SCYR Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Subcommittee on Children and Youth at Risk of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, March 19, 2003

¹

1535

The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.))

Ms. Claudette DeWitt (Program Manager, Ben Calf Robe Society)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks)

Ms. Susanne Gudmundson (Program Coordinator, Ben Calf Robe Society)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks)

Mr. John Anderson (Vice-President, Research, Canadian Council on Social Development)

¹

1540

¹

1545

¹

1550

The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks)

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP)

Ms. Susanne Gudmundson

¹

1555

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. John Anderson

The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks)

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.)

Ms. Claudette DeWitt

º

1600

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Ms. Claudette DeWitt

Ms. Susanne Gudmundson

º

1605

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Ms. Claudette DeWitt

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks)

Ms. Susanne Gudmundson

The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks)

Ms. Susanne Gudmundson

The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks)

Ms. Susanne Gudmundson

Ms. Claudette DeWitt

The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks)

Ms. Susanne Gudmundson

Ms. Claudette DeWitt

The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks)

º

1610

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. John Anderson

Ms. Wendy Lill

Ms. Claudette DeWitt

º

1615

Ms. Wendy Lill

Ms. Susanne Gudmundson

The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks)

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Ms. Claudette DeWitt

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Ms. Susanne Gudmundson

º

1620

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Ms. Claudette DeWitt

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Ms. Claudette DeWitt

Ms. Susanne Gudmundson

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

º

1625

The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks)

Mr. John Anderson

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. John Anderson

º

1630

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Ms. Claudette DeWitt

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks)

Ms. Wendy Lill

Ms. Susanne Gudmundson

Ms. Claudette DeWitt

º

1635

Ms. Wendy Lill

The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks)

Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Claudette DeWitt

Mr. Larry Spencer

Ms. Claudette DeWitt

Ms. Susanne Gudmundson

Ms. Claudette DeWitt

Ms. Susanne Gudmundson

Mr. Larry Spencer

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Larry Spencer

Ms. Claudette DeWitt

º

1640

Mr. Larry Spencer

The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks)

Mr. John Anderson

The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks)

Mr. Larry Spencer

º

1645

Mr. John Anderson

Ms. Claudette DeWitt

Mr. John Anderson

The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks)

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

º

1650

The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks)

---

CANADA

Subcommittee on Children and Youth at Risk of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

---

NUMBER 009

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, March 19, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.)): We can start. Welcome to our guests, and thank you for being here.

    We have Wendy Lill and Karen Kraft Sloan on this committee, and one or two others may join us as we're going along.

    I'm pleased to welcome, from the Ben Calf Robe Society, Claudette DeWitt, the program manager, and Susanne Gudmundson; and from the Canadian Council on Social Development, John Anderson.

    Who'd like to start? Claudette, would you like to begin?

    Ms. Claudette DeWitt (Program Manager, Ben Calf Robe Society): Good afternoon. My name is Claudette DeWitt, and I'm program manager at Ben Calf Robe Society. I supervise an in-home program and a foster care program. I have worked in the aboriginal community for the past nine years within the inner city of Edmonton.

    Poverty has affected our urban aboriginal peoples but has also had great impact on the aboriginal peoples who live on and off reserves. The poverty issues stem from many other contributing issues such as addictions, abuse, violence, and low self-esteem. These are in many cases generational issues that are historic.

    We're seeing more gangs in the city...a sense of belonging for our youth and a way for them to seek items and have something. This affects our judicial system.

    Urban aboriginal youth we are working with are affected by housing, education, and of course food issues. Drug use has increased significantly and in turn has an impact on our health care. Education and awareness are crucial.

    I have heard that within the city of Edmonton we're looking at a situation where approximately one out of every three native children is born with FAS. Our food banks are limited and housing costs are so extreme that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. For example, last week I was talking with a single mom with two children. She's given approximately $600 a month to live on, and that's to include their food, clothing, and shelter. The cost of utilities alone within Edmonton can consume half of that $600.

    The City of Edmonton has worked with the urban aboriginal people who are affected by poverty. They have put together a booklet, which I brought today, that contains quotes from people they have interviewed. Just recently, with the cold winter period, the city opened up transit stations because our shelters are full.

    I understand that our time here is brief, and all I can provide, really, is a brief insight into the poverty issues that are affecting the people in Edmonton.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks): Thank you, Claudette.

    Suzanne, did you wish to...?

    Ms. Susanne Gudmundson (Program Coordinator, Ben Calf Robe Society): Good afternoon.

    My name is Susanne Gudmundson, and I'm the program manager at the Ben Calf Robe Society group home. I've worked with children and youth since 1985, and in that time I've seen the effects of poverty on these children and youth. I've worked in the city for most of that time and for a couple of years out in small communities.

    Lack of money and support has contributed to more children and youth coming into care such as our group homes and into the justice programs. Education is being hampered as the cost of books, tuition, and supplies exceeds what can be afforded by parents. Children and youth are being humiliated having to live in poverty. This contributes to low self-esteem in children and youth. Having little or no food in the house hampers children and youth in their ability to concentrate in school. Again, these problems result in low grades, dropping out, delinquency, and children in care.

    Many of the children who have entered our group home have either ADHD, ODD, FAS, or FAE or have been so traumatized that they require special care, special therapy, and special education. We're finding that for therapy they're only allowed ten sessions, and that's all they're allowed through government funding and that. Ten sessions just opens up the can of worms, it doesn't go any further than that. These kids are having these problems and past traumas brought up to the surface, but then there's no therapy after that. They have nowhere to go.

    All these children who are coming into our group home show the effects of poverty, which has been their way of life in the short years they've been around. With children and youth we talk about issues, whether they be issues in government, issues in funding, issues in school or home, or issues in their lives. It's not only the children....

    The staff in our group home are wondering, if the government can put a great amount of money into programs such as gun registration, can some of those dollars be put toward our children? Our children are sacred. They're our future and that's what I work for, the children.

    If I could do one little thing, it would be to make a child happy and live as normal a life as possible. We ask that when you do your budgets, please remember the children and show them you really do care about them, because they are our future.

    Thank you.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks): Thank you very much, Susanne.

    John.

    Mr. John Anderson (Vice-President, Research, Canadian Council on Social Development): Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity.

    My name is John Anderson. I'm the vice-president for research for the Canadian Council on Social Development. We are a national non-profit organization based in Ottawa. We've been around for about 80 years and we specialize in research and policy around issues of social development, such as poverty issues.

    Before I start my presentation, I just want to say I've brought with me some handouts, one of which is our annual publication called The Progress of Canada's Children. I brought copies in French and English. This document is really a portrait of what's happening to Canada's children. It came out last year, in November 2002. You can order it through our website.

    The other book I brought a number of copies of, which I have a synopsis of in French, is called Urban Poverty in Canada, and I've left a certain number of copies with Jeremy. This is a study of urban poverty in Canada based on the last census from 1996. We will be redoing this study this year, based on the new census results. Some of the figures I'm going to use are based on the last census, because the economic figures related to this census do not come out until May, and it will be after that when we will be able to obtain the special runs that look at issues such as aboriginal poverty in Canada, particularly aboriginal poverty in urban settings.

    To start off, I just wanted to say that when I was looking at this presentation, I was reading a lot of documents for it. One of them was a paper written by an aboriginal student and activist, Cindy Blackstock, who wrote a paper about how Canada previously had been number one in the human development index, but it was number 79 or 80 for aboriginal Canadians. So there is a very big difference in terms of two different realities and the reality of where Canada is in terms of that human development index if you take all Canadians and the reality of where Canada is for aboriginal Canadians, using the same kind of evaluation process.

    I'm going to skim very quickly over this, and we can come back to any of the issues that I raise.

    I think the recent census has shown us that the aboriginal population in Canada is on the rise and has now grown, in terms of aboriginal-identity peoples, to make up 3.3% of the total population, but aboriginal peoples are living more and more off the reserve. It's now only 31% of aboriginal people who live on reserves and settlements. Aboriginal peoples and aboriginal children are living more and more in large cities. In 2001, 49% of the aboriginal population lived in urban areas, and one quarter of them lived in ten metropolitan areas, which were the large cities such as Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Saskatoon, Regina, Ottawa-Gatineau, Montreal, and Victoria. Many cities now have very large aboriginal populations. Winnipeg has over 55,000; Saskatoon over 20,000; and Prince Albert has 29% of the total population comprising aboriginal peoples.

    We also know, as our study of urban poverty shows, that for Canadians as a whole, poverty is higher in urban areas than it is in the non-urban areas. We also know that the aboriginal population is much younger than the Canadian average. It is 13 years younger than the median age of the non-aboriginal population, and one third of the aboriginal population is 14 years and under, compared to only 19% of the non-aboriginal population.

¹  (1540)  

    We also know that more and more aboriginal children are living in poverty. We know, in looking at the urban poverty statistics from across Canada based on the 1996 census data, that 55.6% of aboriginal people living in Canadian cities were poor in 1995, and that a very high percentage—higher than their percentage in the cities—of poor people were aboriginals.

    We also know that aboriginal children, visible minority children, and children with disabilities are more likely to be poor—those three groups. But it is aboriginal children who are most likely to be poor, of all those three groups that are vulnerable groups as far as poverty is concerned. We don't have the figures for this present census, but for the 1995 census it was 52.1% of aboriginal children aged 0-14 who were living in poverty, compared with 42.7% of visible minority children, and 23% of children with disabilities.

    Aboriginal children, we know—and we have many articles on the progress of Canada's children—are four times more likely to be hungry; they have more health problems; there is a whole series of other indicators. We also know there's a danger of more and more aboriginal peoples and therefore aboriginal children living, in the urban areas, in distressed neighbourhoods; that is to say, neighbourhoods that have high rates of poverty. We know this has already been studied in Winnipeg. We will examine this phenomenon when we look at the new census data to see what the situation is now.

    We also know that more aboriginal children are living in lone-parent families. There's twice the proportion of aboriginal children who live with a lone parent as of non-aboriginal children. That's important, because we know lone-parent families tend to have greater levels of poverty; it's quite an important indicator.

    We also know that aboriginal children are more mobile than non-aboriginal children. All those are factors that can adversely affect the standard of living and poverty issues.

    As far as the group we're looking at—age zero to twelve— is concerned, it's important to note that this group will rapidly become in a very short number of years a very large participant in the labour market. Even from the last census this poses a number of dangers. Some 75% of aboriginal youths had incomes below $10,000, compared with 69% of non-aboriginals, and we know there is very much of a danger of aboriginal young people entering into the labour market facing widespread discrimination.

    There is a study I worked on two years ago written by Grace Edward Galabuzi, called Canada's Creeping Economic Apartheid, which looked at the issue of Canada's racialized communities and at the visible minority communities in Canada. I think there's a very great danger that this economic apartheid will also be something aboriginal peoples will be increasingly experiencing, in terms of kinds of jobs and the pay those jobs are going to achieve.

¹  (1545)  

    I've skipped over a lot of information here, but I can go back over it.

    In terms of solutions to this issue, to effect a society where we do not accept growing social exclusion and growing racialization of poverty as a fact of life we need first of all—and the Canadian Council on Social Development has called for—an effective anti-poverty strategy, which would look at such things as reducing the rate and depth of poverty; a national day-care strategy; a national initiative to raise the minimum wage in all jurisdictions above the poverty line; a national welfare standard that is above the poverty line; an effective strategy for ensuring full access to comprehensive disability supports; an enriched national child tax benefit, with assurances that all welfare families are eligible; the elimination of interprovincial residency requirements and fee differentials for long-term care and post-secondary education and other services; a coordinated strategy to build low-income housing and end homelessness; and the realization of food security.

    We've called for that as a general anti-poverty strategy, but in addition to this general strategy we believe we need a specific urban aboriginal anti-poverty strategy, which must be comprehensive and targeted to the above issues in terms of the needs of aboriginal Canadians and must involve a partnership of federal, provincial, municipal, and territorial governments, with aboriginal governments and native organizations taking a leading role—such as friendship centres, child welfare agencies, native health centres, and non-profit housing.

    Lastly, aboriginal urban poverty child issues should form at least a dedicated part of the new social transfer. A lot of attention has been given to the health transfer, particularly after the Romanow report, but very little attention has been put on the issue of the social transfer, which is a large amount of money that is dedicated to social issues, but for which there is no targeting of the money.

    Within that envelope we think there should be not only sufficient regular and increasing funding for urban aboriginal needs, but also clear targeting of that funding so that we can follow how much money is being spent on these issues. As part of that money there should be provisions that it would be used in partnership with different levels of government and include aboriginal organizations and governments in the process of implementing any programs associated with those funds.

    In termination, we think the issue of urban aboriginal poverty for children is a very serious one. It's part of the future of this country; aboriginal children will be more and more an important part of Canada's destiny, in their larger numbers. We think that now is the time to take urgent action to deal with these issues.

    I'll stop there.

¹  (1550)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks): Good. Thank you, John.

    Ms. Lill, would you like to begin with questions, please?

    Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you very much.

    It's great to have you here.

    I'd like to ask John, right off the bat, to elaborate a bit more on the idea of social transfer. You are recommending that aboriginal issues be written right into a new social transfer agreement that would be set up.

    I have heard from persons with disabilities. They're concerned that as we focus more on health in the governmental transfer, they will be left behind. I guess the question is how much the actual pie gets larger, or how much it simply is moved over to health, and the whole issue of social transfer and caring for people who are vulnerable gets left off. It would be useful for you to tell me a bit more about that.

    On the issue around the anti-poverty strategy, I think you've really laid out about eight or nine very concrete steps, starting with a national day-care strategy that has real teeth and has real dollars on the table, raising the minimum wage, national welfare rates, a national disabilities strategy, affordable housing—all of those things.

    I'd like to agree with you on that. I would like to ask our other two witnesses, what do you think about those kinds of strategies? You're right there working with young and often very poor native kids and families. How do you think what Mr. Anderson is saying would help the situation where you are right now?

    Ms. Susanne Gudmundson: I'll respond by saying that I agree with the increase for welfare rates. Most of the children we have coming into the group home, for example, are coming from single-parent families who barely have enough money once their rent is paid, or their basic needs like fuel, power, and that kind of thing, to get any extras for the children. Also, if therapy or any kind of training is needed, there's no extra funding for that.

    So I agree with Mr. Anderson that the funding for recipients in the social welfare system definitely needs to be raised.

¹  (1555)  

    Ms. Wendy Lill: Mr. Anderson, maybe you could flesh out that idea of urban aboriginal poverty being written right into any kind of federal-provincial agreement. I'd like to know how that would look. Would it be based on population? How would you see that being feasible?

    Mr. John Anderson: Well, the first thing to say is we believe there should be debate around these issues, and there has been very little. We haven't had the Romanow-style commission on social issues that we've had on health issues. We haven't had the opportunity to have a national debate around social issues.

    There's a link between the two, between health and the social determinants of health. In other words, many of the health issues can be alleviated by spending more on issues like housing and income, etc. We know those two are intimately connected.

    So we think, first of all, there should be a debate around those issues. I'm not here today to say I have all the answers in terms of how this should work, but I think we want to turn our attention toward this issue of the social transfer. I don't think it's acceptable simply for us to have a large pot of money that will go to the provinces without any examination of how that money is going to be used, on what social issues it's going to be used, how it's going to affect payments for welfare, or how it's going to affect other social issues.

    I think that's the main thing we're saying. The details, of course, are something that have to be debated in a national debate. But certainly I think social issues are important, as are health issues. It's not trying to say one is more important than the other. We're saying they're both extremely important to the welfare of Canadians, and particularly to the welfare of aboriginal Canadians. And when we looked at health issues, aboriginal issues were taken as a separate element within health programs, so we would say in social issues, aboriginal issues should also be taken as a separate issue. We should work out how we're going to target particular funds--not only through the social transfer; obviously there are other federal government programs and things like that.

    It's just another mechanism that has to be examined in terms of this issue.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks): Thank you.

    Mrs. Kraft-Sloan.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I was curious to learn a little bit more about a national day-care strategy. I'm particularly interested in understanding what a component of a national day-care strategy would look like in support of aboriginal kids. What are the elements, from a practical point of view, that you feel would be very helpful within day-care provisions, particularly for aboriginal kids, because that's the subject of our committee? What would it look like, and how do you feel it might help these kids' families?

    That's to any of the witnesses who would care to respond.

    Ms. Claudette DeWitt: Just to give an example with day care, some of the initiatives we're doing in Edmonton include partnering and working closely with child welfare. We do have partners with some of the day cares within the areas and communities we work with. For example, in looking for housing for a family, a single mom with five children, we can phone the day care in our area and they will set aside five spots for two to three days.

    The partnering and helping each other in that sense does help. It band-aids us for a couple of days to get by, when we need to look for housing or other support for the parents we're working with. I see it working within our small communities.

    Nationally, that's a long step away, but it's working when we need it within our own community.

º  (1600)  

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: My riding is both rural and urban. It's the northern part of the York region, so in many respects it doesn't have the same level of services that the southern part of the York region has. It's also called the GTA riding, and in many respects it is not an urban riding. We just don't have those kinds of services.

    When you start to think of what a day-care program would be like around downtown Toronto as compared to, for example, in East Gwillimbury, where there are a lot of farms and people living on concession roads and things like that, and access to transportation is a huge issue.... Even if you could afford to take public transportation, you really have limited opportunities for that. Certainly when you're thinking about day-care provision in rural settings, it looks very different from what it does in downtown Toronto.

    I have very strong feelings that if we are going to further enhance a national day-care program, it has to be defined by communities. Some of those communities are geographic, and some of those are other types of communities.

    There's also a first nation, the Chippewas of Georgina Island, in my riding as well. In many respects the community is somewhat isolated, because they are indeed on an island, although people who are part of that community also live on the mainland as well. There is a provision of public school, but then the kids, once they reach a certain age, have to go to the mainland. There are issues about accommodations and things like that when the weather gets bad. Sometimes they have to find places to stay while they go to high school and that sort of thing.

    You had mentioned this idea that you would have partnerships with other community service providers and that there would be some flexibility. So it's not that some of the people who would be accessing the system would require it five days a week, 52 weeks of the year. They might need two days while they're trying to find a solution to another problem they have.

    I'm also wondering what other elements, other than the partnering.... Certainly the flexibility of use would be necessary. I'm also interested in understanding how cultural and other aspects of aboriginal life might be mixed with the provision of child care or day care for urban aboriginal kids.

    Ms. Claudette DeWitt: I know that for the families we work with, the Ben Calf Robe Society also has an aboriginal head start program, which many of these families use as well. Of course, there's that gap there in age when children are maybe requiring the day-care services, but they also have the head start program for the three- and four-year-olds that provides that step before they enter into the educational system.

    In terms of our northern communities, I couldn't tell you what is available, whether it be day care or even the early head start programs. I'm not sure.

    Ms. Susanne Gudmundson: I come from a small Métis settlement in northern Alberta. We do have the head start program there. The way of getting children to the program is by going around and picking them up. If we didn't do that, then parents without vehicles obviously wouldn't bring them in to the school.

    We have no day care on our settlement. We couldn't afford to put even a plan in action.

º  (1605)  

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm also, as I said with my questions, wondering what role culture plays within the provision of a program. There are elements in terms of design for a day-care strategy or day-care services for particular communities. I'm wondering if culture is an issue that needs to be addressed as well.

    Ms. Claudette DeWitt: It does need to be addressed, but it's also difficult when you're looking at urban aboriginal peoples culturally, because maybe some of them have lost their culture. It's not a day-to-day thing that they live with.

    On the day care, I can't answer that part as to the cultural sensitivity to that. But with our head start program the cultural activities are a day-to-day part of the little kids' lives and for the parents, who we try to include in those activities. We have what we call a classroom kokum, who is an older elderly lady who spends her days in there with the children. Having aboriginal head start staff and just the cultural activities that we offer at Ben Calf Robe School for the children who attend there....

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks): If I may, Susanne, you talked about the therapy that's available and the ten sessions, and I think your point is well taken that it's just scraping the surface. And the research does indicate that aboriginal children coming from depressed mothers are more likely to have cognitive skills problems, behavioural problems, and so on.

    The funding that goes for the ten sessions, is that through the Ministry of Health? Is that a special program? Just how does that funding occur?

    Ms. Susanne Gudmundson: All of the parents of the children we have in the group home, I'd say, are on social assistance. So for the case manager that's all they can have funding for: it's the ten sessions and no more than that.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks): So it's the entitlement of the parents, in this case, that is the trigger with respect to getting the therapy.

    Ms. Susanne Gudmundson: Yes.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks): Are there no other programs available that you're aware of?

    Ms. Susanne Gudmundson: Not that I'm aware of. We do have a clinical psychologist who we have in-home one day per week. It would be nice if we could afford to have her in five days a week, but unfortunately we are non-profit and there's no way we could afford to pay for a psychologist to be on site five days a week.

    Most--

    Ms. Claudette DeWitt: Sorry.

    I was going to say that in terms of some of the funding to us, if the child has a treaty status, we have a little more leeway; then it's covered through the medical services branch.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks): If I may, in the whole issue with respect to the interrelationship between poverty and children falling through the cracks of the system and not performing up to their potential, part of the equation is good parenting skills and the ability. Do you have the capacity to take parents through those programs?

    Ms. Susanne Gudmundson: Go ahead.

    Ms. Claudette DeWitt: We have a traditional parenting program that we offer at Ben Calf Robe. So our parents come to that program whether they have the children in their care or not. And the children, if they are in the foster care system, are entitled to come as well. We have two staff and we've almost like a little play area room set up, so that at this time, while they're taking the parenting program, they also have the opportunity to have the visits with their children.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks): I see. Good. Thank you.

    Ms. Lill.

º  (1610)  

    Ms. Wendy Lill: I would like to ask, if you were given a lot of money, do you have some programs that you would definitely put them in because you see the immediate benefits they're having for families and for young people? I would be interested if you would answer that.

    And in terms of tracking this whole issue of the racialization of poverty, twenty years ago I was working as a journalist and I did a series on the urban aboriginal migration. I remember interviewing aboriginal women who were very poor, just lying awake all night worrying about where their next meal was coming from, how the heating bill would be paid for, all of that. Twenty years later all of the projections that were made at that time about the urban native migration and about the levels of poverty have deepened. They've come true and they've gotten more alarming.

    I don't know whether there is anyone tracking individuals and populations in terms of their health status and what is happening to their health status over time. Those people who I interviewed at that time, I don't know why, but I don't think their situation is probably much better. How do we get at that, and how do we use that as ammunition to change things, to change the funding priorities, and to actually get the money and the programs there so that we can start turning that around and dissolving that growing racialization of poverty?

    I'm putting that question to you, Mr. Anderson, you being a statistician, someone who's tracking long term, in terms of whether you have the kind of information you need and whether you think there should be more work done in that respect, more resources put into that kind of tracking, so that we can change social policy and get better programs.

    Mr. John Anderson: I think there are great weaknesses, as far as tracking is concerned. I know, having gone to the Aboriginal Policy Research Conference, which was held here in Ottawa in the fall, and gone to a few of the sessions around education issues, how there are many aboriginal students who are not tracked at all in terms of what schools they're going to. Some school boards don't even have an idea of how many aboriginal students they have.

    I know one of the school boards in western Canada said they had just begun to look at this issue. And there are also aboriginal students going to many different kinds of schools in different areas. Certainly, I think that more information is needed. That's one way, in terms of following aboriginal young people. But also, to me, I think a large part of the answer is in terms of empowering aboriginal institutions to have the ability to deal with these issues.

    If aboriginal institutions do not have the funds and do not have the ability, the resources, to track people, to deal with particular issues, which I've mentioned, that are particular to the aboriginal communities to a greater extent, such as mobility issues, of people moving in and out of cities and from reserve to city and back, etc., then obviously there is a greater danger that people will fall through the cracks in this process.

    So we need more resources, but also particular kinds of resources that will allow people who are in those kinds of vulnerable situations to be followed.

    Ms. Wendy Lill: And in terms of programs that are really working and that need more funding, need more support, do you want to comment on that? In terms of the young people you're dealing with, what do they need? What really needs to be injected into your support system right now just to get some of them on the right track?

    Ms. Claudette DeWitt: For myself, the families I work with have child welfare status, and I would prefer, myself, to see more funding being put into working with the biological family and their children, rather than seeing that separation of children coming into care and then working with the foster family, if you will. I find sometimes that the people who are fostering these children are given more support. For one, the financing and the funding they get to keep these children is far more than what a biological parent is getting to raise their own child. So the money, in the sense of day-to-day living, absolutely is important.

    In terms of the counselling, you can put a child into care and they get counselling immediately, but when a biological parent is looking for those sources or that funding to maintain their own family and keep it together, it's not available to them.

º  (1615)  

    Ms. Wendy Lill: That's a really interesting point you make, because I hear that all the time from families with children with disabilities. They will get much more support if they institutionalize their child, and it's a very grim reality. It's one that has to be completely turned around, because it defeats the entire purpose; it devalues the family, it leaves kids at risk, and it's a huge problem.

    Ms. Susanne Gudmundson: I would like to see better funding for our group home, for instance. We are totally aboriginal, and I'd like to see more money put into our group home so we can better serve the children and their families.

    We try working with parents, having them come in and learn some skills. What we would like to do is set up a program to deal with a child's behaviour; we'd want the parent to follow through and come into the group home with supper and learn how to deal with the child at supper or at bedtime. But we just can't afford to have them in because we're barely making ends meet putting food on the table for our children, let alone having their parents come in any more. We haven't been able to do that. That's something we found in the past really worked for the children and the parents, for them to come in, read to the child, learn some skills on how to deal with his behaviour at bedtime or at mealtime--just regular routines--and for the parent to follow through with that. Then we have consistency with a child.

    We're working toward reunification, but because of the lack of funding we just can't follow through on that as much as we'd like to.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks): Thank you for bringing forward those points.

    Ms. Kraft Sloan.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    It's a very cruel irony that people have to go through the gut-wrenching experience of giving up their kids because they can find a way to provide for their kids better than if they keep them, and it's very sad.

    I'm just wondering, Madam DeWitt, if a child is placed in foster care, how many of those foster-care parents or homes are aboriginal in background?

    Ms. Claudette DeWitt: We have a small contract at Ben Calf Robe, a 30-bed contract, and we have approximately ten families. Of our ten families we have two with aboriginal parents. It's difficult to recruit aboriginal families to foster because there is a huge stigma when it comes to aboriginal people and child welfare. There is a resistance there to work with child welfare, and it's difficult. Extended family members will come forward at times to look after children but will not go through a fostering--

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: A formal fostering process.

    Are there any studies you know of to say what some of the implications are for kids? Again, I'm looking more at the intercultural issues, and I know that some urban aboriginals are having trouble with self-identity issues anyway. I'm wondering if there are any studies you could identify to the committee on issues that might arise out of these kids being placed in homes that don't have a similar cultural and ethnic background.

    Ms. Susanne Gudmundson: I don't have any studies, but I do have the experience of having children go into foster homes that were not aboriginal. We try to keep in touch with some of our children who are going into foster care just as an added support for these families that are taking the children in. We've had some children who had gone into this home--I won't say the nationality--and came to us for a visit and told us they were sick of eating straight noodles or they were not getting their traditional foods such as bannock. It's been very difficult for some of the children who have gone into foster homes that weren't aboriginal.

º  (1620)  

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: There's another issue I'd like to pursue. We're often told that when we're looking at some of the issues urban aboriginals face, one of the problems is with jurisdiction in trying to access services. Provincial officials will say no, that's a federal responsibility; the federal government is responsible for aboriginal people in this country. Then the feds will say they don't have status, or they're living in a big city and the service they need is really more provincially related. I'm just wondering how, in your particular work experience, the jurisdictional problem plays out and if there are some suggestions you might make as to how to better deal with that.

    Ms. Claudette DeWitt: For myself, I think of foster care immediately because where you live in the Edmonton area will determine where you're going to go, and it will depend on whether there's a foster home available or not. On April 1 they're changing the regions around a little bit, so there should be some more flexibility.

    My own personal opinion is that if a child needs a home, place them in a home if somebody has a roof to put over their head. We've had kids put in hotel rooms with one-to-one workers. We've had kids go into group care because a home that sits across the street is in the wrong jurisdiction and so can't take them. The guidelines as to where a kid is placed shouldn't matter, in my opinion, as long as they have a roof over their heads and a good place to stay, a home.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: What about the ability to access a service that might be considered provincial or might be considered federal?

    Ms. Claudette DeWitt: It doesn't happen because it comes down to who's going to pay that bill.

    Ms. Susanne Gudmundson: In our group home we've had problems with taking children for a complete medical or optical checkup. Especially with the optical we've had problems where the provincial child welfare system didn't want to cover the glasses because the child was of treaty status, yet with their treaty status it wouldn't be covered. But in the end it's the child who's suffering because of this fight.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I was going to suggest to the witnesses, particularly Mr. Anderson, that now we've gone back to the old model with regard to the transfer...because originally there was a health transfer separate from the social transfer, but then those two were combined in 1995 or 1996. As of next year the two transfers are going to be separated out again, so there will be the health transfer and then the social transfer.

    I think in many respects this will provide Canadians with an opportunity to work for more accountability on the social transfer side. A lot of work has been done on the health transfer. The Romanow report was in many respects the result of a particular ideological pressure in the country to say we needed to move into private medicare. I think the response was the Romanow report, which says no, a public, universally accepted system is what's important. Now that there's more money in the system, the government is able to split the two. We're going back to greater, hopefully, accountability within the health transfer.

    I think there are things that could be borrowed from what happens on the health transfer side so some of the issues around accountability and some of the principles could be redesigned for us to look at the social side. The social side is comprised of social and educational aspects, so there can be targeting in the delivery of social welfare and social service programs as well as educational programs. We have an opportunity in this country to take a look at new criteria and stronger accountability mechanisms on the social side.

    I don't know if anyone would like to respond to that.

º  (1625)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks): Perhaps John would.

    Mr. John Anderson: Definitely. That's exactly our feeling around this issue, that this is an important opportunity to have a national debate on social issues, just as we had on health issues. It's a possibility for developing mechanisms of accountability, deciding how we want that money spent on what issues, and allowing for participation of aboriginal peoples in that process. All those things are possible around this issue, just as we did make some important progress around health issues.

    It would be a pity if we let that slip away, simply saying that we were going to split the two and just having the social transfer as a block of money to be sent out from Ottawa for these general purposes. We have to look at the question of certain standards and guidelines around welfare, around social assistance levels.

    That's not to say there shouldn't be flexibility. It parallels the debate that is still ongoing around child care, that there can be national standards that at the same time allow for some provincial flexibility. The two are not necessarily diametrically opposed, and I think we have to work out how that's going to work.

    To say we can't touch that issue or it's not important, to just leave it as a large amount of money, would be dangerous not only for social issues in general but for aboriginal people in particular. This would be an occasion to really make sure that there are going to be funds that are dedicated to the issues and that are delivered in a fashion that allows aboriginal people to participate in how those funds are going to be spent.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The next question would be, what would be the driver for that debate? With the debate around health care, the driver clearly was an ideological point of view that said we need to have a two-tier system, we need to have private medicare in this country. There was huge resistance to that, and the Romanow report came out as a result.

    I don't know if any of the witnesses, Mr. Chair, have any insight as to what the driver might be to mobilize that debate. I tried it way back when, when we had a discussion about social policy and reform. Going back to the early nineties in my riding, you couldn't get anybody out to talk about that. How do you mobilize that, and what do you think might be some of the drivers? How can we as parliamentarians support the kind of work you're doing in your communities?

    Mr. John Anderson: The Canadian economy has been doing very well recently compared to other economies internationally. If we look at the budgets of the federal government and most provincial governments, they're also doing generally fairly well. We no longer have any excuses in terms of saying that we don't have the possibility of spending money on important social issues. We're a very wealthy society, one that is doing very well compared to other industrialized countries.

    To have a situation where we have rates of aboriginal poverty over 50%, where we have rates of visible minority or racialized communities with a poverty rate over 40%, well, those kinds of levels are just not acceptable any more in a rich society like Canada. I also don't think that they should be acceptable not only in terms of the.... I don't think it's simply the question, although it's obviously the most important, of the interests of aboriginal peoples and visible minority or racialized community peoples. I also think that for all Canadians it's an important issue. We're not using the full potential of Canadian citizens. We have a society where many people are socially excluded and where in fact if we were to allow them to really participate in a full way in our society, everybody would be much better off.

    We have to have that debate. What's going to spark it off? Well, I don't know who or if there's going to be one item. The health care debate, as you say, was around the issue of privatization, but on these issues we have to have a debate around whether or not in a rich society we can tolerate any more social exclusion of low-income Canadians, particularly aboriginal Canadians.

º  (1630)  

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay, thank you.

    Ms. Claudette DeWitt: In terms of mobilizing that, I think it needs to start within the communities, because, to look at it nationally, there's going to be such a difference. What may be needed on a more remote reserve in B.C. may be totally different from what we're going to see among the urban aboriginals within the Edmonton area, or even in our northern regions of Alberta. Every demographic place is going to have different issues, and I think it's important that every area of this country be listened to. From one coast to another, we're going to hear different contributing factors to their own situations.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks): Ms. Lill.

    Ms. Wendy Lill: I just want to ask one more question about the family support system. It seems to me that we've known for a long time that aboriginal people want control of their own social services, their own family services.

    You say there is a stigmatization among native people to be working with the child welfare system. But what about the idea of native-run social services, family services? That certainly is working in some provinces. It's unfortunately not the model across the country and hasn't been given the kind of support that it needs from the federal government. But how would that work, in your estimation, to have a native-run family services system, and what is the status of that in Alberta?

    Ms. Susanne Gudmundson: I think that's a fantastic idea, and I wish we had more of them. I'm not sure how many we have in Edmonton, maybe two. I'm not sure, but in most cases aboriginals definitely feel more comfortable dealing with, let's say, an aboriginal social worker, or an aboriginal foster-care worker or support worker.

    Ms. Claudette DeWitt: I find it difficult to answer, myself. I have pros and cons to that.

    I've spent some time working in a small aboriginal community myself, and it's difficult when you're working within your own community with social services and you know this person and that person, and they know the dynamics of your family. That part is difficult when you're working within your own social services.

    Within the area we're working in, the Edmonton area, as Susanne said, it is much easier for some of our families when they're working with native people. I've sat at tables myself where you've kind of argued the point, that when you're working with somebody who has come from a middle-class or upper-class family, who has gone to university and has had those opportunities, to sit down at a table with them to discuss the dynamics of a family that has lived in poverty as aboriginal, there is no understanding. You can take all the cultural training you can as a non-native person, and do I think you'll ever understand those? Probably not. It's a difficult area.

    Will it meet everybody's needs and all the needs of the people we work with? Probably not.

º  (1635)  

    Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks): Thank you.

    We have been joined by Larry Spencer, who's also a member of this committee.

    Larry, we've had some very insightful presentations. Did you wish to ask any questions of the delegates?

    Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Unfortunately I was not able to enjoy those, so I basically don't have a lot to ask, not knowing what you've said.

    Poverty is of course not exclusive to aboriginal communities. From community to community, obviously there are some differences, but I would think you could identify some common themes that are there, that are the strongest contributors to poverty. Could you mention what those are and what is being done to address them, or what might be done?

    Ms. Claudette DeWitt: I would think, within the Edmonton area anyway, the strongest, most common theme that people living in poverty are facing is housing. That is a number one thing within Edmonton.

    The vacancy rates are low. When you are on a subsidized income, it's impossible for them to think of even managing a damage deposit. The money is not there for that.

    As I said, the housing isn't there. That would probably be number one, across the board.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: Okay. Well, I can understand the results of poverty, as I'm not a wealthy man myself, but what I was getting at are the contributing factors to poverty. Maybe you've already discussed those. There must be a theme across it, the main contributors that could be dealt with, that keep these people in poverty, that put them there and keep them there.

    Ms. Claudette DeWitt: Addictions are huge.

    Ms. Susanne Gudmundson: And lack of education.

    Ms. Claudette DeWitt: Yes.

    With Alberta, too, you're seeing more of not just drug and alcohol addiction, but gambling addictions that have played a huge role in some of the families we work with. I don't know what else to add with that, really, other than addictions, education....

    Ms. Susanne Gudmundson: Yes. That's a big one.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: This is pretty common knowledge. I understood that before I asked you the question.

    Is there something that needs to be done in a greater way to address those kinds of problems, and which this committee, this government, needs to be moving towards?

    So far, this looks like an endless problem. Those conditions seem to be worsening, perhaps, instead of getting better.

    I see Ms. Lill shaking her head. I don't know if she knows they're getting better.

    Ms. Wendy Lill: No, I'm thinking of something else.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: Oh, okay. I was going to say, if they're getting better, I haven't heard about it, and I want to hear about it.

    This is a problem that has existed, of course, from the beginning of time, and there will always be some who are unfortunate enough to be impoverished. But those readily identifiable causes of poverty seem to be where we need to make a really strong focus. Do you think we're doing that?

    Ms. Claudette DeWitt: I think--and I can just base this on the people we work with--education is an answer to that. Education should not be a privilege for people but should be an entitlement to everybody.

    When you're living in poverty, education is not always a given. Fortunately, in the school we work with, there's a lunch program. These kids come to school, and they're fed breakfast and lunch. Not everybody has that. There are lots of children who miss school because of not having food at home.

    In our schools, when child tax benefit cheques or welfare cheques come out, absenteeism is high, because kids have to get home to get a piece of the pie.

    So in my opinion, education is a huge factor for that.

º  (1640)  

    Mr. Larry Spencer: Okay. I think maybe that's all I need to ask without frustrating us all.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks): I would just like to follow up very briefly, if I may, on Mrs. Kraft Sloan's line of questioning with you, John.

    We have been searching for an ideal, holistic, community-based model that would, with some degree of flexibility, meet the needs of families who have children up to 12 years old, and would cover the full gamut of housing, employment counselling, post-traumatic therapy where required--the kinds of issues that have been raised.

    Your organization has done tremendous research and you will do additional research. You've come forward with the idea of building on the split of the health and social transfer. Do you see it within your mandate to look at modelling that would, as you've indicated, under the social transfer, relate the various areas of day-care strategies, disability support, housing, and poverty indexing to mechanisms that would be part of a strategic model? Is it part of your organization's mandate to do that?

    Mr. John Anderson: Yes, it is, and we are in fact in the next few months trying to look at what kind of social policy architecture is needed in Canada. We're trying to develop that in terms of a broad vision.

    I think that broad vision is needed right now. For a certain period of time we've been going at different levels of government in terms of trying to deal with a whole series of problems. I think we've lost a bit of the broad architecture that we need. I think we have to redevelop it now.

    But for aboriginal issues, we need a specific aboriginal policy architecture, and certainly that's an issue we're interested in working on, but only in partnership with aboriginal organizations. So we are attempting to develop a number of research projects with the National Association of Friendship Centres right now.

    That's the kind of role we would see ourselves playing in terms of working with aboriginal organizations. We have certain capacities in terms of policy research, etc., and if we can put those at the service of aboriginal peoples organizations, I think that's a useful role we can play around these issues.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks): That's important, because we're embarking on five pilot projects that will be undertaken across the country in association, I believe, with local aboriginal groups. Our research will be monitoring...and it appears to me there are some very compatible interfaces or crossovers between what you're doing and what we're doing. I would hope that dialogue would be something that would help to complement the initiative that this subcommittee and the government have taken.

    Larry.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: Your question reminded me of a question I would like to ask.

    As you look at these policies, to what extent is it feasible, or to what extent is it perhaps happening, that some of the educational programs that would assist people to rise above the poverty situation in which they find themselves be connected with the services? In other words, if your child is in day care, you are required to be in education for yourself a certain amount of time--tying the education to the benefit. We're not talking about working for the benefit, but at the same time, it's like unemployment, preparing yourself to go beyond that benefit. Is there anything connecting those?

º  (1645)  

    Mr. John Anderson: Do you want to answer first? I have something to say on it, but you go ahead.

    Ms. Claudette DeWitt: In Edmonton we are partnering up in that sense. If it's the day-care centre needed while the parent is going to school or the parenting programs with child care provided, absolutely, those are there.

    We're looking at more of a partnership with other resources within the city, because we don't want to be duplicating them but rather we want to be working together with them to help to empower the person to get the education, or the employment, if it's a trades program they're taking.

    Mr. John Anderson: That means certainly if we could set, once again, national guidelines and national standards around welfare, this might be one of the things to move around, to allow people to be on welfare and at the same time to attain a post-secondary or even a secondary education. As we know, tragically, in Ontario this is not possible--and in many other provinces.

    Those kinds of situations are very important. Those kinds of policies need to be brought in.

    Perhaps we can look at the question of education as a strong link with child care, as just mentioned. The absence of accessible, affordable, high-quality child care does not allow many mothers in lone-parent families to pursue the kind of education they would like to, because they don't have the availability of that kind of child care.

    Hopefully, with the new federal and provincial initiative around child care over the next few years, this will begin to change, and more money will start going into child care so that we can begin building a really strong national child-care program.

    I am interested in Sweden. The rate of poverty for lone-parent mothers is, I think, somewhere between 4% and 6%, whereas here in Canada, it's 50% or 60%. One of the key differences is because in Sweden they have a regulated national child-care program.

    We know some of the solutions. It's not like rocket science. The solutions that we can really begin to use to deal with these issues are fairly easy to find out. You can actually see them at work in other countries. I think I just mentioned a couple of them that could be done.

    If the federal government could take the lead around tying education to social assistance in some instances, and allowing people to participate in this, that would obviously be a big step forward for many people who would like to get out of the welfare situation and who need further education.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks): It's a very shocking statistic.

    Are there any other questions from the committee?

    Karen.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Anderson, I want to commend you on your entire publication, but there's a chapter on child environmental health. I think it's really important that these issues come out when we're taking a look at the health and well-being of kids, because it's sometimes a little more difficult to talk about environmental contamination and the effects on kids.

    I've done a lot of work with the Inuit Circumpolar Conference. The Inuit are very concerned about the effects of contaminants on a country's foods.

    Our chair is parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment, and he sits on the environment committee and he has been around the committee for some of the debate that we've had.

    You take a chemical like a persistent organic pollutant and it creates neurological impairments, behaviour problems, a reduction in IQ. When we're taking a look at the issues around environmental justice, often aboriginal people are subjected to a lot of contaminants, living in parts of Canada that aren't the safest places in Canada to live in in terms of drinking water and other kinds of contaminants. It has an effect on kids. It has an effect on the developing fetus. It has an effect on a child's ability to cope, how well they're going to do in school, and all kinds of other things.

    This is another layer of concern, so I want to thank you for including this chapter.

º  (1650)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Alan Tonks): You can see from the kind of questioning that the committee certainly shares the sense of mission we have with respect to developing more transparent access for aboriginal children and their families to the services that will guarantee them--as a right--that they become a part of the mainstream of our society.

    On behalf of John Godfrey, who is the real chair and is out on the road, as they say--I think he's visiting first nations or aboriginal projects--I thank you very much for being here. I know he would have been very pleased with the presentations and the level of dialogue that has gone on. So thank you very much. We appreciate it.

    The meeting is adjourned.