Finance Committee on Nov. 6th, 2013

[Dr. Michelle Gauthier]

It's an excellent question.

Certainly, Mitacs has been working with a number of charities, so they would be well placed to help us define what that should look like. My sense is that we are looking for opportunities where the research can inform growing the revenues for the charity, and in a way that would allow them to move forward in a given project.

For example, if you have a theatre group that's looking to redefine its audiences and its markets and has to shift with the changing demographics and populations, it could perhaps benefit from that; or the Afghan Women's Catering Group in Toronto might say that they've reached a certain point in their growth and they would need, in that strategy, to get to the next level.

It would be business-related issues, but for the charities in question. I think Mitacs would probably be interested in looking at certain verticals to pilot this with, but knowing that it would be open to all those in the charitable sector who could make a legitimate case that there would be value for them.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Brison, please.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you very much.

I'll start with Chief Googoo. You've laid out a very compelling case of the funding gap between first nations schools and provincial schools.

The government continues to deny there is a funding gap. The minister has recently put forward a proposal as the basis for some discussion around proposed legislation for the first nations education act, but the government has said that the discussion of funding is something that will be dealt with later, that now we should talk about reforming the system.

Do you believe we should be dealing with the funding issues in lockstep with the reform issue, dealing with funding issues as part of this discussion now and not waiting until later?

[Chief Morley Googoo]

Absolutely, I think it's crucial. I think one of the things in the national panel's report was that it recommended to never lose sight of the child, and that the reform is there to make sure that child succeeds. It also recommended that we co-draft legislation. It's to be done in partnership with reform.

In the apology, a lot of our people have tried to feel that the apology was sincere. The government said, “It is you that should design your own systems”, and that is supported by the UN declarations for us. In the success models of MK and “First Nation Control of First Nation Education”, it's about empowering them, not just enabling them to make decisions in their best interests. You need to make sure if first nations are going to take over something, they do their due diligence and know what they're taking over, because it's their children, and you have to be responsible because you're going to have to have adequate resources to deliver educational programs properly. If you're going to be continually comparable to provinces, it's just the responsible thing to do.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Chief.

Ms. Nielsen, last summer we had some of the worst summer job numbers we've seen in over 30 years. The federal government student jobs program created about half the number of student jobs that it created back in 2005.

Do you believe that increasing funding for summer job programs would be a good initiative, given the situation around youth unemployment today?

[Amanda Nielsen]

CASA supports investments in students, in general, in the post-secondary system. In terms of our priorities this year, our focus is on in-study income exemption, removing penalties to employment and indexing—

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

But it's a bit of a moot point if you can't find a summer job in the first place.

[Amanda Nielsen]

It is, and any investment in post-secondary education we generally see as a positive one.

On this matter, we don't have a policy in particular, but in general we think that investing in students is investing in the future economic well-being of our country.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you.

In 2010 our committee chair, in his private member's motion M-574, called upon the government to establish a national Alzheimer's and dementia strategy. We're the only G-8 country without a national Alzheimer's and dementia strategy. Should we be moving forward with that?

I suppose both the CMA and the Nurses Association would perhaps opine on that.

[Owen Adams]

Well, absolutely. At the conclusion of the meeting last year, Mr. Rajotte challenged us to come forward on that, so we did collaborate with the Alzheimer Society, and we put together a brief earlier this year, which is reflected in our recommendations.

Again, we are recommending a component of $25 million a year over five years, and we've collaborated with the Alzheimer Society on that. I think that would be a very worthwhile thing to do, indeed.

[Rachel Bard]

For us, as we're recommending an aging and senior care commission, it's presenting a comprehensive approach. Of course, Alzheimer's and dementia is one element of it, but there are also other components as you age, in trying to keep people healthy. I think it does make sense. It fits into a comprehensive approach.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I have a sister who's a nurse and a mother with Alzheimer's. My mother has four children, three sons and one daughter, and you can imagine who is carrying the disproportionate burden.

[Rachel Bard]

I understand, because I did the same.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

In closing, the caregiver tax credit is something we support, but we'd like to make it refundable.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Brison.

Mr. Hoback, please.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here this evening. I apologize about the votes. It's just the nature of being on Parliament Hill at this time of year. We'll do the best to get through what we can.

Mr. Googoo, you talked about the funding differential between on-reserve schools and off-reserve schools. I have just a quick question to help me understand exactly and maybe you could explain why there is a difference.

When a school is built on reserve, who pays for building that school? Who is in charge of the capital cost for that structure?

[Chief Morley Googoo]

It's a federal program.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

It's the federal government that pays for that.

When you get a school off reserve, who pays for that?

[Chief Morley Googoo]

It's the province.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

It's the provincial government.

The offset is actually the capital cost differential between the two. Is that correct?

[Chief Morley Googoo]

That's one piece.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

But it has to be a major piece.

Again, you have the capital structure and operation for an on-reserve school, and the federal government kicks in through that. When they build a school, we kick in for that. Then when you operate the school, you're getting so much per student to operate, but there's also a little above that. On the provincial side, we have no money going into it, so you have to pay for that capital cost. Thus, there's a differential between the cost of on-reserve schools versus off-reserve schools.

It would have to be different, would it not?

[Chief Morley Googoo]

I'm not clear on the question.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

You have to pay for that capital cost somehow. You've already paid for it on reserve, so if you choose to go off reserve, then you have to reimburse the province for part of that capital cost, do you not?

I think that's where the differential is.

[Chief Morley Googoo]

Clearly, there are two schools that are built, and that's the best way I could answer. In delivering educational services, any school that's going to be able to operate has to have a nominal role and tuition—