Good morning. Thank you, chair and committee, for the opportunity to be a witness today.
My apologies to my colleagues. Ralph Cleary could not be here and Dave Sergerie is experiencing some technical difficulties from Val-d'Or. I will present this on their behalf.
This is my third experience as a witness with the HUMA committee. I was at two former ones on behalf of the AFN technical working group. Good morning, Judy, it is my pleasure to follow you.
Although my presentation touches on first nations in Quebec, I am also an active member of the AFN technical working group, so the experiences that we have in Quebec are equally experienced by our counterparts across Canada in first nations ASETS holders.
I represent the First Nations Human Resources Development Commission of Quebec. We are 29 first nations communities, and we also hold the urban agreement and have 33 service centres across Quebec, which is a province that canvasses the situation of first nations across Quebec with respect to urban milieux, remote rural, and on- and off-reserve realities. Our working-age population is 45,000; 35% of those are between the ages of 15 and 29. We cover an immense territory and we manage all agreements signed by the AFNQL in the area of employment and training.
So far, I've found that the general context of this renewal of the ASETS, as we heard as we head towards the second generation of ASETS, is that it is very different from past agreements. In large part, it is because of the Canada job fund that was announced in the budget of 2013 that is currently being discussed between Ottawa and the provinces. More and more funds are being kept in Ottawa, which we've also seen in recent years with the ASEP, ASTSIF, and SPF. More power is being given to employers to determine training needs for first nations. Subsequently, these changes will lead to largely diminished Canada-province labour market agreements. That will affect first nations if this is an indication of how Ottawa is planning to modify its funding agreements with aboriginal people. It would seem at least possible, based on the past five years' experience. The bottom line is, would this approach be favourable or not to first nations?
In terms of centralized funding, we have seen three things happen so far. One positive is that it has been an incentive to acquire and use some very useful business skills. We build strong businesses, business plans, and proposals; we implemented and targeted initiatives; we are getting partners to commit. Yet, I believe, we would have acquired these skills nonetheless, without the guidance of the ASETS. We were moving towards this, maybe not as quickly. We've learned to adapt very quickly to this new agreement.
As far as the more negative aspects of centralized funding go, let me just mention two. By funnelling all extra funding through targeted and proposal-based opportunities instead of injecting the funds directly into the AHRDS and ASETS, the department has greatly affected our capacity to keep up with demographics and inflation. On this note, let me just state that our personal, individual purchasing power of our organization has decreased 55% since 1999. To compensate for this, and to pursue our development, we've had to enter into numerous other agreements, which were developed, negotiated, managed, and reported on, each with its own distinct accountability. As a matter of fact, from 2011-12 to 2012-13, we were able to increase our non-ASETS funding from $2.7 million to $4.7 million. To achieve this, we had to manage ten additional agreements for a total of 22 agreements with basically the same personnel. It just goes to show that there's a cost to partnering, not only benefits.
Getting back to the second part of our initial question on the new ASETS—should more power be given to employers, or to provinces or to Canada for that matter?
I think the real question is whether any organization or agency is better equipped or better prepared than we are to deal with the complex issues and challenges that we face daily at many levels, from the front-line workers to our chiefs and authorities. If someone asks us if we're getting people into jobs, I think of the 50% of all employment and training measures that yield a positive result: about half are employed and half have returned to school. If you ask me if those numbers could be higher, I think they could be, but that would require the sustained development of internal and external capacities, a favourable economic context, and a revamped relationship between the department and first nations. I'll get back to that in my closing arguments.
If someone were to twist the question and ask us if it's worthwhile keeping the assets when about 50% of employment and training initiatives yield a negative result, I would quickly remind them that each negative result is only one extra step towards employment and that we are not Canada's aboriginal placement agency going only for the quick wins, but rather we are the driving force behind the empowerment of countless individuals within a global first nations society.
When the scrutiny becomes a little too critical, I can't help but wonder if we were to replace all our staff with the same number of federal and provincial technicians and professionals whether the results could really be better. Isn't it possible that they'd be a whole lot worse? Taking a client, finding the right training institution or employer or professional service based on a profound understanding of what it is to be first nation: we can't see Canada or the province or employers doing this on our behalf.
We are meeting with companies and giving them an accurate account of what we have to offer, what to expect, and what we expect, and then building and maintaining a relationship while respecting land claims and political agendas. We can't see anyone else doing this on our behalf. Mediating, translating, building a community workforce, collaborating with all other sectors and aboriginal organizations, promoting education as a means of empowering yourself without compromising your culture: we can't see anyone doing these things on our behalf.
What am I getting at with all of this? If the perfect conditions were in place, the department would at least match the inflation rate. It would streamline all funding through the assets, and it would implement a single comprehensive accountability system for all federal funding. If the department is set on not increasing the global funding of all assets while continuing to centralize all extra funding, at the very least it should keep those funds generic.
Sometimes three-way partnerships are dependent on the financial participation of the department, so when funds are not available, the department is preventing one of us from doing what it is expecting us to do. In the past few years this situation has existed for major files like adult education, vocational training, and essential skills. Also, in case the plan was ready to apply the Canadian grant approach to assets, the department should let aboriginal organizations continue to drive aboriginal employment and training.
Basically, we're saying that now that we've implemented the 19 intervention action plans, which forced us to reprogram our data system, deploy it in all 33 of our service points, retrain front-line workers, redeploy in all 33 of our service points, and offer support, all of which we have accomplished with all administrative and accountability requirements, we think that the successor strategy for the assets should remain close to its current structure, thus letting us invest more and more time and effort in the labour force and labour market development instead of implementing new bureaucratic processes. At the very least it would be helpful.
In closing, I would like to suggest a better future for our relationship. How far have we come? We've been doing this for 20 years. We've met every new set of requirements that was ever asked of us. We've developed the full spectrum of services, from essential skills to employment integration.
We have good working relations with other federal departments; with various provincial departments; with the other agreement holders in Quebec, who are the Cree and Inuit; with the first nations agreement holders from other provinces; and with numerous training institutions and employers. I wanted to give you one example to show that we've held our part, and now it's time for ESDC to step up to the plate and become a true partner with shared responsibility and mutual benefits. We always talk about partnership, and I really believe that first nations in Canada have to solidify this partnership before we can look at other partnerships. I think it's the foundation of the assets and the success of first nations and Canadians in general.
I would like to thank you all for allowing me to present this report. It wasn't written by me. It was written by Dave, and I had really hoped that he could have presented this himself. We are always handing over the reins to our young and upcoming technicians.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and committee.