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, February 12, 2003

¹

1520

The Chair (Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.))

Chief Matthew Coon Come (National Chief, Assembly of First Nations)

¹

1525

¹

1530

The Chair

Mr. Calvin Hanselmann (Senior Policy Analyst, Canada West Foundation)

¹

1535

The Chair

¹

1540

Ms. Audrey Poitras (Interim President and National Spokesperson, Metis National Council)

¹

1545

¹

1550

The Chair

Ms. Veronica Dewar (President, Pauktuutit (Inuit Women's Association))

The Chair

Ms. Veronica Dewar

¹

1555

º

1600

º

1605

The Chair

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

Chief Matthew Coon Come

º

1610

Mr. Larry Spencer

Chief Matthew Coon Come

Mr. Larry Spencer

Chief Matthew Coon Come

The Chair

Mr. Calvin Hanselmann

º

1615

The Chair

Chief Matthew Coon Come

The Chair

Chief Matthew Coon Come

The Chair

Mr. Sébastien Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, BQ)

Ms. Audrey Poitras

Mr. Sébastien Gagnon

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

º

1620

Chief Matthew Coon Come

º

1625

Ms. Anita Neville

Chief Matthew Coon Come

Ms. Anita Neville

Chief Matthew Coon Come

The Chair

Ms. Audrey Poitras

º

1630

The Chair

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

Chief Matthew Coon Come

Mr. Alan Tonks

Chief Matthew Coon Come

º

1635

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Ms. Veronica Dewar

º

1640

The Chair

Ms. Audrey Poitras

The Chair

º

1645

Chief Matthew Coon Come

The Chair

Ms. Audrey Poitras

The Chair

Ms. Audrey Poitras

The Chair

Ms. Audrey Poitras

The Chair

Chief Matthew Coon Come

º

1650

The Chair

Mr. Calvin Hanselmann

The Chair

Mr. Calvin Hanselmann

º

1655

The Chair

»

1700

Mr. Calvin Hanselmann

The Chair

Mr. Calvin Hanselmann

The Chair

»

1705

Ms. Veronica Dewar

The Chair

Chief Matthew Coon Come

The Chair

---

CANADA

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

---

NUMBER 006

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 12, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1520)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.)): Why don't we reward virtue by starting.

    This will count as a hammer to open the meeting. I want to welcome everybody to a continuing study we're doing of young aboriginal children.

    I will provide just a little review, because we have some new members, and we're delighted,

[Translation]

as usual, to come together again and to meet new people.

[English]

    We decided in this Subcommittee on Children and Youth at Risk that for a period of about two years we wanted to look at the situation of aboriginal children on reserve first. We did a study of the population age zero to six, completed last June, which has had a very favourable response. We were focusing on how the federal government could deliver services more effectively to aboriginal kids on reserve, instead of having separate programs from the Department of Indian Affairs, Health Canada, and HRDC.

    We are now in a parallel study looking at aboriginal children age zero to six off reserve. I want to return to this with colleagues, but as we've been listening to early witnesses, it has occurred to me that we originally had a plan where we would do ages zero to six on and off reserve, and ages six to twelve on and off reserve. What we're getting from witnesses to date is that it is perhaps an artificial distinction to talk about off-reserve kids and to break the study off at age six. We might be better off if we actually looked at the whole sweep from age zero to twelve. The witnesses have had a difficult time, even statistically, sorting it out.

    Now, I'm not trying to surprise these witnesses by changing the mandate on them, but I want people to think about this. It would also allow us to speed up our work. I've talked to our researcher, and she thinks we can do this within parameters of the time available.

    So perhaps we can return to this, but I wanted to put this out there, simply because this is the way the evidence is starting to come out.

    That being said, let me welcome a very full panel of very distinguished Canadians. From the Assembly of First Nations, I welcome the national chief, Matthew Coon Come, who I've been meeting in perhaps less pleasant and more dramatic circumstances on the aboriginal affairs committee. I also welcome Calvin Hanselmann, from the Canada West Foundation; Audrey Poitras, the interim president and national spokesperson for the Métis National Council; and from the Inuit Women's Association, Veronica Dewar.

    So if that's all right, we will take you in that order and then we will move on to questions.

    I welcome you all, and I invite the national chief to begin.

    Chief Matthew Coon Come (National Chief, Assembly of First Nations): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

    Certainly I want to thank you all for inviting us here today to talk with you about one of the most important issues of first nations peoples, the well-being of our children.

    The situation facing aboriginal children in this country is well documented. The report released by the subcommittee in June 2002 called Building on Success was another urgent reminder and a clear declaration that our aboriginal children are at risk. Building on Success focused on first nations children from prenatal to age six who lived on reserve.

    The report vividly illustrated the reality that many of our children are born into poor social and economic conditions, and the result is poor developmental outcomes. The report identified a myriad of health and social problems confronting our children.

    A key recommendation of Building on Success was for all federal departments with programs for first nations families and young children living on reserves to join together to create an integrated policy framework for the development of young first nations children from ages zero to six.

    There are barriers that exist that make it difficult for these children to receive a comprehensive level of service that meets their urgent needs. The same situation is true, and in some cases even more difficult, for children who live off reserve. This is especially true in large urban centres. Aboriginal children in the cities often suffer from the jurisdictional wrangling between various levels of government that are responsible for providing basic services for their care.

    The Assembly of First Nations is a national political organization representing first nations citizens in Canada. Our people live on and off reserve. We believe that first nations children are first nations citizens regardless of where they live. I have said before that when I leave my community I do not take off my Indian-ness like a jacket and leave it at the edge of the community. We are citizens of first nations with inherent rights. Those rights travel with us like our culture and identity.

    The government's approach to structure and legislation has resulted in the creation of barriers to services and programs for our people based on residency. Aboriginal children in the zero to six age group are probably the most vulnerable segment of our population. A number of researchers, including the authors of the 1999 early years study in April 1999, Mustard and McCain, have identified the crucial link between child development in early years and its effects on learning behaviour and health in later stages of life.

    The report stated that experiences and environments during early childhood were “critical to brain development for children in their early years”. What happens in the early years has lasting impact. It is imperative that these children and their families have access to quality child care and related services.

    The issue of access is directly related to the issue of jurisdiction. Too many of our children living off reserve are denied access to services solely because of lack of clarity about jurisdictional responsibilities between the provincial and federal governments. The result is a ping-pong effect between the levels of government. This phenomenon is not limited to children's services and programming. It's becoming a way of life for people caught in the net. This is clearly wrong. It is clearly intolerable, as far as our children's well-being is concerned.

    The 2001 census reported that the aboriginal birth rate was still about 1.5 times the non-aboriginal birth rate. Children age 14 and under accounted for more than one-third of the first nations population, or North American Indian population, to use the census terminology. This was contrasted with 19%, or less than one-fifth, of the non-aboriginal population. In urban areas, 46% of aboriginal children live with lone parents. About one-half, or 49% of the aboriginal population live in urban areas, most of these being first nations people who had migrated from reserves for various reasons.

    There are two key points there. The aboriginal population was significantly younger than the non-aboriginal population, and half of the aboriginal people in this country were living in urban areas. Programming and services must reflect this reality. Presently they do not.

    Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act set out the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments. This created a jurisdictional nightmare for first nations people, and the federal government needs to wake up to this reality.

¹  (1525)  

    The 2001 census also indicated that aboriginal people were more mobile than non-aboriginal Canadians. The census stated that this mobility has created challenges for planning and implementing programs in education, social services, housing and health care, especially in urban centres.

    This is a clear statement that this problem exists. Our people know it exists. It's time to have the problem addressed by the levels of government that are responsible and obligated to provide services to first nations and aboriginal people regardless of where they live.

    In October 2000 the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres released a report called “Urban Aboriginal Child Poverty: A Status Report on Aboriginal Children and their Families in Ontario”. The report spoke to the impoverished conditions that many of our urban aboriginal children have to endure. This study stated: “the level of poverty among many urban aboriginal families has now reached rock bottom level where even the most basic needs are not being met”.

    This subcommittee is examining the challenges and needs of off-reserve aboriginal children. First nations children form a significant part of that group. Poverty is a basic fundamental issue with regard to off-reserve aboriginal children six years old and younger.

    You can analyze all the data: first nations mobility to urban centres, illiteracy levels, unemployment rates, educational achievement rates, incarceration rates, and the level of child welfare involvement. You can reach only one conclusion: first nations children living off reserve live, for the most part, in dismal conditions. Add to this the jurisdictional complexities I noted and it creates a major challenge for all of us, not least of all for the members of this subcommittee.

    I do not want to paint a picture of hopelessness and despair. Some of our people are thriving, but others are barely surviving. There is a need for urgent and coordinated action.

    The aboriginal child poverty report I mentioned earlier has some useful recommendations. They're not new, but we should revisit some of those recommendations. First nations have advocated for these changes for some time now. The recommendations include action to address the outstanding jurisdictional disputes; greater collaboration and harmonization of governmental policies among the different levels of government; adequate stable funding for children's programs and services; greater collateral work between first nations and other off-reserve aboriginal service providers; and that the focus be not simply based on representation but rather from a service perspective.

    Jurisdictional disputes impact on service delivery in many areas. It is by no means limited to off-reserve children's access to programs and services. The jurisdictional maze has created significant gaps in services for which there is a great need.

    The federal government takes the position that its responsibility is limited to status first nations people living on reserve, and that the provinces are responsible for off-reserve first nations people. However, the provinces and territories maintain that section 91(24) of the Constitution Act means that the federal government is responsible for all status first nations, regardless of residency.

    The situation is further complicated by section 92 of the Constitution Act, which stipulates that provinces and territories are responsible for the development and delivery of welfare services.

    We hear a lot of words from the federal government these days about ensuring that all children have the best start in life, and about bridging the gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal children. The most recent Speech from the Throne repeated these concepts many times. To truly bridge the gaps and level the playing field for off-reserve children, we need to tackle the issue of clarifying the jurisdictional responsibility. We have to deal with this issue in a comprehensive manner. Part of this work means ensuring the adequate resourcing of aboriginal children's programs and services.

    We realize that dealing with jurisdiction and resourcing is not always easy, but it must be done. As the Prime Minister said in an earlier Speech from the Throne, we must not be deterred by the work involved or the length of the journey.

    There's a widely quoted saying that children are the future. I don't want to be trite, but that's absolutely true when it comes to first nations children. The rest of Canada is getting old and retiring, like myself. Just kidding. Our population is young and growing. Our children represent the workforce of tomorrow, the leaders of tomorrow, the entrepreneurs, innovators, and captains of industry. Canada's future is tied to the well-being of our children. We cannot leave them caught in a web that we designed and that we allow to exist. The well-being of our children, their children, and Canada's future hang in the balance.

¹  (1530)  

    In closing, I would like to again express my appreciation for the invitation to be here today. I commend the subcommittee for focusing on aboriginal children in Canada and attempting to get a more accurate picture of their lives. They are a vulnerable group facing many challenges. They are resilient. They are the future, and I believe we can make a difference today.

    Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, National Chief. I know of your great personal interest in the question of children. I think the first conversation we ever had together was on this subject in your office.

    I'm delighted now to welcome Calvin Hanselmann, who has been doing a study that he's going to tell us about. We had a little sneak preview of it in The Globe and Mail this morning, but he's now going to give us the longer version.

    Welcome, and thank you.

    Mr. Calvin Hanselmann (Senior Policy Analyst, Canada West Foundation): Thank you for inviting the Canada West Foundation to appear today. The subcommittee is examining a very important issue, and we appreciate the opportunity to assist.

    The Canada West Foundation is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit public policy research institute dedicated to introducing western perspectives into current Canadian policy debates.

    My presentation today will be brief, but it will be based on our urban aboriginal initiative, a recently concluded two-year examination of public policy relating to aboriginal people in six major western Canadian cities. Throughout the two years of the urban aboriginal initiative, citizen engagement activities helped to inform our work. Our findings and recommendations are informed by the views of over 400 people involved in urban aboriginal policy and programming.

    Some members of the subcommittee may be wondering if research on urban aboriginal policy in major western Canadian cities is relevant to an examination of off-reserve aboriginal children from the prenatal period to age six. Let me assure you that it is. First, the vast majority of off-reserve aboriginal people live in urban areas. Indeed, more off-reserve aboriginal people live in major metropolitan areas than live in rural areas. Second, every major city in Canada has large numbers of aboriginal people, particularly Toronto, Ottawa, Gatineau, Montreal, and Hamilton. Third, although nearly two-thirds of Canada's urban aboriginal population live in western provinces, aboriginal people live in cities and towns throughout Canada. Fourth, many of the ideas from the urban aboriginal initiative can be applied to other policy files, aboriginal or otherwise.

    In short, the Canada West findings and recommendations are relevant to a discussion of off-reserve aboriginal children.

    As part of our research, we examined policies and programming with respect to urban aboriginal people in six large western Canadian cities: Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon, Vancouver, and Winnipeg. Our research throughout 2001 found no urban aboriginal specific policies among federal, provincial, or municipal governments, and almost no enhanced urban aboriginal programming for off-reserve aboriginal children from the prenatal period to age six.

    One conclusion we draw from these findings is that the Government of Canada and the four western provincial governments continue to avoid being as active as they could or should be in urban aboriginal policy and programming. We are aware, and acknowledge, that urban aboriginal people are served by programs serving other people. However, our research was directed to mapping policies and programs that considered urban aboriginal people as a discrete client group. Although these policy and program findings are based on research and engagement in western Canadian cities, they are very likely indicative of the situations in many other settings throughout Canada.

    Following our mapping of policies and programming, we wanted to know what worked, and why these things worked for urban aboriginal people. As a result, we interviewed more than 100 people involved in urban aboriginal policy-making and programming, over half of whom were aboriginal people.

    Based on what we were told, we identified twelve promising practices or ideas that work in urban aboriginal policy-making and programming. These promising practices are important for this subcommittee to consider, as they reflect the wisdom, experience, and knowledge of many front-line workers, as well as more senior officials from both within and outside of government. The promising practices have received broad dissemination, and I would be happy to send any interested member of the subcommittee a copy of the publication resulting from the research.

    This morning, as the chair mentioned, the Canada West Foundation released Shared Responsibility: Final Report and Recommendations of the Urban Aboriginal Initiative. The final report is the culmination of two years of research, citizen engagement, and analysis. It summarizes the work undertaken on the urban aboriginal initiative and the findings of those efforts, and it presents recommendations on urban aboriginal policy, programming, and research.

    Among the major recommendations this subcommittee should be aware of are: (1) federal and provincial governments must be in urban aboriginal policy together; (2) governments must set goals and evaluate their efforts; (3) governments should not shy away from aboriginal politics; (4) governments need to take principled approaches; and (5) among the recommendations to specific governments is that the federal government should redirect a portion of its aboriginal program spending from reserves to urban areas, especially major cities.

¹  (1535)  

    I want to thank the subcommittee for its attention. Again, I would be happy to send any interested members a copy of the publications that came out of the urban aboriginal initiative. I look forward to hearing your questions, and I wish you success with your work.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you. What a wonderfully succinct presentation of what looks to be a very major and helpful study. We're delighted that you were unveiling it today, and we will, I'm sure, have lots of questions for you after we hear our next couple of witnesses.

    On my batting order, I would now welcome Audrey Poitras to speak to us on behalf of the Métis National Council.

¹  (1540)  

    Ms. Audrey Poitras (Interim President and National Spokesperson, Metis National Council): Thank you, and good afternoon.

    I am the interim president of the Métis National Council, which represents the historic Métis Nation within Canada at a national and international level. The MNC receives this mandate from the Métis people and their communities throughout the Métis Nation homeland based on the elected mandates of its governing members. These governing members include the Métis Nation of Ontario, the Manitoba Métis Federation, the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan, the Métis Nation of Alberta, and the Métis Provincial Council of British Columbia.

    I'm joined today by Jenifer Brown, who is the chair of our Métis National Youth Advisory Council, which is the MNC's youth secretariat, as well as Jason Madden, our general counsel. Both are available for questions relating to points made in my presentation.

    To begin, I would like to thank the subcommittee on children and youth at risk for this opportunity to make this presentation. As I will highlight throughout my presentation, the Métis Nation faces unique challenges as an aboriginal people within the Canadian federation. In particular, the pressing needs of our children and youth are a priority for our nation.

    Due to the limited amount of time, I am tabling our written submission, which provides further details on the points. As well, we are tabling other recent presentations by the MNC to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and the reference group of ministers on aboriginal policy. These presentations will provide the committee with additional insight into the Métis Nation's overall strategy for a new relationship with the Government of Canada.

    My presentation today will focus on three main themes: the rationale for an investment in Métis children and youth, the problems with the current federal approach, and practical and proven solutions for moving forward.

    Prior to discussing these themes, I would like to emphasize that the Métis are a distinct aboriginal people, not just mixed-blood descendants of first nations or a faceless percentage within the urban aboriginal population. The genesis of the Métis people was more than just a mixing or adaptation of two divergent cultures. It was a continuous evolution that culminated in the birth of a distinct aboriginal nation with its own unique language--Michif--music, dance, culture, self-government, dress, and way of life.

    Distinct Métis communities arose along the routes of the fur trade and across the west. Many of these communities continue to exist today along watersheds, rivers, and lakes, and where once-active forts and posts were hubs of fur trade activities from Ontario westward. As well, significant numbers of Métis people now live in urban centres within Ontario, the prairies, and British Columbia. However, even within these larger populations, well-defined and established Métis communities exist.

    Based on the Métis Nation's recently adopted national definition for citizenship, we estimate we have 300,000 citizens within Canada largely living within the prairies. This estimate is based upon the 2001 census results and the membership lists of our member organizations.

    On the rationale for an investment with Métis children and youth, I will not spend my time today repeating the statistics that this committee has heard, I'm sure, many times with respect to the urgent need for action in addressing the challenges facing aboriginal children and youth who live off reserve. The business case for making a significant investment in the futures of aboriginal people and Canada just make sense. However, I do want to draw the committee's attention to the important findings of the 2001 census with respect to the Métis.

    The recently released census data on aboriginal people shows a dramatic increase in the reporting of the Métis population in Canada. Across the country the aboriginal population grew by 22%, but statistics on the Métis population grew by a staggering 43%. According to the 1996 census, the Métis population was 204,120; the 2001 census puts that number up to 292,310. This is the largest increase in any aboriginal population and represents 30% of the total aboriginal population within Canada. Of that total Métis population, two-thirds live in urban centres.

¹  (1545)  

    The census data also bring children's issues into the spotlight. It reports that one-third of the Métis population is under the age of 14. Further, one-third of Métis children live with a lone parent, with this number rising to 42% in the urban centres.

    Unfortunately, the current federal investment does not address the demographics our children and youth face. Less than 2.4% of federal resources dedicated to aboriginal people are accessible to the Métis Nation, even though we comprise approximately 30% of the total aboriginal population.

    On a closer analysis, even less of these accessible aboriginal resources are directed to the Métis Nation, because first nation non-status Indians and Inuit also access these limited resources.

    Of particular interest to this committee, the 2002 federal report on early childhood development activities and expenditures illustrates this inequity. The report indicates that Health Canada, Human Resources Development Canada, and the Department of Indian Affairs committed $161 million to aboriginal children in 2001 and 2002. Of this, $138 million was dedicated to on-reserve activities. Métis access was limited to the $22.5 million allocated to aboriginal head start in urban and northern communities, and further limited to sharing with the northern communities and off-reserve first nations.

    The report indicates that 68% of all aboriginal children live in urban centres, while they receive only 14% of the dedicated resources for the aboriginal children's initiative. The Métis, with one-third of the aboriginal population, receive even less.

    Clearly, this federal blindness to the needs of Métis children and youth cannot be sustained. The time for action is now. We need to view the efforts made over the next five to ten years as an investment, rather than just more government money spent on aboriginal people. The future of our nation and our country requires this type of proactive intervention.

    Within the current federal approach to the Métis people we continue to fall through the cracks, and the gap between our children and the children of other Canadians continues to widen at an alarming rate. Are our children not worthy of the same basic health care that is readily available to our other Canadians? Should Métis families not be provided the same opportunities to foster a safe and healthy home for children and youth as other aboriginal people and the Canadian public at large? Should our children continue to fall further behind in early childhood development?

    Unfortunately, the answer under the current federal approach to all these questions is yes. Federal policies of denying responsibility and jurisdiction for the Métis, excluding Métis from federal programming directed to aboriginal people, as well as the lack of consistent Métis policy within the federal system, all contribute to the gap between our children and the children of other Canadians.

    We urge the federal government to revisit its policy of denial with respect to the Métis and work with us to develop new policies that respect our distinct existence as an aboriginal people within Canada, our constitutional rights, and our unique socio-economic needs.

    Lastly, in regard to our practical improvement solutions for moving forward, although the daunting demographics and problems with the current federal approach may seem insurmountable, practical solutions and best practices for addressing the challenges faced by Métis children and youth are achievable.

    For the record, the Métis Nation's ultimate goal is not to establish a separate billion-dollar department of Métis affairs or set up segregated schools or hospitals. The solution lies in political will to actually change the relationship that currently exists, while building a partnership framework that meets the specific needs of the Métis Nation.

    Based on the Métis Nation's current reality, I want to highlight three successful models from the MNC's perspective. One is the bilateral partnership between the Métis Nation and federal government departments. We do not need to reinvent the wheel or undertake huge changes to the current federal system in order to address these issues. We already have notable best practices with Human Resources Development Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage.

¹  (1550)  

These bilateral partnerships between these departments and the Métis Nation have resulted in successes in the area of labour market programming, the Michif language, and youth programming. By dealing bilaterally with the MNC and its governing members, these departments have overcome the difficulties faced by other federal ministries in effectively engaging the Métis Nation.

The MNC submits that any new federal aboriginal initiatives should include the Métis and emulate the bilateral partnership models in place with HRDC and the Department of Canadian Heritage.

    A second successful model is that of supporting tripartite initiatives. Irrespective of jurisdictional positions, the federal government can play a facilitative and supportive role in the devolution of responsibility for specific sectors to the Métis Nation. A practical example on this front is Métis child and family services. The Métis Nation strongly supports Métis control over child and family services, consistent with its inherent right of self-government. Of course, this is an area where provincial jurisdiction is also engaged.

    Regardless of differing positions vis-à-vis jurisdiction, it is the opinion of the Métis Nation that the federal government still has a role to play by providing support and capacity to the MNC's governing members, in order to assist it in taking over responsibility in various socio-economic areas, like health and justice. For example, through initial tripartite funding provided by the federal government, and matched by the Province of Manitoba, the Manitoba Métis Federation was able to develop a strategy and negotiate an approach for taking over responsibility of Métis child and family services within Manitoba. The result was an extremely proud day for the Manitoba Métis in August of 2002, when the Province of Manitoba passed legislation to establish a Métis child and family services authority. This new authority will be responsible for managing the provision of Métis child and family services. Upon proclamation of the Child and Family Services Authority Act, which is anticipated in the spring of 2003, this authority will assume statutory roles and responsibilities. This is just one innovative initiative that tripartite partnerships can support, if the resources and political will are there.

    The MNC hopes the federal government will increase its mandate and support for undertaking these types of initiatives in partnership with the Métis Nation, to increase Métis control and responsibility.

    And lastly, horizontal management of resources is another successful model. In developing new aboriginal initiatives, the federal government must recognize that Métis children and youth need holistic programming, which can provide a continuum of support and services to Métis families, children, and youth. It just makes sense to build upon established delivery structures, to allow the Métis Nation to strategically develop and implement its own programming and services for meeting the needs of our Métis communities.

    Currently, over $43 million is provided annually to the Métis National Council and its governing members for the delivery of labour market programming. Established offices and administrations are in place throughout the Métis Nation to deliver community-based programming and services. Building upon the capacities of these established infrastructures provides for a holistic approach, as well as cost-saving and efficiency, rather than pan-aboriginal approaches, which lead to competition, confusion, and frustration within the Métis community.

    The MNC advocates that federal departments work together, along with the Métis Nation, to improve horizontal management of resources through well-established and accountable Métis delivery structures.

    In conclusion, I thank you for this opportunity to share some of the Métis Nation's ideas. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Poitras. I very much appreciate that.

    And now we have Veronica Dewar, from the Inuit Women's Association. Welcome.

    Perhaps you can pronounce your organization's name properly for me, because I was cowardly in my attempt to give it the Inuktitut pronunciation.

    Ms. Veronica Dewar (President, Pauktuutit (Inuit Women's Association)): Pauktuutit.

    The Chair: There, I'm glad you did it. Welcome.

    Ms. Veronica Dewar: Good afternoon, committee members, presenters, and observers.

    I am hopeful, as each of you are, that the opportunity to address you today will help us gain an understanding of a number of important issues relating to the lives of Inuit children.

    Pauktuutit, as the national non-profit association representing all Inuit women in Canada, has a mandate to foster greater awareness of the needs of Inuit women, and to encourage their broad participation in issues of community, regional, and national concern.

    In the years between 1996 and 2001, the Inuit experienced population growth of 12%—over four times the rate of the non-aboriginal population. Other than the first nations population of Saskatchewan, the Inuit have the youngest population among aboriginal groups, with a median age of just 20.6, compared to the 37.7 years of our non-aboriginal counterparts.

    I ask you whether services to Inuit children and related support to their parents have even remotely kept up with the increasing numbers in the very young population. If the ongoing and severely under-addressed crisis in social housing for Inuit is any indication of the overall ability of the federal government to appropriately address Inuit needs, I suggest the answer is clearly no.

    Ladies and gentlemen, if housing alone is viewed as detrimental to health, it has a profound impact on the child's early development. With an increase in population and limited efforts to improve both the availability and standard of housing available to Inuit families, the children will continue to be disadvantaged in ways that will impact them throughout their entire lives.

    While Inuit day care and aboriginal headstart programs are welcome additions to programs in many communities, access is spotty and our Inuit children have yet to benefit. Ensuring that the children in every community benefit and that more spaces are added are very high priorities.

    Accessible, ongoing training is fundamental to meeting the ever-increasing demand for developing Inuit workers skilled in capacity for employment at all levels. Financial stability is the result of a workforce trained to meet community needs, and community needs are the collective needs of Inuit families.

    In addition to the needs of Inuit children in northern communities, the needs of Inuit children in urban areas are also of great concern. The urban Inuit population is expanding rapidly for a variety of reasons, including the need for access to education for children and young adults, and for employment and access to comprehensive medical care. Sadly, many Inuit women move to the south to escape family violence and abuse.

    More than one in ten Inuit live in the south. Services run by the Inuit for Inuit in Ottawa include much-needed family and children's services. While these Ottawa services are growing, other urban centres are at earlier stages of organizing, and are without such culturally relevant programs.

    Any discussions of the needs of children must include a focus on the needs of parents. Considering the median age of our population, we are talking mostly about the needs of young, inexperienced mothers and fathers. It is imperative that the needs of the young mothers, in particular, are addressed in ways that build on their abilities to parent, if we are to impact the lives of their children.

¹  (1555)  

    Many children are born to young mothers. Historically, this was a normal and acceptable practice in our culture. In the past a young mother had a husband and a number of relatives in the camp to guide and assist her. Gender roles were more clearly defined, and formal schooling wasn't an issue. Today many of these young women do not have the assistance of a partner, and their extended family is stressed by poor social and economic conditions. I am sure you are familiar with the many reasons for these conditions and the deplorable status we hold with regard to the various determinants of health when compared to other Canadians. Young mothers clearly need extra support from community-based health and social networks. More subsidized day care spaces would help young women continue with their education. Evidence is clear that educating young mothers increases healthy baby outcomes. This would be a first-rate investment in the future of our communities and our country.

    Young Inuit parents need help to develop positive parenting skills. Inuit want programs that incorporate Inuit culture and traditional knowledge. While some exist, they are generally poor and unreliably resourced. We receive calls for information on Inuit-specific parenting programs, but as an organization we too lack the resources to coordinate both the information and the materials at the national level.

    The Canada prenatal nutrition program is important and needs to expand its mandate to provide other related supports to the same women it serves. I have heard, for example, that in one territory the dollars for that program cannot be explicitly used to address fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effect prevention activities because of the narrow interpretation of the federal program guidelines. At Pauktuutit we continue to work on FAS and FAE awareness and prevention, and we regularly hear about the need for services for FAS- and FAE-affected children.

    Children with other special needs are also a concern. Currently, in many cases these problems cannot even be diagnosed due to the absence of professional help. Without diagnosis, where are we going to get the data to justify to the government the urgent need for such services? Some diagnosis of these special needs children does occur, but for these children to reach their potential, adequate program delivery and training of caregivers remain major issues to be resolved.

    Pauktuutit has been addressing family violence issues since its inception in 1984. Our success in persuading the government to make prevention in this area a priority and to provide services to victims may be increasing, but it remains largely marginal. While there are a few safe shelters scattered across the Inuit regions, which are helping to protect women and children, the root causes of violence remain mostly unaddressed, because resources to address them continue to be inadequate. Many Inuit children witness violence in their homes.

    Too many are victims of violence, and everyone in this room is aware of the negative impact violence has on their physical and emotional well-being, their ability to learn effectively, and their potential to grow into healthy, stable, and productive adults. A major investment in community-based programs and the human resources to carry them out is needed to help these children heal and to protect all from future abuse.

º  (1600)  

    In closing, I would like to acknowledge Indian Affairs Minister Nault for his inclusion of Inuit women at the federal-provincial-territorial table last fall. While we have been excluded in the past few years, there is a growing recognition of the important contribution Inuit women can make in matters of policy and program issues affecting Inuit. We are expecting some financial resources from the Department of Indian Affairs to allow our participation in the interdepartmental work on early childhood development. Inuit women are experts in this area. Doesn't it make perfect sense?

    I urge you to follow the minister's example as a matter of course in making your recommendations concerning Inuit children.

    Thank you.

º  (1605)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, and thank all the witnesses.

    Before turning to questions, I have two brief observations and one announcement.

    The brief observation is that, just as I said at the beginning of the meeting, when we began this study perhaps we had artificially constrained ourselves by focusing on off-reserve zero to six when we should perhaps have thought about zero to twelve. I want members of the subcommittee to think about perhaps gently massaging the definitions, because again we've had witnesses today who have borne out the point. Even from the gathering of statistical information, it seems to be the case. So I'm hoping we will be able to do that smoothly, with the permission of the committee.

    The other observation is in the other direction, which is when we said off reserve, of course there are vast parts of the country, including the entire north, that are described by that, as we've just heard from the last witness, as well as vast parts of rural Canada. Perhaps we have inadvertently bitten off, in that sense, more than we can chew within the time constraint. Even if we focused our attention on the urban areas, we would have our hands full in the time available. All the witnesses have been very explicit about the specific problems in the urban areas. I'm just putting that out for the committee to think about, because we were perhaps a little imprecise when we set up the conditions of our study. So we'll have to return to that, as a group.

    The announcement is that next week we have two ministers appearing, Minister Goodale, the interlocutor, and Minister Blondin-Andrew. Minister Goodale has to be gone by four, so if we could actually start, as we did today, pretty much around 3:15, that would be appreciated.

    I have the embarrassment of announcing that I can't be here. I'm actually out of the country next week. I'm hoping that Ms. Neville will be able to help me out, and I thank God she said yes.

    All right, enough of the church bulletin announcements from the pulpit here.

    Mr. Spencer.

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

    I apologize. I must leave in a very short order of time here.

    The Chair: So that means short questions. That's good.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: So that's maybe one or two short questions.

    Chief Coon Come, you've mentioned that the government's approach to structure and legislation has resulted in the creation of barriers to services and programs based on residency. How would you change that?

    Chief Matthew Coon Come: Well, as you probably appreciate, the children who live off reserve are in a situation where they are told that they are a federal responsibility and therefore they should go back to their reserve. On the other hand, of course, they are told that they're living off reserve, therefore they are provincial jurisdiction. Certainly the municipality couldn't care less, because the issue is federal and provincial, so they become a ping pong.

    At the end of the day, that's the bottom line. I think the way to resolve it is for first nations to be involved in the design, in the delivery, and in the governance of the development of those programs. This is contrary to what the gentleman on the right has recommended, which is to have the federal and provincial governments develop an aboriginal policy together, with the exclusion of aboriginal peoples. History has shown that programs developed without involvement fail. The programs developed by us are progressive.

    You cannot take a system of first nations mothers and parents and plug them into a system that is not theirs, that does not respect their culture, their language, their customs, and their beliefs. You cannot take that and plug them into a system that does not take a holistic approach. So if you want success in addressing our issues, you must involve the first nations.

    The solution recommended by the gentleman at the end of the table--to retain funding from reserves, who are already poor, and give it to the communities--is totally unacceptable. There are off-reserve aboriginal service providers, like the friendship centres, the child welfare agencies, the native health centres, non-profit housing. They already give us an opportunity to be able to work with those first nation off-reserve service providers and develop programs to them, because they are more aware of the problems our young mothers are facing, which they have to deal with because of their children.

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Larry Spencer: In Regina I have been in communication with a group of first nations leaders who have as their goal to set up a first nations accountability group that they hope would develop into a group the government could work through to provide services. Would this kind of thing fit with what you're thinking of?

    Chief Matthew Coon Come: Everybody is talking about accountability as if to imply that the first nations don't know how to manage or administer or coordinate their funds. I must add, then, that we probably have the strictest guidelines for first nations leaders in terms of the funds we receive because of the contribution agreements.

    The contribution agreements are contractual agreements between the various departments of the federal government and they obligate the first nations to be bound by audits. You have to record your salaries, your honorariums, and you have to ensure that you live up to the deliverables you said you would. We have the strictest forms, and those contracts are legally binding, if you think we're not accountable to anybody.

    So why create another entity that is going to take the dollars that are out there--and they're not even enough--and then give them to another entity because they're said to look for accountability, when you have minimum dollars already to provide the essential services to the existing agencies that are trying to provide services to the off-reserve first nations?

    Mr. Larry Spencer: I can't answer that totally, but their feeling is that some of the providers are being less than accountable and that some of our government agencies are turning a blind eye to it, so that's why they're concerned. It's not that they're so much worried about the people themselves, as it's a double problem and they felt it needed to be addressed more strongly.

    Chief Matthew Coon Come: I like your comment of the other government agencies that are turning a blind eye. I think we should make them accountable. It's not an Indian problem; it's a federal-Indian problem.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Spencer.

    Before we move on to Mr. Gagnon, because the national chief referenced Mr. Hanselmann and his report, and of course he was not able to deliver the whole report--he just gave us highlights--I want to be fair and to make sure that we haven't mischaracterized his views.

    Would you care to comment, Mr. Hanselmann?

    Mr. Calvin Hanselmann: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I would like to deal with two points the national chief made. The first is that I never said anything of the sort; I never said that governments should develop policy without aboriginal people. That was not in my presentation. It is not in our final report. It is not in our recommendations. In fact, our recommendations state, in a number of areas, that aboriginal people must be at the table when urban aboriginal policy is developed.

    The second issue I want to clarify is with respect to taking funding from reserves to urban areas. This is, I understand, very contentious.

    Our recommendation is based on the observation that the proportion of aboriginal people living in urban areas is growing, while the proportion of aboriginal people living on reserves is decreasing. And this is an historical trend that Statistics Canada has tracked for about 50 years.

    The funding proportionality, however, has not really changed. We have gone from no funding for aboriginal people living in cities to approximately 3.5% of federal government program funding in the cities. Fifty percent of aboriginal people live in the cities, but 3.5% of the federal government's money is in the cities. Twenty-nine percent of aboriginal people are on reserve, but 88% of the Government of Canada's program funding is on reserve.

    Our recommendation is that the money should follow the people. The national chief observed, as others have observed as well, that a number of the first nations people are living in cities, and we think the money that goes to providing the services for those people should be where they are living.

    Thank you.

º  (1615)  

    The Chair: Yes, go ahead.

    Chief Matthew Coon Come: I have a point of clarification.

    When you made a presentation, you talked about shared responsibilities for urban recommendations. Number one was for the federal and provincial governments to develop aboriginal policy together. When he made that presentation that's what he said, but now, in reference to his details, he's saying aboriginal.... So I take that.

    The Chair: Fair enough.

    Chief Matthew Coon Come: I have another point on the last point on retaining funding from reserves to communities. That sounds like a very simplistic solution. Would the City of Toronto accept a recommendation from an independent body imposing the western perspective and recommending to city council that because of the problems with urban and rural areas, they think the council should take its budget and divide it and give it to everybody else? Would the province accept that? Would the federal government accept that? That is what he's saying. There seems to be a double standard whereby people think that first nations should just take their budget and divide among the individuals, and that will solve our problem.

    The Chair: I have a feeling we may come back to this. It does have a slight tinge of robbing Peter to pay Paul. We'll return to that.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gagnon, do you have any questions?

    Mr. Sébastien Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, BQ): Yes, just one simple question. I am not yet familiar with the whole issue, but I have a question for Mrs. Poitras. Does the Métis National Council have access to all federal programs in the same way as any other aboriginal community?

[English]

    Ms. Audrey Poitras: No, we don't. What we find happening a lot of times is programs are initiated under what is called the aboriginal agenda and then the funds go into the Department of Indian Affairs and the Métis Nation does not have access to them. That's what we find happens a lot of times.

[Translation]

    Mr. Sébastien Gagnon: Okay, that's fine.

[English]

    The Chair: Ms. Neville, do you have a question?

    Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): First of all, I'd like to thank all four presenters for your presentations. Each in its own way was quite superb, and underlined the issues that all governments I think are dealing with. I think the dialogue that has just gone on right now underlines the difficulty and the complexity of the issue of addressing some of the needs of urban aboriginals.

    One of the things I am most interested in and most concerned about is an issue that each of you in your way addressed somewhat differently, which is the jurisdictional issue. There is the issue of different jurisdictions, first of all, not cooperating within their own jurisdiction and operating in silos. There is, as well, the issue of decisions made, often by the federal government, that affect policy, practice, and programs that have an impact on the first nation community living on reserve and thereby force people to come into the city and create many of the issues and problems we deal with in an urban setting.

    I'm not sure whether I'm making sense, but the exchange in terms of reallocating dollars from the first nation community to the urban setting underlines the issue. Often people move from the community because of the lack of services or opportunities or employment there.

    So what I'm trying to get my head about is how to begin to really address some of the jurisdictional irregularities, complexities, and difficulties. I appreciate that the Métis federation cited some. I'm familiar with other tripartite agreements that don't necessarily address aboriginal issues but involve jurisdictions of government working together.

    How do we begin to make real progress in addressing some of the jurisdictional issues, recognizing the resources, the politics, the history, the traditions of different levels of government working in silos?

    I'm from Winnipeg, and I know that the federal government has an initiative currently underway that is not making a lot of progress because federal government departments are not willing to give up turf, for a lack of a better word. So I'd like some concrete comments on how do we start dealing with the jurisdictional issues in a real way.

    The other comment I would like to make is that I appreciated your presentation, particularly because you dealt with it in the holistic way; that is, it's not just children, it's children and their families, and the lack of opportunities for families, that create the issues for children. I'm not sure whether I'm making sense, but I'm having a hard time. It's really the jurisdictional issues and how to start addressing them in a cooperative and meaningful way to deal with issues related to aboriginal people living in the cities.

    In Winnipeg, where I'm from, if we don't address it in a coordinated way our city is in serious difficulty. It really is the future of our community. So we have to do it.

    I don't know who wants to go first.

º  (1620)  

    Chief Matthew Coon Come: During the Charlottetown Accord, I was involved on one of the many committees that were established, and one of the main areas that we wanted to tackle was the whole jurisdictional problem of providing service to our people off reserve, so that first nations could set up their institutions off reserve to provide service to off-reserve membership and be able to provide a service to their people. The reason we suggested that was because of the jurisdictional problem. That was agreed to by the premiers but it was rejected by referendum by the vote of the people.

    We knew that was a problem. So what we wanted to do was allow the first nations to provide service to their people off reserve and therefore extend the jurisdiction of the first nations to provide service to their people by building institutions for them in their communities. That was one area. You can find all the debate and how that was worded within the Charlottetown Accord.

    That's what we're tackling. That's the jurisdictional problem and how we wanted to deal with it. The premiers agreed with it, everybody agreed with it, and unfortunately it was rejected. But I think we might want to revisit that part.

    The second part, which I think is important, is that I'm always mindful of somebody trying to impose their views on us in regard to how we should solve our problems.

º  (1625)  

    Ms. Anita Neville: We know that.

    Chief Matthew Coon Come: I feel that if you want to solve your problems.... It's the Jewish people who are going to solve their problems, it's Italians who are going to solve their problems, because they know their culture, their language, and their approaches.

    For me, if the government could accept this.... Let's take an example. We have friendship centres right across the country. If we were to sign a protocol, an accord, with that friendship centre--I'm a first nation community, I have so many members in that town, and there's a friendship centre--the funds that I get can be allocated to them so they can provide the service and I'm proving that I'm allocating certain funds to my people who live off reserve. Right now I can't do that, but I want to.

    Did you know that child welfare agencies have $340 million and the majority of them are off reserve? I'd like to have their money given to me. I only get $25 million. They get more money than I do, if you want to talk about numbers.

    The idea is that since we have friendship centres, child welfare agencies, native health centres, non-profit housing, if we could come to an agreement with the governments, both the federal and the provincial, for an allocation of those funds to us as first nations, we could develop an accord with them and could provide the service to our people by working with the existing agencies and providers.

    We don't have to create another agency--they think they're accountable--and give them more money to pay for their office space with the little money that we have to provide service to our people. There are ways we could do it, but it involves being a little more creative. Then we would be involved in the design, the delivery, the governance. Then I don't have to blame anybody else. I'll blame myself.

    Ms. Anita Neville: I'm not going to get into a debate with you on that. I appreciate what you're saying.

    The other aspect of it is that other governments--largely the federal government--make decisions, either through policy, program, or practice, that impact on your people living in their communities and that somehow force them to move into the urban setting. I think that is as much an issue as the delivery of services and programs to people. That's part of what I would like to try to get our head around.

    Chief Matthew Coon Come: Well, definitely, being marginalized, being dispossessed, being excluded from real policy development leads to hopelessness and landlessness. Therefore you leave your community because there's no employment, etc.

    Why is it that the non-native communities around us are surviving and have better hospitals, better services? We live right next door to them. Why? Because we're excluded from the share of the natural resources, from development, so that we can't create employment for ourselves. There's no excuse why we should just allocate funding for us to receive because our communities live there. The real problem is that land was taken away from us and we were put on a reserve, on land that nobody wanted. Yet the non-native communities around us prosper.

    The argument that, well, because there's a lack of employment, etc., lack of training, therefore we should invest in first nations communities, to me it won't stand, because the non-native communities are prospering.

    The Chair: I think Ms. Poitras wanted to come in on this.

    Ms. Audrey Poitras: Yes, I did.

    Regardless of the jurisdictional issue.... We know it's there. But what we find more of a problem is that there is no standard policy around the jurisdictional issue.

    As an example, we all know that within the Constitution of Canada there are the three aboriginal people. Eight years ago, when Human Resources Development Canada decided to devolve labour market programming, it was those three aboriginal groups that were recognized as the groups to deliver services to their people. More recently, with the urban aboriginal strategy, all of a sudden it didn't come. It went wherever, to other unrecognized groups.

    What we need around the jurisdictional issue is to develop a standard policy. That was why I believe the model that was developed for the Métis Nation within the delivery of programming around the labour market through Human Resources Development Canada and again through the Department of Canadian Heritage proved that we're very capable of delivering those services to our people. I think that's what we need to have developed as a more regular policy.

    I certainly agree with Chief Matthew Coon Come that those policies need to be developed in conjunction with us to make sure they meet the needs of our communities.

º  (1630)  

    The Chair: Are you done for the time being?

    Ms. Anita Neville: Yes.

    The Chair: Mr. Tonks, do you want to come in on this?

    Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I'm sorry I'm late. I had another meeting I had to be at.

    Thank you for your deputations.

    Last week we heard from the National Association of Friendship Centres. We had representations from two or three specific centres. The jurisdictional issue came up in a rather interesting way. The friendship centres indicated to us that they had lobbied through the Minister of Health for additional dollars to operate their early childhood programming and so on and so forth. When the money was in fact allocated, it never came to the friendship centres.

    Using that as an illustration, if there were changes to the regimen, how could we strengthen the delivery system? I think you've touched on it, Chief Coon Come. If you were looking for the ideal model, what model would you present for the rationalization and breaking down of the jurisdictions that would truly be holistic and community-based?

    Chief Matthew Coon Come: I may be repeating myself, but empower the first nations to make those decisions; to develop, design, and deliver that program; and to set up their institutions that are recognized to avoid duplication of services. They can set up their own health and social services provider, as we did in James Bay. Allow them to set up their institutions where their people are and therefore be able to provide a service to them.

    What I'm explaining to you is that right now it's not possible because of the jurisdictional problem. But we can fast-track this. I think you can do something about it. Then I think we'd at least have a fighting chance to be able to have that holistic approach of respect for culture, language, and beliefs and allow our people to be able to deal with their membership and to provide that service, in this case for the zero to six. I'm trying to simplify what I think is the solution. I know it's complicated. I've been dealing with programs for 28 years. I think I have an idea where the problems are. That's why I've pinpointed the problem, which is that it's a jurisdictional issue. If we can get out of that, I think we can get the dollars to flow to where they should go.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Chief, I appreciate that.

    Could you instruct the committee in terms of whether this is a governance issue, this whole issue around treaty rights, self-government, and a variety of other issues? Are these the obstacles that prevent us from having a spirit that would drive toward that kind of solution?

    Chief Matthew Coon Come: That's a mouthful. We could write a book on that.

    Our long-term objective as first nations is to have full control and jurisdiction over providing the health and social services. In there I would include, of course, providing services to the group we are talking about. What prevents us from doing that is the Constitution, which we can't change right now because there's no constitutional table. That's what we tried to do in Charlottetown. But what we can do is empower our people to make those decisions and to set up the boards and give them the authority to allocate the resources and provide the services. We don't care if they're off reserve or on reserve. But we want to make sure that they provide services off reserve to that mother who is alone and wants to raise her child and give that child a fighting chance. Let's not create another entity. We have structures there we can work with, but the bureaucracy is the problem.

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Alan Tonks: My final question is one that has been touched on by all of the deputants, and I think perhaps it was in Chief Coon Come's overview of the....

    Building on Success talks about not just meeting the needs of children zero to six, but it talks about a longer continuum and also about the need to coordinate housing programs, day care, assistance programs, prenatal programs, and employment programs. Building on Success talks about those jurisdictional obstacles to doing that.

    If we were to write a sequel to Building on Success, what are the key recommendations from the perspective of each of you that you would like to see in that report?

    The Chair: I would actually start here, with Ms. Dewar.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: In terms of, say, Inuit peoples, and what is probably the largest off-reserve people....

    The Chair: Because we have such an expansive mandate here, I don't mean to put words in your mouth or constrict you, but I'm wondering if the respondents could focus, just for the time being, on the urban setting, because everyone has referred to it. Ms. Dewar talked about the very specific challenges.

    I guess what Mr. Tonks wants are suggestions that would take the form of recommendations in a report that would advance the file, as we think the file was advanced when we urged the government to get its act together in the delivery of on-reserve services, that they should get their act together up here and they should get their act together on reserve. That was relatively easy to suggest. What would be the equivalent big broad-stroke recommendations, particularly for urban aboriginals from whatever group?

    So if you want to think about it.... Do you want to start, Ms. Dewar?

    Ms. Veronica Dewar: Thank you.

    I would have liked to have had Mr. Jose Kusugak beside me, because we're both from the northern part of Canada.

    I'd like to say that Inuit women have been quite excluded from any of the policy and decision-making. We just got on board as the sixth national organization to sit with the FPTA meetings. We've been crying out, because I know there are a lot of Inuit in urban settings throughout Canada, and many more are coming into the cities to escape violence. I know a lot of them are not educated to your southern standard, so to speak, and a lot of times they don't know enough about where to go for assistance, how we get our education, how we get our medical looked after, or how we get our children involved at the community level. These are the kinds of things we are faced with. I think we're similar in that situation, but Inuit come down with no education and little support in the urban setting.

    We try to educate our women to surface, to ask questions, to come out, but at times there's a lot of systemic discrimination. I don't know if you're pondering on that, but it does exist. It's ongoing and it's not pleasant. I know the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Tungasuwingat in Ontario are now looking after the Inuit in Ontario. I know they are just starting to get things settled down, and I know education of the people is a big factor.

    But as Matthew said, involve us, because we know better how our people want to see things. We know and understand their language. We speak their language. We know the culture and the environment they're coming from. I think that's a big factor. Constantly we cry out for funding because we're excluded, like the Métis women. It's ongoing, and we have to beg.

    Invite us. What do you have that we can use to educate our people, to get involved at the table with the rest of the aboriginal groups?

º  (1640)  

    The Chair: I think we take away from that the importance of respectful involvement early on, not trying to dream up solutions for other people without consulting them.

    Ms. Poitras, would you add to that?

    Ms. Audrey Poitras: Yes. When we talk about clearly urban initiatives, urban delivery, all the aboriginal people who live in urban settings are generally first nations, Métis, or Inuit--somewhere down the line they all fit into those groups.

    I know the Métis National Council and our member organizations deliver services to those urban aboriginal people, sometimes all three groups, depending what.... Right now, as the president for Alberta and the interim president for the Métis National Council, I can say we have delivery systems set up within the cities of Edmonton and Calgary that deliver to all aboriginal people. We have partnerships with the first nations groups in Alberta, where we deliver those services.

    When we speak about friendship centres, which was part of the beginning of your question, I'll use Manitoba as an example. The Manitoba Métis Federation has an agreement signed with the friendship centre in Manitoba. They help negotiate their funds; they partner in delivering services. We have the same type of working relationship. We don't have an official signed agreement in Alberta, but a lot of those people within the friendship centre are Métis people we work with along with the friendship centre to find housing and those types of things.

    It always comes back to that jurisdictional issue of the three recognized aboriginal groups in the Canadian Constitution. That's where I see it happening. I really do believe that if the Government of Canada had a clear policy for all aboriginal people--Métis, first nation, and Inuit--we wouldn't have as many of these other problems coming out.

    The Chair: Before moving on to the next two, because it's important we hear recommendations from everybody, can I just throw this into the mix? Ms. Poitras and the national chief mentioned it, and Mr. Tonks asked about it--the role of friendship centres.

    We had a very good presentation last week. My question, if you wouldn't mind building this into your recommendations or just reacting to it, is whether the friendship centres, if properly funded and properly constituted, so they can take into account the three constitutionally recognized aboriginal groups, are a platform or vehicle that we can use, at least in the cities--I know there are some challenges in the countryside--to at least start advancing the file, still recognizing the cultural distinctions of the three constitutional groups.

    I thought I heard something like that coming from Ms. Poitras, though I don't mean to put words in her mouth. I'd be interested to hear from the national chief, and then get Mr. Hanselmann's reaction as well.

º  (1645)  

    Chief Matthew Coon Come: Wouldn't you say that's a leading question?

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

    The Chair: It's a rhetorical question.

    Ms. Audrey Poitras: I understand what you're saying, if what you believe I said is what I think you're saying now--that the friendship centres are the avenue to go.

    The Chair: Can we use them in some fashion or other to advance the cause of all three groups? That's what I'm asking. Since we have an existing...we don't want to invent new stuff, right?

    Ms. Audrey Poitras: No.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Ms. Audrey Poitras: I'm not sure if you understood exactly what I said, if that's--

    The Chair: Maybe I didn't even understand what I said. So there you are.

    Go ahead.

    Chief Matthew Coon Come: I'll try to summarize it.

    I think joint partnerships—real joint partnerships—will work, and friendship centres are one part of that. I had mentioned other ones—the child welfare agencies, the native health centres, non-profit housing—as one of the partners. There may be others. I think real joint partnerships that work with the first nations communities and the tribal councils, etc.—I'm not saying with the federal government, I'm saying with those agencies—would work.

    Also, I think because of everybody's concern about accountability in the way we spend dollars and about trying to maximize the return on our dollar of investment, you need to look at real consolidation of funding, whether federal, provincial, territorial, or first nations, and identify what those dollars are in terms of saying “This is what we need, and this is all we have right now.”

    It's going to be a hard decision as to where to target those funds, and I think we could avoid a lot of duplication. That's my second point.

    My third point is that I think we have to be involved from day one. That means within your existing, right-now restructuring of the first nations and Inuit health branch. There's a major restructuring right now.

    We were excluded before, and I'll explain how we were excluded. Here is the first nations and Inuit health branch. You sign joint agreements with AFN, and you're over here. But the real policy is here with the Minister of Health, with the deputy ministers, and after that you have the various advisory bodies. The restructuring involved this. You don't have an advisory body on aboriginal peoples. I think you should develop a box on that. We'd like to have a seat with the deputy ministers. I think it wouldn't be a far cry. We'd like to have a seat with the ministers of health. Involve us in the restructuring, so we would be tackling it from day one.

    The other point is a little history. Those of us who are 45-plus—I'm within that bracket—are the ones who went to residential school. Most of us were told, “You go out there and don't come back”. Now our people are saying “You get your education and you come back”.

    Why am I saying that? Because it's been supported, in the study we all are referring to, the 2000 census, that our people—two percent, which means about 4,000 of our people—are now going back. There's a change in attitude. I guess some of the bands are assuming more responsibilities now, and they need help. They have health clinics, schools, and they need teachers and doctors, so there's an influx of people now moving back. It's a different mentality now. Whereas before, my generation were told, “You go to school, you stay there, and you try to support yourself”, now these young mothers and fathers are saying to their kids, “You go to school, but you come back, because we need you”.

    I think you have to be mindful of that: to develop programs that encourage young people to go back to their communities.

    I think I've said enough on the jurisdictional issue; I won't say any more. But we need to develop, I believe, a standard. There has to be a national standard—we are talking about the quality and quantity of services that are being delivered—and I don't care whether it's the federal or provincial government or the first nations, but something we all can aspire to and say “These are the national standards”.

    There has to be a national governing body that oversees things, to make sure the first nations are doing their job and the provincial governments are doing their job and other agencies are doing their job. Developing a standard that entails real quality and quantity in providing those services I think is essential. We can have all these joint partnerships, and they're good, but we need a national body that can say here's what you're going to do. I think this was part of the covenant and the council they were talking about in health reform, but we do need a body.

º  (1650)  

    The Chair: Mr. Hanselmann, are your recommendations to us...? Of course, you've given us a whole report. By the way, I've just been looking through it, and it's a very provocative and interesting report. It really strikes me as something we'd be interested in hearing the reactions of the other witnesses to after their....

    Oh, has it not been distributed? Oh, my gosh; perhaps I shouldn't have had it.

    I suspect for constitutional reasons, because it doesn't exist in.... Do you have a French version?

    Mr. Calvin Hanselmann: That is correct, Mr. Chair. We don't have a French translation of the report, so that is why I did not table it with the subcommittee.

    The Chair: Golly, well believe me, it's good. It's interesting. I think we'd like to get your reaction to it in any language--Cree maybe, I don't know. It will create more problems.

    Mr. Hanselmann, what are your thoughts for the committee, which of course are contained here?

    Mr. Calvin Hanselmann: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Tonks, if I could paraphrase, it seems to me he was asking about strengthening urban aboriginal policy. I think this subcommittee is most concerned with ages zero to twelve, but we seem to be getting into a more general discussion. So please bear with me, as this will go all over the map.

    Basically you're talking about breaking down the jurisdiction issues, and community-based delivery and decision-making. When you raise the issue of jurisdictions, then of course you're speaking to what Ms. Neville asked about.

    There are three jurisdictional issues, as I see it. One is intergovernmental disagreement. The Government of Canada has historically taken the position that their responsibility or policy mandate is with respect to Indians and lands reserved for Indians. So they have historically said they have responsibility for first nations people on reserve, and the provincial governments have responsibility for all other aboriginal people as residents of those provinces. Provincial governments have countered that position by saying the federal government has responsibility for all aboriginal people. I think we're all aware what the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples said about that.

    Our recommendation on urban aboriginal people is that we have to get over this. The intergovernmental squabbling is detrimental to good policy-making and effective programming. Our recommendation is that the federal and provincial governments formally accept shared responsibility, and then act on the basis of shared responsibility. It means pooling resources, working together, coordinating programming and policy-making, and so on.

    The second jurisdictional issue is intergovernmental with respect to federal, provincial, and municipal governments, and aboriginal organizations and governments. There again we have said that urban aboriginal people must be part of the discussions. We've recommended that urban aboriginal people be a part of the intergovernmental process. We've recommended that governments support urban aboriginal people in ensuring that they have representative organizations to give voice to their issues.

    We have several recommendations that touch on the issues of involvement in policy-making and programming. Many of those recommendations are encapsulated in the term “promise and practices: ideas that work”. On promise and practices, when we spoke to over a hundred people who actually do the stuff on the ground and make the policy, they told us what was working in their communities, and we boiled it down to the common ideas.

    Many of those ideas are about empowering local officials and local communities to make decisions at a local level on how best to locally address local issues. That is what you're talking about when you say community-based.

    The third jurisdictional issue, as Ms. Neville mentioned, is silos. There are basically two major silo problems. One is with the intergovernmental federal-provincial silos, but also within an order of government there are multi-departmental silos. We're all familiar with them.

    There are very sound reasons, founded in the Canadian parliamentary system, for the existence of these silos. But we have found there are ways to work within the silo system; there are ways to work across the silo system. We've suggested it's imperative that decision-makers allow officials to work in a way that doesn't remove the accountability that has to exist in the public service, but at the same time allows them to be creative and innovative, to break down the silos, to pool their funds, and to work across mandates. This all comes down to holistic approaches.

º  (1655)  

We've heard from so many urban aboriginal people and so many people who are involved in policy and programming that with probably every aboriginal issue, urban aboriginal issues are not dealt with on a one-issue basis. It doesn't work that way. You cannot address employment without addressing perhaps housing or homelessness or income support, education, child care. The other witnesses have mentioned that. So we have recommended that the governments look at holistic approaches.

    One of those holistic approaches is what's referred to as a whole family approach. That would require some innovative thinking on the parts of governments to pool their resources, to work across the boundaries that exist now, and to approach an issue on a very broad-based level. For example, if an urban aboriginal person wants to take post-secondary education and training, perhaps what is required to empower that person to make those decisions is support for child care, perhaps support in terms of homelessness or housing, perhaps in terms of family violence or substance abuse. There could be any number of issues that have to be addressed in order for a person to be empowered to make decisions to better his or her life. We have said that these things all need to be examined, need to be considered.

    In some respects, our report is very specific on recommendations on how to do it. In some of these areas, like questions of accountability, we've suggested that there are ways to work within the system but there also needs to be more research done on ways to make the system work for aboriginal people, instead of the other way around.

    The Chair: Could I ask a follow-up question? I realize time is pressing, and Ms. Neville has a question too.

    My question would go something like this--and I think it starts with Mr. Hanselmann, but others may have proof. What strikes me as we've begun this study is the buck-passing that goes on, the unwillingness of anyone to take leadership, seize the day, and get on with it. Of course this will provide, I hope, my committee colleagues with something to ask the federal interlocutor about next week, Mr. Goodale, when he comes.

    Mr. Hanselmann, in your research or anybody's research.... I guess the argument about the provinces trying to get out of it, so to speak, everybody trying to get out of it, as you suggested, was that the federal government has taken some formal responsibility for on-reserve first nations, suggesting that it's the provinces' problem.

    The provinces say no, no, no, it doesn't matter where first nations are or where aboriginals are; you're responsible. Has that not only led to a reduction of services that might otherwise have been available to first nations people in urban areas, but has there been a kind of a spillover effect--that is, that the unwillingness of people to take responsibility, whether the provinces or the federal government, has kind of spilled over to the Métis and to the Inuit who find themselves in urban areas? Did you find anything to that effect, that they're actually worse off than similar groups of citizens who are not aboriginal but living in poverty? Did you find there was that kind of negative effect?

»  (1700)  

    Mr. Calvin Hanselmann: With respect to the first part of your question, Mr. Chair, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples did a great service when it found what it did with respect to urban aboriginal policy and programming; that is, this passing of the buck or hot-potato issue. One of the quotations from the report was that many aboriginal people are falling through the cracks. That is the case. That was the case in the early nineties, and it continues to be the case in the early 21st century.

    With respect to spillover effect--that is to say that the Government of Canada continues to take the position that it is responsible for first nations people on reserve only, and any other aboriginal person is somebody else's responsibility--what you are suggesting is there's a spillover effect. Ms. Poitras can speak to this very succinctly. That is, that Métis people are for the most part not part of the Government of Canada's aboriginal programming. They are for the most part covered by provincial governments as citizens or residents of a province.

    Some provinces in western Canada have started to implement policies specific to Métis and off-reserve first nations people. Some have programming for Métis and off-reserve people. But most provincial governments are hesitant to be very active in this policy file because they have an historical constitutional position that aboriginal people are the responsibility of the Government of Canada.

    The Chair: All aboriginal people--all groups, all three groups.

    Mr. Calvin Hanselmann: That's right. And that's why we've said let's get over the posturing, accept that there's shared responsibility, shake hands, move forward, and make sure that the aboriginal people are part of the process.

    The Chair: I think that's a tremendous message, and that the issues we've touched on obviously go beyond the delivery of services to children. A holistic approach is quite right, because children have parents, children live in houses, parents need jobs. But if we begin by using children as our test case of getting our act together on children....

    I'm struck, by the way, Mr. Hanselmann, that many of the criticisms you might make about the delivery of services to children would apply in terms of silos and all the rest of it to non-aboriginal kids, to all Canadian kids. We're not very good at it in terms of federal-provincial, in terms of the silos within governments and all the rest of it. So there are some generic problems that go beyond.

    It has been a very helpful afternoon hearing you, and it has been great to get the exchange. It's important that formally we restrict ourselves to the task at hand. I suspect we're going to need to focus mostly on urban aboriginal kids zero to twelve while understanding that at a future time we may have to take a totally different look at Inuit communities, for example. But we can't do it all.

    Nevertheless, if we could get it right with kids, it might have, dare I say, a positive spillover effect. It might actually work better that way. So we're going to have to be very creative here, but I feel encouraged by the response we have to our first study where the situation we described was addressed and referred to. We have our work cut out for us.

    I want to thank you.

    Did you have a comment?

»  (1705)  

    Ms. Veronica Dewar: Thank you. I just want to say something on the Inuit side.

    Our premiers of the three regions in the Arctic did not sign the health agreement with the federal government. That goes to show that the neglect of our people is tremendous. When they come down here, it's even more. I think we could collaborate together even stronger to bring the health of our people who are down here to a better situation. A lot of times the children are apprehended by the social services because of the lack of job opportunities for women and they get into other things that didn't exist in their home communities in the Arctic.

    We need to address these very serious issues with our women and their parents. They need education, they need care. We need to collaborate with the existing institutions in the urban cities. Also, there is the issue of the training areas. As Inuit women, we don't get any training funds from any government. The Métis, the Native Women's Association of Canada does, but we, as the Inuit Women's Association, don't.

    We certainly could use those kinds of things to train our women, people coming down, so they're not neglected any longer. They have human rights. They need care, training, homes. These are big factors when they come down. The children are neglected. They can't go to school. They're hungry going to school. These stories go on and on. I'm sure you've heard of those things. They are very real problems.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Chief, do you have a final comment?

    Chief Matthew Coon Come: When I appeared before you and heard your opening comments, I was very encouraged to hear you say that we may have to target not just zero to six but six to twelve. When we did our analysis of all the programs that we target, we realize that the group between six and twelve have been excluded. We have all the head start programs, day care centres from zero to six, prenatal programs, etc., but from six to twelve we don't. So what we did was to target that group.

    I have a draft here where we looked at ages six to twelve. I'm still working on it. If I may, would I be able to forward this to the standing committee as an addendum to my presentation? That's a specific target group, and I totally agreed with what you were saying.

    The Chair: Absolutely. That's very helpful.

    I hope, on behalf of the group, we can stay in touch on this. This is a work in progress. We'd like to think we're the home in Parliament for people who care about children, and I know you do. We very much appreciate your interventions, and we look forward to staying in touch. Keep coming back to us with ideas, because we're far from having furnished our report.

    May the record read that we kind of drifted into a decision that we're now doing ages zero to twelve? That's fine by you? Ça va...zéro à douze?

    It's so nice. It's consensual. See how it works?

    With that, we'll end the meeting, before somebody changes their mind.

    Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.