do an analysis on managing contracts to the private sector. She was told to go and file an access to information request, and that was held from her.

This is not common knowledge, I don't think. We argue that the whole frenzy to deregulate and privatize and outsource and less government is so last century. This is really a neo-conservative ideology that has been disproved and is partly responsible for the financial disaster we see ourselves in. This urge to deregulate everything has brought us into the economic crisis we are in today. I want to thank you for bringing that to the attention of the committee and for giving me the opportunity to comment on it.

Would you expand on that? What is the institute doing to perhaps comment further on that, or provide some empirical evidence as to the veracity of their claims that they are saving money?

[Denise Doherty-Delorme]

Certainly, when we look at the Expenditure Restraint Act, which restricted professionals' salaries to 1.5% going back from 2006 all the way to 2011, we see that the government is trying to gain favour by being tough and saying it is very fiscally minded with its own money and therefore it's restricting people's salaries. At the same time, billions--and I do stress that it is billions of dollars--are being spent without regard, without oversight, behind closed doors on private sector contracts.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That is $1,500 a day. They will lay off a public servant and then hire somebody back at $1,500 a day.