FINA Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Finance

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, November 7, 2002

1305

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.))

Chief Sol Sanderson (Chakastaypasin Band Cree Nation)

1310

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Mr. Gerald Morin (President, Métis National Council)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Mr. Gerald Morin

1315

1320

1325

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Mr. Gerald Morin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Mr. Gerald Morin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Ms. Tina Anderson (Chairperson of the Board of Education, Northern Lights School Division)

1330

1335

Ms. Tina Anderson

1340

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Mr. Max Morin (Co-Chair, Nothern Development Board)

1345

Mr. Barrie Bergsma (Business Consultant, Nothern Development Board)

1350

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Mr. Bruce Ruelling (Chairman, Northern Teacher Education Program)

1355

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Mr. Bruce Ruelling

Mr. Elie Fleury (Director, Northern Teacher Education Program)

Mr. Bruce Ruelling

Mr. Elie Fleury

1400

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Ms. Sue Delanoy (Representative, Saskatchewan Early Childhood Association)

Mr. Bev Drew (Representative, Saskatchewan Early Childhood Association)

1405

Ms. Sue Delanoy

Ms. Bev Drew

Ms. Sue Delanoy

Ms. Bev Drew

Ms. Sue Delanoy

Ms. Bev Drew

Ms. Sue Delanoy

Ms. Bev Drew

Ms. Sue Delanoy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

1410

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Tina Anderson

Mr. Rick Casson

Ms. Tina Anderson

Mr. Rick Casson

Ms. Tina Anderson

Mr. Rick Casson

Ms. Tina Anderson

Mr. Rick Casson

Ms. Tina Anderson

Mr. Rick Casson

Ms. Tina Anderson

Mr. Ralph Pilz (Director of Education, Northern Lights School Division)

Mr. Rick Casson

Ms. Tina Anderson

Mr. Rick Casson

Ms. Tina Anderson

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. Bruce Ruelling

Mr. Elie Fleury

Mr. Rick Casson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Mr. Bruce Ruelling

Mr. Rick Casson

Chief Sol Sanderson

1415

Mr. Rick Casson

Chief Sol Sanderson

Mr. Rick Casson

Ms. Sue Delanoy

Mr. Rick Casson

Ms. Sue Delanoy

Mr. Rick Casson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Ms. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance)

1420

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Ms. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Gerald Morin

Ms. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Gerald Morin

Chief Sol Sanderson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.)

Chief Sol Sanderson

1425

Mr. Gerald Morin

1430

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Mr. Max Morin

Mr. Rick Laliberte

1435

Ms. Tina Anderson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Chief Sol Sanderson

1440

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Sol Sanderson

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Gerald Morin

1445

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Gerald Morin

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Sue Delanoy

1450

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Ms. Sue Delanoy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Ms. Sue Delanoy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Mr. Pat Martin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Bev Drew

Ms. Sue Delanoy

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Sue Delanoy

Mr. Bev Drew

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Sue Delanoy

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Sue Delanoy

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Sue Delanoy

Ms. Bev Drew

Mr. Pat Martin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Mr. Pat Martin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Chief Sol Sanderson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Finance

NUMBER 023

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, November 7, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

· (1305)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.)): Pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), we continue our pre-budget consultation and discussion.

This afternoon session will terminate, colleagues, hopefully just before three o'clock so you can catch the bus to Winnipeg.

This is the ninth consecutive year that we're holding these hearings, and we try to hold them across Canada.

I'd like to welcome our panellists and get right to it. We'll have seven- or eight-minute formats for presentations, so that will leave ample time for dialogue and discussions with our members of Parliament.

From the Chakastaypasin Band Cree Nation I'd like to welcome Chief Sol Sanderson. I'll present the others as we go along.

Please, Chief Sanderson, if you could make your presentation.

Chief Sol Sanderson (Chakastaypasin Band Cree Nation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon to all the members and the guests who are here to make presentations.

We have substantial documentation, Mr. Chairman. The pre-budget exercise has major implications for us when we're looking at budgeting federally. As first nations, and being in the numbered treaty area, the documentation lays out a broader framework for guiding the fiscal relations arrangements between first nations and Canada. It also identifies the new strategy that's needed to advance the relationship. Examining what's there, we have to be prepared to address the fact that there are now moneys appropriated from Parliament for Indians to some 33 federal departments and agencies, yet the Minister of Indian Affairs only has access to about one-fifth of those revenues.

In addition, we need to discuss how we can look at moving forward with respect to the recognition of first nations fiscal regimes that are community-based and that include our own departments of finance and our own budgeting. It's the year 2002, Mr. Chairman, and I understand one of the fundamental principles of fiscal accountability is that you have to have a budget. We don't have budgets. What you call budgets for first nations are predetermined allocations. There's no such thing as first nations budgeting and budgets. I think it's high time we moved to budgeting and had the respect and recognition of the federal government for budgeting exercises.

When we examine the relationship that's governed by the inherent rights treaties--the Constitution Act 1982 and the royal proclamation--it's time we start budgeting or implementing the inherent rights by sector, and implementing the treaty rights and the provisions of treaty by sector in terms of the legal and fiscal requirements. That framework impacts on all departments and agencies of the federal government, including the Department of Finance.

When we examine the current status of the arrangements impacting on us, we need to look at those relationships. The rights are now recognized by the framework of inherent rights treaties, the royal proclamation and the Constitution of 1982. The inherent rights treaties and treaty rights are recognized, yet there's another element that's recognized but not being addressed, and that is the relationships that are established to that framework between first nations and Canada. The relationships recognized in that framework are the political relations that recognize the equality of government, jurisdiction, law, and courts between first nations governments, the federal government, and the provincial government; economic relations that provide for the recognition of a first nations economy; fiscal relations; and judicial relations.

What we're looking for is funding for our own first nations justice system, funding supporting our own first nations economy, and of course the funding that's needed for our governing operations and developments. In addition, there are the international relations recognized by the treaty and the framework, as it impacts on first nations, and the bilateral relationships there impacting on us.

When we look at the current status of funding, there's a need for increased funding. It has been over 20 years since we've had an increase in core funding for chiefs and councils. There are no chief and council salaries and salary grids. In the documentation you'll see a chart comparing what non-Indian leaders receive versus what we receive at the provincial, federal, and municipal level. That includes the benefits for being in office, and of course we also document the salaries and benefits that are received by leaders at the AFN and FSIN tribal council levels.

Nevertheless, we're expected to work with all those agencies, all those departments, and all those governments and at the same time try to find time and money to do work internally to take care of our business. It's time we had salary grids recognized for chiefs and councils.

I was elected for the first time in Indian politics when I was 15 years old. I'm now 61. I don't have a pension plan, even though I've been in Indian politics for over 40 years now. You go to elections and you can get elected for two terms and you have a lifetime pension plan.

When we look at the other areas that are underfunded that need increases, band support has not been increased for over ten years. Band employees have not been increased for over ten years. There are no salary grids for band employees either. We need salary grids.

When we look at the funding that's needed by sector, it's difficult to determine which program standards are governing programs and services to first nations, whether it's provincial law, federal law, or at the discretion of the manager and director of different agencies and departments.

When we examine the current status of funding, is it transferred to the Province of Saskatchewan through the Canada health and social transfer? We're talking about the $530 billion fund that was created and transferred to provincial and territorial governments from the feds to supplement the cost of living and health, social services, education, and income security.

Through the implementation of the social union framework agreement, we've been falling between the cracks. We need to set up a first nations and Canada social union strategy, implemented through our first nations social safety net that directs those transfer dollars right to the first nations by community.

We need to be prepared to support and get rid of the off-reserve and on-reserve Indian policy. Canada has agreements on social security guaranteeing standards of living for Canadians living in other countries. There's a social security agreement between Canada and Greece, Canada and Italy. If we need a social security agreement that deals with first nations and Canada relations to protect the rights of our people on or off reserve, then let's do it, but we need to address it and get rid of it.

We talk about the increased need for funding, then. There's also the matter of new funding. You have executive management staff in your operations, in your departments. We don't have executive management funds. For funding of our boards or committees, our senior or middle management, we need first nations executive management funding.

We need separate institutional funding. It comes out of the program operations and yours comes out separately through Public Works and Government Services Canada or in the provincial government systems.

When we look at the new funding that's needed, then, we're talking about getting in place, formally, chiefs and council salaries, guaranteed by treaty.

When we look at consolidating funding, we're not talking here in this proposal that you need to identify all new funding or increased funding. We need to redirect a major portion of that money that's out there and we need to talk to those federal departments and agencies and get the authority in place to be able to achieve that.

How do we do that? We need new fiscal agreements between first nations and Canada that provide for direct transfer payments on a government-to-government basis, community development or development agreements, fiscal agreements, impacting on every sector.

We generate funding on our own here, and the practice of Canadians generally is to match dollars. We're looking for similar arrangements respecting the matching of dollars so we can move ahead with initiatives in terms of the political developments, community development, and economic developments.

In addition to the presentation, Big Island Lake Cree Nation has a submission that speaks to their community-based implementation strategies and how they want to proceed with implementing new fiscal relations with Canada, and look at the implementation of their own budgeting. And they have their own laws in place in several areas.

· (1310)

What we're looking for is to broaden the scope here and elevate the agenda and take into account the responsibility to implement that framework.

I was around in 1982 when the constitutional talks were happening, and since then I haven't seen much done to implement that strategy. I don't feel that these issues are partisan ones. They're not NDP, Alliance Party, Conservative Party, or Liberal Party issues. These are issues that govern our relationships between first nations and Canada, and we want to pursue them in that light.

With that, thank you for the opportunity, and I hope you read the material. I'll see how much you've digested when I see the budget.

An hon. member: You're looking forward to the budget?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Well, I'll guarantee you that the material will form part of the record and the researcher will certainly apprise the committee of it, but I'm not sure that we can guarantee that you'll see everything you're asking for in the budget. Thank you, Chief Sanderson.

From the Métis National Council, I'd like to welcome Gerald Morin, president, and Lorna Docken, vice-president, from the MétisNation--Saskatchewan.

Are you going to be splitting your time, or who will make the presentation?

Mr. Gerald Morin (President, Métis National Council): I'll make the presentation, and she'll answer all the questions. She'll clear up the confusion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): He's the chief; he's delegating his authority.

Mr. Gerald Morin: Good afternoon. My name is Gerald Morin. I'm president of the Métis National Council, which represents the historic Métis nation within Canada at the national and international level.

The MNC received this mandate from Métis people and their communities throughout the Métis nation homeland based on the elected mandates of its governing members.

In beginning my presentation, I would like to thank the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance for this opportunity to make a pre-budget presentation. This is the MNC's first submission to this committee, and we hope to continue our participation within this forum for years to come.

I would also like to state that since this is the MNC's first appearance before the committee, my presentation will not have, as have those of some of your witnesses, the detailed economic analysis or specific recommendations that have been presented to you. The MNC currently does not have the capacity or available Métis-specific data needed to prepare this type of presentation on behalf of our people.

As I will outline within my presentation, the Métis nation currently faces unique challenges as an aboriginal people within the Canadian federation, and we hope that through upcoming legal and policy changes we will be in a better position to provide more thorough presentations to this committee in the future.

Irrespective of the deal and scope of our submission, I believe that my presentation will be helpful and insightful to this committee as you contemplate current and future social and economic spending for all Canadians, but in particular with respect to aboriginal peoples. I will be using my presentation to address the following issues: first, to educate the committee on who the Métis are; secondly, to identify some issues of importance that the committee should be aware of with respect to the Métis nation; and finally, to identify the Métis nation's priorities and issues for this upcoming budget as well as for future federal spending.

The Métis people are not just individuals of mixed aboriginal and European ancestry. We are a distinct aboriginal people that has existed and continues to exist within west central North America. Within Canada, the Métis nation homeland roughly includes northern Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, northwestern British Columbia, and parts of the Northwest Territories.

The genesis of the Métis people was more than just a mixing or adaptation of two divergent cultures. It was a continual evolution that culminated in the birth of a distinct aboriginal nation within Canada with its own unique history, language--the Michif language--music, dance, culture, self-government, dress, and way of life, and so on. Throughout our history, the Métis nation has acted collectively to protect and fight for our rights, land, and an ongoing existence as an aboriginal people within Canada.

Today this collectivity continues to exist from Ontario westward. Historic communities throughout our homeland continue to keep the Métis nation's distinct culture, language, values, and traditions alive. As well, significant numbers of our people are now a part of urban communities within Ontario, the prairies, and British Columbia. However, within these larger populations, there exist well-defined Métis communities.

Recently, after years of discussion and debate, the Métis nation has unanimously adopted a national definition that we are now in the process of uniformly implementing across the homeland, and the definition is contained in your kit. This is very significant, because we've been debating this issue for many years, and at our MNC annual assembly in Edmonton at the end of September this year we adopted a unanimous resolution supporting that definition based on historic Métis nation criteria: the historic Métis nation based in the Métis homeland in western Canada as a people who evolved, as a people with our own language, culture, traditions, political institutions, and so on.

Based on this definition, the MNC estimates we have approximately 300,000 citizens within Canada, largely living within the prairies as well as parts of Ontario, British Columbia, and the Northwest Territories.

Unfortunately, even though the current Liberal government committed to provide support to enumerate the Métis within the red book one, this has not yet been achieved. This estimate that I provide to you of 300,000 is based on Canada's aboriginal peoples survey and the membership lists of our governing members. Although the Métis are one of the three aboriginal peoples whose treaty and aboriginal rights are recognized and affirmed within section 35 of the Constitution, we continue to be denied the recognition and ability to exercise and enjoy our constitutionally protected rights due to established legal positions and policies of governments within Canada.

· (1315)

Currently we have no established processes to resolve or reconcile our outstanding legal issues and interests within the Canadian federation. For example, the federal government continues to deny the very existence of the Métis nation as a distinct aboriginal people with rights, and refuses to negotiate with the Métis nation on any substantive aboriginal rights-related issues without a decision from the courts.

Effectively these positions and ancillary policies on the part of the governments within Canada have rendered section 35's constitutional recognition and protection of Métis rights meaningless on a practical level for the last 20 years, since the patriation and the inclusion of section 35 back in 1982.

As well as a component of this current legal uncertainty surrounding the Métis, we are often left in limbo as to which level of government, federal or provincial, has jurisdiction and responsibility to deal with us. Because of the ongoing jurisdictional game played between the federal government and the provinces, we continue to fall through the cracks, and the gap between our children and the children of other Canadians continues to widen at an alarming rate.

For years the Métis nation has attempted to find a political solution to begin addressing the outstanding legal issues as well as the pressing socio-economic issues facing us within Canada, but to no avail. In 1992 we were extremely close, with the Métis nation accord that was a part of the Charlottetown accord package.

The Métis nation accord, which was signed by the federal government, the territories, and all provinces, agreed to federal jurisdiction for the Métis, a national definition, and a negotiations process. Unfortunately Charlottetown was rejected by the Canadian public at large, and the Métis nation accord as part of the overall Charlottetown package was not implemented.

Since that time, federal and provincial positions retrenched to not dealing with the Métis. Because of these political positions since the early 1990s and before, the Métis people have resorted to courts in order to seek justice.

To date, courts have been extremely sympathetic to the Métis when reviewing the story of government neglect and wilful blindness. For example, in addressing the issue of the crown's refusal to negotiate with the Métis, Justice Sharpe wrote the following on behalf of the Ontario Court of Appeal. He said:

“The basic position of the government seems to have been simply to deny that these rights exist, absent a decision from the courts to the contrary. While I do not doubt that there has been considerable uncertainty about the nature and scope of Métis rights, this is hardly a reason to deny their existence. There is an element of uncertainty about most broadly worded constitutional rights. The government cannot simply sit on its hands and then defend its inaction because the nature of the right or the identity of the bearers of the right is uncertain.”

After almost a decade of time-consuming and expensive litigation, I am pleased to say that next year, the first two Métis rights cases will be heard before the Supreme Court of Canada, R. v. Powley and R. v. Blais. The trial date for those cases has been set for March 17 in the Supreme Court of Canada. These will be landmark decisions, we believe, for the Métis, similar to those for other peoples, such as, for example, the Sparrow and Calder cases for the first nations.

We are confident that Powley will be a victory for the Métis, and that Blais will set out some important principles on how Métis relate to Canada's Constitution. These decisions will directly impact current government policies that deny the existence of Métis rights in our people and interests within Canada.

Two weeks ago, at a dinner with the reference group of ministers on aboriginal policy, the MNC tabled an outline of how we would like to see the federal government move forward with us in partnership in preparation for the decisions from the Supreme Court. For your information, I've included a copy of that submission in your kits.

I want to emphasize that if there is one thing that can be learned through decisions like R. v. Marshall on the east coast, it is the difficulty of negotiating after the fact. These upcoming cases provide a motivator for governments to get in front of the Métis agenda rather than wait until after the fact, which sometimes results in confrontations and confusion as well as additional costs.

· (1320)

For the record, the Métis agenda is not about establishing a separate billion-dollar department of Métis affairs or setting up separate schools or hospitals. The solution lies in having the political will to actually change a system that is so broken the reference group of ministers was created. We submit that it would be a social and economic and financial cost savings to proactively deal with the issues facing the Métis rather than just reacting. Continuing to delay dealing with the Métis nation will only end up costing Canada more in the long run in terms of taxpayers' dollars but also more importantly in terms of human and social costs.

· (1325)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): I have a slight problem. You're not even halfway through your presentation and you're already up to eleven minutes.

Mr. Gerald Morin: Okay, I'll wind it up very quickly.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): The fact is this will form part of the record. I want you to be aware of that. Maybe if you could just take one or two minutes to--

Mr. Gerald Morin: I will. Thank you.

With regard to social and economic issues, the main point we want to make is that we comprise about a quarter of the aboriginal population in Canada and currently we get about 2.4% of the resources that are dedicated for aboriginal people. Even within that 2.4%, we still have to compete with non-status Indians, friendship centres, and aboriginal women's organizations. You can see there's a real disparity there.

Because of the federal position on section 91(24) of The Constitution Act, 1867, namely that the federal government has no responsibility when it comes to the provision of programs and services and federal resources, by and large our people are left out and we get only a nominal share of the resources that are provided by the federal government. Anyway, that's the main point we want to make with respect to that issue.

In conclusion, these are real issues, and you have to report to Parliament and the finance committee. For us, because of that long history of denial, this is yet another opportunity to make our presentation to you, to make our pleas to you to say, look, please listen, take into serious consideration what we're saying, and assist us in terms of turning a new page in history by trying to ensure that there's recognition for our people, that we have a meaningful process to negotiate our rights, and that we get fair and equitable treatment when it comes to social and economic programs in Canada.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Thank you, Mr. Morin.

I'd like to now turn to the Northern Lights School Division and ask the chairperson of the board of education, Tina Anderson--and welcome also the director of education, Mr. Ralph Pilz--to make your presentation please.

Ms. Tina Anderson (Chairperson of the Board of Education, Northern Lights School Division): Good afternoon, everyone.

Ladies and gentlemen, MPs, and invited guests, I would like to begin this afternoon by giving you a very brief overview of our school division. We are a public provincial school division with approximately 25 schools with 4,500 students. Eighty-five percent of our student population is of aboriginal descent. Our school division encompasses the top half of the province of Saskatchewan. The geographical centre of the province of Saskatchewan is Weyakwin. That is where our school division starts. We basically go from the borders of Alberta, Manitoba, and the Northwest Territories down to just north of Prince Albert. We are a very large school division, and I'm sure you can imagine some of the hindrances that come to our school division in providing solid education in that type of atmosphere.

There are a couple of topics I would like to bring to your attention or discuss with you. The first is recruitment and retention of teachers, or basically professional staff, for the students in northern Saskatchewan.

In the past eight years Northern Lights School Division has recruited approximately 760 teachers. We employ, in any given year, 290 teachers. That tells you the rate of turnover we have in professional staff in northern Saskatchewan. This high rate of turnover is creating terrible strain on the continuity of the academic program in our school system in northern Saskatchewan. It affects our culture programs, our language programs, the academics, and the strategic direction we try to provide through the school division in order to accomplish goals that we set out. We find it extremely difficult to move ahead with an academic strategy, because we are recruiting staff at such a high rate in any given year. Two years ago, almost half of our teaching staff positions had to be refilled.

We're finding that professional development for the staff is ongoing and costly. We are constantly having to bring people up to speed and acclimatize them to conditions in northern Saskatchewan. In a lot of cases, because we are recruiting out of province, we are having to spend a lot of money getting people up to speed learning about Saskatchewan's curriculum.

We seem to just get things going quite well in the schools when teachers move on again. Teachers stay with us approximately one to two years before they move on to other positions. I think the only teachers we are finding who are staying long periods of time in northern Saskatchewan are the teachers we are growing through our own northern teacher education program, but we aren't able to produce enough of them to fill the staffing needs we have in northern Saskatchewan between Northern Lights School Division and the band schools.

We also have extremely high rates of replacement in administration staff in schools--principals and vice-principals. We're finding this is having a great effect upon the continuity of the programs and trying to move ahead with any type of strategic plan for the school division.

Basically, what it turns out to be is that it is most costly to the students of northern Saskatchewan. If we are extremely honest, we aren't able to provide the continuity and programming we would like to see happening.

If you have the handouts, we've provided you with some maps. The top part of the map indicates what is referred to in Saskatchewan as the northern administrative district. We have northern residents deductions at different rates across the northern administrative district. What we would like to see the federal government consider is providing the same rate of federal tax deduction all across the northern administrative district, which encompasses our entire school division. We feel this would be very important for us because it would add extreme benefits, and teachers would find coming to northern Saskatchewan more attractive. We would like consideration much the same as the Northwest Territories and other northern areas are experiencing.

· (1330)

We are finding that teachers—depending on what area of our school division they're in—are receiving different rates of benefits. So our request would be that the federal government take a serious look at that particular issue.

Something else we've included in our package is a healthy food study that was conducted by the chief medical health officer from northern Saskatchewan, Dr. James Irvine. He and his people went across the north, and basically found out what food costs in different parts of northern Saskatchewan, comparing it to other areas of northern Saskatchewan. You have the information to read at your leisure.

There are just a couple of things that I would like to point out. We feel it's very unfair that you are able to purchase alcohol at a uniform price in northern Saskatchewan. You can buy alcohol in Uranium City at the same price you can buy alcohol in Saskatoon. But when you go to a grocery store to purchase four litres of milk, you can purchase it for $4 in Saskatoon and it will cost $11.49 in Uranium City.

In an area like ours in northern Saskatchewan, where there is a lot of economic depression, high food costs are putting strains upon families and our education programs in our schools. All of our schools in northern Saskatchewan are what we consider community schools, meaning they are the centre of the community. Through them we provide nutrition programs. We're finding it extremely difficult to provide good nutrition programs in some of these areas when paying almost $12 for four litres of milk. How do you give children the milk they need when it costs this? So I really encourage you to take a serious look at the food study done by Dr. James Irvine.

All of these things—including the food study—support what I'm saying about the difficulties we're having in northern Saskatchewan in recruiting and retaining teachers. It's very difficult for teachers. We have a set provincial wage in this province. A teacher in Regina would receive the same wage they would in La Ronge. So it's very difficult to encourage teachers to come up to northern Saskatchewan when they're paying these kinds of prices for food as well.

The second topic that I would like to cover revolves around communications. The Northern Lights School Division has made very effective use of the federal infrastructure grants, the community access initiatives, and computers-for-schools program. These grants were used to wire our schools for Internet connections, establish all of our schools as community access sites, and provide our schools with many computers through our computers-for-schools repair depot. It has meant that all of our students in schools are connected to the Internet, and all of our communities have public access to the Internet through our 23 school community access sites.

We have made very good use of these programs, and would like to give credit to the federal government for providing these types of programs. But in many of our small communities we are still experiencing slow and unreliable Internet connections. In the north, we need reliable, high-speed Internet connections for all of our small communities. There's a real need to connect northerners in their homes to the Internet, so that we may resemble the rest of Canada as well.

It was kind of interesting, in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix a few days ago, there were some statistics that were referred to as the “digital divide”. The statistics reported that nine out of ten young Canadians had a computer in the home in the year 2000, and that seven out of ten had access to the Internet at home. In northern Saskatchewan, two to four students out of ten had a computer in the home in 2002, and one to two students out of ten had access to the Internet at home.

Also provided with our information are a couple of maps that show you the school division, and what we currently are providing in terms of Internet access for our schools. This does not apply to people's homes. These are direct sites that are linked to the schools—and the schools only in most communities, except for the larger ones.

· (1335)

The second map is what we would truly like to see happening in northern Saskatchewan, so that we have high-speed phone lines capable of providing schools and homes with Internet access. In our most remote communities, which we refer to as our fly-in communities, we would like to see two-way satellite communication. Some of these communities in the far north... The community of Camsell Portage , for example, has only ten phone lines going to the entire community.

I guess what I'm trying to say is we are really trying to encourage the federal government to continue with the programs it is supporting, to get everybody well connected to the Internet. But you do need to pay special consideration to some areas of the provinces, especially the northern areas, where it seems there are fewer people. But we do have 4,500 students making use of these Internet connections. That is just our public school division, not including the other 5,000 or more first nations students who are also being educated in northern Saskatchewan.

Ms. Tina Anderson: The last thing I would like to comment on is the aboriginal education programs and partnerships. We would also like to encourage the federal government to continue with their early childhood education initiative. Within our school division, we are finding the aboriginal headstart program and the kids first program extremely beneficial. Many of our students come to school with English as a second language or dialect. We are finding that this early start in life is really giving them a boost. They're much better prepared when they are actually coming into the kindergarten classroom. The programs are also extremely culturally affirming because they are aimed at aboriginal children. They key in on language, northern culture, and the ESL-ESD factor.

Finally, we have attached the letters that we have written to Minister Joanne Crofford in regard to the Arctic Winter Games. We are requesting that our province admit northern Saskatchewan.

· (1340)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Thank you very much.

I'd like to go back to the Northern Development Board. I'm sorry for skipping you. Welcome, Mr. Barrie Bergsma, business consultant, and Max Morin, co-chair of the Northern Development Board.

Mr. Max Morin (Co-Chair, Nothern Development Board): Thank you, and good afternoon.

I'll give you a little bit of history and brief you on some of the issues, and then Barrie will give you more details. We'll cut our eight minutes to half each.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Do it any way you wish.

Mr. Max Morin: First of all, northern Saskatchewan is about half the provincial land mass. There are 53 communities in northern Saskatchewan.

A number of years ago, in 1998, the first nation communities of Meadow Lake Tribal Council, the Prince Albert Grand Council, the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan, the northern area directors, and the municipalities in the north got together and said, “Hey, the problems in our communities are similar. Why should we work on separate issues? Let's tackle these issues and see if we can work together to bring forward our concerns and issues to both the federal and provincial governments.” So we signed a memorandum of understanding.

On October 17, 2002, with Minister Goodale, Minister Stephen Owen, the Saskatchewan Minister of Northern Affairs, Buckley Belanger, and MP Rick Laliberte, we signed a northern development accord and a northern development agreement allocating x number of dollars to northern Saskatchewan for innovations, infrastructure, and other initiatives we can get going.

On the way we tend to approach this, sometimes the problem seems to be between the federal and provincial governments with regard to jurisdiction, but the people at the community level are the ones who are facing the problems. They continue to face the problems because jurisdictional issues can't be resolved at the national level or at the provincial level. So we're approaching it by saying, “Hey, the problems are with our people. Let's continue working on those issues and see how we can resolve them among ourselves. Let's not let jurisdiction issues pull us apart, so we continue to not deal with the issue.”

There's high unemployment in our communities; in some communities it's as high as 80%. In northern Saskatchewan, 90% of the people are aboriginal, Métis, and first nations in off-reserve communities. We have really high unemployment in the smaller communities particularly. In some communities, you're lucky if there are two or three jobs, yet people are willing to work.

We have make-work programs on a yearly basis that the provincial government offers, and we have 400 to 500 in the community of La Loche. In my community of Ile-a-la-Crosse, which I'm the mayor of, we have 200 to 300 applying for six positions. You can't tell me people don't want to work. They want to work, but there are no jobs.

The economy in Saskatchewan is diversifying, but in northern Saskatchewan we are not part of that. There's a lot of uranium mining in Saskatchewan, but all of the uranium goes out. Where does it go? It goes to France, Germany, it doesn't matter--whoever owns the uranium companies. It's the same thing with forestry companies. There is forestry in the north, but we're not benefiting from it; it goes to somebody else.

Currently, all our fish is being processed in Manitoba. Why? A lot of commercial fishing is done in Saskatchewan. So we're missing out on all the secondary industry business in Saskatchewan.

The Northern Lights School Division highlighted a point about programs such as the broadband program. The urban community seems to be speaking against it, but in rural and remote northern communities, we're 100% for it because we want to get connected to the rest of the world.

We could take advantage of tourism opportunities and marketing native crafts and goods we have in the north, such as wild rice, but we need to have access to the World Wide Web. A lot of communities don't have access to that.

There's one final point, before I turn it to Barrie. The federal government just announced a $2.5 billion strategic infrastructure fund to provide economic opportunities. In the north, we have a lot of opportunities. We have tourism and mining. If the road from La Loche were opened to Fort McMurray, the Athabasca road were opened, and natural gas were put into some of the northern communities, we could take advantage of that money. But what does the provincial government do? They apply for that money to twin the Trans-Canada Highway.

· (1345)

What about us in the north? We'd like to see a separate allocation for the north. Northwest Territories and Nunavut would like to have a separate allocation of that strategic infrastructure money. We'd like to see some special consideration given to the north, because we lack infrastructure. That's why development is not happening in the north. We don't have the proper roads; we don't have the power grids; we don't have the natural gas, just to name a few. If we had those, our people would be working, and development would be happening in the north.

Barrie.

Mr. Barrie Bergsma (Business Consultant, Nothern Development Board): Good afternoon.

As Max mentioned, the economy in Saskatchewan is diversifying, but what's driving that diversification? It's the opportunities in the north. So far, northerners have been left on the sidelines. They're not participating. How you get them to participate in these opportunities is the big question, because we know there are substantial opportunities up there.

Appendix A of the handout we gave to you shows a chart like the one I am holding. A strategic opportunities assessment done back in 2001 only looked at 10 sectors, but it identified three projects that needed a capital investment of $363 million. It is estimated that to bring these projects to fruition you're going to need equity of $168 million, and northern equity to participate in this would be about $78 million.

That's why we're here today. We're here to say that in order to get northerners participating in these projects we need to get some equity. We need to have northern equity involved so that northerners can exercise their control over these projects and can exercise some employment opportunities and say to the people, “Hey, we're part owners now. We want to employ our people. We want opportunities for our people.”

Some people say, “Well, gee, there are lots of funds out there. Can we not raise some money that way?” Well, the fact of the matter is that true equity capital is very scarce in the north. As we are right now, there are no equity funds that have specifically earmarked money for northern Saskatchewan. Certainly there are funds out there that provide debt financing, but we all know that if companies in start-up mode have too much debt financing, they go under. They don't work.

There are grants available out there, but these are to small businesses. If you look at the sheet in Appendix A, you'll see we're talking about major large projects. We're talking about projects in the millions of dollars. You don't put a sawmill up for a few hundred thousand dollars; you need ten or fifteen million dollars to do it. These are the kinds of projects we want to take advantage of and that we want northerners to become part of.

The traditional venture capital firms are reluctant to invest in the north right now. There are a couple of reasons for that. One is that management capacity is lacking in the north. We need to somehow have ownership of some of these opportunities so that northerners can be trained to manage firms properly and be given that management capacity and build on it, so that they can take over these firms and provide more employment for their people.

Also, traditional venture capital funds typically look for a 15% to 20% return, and there are many northern projects that right now are going to have difficulty producing that.

So our proposal is to start up a northern equity fund or northern investment fund. The accord that was signed on October 17 provides the vehicle by which the province and the feds can work together to fund this. We're going to need $20 million, but that's only $10 million from the feds. That's basically what we're looking at.

The objectives of the fund would be to provide equity funding for diverse northern businesses, not just looking at one sector, but looking at many different sectors. When you think about it, $20 million could assist over 50 significant businesses to get started. We're going to achieve a satisfactory long-term investment rate of return, but it's going to be 5% to 8%. It's going to be patient capital, because that's what we need up in the north at this point in time.

It will generate a positive economic impact to northern Saskatchewan. Most of these projects will be start-up projects, and start-up projects provide the most opportunity for job creation.

We're going to provide management value-added support to northern businesses. By having a fund located in the north, for northerners, we can have people in place up there--we can have the CEO, investment advisers, investment officers--working with the businesses to build that management capacity. We're going to facilitate additional investment in northern businesses, because if there's a northern equity fund investing in northern businesses, that equity can help attract equity from some of the more traditional venture capital funds as well, because all of a sudden their risk is lowered. That's what we're looking at, too: to leverage that money so it wouldn't all be northern investment fund money.

Also, we want to develop close relationships with other funding agencies so that businesses in the north can attract the most investment and can leverage up those funds.

In closing, what we've put together is not something we've just thrown out; we've been working on it for a couple of years now.

· (1350)

If you flip over to appendix C, Northern Investment Fund, it encompasses all the stakeholder groups of the north. We have Meadow Lake Tribal Council, Prince Albert Grand Council, Saskatchewan Association of Northern Communities, Métis Nation of Saskatchewan, and the Athabasca Economic Development and Training Corporation. So we've taken all these stakeholders, pulled them together, and are going to get them to cooperate--and not just cooperate amongst themselves but with the federal and provincial governments as well, so you have a three-way partnership that can really bring economic development to northern Saskatchewan.

The general partner would of course be a northern investment corporation; you have to have a general partner. It's a limited partnership structure, so all these people would be limited partners.

In closing, we're just requesting that you seriously look at the proposal in front of you, which is an executive summary of a full business plan that has been done for this fund, that you consider working under the spirit of the accord that was signed on October 17 and that you fund $10 million to go towards providing an equity fund for northern Saskatchewan and to bring benefit to all northerners involved.

Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Thank you.

From the Northern Teacher Education Program, I welcome Mr. Bruce Ruelling, the chairman, and Elie Fleury, the director.

Mr. Bruce Ruelling (Chairman, Northern Teacher Education Program): Thank you very much. I really appreciate the opportunity. I'm not nervous at all; I just can't speak sometimes.

· (1355)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): We have the same problem, except we're nervous.

Mr. Bruce Ruelling: It is a unique opportunity; we really appreciate it.

The Northern Teacher Education Program actually was given birth by Northern Lights School Division. Quite a number of years ago, Northern Lights School Division realized they were having difficulties with teachers and retaining teachers, so they started training their own teachers. It's a long story--I won't go into it--but that's basically where NORTEP came from. We train quite a number of teachers.

Our governorship is a little unique. Under Bill C-31 our student population suddenly became almost half and half: half treaty and half non-treaty. The board decided they needed representation from the treaty students, so we expanded our governorship to include the Meadow Lake Tribal Council, Prince Albert Grand Council, and also Creighton School Division and Ile-à-la-Crosse School Division so we would have representation from all.

However, we got into a unique situation. When the changeover came in the student population, the dollars didn't change. Still the majority of it is provincially funded. We were in a dilemma, because we did not want to harm the existing treaty students; we didn't want to kick them out of the program. We didn't want to harm the tribal councils and the bands by taking any money away from their existing education programs. So we modified our program and tried to receive more funding in any way we could. We begged, borrowed, and no, we did not steal, but we came close to it.

We are in that unique situation, and that's why we're asking for real consideration there: to help us with the shortfall. Right now our student body is approximately 50%-50% or very close--48%-52% or something like that, as you'll see in the documentation. And our funding is, I believe, Elie, you said, what, 17% federal out of the whole amount?

Mr. Elie Fleury (Director, Northern Teacher Education Program): Yes, it's 17% federal.

Mr. Bruce Ruelling: That is one part I'll let Elie elaborate a little more on.

We are also into a situation where we're working on a student residence. There again we have money from all different places. We've bought apartment buildings and are remodelling them, but we are half a million dollars short there. We hope we can come up with some money there, but it would be nice to have excess dollars, if we did come up with it, to put into improving our program.

As to student numbers, we have graduated approximately 220 under the teacher education program. Out of that, Northern Lights School Division has about 85 and the band schools have about 135 in their systems. So we have made a difference, and 85% of our graduates are still in the education field.

We also have a PAC program--a Professional Access College is what we call it. It allows students who don't want to be teachers to take other university classes for the first two years in that.

Now I'll stop boring you with my presentation. I'll let Elie take over here.

Mr. Elie Fleury: Good afternoon. My name is Elie Fleury. I am director of the program. I've provided you with an overview of the program's sub-stats and I would like to maybe elaborate a little more on the stats that I've provided you.

In the past 25 years--and we celebrated our 25th year last year, a quarter of a century of the program--the program has graduated 260 teachers, 85% of whom are teaching in northern Saskatchewan. Of those 85% teaching in northern Saskatchewan, as Bruce mentioned, the majority of them are in first nations schools. When we look at our funding, we receive approximately $2.4 million, of which 17% is federal funding. In our stats, our students are 42% to 50%--it varies from year to year--first nations students.

What we are requesting you to consider is the funding that we're getting from the federal government. We are currently receiving $130,000--it's ISSP dollars, Indian Student Support Program dollars; it's institutional funding. The amount of $2.1 million comes into the province and we get $130,000 annually from that fund. What we are requesting is consideration to increase that core funding.

Second, Bruce mentioned that we're looking at renovating a student residence. Because our students come from the northern half of Saskatchewan, we provide accommodations at a subsidized rate. Initially we rented apartments for our students. We have now purchased apartment buildings that will enable us to put back into our program any moneys that would formerly have been paid in rent. We were able to get funding from the province, through grants, and we were able to raise money through donations, anonymous donors, etc. We still have a shortfall of about $500,000.

The money that we've received thus far--about $1.8 million in total for the purchase and the renovations--has all come from provincial funding and donations. Again, then, our second request is for consideration to providing dollars for the student residence.

Third, we are hopefully looking at a future northern campus, not only for our programs but in partnership with other post-secondary programs. Northlands College and the Lac Laronge Indian Band offer courses as well. We've had dialogue and we're looking at a campus that we can all share, so we would be looking for capital dollars. Again, we request that consideration be given to providing capital dollars from the federal government for this purpose.

With that, thank you for the opportunity, and I hope you will consider our requests.

¸ (1400)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Thank you, Mr. Fleury.

I now invite representatives from the Saskatchewan Early Childhood Association to contribute and welcome Ms. Sue Delanoy as well as Bev Drew.

Ms. Sue Delanoy (Representative, Saskatchewan Early Childhood Association): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and panel members and guests.

Today, on behalf of numerous coalitions and groups, we'd like to present our topic regarding the importance of early childhood care and education. I thank my distinguished colleague for adding a piece about the importance of early childhood.

It's important to recognize the number of groups we represent. Communities for Children is a coalition of agencies, including our district health, our school boards, tribal council, Métis government, the municipal government, and our regional government. Other partners, such as the Saskatchewan Early Childhood Association, include members of the FSIN, first nation on-reserve child care, rural child care, and Métis programs across the province, and members of Parent Voice Saskatoon—a coalition of parents—and encouraging and non-profit organizations.

All of our organizations work on behalf of the rights of children to access publicly funded, affordable, accessible early childhood care and education. This system is comprehensive, accessible, affordable, and very high quality.

We advocate for a range of child care services for children up to 12 years of age, which include a wide range of diverse programming. We certainly also commend the community school model, as well as rural child care, on-reserve child care, and the pre-kindergarten program associated with community schools.

We also advocate child care that is complementary to other policies and services for children, and for improved parental rights and benefits.

Before I continue, I'd like to clarify a few things. We use the term “early childhood care and education” to counter attempts by some to separate child care and education. The education of young children cannot be separate from the care they receive.

As a policy concept, early childhood education and care supports an integrated service approach, where children's access to quality learning and care programs is not dependent upon their parents' ability to meet eligibility criteria—i.e., if they cannot afford to pay for it, they do not have access to it. Unlike health care or education, where there's infrastructure support and consistency of services between regions, the only constant that parents can expect—especially in Saskatchewan—is disparity.

Child care in Canada and Saskatchewan is in a sorry state. We bring up the rear, and we certainly are out-performed by most countries, including in Europe. Canada pays for poor child care in the loss of potential citizens, higher societal service costs, and lost economic performance. In Saskatchewan and Canada, if we fail to recognize this, there will be grave consequences.

If we need an example to look to as to how to do it right, let's look to Quebec. They're doing it right.

Mr. Bev Drew (Representative, Saskatchewan Early Childhood Association): And because we're in early childhood, we know how to take turns, so we're going to turn to...

In terms of Canada's commitments, in 1991 Canada signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This meant that the government committed itself to help parents with their child-rearing responsibilities, and ensure “the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children”, and “to take all appropriate measures to ensure the children of working parents have the right to benefit from child care services and facilities for which they are eligible”.

In 2002, eleven years later, Canada has not yet met its obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It has taken only modest steps towards improving the quality of life for Canada's children. The reality right now is that Canada remains one of the few highly developed industrialized countries in the world that does not have a federally led, publicly funded child care policy, or a sustainable child care system.

Access to high quality, regulated child care depends on where you live, the type of care you are seeking, and your socio-economic status. With the shortage of available quality spaces in many communities and the high monthly cost that parents must endure, only one in ten children in Canada have access to regulated child care.

Poverty is also a major issue. It remains a major problem in our country. One out of every five children in Canada is living below the poverty line. In Saskatchewan 18.7% live in low-income families. In Saskatoon itself, the rate goes up to 26.9% of children living in poverty. Included in your package is a poverty report card written for Saskatoon. That's the little sheet. Access to affordable, high-quality child care—a key component of an effective anti-poverty strategy—remains impossible for children whose families are poor.

Many children who could benefit most from access to the enriched experiences offered in a high-quality, inclusive child care setting are just not able to access it.

¸ (1405)

Ms. Sue Delanoy: We've provided statistics here. We can fill a room full of research to prove that the early years are very important, and they are consistent across Canada. But what we do know--and I'm going to do the Reader's Digest version here--is that early childhood care and education supports families in raising children. It supports healthy childhood development and readiness to learn, and there are a million different studies to prove that. It's enabling adults to participate in the labour force and access educational and training programs, and contributes to women's capacity for a more equitable role in society. And it definitely contributes to levels of family poverty and Canada's economic well-being. It is very important that we institute a program across Canada that meets the needs of all children, wherever they live.

We've also included in our package the latest child care statistic on what it is like across Canada. Basically it is saying it's diversity or disparity, and it's disparity across Canada. It depends on where you live. Saskatchewan is lagging behind and needs to be part of a universal program.

So we're making some recommendations, and they are....

Ms. Bev Drew: As an introduction, all the organizations that Sue mentioned at the beginning are backing these recommendations.

We strongly urge the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance to respond to the 90% of Canadians who believe that high-quality child care is important to ensure Canada's social and economic well-being, and to the 81% of Canadians who believe that government should develop a plan for a comprehensive child care system.

The plan of action includes the following items.

Ms. Sue Delanoy: Develop a federal budget, which includes a reinvestment of tax dollars to implement a federally funded universal care system that will in the long term enable all children to access a wide range of diverse services that meet their needs wherever they are.

Ms. Bev Drew: We're asking that a minimum of $2 billion a year be specifically designated in each of the next five years with a commitment to maintain the cumulative level of funding after year five.

Ms. Sue Delanoy: Develop a policy framework to establish a pan-Canadian child care system in partnership with provincial and territorial governments who will work with municipalities and community-based non-profit organizations to design and implement originally a responsive child care system, and build on our Saskatchewan system, which is the Kids First system.

Ms. Bev Drew: We'd like some key principles established for a publicly funded child care system that must be met by each region's child care services. These key principles are: comprehensive, inclusive, high quality, non-profit, and accountable for all public funding.

Ms. Sue Delanoy: Ensure that these funds are targeted solely for child care. Let's say the words: Education is important; child care is important, and make it available to all provinces and territories that commit to the policy framework.

Ms. Bev Drew: And allocate additional funds to expand eligibility criteria for maternity and paternity leave provisions.

Ms. Sue Delanoy: We thank you for your time, and on behalf of the 90,000 children in Saskatchewan, thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Thank you, Sue and Bev. You did that very, very well.

Colleagues, we have roughly 45 minutes, so I'm going to allow 15 minutes per political party. You can share it with your colleagues as you wish. We'll start with the Canadian Alliance, please.

¸ (1410)

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

My first question is to Tina Anderson, who was talking about having trouble retaining teachers and the fact that the provincial rate for teachers hasn't changed anywhere in the province. Is that right?

Can you explain to me what the northern residence deduction amounts to? Part of your district gets 100%; part gets 50%. What is that? How much money does that mean to an average teacher?

Ms. Tina Anderson: If you look in the far north areas, in the fly-in communities, you might be looking at about $4,000 a year. In some of the communities that are more southerly within our district, you might be looking at about $700 a year.

Mr. Rick Casson: Okay. Now, is this a percentage, is it forgiveness of all federal income tax, or how does it work?

Ms. Tina Anderson: If you look at the little map, it shows you the different rates that are available.

Mr. Rick Casson: Where is that?

Ms. Tina Anderson: It's the northern living allowance deduction. It's 100% for the A communities, 50% for the B communities, and the C communities are the little blue communities, which receive none, no deduction whatsoever. So they pay full taxes on that northern allowance.

Mr. Rick Casson: But what is that deduction? What percentage is it of...

Ms. Tina Anderson: Okay, it's 100% on the ones in the far north that would receive $4,000.

Mr. Rick Casson: But what is 100%? What percentage of their wages is that?

Ms. Tina Anderson: It's not on their wage; it's on their living allowance, their northern living allowances.

Mr. Rick Casson: How much is it?

Ms. Tina Anderson: It's $4,000 in the far north.

Mr. Ralph Pilz (Director of Education, Northern Lights School Division): It's a taxable allowance.

Mr. Rick Casson: Okay, I thought it was a tax credit of some kind. It's a taxable allowance.

What you want is for your whole district to have the same rate, to make it easier for you to administer that.

Ms. Tina Anderson: Exactly.

Mr. Rick Casson: You also talked about the price of healthy food. I guess because it's provincially regulated the price of liquor seems to remain the same no matter where you go in the province, but everything else changes because of distance and what not. How much of your time is spent on teaching young people, or whoever, about healthy food and nutrition? It seems that education now is more all-encompassing than it used to be when I went to school.

Ms. Tina Anderson: Actually quite a large portion of our time is spent on that particular topic. One of our core goals of our school division, of which we have four, is teaching healthy lifestyles. You could see how providing good, nutritious food to children, and teaching kids and families, because we do have community schools, which means that we involve the family in our school program, is extremely important.

Mr. Rick Casson: I want to ask about these teachers you've trained in your system. Do these people come out with a degree that's equal in quality or equal in standard to the University of Saskatchewan?

Mr. Bruce Ruelling: Yes, we're affiliated. I forgot to mention that in my segment. We're affiliated with the two universities here--the University of Regina and the University of Saskatchewan. That's how the program developed, in cooperation with them. The courses are all approved by them. We used to even have an on-campus component, but we have advanced so darn much that they don't force us to do that any more.

Mr. Elie Fleury: Four years of education in La Ronge. Entrance requirements are the same as the universities.

Mr. Rick Casson: Great. That sounds like a really good program. You guys have perfected it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): I guess they've learned since they taught you.

Mr. Bruce Ruelling: One other thing I forgot to mention is that basically NORTEP covers the same area as Northern Lights School Division in the northern half of the province.

Mr. Rick Casson: Chief Sanderson, I would like to ask you a couple of questions. On page five of your submission, you mentioned a new ministry of state of first nations. Are you suggesting that this replace what presently exists, or is it in addition to, and if so, why?

Chief Sol Sanderson: Yes, it would replace the current Ministry of Indian Affairs. It would elevate the relationship. The minister of state would be linked to the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister level and it would have new institutions. It would be, for lack of a better title or word, a federal trust centre with six functions, dealing with political relations, treaty relations, economic relations, judicial relations, fiscal relations, and international relations, along with the bilateral processes.

We'd look for a first nations secretary of state or secretariat within the Privy Council, a treaty commissioner within Parliament, with treaty secretariat, etc., with the treaty commissioner reporting to Parliament itself. We need to elevate the debate and the discussions and the solutions.

¸ (1415)

Mr. Rick Casson: Another point you mention, Chief Sanderson, is a pay grid or salary grid for first nations leaders, also band support and employees. Are you suggesting that this become a standard for all of Canada, like a federal standard? Is that what you're suggesting here?

Chief Sol Sanderson: Well, right now there is no standard at all. We wouldn't want to interfere.... There's new law in Canada now for Indians, Métis, and Inuit in various parts of Canada. I understand they do have some standards for salary grids and payrolls there. For our area here in the numbered treaty areas, particularly the prairies, we have no standards. There are no salary groups at all; there's just nothing. We just examined our teachers' salary grids. We're below everybody: we're below Saskatchewan; we're below Manitoba; we're below Alberta.

At Big Island Lake, when we had a submission in addition to this, there was a grade nine teacher who walked across the border to Alberta and started doing the same job at an automatic increase of $10,000 the following day--for teaching and doing the same job.

We know we can do a hell of a job in education; we already have. Over 10,000 of the 20,000 employed by band, tribal council, and FSIN are employed in the education sector, and we're graduating hundreds of students from high school and university. We have a lot of work to do in terms of improving the quality of education, like everybody else, but we can do it.

Mr. Rick Casson: Thank you.

I'm not sure who it was who talked about the head start program, and how successful it was, and the fact that when the children are coming to you, there is a transition from home to school. Is this happening? Could you tell me a bit more about it, and what kinds of benefits you see from that program?

Ms. Sue Delanoy: I think it was my colleague who mentioned how great the program is. What we're finding, in terms of children's school readiness--how ready they are when they get to kindergarten--is that children who have been supported in the earlier years, zero to five, whether in a pre-school program, pre-kindergarten program, aboriginal head start program, head start program, or some form of child care, are doing better.

One of the projects to support that right now is the understanding the early years project, for which Saskatoon is a host site. We're just releasing the data for it, as well as for Prince Albert and numerous sites across Canada. It's a longitudinal study that is supporting the view that children do better when they've been supported. And the head start programs, pre-school programs, and quality child care programs are showing that kids are ready for school when they get to kindergarten.

Mr. Rick Casson: Have you done any analysis of the difference between a child who has been raised in a home, not in a day care situation, and the one in a day care situation?

Ms. Sue Delanoy: Do you know what? I'm glad you brought that up. Child care, whether it's in-home, out-of-home, or whatever, as long as it's supported, we don't really care. As long as those children are supported and whatever the parent needs, whether it's child care in a day care centre setting, parents who are supported to stay at home, in-home day care, child care, preschool programs, parenting programs...the parents are supported. Wide-range, diverse programming is very important.

Mr. Rick Casson: Good. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): We have a few minutes. Does your colleague want to...

Ms. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Actually, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to be able to stay. I have one question. I'll be just two minutes.

¸ (1420)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Go ahead.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: If I heard one word often, it was “jurisdiction”. Can you give me a real example so that I understand what you're talking about? I kind of know, but I'd just like one example that frustrates you very much.

You may start, Gerald, with one problem that you--

Mr. Gerald Morin: You want me to give you an example of how it's affecting us?

Ms. Lynne Yelich: Yes.

Mr. Gerald Morin: As part of my presentation I pointed out five areas on page 7.

For example, I think Human Resources Development Canada have the early childhood development program that is available for first nations and Inuit, but the Métis are deliberately excluded from that program by federal policy and design.

The only sense we can make of that position taken by the federal government is that they don't have jurisdiction for the Métis. Therefore, they only design programs specifically for first nations and Inuit people, but not for the Métis.

Another example is in Health Canada. I forget the exact title, but it's a first nations and Inuit program providing some sort of health programming that's designed specifically for first nations and Inuit.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: It's designed for aboriginal people.

Mr. Gerald Morin: Yes, but it occurs in two ways. On the one hand it's done by deliberate design. But on the other hand they say this is aboriginal programming, but as it turns out we're excluded anyway. They use our numbers to justify the dollars, but when it comes to distributing the dollars, we're not included.

Chief Sol Sanderson: Let me just make one comment respecting that question.

In the documentation we provided, historically Canada, through Parliament, appropriated Indian money separately from federal moneys. We'd like to return to that agenda and have Parliament appropriate Indian moneys in the same way, and you can appropriate your federal taxpayers dollars separately, because we're getting sick and tired of getting beat up by suggestions that we're taxpayers' burdens. We want our fair share of the revenue from Parliament and from Canada, accessed in the form of Indian moneys.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Are there any more comments? No. You're finished.

All right, Mr. Rick Laliberte. Welcome, Rick.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): Thank you.

Starting off in the order in which the presentations were made, Chief Sanderson and maybe President Morin, you refer to identifying or creating a relationship with the federal government on jurisdiction issues--fiscal, political. What do you see in terms of the Constitution when it defines section 35 with first nations, Métis, and Inuit? Do you think or believe that a relationship defined would clarify the fiscal responsibilities the federal government has in terms of...? There's a major dialogue right now that would be created through a governance act. There's a major issue on transparency and accountability through this on first nations. What relationship do you see? There have been words on treaty implementation. You shared with us a perspective of going back to the treaty relationships. But under section 35 with the Metis and the Inuit, is the federal government addressing this relationship appropriately, or is it time to have a dialogue? After the royal commission did a thorough study, is it time now to create a framework of a relationship with the aboriginal people of Canada and the federal government?

Chief Sol Sanderson: The relationship we have had historically as first nations people has been based on the treaties and the treaty process that clearly establish a link for us between the Crown of Canada as represented by the federal government. That relationship, as I have already stated, is pretty clear in terms of the political relations and the new constitutional arrangements, as you cite them, including section 25. It provides for the equality of government, law, jurisdiction, and courts respecting first nations governments, the federal government, and the provincial government, in a similar way as the tribal, state, and federal governments of the U.S.

What we're looking to proceed with, and going to proceed with, is implementing our own first nations law and jurisdiction, and occupying the field through our acts and our own jurisdiction in all sectors. We would want the same type of recognition and respect from the federal government and provincial governments that we deserve, and that the relationship calls for and the framework provides for.

I was there when we discussed the nature of the entrenchment of that wording, and as far as I'm concerned, that wording in section 35(2) provides for a national recognition of the status of Métis and a recognition of the status of Indian and a national recognition of the status of Inuit. It provides for the national recognition of the Cree people and the Cree Nation. So that accommodation has to be made. It's already accommodated between English Canada and French Canada, Quebec and Canada, French law and English law. So why can't we mature and elevate our debate, as I was talking about, in how we implement the strategies?

Not to take away from President Morin and his agenda, as I see a need for them to move forward as well, I don't see us having to compromise either of our positions in terms of getting recognition in that respect. That level of debate hasn't happened anywhere.

After 1982, everybody became busy looking after themselves and looking after their own backyard. We've seen a lot of party politics being debated within parties themselves, but we've never had the level of debate that is needed right now for implementing that whole framework.

¸ (1425)

Mr. Gerald Morin: Thank you, Rick.

The obvious answer to your question is we don't have a relationship with Canada and we never had. All our dealings with one another have been characterized by confrontation and disagreement, and a lack of the meeting of the minds, and certainly no progress. How can you have a relationship when Canada's position has always been one of refusal of the recognition of our people? Through government's actions and attitudes and policies, we don't exist in Canada; we're neither here nor there. So it's really hard to talk about a relationship.

The federal government gave their response to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in January 1998. It will be the five-year anniversary this coming January, and we still haven't seen any kind of meaningful progress in terms of the 440 recommendations that were made by RCAP.

I think there was discussion about a department of aboriginal affairs. At the core of the RCAP report they said basically that the relationship between aboriginal people and Canada has been despicable and has been characterized by colonialism, disrespect, and racism, and that in order to turn a page in history and change that relationship, and have one based on mutual recognition and respect, Canada should enter into nation-to-nation, government-to-government relationships with aboriginal people in Canada.

The report said that in order to accommodate that from an institutional point of view, from Canada's point of view, they would have two departments, a department of Indian and Inuit services so that there was no disruption in programs and services that are provided to Indian and Inuit people currently by the federal system, and secondly, a primary focus would be on the creation of a new department of aboriginal affairs, which would be inclusive of all aboriginal people--first nations, Inuit, and Métis. They also said in their report that it is absolutely beyond dispute that the historic Métis nation based in western Canada does exist, that it is a reality in this country that we do exist, and that we have legitimate rights and they're affirmed in Canada's Constitution.

Speaking honestly, I think Canada has missed the boat so far. We're approaching the fifth anniversary in three months and there's been no real action from Canada at all. Sure, we've had the foundation, this flagship program, the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, and $350 million to deal with the physical, mental, and sexual abuse that took place in residential schools, but even since that announcement we've seen with all of the litigation that's littering this land not only that this in itself, which is only one recommendation, has not been dealt with satisfactorily, but the core recommendations and the establishing of that new relationship have not been dealt with.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that first I commend this committee for travelling the country and incorporating regional points of view and ensuring that people are able to come before you and give their presentations as you are doing today. But we represent one of the three constitutionally recognized aboriginal people in this country, and we have seven minutes to make our presentation. This is the first time that we've been in front of this committee. Surely, given the fact that we've never been here, and that we represent one of the three constitutionally recognized people in this country, we should have been given due time and consideration to give our presentations in Ottawa so that we can adequately have time to give you our presentation and have a good question and answer period so that this committee has a real good understanding of who we are, what our current situation is, and what you guys can do in terms of making meaningful recommendations to your colleagues to address our issues.

¸ (1430)

Mr. Rick Laliberte: In terms of moving on to the other sectors, the next presentations have more of a northern flavour, so to speak, and an awakening of the reality of the north. With the work that I've been doing, it's been coined as the “mid-Canada region” of the country, and covers the northern half of each province. This is a voice from northern Saskatchewan, but have you made any connections, aside from the Arctic Winter Games that kind of unified the sporting and cultural event of the Arctic games, along that region encompassing northern Quebec, northern Ontario, northern Alberta, northern Manitoba? Is there any kind of uniform dialogue happening among the education people or local governments?

Mr. Max Morin: With regard to local governments, there is not much dialogue between them. But with regard to other initiatives, like our Smart Community Initiative, the KCDC, the Keewatin Career Development Corporation, we're currently in the process of getting our regional RMO to service Alberta also. That connection is starting, because they have the same issues and concerns as northern Saskatchewan has.

In northern Manitoba, we do have a little bit of dialogue with some people. The issues and concerns of first nations communities and municipalities in northern Manitoba, northern Alberta, and northern Saskatchewan are the same.

But when you go to a community like Fort McMurray, which is just five to six kilometres from La Loche as the crow flies, you see a major city with billions of dollars of investment. In La Loche, you have 80% unemployment, or 300 to 500 people who want to go to work, but they can't get access to Fort McMurray because the road is stopped at the Alberta border. So opportunities exist in some northern communities, like Fort McMurray, but accessibility is a problem.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: You mentioned Fort McMurray as one of the major industrial developments that are happening, and a road. Maybe the committee isn't aware that the community of La Loche—for statistical reasons—used their training dollars to build a road to the Saskatchewan-Alberta border, but the Alberta side has not complied in finishing this project. I think these are the infrastructure priorities they were talking about.

I think it would go well with the request from NORTEP that an infrastructure strategy in the north be totally unique from the rural or the urban strategies of Saskatchewan. I think there are three pillars in Canada. I think the voice we're hearing from the north is that we need to have a northern strategy, because basically Canada's definition of the north—for northern development—is north of 60 degrees.

The other issue I wanted to raise was in regard to Primrose. I know the school division had written letters to us. There's a Primrose bombing range that straddles the Saskatchewan-Alberta border, but all the economic development is on the Alberta side with Cold Lake. But with initiatives like the Canadian Rangers, a military unit, what would you see in terms of developing a relationship with the federal government at these levels? Is there any way for the federal government to engage at this time?

¸ (1435)

Ms. Tina Anderson: Maybe just to comment on what you had said earlier, as well, in regard to contact with other northern jurisdictions, you'll find in the majority of the other provinces that the education jurisdictions are also very large and probably experience very much the same types of conditions that we do in terms of recruiting teachers and the types of living conditions the teachers have to live with, with prices and sparsity, and all those different factors. So we have done some contacting, especially with Alberta and Manitoba, in terms of their education jurisdictions.

In terms of northern Saskatchewan and the comments you've made around the Primrose Lake air weapons range, as a school division we found that we've basically been left out of the discussion. We are a provincial school division, so we are able to tax those groups that are within our jurisdiction, but that particular area seems to be off limits to us.

I think it's rather unfortunate that the economics of the Primrose Lake air weapons range all end up in Alberta and that we do not experience any of it in northwestern Saskatchewan, other than the shaking of the ground when the bombs hit the air weapons range.

I think my fellow colleague from northern Saskatchewan did a very good job of referring to the economic conditions that people experience when living in communities that have 85% and 95% unemployment. Any type of activity, whether that be military or forestry, any type of economic development would be extremely welcome in northern Saskatchewan. The federal government expanding military activities into northern Saskatchewan would be welcome.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Thank you, Rick.

I'd like to now turn to Mr. Martin for a series of questions--15 minutes, please.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for very interesting briefs. In the interests of or given the shortage of time, I'm just going to try to touch on a couple of them. I'd like to start with Chief Sanderson.

Chief, in regard to your points regarding the need for a new fiscal relationship, nation to nation with Canada as a social union, I'm intrigued by that concept, and I'll ask you to expand on that. But first, specifically, if the object is genuine self-governance negotiated on a nation-by-nation basis, do you believe the First Nations Governance Act that's being introduced now by the minister is in any way a step in the right direction for you?

Chief Sol Sanderson: I'll start with your last question.

In its current form, the First Nations Governance Act is more colonial legislation that increases the control of the federal government over our affairs, our communities, and our people. It totally eliminates recognition of our chiefs and councils, which is a direct violation of the treaties to which we are party. So I reject that form of legislation. I can't support it.

In the package we gave you, we propose a different form of legislation, one that legislates the recognition that's there, for Canada to do now. We're not going to negotiate any self-government agreements. That was already done. And that was never on the table when we signed Treaty 6, Treaty 4, and all the other numbered treaties. You recognized our governance. There's nothing to negotiate. The framework now recognizes the equality of governments, jurisdictions, laws, and courts. Let's respect that. Let's get the formal laws in place federally to provide recognition for first nations government jurisdiction and laws, and get on with dealing with and resolving any issues at the table in a respectful way.

That's the way I understand the process.

¸ (1440)

Mr. Pat Martin: Very well put. I'm glad to have that on the record.

The other thing that jumped off the page at me from your brief is something that we've been noticing. That is, a flurry, since the FNGA, of third-party management interventions by the federal government. In other words, some communities who aren't cooperating with first nations governments are having themselves put under trusteeship, if you will, even without, we believe, very good justification.

In your brief you said that sometimes these third-party managers get paid upwards of $150,000 to $200,000 a year to supervise the books of a band council under third-party management. Do you have examples of this, or could you speak to that somewhat, the industry of third-party management?

Chief Sol Sanderson: I can speak directly to it. We inherited that situation at home. The third-party manager's contract is $150,000 a year, for two days of work a week. That's the kind of salary we want.

Our experience is that situation has created over $3.6 million of extra debt for us. We pay for the third-party manager, who is an employee of the Ministry of Indian Affairs and the federal government, not ours. They tried to do an audit. They contracted with a third-party auditor who manages the books, controls the money, does the expenditures without our involvement. Then they have the nerve to audit in the name of the band. Where the hell are we going here?

Mr. Pat Martin: I noticed your reference to it. It jumped off the page. I appreciate your remarks.

To Gerald Morin of the Métis National Council, I think I agree with you that in the near future landmark court cases, like Powley and Blais, will come down in your favour. This is what all the conventional wisdom says. From them will flow rights, just like in Marshall, Sparrow, and Delgamuukw.

Mr. Gerald Morin: That's right.

Mr. Pat Martin:The enumeration of your people is going to be critical then. If those rights are going to flow, we'll have to know who qualifies and who does not. What is the holdup with this enumeration? How much will it cost? What's the barrier? Why haven't we done it? Are we any closer to doing it?

Mr. Gerald Morin: Unfortunately, we're not any closer to doing it than we have ever been. This is something we take very seriously. I was president of the Métis National Council when the Liberals were in opposition. I remember coming to Wanuskewin to meet with the western caucus to give our presentation on what we wanted out of their red book, and what they would do for us if they came to power.

In the first Liberal red book, there were a number of aboriginal commitments that we presumed at the time were inclusive of all aboriginal people. But there was only one specific Métis commitment. We certainly understood that to mean that if the Liberals came to power they would undertake a comprehensive enumeration of the Métis nation. So that commitment and promise is there and still remains unfulfilled. It hasn't been done. Why it hasn't been done, I can't say for sure.

Ralph Goodale is the federal Métis interlocutor, and I know he's tried really hard. But in a lot of instances, he faces a lot of the same obstacles I face when dealing with the federal government. There wasn't a holdup before, but certainly now that a Métis nation definition has been adopted unanimously by the Métis National Council, it paves the way and makes it much easier for the federal government to say “Let's work with the Métis nation, as represented by the MNC. We're in the process of establishing a Métis nation registry based on that national definition. Let's put resources into it and work with them in enumerating the citizens of the nation into that registry, based on that national definition.”

Why it hasn't been done I can't really say. My suspicion is that historically--and today--the political will hasn't been there. There are a lot of elements in the federal government, regardless which political party is in power. You have people in the Privy Council Office, Treasury Board, and Department of Justice who are always afraid of the jurisdictional issue. One of their favourite things to say is “Well, we can't do this with the Métis because we'll set a precedent”. So maybe those are some of the reasons why we haven't done it until now.

In conclusion, I guess we're trying to encourage proactive leadership with Canada and the Métis nation, so we can put initiatives in place. We're confident that whatever form it takes, there's going to be some kind of victory for the Métis nation, once the Supreme Court of Canada makes its decision.

In the Powley case, they're talking about the hunting rights of the Powleys in Sault Ste. Marie, but because this is the first time the Métis will be before the Supreme Court of Canada, they're going to have to answer the broader questions. Do the Métis legally exist in this country? If so, are they covered by section 35, and are their aboriginal and treaty rights affirmed and recognized in section 35?

I think they'll lay the foundation for negotiations with the federal government. So it's going to happen within several months, but we don't want to see the kind of scenario that took place on the east coast.

We need proactive leadership to put these measures in place. Fundamental to that, if you're going to strike deals with the historic Métis nation, especially if the Supreme Court of Canada tells us we have these rights, you have to know who you're dealing with. If you have a land claims agreement or self-government arrangements, you need to know who the beneficiaries are.

¸ (1445)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): You have another five minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: When I first got on the aboriginal affairs standing committee, I actually thought we would be dealing with you. I honestly did think we would be dealing with Inuit, Indian, and Métis people at that committee. It just never occurred to me you would have your own special interlocutor, as you call it.

Would it be your first choice, for a fiscal arrangement, to be under the Ministry of Indian Affairs? You know they have a budget and their own separate minister who has time to deal with aboriginal issues, as opposed to being busy in a number of other portfolios. Given your choice, would you rather have your issues dealt with at the aboriginal affairs committee?

Mr. Gerald Morin: Well, Pat, I think the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples got it right. It's true, if you are going to institute that nation-to-nation relationship, that there has to be the institutional capacity for change on the federal government side. I think they got it right. There's an existing Department of Indian Affairs. It should be continued in some form so there's no disruption in programs and services to Indian and Inuit people.

It is in my brief. I want to make it very clear that we don't want to take any of the much-needed resources away from first nations and Inuit people. It's just that there has to be an investment in the Métis nation, given our unique needs and challenges. I want to make that very clear.

Given that we are one of the aboriginal peoples of Canada--we are the Métis nation--from our point of view, and RCAP also said it, we clearly fall within section 91, item 24 of the Constitutional Act, 1867, and thus this ministry of aboriginal affairs.

I agree with Saul. You have to deal distinctly with the Métis nation, with the first nations, and with the Inuit people. I think you have to go even further with the first nations, if I could offer my opinion. If you are going to institute that nation-to-nation relationship, you have to deal with the entities we call nations: the Cree nation, the Haida nation, the Mi'kmaq nation, the Mohawk nation, and so on, because that was at the core of RCAP's report.

Mr. Pat Martin: Gathering dust. They call it Gathering Strength, their report, don't they? We call it “gathering dust”.

I guess if I could bounce all the way down to the end, to the early childhood development reference, I was very pleased to hear you make your brief today, because we had a broad spectrum of issues raised, not just by this panel but earlier panels, and this really wasn't raised, so you're the ones who got it on the record for this province, at least.

Simply by way of background, I also told the other panels that fully 52% of all the children in my riding, Winnipeg Centre, live below the poverty line, and all the correctable social consequences that stem from that are very self-evident. All the authorities that you cite.... As you said, you could fill a room with the books of research that indicate that it's in those very early formative years where the intervention has to take place. So I thank you for raising the points you did.

The figure you raised, though, is it the position of your national association that you need--what was it--$2 billion per year over five years?

Ms. Bev Drew: Three billion.

Ms. Sue Delanoy: Two billion. Let me add that we also got duped in the red book. We were supposed to have a universal child care program. So I'm with you there.

Mr. Pat Martin: —[Editor's Note: Inaudible]—

Ms. Sue Delanoy: Yes, I do.

¸ (1450)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): What was it?

Ms. Sue Delanoy: It was a national child care program. We were going to eliminate poverty in 2000.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): What were the criteria?

Ms. Sue Delanoy: Affordable, accessible, high quality.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): I won't get into that. It was in any year that we had more than 3% growth and beyond we would introduce it. It was also in cooperation with the provinces, and none of the provinces wanted to take on the program.

Mr. Pat Martin: Nobody could afford to match it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): It's not that we reneged on the agreement.

I apologize for taking your time.

Mr. Pat Martin: Not at all, sir. It's a very good point.

The reason I raised the dollar figure, and that's going to shock a lot of people, is there are people who say there's simply no appetite in this country for another national program, the introduction of any new large-scale national program. I pointed out earlier that the UIC program alone is showing a surplus of $750 million a month. Those are the kinds of numbers we're dealing with here. Two months surplus of EI alone would pay for the entire national child care program.

Mr. Bev Drew: And for every dollar you spend on a child care program, you save more dollars in the end, because it's, what's the word...

Ms. Sue Delanoy: It's a one-t-two ratio, we think, right now. Invest a dollar, save two down the road. We're saving on incarceration of children, justice, poor—

Mr. Pat Martin: Health issues.

Ms. Sue Delanoy: Yes, definitely.

Mr. Bev Drew: Education.

Mr. Pat Martin: So it isn't a matter that there is no money out there. It's a matter of how we--

Ms. Sue Delanoy: How we spend it.

Mr. Pat Martin: —how we priorize.

Ms. Sue Delanoy: But I would like to add to that. The reason that people say they have no appetite for child care is that child care is a dirty word. We don't understand what that word is across Canada. It changes from B.C. to Newfoundland. When we say child care, I want to make it very clear that we mean a wide range of supports. Child care is not just education or pre-kindergarten or pre-school, and so on. Child care is supporting families. It's disparity all across Canada. We don't know the language and we don't know the language from province to province to province. So that's a problem.

Mr. Pat Martin: If I could just raise one last point, you did mention that really only the province of Quebec was getting close to the model you would perceive. I would just caution you that even though there is $5 a day child care, there are no spaces. It's like having free university tuition in St. Kitts and Nevis.

Ms. Sue Delanoy: Yes, but they built it and people came. Their problem is they can't accommodate it. I'd rather have that problem right now than people not being able to access it. We just don't have it. We don't have it all throughout Saskatchewan.

Ms. Bev Drew: It's a start.

Mr. Pat Martin: Fair enough. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Thank you very much.

We now need to thank our presenters.

Mr. Pat Martin: You have one.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Very briefly please.

Chief Sol Sanderson: Regarding your first question, about the social union, there's a chart in the kit that highlights the first nations social safety net, if that's the strategy you want to use.

Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, there's a typo in the Big Island Lake document in the second paragraph. I just want to read into the record the correction. It currently reads: “The Preamble to the Big Island Lake Cree Nation clearly illustrates the values and spiritual beliefs of the Big Island Lake people and the nature of their relationships to others.” It should read: “The preamble to the Big Island Lake Cree Nation's Convention Act clearly illustrates the values and spiritual beliefs of the Big Island Lake Cree people and the nature of their relationships to others.”

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank and commend you on your presentations--iIt's been a great learning exercise, I think, for an awful lot of our colleagues--and the quality of the presentations also. I know a lot of work has gone into preparing them, and we appreciate it.

I think you're very fast learners. The first thing you learn as presenters is you never make eye contact with the chair, so you never know when your time is up. And you did very well.

I realize you felt the time was short. If you check the time, I was very generous in the times; within the seven minutes, sometimes you went into twelve to fifteen minutes. However, if you still feel you have a point you would like to make, please send it to our clerk, and we'll make sure all parties get a copy of it. If there's anything else you'd like to elaborate on, please feel free.

I'd also like to invite you to next year's presentations. This year, this panel especially was organized--and I'd like to thank publicly Rick Laliberte for helping our committee clerks organize it; it wasn't easy--and through Rick's help we were able to accommodate an awful lot of the requests. Again I thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with us.

Colleagues, we have about five minutes to pack up and get on the bus for the next flight. I'd like to take the opportunity to thank the clerks--because I'm going on to Montreal tomorrow, and Sue Barnes will be joining you--thank the research staff, thank the interpreters, and thank the technical people. I've enjoyed working with you this week. We'll see you back in Ottawa after the Remembrance Day break.

We're adjourned until tomorrow morning. Thank you.