Finance Committee on April 30th, 2013

[Peter Dinsdale]

It's a little complicated, as I am sure you can appreciate. This takes place at a variety of different levels. The primary importance is consultation with the rights holders themselves, individual first nations themselves.

We've heard it reflected from some of our constituents that notification is not consultation. Coming in and telling that you're doing something does not meet whatever standards we have out there, or they're not seen as the standards we should strive for.

We do have a Supreme Court reference on the matter, in section 35. Any time the right is infringed, or we say it is infringed, there is a duty to consult and accommodate. That doesn't mean there's a veto, but it certainly means there's a requirement to engage in those discussions in good faith.

Of course, Canada endorsed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and with that comes the free, prior, and informed consent for communities as well, as they go forward.

So what consultation has taken place? I don't think we've seen the substantive consultation process yet that ticks off all those boxes. Certainly I want to acknowledge that first nations have a responsibility to engage in good faith in those consultations, but it can't simply be notification that we're going forward with this and we're interested in your opinions as we go forward with this. I think it was meant to be more iterative.

As it relates to what we stated here this morning about resource development, if you're going to come into a community and extract resources from that community, a variety of negotiations need to take place. Those are understood, affirmed rights to those communities and those areas and those resources.

So I think it needs to be much more iterative. It must be prior to them coming in. It must be collaborative. And it must end in a relationship where the nations themselves are thriving as well as broader Canadians.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Broadbent referred earlier to the importance of a flexible federalism, where the federal government is engaged in negotiations with the provinces.

I assume you would agree, then, that consultation and active negotiations need to take place with first nations across the country as well.

[Peter Dinsdale]

Yes.

I have two comments. Earlier Ms. Glover commented that there are questions as to whether or not income disparity exists in Canada. We invite you to come to our communities and determine....

I know you weren't saying it doesn't exist, but the debate that exists amongst academics is a very academic exercise: yes, the rich get richer, but the poorer get richer too. The gap that remains, though, is quite evident in communities such as ours. I think the way to move forward is this collaborative process.

On the role of the provinces, the first nations have a unique relationship with the crown, with the federal crown. Of course there is the province in right of the crown, which has resources, so I think it will need to be tripartite. But first nations, I think rightly, look to the federal government first in assertion. Education, for instance, which is a provincial responsibility, of course, is also a federal responsibility. It's a treaty right to education, guaranteed under section 35, that we need to make sure gets maintained in those consultations as well.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dinsdale; much bigger discussion.

I'd like to share the rest of my time with Monsieur Caron.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have less than a minute, Monsieur Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Veall, I wanted to know, first, what your position was on the elimination of the survey on labour and income dynamics, and second, what impact it will actually have on the study of income inequality in the future.

[Dr. Michael R. Veall]

I think if you're trying to influence the economy and know whether policies are working, you need to have the best possible information. I think that was an undesirable move in that direction—less information.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

In my last 20 seconds, Mr. Broadbent, I want to conclude by saying that we didn't have a chance to talk about negative income tax. I think you might have had a better chance of getting some sympathetic ears across the way if you had mentioned that the idea was conceived by Milton Friedman at the time.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

That's a way to say that this issue is something that we can actually all study across partisan lines.

[Ed Broadbent]

I've often said that some Conservatives have very good ideas.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I'm going to take the final round.

In university I actually read that piece by Milton Friedman, although he would describe himself as a Libertarian, probably, not as a Conservative, so there is some commonality across the philosophical divide on that. I have too many questions and not enough time, unfortunately. I did want to get into that and the working income tax benefit.

Professor Veall, I appreciate your recommendations with respect to national securities regulation, intergenerational mobility, and the removal of labour-sponsored venture capital funds. We may ask you to come back on the budget bill, either this one or the next one.

I did, though, want to focus my comments with respect to Mr. McColeman's remarks and follow up on that. Especially in my area, the demand for people, for skilled and unskilled labour of all types, is the number one issue I get from businesses of all sizes. Small, medium, and large, they all come to me and say, “James, we cannot find enough people.” Whether it's BioWare, which is a computer tech company, or a manufacturing processing facility that is running at two-thirds capacity, or a hotel, or a restaurant, all types of business are saying they don't have enough people. There is a skills mismatch, which we're obviously trying to address through things like the Canada job grant.

But I want to focus perhaps on you, Mr. Dinsdale, with respect to the aboriginal community, because my friends were first nation and have, frankly, succeeded. I looked at them when I was sitting around with a number of them. All of them have either a trade or a university education, so I said to them that what was sort of the key to their success was finishing university or a trade school. They looked at me and they all said the same thing. They said, “No, the key was finishing high school.” The key was completing high school, so perhaps I'll just ask you to comment on some of the programs that are in place with respect to completing high school, things like Pathways to Education, a program that the government reaffirmed and supported in the last budget, and programs like that.

Could you comment on that and anything else this committee ought to be considering in terms of ensuring that kids do have that great opportunity by encouraging them to complete high school?

[Peter Dinsdale]

I was going to start off by teasing you and saying that I have non-aboriginal friends who also do very well and some of them are in trades—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Peter Dinsdale]

—but I would agree that they all have completed high school as well, which would have been the key marker. But I jest. I appreciate the question, though, of course, with the graduation rates.

I think the primary issue right now is the lack of a sustainable system across the country for first nations education. We have such a disparity in funding in schools, in communities. It shocks me when federal departments try to challenge whether or not their rates are equitable on first nations versus off reserve. Are we talking about the same things? Do we have access to counsellors and things of that nature? There are tremendous funding disparities at its core, estimated at up to $3,000 per student.

I think it's such a structural issue that it's difficult to look past it. It has to be more than just more money. I understand that we need standards and we need measures of accountability, but we can't get beyond the basis that you have to hire teachers, have strong and effective facilities to go to, and actually educate kids through a curriculum. There's no question that this is what needs to take place.

There is a process right now where the federal government is out discussing proposed education legislation. Our hope that it's an open.... You talked about the consultation process that Ms. Nash asked about. It is all about not notifying, and it's also about engaging and working together towards creating a system of education that is appropriate.

I absolutely agree that the education attainment is critical, that high school education is critical. I think we need a collaborative process between our respective governments to help facilitate and make sure we have the best system in place for kids, because ultimately we're all striving for the same thing: a public education system where first nations kids are graduating at the same level.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

My understanding from the national chief, though, is that a lot of his focus has been on education, which is why I addressed the question to you.

[Peter Dinsdale]

Yes, because that has framed this whole discussion. Without his involvement or this pushing, we wouldn't be where we are today on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

But my understanding is that for the investments in Pathways to Education and programs like that, with investments in this year's budget and last year's budget, a lot of them were in fact based on recommendations from him and from your organization. Do—

[Peter Dinsdale]

I think they're all very welcome. I don't think that's the structural change we're all driving for. I don't want to dismiss them, because I think they absolutely are helpful, but we're seeking broader structural change to the relationship.

I don't think those investments in and of themselves are going to result in first nations kids graduating at the exact same rate as mainstream Canadians—simply not. They're important investments. I think we're looking for greater structural change to help make sure that it takes place across the country at every school. One of the simple calls that we had going into the January 11 meeting with the Prime Minister was that there's a school on every first nations community for those children. Imagine that: a school in all your communities that those kids can access.

There's a school in all of your communities. They simply want the same chance in their communities.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

That's a much larger discussion, and unfortunately we are out of time in terms of our entire committee.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here, for your presentations, and for your responses to our questions.

Professor Fortin, thank you for coming in three hours early in British Columbia.

If there is anything further you wish the committee to consider, please do submit it and we will ensure that all members get it.

[Ed Broadbent]

Mr. Chairman, I wonder—I'm going through an old movie—if you'll permit a point of order. I was told by Mr. Brison that I misinformed the committee on a certain fact. I want to use the opportunity to correct the record.

I gave credit to the government for creating the working income tax benefit. I'm told that this was in fact introduced by the last Liberal Minister of Finance, but regrettably his government was defeated, so it was brought in by the present government.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Order.

Mr. Broadbent, I'll just point out that as an experienced parliamentarian you know that's a point of debate, not a point of order.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!