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, April 2, 2003

¹

1550

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

Mr. Robert Harry (Executive Director, BC Aboriginal Network on Disability Society)

The Chair

Mr. Robert Harry

¹

1555

º

1600

The Chair

Prof. Michael Prince (Lansdowne Professor of Social Policy, Faculty of Human and Social Development, University of Victoria)

The Chair

Prof. Michael Prince

º

1610

º

1615

The Chair

Prof. Michael Prince

The Chair

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

º

1620

Prof. Michael Prince

Mr. Robert Harry

Mr. Larry Spencer

The Chair

Prof. Michael Prince

º

1625

The Chair

Prof. Michael Prince

The Chair

Mr. Larry Spencer

Prof. Michael Prince

º

1630

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North)

Mr. Robert Harry

º

1635

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Robert Harry

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Robert Harry

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Robert Harry

Ms. June Wylie (Assistant Executive Director, BC Aboriginal Network on Disability Society)

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

º

1640

The Chair

Mr. Robert Harry

The Chair

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

Mr. Robert Harry

º

1645

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Robert Harry

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Robert Harry

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Robert Harry

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Robert Harry

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Robert Harry

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Robert Harry

º

1650

The Chair

º

1655

Prof. Michael Prince

»

1700

The Chair

Prof. Michael Prince

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 011

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, April 2, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1550)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.)): I now declare the meeting officially started. What you're watching is parliamentary trickery at its finest. Because of the disorderly nature of the House, which is just typical, what I think we'll do is begin. People will come and go, but the record of what you say is now official because we're in business.

    Let us then turn to the work at hand. We do have two witnesses from British Columbia, who are here both in person and virtually. Since you two gentlemen don't know each other, this is Mr. Harry, whom you can probably see on your screen, Dr. Prince. It's our purpose to link up Canadians, even the ones who live right next to each other.

    Why don't we begin in the order we have before us, then, turning to Robert Harry, who's the director of the B.C. Aboriginal Network on Disability Society.

    Just let me make one introductory comment, which is that the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development of the House of Commons has at least two subcommittees, one of which deals with children and youth at risk and another, chaired by my friend Dr. Carolyn Bennett, that deals with persons with disabilities, and we have had joint meetings. I think Dr. Prince knows about this because we've met before. We are constantly aware that there are times we have to collaborate on these issues and that they could go either way, and in an ideal world we'd have more joint meetings. I just wanted to preface this session by saying that we are particularly attentive to this issue.

    Mr. Harry, welcome, and we look forward to your opening comments.

    Mr. Robert Harry (Executive Director, BC Aboriginal Network on Disability Society): Thank you.

    First of all, I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to make a presentation on behalf of the B.C. Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, otherwise known as BCANDS.

    Next, I would like to thank the first nations people on whose traditional territory we're on. This is my protocol when I come to different areas that are not part of my territory.

    I've been asked to focus my presentation on the challenges, needs, and strengths of off-reserve children. Since I represent an organization whose main focus is on aboriginal people with disabilities, this submission reflects their challenges, needs, and strengths along with strategies to improve conditions as well as recommendations.

    I understand that the subcommittee is developing of a series of four reports on aboriginal children and youth and that this submission will contribute to the findings of the second report on the off-reserve aboriginal children from the prenatal period to age six. With the collaboration of our staff and our board, I respectfully submit to this subcommittee for consideration copies of the BCANDS presentation.

    I apologize for not having one in the French language. I just never had time to do that, but I understand that you'll be able to do that for me.

    The challenges we have for children who live off-reserve are threefold, three-edged in a sense. For the sake of the time I have, I'm going to be very brief, but if there's a time limit on my presentation, then perhaps you guys can stop me so I can go into the later part of my presentation right away.

    The Chair: What I would suggest is, if you can do it more or less in ten minutes, sort of hitting the headlines on the way through, we will read the details between the lines.

    Mr. Robert Harry: Okay. I practised my speech, and it comes to seven and a half minutes.

    Set 1 is “Fundamental tripled-edged challenges”. Aboriginal children with disabilities, along with the families who support them, face challenges threefold, first as an aboriginal--and that's almost a strike against him, especially when they're living off-reserve. If they're a person with a disability, it's a double-edged sword, and if they're a family seeking to address the challenges, that's a triple-edged sword. So it's a triple-edged sword system.

    Their basic challenges include, as we all know, poverty, resources, housing, health and medical support, and basic food and special dietary needs. I believe one of the things that's missing here is that the dietary needs of aboriginal children are really not addressed properly, in a good way. Education includes money, tutoring, books, supplies, tuition, and the thing that's still out there even though we live in a modern world, discrimination.

    Specific challenges for the aboriginal children with a disability are support to find services for learning disabilities and special needs, timely assessment and testing, family resources, and the fact that bands may not support the child or family of children with disabilities, regardless of residency. If they move off the reserve, they're just cut right off from the reserve, and if they try to get into another system out there, they can't do it because the jurisdictions are two different things.

    Sense of belonging is something else. If you go into a white community and you're aboriginal with a child who has a disability or you have a disability yourself, you are shunned, not only by some other aboriginal people but by the non-native population as well.

    Support to visit extended family in home communities or vice versa is non-existent--or rather, it's existent, but not to the point it should be. Access to their own culture in the urban setting is another issue. We do not want our children to lose who they are.

    There are challenges of mobility and implications in moving off reserve. There's a lack of availability of service and support in remote areas. Sometimes if you move off reserve to better yourself and you have a child who has a disability, what happens is that you have to move again because in the remote area there are no resources for them.

    Lack of access to service in remote areas is a factor. While the reserve may have medical services, there's a lack of reasonable roads and sidewalks on reserves, and an aboriginal child cannot really function on a reserve where there are no ramps, sidewalks, or elevators for them to get to meet the chiefs or whatever; it's not there. This is one of the reasons they move off.

    There's the stress of a new environment and meeting new people. It's always a stress. I'm right here now and I'm a little bit stressed meeting you people because you guys are different. Do you know what I mean? It's a reality.

    Moving also heightens jurisdictional issues, jurisdictional issues that impact delivery of services for people with disabilities. Dealing with different sets of rules and responsibilities of two levels of government creates obstacles to service, delays, and shuffling around for already disadvantaged children. It's really about the turmoil it can cause for an aboriginal child with a disability to move off reserve to a community that will probably shun them when they first get there. All that stuff plays on their health and their education, and it plays on their whole mind.

    Moving from one band to another is another issue. If you don't belong to the band you go to, they're not going to service you. If a child has a disability, he's SOL--pardon my French.

    Screening entitlement and assessment services means facing delays. Coverage for services is affected by the process and progress of self-government negotiations at the band and nation level. What I'm trying to say here is, when you have your treaty process, especially in British Columbia, you're trying to incorporate many good things into your treaty and your constitution. Without trying to bad-mouth the B.C. government, I have to say they really have a issue with governance and they have a hard time putting governance on the table--but that has nothing to do with this place. I'll let you guys go over there and help me.

¹  (1555)  

    Then there's accountability of services. Funding is sometimes not administered or allocated by the band and is then returned to government. So if the government gives some funds to a first nations group of people and they don't know how to really spend that funding, instead of coming in and teaching them and showing them the proper way of spending funding for aboriginal people, the money might have to go back to the government and it's lost, and the loser is a child with a disability.

    Jurisdictional delays and issues exacerbate disabilities. Disabilities often progress to an unnecessary stage, further straining the system of services. So if you guys are going to be at a point where you're going to neglect them at an early age, the cost of taking care of them when they're older is going to be tenfold. If you have enough resources for them to do it now and get them ready for education, get them ready for life in the future...then it's gone.

    Despite these challenges, there are strengths within the community of aboriginal disability people. These are strengths of the individuals themselves, the strength and love of their supporting families. Our organizations and societies remain dedicated. Our people and structures are rich in principle, tenacity, and hope.

    Finally, aboriginal urban culture is growing in depth and vision, with tradition and cultural cognizance coming to the fore. In the urban city, aboriginal children with disabilities and their families are finding more choice. Still, improvements can be made.

    These are our strategies, from BCANDS' point of view, to improve the conditions. This is from our board of directors and staff and our membership.

    Develop a communications strategy for all stakeholders: families of aboriginal children with disabilities; aboriginal, federal, and provincial governments; and aboriginal service providers and agencies.

    BCANDS could assist bands and first nations to establish local community disability committees.

    Coordinate an annual chiefs summit gathering to share information from all disability committees.

    Coordinate an annual general meeting for children with disabilities, their families, their advocates and workers, with on-site services and scheduling.

    Establish or collaborate on a central aboriginal children's service facility. This is the part that I really want you guys to listen to. This is something we have in Vancouver at the Children's Hospital, or even at Canuck Place Children's Hospice, where people come in. If we can establish something for aboriginal children with disabilities where they can come and do all the work they have to do for rehabilitation or whatever else is out there, then I think we can establish something really good down there.

    Tribal councils and bands should set up a satellite office to work with individuals and families of clients with disabilities, and we can help with that. We have established in Abbotsford, British Columbia, a satellite office for the Victoria office to do exactly what we're talking about. We have the expertise to do that. We can probably help with that kind of dialogue.

    Our concluding recommendations--and this is really important--are as follows:

    One, that a protocol or a code be developed amongst federal, provincial, and aboriginal governments, with BCANDS, to guide policy, dialogue, funding, and other issues affecting aboriginal children with disabilities and their families.

    Two, that policy be developed to ensure seamless service and entitlements for aboriginal children with disabilities, regardless of residency. One of the things we have to determine is that when a child leaves the reserve, there's no stoppage in any of these services that they're dealing with, no interruption in services for the child.

    Three, that services and programs for aboriginal children with disabilities be depoliticized. It's so political, and the only people who get any money out of it are politicians, and the person who gets hurt more than anybody is the child with the disability, as well as the family that is taking care of them.

    Four, that consultation and dialogue with the grassroots disability community be initiated in British Columbia.

    And finally, that infrastructure for special services for aboriginal children with disabilities be built in a central location, with a vision to then expand throughout the territories of British Columbia and across Canada.

    That is my submission to you, and I thank you for the opportunity.

º  (1600)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Before moving over to Dr. Prince, I just want to say how much I appreciate your not only outlining weaknesses but also referring to strengths. I think sometimes in looking at these issues, we concentrate so much on the problems and the deficits that we forget there are resources and strengths, and I thank you for reminding us of that.

    We now move to Michael Prince, who makes his annual appearance before us, so to speak. I think it was a year ago March that we last saw each other, and we welcome you back.

    As you know, our focus has shifted.

    By the way, before I go any further, Dr. Prince, I'll introduce two arrivals: Karen Kraft Sloan and Alan Tonks. I simply want to signal their presence here, because you don't have peripheral vision where you are in Victoria.

    I'm sure you have a vision of other sorts, and we would invite you to share that vision with us.

    Prof. Michael Prince (Lansdowne Professor of Social Policy, Faculty of Human and Social Development, University of Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Godfrey, and thank you, committee members. I'm very pleased to be with you again today. Let it be known that I'm in downtown Victoria and beside the Songhees First Nation. I think it is also worth acknowledging that I'm broadcasting from the traditional territory of the Coast Salish People.

    As you mentioned, I appeared before you last March at a joint session of your subcommittee and the subcommittee that deals with persons with disabilities. I'm delighted that Mr. Harry is with you and has raised some of those issues again. I'm looking forward to reading his full report and his brief as well.

    I also want to mention that I read with interest your June 2002 report, “Building on Success”, which addresses the first phase of your work. I was pleased to see a good deal of congruence or a close fit between some remarks I made that day, back on March 19, 2002, and my colleagues from the Mohawk community and others. So I wanted to acknowledge that and to applaud you for your fine report from last year.

    I was particularly pleased to see your call for an integrated policy framework for the way the federal government departments deal with first nations children on reserve, including a common vision to guide the federal departments, for identifying the results desired and the objectives sought, and very importantly, for the lines of accountability that need to be there. I think that's a very strong and positive recommendation and I just wanted to go on record as supporting it.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Prof. Michael Prince: I'd also like to encourage you to be a little bolder in perhaps the next round or reports as well, because I noticed your recommendation was silent on the question of a coordination structure at the federal level. It might have been deliberate, or it might have just been an oversight, or something that you intend to address in a subsequent report.

    But given the history of parliamentary reports in this area over the last 20 to 25 years, I think it's absolutely essential for this to be given more explicit attention by parliamentarians and in your report. So I would urge some further reflection on this, Mr. Godfrey, and your colleagues across all parties. I would urge that some thought be given to identifying and recommending some kind of coordination structure that would help to ensure there was an effective approach to managing what your report calls so appropriately a horizontal issue across the federal government.

    I also wanted to applaud your report from last year calling for reforms to existing federal funding arrangements to first nation communities, including the need for more flexibility in the way that first nation communities are able to manage those dollars and to make those sustained and multi-year funding arrangements. That goes a long way to making those not only a more effective delivery vehicle, but also speaks to “Gathering Strength” and to nation building and self-determination. I believe it starts to put more walk in the talk of “Gathering Strength”.

    I know that you're well aware of this already, but that recommendation of yours relates to the work of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which for the last number of years has been working towards establishing what are called comprehensive funding arrangements, CFAs.

    The first step is trying to consolidate and streamline funding packages within their own department. They're also working with Health Canada and other federal departments, but I think the most important success so far—modest, but success albeit—has been the work between two federal departments to streamline and consolidate the funding envelope. I think that needs to be noted and further encouraged. I call on parliamentarians to keep a watchful eye on that development.

    My comments today will note some issues and challenges. Mr. Harry has gone very ably over most of those. I'd like to speak to the question of mobility between reserve and off reserve, which seems to be of specific interest to your committee. I'd also like to speak to some innovations and strategies and, if I may be so bold, to suggest some additional reform ideas for the committee's consideration.

    Some of this I mentioned last March, so I won't go over it really, Mr. Godfrey, but your committee is well aware of the issues.

    Given that today we're talking about off-reserve first nations people, not just status first nations Indians but also Métis, Inuit, and non-status aboriginal people, or the more generic label of urban-based aboriginal peoples, we should be aware that there is incredible diversity in that population. Numbers vary, but we could be talking of between 600,000 and 800,000 aboriginal people, and some push it as high as perhaps 1 million depending on the definition of off reserve. In fact, perhaps the majority of aboriginal Canadians live off reserves.

    That in itself is a contentious statement I just made. It is fraught with debate and contention, but I make it to remind us of the diversity and that although we want a common vision, I believe, of best chances and brighter futures for young people whether they are aboriginal or non-aboriginal, wherever they may live in Canada, we also need to respect the differences in the histories of different tribes, different parts of the country, different communities, and also the variety in the size of the communities, and their histories, and their capacities.

    It is also important to remember from your first study, in relating it to this one, the limited nature of services and supports that continue to exist on reserve. As long as that exists, there will always be tension between service provision off reserve and on reserve. Part of the problem, as Mr. Harry mentioned, is that once first nation children and often mothers leave a reserve, they have difficulty accessing back through their band council services that they are entitled to. Partly it is because of the underfunding and the tremendous demands on band administrations to cope with what they have on the territory itself or on the community.

    I briefly comment on the question of the cultural appropriateness. I think you are well aware of that. The portability of services I will come back to, and what can only be called the jurisdictional morass of which level of government takes responsibility for providing and funding what kinds of services and to which categories or kinds of aboriginal peoples in Canada. That's an awkward way of phrasing it, but often those are the pressure points of the debate, as you well know. We have a sorry history of ongoing passing of the buck, quite literally, in this country between orders of government over who's responsible for funding and providing services for urban-based aboriginal children and youth, women, and others living in cities. That I think needs to be addressed.

    Mr. Harry talked about the triple disadvantage, and he reminded me of a study done in Saskatchewan about four or five years ago looking at first nation urban-based aboriginal people with disabilities. Often, as he said, they leave reserves in order to access health and social services in cities to address the needs of the disability of themselves and/or their children. They may also leave for reasons of safety or violence, and also because family supports may lie elsewhere. With mixed marriages within aboriginal tribes, and also between aboriginal and non-aboriginal, they may be seeking out other family and social supports, which do not exist on the reserve but exist elsewhere. They may also be leaving for educational or employment opportunities. We need to look at mobility as a very complex process. There are many reasons why people may be moving back and forth between reserve and off reserve.

    Having said that--I'm not sure if it's out yet or will soon be--the Aboriginal People's Survey, which was done as a post-census survey after 2001, would, I hope, shed some light on this question. I'm afraid it won't give us as much information or as many answers as we'd like--perhaps this will be the further work of your committee down the road, and of others--on the extent of the mobility, the directions and frequency of the mobility, of movement back and forth. I don't really think we know very well. We know anecdotally. Some of the aboriginal organizations could shed more light on this. But I think it is something that is worth exploring much more fully.

º  (1610)  

    That ties to some of the issues around successful strategies and possible innovations. As you know, changes are occurring, and Mr. Harry, I think very properly, noted some of the strengths and developments. I spoke about some of these last March. We do know, though, that the record is mixed. There are some successes, but there also have been some setbacks. I think one of the key ingredients for success, particularly in this area of child and family services, is the question of economies of scale. And that is having a large enough number of families and children to provide and deliver effective services so you can hire the staff, you can engage in not just cost-effective but culturally appropriate nation building, culturally affirming delivery of child and youth services. Tribal councils are a possible vehicle for this.

    Here in B.C., unfortunately, in the early years of the treaty process we were encouraging bands of very small size to engage in treaty negotiations on their own. And we still have several tables where the size of the first nation negotiating full governance is less than 100 people, or perhaps less than 200 on reserve. You simply cannot deliver an adequate or proper child and family service function that way.

    The Yukon learned this several years ago when the 14 first nations up there all negotiated separate arrangements, and what we've seen over the last several years has been first nations coming together and forming consortia or first nation intertribal, inter-first nation service agencies.

    In Vancouver we have, as you know, as part of the urban strategy, urban policy, what we call the Vancouver Agreement, and through it we have tri-level, intergovernmental cooperation. And a few other cities in Canada have this as well; I believe there's one in Winnipeg and a few other places. I think this is a template, a possible example, that could be followed along the lines that Mr. Harry was talking about vis-à-vis aboriginal people specifically.

    Other success stories or innovative strategies. The Nisga'a people of course, even before their treaty, have had a very effective child and family service agency for a number of years in the Nass Valley up in northwestern British Columbia. Other groups in B.C. as well have been doing this. In Manitoba and in Saskatchewan, we have first nation-controlled or -delivered school districts, which include both on and off-reserve children.

    So there's a number of models there if you're looking for effective practices. I won't call them best practices, because I think they're culturally specific, but if you want to look for some successes there are some as well.

    Finally, I've been wondering how we tackle this jurisdictional log-jam, because that's not going to go away easily. And just to throw out a bold idea--and I'm not sure this is within your remit or not--I think ultimately we have to look at the question of fiscal federalism, financial relationships between federal, provincial, and territorial governments, and of course aboriginal governments as well.

    Because the problem of this being a shared jurisdictional area of on and off reserve will not give away, not in our lifetime, I want to throw out as a suggestion the possibility of a tax point transfer from the Government of Canada to provincial and territorial governments that would be a dedicated or earmarked tax point transfer for services for children and youth of aboriginal peoples. This would complement existing transfer payments and it would complement existing federal program expenditures that you've itemized in previous reports.

    I think if we have some kind of collaboration and dedication to this area...this would respect jurisdiction, but I can't see how some of the more modest tinkering we've done in the past decade or two is going to help finesse that challenge.

    Let me stop there, sir. Thank you.

º  (1615)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much for another terrific presentation. Thank you for reminding us of points that you made last March and for acknowledging that we were fully exploitive, and took full advantage, and stole them and claimed them as our own, which is the way we do things around here.

    Prof. Michael Prince: Absolutely.

    The Chair: There are many very interesting things there. Let me just do one thing, with the indulgence of the committee, which might be helpful as we start to turn our minds to our report. I want to make a couple of observations that really leap out from your presentation and then move swiftly over to Mr. Spencer.

    You remind us, importantly, of the differences between the study we did before, which was zero-to-six on-reserve services, and this study. I think the studies vary in two important aspects, and we may want to incorporate this in our preamble. The structures of the problems are quite different because we're multiplying the variables in two ways. I think you identified one of the ways, which is that we're multiplying the number of people we're talking about in terms of groups. We're not simply talking about status on reserve, we're talking about a variety of people, whether they're Métis or Inuit who happen to live in cities, or status, or non-status. So we already have more variables.

    The second way in which we have more variables is on the service side. When we looked at on reserve, clearly a lot of what we were doing dealt with ourselves, that is to say the Department of Indian Affairs, and Health Canada, and HRDC. Now we're dealing with provincial authorities, and municipal authorities, and aboriginal authorities, so the multiplicity, the variability of our problem, has just grown almost exponentially, when you consider all of that. So this is a much more daunting prospect. And we've also just doubled the age range. Now we've gone 0 to 12.

    I wanted to remind ourselves of the difficulty of the challenge we've undertaken. And we're just a little old committee here. We can't drive the whole process.

    I want to come back to you on some of the things, and to come back to Mr. Harry on some of the things said, but let's move on to Larry Spencer.

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

    Thank you, Mr. Harry and Dr. Prince.

    Dr. Prince, I was of course very interested and appreciative of your agreement with the harmonization that we have suggested from our earlier report. We see that as probably one of the overarching things that need to be approached.

    As you were speaking about that, I jotted down some notes, which you later answered already. I was interested in knowing if there was a service gap in the on- and off-reserve people and how numbers impacted that, and you went ahead later to mention that. You talked about the mobility and so forth.

    Are there any requirements that you are aware of at this point for any of the service providers--and either one of you can respond to this--to have any sort of multiple group representation?

    Let me tell you very quickly where I'm coming from. I know, for instance, in my city, in Regina, there is a competition going between the Métis group and the group that call themselves first nations. It seems that all the power is either on one side or the other. Do you feel there's a need to establish some sort of umbrella organization that would have representation from the cross-section of aboriginal groups represented in that particular community? Is there any attempt to do that?

º  (1620)  

    Prof. Michael Prince: I'll allow Mr. Harry to go first, if he'd like.

    Mr. Robert Harry: I'm a bit afraid to respond to that kind of question. I'm an off-reserve aboriginal person classified as first nation. Over here we have one of my workers who is classified as aboriginal but Métis. I don't know how it works in Saskatchewan, but in British Columbia we have almost 200 bands, we have about 34 tribal councils, and I believe there are about seven or eight major Métis organizations.

    If you talk about Métis-specific, they aren't the Métis people who are qualified as Métis. When you talk about aboriginal people, tribal councils do have a lot of jurisdiction, and they have two huge organizations in British Columbia. One is called the First Nations Summit and the other is called the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, who are constantly like that at all times, and then the Métis have their own policies.

    I don't know how you can even have an overbearing...or one group of people that is going to do all this stuff. I don't have a solution for that or even an idea on how you'd want to do that. I don't think anything will work right now until there's some kind of format implemented by the Government of Canada and the provincial governments to get together and start working with them. If they don't do that, it's not going to work, so I don't know what the answer would be, and I really can't answer that one.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: I was thinking about particular smaller areas, not a whole province but perhaps a municipal area, a certain area in which you might find a limited number of groups. Regina, for instance, has something.

    It's interesting that you have that problem among the aboriginal people, and it sounds as if you're well on the way to becoming a federal government. That's the way our federal agencies are: everybody has their own horse to ride and that sort of thing.

    The Chair: Dr. Prince might want to come in. He looks as if he's champing at the bit here.

    Prof. Michael Prince: Yes, Mr. Spencer, I appreciate your question. I think Mr. Harry has picked up on a theme I was suggesting, which is the diversity of groups. I'm not sure, maybe you could tell me if in Regina you have a Métis child and family service authority. I know that in a number of prairie cities they have specifically Métis child and family agencies. There are also, of course, in your city and others native friendship centres. We have about 115 or 120 of those.

    To pick up partly on one of Mr. Harry's comments, I would be reluctant to see a sort of one-size-fits-all approach. Given the way the Indian Act and the way government programs carved up aboriginal peoples into various categories over the last 130 years and given the distinctive histories of different tribes and nations across the country, I think we can expect to see, in a city of Regina's size or others, two or three agencies. Some might be multiple or for aboriginal peoples generically, which I think you were suggesting, but the more likely prospect is to see two or three. That'll raise some issues of coordination and overlap, of course.

    There are some interesting ideas in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples around possible models. Again, in your province there are some interesting examples of where first nations on reserve are delivering services off reserve or are funding supports in the cities and urban areas of the province. I think we could learn a lot from that. The rest of us could look and learn a lot from Saskatchewan and Manitoba in particular on some of these issues. I'm thinking of the Awasis people up in northern Manitoba and the challenges of the rural and remote communities we haven't touched on very much.

    I think native friendship centres are a real possibility as urban-based delivery vehicles. We have a network of them. With some capacity building and some support, those could be seen as outreach to a large number of aboriginal peoples, not all, but I think they would move us in a significant forward step.

    I want to also ask whether you had received a government response yet from your June 2002 report. I'd be intrigued to see what kind of reception you got from the federal bureaucrats on those recommendations. I think we're in agreement with what the spirit and the direction ought to be, and I just wondered what kind of response you got from them.

º  (1625)  

    The Chair: Let me just intervene on a sort of factual point, and let me ask if perhaps the researcher or the clerk could send you a copy; maybe electronically would be the best.

    In fact, we got a very positive response, not simply an agreement in principle but also agreement in detail on both ends of our proposals, one of which dealt with coordinating things at the Ottawa end and the other of which proposed coordinating at the community level to increase community capacity building. We even put forward a proposal to have, I think, five or six pilot projects, and that has all been accepted. There has been not only an official response but also some programming announcements, and we'll send that to you.

    Prof. Michael Prince: I appreciate that. Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Spencer.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: I'll just carry on here with our thoughts on this--multiple representation in a single group, or do we deal with multiple groups? It seems to me we sort of contradict ourselves when we talk about fiscal federalism, where we want the federal government to be united as one, yet when it hits the field, we want to divide it between all these different categories upon which no one seems to really be able to agree.

    In Regina we do have a friendship centre. I'm not aware for sure who's in charge of that particular facility. The child and youth services centre, which handles the head start program, some women's programming, and some training programming, is dealt with by a group that is, I'm told, Métis. It's the first nations people who are complaining to me about wanting some input.

    They like very much your suggestion of assistance flowing in from the band, from the reserve, into the city rather than the other way around. They feel that their move into the city has cut them off from that funding. Do you have any suggestions that could help in a situation like that?

    Prof. Michael Prince: As Mr. Godfrey knows, I do work in the area of disability policy as well.

    There are two things, Mr. Spencer. One is that it's unfortunate this problem occurs in other very vulnerable groups, such as Canadians with disabilities. Organizations that represent people with physical disabilities are competing and not cooperating with people with developmental or mental disabilities, and the advocacy groups are not working with some of the service providers. There's a lot of work there as well, where you would think there would be a common cause uniting organizations.

    There's politics there. Perhaps that's part of human nature, but it saddens your heart when you see people who are so disadvantaged and so vulnerable and marginalized having to deal with that as extra work they have to work through. What we're trying to do there is work in capacity building and bringing groups together. In this case it would be the Métis, first nations, Inuit, and so forth working across those differences, trying to find the common cause while respecting differences.

    As to your second point, we talked about individualized funding in the disability area as well. Let the dollars follow the child or the family, not the organization, not the bureaucracies or the professional therapeutic or rehab people. That seems very much supporting the notion of enabling the family, empowering the family, and really speaking to self-determination--with some supports, of course. I think that's something first nations will have to look at. If it's not carefully done, it could be seen as a way of disempowering the first nation government and privileging the individual.

    It's that whole notion of, do the dollars stick to the place or do they follow the person? As long as they stick to the place, we're always going to have this mobility problem, and we're going to have a situation where, as you say, when people leave the reserve, they will be almost instantly disentitled. We need some kind of ability for first nations to have outreach services. Either the dollars follow the family out--the mother and the child is typically the pattern--or the first nations need to work on how to either collaborate with other urban-based agencies or create their own, working with municipalities, the province, and the federal government and making sure there's follow-up off reserve, in the urban areas.

    So there are two or three choices there, but behind them are some philosophical debates too about how much you want the dollars to be focused on the individual versus...which might for some aboriginal leaders be seen as eroding or weakening first nations governance.

    I'll stop there.

º  (1630)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I'm going to ask Mrs. Kraft Sloan if she has some questions.

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

    I apologize, Mr. Harry, but I got stuck on the Hill.

    I want to ask you a question about a point you made on page three under strategies to improve conditions. I apologize if you've already explained this. One of your points suggests that there be an annual gathering for children with disabilities, families, advocates, and workers with Site Services and Scheduling, and I'm just wondering if you could talk about some of the resources you might need for something like that.

    Mr. Robert Harry: I'll respond to your question. Also, if it's possible, I'd like to respond to Mr. Spencer's concern afterwards.

    In British Columbia we have an AGM every year. We have approximately 3,000 members now, and it's growing. The concept behind that was to get people together so they would find that they're not alone and to bring people in who have specialties and training in dealing with people with disabilities--not strictly aboriginal, everybody. But the focus will be on aboriginal children with disabilities. We talk about a gathering of strengths. That's a pretty popular word nowadays.

    So many people out there are down and out and have no services. They can't do anything. Their physical disabilities are so bad that they can barely move. It's really sad to watch. But you're also very empowered to see how hard they try to get things done.

    I've been with this organization for about three months now. I'm brand new to it, but I am so touched by it. I'm very empowered myself. That's the reason I'm here. I'm empowered by how they do things. BCANDS' board of directors' constitution states very clearly that seven out of the eight people on the board of directors have to have a disability.

    They exude this aura, this strength. We can have them come together with the proper people to teach them dietary information. They don't have a proper food regime. They don't have the proper spending knowledge to go out there and buy things. That is what I'd like to teach them.

    They can come to a three- or four-day gathering, whatever it takes. Have you ever heard of open space technology? Whoever is at the meeting identifies the issues. They chair the meeting. All ages come out. What happens is that the issues are discussed, and they come to an agreement on how to handle them. Their problems are not solved; nothing's ever solved. That is a great undertaking, which costs a hell of a lot of money. Excuse my language--pardon my French, sorry. It's being so empowered for a minute. It will give you the courage to get out of whatever rut you're in and to move forward. In the long run the people who benefit are those who pay for the services, because the services will be less. That's what we're looking for.

º  (1635)  

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So you're talking about a gathering that would provide a space for discussion around some of the issues and challenges. I'm also hearing inherent in what you have said that there would also be opportunities for education and sharing with each other different ways to do things. So there's a practical component as well as another kind of component, and there would be a cultural component as well.

    Mr. Robert Harry: Absolutely. I said in my report, there's the traditional part. When you move a child from a reserve setting to a rural setting, you're dragging him away from a culture that has been there for thousands of years. They lose that. This gives an opportunity for people with traditional values and training and our singers and dancers to come to a forum where they will be able to tell their stories and perform their traditional dances in front of children with disabilities, who have probably never seen this before. They'd be awed by it and wonder about it.

    Once you get your curiosity about your own culture and your own passions and everything else that goes along with it, that can help bring up your confidence. It can help bring up your morale and make you want to do something, even if you want to become a dancer. There's a beautiful donated picture in our office of an aboriginal design, west coast style, of a person in a wheelchair. It's a marvellous picture, and it's so powerful.This is part of it. There are so many things that can happen in this thing.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: What about some of the cultural attitudes around people in the community having disabilities, and how do other people in the community interact with them?

    Mr. Robert Harry: There doesn't seem to be anything negative in it. Sometimes when you leave a reserve, no matter who you are, if you're aboriginal or if you're disabled or not, there's resentment about your leaving--why are you leaving us? And when you go back, there's resentment. It doesn't matter if you're aboriginal or disabled or not, there's a resentment of your coming back. That's the only thing negative about it, in my mind. But you lose the culture.

    The thing about the mobility of a disabled individual off reserve--it's the only part I had a problem with, and it's in my report--is the interruption of services. They could go a month and a half or two months, because you have to transfer from federal to provincial government jurisdictions and it takes that long to get involved in the process again. Sometimes a person can die, and that's the scary part.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: What about some of the positive aspects of cultural attitudes with regard to people with disabilities?

    Mr. Robert Harry: As I mentioned before, there's the big picture, too. There's a lot of understanding out there. And if you look at...I'm not sure if you have a picture here. Can you understand what that picture means? This is a person in a wheelchair.

    June, can you please explain this one?

    If you look at the black thing, that is a wheelchair, and it's a person with a disability.

    Ms. June Wylie (Assistant Executive Director, BC Aboriginal Network on Disability Society): Hello, I'm June Wylie, and I'm assistant executive director at BCANDS. The fellow that designed this was a member of BCANDS when we started 10 years ago. He's a quadriplegic. The design of the logo was formed with the eagle for strength, and the base of the black is a resemblance of a wheelchair, because the fellow was in a wheelchair.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I do have another question, but perhaps Mr. Harry would like to respond to Mr. Spencer's question. I have some other issues I wanted to....

º  (1640)  

    The Chair: And then I'd like to maybe get Mr. Tonks in at some point, too.

    Go ahead, Mr. Harry. You wanted to respond to Mr. Spencer.

    Mr. Robert Harry: You brought up some very good concerns, and I was thinking, as Michael Prince from Victoria.... About five years ago, the Department of Indian Affairs funded aboriginal organizations right across Canada to deal with disability issues for aboriginal people. The only province that really did anything, in my mind--and I don't think I'm wrong--is British Columbia, because the funding went to a non-profit organization, BCANDS. They have established a wonderful reputation across British Columbia as an entity that can be trusted. We spent the money completely, every red penny we got, on aboriginal people with disabilities.

    So we represent ourselves, the membership, the 3,000 who belong to BCANDS. It's a hands-on service, and it's not just on reserve; it's off reserve also.

    When we talk about “aboriginal” we incorporate first nations, Inuit, Métis, and non-status. That's the definition you people, the government, have established as to what “aboriginal” means, right? I'm just taking the words out of your mouth here.

    There's also the AHRDA, the Aboriginal Human Resources Development Agreements you guys established through Human Resources Development Canada to go out to the aboriginal people. I believe there are 10 in British Columbia. One is Métis, there's one off reserve, and the other eight are reserve based. One is controlled by the Métis, one is controlled at the urban level, and the other eight are controlled by the chiefs, for lack of a better word.

    What has happened in Abbotsford under the Sto:lo AHRDA is they had enough confidence to come to us and give us the disability money they got so we could go back into Abbotsford and administer the funds and hire the people to do the work with disabilities.

    I think one of the problems we have out there is that when people do get funding for disability issues, they don't know how to spend it. They don't know what to do with it. So Sto:lo had the wisdom to come to us. We established an office, and we did FAS and other workshops.

    So if you want to talk about your concept, there is a bit of it starting in British Columbia, especially with the health authorities. I think Mr. Prince will know about that one. I think there are five in British Columbia, and each has an aboriginal component to deal with the health issues of each district.

    That's a start, but it's regionalized. It's not so much managed by everybody; there's an aboriginal component in each one. The AHRDA is another one. It's starting to come to British Columbia, and there are little pockets of places where it's starting to work well.

    I forgot to tell you about that. That's why I wanted to respond to you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Harry.

    Now, Mr. Tonks.

    Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to both of you for being with us--figuratively and literally.

    Mr. Harry, in Mr. Spencer's and your comments there's a confluence in terms of this jurisdictional thing. I just want to understand it better.

    In your presentation on page two you referred to screening, entitlement, and assessment services with respect to families moving from one band to another. You've also alluded to the fact that support is cut off. Jurisdictionally, who makes the decision to do the screening? You've indicated that often it takes months. How does that happen?

    Mr. Robert Harry: If you live on reserve, all your medical services are under federal jurisdiction. Once you move off reserve you fall under the provincial jurisdiction. There's a 21-page thing that was established in British Columbia and you have to fill the whole damn thing out--excuse my language again. It's such a pain in the you-know-where, and a lot of people don't want to do it because they don't even understand it, so they kind of neglect it. There's no support from the provincial government or the federal government for the transition. The transition does not happen, because people don't understand what they're signing and they're afraid of it.

    One of the things that has to happen in that area is you have to simplify the facts, not make it so political that only politicians can understand it, if you know what I mean. You guys speak a different lingo than we do. The grassroots don't say “convolution” or whatever word you used. I had a hard time understanding it myself. Do you know where I'm coming from? It's a different language.

    There's no support system there for them. Sometimes, two or three months down the road, they become so desperate they end up in the hospital, and all of a sudden the people at the hospital have to do the transfer from federal to provincial jurisdiction. By that time they might have lost a lot of--

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I understand that, but what I don't understand is the notion, and I quote from your presentation, that “When moving from one band to another, support is cut off...”. If you are moving to an urban area, the urban area doesn't belong to the band as such. Am I misunderstanding this?

    Mr. Robert Harry: Do you mean moving from one band to another band?

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Yes.

    Mr. Robert Harry: Okay, I'll give you a couple of examples. Let's say you move from Sliammon to Homalco, two different nations in British Columbia, and you're not on the band list. When you get funded by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the formula funds you by the membership you have. The funds that go to that specific band are for the members of that band. If you move onto the reserve and you are not a band member, you don't get services.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Okay.

    For the person moving to Vancouver, are there no support services through the province? Do they have to go through the same thing?

    Mr. Robert Harry: They have to go through a process. As I said, there's a 21- or 22-page--

    Mr. Alan Tonks: They still have to go through that.

    Mr. Robert Harry: You have to go through that in order to get medical services and everything else. It's a horrendous thing. I believe the federal government, under the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, is trying right now to incorporate the same system on reserves. Whether that will be a good thing or a bad thing we will soon find out, I guess.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Have you input into what it should be?

    Mr. Robert Harry: It just started not too long ago. Some people from our membership have come to us and asked us what it was and how to fill it out. We also met with Health Canada in Nanaimo. They said they were going to revise it and edit it to make it simpler, but I don't know if that has been done or not.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: My second question is on friendship centres. The committee has been attempting to look at an integrated model, and I was impressed with the notion, concept, or architecture--call it what you want--of friendship centres that really were community based and had a variety of services to deal with not only health and medical but also employment, housing, day care, and those kinds of support services.

    With respect to British Columbia and within the context of British Columbia, does BCANDS work on its own, or does it work with friendship centres? Could you just elaborate on that for the committee?

    Mr. Robert Harry: Right now we are very independent. We have our own membership. Of those on the board of directors, seven or eight are disabled. If you check the concluding recommendations, one of the things the friendship centres have that we don't have is protocol agreements, the kind of wording that is needed to be an entity with strength.

    BCANDS has a lot of strength based on reputation, their staff, the board of directors, and membership. In order to make BCANDS a lot stronger and more prominent to government, we need protocols, policy writers, and all those issues where you can have the proper words in their proper places for the proper people to understand.

    I worked for the Vancouver Aboriginal Friendship Centre for six years as an executive director, so I know all about the friendship centres. I worked at the B.C. Association of Friendship Centres for a long time. They're more political. Even though they don't want to be political, they are. We're trying to stay away from the politics.

    UNN has tried to attract us to join them. UNN is an arm of CAP, the Council of Aboriginal People. We've balked at that. We want to stay completely non-political and just work with the people at the grassroots level.

    So we don't do much with friendship centres--or anybody, actually. We are a separate entity and want to keep it that way for now, until we have the proper people in place to look after the protocol issues and write proper policy procedures--policy writers. We're getting there, hopefully, and one of the recommendations we need is to have something like that in our society.

º  (1650)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We have about 10 minutes left, and I want to draw a few things together. Also, just to inform, maybe I'll just take advantage of this moment to do a procedural thing, since I have members of the committee present.

    I'm sorry to interrupt, dear guests, but if I don't do this they'll scatter.

    You will have received a work plan, which I would ask you to look over, and if you have any problems or suggestions, we will at least get back to the clerk. You'll see that it's a revised work plan. There are a couple of elements that I just want to mention--and again, guests, I apologize for this.

    We've had a request, which you can see reflected on page two, from Senator Landon Pearson to come and talk about her work dealing with the United Nations declaration on “A World Fit for Children,” and this is the Canadian response. Since what we do in this committee would fit within that framework of a government response to “A World Fit for Children,” I think it's appropriate that we hear from Senator Pearson.

    There's another thought we've had--but we have to confirm this. As it says in bold there, since the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples is working on adolescents, it seems to us that we would like to share some knowledge before our two reports are delivered. It would make great sense to collaborate with them. So we're working on that, and as long as you're okay with that, we will continue to do so.

    I realize I'm giving you this without much warning, but if you have any suggestions, come back to us and we can raise them next week. But I want to lay that out for you.

    I think that's the only business to attend to.

    Let me then turn to the matter at hand and make a couple of observations. The first is directed to the professor--still known as “Prince,” you might say.

    You've come up with a radical proposal to get out of the constitutional jam. You used words that we never utter in the federal government--in fact, we use garlic and we make things like this. That was “tax transfer” or “tax points to the province”...no, no, no, we don't.

    However, there is an alternative that you might want to give some thought to. There's an interesting moment coming. We're about to split, next year, the health transfer from the social transfer. The health transfer is fairly well defined by a certain amount of infrastructure through the health accord. The social transfer is pretty much a vacant canvas at this point, except that we know there are two elements going in: the early childhood development initiative; and the new multilateral, whatever they call it, the deal on child care. So those will be there. Notionally, one might think moneys going to off-reserve aboriginals is going there too, and one would also want to think through how we guarantee transparency, accountability, measurement, outcomes, all that sort of stuff that we're spreading about on the health care side.

    So your assignment, Dr. Prince, if I dare give you homework, is that if you think that's an idea worth pursuing, please pursue it and take a look at the health side, because I think that will colour what we're going to do on the social transfer side. That's just a suggestion that gets away from the forbidden words.

    A second thought--and this is really as much directed to the committee as we start to think about our report--is that everyone has asked, who's in charge, or how do we avoid buck passing, particularly at the federal level? It seems to me that one way of being successful in this life is being quite clear about who you want to do something.

    In the case of the urban aboriginal population, it seems to me there is only one federal answer at this point, which is the federal interlocutor. Whatever the deficiencies of that position are, that is the one designated person that we've admitted should be doing something about it. So I think part of the work of this committee is to empower that person to do the job that we would like him to do and that everyone would like him to do. If we send recommendations into the ether, someone ought to, at some place, do something about urban aboriginals. You know where that's going to lead to--nowhere. So I want to take advantage of the urban interlocutor, who hides himself behind this funny name.

º  (1655)  

    I also want to stress that in our report some of the points that have been made really are going to be challenging, but we're going to have to address them as we think through recommendations. Certainly, the mobility issue, not simply the physical mobility issue of not having sidewalks on reserves but the mobility between reserves and back and forth between urban communities, is something we're going to have to flag.

    Dr. Prince, in regard to your suggestion that we try to think through this delicate balance between the money following the family and the money going to the authority, we're almost in a realm of competing rights--individual rights and collective rights. I think we have to confront that; I don't think we can just pretend it's not a problem. But I also think it has within it the potential for a solution.

    This brings me to a quick question, because the time is running out rapidly. You mentioned, I think, the Vancouver Agreement. You said it was tripartite and that there were others.

    I've just checked with the researcher. I think we've had only one other reference in testimony toward this, and I think it would be important if you could give us a brief thumbnail sketch of who the three parties are, how it actually works, what it applies to, and how it might serve as a bit of an inspiration.

    You think it works, basically, do you?

    Prof. Michael Prince: I think it's worth looking at. Well before urban policy got rediscovered in Ottawa and became a hot topic again--and it promises to become even hotter over the next few years--these things were quietly being brokered, negotiated, and implemented in three or four major urban centres. I know the Vancouver one best, because that's the one closest to me. It's trilateral in that it's federal, provincial, and municipal. So the City of Vancouver is involved in it, as well as the Province of British Columbia and the federal government.

    One of the catches, or maybe one of the benefits, is that it did not involve any additional dollars. Part of its premise was that it was a way of spending smarter, how we could better collaborate and cooperate across the three levels.

    In particular, the downtown east side of Vancouver was targeted as an area where there are tremendous resources from all three levels being poured into a very small area, into a relatively small population--high-need, of course. It looked at how that could be done more efficiently and effectively. To be honest, I haven't followed it that closely in the last 12 months or so.

    If I could just have a quick moment, something else to watch, and it's too new for your committee to be looking at yet, is that we are embarking on regionalization in B.C., not only of health authorities, as Mr. Harry mentioned, but also our child and family services, which speaks directly to your mandate.

    Like the health authorities, we're setting up five or six regional authorities for children and family, and it's a parallel system. There'll be aboriginal authorities and non-aboriginal authorities, coterminous over those regional boundaries. That's very promising. It's being welcomed by most--not all, but most--aboriginal leaders in the province. The catch, though, is this is being done at the same time as the province is reducing the funding by 23%, and that's going to be a real tough one. I have very mixed feelings about that. It's going to be a triumph of form over substance, I think, in terms of resourcing.

    I liked your comment about the interlocutor. I'd forgotten about that position.

    Regarding Canada's social transfer, if you go back and re-read Double Vision: The Inside Story of the Liberals in Power by Edward Greenspon and Anthony Wilson-Smith, I'm worried we might see a replay of a budget implementation act that will come in this spring that will settle all the debate about the Canada social transfer, and that vacant canvas you mentioned will remain vacant and get locked in legislation.

    I would hope there is a time for the social policy community--the Ken Battles and others, whom you and I well know--and other groups to have a conversation and a chance to speak to the CST, because I think you're right, it is a very important and attractive vehicle with great potential for Canadians to have a dialogue about the future of children, family, and social services.

»  (1700)  

    The Chair: Well, thank you, and on that note, let me again say to everybody about the Canadian social transfer that we know from the budget it has to be in place a year from this month. So we have a nice deadline to work to. It's an empty vessel waiting for meaning.

    Thank you, as well, for your responses. By the way, it occurs to me that if we're going to be thinking of the Vancouver Agreement in any way, we really would have to think of it as being four-levelled, so to speak, because we obviously want to bring into our governance structure aboriginal communities, and that will add to the challenge.

    Prof. Michael Prince: Absolutely, yes.

    The Chair: We obviously could go on. I know there are other questions we would like to ask. Unfortunately, we try to stick to time here, and someone may do something to your satellite before we know it. I hope it's friendly fire.

    Thank you very much for participating again, Dr. Prince, and thank you, Mr. Harry, for being here in person. We will see each other again, I dare say.

    Thank you so much. The meeting is adjourned.