Finance Committee on Nov. 1st, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you for your presentation.

We will now hear from Mr. Jules.

[Clarence T. Jules, Chief Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer, First Nations Tax Commission]

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, for over 20 years I've been working with first nations to implement taxation, build infrastructure, and improve services.

There are about 140 first nation tax authorities, and since 1990 they have generated at least $800 million in local revenues. The first nations tax authorities have used local initiatives and development of local capacity to bring jobs and business opportunities to their communities and regions. We are proud of what has been accomplished and were pleased to be able to demonstrate this to parliamentarians by hosting them in Kamloops last year. I must note here that the committee members were very interested in our work and, in particular, our proposed first nations property ownership act.

The First Nations Tax Commission and tax-collecting first nations have achieved a great deal. However, much more can be done. First nations are still tremendously disadvantaged. The investment market does not work as well on our lands as it does elsewhere. Our infrastructure is still inadequate. We need to change this.

First nations are the fastest-growing component of the Canadian workforce, and also include Canada's most under-employed people. If we can change that fact, we will create jobs, improve the fiscal balance, and go a long way towards improving the quality of life, even in the face of an aging society and global fiscal challenges.

The key to changing this is to allow the market to work on first nations lands by using local capacities to create sustainable infrastructure systems. Today the First Nations Tax Commission is putting forward two initiatives that will help these goals.

The first initiative is our first nations property ownership act. We are asking the government to expedite this development and the passage of this act, and to commit itself to providing the resources necessary to implement it and ensure its success. Ten first nations have confirmed their interest in implementing this act. The passage of this act would allow them to own their own lands, to put an end to the paternalism of the Indian Act, where a land is described as “a tract of land, the legal title to which is vested in Her Majesty, that has been set apart by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of a band....”

This would be a significant step forward in dismantling the Indian Act, which is seen as a relic of colonialism. It would end the injustice my father described 43 years ago when he said, we don't even own our own lands.

However, the first nations property ownership act is much more than a symbolic act. The passage and implementation of this act would allow the market to operate more effectively for these first nations. It would allow us, as my father said in 1968, to move at the speed of business. The first nations property ownership act would allow these first nations to bypass the cumbersome bureaucratic processes regarding land use. First nations would assume responsibility and authority over their lands just like any other government. The end result would be lower costs of doing business, improved reporting requirements, and less bureaucracy.

The first nations property ownership act would also allow participating first nations to create the same property rights used in real estate, credit, and investment markets elsewhere in the country. These rights would be registered in our Torrens system, which is recognized as the best form of land title system in the world. As a result, people conducting business would be able to draw on the same bankers, lawyers, and real estate professionals for these types of transactions as they would elsewhere. Investors would be able to make commitments with the same confidence that they do anywhere else. Businesses would be able to work at the same speed with first nations, using this act as they do in any other market. First nations people and their governments would be able to access credit on the same terms as others in Canada.

Second, we're asking for a new approach for infrastructure tailored to meeting the needs of taxing first nation communities. And we'll work with you on implementing it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You can finish up, Mr. Jules, or we can come to it during question period.

[Clarence T. Jules]

We can come to it during questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll hear from Ms. Simon, please.

[Mary Simon, President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami]

[Witness speaks in Inuktitut]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

I have requested an appearance here today because I am convinced the government has an opportunity to address the real needs of Inuit, as well as offer a real return to Canadians in its upcoming budget.

First, let me say that all Canadians could benefit from gaining more insight into the cost-benefit dynamics between economic and social development among Inuit people. Federal budget planners and all Canadians would benefit from additional analysis on two vital questions. First, what kind of new investments need to be made to deliver a realistic chance of closing the gaps in material living standards between Inuit and other Canadians within one or two generations? Second, knowing that the Canadian economy will be increasingly impacted by the contributions of young aboriginal peoples, what will be the predictable cost to Canadian society of not closing such gaps?

My first suggestion is that the Minister of Finance direct his department to carry out an objective examination of the two questions I have posed and to report back to this committee with the results of that examination.

My second suggestion relates to the proposed changes to Canada's criminal justice system that could result in a very large increase in the number of persons serving time in correctional facilities, of which a hugely disproportionate number would be aboriginal. Inuit are abundantly aware of the suffering caused by crime.

Compared to other Canadians, we see more crime in our communities; and compared with other jurisdictions, rates of violent crime are not in decline. But there is no evidence that steering federal expenditures into a massive expansion of the prison system will bring about safer communities. The fact that huge sums of money will not be available to invest in the prevention of crime and the reform of criminals, mental health programs, substance abuse programs, special education needs programs, and youth counselling will result in more blighted and broken lives. A lot of these are related to intergenerational broken lives and grief.

I recommend that the government consider amending its draft legislation to redirect a substantial portion of those budgetary resources to the enhancement of crime prevention activities, with a particular focus on young people, education, training efforts, and health programs within existing correctional facilities.

Finally, Inuit have an urgent need in three specific areas. I urge the committee to consider funding the following: first, $10 million over five years as seed money for the implementation of the national strategy on Inuit education, contained in First Canadians, Canadians First; second, $15 million over five years for expanded mental health programs in the four Inuit regions of Nunavut, Nunavik in northern Quebec, Nunatsiavut in northern Labrador, and the Inuvialuit settlement region of the Northwest Territories, which comprise our homeland called Inuit Nunangat; and third, $300 million for a concentrated two-year program of new housing construction in the four Inuit regions, over and above what has already been approved.

These ideas have also been described in the letter I sent to Minister Flaherty this spring.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Ms. Simon.

We'll hear from Ms. Bittman now, please.

[Shannon Bittman, Vice-President, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada]

Thank you.

My name is Shannon Bittman, and I'm a vice-president at the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee this morning.

The institute represents almost 60,000 professional employees of the federal public service. These are the people who provide a wide range of vital functions to the Canadian public--scientific research, food inspection, tax audits, and more.

Our economy appears to be once again on the brink of a recession. Canadians are faced with massive unemployment, low levels of corporate investment despite low interest rates and tax breaks, and general market insecurity. Our message today is that the solution does not lie in further tax breaks for corporate Canada or heedless cuts to the federal public service.

A swift and sustained recovery from the recent global financial crisis has been, and still is, heavily dependent on the retention of core public servants for the provision of critical government services. Public service job cuts are not the answer to increasing government revenues, and will only add risk to an already fragile economic recovery.

Furthermore, labour cuts will only produce marginal, short-term gains and not the long-term, sustainable efficiencies that the government is looking for. Use of such overly simplistic strategies as cutting through attrition, or making indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts of 5% or 10% as mandated by the deficit reduction action plan, will leave serious labour shortages in areas of much-needed expertise. In fact, departments such as Environment Canada are already having trouble fulfilling their mandate of ensuring the health and safety of Canadians. Just as troubling is the fact that Canada is falling behind other OECD countries in its ability to conduct scientific research. These reductions will only serve to make Canada even less competitive with these countries in today's global and knowledge-based economy.

It is the institute's position that instead of cutting public service jobs, the government has the opportunity to achieve the efficiencies and savings it is looking for by reducing its reliance on outsourced contracts. As we have outlined in our written brief, research has shown an average gap of 350% between an initial bid price and the final tab paid by the government for third party delivery. This government has shown a growing dependency on outsourcing since 2005, with costs rising from $600 million in 2005-06 to over $1.2 billion in the 2009-10 fiscal year.

The institute would also like to voice its concern regarding the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which was commissioned by this government, detailing an implementation strategy for the new federal department Shared Services Canada. This report, which we have submitted as evidence to the committee, sets out a series of recommendations, including one to outsource 54% of the government's workforce to third parties in the private sector.

Ultimately, this government needs to refocus its attention away from arbitrary budget cuts and address ballooning outsourcing costs if they hope to achieve sustainable reductions in costs over the longer term.

Our government needs to be careful not to repeat the mistakes of the nineties during the last round of unilateral public service cuts. A lack of proper succession planning then left major gaps in the senior ranks of many federal departments. These consequences are still being felt today.

The Public Service Commission's 2010-11 annual report also shows a troubling trend of shrinking numbers of young people within the public service. It is critical that the public service remains an attractive employment option. Recruitment and retention of employees aged 35 or less will have a high impact on the quality of future service delivery to all Canadians.

Canada's current troubled economic state causes us to ask questions about the government's desire to shrink the public administration and the services it provides. There's been much discussion regarding the government's ability to remain flexible should we sink into another recession and stimulus is required. Such flexibility will thus require retention of those who actually deliver stimulus—public service employees.

The recent workforce adjustment announced at the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Please wrap up.

[Shannon Bittman]

--seems to fly in the face of this supposed commitment to flexible fiscal policy. We ask that the government bolster its commitment to fiscal policy strategies in the next budget.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Bittman.

We'll go to Ms. Decter, please.

[Ann Decter, Director, Advocacy and Public Policy, YWCA Canada]

Thank you, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee.

I'm here representing the YWCA Canada, as director of advocacy and public policy. For over 100 years, YWCA Canada has advocated for policies and programs that improve the lives of women and girls. As the country's oldest and largest women's multi-service agency, our 34-member association raised and spent over $190 million last year, providing services in communities in nine provinces and two territories.

Our perspective is grounded in first-hand knowledge of the life experience of tens of thousands of women, girls, and families who use our programs and services every year, from Victoria to Iqaluit to Halifax. With over 140 years of history, we are Canada's largest provider of shelter for women and children fleeing violence, and of employment services for women, and the second largest provider of child care.

We welcomed the government's June 2011 throne speech commitment to address the problem of violence against women and girls. Over the last decade, we have conducted extensive research on responses to violence against women and girls, culminating in our 2009 policy report, Life Beyond Shelter: Toward Coordinated Public Policies for Women's Safety and Violence Prevention, with recommendations for federal government action and documentation of promising practices across the country.

We urge the government to review the recommendations of Life Beyond Shelter, with a view to reducing violence against women, and the billions it costs Canadians every year. The strongest recommendation of this report is for policy coordination at all three levels of government. To implement the government's throne speech commitment, Budget 2012 should commit the federal government to leading a process, with input from the women's service sector, to coordinate pilot policies on violence against women at all three levels of government, to ensure women's safety.

Since the 1970s, Canada has developed a mature system of emergency shelters for women fleeing violence, largely violence in the home perpetrated by intimate partners. Initiated by women who set up safe houses in their communities, this community-based response in most of the country has evolved over three decades into a professional social service sector, accessible to women post-violence. However, research has identified crucial gaps in this system. To ensure that all Canadian women who need it have access to emergency shelter as protection from violence, the system needs further development for rural women, women in the northern territories, women with disabilities, and it needs improved cultural and language competency in service provision.

In addition, the housing crisis in all three northern territories profoundly impacts women with children who are trying to escape violence. Housing in the three northern territories has been seriously disadvantaged by the lack of federal social housing funding. Budget 2012 should initiate an annual grant fund administered by Status of Women Canada to address the identified gaps in provision of emergency shelter to women fleeing violence.

YWCA Canada continues to encourage the federal government to take steps to ensure access to child care services for all families that seek it. More than 30 years of uninterrupted increases in women's employment has given Canada a labour force that is virtually gender-balanced, the result of an incremental, but relentless upward trend in women's employment since 1976, which has doubled the number of women employed in Canada. The employment rate of women with children has followed a similar upward trend, from a 27.6% employment rate for women with infants and toddlers in 1976 to 64.4% in 2009.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have one minute left.

[Ann Decter]

Two-thirds of the mothers with their youngest child in preschool or kindergarten were in the workforce in 2009.

Women's increased labour force participation has been supported by a multi-decade trend toward increased attainment of higher education. Women have risen from 32% of young graduates in 1971 to 60% in 2006. With provincial governments investing in full-day kindergarten, the federal government has the opportunity to engage provincial and territorial governments in discussion on developing early learning and child care. Investment in child care for low-income families has been shown to yield a substantial financial rate of return for every dollar invested. Such investment would support the federal government's efforts to eliminate the deficit and return to a balanced budget through economic growth. Early learning and child care are fiscally smart investments.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll begin members' questions

with Mr. Mai for five minutes.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here and for your briefs. They are very interesting. We have so many questions, but there is so little time.

Yesterday the representative of the National Aboriginal Caucus was here telling us about the fact that they wanted to get rid of their 2% cap, because they want the youth to study and learn to be lawyers and doctors so they can be role models. We had members opposite saying “Well, no, you should go into the trades directly”. That let me understand their negotiating position, when we have a government that's more paternalistic and is not negotiating nation to nation and is not fulfilling the treaties.

I just wanted to know, and maybe you can all respond, about the promises made to first nations in the 2010 budget. We talked about millions of dollars being promised. Was that money funded to the first nations?

[Richard Jock]

Thank you. I'll give a brief answer, and others may have something to contribute.

My understanding is that there was a commitment to achieve educational improvements but not the resources to implement them. What we are calling for in this budget are the resources to accompany those interests. That's really an essential and important next phase. So no, those additional dollars have not been committed to first nations.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

But they were promised. They were in the budget.

[Richard Jock]

I don't think there was a specific financial commitment contained in the budget. It was more on the principle of improving that educational attainment interest.

[Clarence T. Jules]

One of the problems with the responsibilities of your committee and government is that you need to change the philosophical approach to dealing with aboriginal people as a whole. In my opinion, it should be about creating economies. The problem with the moneys being expended right now is that the vast majority go into social welfare programs. When you maintain that kind of approach within government, it will all stay the same. You have to change the focus to begin to help us help ourselves, and that means creating economies.

I don't believe we can force on anybody the kinds of choices they make, even though I feel that we have enough lawyers.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mary Simon]

Just to add to what Mr. Jock was saying, we too have been involved with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs over the past two years in coming up with a national education strategy for Inuit, which some members have copies of. There is a commitment to work with us, but as of now, there hasn't been any funding allocated in the budget for this initiative.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

We've been really pushing for investment in infrastructure. We've been telling this government that it's an investment. We know that there's a deficit. Obviously, we can look at some of the situations where you don't have running water or you have problems with water. You have problems with infrastructure.

Can you tell us what type of infrastructure....? I mean, it's so basic. For the government not to invest in that, and not to understand it has to be done now.... Can you give us some examples?

[Mary Simon]

Yes, I'll give an example related to health issues.

Right now there's a lot of news that the suicide rate among Inuit in the Arctic is seven times higher than in the rest of Canada. There's a reason for this. Not only are they dealing with trauma and addictions, but there are also no services in most of our communities. We're asking the government to start putting in infrastructure so that people who need support and counselling, and the doctors who will diagnose them, will have access to that. These services are not available at this point, so we're seeking funding from the government so that we can provide services that other Canadians in southern Canada pretty much take for granted. We don't have any mental health services in the north, or very, very few.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much.