Human Resources Committee on May 13th, 2009

[Daniel Lafrenière, Vice-President, Centrale des syndicats du Québec]

Thank you, Madam Vice-Chair.

Good morning, committee members.

First, I will give a brief introduction on who we are. The Centrale des syndicats du Québec is a labour organization. It is the third-largest labour confederation in Quebec. It represents more than 100,000 people in the fields of education, health and social services, culture, community services and childcare.

In addition to making recommendations on collective agreement negotiations, we have actively campaigned as an agent of social reform in Quebec, and Canada, to have legislation passed that improves the wages of Canadians and Quebeckers, and the living situations that enable them to exercise their rights as citizens.

We would like to take this opportunity today as part of our organization's mission to make some recommendations. We have three recommendations to make today.

Our opening statement will focus on the situation of aboriginal people. The CSQ represents the people who work on the Cree and Kativik school boards. We represent more than 2,000 members in these communities. I could go over many details that Mr. Picard brought up earlier, but I will stick to a few of them. A lot of things were said. In the field of education, in particular, we have a long way to go. You will note that our recommendations will go in that direction.

We want to point out that section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted in 1982, states that with respect to treaty rights and freedoms, Part II of the Canadian Constitution affirms the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. In the future, these rights can no longer be unilaterally extinguished. To be recognized, these rights must be negotiated or recognized by a court. It was already mentioned that for rights to be existing, one must be in a position to exercise them. We agree with this.

In 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples issued a number of recommendations, in particular, ones calling on parties to resolve land claims, extend the land base of aboriginal communities and improve the living conditions in these communities.

That same year, the Supreme Court of Canada gave the definition of an aboriginal right protected under the Canadian Constitution in the Van der Peet ruling. Even the Canadian government is slow to enforce the Commission's resolutions and refuses to ratify the international convention on the rights of aboriginal peoples.

Therefore, we believe that the first thing this government needs to do is to sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That is our first recommendation.

Our second recommendation for the Canadian government is to allocate the money needed to improve the living and housing conditions in aboriginal communities, and to the improve funding for infrastructure in these communities. I very strongly support what Chief Picard said earlier.

Need I point out that there are still aboriginal communities that do not have access to running water or electricity? In most communities, families are packed into homes that become small because of the size of the families and the shortage of housing.

Need I point out that aboriginals have a functional illiteracy rate that is four times higher than the Quebec rate, an infant mortality rate that is three and a half times higher, a suicide rate that is six times higher for young people under 20, and incomes that are 33% lower? The situation is unfortunately not much different today. In some communities, the suicide rate in adolescents and young adults is 20 times higher than the rate in the rest of Canada.

Many studies, and often tragedies, have shown that young aboriginals are more often exposed to problems such as alcohol abuse and drug addiction. Combined with pervasive poverty, persistent racism, and a legacy of colonialism, aboriginal peoples have been caught in a cycle that has been perpetuated across generations. This was a quote from an excerpt of Roy Romanow's report. In light of this, the education of young aboriginal people becomes a serious challenge.

In Quebec, there are two types of communities: treaty communities, those that signed the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, which have their own school boards; and non-treaty communities, which receive funding from the federal government and are governed by band councils. In our third recommendation, we are calling on the Canadian government to grant funding to non-treaty schools that is comparable to the funding of treaty schools. Band schools are currently subject to an outdated funding formula that disregards costs.

I will share with you some interesting statistics. I encourage the committee's researcher to take note. In our schools, there are zero dollars for the integration of technology, zero dollars for school libraries, zero dollars for vocational courses in high school, zero dollars for sport and leisure extracurricular activities, zero dollars for adapting to the education reforms implemented in Quebec, and zero dollars for young people to receive a diversified curriculum. The unemployment rate among young first nations people is 32%, three times the rate among non-aboriginals in Quebec, and 49% of them do not have a high school diploma.

We cannot afford to wait any longer. The Canadian government can invest in infrastructures to face the economic crisis, but it can and must immediately invest in aboriginal communities to face the humanitarian crisis they are experiencing. This is close to home. It is not happening in another country; it is in ours.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Ms. de Sève, if I understand correctly, you have nothing to add. It is too soon. Thank you.

We will now hear from Betty McLeod and Sylvie St-Martin, from the organization AGAPE.

[Betty McLeod, Treasurer, AGAPE]

Good morning, and thank you for having us today.

I apologize; we do not have any documents to distribute. I was just invited. I was asked to appear and I am here. I will send a briefing note shortly. It will be a bit more detailed than the speech I will give in the five minutes I have been allotted.

If you do not mind, I will speak in English, since that is my first language.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Of course. That is one of Canada's two official languages.

[Betty McLeod]

I represent the non-profit organization AGAPE, which serves English-speaking and multicultural communities in Laval.

AGAPE is the one English-speaking organization serving all the needs of the community.

In Laval, the situation has deteriorated greatly over the past 20 to 25 years. Laval was considered one of the richest cities in Quebec. Unfortunately, the homeless situation has increased drastically over the past few years, and many of our homeless, especially young people, have taken refuge in Laval, hoping to find a little bit of security there, compared to the great cities like Quebec and Montreal.

We meet these homeless people on a regular basis. Some of them come from as far away as Halifax, Moncton, and Toronto because they feel it's safer here, which surely doesn't help the situation in Laval. Because of the increase in the homeless situation, crime rates are on the rise, material needs are on the rise, food is lacking, and so on, and for all of that, my organization is involved in attempting to put out some small fires.

We've applied recently for a grant to open a centre to receive these homeless and change their way of life, which is going to be quite a task for us, but we're up for the job. However, we have a serious problem with the newly arrived immigrants, the refugees in waiting. These people come to Montreal and decide to come to Laval because, again, they think it's a safer area to live in. These refugees in waiting find themselves turned down by landlords because they're not a sure rent. They're turned down by society because they're coming from another country. When we talk about racism, we know what we're talking about. Many of them have to take to the streets because they can't find a place to live. This is also where we come in.

I'm going to tell you in a few words that the waiting period for a refugee in waiting to get a temporary work permit is too long. We would like to recommend that we activate files to get these people on the job market. There are many ways of finding work in Laval. These people are willing to work for minimum wage as long as they can survive. They do not wish to fall into the cracks of society and live on social welfare, but right now they're trapped on welfare, with a minimum income. Some of them come to us with their bags, looking for a place to live.

It's very important that we activate their files and also that we activate their dossiers: are we going to keep them or not? Sometimes it takes four to five years. During that period of four or five years, these people, again, lack every essential for the needs in their lives.

I'm sorry. I prepared these notes as I came in this morning and I know that I'm forgetting half of the stuff. I could talk to you all day about AGAPE. People like Raymonde and Tom really know what I'm talking about.

Reviewing the files sometimes takes four years or six years. The needs increase and the problems increase. The owners don't want to deal with people who have no money. As you know, the landlords don't want to deal with anybody who is poor.

On the other situation with young kids, the homeless youth, we have to find ways and means to get these people out of their situations. Here's what I would recommend. I know it's not going to happen, but I would love to see senior members of Parliament come and spend a couple of days--in my case, in Laval, and also with the people of the first nations--and live what we go through every day, live the situations that we find ourselves in, and meet the homeless people we meet. They could meet them and ask them why they're on the street. Some of them have a very good reason.

Besides activating those files, visible minorities are a problem, in that you know that racism exists and you know that in Laval it's really on the rise, and it is a problem to try to find a better way of life for these people. I don't know what we can do about that, but I'm submitting it to you.

I'm putting the ball in your court, Madam Folco, and we'll talk about it.

Laval received $919,000 from 2007 to 2009 to serve the homeless projects, which is a far cry from the needs that we have.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you very much, Madam McLeod.

Madam St-Martin, do you wish to add anything? There will be questions.

We will now hear from the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques.

Mr. Faucher.

[Claude Faucher, Vice-President, Centrale des syndicats démocratiques]

I will make the general presentation and my colleague will be able to answer questions as required.

The CSD is a congress of unions located in Quebec. We represent 70,000 workers. While we have workers from the health and social services network and from municipalities, we are mainly involved in the private sector. The CSD is also a member of the Collective for a Poverty-Free Quebec. As such, we completely support the proposals that have been made by previous speakers.

Additionally, we think that there are other ways to fight poverty and to prevent people from becoming poor even though they may not currently be. As an example, the employment insurance program could be enhanced to allow people to live a little better, with a little more dignity. Consider the eligibility criteria that are not the same everywhere because they depend on the regional unemployment rate. We feel that they should be made uniform and that a total of 360 hours of work should qualify people for employment insurance. Other provisions should be corrected, such as the length of the benefit period, which should be 50 weeks in all cases, and the benefit rate, which should be 60% in all cases. As one political party has proposed, the waiting period could also be eliminated.

This combination of changes to the employment insurance program would result in a large number of those without work in the current financial crisis having a marginally decent income. Another measure that is part of the joint platform of Quebec's four labour congresses is the creation of an income support program for older workers.

You are well aware that, at the moment, the forestry and manufacturing sectors are severely affected, that a number of businesses are closing down, and that there are a number of mass layoffs. When you are young, properly educated and with marketable skills, everything is fine, you can always try to find a job as long as jobs are available in your area. But, when you reach a certain age—an age that we have set at 55 and older—it is more difficult to find a job.

In fact, older workers definitely face unspoken discrimination as they look for jobs. In addition, society being what it is, people at that certain age today very often left school young and worked only in one company doing one very specific task. Now, those people do not have the necessary skills to get a reasonable and well paying job close to their homes. For those people, it is a crisis. They have to say goodbye to a job that they have done for a very long time and that they have enjoyed, at the same time as they have contributed to the advancement of society with their taxes and their efforts. They also feel the loss in the complete helplessness they feel without the necessary skills to quickly find a reasonable job close to their homes. What happens to these people? They are completely disillusioned by the system and, once they can no longer receive employment insurance, what prospects do they have? Do they have to go on welfare as a last resort? It is possible.

Then, some of them have managed to earn good salaries working in manufacturing and forestry. Over the years, they have managed to put a little money aside, which they have used to acquire some property, a little house, a car, perhaps even a cottage, who knows? When the time comes to apply for welfare, they have to get rid of their possessions, as if it was a sin to have acquired them. But they are caught up in a mass layoff because their companies have shut down, for which they bear absolutely no responsibility.

So they are left high and dry; something has to be done for them because they are powerless and do not have the means to help themselves. Young people today are fine because they can go on the Internet, but for people who are 55, 60, 62 years old, it is not quite so simple. Those are the people that we have to help.

Our proposal is that, when a person reaches 55 years of age or more and is part of a collective dismissal, as defined in the Act Respecting Labour Standards—a layoff involving not fewer than 10 employees of the same establishment in the course of two consecutive months, or when the establishment closes—that person could, if he or she has worked for 10 years in the last 30...

You may ask why 10 years in the last 30. It is simple. Labour casualization is now a factor. Jobs have become less and less secure over the years and people have been forced to do only insecure work, as my colleague has described. As a result, these people, often women, have not been able to work continuously all through those last 30 years. We feel that, as long as they have worked for 10 years or so in the last 30, they should be eligible for an income support program for older workers, if the skills that they have already acquired and those required by the current labour market do not match and, as a result, they cannot find a reasonably well-paying job.

We are not asking the federal government to pay the entire bill. We have already approached the Quebec government, and they have agreed to establish a program and to contribute 30% of the costs. It is now up to the federal government to buy into a program like that and to contribute 70% of the costs.

This did not come out of thin air. In the 1970s, programs already existed for textile and clothing workers. Later, the idea spread to asbestos and to regions coping with economic difficulty, but that was abolished in 1997. The idea could be revived as a new income support program for older workers.

That would allow them to live with dignity until the normal retirement age of 65, without being forced to get rid of their little nest egg and to feel inadequate because they do not have the means and the knowledge to be able to find a job worthy of the name close to their home.

There is also the whole question of social housing. That came up a little earlier. We could deal with that.

In conclusion, the Canada Health Act is now widely seen to be of little value and people are looking for all sorts of ways to be able to privatize. The privatization of health care restricts access to health care. We think that the privatization door should be locked and bolted and that the Canada Health Act should be applied in its entirety so that people cannot start to get rich on the backs of the sick.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you, Mr. Faucher.

We have finished the first presentations. You will now be asked questions.

I remind you that you have seven minutes in total for both the question and the answer.

Ms. Minna.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your presentation this morning.

I concur with almost everything that you said. I have some questions to ask.

If I may, I will start with Monsieur Picard and Monsieur Lafrenière.

I apologize, I am going to ask my question in English. That will be quicker.

I don't have any real questions as to the presentation that was made with respect to the needs. That's really obvious with respect to the aboriginal communities.

And, of course, Mr. Lafrenière, as for the presentation you made in terms of the areas of priority, we've looked at these many times before: housing, income security, education, and so on.

My question to both of you is a different one. Is the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs a problem in terms of delivery of the mechanism and how we deal with these issues in this country? I am curious to see whether or not we're stuck in a rut in terms of the administrative mechanism we're using in interfacing with these issues and with the communities. Is there a different way of doing it that would be more effective?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

To whom is the question directed?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

It's to both Mr. Picard and Mr. Lafrenière.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Mr. Picard.

[Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard]

Thank you.

I can try to start answering that question, if I understood it correctly.

The question has certainly been documented more than once over the last 15, 20, 25 or 30 years. It was also likely analyzed a number of times by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

The problem lies mainly in the fact that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development really has the final say over everything to do with every area of activity in our communities. That is what has to change. Unfortunately, that is what is lacking in the relationship between the federal government and our communities. The relationship is one-sided: the only side that counts is the side that provides the resources. Almost all the receiving is done by our communities. Even those resources are inadequate.

First of all, it has to be clearly determined whether the resources are meeting the need. As an example, I am going to use the comparatively recent announcement, from a little earlier this year, of several million dollars for housing. It means about $45 million over the next two years for our region of Quebec.

Once again, the criteria for assigning those amounts are determined by the federal government. But, together with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, we are involved in a process that is supposed to give us a voice. But it does not translate into concrete measures that correspond to the reality of our communities as we live it. That is what makes me say that the measures being announced are still somewhat inadequate.

The last thing that I would like to say about this is that intentions are good, but unfortunately, they do not correspond to the realities of the housing. We have said it and we have documented it: in Québec alone, to meet our housing needs, 8,000 new houses would have to be built tomorrow morning. That shows that the budgeted $45 million are a long way from the $400 million we need.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you.

That gives me a clear answer, Mr. Lafrenière.

Very quickly, because I only have seven minutes left...

[Nicole de Sève, Manager, Social issues, Centrale des syndicats du Québec]

My answer will be very clear.

The education funding formula for non-conventioned communities, for band-run schools, that is, was developed in 1998. It does not take into account technological development, as an example. The Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador did an outstanding job on this. The supporting figures make it glaringly obvious. There are new areas of professional training that did not previously exist. So the formula has not even been indexed.

In addition, the resources are not adequate to cover the costs of salaries, facilities, textbooks and all the equipment that a school needs to provide quality education.

So we have to ask the question: do we want to keep our young people ignorant? By keeping them ignorant, we keep them poor.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I understand. Thank you.

My next question is for Madam Gauvin.

You were talking about part-time work and so on, and I understand the issue very well. Women, as we all know, tend to be the larger number of the workers who are in part-time work. Also, in the most recent figures in the last month, the job creation has been in the self-employed area where, of course, people don't have pensions and don't have EI and what have you, because they're not covered yet.

Does your research show what is happening right now to women, especially immigrant women and other minorities, in this particular area with respect to their ability to survive the economic downturn in regard to their inability to collect EI or other programs because of their in-and-out precarious situation? Have you done any studies that look specifically at the most vulnerable?

[Mélanie Gauvin]

I do not have the data on employment insurance, but I know that studies dealing with it have been published. They tell us that, for immigrants, especially women, the more recent the immigration, the less stable their situation and therefore, the lower the income.

A male immigrant who has been in Canada for less than five years is slightly better off than a woman in the same situation. In terms of the difference in salary, the worst situation is the immigrant woman who has been in Canada less than five years. These are also often people working for minimum wage. If you compare the salary of a woman in that category to the salary of a Canadian man in a stable job, you can see a considerable gap.

I do not have all the data with me today. But I think it was a study published by Statistics Canada or by the Institut de la statistique du Québec. So it is quite a reliable source. I do not know if that answers your question.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you.

I now give the floor to Mr. Lessard.

You have seven minutes.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to find you back in a position that I knew well six years ago. I am going to turn the second part of my time over to Ms. Beaudin.

Welcome and thank you for being with us today.

I would like to start with the situation of the First Nations that Mr. Picard and Mr. Lafrenière spoke about. I will ask Mr. Picard first.

When talking about the standard of living of First Nations, I find it quite troubling that, not only do I have the impression that we are more or less in the same situation as we were at the beginning of the 1980s, I am almost convinced of it. I grew up in northern Quebec. I have had a lot of interaction with Aboriginal nations in my life, mostly the Algonquin, but also the Cree. I feel that I am hearing the same thing as I heard then, particularly before 1990. In 1990, you obtained that kind of commitment from the Canadian government, and it was unanimous. The parties agreed to reduce poverty, and, among the programs designed to achieve that, some specifically targeted First Nations.

I followed the work that you did in Mashteuiatsh in 2006 very closely, as well as the work the following year in Val d'Or. I find it astonishing that, 17 years later, you are still bringing up the question of a lack of information and other basic questions like that. Mr. Picard, you wanted a commitment to create 10,000 jobs for Aboriginal peoples in the first 10 years. When I think about what was done before 1990, I realize that that is what we were saying then as well.

Last night, I read the work done by the First Nations Human Resources Development Commission of Quebec. I had not had the opportunity to do that before. Once again, I felt that I was going back to the development concerns that were being dealt with back then. In our work, our desire—and I think that all parliamentarians are of the same mind— is to correct that.

How is it that things are not moving forward? For some Aboriginal communities, things have even moved backwards. At least, that is what I see. What is the problem? It is not just about the bucks.

[Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard]

A lot of it is, as you say, about the bucks. You mentioned the First Nations Human Resources Development Commission of Quebec. That exists because of agreements that we have been signing with the federal government since 1995. I think that we can recognize—just as I did earlier—that there is some effort in funding for housing. But, if that effort is only 10% or 20% of the real need, it means very little and no concrete steps to meet those needs can be taken.

The same goes for employment and training. Despite the fact that agreements have existed since 1995 and that they are ongoing, even if we are in a transitional period—they are supposed to be renewed in 2010—we see a growing deficit over the years because the amounts that we receive are not indexed. For example, to reflect our communities' specific demographics, if we maintain the same amounts we have been receiving since 1995 and translate them to today's reality, the conclusion has to be that we are working at about 50% of our capacity. But we should be trying to make up that missing percentage so that we can meet the needs. The data shows that the needs are real. The unemployment rate in our community is a little more than 55% at regional level.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

What do we have to do differently to make up that difference? Are there things that we have to do differently? Let us understand each other. Certainly, we can see that the Canadian government, the steward of most obligations to Aboriginal peoples, has not done a number of things. But I wonder whether some things should not be done differently.

I want to know if we are about to do all this work for nothing again. I do not blame the native peoples, I am very aware of the Canadian government's responsibility. This is its only real responsibility to Aboriginal people.

[Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard]

Mr. Lessard, with all due respect to your committee, the people who should be listening are unfortunately not listening. I find that really regrettable, not to say frustrating and shocking. That is why I said at the outset that I am tired of making presentations before standing committees and parliamentary commissions. We give the same speech each time.

In 1992, a commission was established such as we had never seen before. It made more than 400 recommendations to improve the situation in our communities. One of the major recommendations was that the budget of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at the time should be indexed to about $1.5 billion. Extend that over the next 20 years and perhaps we may see some changes in our communities. Solving a number of our concerns will require concrete steps, ranging from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Aboriginal Peoples to local land claims.

My own nation has been sitting at a negotiating table for 35 years now and there is no sign on the horizon of a short-term or medium-term solution. Our communities are doing well in this situation in spite of everything, so I feel that we have no other choice but to respect the political process. At the same time, we have to be consistent and we have to take care of the needs expressed by our community. Otherwise, the community will say that the political process is really not producing any results, because the fundamental situation has not changed.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Is the answer not to change the nature of the political responsibility?

[Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard]

One of the major recommendations of the Royal Commission is that the relationship between the state and our communities must not only be rethought, it must be redesigned.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you.

Mr. Mulcair.