Human Resources Committee on March 31st, 2010

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your presentation.

I heard you mention things like housing, and of course education is another big issue, as well as employment. Certainly you've used the words that the programs that are put forward should be Métis-specific in nature and specific types of action. I appreciate that when we talk about aboriginal programs it may include first nations, Inuit, and Métis, but it may not always work for the Métis.

Do I understand that you would like to see programs that take your specific needs and barriers that are unique to yourself into account in the design of the program? Or are you saying that there should be new programs? What do you see as some of the barriers and differences between the Canadian population, the first nations population, and yours that would require that specificity in the programs or the actions taken?

[David Chartrand]

I've been involved in politics for a long time. Sometimes there could be enough money as it now sits to actually make a big difference. The challenge we face is that it's not steered in the right direction. It got lost in a maze of end results where we don't know what the success was.

For example look at the Métis-specific reference I make, the AHRDA program. It's one of the best programs that ever came out of this country for the Métis people. That's all it is, giving us the resources to help fund and decide what training we would institute, where, and how we'd embark upon ensuring that our students are focused in the right direction.

Out of that, for example, MMF has been the lead in the top tenders. There are 80 AHRDAs in Canada. The first nations, Inuit, and Métis have AHRDAs. The Métis have five AHRDAs in five provinces. Bands are structured completely different from us.

Overall, MMF, for example, has been in the top ten in the last 10 years. We're very proud of our success. We've also employed 35,000 Métis people in the last 10 years. It's quite a dramatic opportunity for us in the sense that we now have the tools to bring in the private sector to be a partner with us.

We find most of our success in the Métis homeland is with small and medium-sized sector businesses. Yes, we get opportunities with the large enterprises--whether it's Ledcor or big companies--but it's just a hiccup, I will call it. It's like our Canadian dollar, it goes up and down--this kind of concept. But we find that our success is really balanced on the choices we can make.

The AHRDA program that I will emphasize here is being renegotiated in a sense. It's called ASEP now. What concerns me the most right now with the bureaucracy is that they are trying to micromanage it. From my perspective, if the wheel is not broken and we're successful, why change it? We're pushing very, very hard to convince the minister--who we just had a good meeting with--to move ahead in this ongoing direction.

You can measure that Métis guidance. You can know that the Canadian tax dollars, including the Métis tax dollars, that we collect are actually benefiting not only the Métis but Canada as a whole, because there are targets and there are ways to measure that success.

Clearly that's the path, and we should use that model as the example. It would make such a significant difference in the way we do it. If we take all of the aboriginal funding that we have in this country and we start dividing it Métis-specific, first nations, and Inuit-specific, and then put targets and measures, I think you'll see a massive change. It might not even require an investment of new dollars.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

So just making sure there are specific allocations with some accountability in terms of how it's managed and the effect it's having.

In my sense, it would take a certain measure of collaboration or partnership, perhaps, where you are part of the process, the design of the program and the monitoring of it, and then the follow-up on it. Is that what you're getting at in terms of what needs to happen?

[David Chartrand]

In my view, accountability is essential. It has to come. I've been elected four successful times. I have elections coming and I can anticipate being elected again for the fifth successful time. I always tell my people that my job as president is to manage their money. At the end of the day, I have to be accountable. I can tell you that we're definitely strongly accountable in the sense of our design. We continue to stress how we can be more effective in how we expend our resources. For example, our challenge is this. This committee wants to talk about poverty, about how you change the very essence of that process. It's by helping governments like the Métis government.

The more successful I get, the more government wants to cut me. I'm punished for being successful. That's wrong. Somebody should be praising us for being successful. It's scary. I have to hide my assets, because if you find out I have money, you want to take it from me. I'm not joking about that. I'll give you an example. We bought buildings, and these buildings are now profitable. The government came back to me and said they should own half of those profits. I asked, “Why should you? Because we rent from you? Well, you rent from other people and you don't go after the profits from the private sector. So why would you take half of mine?” But that was the mentality. We had to fight with them.

Somehow we have to think outside of the box and start actually enhancing the ability... As I said, I'm not coming to this table to ask for a bunch more money as a solution. That's not the solution. The solution is putting a plan of action where you can measure it, make it accountable, and target it at the same time. If we produce, don't punish us. Praise us and give us more.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Chair, I have a couple of points. I'm not sure what my time is like.

With respect to housing, for instance, we have a certain measure of funds allocated for seniors and those who are disabled. Then we have another chunk of billions of dollars of housing for the aboriginals in the north and so on. Are those programs not working for your community? How would you see their being designed differently so you could use them to maximum advantage just in that specific area of housing?

[David Chartrand]

There are two fronts on that. First, the houses that INAC builds are not for us, they are for first nations. We haven't had any houses built in the communities, as I said, for over a decade for sure.

We don't have any senior homes. We had a few built at one time, back in the late eighties or early nineties, but that was it. Overall, our seniors live together with their families and they're all piled up in the house.

The challenge that I think the federal government faces right now--and I say this openly--is that when you transfer funds under CST, for example, the Canadian social transfer process, you give it to the province, but you don't put any targets on it. You don't put any accountability on that province. You don't put any measurables on that province as to how it is spending the federal money that you gave to the province to make sure it's actually going to my people and serving my people. There is none. So where they take that money and use it in their provincial budget has a negative effect on our side.

One of the issues I've been pushing for is that if I'm going to be accountable, so should they. From my perspective, I think if the federal government wants to transfer money to the province for housing, it should make a clear distinction of some targets that it has to measure against the Métis people. Those are my tax dollars you are using, too.

So as I said, I'd love to see that kind of accountability take place on both sides. From our perspective, I think you'll see a major difference. Even with social housing, will they come into our communities with it? I hope they do. The premier says they are going to come to some of my communities, but I don't know how many of them will get lucky.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you, Mr. Chartrand.

We're going to try for a very quick second round of questions. We'll only have time for three minutes from each questioner.

We'll begin with Mr. Savage, please.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chartrand and Ms. Watteyne, for coming.

You mentioned some work you had done with CCL, the Canadian Council on Learning.

[David Chartrand]

Yes.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I'm just going to read from the report that they've just released:

Aboriginal people in Canada have long understood the role that learning plays in building healthy, thriving communities. Despite significant cultural and historical differences, Canada’s First Nations, Inuit and Métis people share a vision of learning as a holistic, lifelong process.

It goes on to say:

However, the effectiveness of these decisions still typically rely on conventional measurement approaches that offer a limited—and indeed incomplete—view of the state of Aboriginal learning in Canada.

CCL has come up with a measurement, which they call “The State of Aboriginal Learning in Canada: A Holistic Approach to Measuring Success”.

Are you familiar with that? Were you involved in that? Do you have any views on that?

[David Chartrand]

My office was involved, but at this point I would stray away from answering directly. I would have to reflect on the question a bit more and read the full context of what the recommendation means in its entirety.

Clearly, from our perspective, the holistic kind of concept is more than learning, getting an education; it's learning how to be proud of who we are and the culture of our people.

I think it's essential for anybody to have an education. My mom raised me to never forget where I come from. I think the pride of establishing that at a young age has a significant impact in the long run. You can have a master's degree in some field, but if you don't know much about who you're dealing with, then it has no significant impact.

Maybe the point they're trying to raise holistically would be... From our perspective, we always look at it in that family context. That's why we're so close-knit, as a nation.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

In this holistic measurement, they speak about, for example, sources and domains of knowledge, exposure to elders, time spent with elders, use of traditional skills, participation in cultural ceremonies. They've taken this and they've worked with your office, and other aboriginal organizations, to try to come up with a way of measuring.

This is a bit of a political issue that we don't need to get into now, but CCL is losing its funding. They were funded for five years. They were allowed to exist on fumes for a year, and now they're gone, except for some funding from outside of Canada. I think it's a shame. Obviously some of the work they've done has been very innovative in trying to identify how we close the gap on education attainment between Canada's aboriginal and non-aboriginal people.

It's not so much what happens in terms of graduating from university but how we assure they get that opportunity to get to university. I recognize that the Métis have not been part of the PSSSP and other things like that, which probably they should be.

Anyway, it seems to be a shame that we're going to lose the opportunity to evaluate innovative approaches to looking at aboriginal learning, which would eventually certainly have an impact on poverty.

[David Chartrand]

Oh, it definitely would.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Mr. Vellacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

David, I want to ask some questions, but first I want to be sure that some of the programs I will list here include your people. I want to be sure that we have nothing falling between the cracks, that your people are not omitted from some of these.

The government has attempted to do some things for vulnerable Canadians to give a hand up and get them back into the economy. The working income tax benefit, to make work pay and help low-income Canadians over the welfare wall, helped some 900,000 people in the first year.

David, I take it your people can get the WITB, the working income tax benefit.

[David Chartrand]

I'm sure they will, yes.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Okay. In terms of seniors, there were tax cuts, and about one million low-income Canadians are not paying taxes at all any more. That included 85,000 seniors.

I think I'll answer that question for you. I assume, again, that Métis elders would be a part of that as well.

[David Chartrand]

Well, for specific questions like that, it would be no different from the questions that were posed to me here. I think it would be only fair for me to statistically capture the essence of what that benefit would be. I can say it would benefit some, of course, in some form or fashion, but I don't know how many. The true benefit factor would be something I'd have to reflect upon before answering.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Again, the Métis people are allowed into what's called the enhanced national child benefit and child tax benefit for low-income families. If you have low-income Métis families, you are a part of that as well. That's nothing that you're excluded from.

[David Chartrand]

Is that the $100 or--

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

No, I'm getting to that. That's called the UCCB. This is just--

[David Chartrand]

Oh, okay, all these acronyms are driving me crazy. But keep going.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

The child benefit, the CCTB, is the one I'm talking about specifically here.

[David Chartrand]

And that's the one that gives additional dollars.