FINA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Finance

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Friday, November 8, 2002

·

1320

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.))

Chief Perry Bellegarde (Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations; Assembly of First Nations Regional Vice-Chief for Saskatchewan)

·

1325

·

1330

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

Chief Perry Bellegarde

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

Mrs. Sheila Genaille (President, Métis National Council of Women)

·

1335

·

1340

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

Ms. Sheila Genaille

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

Mr. Damon Johnston (Co-Chair, National Aboriginal Voluntary Organization)

·

1345

Mr. Wayne Helgason (Board Member, National Aboriginal Voluntary Organization)

·

1350

Mr. Damon Johnston

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

Ms. Terri Brown (President, Native Women's Association of Canada)

·

1355

¸

1400

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

Chief Perry Bellegarde

¸

1405

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

Ms. Sheila Genaille

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

Mr. Wayne Helgason

¸

1410

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

Ms. Terri Brown

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Pat Martin

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Reg Alcock

¸

1415

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Reg Alcock

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Reg Alcock

Ms. Sheila Genaille

Mr. Reg Alcock

Ms. Sheila Genaille

Mr. Reg Alcock

Chief Perry Bellegarde

Mr. Reg Alcock

Chief Perry Bellegarde

Mr. Reg Alcock

Chief Perry Bellegarde

¸

1420

Mr. Reg Alcock

Chief Perry Bellegarde

Mr. Reg Alcock

Mr. Wayne Helgason

Mr. Reg Alcock

Mr. Wayne Helgason

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

Mr. Richard Powless (Special Adviser, Assembly of First Nations)

¸

1425

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

Mr. Damon Johnston

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

Ms. Sherri Lewis (Chair, Finance, Native Women's Association of Canada)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

¸

1430

Ms. Terri Brown

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

Mr. Wayne Helgason

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

Mr. Wayne Helgason

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

Chief Perry Bellegarde

¸

1435

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

Ms. Sheila Genaille

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Sheila Genaille

Mr. Pat Martin

¸

1440

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

Chief Perry Bellegarde

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

Mr. Reg Alcock

¸

1445

Chief Perry Bellegarde

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

Vice-Chief Perry Bellegarde

Mr. Reg Alcock

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

Chief Perry Bellegarde

Mr. Richard Powless

The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen)

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Finance

---

NUMBER 027

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Friday, November 8, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

·  (1320)  

[English]

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)): Good afternoon.

    In accordance with Standing Order 83(1), we're about to continue with our pre-budget consultations. One group of the committee has travelled across western Canada this week, another to Montreal and Toronto. We were in Halifax the week before last. This is the last leg of our trip to the west.

    We welcome all of the witnesses. I'd like to introduce everyone briefly. From the Assembly of First Nations, we have Mr. Perry Bellegarde, the Saskatchewan vice-chief--I gather Mr. Richard Powless, the adviser to the national chief, is on his way or in the precincts; from the Métis National Council of Women, we have Ms. Sheila Genaille, president, and Joyce Gus, director; from the National Aboriginal Voluntary Organization, Mr. Damon Johnston and Mr. Wayne Helgason; from the Native Women's Association of Canada, Ms. Terri Brown, president, and Ms. Sherry Lewis, chair of finance.

    We're going to allow a presentation of seven or eight minutes. We do have your written briefs, so it's not necessary for you to read them. Perhaps you could take us through the main points and the key issue you would like us to focus on. Then we'll go into a round where the members of Parliament can put questions to you.

    Sue Barnes, the chair, had hoped to be here, but she had a family emergency and has had to go back to Ontario. She does give her apologies. These things, of course, are totally unavoidable. I'm happy to act in her stead.

    With that, we'll go to the Assembly of First Nations, Mr. Bellegarde.

    Chief Perry Bellegarde (Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations; Assembly of First Nations Regional Vice-Chief for Saskatchewan): Good afternoon to all members of the committee. To the other indigenous peoples of the nation state now called Canada, good afternoon to you all. Greetings to you all, not only on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations. I wear two hats, or two bonnets sometimes. I'm the chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, as well as the Assembly of First Nations Regional Vice-Chief for Saskatchewan.

    Our sympathies go to Sue Barnes as well. We always say there are two things in life that make no appointments, death and sickness. So condolences to the family members of Sue Barnes. Also, our national chief is sick. So on behalf of our national chief, Matthew Coon Come, I extend regrets, and we hope for his speedy recovery as well.

    The presentation of the Assembly of First Nations has been sent to the committee. I'll just quickly read this. There's a thick one I'm not going to read--that's your bedtime reading. We'll just summarize this written text here very quickly, and we'll open it up after our colleagues are done speaking.

    First, thanks to the Standing Committee on Finance for the opportunity to appear before you. The Assembly of First Nations is a national organization representing first nations citizens in our communities and in urban and rural areas. As a national organization, we have participated in the pre-budget submission process for the last three years. We feel it's important to be here, because this is the only formal mechanism available to us to influence priorities in the federal budget; it provides an opportunity for us to influence policy-makers from all across Canada and to raise awareness of the fiscal and economic consequences of our issues, and it allows us to formally present and represent our interests to the Standing Committee on Finance. It provides a forum for us to respond to issues related to first nations raised by any of the political parties.

    The Assembly of First Nations is committed to participating in this process. We believe you are listening to our recommendations and our concerns. We believe you recognize the impact of poverty on first nations communities and citizens and the social and economic costs to the provincial and federal governments. First nations poverty is costing our governments an additional $3.5 billion a year. I'm sure you recognize the strain this poverty creates on the sustainability of Canada's social system and the sustainability of recent tax cuts. If first nations poverty is allowed to continue at this level, all governments in Canada will have to spend an additional $60 billion over the next 15 years.

    We have seen some positive responses to our past submissions, such as the commitment to the aboriginal head start program, the efforts to implement the Marshall decision, and legislation to establish fiscal and land claim settlement institutions. These are positive steps, but to really tackle these problems, we need a broader vision that doesn't just deal with the symptoms, but looks at the root causes.

    We have put forward, and are again putting forward, a comprehensive plan that draws on groundbreaking work, like the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. In the past these bigger picture elements of our recommendations have been ignored, and I encourage you, maybe I challenge you, to have a good look at our submission and consider it as a whole. We have to recognize that we have mutual political, social, and economic interests, and we believe you recognize our mutual interests.

    Our interest is to rebuild our nations so that we are treated as equals in our land. Reducing poverty and building economies is the only way we can rebuild our nations with lasting effect. Stronger first nations economies mean we have a say about our future and can participate as equals with other governments. It means we can contribute to an even greater degree in the Canadian economy, and that's a win-win situation for everyone.

    We realize that your interests are in ensuring that all Canadians share in future prosperity. Our fate is intimately tied to your objectives. You realize that our share of the workforce will nearly triple over the next 20 years, so investing in our peoples and communities is an investment in the force that will be driving Canada's economy for the coming decades. Our continued poverty will only put a further strain on your interests. We both want to reduce our poverty. In our previous submissions we have explained the root causes of our poverty.

·  (1325)  

    In some parts of the country treaties are in place, but are not being implemented. In other areas treaties are not being completed, as in British Columbia. This lack of respect for first nations jurisdiction creates uncertainty in the minds of investors and reduces our access to capital. For most communities the land base is hopelessly inadequate to sustain a viable economy. Other communities are located too far from markets and technology. This does not mean we abandon these communities, it means we improve their access to lands and resources and activities in their traditional territories.

    First nations sit on the sidelines as Canadians grow wealthy on the resources of first nations lands and traditional territories. Inadequate housing, toxic drinking water, and broken sewer systems are a blight on the educational and employment experiences of our youth. The legacy of dysfunction created by residential schools and poorly thought out federal policies that promote “European values” as superior and first nations as inferior continues to have a lasting effect. From a purely economic standpoint, the costs of doing business on first nations lands are five times higher than on any other lands.

    We've provided you with a systematic plan with clear rationale to address these root causes. Our comprehensive plan focuses on three themes: nation building, implementing our rights and titles to create investment certainty, and enabling our citizens to participate in the economy. Our plan has not changed dramatically from year to year. The requirements to address our poverty and allow us to compete fairly for investment have not changed. Our plan is not a request for special treatment, it is a request that Canada recognize and respect our constitutional rights and our place in Confederation. It is a proposal to ensure that we share in the wealth of Canada and compete for economic opportunities. It is a proposal to ensure that the legacy of this government is to bring first nations into the Canadian fold in a real and meaningful way, to make us true partners in Confederation. Our plan is in direct response to your principal question for this budget: how best can the federal government assure a greater level of prosperity for all Canadians?

    First, our plan will reduce investment uncertainty. The Canadian investment climate will be improved by implementing our treaties and aboriginal titles and removing uncertainty. This can be accomplished by clarifying our jurisdictions, expanding our revenue options, and creating a system that ensures that our service standards are comparable to those of other Canadians.

    Second, our plan will reduce barriers to trade and lower the cost of doing business. We propose to develop our own institutions to create and maintain the standards requirement for trade and investment. We are proposing an infrastructure program to improve the competitiveness of our lands. We are proposing a comprehensive economic strategy making us players in the global economy. Our plan will improve the quality of our labour force. The ingredients for productive workers are not mysteries. Productive workers require good health, good infrastructure, good education, and good attitude. Our plan takes five positive steps to foster more productive first nations workers.

    First, we must improve our chances for success by raising our housing and basic infrastructure standards to those of other Canadians. Our priority is housing.

    Second, we must provide strong social systems to ensure that our parents can break the dependency cycle and provide our children with a positive upbringing and a positive attitude about themselves and future employment.

    Third, we must support our languages and culture to ensure that we have strong individual identities.

    Fourth, we must provide our current and future workers with the highest possible standards for education.

    Finally, we must create the climate for innovation by ensuring our access to technology, research, and emerging industries in the knowledge economy.

    Raising our productivity to Canadian standards would close a productivity gap with the Americans. It would restore Canada's number one ranking in the UN development index. It would enhance the sustainability of the social safety net. Raising our productivity will ensure the future prosperity of all Canadians. As an added bonus, it is the right and just thing to do.

    We urge you to consider all elements of the comprehensive plan. Think of where Canada would be ranked in the UN development index if the average lifespan of all its citizens was reduced by 10 years.

·  (1330)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): Mr. Bellegarde, you've got about a minute left.

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: I have just a page left.

    If the level of university enrolment was reduced by 30%, and if 25% of Canadian water and sewage systems were unsafe, we would be a third world country. First nations are only seeking what the rest of Canada takes for granted: the ingredients for a G-7 economy; a healthy, well-educated workforce; first world standards for infrastructure and services; access to markets and technology; and our own institutions of government to create certainty.

    We are aware of the factors dominating the current policy environment. We know Canada is tied into an uncertain global economy. We know you must invest public resources wisely. Our plan represents a high rate of return. Under our plan, an investment of $27.5 billion over the next 20 years will yield a return of $72.7 billion over the same period. I've attached a note demonstrating the calculations.

    We realize there are widespread public misperceptions about expenditures on first nations coming at the expense of other priorities like health care. You need to know our poverty is a problem for all Canadians and a drain on all governments. Higher expenditures on us are results of poverty—poverty that was not our making. We assume expenditures on similarly poor Canadians are just as high. Successful efforts to bridge this economic disparity benefit all Canadians, and in fact leave more resources for health care and other priorities. For example, the first nations and Inuit health branch communityhealth program must be re-established with the proper funding base and an adequate growth factor for both non-insured health benefits and community health programs, while allowing for reforms and investments to focus on health promotion and preventative measures.

    We know you're being held to account by the United Nations for the slow progress in dealing with our land claims and implementation of the RCAP recommendations. We know resolving our issues is to be considered a legacy for the current Prime Minister. We are proposing a method to restore Canada's reputation as a just society on the world stage and the best solution to build our nations. We have the history, traditions, and economic incentives to be the best stewards of our physical, cultural, and economic environments. We are best able to identify and address the needs and interests of our constituents. We are more accountable and responsive to our residents than the federal and provincial governments. We are building our own institutions to create and maintain certainty and confidence in our governments.

    The status quo is not an option. The cost of doing nothing is too high. As the rest of the population gets older, our children are in bloom. We have unfinished business to deal with, and partnership is the key. Let's work together to build a healthy future and a stronger Canada.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): Thank you very much, Vice-Chief.

    We have the quote, and I'm sure we'll all read it or have memorized it by now. We'll have to keep moving here.

    Next, from the Métis National Council of Women, we'll hear from Ms. Sheila Genaille and Joyce Gus, please.

    Mrs. Sheila Genaille (President, Métis National Council of Women): Thank you, and good afternoon. I want to thank the committee for inviting us to participate in these hearings. We also extend our sympathy to the chair, who had to leave.

    I gave you a backgrounder. I'm not going to go through the whole thing, because it would take too long and I'll run out of time. I'm going to highlight our issues.

    The Métis National Council of Women was incorporated in 1992 to address issues faced by Métis women and their children. The board of directors is elected, with presidents from five regional associations. My colleague Joyce Gus is the president of the Red River Michif Women's Council, from here in Manitoba.

    The Métis are defined in subsection 35(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982, which says, “In this Act, ‘aboriginal peoples of Canada’ includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.”

    Although Métis women have been active in various aspects of the Métis community, distinct, autonomous Métis women's organizations have recently emerged. We continue to encounter racial and gender discrimination, and we have our issues marginalized. The Métis National Council of Women is committed to working with governments and their agencies to eliminate gender discrimination and in turn address the issues of poverty, economic development, employment, health care, and a safe and sustainable environment.

    We're going to focus our presentation on some of the issues we are looking at. The number one issue is gender discrimination experienced by the Métis National Council of Women. This results in exclusion from consultations, program design and development, and funding from some federal government departments.

    I've included some background statistics from the aboriginal peoples survey. For example, the 1991 survey showed that the Métis are overrepresented among Canadians with low incomes, low levels of education, and high unemployment. One-half of those identifying themselves as Métis in the aboriginal peoples survey had an annual income of less than $10,000. Further, in the 1996 population census, the report provided a profile of close to 800,000 individuals, who reported that they were one of the aboriginal groups in Canada that make up 3% of the population. The aboriginal population is much younger than the general population; the average age in 1996 was 25.5 years, or 10 years younger than the average Canadian.

    According to StatsCan, the objective of the census is to provide detailed information concerning demographic, social, and economic conditions of the population. However, we would suggest to you that due to the mobility and poverty, a true picture of the Métis has not been obtained. StatsCan estimated that the 44,000 people living on reserves and in settlements were incompletely enumerated in 1996.

    Métis women have told us many times that there is a need for prevention programs, family support, and Métis-driven and Métis-specific programs, in addition to the mainstream services. These should be culturally sensitive to the Métis. As the Métis National Council of Women, we have little or no input into the design, development, and implementation of policies in some federal government departments despite the fact that these programs and policies affect Métis women and their children. I would like to provide you with a few examples.

    Human Resources Development Canada has a program called child benefit consultations, with an aboriginal youth component. A total of $28.5 million of HRDC's youth funding each year has been reserved to help aboriginal youth.The Métis National Council of Women has been trying to get into that program over the years, but we have been turned down many times because they say they have no funds.

    In the capacity-building strategy, they allocated $30 million over five years for capacity-building efforts, including front-line human resources, officer training, and the development and enhancement of tools and systems to further the capacity and efficiency of aboriginal delivery organizations. Again, we were shut out of this process.

    In terms of the national children's agenda, Métis women make up over 51% of the population. They invited certain groups to come and draft some policies and a shared vision. Again, the Métis National Council of Women tried to get into this process but were excluded.

    On the Aboriginal Relations Office, I'm sure you're all well aware that over 70 aboriginal human resources development agreements, as well as initiatives and programs, have been established. According to the ARO, these agreements are based on the recognition that aboriginal people best understand their needs and are best able to design and implement effective programs and services. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been made available to a select few aboriginal groups, yet the Métis National Council of Women has been lobbying since 1995, when they started looking at changing the pathways to success. Our only way of trying to get into this is to take Canada to court, yet they're fighting the poorest women in this country and are saying there's no money and that we're not part of this process.

·  (1335)  

    We recommend to this committee that all initiatives within HRDC that impact Métis women and their children with respect to the design, development, and implementation be open and inclusive to all autonomous aboriginal women's organizations, especially the ones that are currently excluded—the Métis National Council of Women and the Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association—and that more funds be provided for our inclusion.

    Another area that we're very concerned with is health. There is a new strategy with Health Canada on FAS/FAE. They have a $1.7-million strategy for the next two years, but that's for all Canadians. When we have the amount of poverty that we have in our communities and we try to access some of these dollars, most of us don't get into the project funding.

    On the projects accepted by Health Canada—we got the data from them—there was only one project accepted under FAS/FAE. That project targeted a small portion of the aboriginal population, and it was for the national Indian and Inuit community health representative organizations that were going to set up an FAS/FAE training session, a project for six months in the province of Quebec.

    We recommend to this committee that the FAS/FAE strategic fund have within it a special fund for aboriginal peoples. Since Métis women, as well as our other aboriginal sisters, are the life-givers and are at risk, they must be afforded the opportunity to design, develop, and implement programs and break the FAS/FAE cycle so that the next generation will be healthy and participating members of society.

    HIV/AIDS is another critical issue for the aboriginal world. According to Health Canada, the number of reported AIDS cases among aboriginal Canadians has risen steadily since 1984. Those at risk are not only the aboriginal men who have sex with men, the rates are also rising quickly for aboriginal women, as well as for injection drug users.

    The National Aboriginal Council on HIV/AIDS was created in 2001 to address shared concerns about aboriginal people and to advise the Health Canada strategy on the vulnerability of the aboriginal population. NACHA is made up of 24 members from four distinct groups: first nations, Inuit, Métis, community-based AIDS organizations, and aboriginal people living with HIV and AIDS .

·  (1340)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): Ms. Genaille, you have about another minute if you want to wrap things up.

    Ms. Sheila Genaille: Okay.

    Our recommendation is that more funds be made available to fight this disease, because its presence is quickly rising in our population.

    The diabetes situation is the same for aboriginal people, and $58 million has been allotted over five years to address that. In the aboriginal world, diabetes is the number one disease, so we're again asking that more funds be directed to this.

    I must say something in regard to Canadian Heritage's aboriginal women's program. Canadian Heritage has not had an increase in that budget in over five years. We have the same budget year after year. That's what keeps us alive. It's our core funding. We recommend to this committee that this budget be increased immediately, so that the three national, autonomous aboriginal women's organizations can participate fully. Our budgets have been frozen for ten years, yet costs rise and we're expected to try to run on a shoestring. For example, this year, our organization got its first payment for core funding two weeks ago. We had been going for two months without money. How many Canadians would sit there and not have to pay bills and would run an organization out of their own pockets? I think that's totally obscene, and we're asking for greater input.

    For the Gathering Strength program, it's the same thing. Ralph Goodale promised funds to aboriginal women, but we haven't seen a dime on that.

    In conclusion, I've given you the documentation, and I hope you read it. We want to be part of this Canada and have the equality that most Canadians demand and get. Aboriginal women are not on the same footing, and what our experience has been with a lot of bureaucrats is that they just don't give a darn.

    Thank you very much.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): Thank you, Ms. Genaille, for bringing those matters to our attention.

    I'd like to go now to the National Aboriginal Voluntary Organization, Mr. Damon Johnston and Mr. Wayne Helgason. Please proceed. Who's going to be presenting?

    Mr. Damon Johnston (Co-Chair, National Aboriginal Voluntary Organization): I'll speak and Wayne will just touch on one matter.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): Okay. Thank you.

    Mr. Damon Johnston: Good afternoon, and again, thank you to the committee for having us appear today. We, too, extend our best wishes to the chair in her moment of need.

    The National Aboriginal Voluntary Organization has been created as a result of the work of the aboriginal reference group, which was established under the voluntary sector initiative. The reference group was formed in July, 2001 and it was comprised of 20 aboriginal people from across Canada with an extensive range of experience and expertise in the voluntary sector. The reference group was established to provide advice and input from an aboriginal perspective on the activities of the VSI.

    The VSI is a joint venture between the voluntary sector and the Government of Canada. It aims to strengthen the sector's capacity to meet the challenges of the future and to enhance the relationship between the sector and the federal government and their ability to serve Canadians.

    In December 2001 an accord was signed between the Government of Canada and the voluntary sector based on agreed values and principles and commitments to action. The accord makes special reference to the special place that aboriginal people have in Canadian society and acknowledges the need to interpret and apply the accord differently to reflect the aboriginal point of view.

    In taking the accord forward, the voluntary sector and the federal government have agreed to the establishment of appropriate organizational structures to give effect to the provisions of the accord to processes for monitoring progress, the development of codes of good practice in the areas of policy development and funding, a regular meeting between federal government ministers and sector representatives, and ongoing actions to increase the awareness of the accord.

    The accomplishments of the ARG over the past year or year and a half have been initiation of dialogue among aboriginal people on our perspective and contribution to the voluntary sector, the development of a work plan of activities to guide the ARG over the past year, ARG participation and input to a number of VSI joint tables and working groups, feedback from ARG in the consultation phase of the Canada volunteerism initiative, ARG input to the development frame of the accord between the Government of Canada and the voluntary sector, and initial development of a database of aboriginal organizations in the voluntary sector. ARG has conducted a series of aboriginal community consultation sessions in five urban locations in Canada. It produced a 20-minute video on voluntary activity from an aboriginal perspective and has done strategic planning and direction for the evolution of the ARG into the national aboriginal voluntary entity.

    Through these accomplishments, and in particular through the community consultation sessions, interest and support has been generated for the continued development of greater aboriginal participation and capacity within the voluntary sector. Appropriate support and capacity within the sector has the potential to affect many aspects of social, cultural, and economic well-being in aboriginal communities throughout Canada.

    What is needed is a clear picture of the aboriginal voluntary sector. This does not exist at the present time. NAVO is positioned to initiate this work and begin the process of creating snapshots within the sector that accurately reflect the size, scope, and content of the aboriginal voluntary sector. This needs to be documented and analysed to assist in the policy process and in the design and implementation of programs and services.

    The mandate of the NAVO is to strengthen the capacity and participation of aboriginal peoples, groups, and organizations in the voluntary sector on an inclusive basis. There are a number of areas that NAVO sees as priorities. There is a need to continue to create relationships and establish networks. This is best accomplished through inclusion, that is, the inclusion of aboriginal people and their act of participation in such relationships as the voluntary sector initiative.

    We need to continue to build aboriginal capacity and become a recognized and accountable resource to aboriginal people and their organizations as well as with mainstream society. This is as much about finding our voice and becoming an effective advocate from an accountability and leadership perspective.

    Our recommendations are that the Government of Canada maintain its commitment and support of the voluntary sector initiative, the accord signed between the Government of Canada and the voluntary sector, and the creation and support of the voluntary sector forum.

    Wayne is going to speak now to the recently appointed Minister, Ms. Sheila Copps.

·  (1345)  

    Mr. Wayne Helgason (Board Member, National Aboriginal Voluntary Organization): My comments deal with the voluntary sector of Canada, of course, the appointment of Sheila Copps as a minister, and the accord. They also deal with the Prime Minister committing on December 5, 2001, to deal with the voluntary sector, which is 180,000 organizations in this country protecting, supporting, and helping Canadians in the broad sense. The aboriginal community is quite distinctive in that regard because it hasn't organized itself that way, to that extent. In fact, in western Canada, where 65% of aboriginal people live, we make up the voluntary sector, whether it's the Elizabeth Frys, the United Ways, or the John Howards. So it was very important that a perspective... and the accord itself makes reference to that.

    We're really pleased that about a month ago Ms. Copps was appointed minister for the voluntary sector, but we need federal leadership. We need federal leadership as it relates to the way in which provincial governments and territories might continue to... As an example, the federal government has already made sure that aboriginal interests, aboriginal organizations, aboriginal governments, are brought to the table in the consideration of the development of the voluntary sector and participate at all levels of the process.

    To that end, I want to make a quick note of another document called “Strengthening the Social Union, The Social Union Framework Agreement”. It's under review. We are concerned that under the SUFA, as it's known, in its review, you may limit yourself as a federal government to six provinces having to sign on to federal spending. So whether its aboriginal or urban services and supports particularly, or supports to the voluntary sector, it's important that the federal government should maintain its flexibility and its ability to deal directly with both municipalities, as this suggests, with aboriginal organizations and governments, and with the voluntary sector.

    Be careful that you don't tie yourself up, is our recommendation, and it's clear in here, in relation to dealing with Canadians in a manner in which they organize themselves. The voluntary sector, which employs 1.3 million people in this country, provides important and valuable service, so in the context of off-loading, privatization, whatever, don't forget that we have a strong voluntary sector. Manitoba is the best example, in my view, of where the voluntary sector, the community, the not-for-profit, the charitable organizations, are hard at work on behalf of Canadians and doing important work.

·  (1350)  

    Mr. Damon Johnston: Our third recommendation is that the Government of Canada recognize and support the need for more sustained operational support of organizations such as the NAVO. Truly the NAVO does not fit in any existing funding stream within the federal government. While short term, project-based funding is available, it does not address the longer-term needs and opportunities for an agency such as NAVO to assist the aboriginal voluntary community in a wide range of areas that is beneficial to both aboriginal people as well as government.

    Four, provide resources to support aboriginal capacity building at the national level through the NAVO. Annual operational support in the amount of $125,000 would provide an initial start-up and the needed stability to begin to build a foundation to better support the aboriginal voluntary sector.

    Last, the NAVO would also seek the support of the Standing Committee on Finance for an annual conference of the aboriginal voluntary sector. The details of such a conference would be further determined through the initial research on the aboriginal voluntary sector.

    In summary, the individuals involved in the formation of the aboriginal reference group and our evolution as the National Aboriginal Voluntary Organization have achieved much in a short period of time. We are confident that this is just the beginning, and that through the continued investment in each other we are building a healthier society and will be better able to respond to the challenges that lie before us as a country.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): Thank you very much, Mr. Johnston and Mr. Helgason. I'd like to turn now to the Native Women's Association of Canada, Ms. Terri Brown and Ms. Sherry Lewis. Please proceed.

    Ms. Terri Brown (President, Native Women's Association of Canada): Committee members, brothers and sisters, elders, greetings from the Native Women's Association of Canada.

    I want to begin by acknowledging the first people of this territory: the Cree, Dakota, Métis, Dene, and Ojibwe people.

    Thank you for welcoming us here today.

    I want to thank the committee for inviting us to address you as part of your pre-budget consultations. It is our hope that our words will not be filed under native consultations. Action is required, not just listening and researching. The lives of aboriginal women will be greatly impacted by the decisions you make in your budget deliberations.

    The Native Women's Association of Canada is a national body consisting of provincial and territorial women's groups, which work to foster the full participation of aboriginal women and youth in Canadian society.

    Our presentation is intended to paint a portrait of the situation of aboriginal women in Canada, and in doing so we cannot separate economics from the overall diminished quality of life experienced by aboriginal women and children. Aboriginal women are disadvantaged due to race, class, and gender. Collectively, we are the poorest of the poor, and because of this, we require immediate concrete action from all levels of government. Aboriginal women's status in society can only be understood within the context of a wide range of determinants, including socio-economic status, education, employment conditions, social support networks, physical environment, healthy child development, and access to quality health care services.

    It is the interwoven web of poverty and poverty-related issues that defines a contemporary aboriginal woman and her children. In this web many aboriginal women find themselves criminalized and the recipients of punitive incarceration. As a result, 80% of women imprisoned are serving time for poverty-related offences. At least 50% of aboriginal families are headed by single mothers, who survive on an average income of $16,000 a year. Two-thirds of aboriginal women reside outside of the traditional homelands and provide for the care of more than one child. This relegates these women and children to a life of poverty and shame. Forty-three per cent of aboriginal women live in poverty, in comparison to 19% of those from the dominant culture. It leaves aboriginal women vulnerable to social deficiencies and results in the continuance of economic dependence.

    While aboriginal women are more likely to complete post-secondary education than aboriginal men, they are still less likely to be employed, particularly in full-time positions and with adequate wages. With few marketable skills, a lack of social support structures, and inadequate income, aboriginal women are forced to live in substandard housing, which impacts their overall well-being and that of their dependants. Recent studies indicate that aboriginal unemployment is often related to a relatively low level of education and occupational skills. The aboriginal women's unemployment issue is directly related to systemic racism and is further compounded by additional barriers associated with child care and sporadic movement in and out of the labour force, resulting in instability.

    Economic development is understood as a means to growth and has a direct link to an increase in access to employment, equality in the workplace, financial wealth, and independence--in essence, a real future.

    Young aboriginal women in our current society are too often deprived of an initial good start in terms of education, health care, economic stability, self-perception, and life skills development. This deprivation is the result of marginalization, including discrimination based on race and gender, abuse, low-paying jobs, poverty, and significant social barriers. Programs and initiatives that focus on issues related to young aboriginal women residing in urban centres are essential in order to provide opportunities to break free of the limitations initially imposed upon them.

    As unemployment rates for aboriginal peoples soar to twice the national average, the growing population of aboriginal youth is certain to have a bleak future unless there is direct intervention. Along this vein, the Native Women's Association of Canada has a number of strong and progressive recommendations to be considered for implementation: first, policy revision to address the education, training, and employability of aboriginal women is required to increase access to employment and equality in the workplace and in Canadian society in general.

·  (1355)  

    Sustainability is the challenge for the Native Women's Association of Canada, as the premier national aboriginal women's organization. While we are grateful for the core funding we receive, we require increased resources in order to meet the complex needs of our national membership. Year-to-year funding jeopardizes our ability to maintain functioning and responsibilities, and therefore we recommend a solid plan for at least $20 million over a five-year period to autonomous aboriginal women's organizations.

    The debate over increases to minimum wage has existed for many years, and while raising the minimum wage would assist in closing the gap between the “haves” and “have-nots”, we suggest that government address the more far-reaching impact of systemic racism and the historical barriers relegating aboriginal women to severely low-paying jobs.

    Our children are our future. And while government treads lightly on the issue of child care, it is essential that budgets incorporate aggressive child care benefits and that governments implement social policies that directly influence an aboriginal woman's ability to enter and maintain a meaningful presence in the Canadian labour force. A national child care program is essential.

    Social housing and quality health care permit women to increase their standard of living, which in turn impacts their children. Poor children have poor mothers. In order to become a positive participant in society, there needs to be adequate housing, social support structures, and access to quality health care. Therefore budget allocation needs to address the immediate improvement to the basic needs of aboriginal women, especially those in urban centres.

    Male violence against aboriginal women is an ongoing issue that requires consistent long-term funding, as there are no quick fixes or answers to this historical problem. This issue has been no further evidenced than by Canada's largest mass murder of primarily aboriginal women from Vancouver's Lower East Side.

    The sum of $5 million is required to establish a fund in the memory of the spirit of the sisters who have gone missing or who have been killed over the years. A missing sisters fund would document the deaths of the women, begin an education and awareness program, and finally make recommendations for real change.

    A more focused effort on financial policies that encourage Canadian employers to provide sustainable employment opportunities geared to incorporating aboriginal women and youth is needed. The implementation of a five-year strategy to document aboriginal women at risk, with a focus on the significant health issues faced by aboriginal women, would be very progressive.

    In closing, the Speech from the Throne showed a display of knowledge, commitment, and vision by your government on aboriginal issues. Now we need action. Verbal dialogue is not enough. We have aboriginal solutions to aboriginal problems. We know our issues. We know our communities. We know the answers. On the other hand, we do not have access to resources. We have a plan and that plan will bring results and real change for our people who are suffering across this nation.

    In closing, I would say, show me the money.

    Thank you.

¸  (1400)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): Where's the beef, eh?

    Thank you, Ms. Brown and Ms. Lewis.

    Thank you to all of you for some excellent presentations.

    We're going to go to a 10-minute round of questioning and comments, starting with Pat Martin, please.

    Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for very moving and very well thought out briefs.

    There seems to be a theme through some of the briefs we've heard. Although you've raised many pertinent issues for the people you represent, one thing I notice is that you are all screaming for more adequate funding so you can carry on representing the people in your organizations. There seems to be a pattern that general core funding budgets for the advocacy groups have been slashed recently. There seems to be a tie between those groups that support Minister Nault's first nations governance initiative and those who don't. For instance, when the Assembly of First Nations chose not to cooperate fully with this new initiative, its budget was cut by 50%, from $18 million a year to about $10 million. I believe your own budget was cut, Ms. Brown, and a new parallel aboriginal women's organization was set up with a luxurious multi-million dollar budget, because it agreed with the first nations governance agreement and you had reservations about it.

    I'd ask people to comment a bit on the importance of stable core funding if you are going to continue to advocate for the people you represent. That is one question.

    I would like to put the second question and then ask for comments. Given that we're getting close to November 11, we're all wearing our poppies. First nations veterans weren't eligible for the same benefits other Canadians received when they came back from the Second World War and the Korean conflict. An exhaustive national round table took place and--I won't go into too much detail--admitted that those benefits should be about $120,000 to as high as $400,000 per veteran today. The settlement that has just been made by the federal government is $20,000, less than one-fifth of the lowest estimate of the national round table. Would you consider asking this finance committee to at least find in the budget next year an ability to offer a reasonable settlement to those few first nations veterans who are still alive and eligible?

    If anybody wants to comment on the general funding for the organizations they represent, I'd be interested in that.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): We'll start with Vice-Chief Bellegarde.

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: Thanks, Pat. You'd think I'd primed you with the questions you asked.

    They were good comments. I'm going to make some comments on the whole legislative government agenda, the First Nations Governance Act, the independent claims body, and of course, the four institutions.

    We're opposed to the First Nations Governance Act. It did have impacts and ramifications across Canada for organizations that supported it or didn't support it; some were on the fence, lukewarm. Even FSIN was touted because there was an exhaustive “consultation process”. But we didn't view that consultation process as legitimate consultation. There was awareness generated in our communities. So we don't support the First Nations Governance Act, because it's just more, we say, tinkering with the Indian Act. Our rights do not come from that Indian Act. We have inherent rights and we have treaties; they are enshrined in Canada's Constitution. So we say establish a whole new legislative package, a whole new legislative regime for implementation of section 35. Do not rely on the courts any more, because that box is going to be filled up by either the court system or a political system. We say let's establish a political process to implement section 35. The Indian Act is not it, and the First Nations Governance Act is not it. We're trying to get out of that system.

    It did have implications for AFN's funding; it did get cut back. Stable core funding is, of course, crucial, but we've been lobbying for our communities, for the 633 communities across Canada, for total funding based on their total membership, on and off reserve. Those budgets have not increased at the community level for many years, and that's where the action is. So that's got to change.

    On the ICB, remove the cap on the $7 million for treaty land entitlement claims and we'll support it. For the institutions, just make them relevant to those communities that want them to apply to them and we'll support that. Those communities in B.C. that support it, great. List those communities, and then the legislation will go like that.

    On the veterans, that's my baby, that's my file, and I worked hard and lobbied on that one. Along with Ray Pagtakhan, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and along with Grand Chief Howard Anderson, we had the national round table, and we know there are injustices. The government economists indicated $120,000 per individual for missed benefits; our economist said $420,000. So there was the range. There were no discussions or negotiations on the amount, but they came up with $39 million as the package. So now our veterans have to sign on before they get that. It would be nice to see that increased. Justice, reconciliation, those are the keys. They are signing off on that $20,000. Why? Because they're 80 or 81 years old, and they're thinking, I'll take that $20,000 now, because I might be dead tomorrow.That's what they're thinking. So if there's any justice, increase it. They will feel good about it, and then it's a victory for everybody and justice will be done.

¸  (1405)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): Thank you.

    I think Ms. Genaille wanted to speak, and also Mr. Helgason.

    Ms. Sheila Genaille: It's essential that we have stable and on-time funding. We've met with officials from Canadian Heritage time and time again. It's a personal stress on me as national president; it's a personal stress on the women in the regions, because they rely on us for support. It's come to the point where we have had to lay off people, and there's only one other person besides myself there.

    I don't know if it's the policy of the people in the House of Commons--I hope it's not. To me, it's petty bureaucrats who put forward policy. I know people who sit in the House don't have their hands on everything--you can't, because there's just too much going on--so you rely on the bureaucracy for information. Our feeling, and I think most aboriginal people would support me, is that they try to drive a wedge between us. They drop somebody in, as with the Indian affairs minister bringing in this new women's organization, and it's just like wanting us to fight with each other.

    What we're here for is to make sure Métis women are able to participate. So core funding is very important and increasing it, perhaps not every year, but at least as costs rise for us.

    On the first nations benefits, one of the things they forgot was the Métis veterans. Three Genailles went over, my dad, his brother, and his first cousin. My dad came home, but the other two never made it. It's a real sore point in the Métis world. There were a lot of veterans who went overseas. So if you're going to speak of aboriginal veterans, it wasn't just the first nations people. There were women as well. I know the Métis veterans who are alive are incensed with this and have made their voices well heard. So on the benefits, don't forget the Métis men and women.

    Thank you.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): Thank you.

    Mr. Helgason.

    Mr. Wayne Helgason: I would like to recognize that today actually is National Aboriginal Veterans Day. We had a wonderful ceremony and the minister was there at the Aboriginal Centre, laying a wreath in that regard. But I support the comments made earlier on that subject.

    Touching briefly only on advocacy and funding, I'll just read two quick principles in this document under principles, because it's about values, principles, and commitments.

The independence of voluntary sector organizations includes their right within the law to challenge public policies, programs and legislation and to advocate for change; and

Advocacy is inherent to debate and change in a democratic society and, subject to the above principles, it should not affect any funding relationship that might exist.

    Pretty progressive words that the Prime Minister has agreed to on December 5, 2001. It's more of a general principle, and what we heard in the voluntary sector consultations is that project funding just doesn't do it. It doesn't allow you to build the kind of capacity across the board. Long-term, more sustainable funding is absolutely required.

    But what's really interesting is that advocacy is finally something in our Canadian society. In 1994 when I took over the Social Planning Council--and Reg will back me up--advocacy was a bad word. I couldn't even use it as a function of what we might do. To see it recognized by the federal government is very important to our synthesis of who we are as Canadians and how we're going to proceed, and is commendable.

    I'll tell you there are codes of practice that have been developed as a result. One of them is on funding, and you'd hear very similar comments in a general basis. But wherever it's a concern, it's more of a concern to aboriginal groups because we're newer at this stuff. We're just picking up some capacities, and where capacity has really been supported, we've seen great success. Winnipeg is a good example.

    If you have been to the Aboriginal Centre or you've been to the Thunderbird House or you've seen people in urban centres and others--I don't want to take away, I just can't speak on their behalf--and if you have witnessed that, and I know Pat has and I know Reg has, then you'd be as confident as I am that there's a way to move to a better place. It has a lot to do with the recommendations here today.

¸  (1410)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): Thank you very much.

    Ms. Brown, and then we're going to go to Mr. Alcock.

    Ms. Terri Brown: Pat Martin gave a very good description of the political climate over the last year, or since the FNGI started. The government has taken very cutthroat action and it has definitely been directed at organizations that weren't falling in sync with their plans. We did not support the FNGI because it was flawed from the beginning, and it's flawed today.

    This tactic of dividing our communities has been very damaging. It's been a very difficult year for NWAC on that front because a new group was funded. I speak endlessly about this because it's just a very dirty job by government. Everywhere I go I make a great deal of effort to talk to people to give them accurate information. They did fund a new group. This was because we were aligning ourselves, not so much with AFN philosophy, but rather that we had our own philosophy. We felt that what they were doing was wrong and it was unjust.

    They did not include any women's issues in the whole process. So why would we want to be involved in a process that was developed before we were ever consulted to any degree? That's a very good point you brought up.

    Today I'm very happy to have seen the ceremonies at the Aboriginal Centre as well. Thank you.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): Excuse my ignorance, but what is the name of this new group, just for the record?

    Ms. Terri Brown: It's called the National Aboriginal Women's Association. It's very difficult because the name is so close to our name. It's very confusing because people think they're us.

    Mr. Pat Martin: It's easy to tell them apart because one has millions of dollars and the other doesn't have any.

    Ms. Terri Brown: Yes, plus we all look the same.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): I was on the plane last night from Toronto to here with Mr. Pagtakhan and he told me about his plans to go to the event this morning. I'm glad it went off very well.

    Mr. Alcock.

    Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Thank you.

    NWAC, do you receive any core funding at all?

    Ms. Terri Brown: Yes, we do. We have done for many years, like Sheila's group. She was saying it hasn't increased over ten years.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: On this point, was your funding cut?

¸  (1415)  

    Ms. Terri Brown: No, the funding wasn't cut, but we were in a process of negotiating funding to be involved in the FNGI. We hadn't said that we would not participate at all. We had said to put some women's issues on the table and we'd gladly participate, and also to consult a wider degree of people across the country. We asked for a freeze, but when Nault took that as a no, they moved ahead in their work.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Whose funding got cut? Maybe I misunderstood what you said.

    Ms. Terri Brown: I think what he may be referring to is we had an agreement written up for $1.2 million to sign to get involved in the process. When we said we want a freeze for three months to give us a chance to think about it, they wiped it off that map, and then this new group formed in the meantime and they were funded.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Sheila, your group would not be involved with... what did you call it?

    Ms. Sheila Genaille: No, that was from Indian Affairs.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Actually, you've tweaked my interest in this thing with the veterans. I understand there's always the problem in drawing lines. David Chartrand spoke to me about this issue of the Métis veterans.

    I understand with the first nations veterans, where you have a definition, there's a number or some way of counting and categorizing them. What I don't understand is why Métis veterans would ever have been treated differently from any other veterans. That's what I don't understand. I can see that about a first nations person they could say, this is a first nations person and they have access to other kinds of...whatever the rationale was for drawing the line, making the division, but there would be no such rationale for a Métis veteran. They'd come back like any other veteran, and, presumably, be able to access.... So why would this problem even exist? Can somebody help me understand what went on?

    Ms. Sheila Genaille: My father, for example, was overseas on the front line. When he left Holland, he was a hero. He was equal. He was a Canadian, like every other man. He got back to Manitoba and he was relegated to the half-breed from the road allowance.

    Did he have access to the same thing his counterparts did? Absolutely not. Did he receive anything from this country? Absolutely not. My dad carried the garbage with him till he died. What upsets most Métis veterans is the fact that the term “aboriginal” is used a lot in this country, but they use it in terms of the first nations people, the Indian people, and they'll say, oh, and the Métis. So the veterans haven't had the same opportunity. That's why they're so angry. They're dying, and they're dying and not getting that same recognition.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Bellegarde, you were involved in this process, as I understood it, from your earlier comments.

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: Yes.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: So do you have the reason? Can you tell me why the Métis would be treated differently?

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: Again, I don't know the whole history for the Métis veterans, but when our veterans came back from the war, the Indian veterans were sent to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Other veterans had the Department of Veterans Affairs. So there, right off the hop, was a differentiation and why there was an injustice.

    The spousal benefits that were administered by DND...in the case of Indian women it flowed through the Indian agent. In some cases that didn't get passed on. We have quotes from Indian agents in Battleford, Saskatchewan saying Indian women aren't worthy to receive this money; they'll squander it. They're not as worthy to get this as white women, this veterans spousal allowance. These are direct memos from the Indian agents. So there's a difference from our side.

    For the Métis, they had access...and I don't know the whole history for them. When you came back you had demobilization benefits. Why they never got them...I can speak for the Indian side because I know that inside and out, but I can't comment. I don't know why the Métis never got their--

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Were the Métis represented at the round table you spoke of?

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: No, because I didn't represent the Métis. I represented the first nations guys.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Were you the only person at the round table?

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: In February 2000 we finally got three federal government departments to come to the table to deal with this issue: the Department of Indian Affairs, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of National Defence. We said there's an injustice here that's been outstanding for 50 to 60 years. Let's deal with this. That's where the national round table was established with first nations veterans from across Canada to do the research, do the work, tabulate it, get the evidence.

    That work resulted in, A Search for Equity, that green book. It was a year and a bit of work. That was in black and white, the evidence, the hard evidence, that nobody could dispute. Now we said, here, government, here's the evidence, deal with it.

    Mr. Rey Pagtakhan did the best job he could. We're trained, as Indian leaders, to kick the hell out of government, right? But on this one I want to kick him and I want to give him a pat on the back too, because he did a lot of work lobbying cabinet to bring this file to where it was, but it just wasn't high enough, as per our colleague's comments. We had the economic studies. It should have been more realistically higher. But when it was just decided at $39 million, $20,000 each, what happened to all that work? It was in black and white, justified with an economic forecast.

    It should have been a little higher. That's why we weren't jumping up and down when it was announced. That's on our side. On the Métis, I can't comment. I just don't know the whole history and I don't what to say exactly. We're hearing very clearly there was something, that they never got the same benefits. And you're aware of the demobilization benefits and who were eligible.

¸  (1420)  

    Mr. Reg Alcock: David Chartrand raised this with me about a month or six weeks ago, after the announcement was made that the Métis were excluded. We've been trying to sort out how the situation even arose, why it was that the Métis would have been excluded. I understand exactly the process Chief Bellegarde refers to. You are a first nations person, you go to that office, that's how you sort it out. That's how the discrimination arises in the first place. But it's hard for me to understand how it would happen with Métis veterans, who would presumably go to the--

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: The Department of Veterans Affairs.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Yes. Anyway, it's something I have agreed to look into with David.

    Let's go on to this other issue, Mr. Helgason. There are two parts to it, but I do want to follow up on what Mr. Martin was saying. Basically, there should be no penalty for advocacy activities. Are there other advocacy groups involved in these issues of aboriginal governance that have been cut? Are you aware of any?

    Mr. Wayne Helgason: Aboriginal groups you mean?

    Mr. Reg Alcock: I'd like to know who they are, these ones that have been cut. Because it's hard to respond if you can't identify the groups that have been underfunded.

    Mr. Wayne Helgason: To follow up on Chief Bellegarde's comments, I enquired too with Indian Affairs. I had occasion to speak to some senior people, and they said the funding hasn't really been cut. It was that project funding, to a great degree, that was conditional on your being good participants in a way that might be desired by the Government of Canada. That's the scenario under which it happens. You find there may be a community alternative that needs to be pursued, but it may not be the priority of Ottawa or the government. You can get money to do one thing, but it's really something else you would like to do. That's what this is trying to overcome. Let's build social capital, social cohesion at the community and neighbourhood levels, active citizenship, and engage with people.

    The answers are often at the community level. I speak from my experience, mostly in Winnipeg, where we have great challenges. The solutions aren't going to come from a government agenda, unfortunately. They will come from the community, from women's organizations, from those people in the voluntary sector primarily. We serve as volunteers, by the way, and I think across this country there is credibility in that, and friendship centres and other groups move forward on the basis of not so much the finances but the commitment. Yet they need the capacity to make things happen, to get people together, to create a plan, to sustain a plan. The number of times governments have said they have finished that and want to do something else--it has to be new. It goes against the capacity, the building, and sustainability communities need to engage in.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): Okay. Thank you.

    I think Mr. Powless had a brief comment, then I'm going to go to Mr. Simard.

    Mr. Richard Powless (Special Adviser, Assembly of First Nations): This is with reference to the question Mr. Alcock raised about cuts. Some of the first nations were definitely cut--53% of the funding we receive from the Department of Indian Affairs. We get about 75% of our funding from the department. What surprised us about it was that the government's response to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was a document called Gathering Strength, which was supposed to be a federal policy. Through that policy we established joint tables under what was called the lands and trust services joint initiative. We had 17 tables where we were working together. When Minister Nault came in, he talked about introducing new legislation on the governance side. We opposed it. It was also soon after the comments national Chief Coon Come made in South Africa on racism. We feel very strongly that there is a connection. In our presentation we mentioned that we are afraid this looks like trying to suppress legitimate dissent, which is a cornerstone of democracy. But just to be clear, we were cut by over $10 million.

¸  (1425)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): Because we're on schedule, I'm being a little small l liberal with the time. Mr. Johnston, you have a brief comment, Ms. Lewis, and then we're going to go straight to Mr. Simard. Can you keep it fairly brief, please.

    Mr. Damon Johnston: Just very quickly, I wanted to support the national vice-chief's statement on the First Nations Governance Act process. The Indian Act is being condemned by the Canadian Human Rights Foundation. Canada's record on human rights in relation to aboriginal peoples has just been criticized strongly by Amnesty International.

    In Canada we are a very unique country, even in relation to aboriginal peoples. If you look at the early movement of aboriginal people in the sixties and the creation of the AROP program--this is the core funding program for aboriginal political bodies--it's a very unique situation, much different from what the black people underwent in South Africa. The South African government never provided funding to Nelson Mandela and the ANC to end apartheid.

    The national vice-chief has clearly indicated that the AFN is ready to negotiate the end of the Indian Act. To me this is a horrible blemish on Canada's human rights record. It was established in 1876. It's time; this is the 21st century. We cannot afford to have this legislation continuing to control our lives to the point where it's even a false identity. We're not Indians. There's no word in my language for that; it had to be created. It's an abomination, and it's the only legislation of its type on the planet. It was never meant to make the promises in the treaties real or valid. It even segregated us from the rest of the Canadian population, and many of the challenges that have been talked about here today are a result of segregation. It's not different from what the blacks experienced in the United States and in some ways is even worse.

    So I would encourage the committee to begin to look at the Indian Act from that perspective and to sit down finally with first nations and other aboriginal people to put an end to this legislation and create something that's modern-day and applicable to our current situation.

    Thank you.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): Okay, Ms. Lewis, let us have a brief comment.

    Ms. Sherri Lewis (Chair, Finance, Native Women's Association of Canada): I just wanted to raise an issue. Although the questioning was on very important issues, I wanted to mention that there is a critical issue that has never been funded, and that's action on violence against aboriginal women. We are experiencing epidemic proportions of violence against aboriginal women in our communities. In some communities across this country as many as 90% of aboriginal women experience horrendous violence in their intimate relationships, and there has never been any funding that addresses that.

    Recently I participated with VAW--violence against women--workers and children's aid societies on how to work better. There were absolutely no aboriginal resources we could use to help our partners and the children's aid societies to better work in our communities, nothing in Canada that could show what the picture looks like. Clearly, there has been no funding ever to look at violence against aboriginal women; it is in epidemic proportions and it needs to be addressed.

    Thank you.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): Thank you.

    Mr. Simard.

    Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    My question would be directed to Ms. Brown and anybody else who would like to respond to it. When I saw Our Children, Our Future, I found I couldn't agree more, and I've just been recently named to the human resources committee. I take a very particular interest in early childhood development, for instance.

    I know the federal government has invested substantial moneys through the provinces--as I understand it--in early childhood development over the past couple of years. I'm also told by people at Human Resources that Manitoba has done an excellent job of managing this program.

    My question is, can you tell me if it's made a difference in your community in terms of day care systems and looking after our kids? Are they better today? In that respect, is the program we've put together working, and if it isn't, is there anything we can do in that regard?

¸  (1430)  

    Ms. Terri Brown: Yes and no. On the issue of day care for working mothers, there is day care for women living on-reserve. For off-reserve women there is no money for child care for women in training programs or who are working and that kind of thing; there's no subsidy any more.

    There have been early childhood programs such as CAPC. The bulk of the funding went to on-reserve recipients, though some of it went to off-reserve. However, autonomous women's groups seem to somehow get squeezed out, so if the money is not earmarked to go to women's groups, it doesn't get there.

    Another issue is that because 75% of us aboriginal women live off-reserve, there's no connection to get benefits from the programs that are on-reserve. We're just out in urban centres, large numbers of us, without any benefits such as day care. Day care is very critical, and even within the ARDA program--we're an ARDA holder--we don't have any child care to complement the training of aboriginal women in urban areas. That is a huge barrier we haven't been able to get anywhere with, and again, it's definitely a huge issue for aboriginal women.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): Mr. Helgason.

    Mr. Wayne Helgason: We're going to come and see you because this is wonderful. Congratulations on that appointment, for sure.

    Again, we get back to federal leadership. The national child benefit is a wonderful thing, yet in most provinces in this country it's clawed back from the poorest families in the community.

    This province has started to remove the clawback, which previously meant that families on social assistance did not receive that national child benefit, something that hadn't changed in this province in ten years. It's clawed back in provincial jurisdictions such as Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. Only three provinces, I believe, really allow it to flow through. In this province it's first for kids zero to six, then up to 12, and they promise that next year they'll let the poorest families and these children keep that federal national child benefit.

    That's what I mean by federal leadership; it's in terms of putting conditions on the funding that goes to Canadians to support them, but it needs a bundle--

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): Just a moment. You're talking about the national child benefit as opposed to the early childhood development agreement, just so we're clear on that.

    Mr. Wayne Helgason: Yes, that's right: the NCB and the supplement.

    But also, it's very important that a bundle of services exist. Access to child care is critical; access to housing and supports in that regard are a bundle that....

    Thank you for your question. It's a very important area, and there is work that's achievable for some accomplishments that are attainable.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): Thank you.

    I think, Vice-Chief Bellegarde, you wanted to....

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: Just very quickly, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Simard, when you talk about youth and first nations children, there are three departments that need more coordination. HRDC is dealing with early childhood development. You've got moneys for that. For day care, it's fantastic. It should be a little bit more organized, on and off reserve, in terms of accessibility and portability of services and programs, and finding the off-reserve delivery mechanism. Because of Corbiere v. Canada, Indians have the right to vote for chief and council on reserve now. But portability rights are going to be the next issue; get your heads around that one. What are the delivery mechanism systems in urban centres? Our tribal councils do this in Saskatchewan. It may not work across Canada, but it is one vehicle to look at, because tribal councils can do that. But day care is one for HRDC.

    You've also got moneys from national health and welfare for FAS/FAE, fetal alcohol syndrome or FAE moneys. So you've got one minister handling day care moneys, another minister handling FAS/FAE moneys, and then Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has special education moneys for our kids, for our youth.

    Where's the coordination? Shouldn't there maybe more coordination with one delivery mechanism or one department? Maybe all these moneys should be centralized through one department. I don't know which one it should be, because these three ministers are going to lobby, saying, “give it to me, give it to me, give it to me”. Yet there is duplication, there is overlap, there is administration, and there are bureaucrats who are protecting their turf. It's not effective or efficient.

    Find a better way to do it, and get the services and programs out to the communities. It will work better because it's for children, it's for youth, who are all affected. There has to be a better delivery mechanism and coordination nationally. Maybe the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs should do it. For us, I'd have to say that might be the better.... Then you have one agreement that is signed—not three.

    These are some quick comments.

¸  (1435)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): Thank you.

    Yes, Ms. Genaille.

    Ms. Sheila Genaille: Yes, just to make some comments on HRDC.

    There's a misconception in HRDC—and perhaps in most of the federal government—that the Métis have a political process in this country. Our political process is you people who sit in the House of Commons. Canada has not negotiated with the Métis. Since the defeat of the Charlottetown Accord, they have been devolving programs to certain NGOs in this country, which are the organizations out there. There's a misconception that the Métis National Council is our political party. It's not.

    To Mr. Simard, I would say that autonomous Métis women's groups, such as ours, and autonomous native women's groups—such as the one Terri heads up—should have access to HRDC. The autonomous women's organization, Pauktuutit Inuit Women, should not be shut out because there's an assumption that they have a government other than you people who sit in the House of Commons. This misconception has to be broken.

    Why does Jane Stewart fight us in court, instead of saying, “Yes, Métis women, you are the poorest of the poor”? Why do we have to go to the court challenges program to say to Canada, “That is discriminatory”? You can't give millions of dollars to an NGO and expect us to apply to the NGO. Who are they accountable to? Absolutely nobody but themselves. Would Canadian taxpayers, if they knew the truth of what's happening out there to aboriginal women's organizations—who are trying to be part of the early childhood development, trying to be part of training programs, and trying to be part of any program in that department—not be crying to high heaven?

    So I would ask you to ask your colleague, why does she keep fighting with us? Why does she not settle with the poorest women in this country, so that we can access these programs and erase this misconception? The Métis don't have a political party. We're political, that's true. But we only have groups. They don't speak for us. What I'm trying to say is that we don't have governments.

    Thank you.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): Mr. Simard? Okay.

    We have time for a very quick two-minute round. I know Pat would like to ask a couple more questions, and Mr. Alcock and Monsieur Simard. We'll have the two-minute round for each, and then we're going to wrap it up.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's great; I was just going to ask if I could have another couple questions.

    Specifically I'd like to ask about the situation of the Métis with the two landmark court cases that are coming down very soon, the Powley and Blais cases. We have every reason to believe these will go in favour of the Métis. From the recognition of the Métis' rights under the Powley and the Blais cases, benefits will flow. But the promise of the 1993 red book to enumerate the Métis people has never been acted on. In other words, we don't really know or haven't identified who you are. You know who you are.

    Are you and the Métis women's organization calling for the enumeration of your own people, so that the groundwork is done when these benefits start flowing from the recognition of your inherent rights?

    Ms. Sheila Genaille: Well, yes, there has to be enumeration, but again it has to be inclusive, because there are certain organizations... I would suggest to you in Genaille v. the Crown--we're in court next week--if we have to go to the Supreme Court for Métis women to have equal footing, we're prepared to do it. Yes, the enumeration has to take place, but it has to be open.

    We are the only national autonomous Métis women's organization. That being said, the Native Women's Association also have Métis women as part of their group, and there are regional Métis organizations in eastern Canada. You have to be inclusive of all the people and not just of certain organizations.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you. The last point I was going to make is in answer to some of the issues Mr. Alcock raised. What I was getting at concerned the money spent on the sham of a consultation process for the FNGI. It cost $10 million to go out and do what all parties agree was an incredibly substandard consultation. It couldn't even qualify under any legal definition of consultation. Some communities were actually bribed into holding these consultation meetings, given large amounts of money to hold a one-evening meeting that maybe five or six people came to, and other groups were denied any such largesse because they wouldn't cooperate. They felt the process was a sham. Also, some of the communities have been punished, we believe, by an epidemic of third-party management situations sweeping the country. It's almost become a mini-industry of chartered accountants taking over, under trusteeship, first nations communities.

    So in answer to the inquiry Mr. Alcock made, if you would care to add to any of that, or if you have knowledge of that sort of thing going on, it might enlighten the committee.

¸  (1440)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): I think if you do have anything to add, it must be very briefly.

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: Exactly as Pat is saying, in some communities it's “Here's $25,000 to organize an evening function”, and four Indians show up--well, four first nations indigenous people show up. I get sort of confused here. We're changing our name, FSIN, to the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations; we're getting away from “Saskatchewan Indians”. But four people show up, and they view that as consultation. You know: “We've been out to Little Black Bear; we've been out there.” Well, fine, just because the chief and council or the committee accepted some dollars to organize an event does not mean you're accepting that FNGI. It's education awareness, fine, but it's not consultation; it's not consent. We don't agree with it. But that happens time and time again, and it's fraud. That's why we're taking the hard stance.

    Forget the FNGI and quit wasting your taxpayers' dollars in Canada on a flawed process. Get back to the Penner report. Get back to RCAP and implement section 35--a new legislative framework, a new fiscal relationship for first nations people--and implement a national treaty commissioner appointed by Parliament. That's the answer. Don't just tinker around with that FNGI. It's not going to cut it. That's it.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): Okay.

    Is there anything from Mr. Alcock?

    Mr. Simard?

    Mr. Reg Alcock: I have a couple of comments and questions.

    This is not an area of expertise for me. I spend very little time on it.That wasn't always true. I was a director of child welfare here back in the early 1980s when we first negotiated the tripartite agreements to create the first nations child welfare organizations with the tribal councils, and I spent a lot of time negotiating within the communities.

    It strikes me that we've talked about getting rid of Indian Affairs since God was a child, certainly as long as I've been around, with both governments. I remember the tiny, perfect Mayor of Toronto, David Crombie, when he was the minister. Wasn't he the one who said he'd be the last Minister of Indian Affairs? We seem to always end up back at this point.

    I'm struck by two things, though. Every time government, whether it's this government or the provincial government here, which I would know best, has decided to study these issues and has appointed some apparent independent third party, such as a judge or a group of people, whatever the mechanism has been over the past number of decades, invariably the people who have looked at these issues have come back as strong advocates for first nations communities. I've not had one come back and say, no, that's full of nonsense.

    You constantly get underneath this and wonder why we are having this problem breaking this log-jam, with all this willingness and all these statements, time after time after time.

    I'm also struck by one other thing. I hope, Perry, you'll forgive me for this. In the time I was doing this it struck me that it was the women's groups who kept pushing the service agenda.

    I was interested, Sheila, in your comments about how do we sort out the governance issues and that we constantly get dragged into governance issues when really what we want to do is make sure that very poor women have some support and children are protected, those kinds of things. I don't know how we reconcile these things.

    I'm only sitting here today because the meeting is taking place in Winnipeg and I got a call from the chair, who is sick, and I thought I'd come down and try to help her out.

    It strikes me that this focus on improving the lives of individuals is something that people understand and can take hold of and try to drive. I think the voluntary initiatives are important because they produce real change on the streets.

    For people like myself who are not directly involved in those issues it's much harder to get one's head around the governance issues right now.

    I have one question for you. You have a $4.6 billion request for this year. Have you costed that out in terms of where that goes over future years? Is this a lump cost to solve a problem, or is this your A base now plus the $4.6 billion plus something ongoing?

¸  (1445)  

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: It's basically invest now. The message is simple: no matter where we go, no matter what province or territory you're in, if governments, both federal and provincial, don't invest now and partner and focus on first nations issues, those social costs are going to continue to rise. So we have to find a new way of doing things. We don't want to have a 90% unemployment rate, high incarceration rates, and our kids on the streets and in the Paul Dojack youth homes. That's a big cost. So we want to focus on education, economic development, training, and employment. As part of that, when we have 10,000 students on a waiting list, fund the darn post-secondary program, which is another $590 million. That's an investment. Special education is $30 million over the next three years. But it has to be pumped up higher, because we put the request in. This whole thing, Reg, is a recognition of jurisdiction.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): I'm going to ask Mr. Simard if he has any last comments. I'll then ask the panellists the same thing. Then we'll wrap up.

    Your number was more of a cost avoidance number, wasn't it? If you don't make the investments today, you'll....

    Vice-Chief Perry Bellegarde: In that sense, yes.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: The total estimated cost in the first year is $4.6 billion. We'd like a five-year plan.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): Mr. Simard.

    Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): I have a last question for Chief Bellegarde. I'm sorry, but I came in in the middle of your presentation and I didn't pick it all up. I was reading the first page, and you've indicated that you participated in the last pre-budget consultation. Have you found that you've been heard? Have you found that we've been listening and that we've reacted to your suggestions?

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: This is my first time here. Can I ask Richard to make some comments, because I know for the past four years we've had interventions here at the committee level?

    Mr. Richard Powless: Some of the stuff that's been in the last couple of throne speeches reflected portions of our interventions for previous pre-budget hearings. So we acknowledge that there has been some listening, as with the early childhood education fund, but it's a drop in the bucket. There's a $2 billion need just for the backlog in housing right now. Chief Bellegarde talked about the 10,000 students who have qualified to go to college and universities, and there's no money because there's a cap on it. Anything we get is good, because the need is so high, but a lot more needs to get done.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Roy Cullen): Thank you.

    I'd like to thank all of you for coming here today and for preparing your briefs. I've been on the finance committee for a few years, and we pride ourselves on listening and putting reports up to the minister and to the House that do get some action--we don't win them all. With your coming here today and giving us your very thoughtful briefs, I think we've heard a couple of things. We hear your call for more action. Certainly, our government, in the throne speech, laid out a strong emphasis on aboriginal issues. Now our challenge, as the finance committee, will be to see how we factor that into our equation for resource allocation and what kind of recommendations we come up with. We do appreciate the kinds of challenges you presented and some of the issues that are very serious. We thank you very much for coming here today.

    I'm going to adjourn the meeting on that point.