Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 8 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 27, 2001
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:00 a.m. to examine access, provision and delivery of services, policy and jurisdictional issues, employment and education, access to economic opportunities, youth participation and empowerment, and other related matters.
Senator Thelma J. Chalifoux (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: We are developing an exciting and interesting action plan for change. We would welcome you to our committee and we are certain that your presentation will enlighten us about how your office deals with urban Aboriginal issues, especially as they relate to youth.
Please proceed.
Mr. Fred Caron, Assistant Deputy Minister, Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat, Privy Council Office: Thank you for inviting us here this morning. I agree that this is an exciting opportunity. This file has not received the attention it deserves across the country. This is an emerging issue, although it should have been recognized long ago. Today I will tell you a bit about what the federal government is trying to do about it, as well as what some of the provinces are doing.
This issue is gaining increasing prominence. You have probably read studies done by C.D. Howe, the Canada West Foundation and so on that are highlighting this issue. Recently there has been more editorial comment on this issue than there has been in quite some time. The debate has now been engaged.
[Translation]
I will subdivide my presentation into five parts in order to discuss Aboriginals' socio-economic conditions, their urban strategy from 1997 to the present, their outstanding concerns and expert opinion.
[English]
This is a strange role for the Privy Council Office in the sense that we do not normally carry out program-type responsibilities. The office of the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-status Indians is situated within the Privy Council Office, probably because they could not find another place to put it. We report to Mr. Goodale, the lead minister for the Urban Aboriginal Strategy.
The memorandum to cabinet that approved the Urban Aboriginal Strategy was co-sponsored by the then Federal Interlocutor, Ms McLellan, and the then Minister of Indian Affairs, Mr. Irwin.
I will begin by speaking about socio-economic conditions, about which you have heard quite a bit from the Department of Human Resources. The conditions are not very different from those on reserves.
As indicated on slide 4, page 2 of the material that has been provided to you, there are varying figures for the percentage of the population that lives off-reserve, but the minimum accepted figure is 50 per cent. Some put it as high as 60 per cent of Aboriginal people that live off-reserve, and the majority of them are concentrated in the cities, mainly the cities that you see listed on slide 5, page 3 of the material.
Those demographics indicate that Aboriginal people not only constitute a significant population in terms of numbers but also in terms of percentage of the entire population. The chart on slide 5 gives you an idea of how the dynamic is affected by the presence of urban Aboriginal people in cities. It is an important part of not only the makeup of the city but also the politics of the city.
On the slide entitled "Socio-economic conditions" you will see statistics with which you are probably all too familiar. Over 50 per cent of urban Aboriginal people live below the poverty line. There is increasing evidence of urban Aboriginal ghettos, most visible in Winnipeg, Regina and Saskatoon. There is a high rate of homelessness. Aboriginal people are over-represented in the homeless population almost to the extent that they are over-represented in the prison population.
Forty per cent of Aboriginal children live in lone-parent families, in most of which the parent is a woman. There is a significant women's component to this issue. More than 50 per cent of those lone parents are under the age of 24. The statistics are similar to those on-reserve where there is a young population.
The last point is the high rate of mobility or "churn." Our information shows a high level of movement between urban areas and reserves. We are not quite sure what causes this. There are obvious factors we know about anecdotally, such as the housing situation, access to health care and so on, but we need to do more work to put our finger on the primary reasons.
The on-reserve population is growing. Most of our statistics show that the growth is due primarily to natural expansion and not as a result of a large migration of the off-reserve population. Both populations are growing faster than the non-Aboriginal population in the country.
Page 4, slide eight, deals with the Urban Aboriginal Strategy. The federal government developed this in response to a concern raised primarily by western ministers at the time, referring to the situation that they saw in their cities. They wanted to examine what, if anything, the federal government should do about this situation, realizing that the federal government's position has long been that its primary responsibility was towards Indians living on reserves, but still wanting to know what approach could be put together to reflect some sort of federal role with respect to urban Aboriginal populations.
We were asked to develop a potential approach for the federal government to take. The approach that was approved at the time was very much reflective of the position on responsibility, which was that, while the federal government had a role to play, we may not be the primary players. We put together a strategy that reflects the principle of partnership with provinces, municipalities and Aboriginal groups themselves, based on trying to work smarter within the resources that we have now and trying to engage the debate.
On page five, slide nine, you will see the elements of the strategy that were approved.
The first bullet deals with targeting the socio-economic needs of urban Aboriginal people. In preparing cabinet memoranda, departments were directed to assess whether or not there should be a specific component dedicated to urban Aboriginal people. The two main examples to this point have been the urban Aboriginal homelessness component of the homelessness initiative and the urban multipurpose youth centres. The Aboriginal Justice Strategy has also identified a fairly heavy urban component.
The second bullet deals with improving access to and coordination of programs and services. That is probably one of our biggest challenges in terms of bringing the federal government departments together to do a better job coordinating the work that we do. We have had some success in this area, which I will describe later on.
Next is raising awareness in specific multilateral forums. That is targeting such things as western economic partnership agreements and urban development agreements to see if, again, there is an urban Aboriginal component that should be brought to bear.
The next bullet deals with coordinating policy research, knowledge and information-sharing in the Aboriginal area. We could probably stand to do better on this one. We have brought together some of our policy research initiatives. We have provided some funding to outside agencies to do some work as well, which I will mention later.
The fifth bullet deals with improving horizontal linkages with provinces and within the federal government. I will refer to what we have achieved in that regard, but this has been our most significant achievement in terms of engaging debate. We have structures in place now where this issue is being considered with provinces, municipalities and Aboriginal groups that we did not have before 1997. In fact, before 1997, many provinces were denying that this was an issue.
[Translation]
Socio-economic conditions have improved in Aboriginal reserves, but not enough. Pressures are being increasingly exerted by private concerns in this matter. The C.D. Howe Institute and the Canada West Foundation conducted studies. Experts wrote about the conditions of Aboriginal people in urban settings. The following question has been raised: Why don't the federal and provincial governments do more in this area?
[English]
Nonetheless, despite these issues, this is a good first step. I am anxious to hear your questions and comments. We are not sitting still on this one. We have a few thoughts as to where we should go in the future. From where I sit, in any event, this is an issue that will not now be pushed under the rug. It will not be buried. The debate has been engaged. This is a genie that will not be put back in the bottle.
The Chairman: We hope.
Mr. Caron: Slide 11, which is on page 6, is a snapshot of the federal involvement. Quite a bit of federal, Aboriginal-specific money is spent in urban areas. This does not include federal money that Aboriginal people can access as Canadian citizens on the same basis as everyone else.
When we delved into this, we found that we were spending a fair bit. It is not, obviously, to the degree that the Aboriginal people would like, but the point is that some federal effort is being made. We can probably get more bang for the bucks that we spend, which is a point that I will come to, but when we combine this with what the provinces spend, the amount is not insignificant.
Nonetheless, everyone realizes that a policy gap remains because the conditions are still there and they are not getting better at any kind of acceptable rate.
Slide 12, which is also on page six, gives you an idea of the federal structure that has been put in place to manage this. As I mentioned, we in Privy Council Office play an overall coordination role, but the real guts of the strategy is delivered by the line departments and, in particular, at the regional level. We have discovered that this is a strategy that cannot have a national focus. The problems differ significantly from one province to another and from one city to another. It will not work to impose some sort of national template. The real leadership will come from the grassroots level, from the regions. We have found that approach to be successful.
I have mentioned some of our achievements before. These can be seen in slides 13 and 14. I also mentioned increased awareness. We have published the "Guide for Federal Initiatives for Urban Aboriginal People," and we have a Web site that provides the same information. It is a list of all the federal programs and services available to Aboriginal people living in cities. It is quite a long list. Approximately 80 federal programs operate off-reserve.
The other notable achievement in this respect was the opening of a single window in the Aboriginal Centre in Winnipeg, where federal government offices, Aboriginal organization offices and provincial government offices are located in one building. That has been quite helpful in terms of building some cooperation between the two levels of government and the Aboriginal organizations. We are working on single-window possibilities in Regina, Vancouver and Edmonton. We hope that those will be up and running some time in the near future. We are still at the discussion stage.
The level of provincial commitment has increased significantly. When this first started, the only two provinces that would admit that this was an issue were Saskatchewan and Manitoba. We now have a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Manitoba on urban Aboriginal issues. We are working towards the same sort of agreement with the Province of Saskatchewan. The Government of B.C., in its recent Throne Speech, has indicated that it wants an increased focus on urban Aboriginal issues. The Government of Alberta, with its new Aboriginal policy, has also indicated that this is one of its priorities. We are hopeful that this kind of engagement will spread across the country.
We are working on the Government of Ontario. We will see what success we have, but we hope this will spread across the country.
The statistics show that the most acute elements of this problem are in the western part of Canada, although elements of the problem also exist in eastern cities such as Toronto and Montreal. The lessons that we learn here can eventually translate to other parts of the country.
The slides illustrate specific examples of where we have made some progress in the western provinces. That has been done mainly at the local level where we have held round tables and other kinds of discussion fora where governments and Aboriginal organizations and individuals have come together to try to identify common issues. Youth, which is the subject of your deliberations, has probably been identified at the top of the list in all cases. That is one common element.
In various cities, and sometimes province-wide, urban Aboriginal committees have been formed to try to identify the common issues and to develop a plan of action. This varies from place to place, but there are certain common themes. Once again, youth is at the top of the list. Women's issues, including single-parent families, are also very high on the list.
There are variations. In Vancouver, the number-one priority that has been identified is child prostitution, with HIV/AIDS following very closely.
The point is that these processes have begun. There has been a good level of engagement and the question now is how to raise that to the next level.
That brings me to the next set of slides dealing with the challenges that we face. The first issue is jurisdictional rigidity. Those familiar with the debate on this issue, as many of you are, know that the provinces and the federal government have argued over jurisdiction in this area. In the meantime, the Aboriginal people have fallen between the cracks. Fortunately, that attitude is starting to change. We are having much more productive discussions at the federal-provincial level. The last couple of meetings that Mr. Nault has chaired of federal-provincial-territorial Aboriginal ministers and leaders have been quite businesslike and productive. Provinces are indicating that they want to check the jurisdictional argument at the door in order to get down to some real problem solving. Neither level of government is likely to completely drop these jurisdictional arguments, but there is more willingness to put that aside and examine, on a without-prejudice basis, potential solutions that involve working together, because the reality is that we are all responsible. Mainly because of the crisis nature of this problem in the west, that is starting to the realized.
Being horizontally challenged is a huge problem for governments. Getting departments to break out of what is referred to as "stovepipes" and work together is a significant challenge for both the federal and provincial governments. There is a limited degree of flexibility in some of these programs. Particularly at the local level, when people identify an issue that can be improved upon, if it does not fit within the four corners of a program, there is nothing they can do. We must find a way to be more cooperative across departments.
My personal view is that that must be built into the departmental psyche much more than it is now. Aboriginal people tell us that when they deal with two different departments they get two different points of view. Yesterday, we had a presentation in Ontario. The person from the friendship centre mapped out the federal and provincial programs that apply to kids. The overlap and the cross-purpose is startling. We must do better in that regard.
There is a multiplicity of claims of representation.
[Translation]
It is difficult to know, particularly in urban areas, which Aboriginal organizations speak on behalf of the people. The people come from many First Nations, including the Métis and sometimes the Inuit. This is a major challenge to us. This issue was discussed in several provinces, but first in Manitoba. It took a lot of effort. However, there are still problems in Vancouver and in other areas of the country to identify the organization that can speak on behalf of the people.
[English]
This is something that governments would like Aboriginal people to work out themselves. However, in some cases we have been forced to pick an organization and go with it in order to get something done.
The next outstanding issue is the serious and complex socio-economic conditions. There is not enough money in the world to pour into this problem. The question is how to invest more wisely and how to get better results from our existing programming before thinking about additional investments, although the reality is, as in many other areas of Aboriginal concern, that additional investment could be easily justified.
On slide 20, which is headed "External Opinion," Alan Cairns is cited as one of the leading writers on Aboriginal issues. He is a well-respected expert, and he has been pushing very hard, editorially and in various fora, for the federal and provincial governments to not neglect the realities of urban Aboriginal people.
One part of a three-part study that the Canada West Foundation has done on Aboriginal issues has now been published. It has drawn quite a bit of editorial comment.
A couple of weeks ago, former Premier Rae made the remarks that you see on slide 21 about this issue, and the C.D. Howe Institute is also actively considering it. They held one forum last year in Regina on this issue and I believe that they are planning to hold more.
With regard to where we go from here, Mr. Goodale is planning to go to cabinet some time next year with his recommendations on the Urban Aboriginal Strategy. We are working closely with the provinces and Aboriginal groups to see how we can address some of the issues I have mentioned. We have a long road ahead of us. This strategy will not be complete in the next three years. I think it will continue for quite some time. We have taken some hopeful steps in terms of engaging the debate. We will recommend solutions to some of the concerns that we have identified. We are hopeful that the provinces will be supportive of us in their own systems. I am sure that some of you will hear from Mr. Goodale again in terms of specifically what he intends to propose to cabinet. I think that he will come forward with his proposals some time in the new year.
I would be happy to answer questions.
The Chairman: Do your statistics include the Métis in the urban centres?
Mr. Caron: Yes.
Senator Cochrane: You told us that AIDS is one of the items at the top of the agenda in British Columbia. What percentage of the Aboriginal young people suffer from this illness?
Mr. Caron: I do not have the percentage, but I can certainly get that for you. However, a fairly significant percentage of Aboriginal people have HIV/AIDS. Many are involved in the sex trade and in intravenous drug use. Those are the primary spreaders. Aboriginals are not as attuned to this as non-Aboriginals in the population. Their level of knowledge about the disease and how it can be contracted is low. There is quite a high incidence of HIV/AIDS in the City of Vancouver.
Senator Cochrane: Does the Aboriginal Centre in Vancouver have an education program on this subject?
Ms Susan Anzolin, Officer, Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians Division, Privy Council Office: There are a number of Aboriginal health centres located in downtown east side. However, there is certainly some conflict with the Vancouver Health Regional Board. Efforts are being made to respond to the HIV pressures in Aboriginal Centres, particularly in downtown east side Vancouver.
Unfortunately, our health statistics do not identify the enormity of the situation for Aboriginal peoples specifically. The health statistics in Vancouver are for the population in Vancouver generally and are not broken down between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. We have good health statistics on-reserve, but not very good health statistics for Aboriginal people off-reserve.
Senator Cochrane: I read that 17 per cent of the young people in Saskatoon are infected with AIDS. Is that not one of the priorities within the Saskatoon Aboriginal Women's Group?
Ms Anzolin: I do not have those figures, but I will try to follow up on that. In Saskatoon, homelessness has been identified as a pressure. AIDS has not yet been identified as a priority in Saskatoon. Certainly, as Mr. Caron indicated, the situation is so complex that one could almost identify any negative socio-economic condition as a priority for the Aboriginal community in Saskatoon. It may be an important issue. However, we have not heard that it has been identified as a priority yet.
Senator Cochrane: Apart from homelessness, if this estimate is correct, this would appear to be a priority.
Mr. Caron: We will certainly check that information to see what is being done in Saskatoon. As Ms Anzolin mentioned, there are so many issues to be dealt with that picking a priority is always difficult. We were not aware of that kind of significant figure for Saskatoon, but we will certainly check it out.
Senator Cochrane: Let me go back to the portfolio within the Privy Council. I gather it is sort of a haphazard portfolio. Am I right?
Mr. Caron: I like to think not.
Senator Cochrane: Excuse me for my ignorance of it.
Mr. Caron: I appreciate the question. To give you some history, the office of the Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians came about as a result of the Constitutional discussions that took place between 1983 and 1987. It was in response to a plea by Métis non-status Indians that, unlike status Indians, they did not have a focus within the federal government to be able to direct their concerns. Where the status Indians had a Minister of Indian Affairs, they did not have a minister to whom they could go. They had to go around various federal departments.
The federal government was not ready to create a federal department for them. As a compromise, it created the office of the federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians. His role is to serve as an advocate within cabinet. In order to carry out that role, he needed a secretariat. We have a small secretariat, consisting of 12 people, which is responsible for the Urban Aboriginal Strategy, off-reserve, tripartite, self-government negotiations and other Métis non-status issues. Since no department was a natural home for this, the decision was made to put it within the Privy Council Office. The interlocutor is usually not the president of the Privy Council. It is usually a line minister who has a particular connection to this issue. Usually a western minister deals with these issues but, at one point, an Ontario minister was appointed.
Senator Christensen: The fact that governments are horizontally challenged is becoming very evident. Our committee has a fair time to complete our study, but as we go along, we find that this subject is like an amoeba; it is all over the place. We are trying to get a handle on the programs, where they operate from, and how they can be accessed. It appears that there is a lot of financial and administrative waste because of all the overlapping that is going on. I hope this committee can pull the information together in a manageable way. It may be too soon to start asking questions about core needs and the specifics of your program, and what the policies and programs are designed to do. We should get into that later.
I would ask you to give us an itemized list of your programs and how they are delivered. We have asked HRDC to do the same thing, so that we can begin to understand what is available.
We recognize that there is a high Aboriginal population growth. I am referring to all our aboriginal people, including Métis, non-status, status and Inuit. We anticipate that, in the next 10 years, at least 10 per cent of our new jobs must be filled by immigrants. Within 20 years, it will be 100 per cent. Yet, there is this huge growth of young people who are undereducated and who do not, in our society, have the ability to get the education that they need. What a waste. We should be focusing on that issue.
Mr. Caron: We are starting to do that. That very point has been picked up not only by governments but also by industry. The notion of lining up the Aboriginal population against the available jobs is very much in everyone's mind. Hopefully, part of the skills and learning agenda that HRDC will come forward with will have a component for that. Industry is also taking significant steps to try to match that part of the population with jobs. Mr. Goodale has been making tireless efforts in communicating with industry.
There is a federal-provincial Aboriginal ministers and leaders meeting coming up on December 7. Economic participation will be the subject of the discussion. We hope that meeting will produce some results in terms of a common effort of governments towards getting jobs for this segment of the population.
Senator Christensen: Leaving governments and industry aside, somehow we must reach the Aboriginal youth group as soon as possible, because it has the highest rate of suicide. The reason for that is hopelessness. They have no future prospects. We must help them to understand that they do have a great future and that they can be great contributors to the nation.
Mr. Caron: A national Aboriginal youth strategy was approved at last year's federal-provincial meeting. A successful youth conference, sponsored by Human Resources Development, was held in October. They have made some recommendations to the federal provincial ministers and leaders, for consideration on December 7, for more direct involvement of youth in a follow-up and action plan for the youth strategy. We are quite confident that will be approved. It will give youth a much more direct role. It was made very clear by them at the youth conference that they did not think they play an adequate role in determining issues that affect them.
Senator Cochrane: When sending us a list of programs, would you give us specific details of the funding for Aboriginal women's programs, rather than just giving us a list of the women's programs?
Mr. Caron: The material we will provide will show where the spending is Aboriginal specific, be it on women's issues or others.
Senator Wilson: I see that you have urban Aboriginal committees in Alberta, B.C., Manitoba and Saskatchewan. What is the percentage of youth under 25 on each of those committees?
Mr. Caron: I could not tell you. The committee usually consists of a representative of the Aboriginal organizations, but youth are not represented separately. Usually, there are federal government representatives from various departments, provincial government representatives from various departments, and representatives from various Aboriginal organizations. I do not think there is, currently, a separate youth representative on any of those committees.
Senator Wilson: My question is: How many youth under the age of 25 are on the committee?
Mr. Caron: I will have to find the answer to that question.
Senator Wilson: We face the same problem in churches. We discovered that we had to appoint three youth for every adult in order that their voice would be heard.
What relationship has all of this to the study of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People?
Mr. Caron: RCAP pointed out that this issue deserves better consideration and, as such, the Urban Aboriginal Strategy was announced as part of "Gathering Strength." RCAP recommended a fair increase in expenditure, which has not yet happened. We have definitely tries to pick up the issue.
Senator Léger: Your document indicates that less than 50 per cent of funding is locally delivered. What does that mean?
Ms Anzolin: It means that the funding from the federal department is delivered by the department here in Ottawa or in Hull where the determination is made as to how to distribute the funding to Aboriginal people in urban centres. In some cases, funding is regionally delivered. There are allocation formulas within the department for the distribution of funding to particular provinces, and then it is distributed to Aboriginal people in urban centres. In other cases, it is directly delivered at the local level. The federal department distributes funding to a local organization that then provides benefits to Aboriginal people in urban centres.
Senator Léger: Do I understand correctly that Aboriginal people receive less than 50 per cent of the total money budgeted?
Ms Anzolin: No. The $270 million is what we have estimated to be the total figure that benefits urban Aboriginal people. Of that money, 50 per cent is locally delivered. That means that the tools necessary to respond to local priorities are actually held by local organizations. That is part of the difficulty. Mr. Caron indicated earlier that you cannot have a national strategy. In some cases, federal departments have national figures to benefit local Aboriginal people in urban centres. The local organizations do not have the tools necessary to respond, because they do not have access to the funding.
Senator Léger: If over 50 per cent is held by the government, that does not leave too much.
Mr. Caron: No. All the money goes to the Aboriginal people. Fifty per cent of it is delivered from Ottawa to organizations in the regions that are not necessarily locally based.
A certain number of programs are delivered from the Ottawa level and a certain number are delivered from the regional level. We mentioned this figure because some of the regional groups would say it should all be delivered from the regional level in order that they have better control over it. That is the point we were trying to make.
However, I should point out that, even when the funding is delivered from Ottawa, it is based on input from the regional level. These policies are developed with input from the regions.
Senator Léger: This is a study on our urban Aboriginal strategy. Is there any connection between that and what happened at Burnt Church or in cities that have small Aboriginal populations? Does another department deal with those situations?
Mr. Caron: They are very much interconnected. It is difficult to distinguish between urban issues and issues impacting reserves. As an example, when Aboriginal street gangs form in Winnipeg, they do their recruiting on the reserve, in jails and so on. Housing problems on a reserve might cause people to move into the cities. Therefore, there is a huge relation between the two issues. We must take a holistic approach to the problem because there is a definite connection.
As our document indicates, there is a high degree of mobility between reserves and urban areas.
Senator Sibbeston: I am a Métis, so I understand the situation of Métis people in Canada to a certain extent. I know the situation best in the Northwest Territories since that is where I come from. Generally, Métis people have been reasonably well off. In the history of the North, the Métis people have been the interpreters and the guides. To this day, the Métis people are in the lead in participating in government, business and so on. In the North, the Métis people have done reasonably well. Much of this is due to their independent spirit, and the opportunities that have been provided because of their education. The fact is that they are more advanced in their education than the Dene or the Indian people. The lot of the Métis people in the North has been reasonably good. People like myself had good opportunities to go to school, become involved in government and become senators. Our lot has been reasonable.
Historically, the Métis people were recognized by the federal government as having Aboriginal rights. While the federal government was making treaties with the Indian people, they were also making agreements with and giving script to Métis people as a recognition of their Aborginal rights as well as giving them money. In the North, the Métis people, in the land claims process, are on the same bases, in a sense, as the Dene people, in that they will be treated equally and receive benefits through the land claims agreement. They will be treated in a similar fashion as the Indian people. I believe that, in some respects, our lot is and has been reasonable.
However, in the south, while the Métis have the same history in terms of being the guides, the interpreters and the go-between - Louis Riel is a good example of what the Métis people in the south have achieved in history - somewhere along the way, the federal government deemed that the Indian people needed help, recognition, and special provisions. The Indian Act and the Department of Indian Affairs was set up for the Indian people, whereas the Métis people, perhaps because it was not warranted or for some other reason, were not dealt with in the same way.
In the last few decades, the Métis people have been fighting for recognition. They are recognized in section 35 of the Constitution, but they have been urging the federal government to have Métis rights recognized and programs set up for them.
Where are we in terms of the government and the country recognizing Métis people's rights and setting up programs and departments to deal with the Métis people? Is something likely to happen in the next several years?
Mr. Caron: A number of programs that the federal government has now are pan-Aboriginal. They apply to Métis, Inuit and Indians equally. That is one area that we are working on.
We are taking some interesting regional approaches which are not necessarily Métis-specific but which could, nonetheless, help Métis people. In northern Saskatechewan, we are in the process of trying to work out the agreement for northern development that will help Métis communities as well as Indian communities. It is not Métis-specific but, nonetheless, it is there.
We are discussing with the Métis National Council a Métis nation agenda. We are not at the point of agreement yet, but we are trying to make some strides with them to see if we can focus on some of the issues that you mentioned, including questions of rights and program access. To be frank, it is still an issue of contention between the federal government and the Métis in terms of a specific Métis component of programming, and so on, based on positions on responsibility as well as some of the advice we get from the Department of Justice. We hope that there are other ways that we can move this issue along.
From the Métis point of view - at least what we hear from them - the first of two major pressure points is that they feel they are forgotten when it comes to federal programming, and they are left behind without consideration when there are new, significant announcements in respect of Indians. We are trying to ensure that that does not happen.
There is also the question of rights. They are pursuing that issue in the courts. In fact, both these issues are before the courts. They are challenging federal positions on Aboriginal rights. We are looking at that closely with them to see if we can work something out.
Having said that, Métis people, as provincial citizens, benefit from a number of provincial programs. When you compare what status Indians hold, much of the $7.3 billion that we spend goes towards basic services on reserve. A Métis person will also get that from the provinces. The major pressure points are related to funding for housing, post-secondary education and non-insured health benefits. Status Indians on reserve have more access to programs than do Métis people. They do receive some funding for these things from provinces, but that is based on need as opposed to status. It is a major issue, and it is not an easy one to deal with. With some of the programs we have at the regional level, we hope to get help to some of the Métis communities and individuals, without doing something that is Métis specific.
Senator Sibbetson: Métis people are constantly seeking recourse to the courts to have their just status in society recognized as Aboriginal people. Will all of this eventually result in the federal government, in a sense, being forced to recognize that Métis have special rights that must be dealt with seriously? Would we ever see a Department of Métis Affairs? Do you think that is a bit too far-reaching?
Mr. Caron: The machinery issue would be a decision for the Prime Minister. The royal commission recommended a Department of Aboriginal affairs. There has always been talk about that. Whatever I would tell you would be speculative.
On the rights issue, my own personal view is that there may have to be some movement on this in the future. There is a growing trend in the courts to recognize Métis Aboriginal rights. There is an important case, with which some of you are familiar, the Powley case, which was decided in Ontario, where the court found Métis rights of hunting. That case is being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada and will likely be heard some time later this year. The Ontario Court of Appeal gave the province and the Métis a year to work out an agreement, but I do not think those negotiations are going very well to this point. We expect to see the case continue.
There is other litigation before the courts. We are looking at that possibility. Again, Mr. Goodale would have to come to cabinet with the Minister of Justice to make recommendations on that, but that is definitely a pressure point.
Senator Sibbetson: Am I right that this whole area of Aboriginal rights as it relates to Métis is just beginning to be explored, much like Aboriginal rights for native people, mostly the treaty Indian people? Over the last 20 or 30 years, there has been an explosion in the sense of court cases that delineate or define these rights. You see across the country the results of court cases, which begin to define Aboriginal rights in everyday life, for example, the ability to use resources to make a living, to hunt, to use lands and so forth. Could the same rights apply to the Métis? If Métis Indian people have Aboriginal rights, would they not be treated by the courts, and perhaps by government, in the same way that treaty Indian people are treated? Is the federal government faced with that eventuality, that is, that they must come face-to-face with the reality that Métis people are Aboriginal people and must have the same programs and rights as the Inuit and the treaty Indians?
Mr. Caron: On the rights issue, as you pointed out, there is a trend in the courts. Aboriginal law in general is an area that is very fluid and "judge made." In the Vanderpeet case the court said that, when dealing with the question of Indian Aboriginal rights, they were not ruling on the question of Métis-specific rights. They left the door open.
As to the scenario that you outlined on the rights issue, the Métis would potentially have claims, just as Indians and Inuit may have claims. It is one of a number of issues that we are looking at and that we may have to tackle.
On the program side, this issue is a little different because the Métis claim that they should have the same kind of access to programs. Section 15 of the Charter is the section that comes most directly into play. As you know, section 15 does not necessarily oblige identical treatment in all circumstances. There must be recognition of differing historical and even socio-economic circumstances.
Having said that, there are some live issues as to whether some of the programming that we do now should be extended or whether we should re-examine the basis on which we do that programming.
Senator Johnson: I am from Manitoba. I live in Winnipeg. Of course, I have been living with this situation my whole life in that province. This strategy was launched in 1998 through "Gathering Strength," was it not?
Mr. Caron: It was approved in 1997.
Senator Johnson: It was put into effect in 1998. Am I correct in saying that you have spent $270 million to date?
Mr. Caron: No. This is program spending that takes place in urban areas.
Senator Johnson: It was directed to the Urban Aboriginal Strategy. Are there 19 programs and initiatives underway in eight departments?
Mr. Caron: Yes.
Senator Johnson: Less than 50 per cent of the funding is locally delivered.
You evaluated this program in May of 2000 at a national workshop in Regina, where officials from federal departments were in attendance. What were the strengths and weaknesses identified by the participants at this workshop with regard to your strategy? Were the best practices identified? If so, what are they?
Mr. Caron: The strengths and weaknesses that were identified are pretty well those listed on slide 18, which is on page 9 of your deck. This is from the federal perspective. There are some provincial perspectives as well. These points are raised by Aboriginal groups, points such as jurisdictional rigidities where the government says, "This is not our responsibility; it is yours," with neither one willing to pick up the ball.
There is also the notion of bringing departments together horizontally, both within the federal and provincial governments, and working together. There are questions of overlapping claims of representation for Aboriginal people and who speaks for the urban population.
Choosing a priority is another problem, as has been raised here. There are numerous problems. You will not necessarily solve them all at once.
Senator Johnson: Were any of these recommendations tabled by the participants?
Mr. Caron: Yes. This all came from the floor. This is the subject of a fair bit of internal consultation. This is from within the federal government but it also reflects things that we have heard, and especially what the regional people have heard from the Aboriginals.
Senator Johnson: That is what I want to know. How much is coming from the side of government and Ottawa?
Mr. Caron: Much of it is, but it also reflects what we have heard from the provinces and Aboriginal groups. The workshop we held was to give the federal people an opportunity to bring forward the points that they had heard in their own urban Aboriginal subcommittees, which include provincial and Aboriginal representatives.
Senator Johnson: Have you identified other ways of improving your initiative?
Mr. Caron: We have some proposals that we will be putting to Mr. Goodale, who will then take them to cabinet.
Senator Johnson: When will that happen?
Mr. Caron: We expect to do that in the new year. We have not worked out a date yet.
Senator Johnson: I come from an area where we have been dealing with these issues for a long time. I find the opinions put forward by Alan Cairns, the Canada West Foundation, with whom I worked, Bob Rae and the C.D. Howe Institute to be all motherhood and apple pie. Those quotes say nothing new or telling. They are almost passé.
Where are you going with this in the future that will make a difference?
Mr. Caron: First, we are looking at building increased flexibility into the federal system. As I described before, part of the complaint is that, if you have an issue at the local level and you think you should do something about it, you can do nothing unless it fits within the four corners of a program. Having a common set of terms and conditions, for example, against which funding could be applied to give more flexibility at the local level is one element that we can consider.
A second area involves better ways to hold people accountable within the federal system for horizontal management of a file like this, which is a huge challenge.
In terms of further flexibility, we are exploring the notion of an initiatives fund that would be an identifiable amount of money to be used for the development of a common set of criteria against a project identified at the local level.
Those are some of the things we are considering. None of these, of course, has been put before cabinet. These are all very much at the exploratory stage.
Senator Johnson: I have a sense of frustration because there are many positive things happening in the urban centres. I just do not know how many more bureaucratic set-ups we will have to go through before things move along.
I know that in Winnipeg the kids are being recruited for drug sales and prostitution. We all know about the Hells Angels. We all know about these things. I want to make sure that this money will go where it will be best used. We also all know about the bureaucratic walls that exist. On one side of the city hall in Winnipeg you see great things happening, such as people attending the healing lodge, while, on the other side, you see crime and prostitution.
At times, I am confused as to where your work fits into all this, especially when I think of all the other departments that are involved in these areas of work.
Mr. Caron: We are trying to break down some of these bureaucratic walls that you mentioned.
Senator Johnson: It would be great if you could do that.
Mr. Caron: The Aboriginal work has spurred a deputy minister's task force to be established to look at better ways of service delivery in regions. That emerged from this work. Hopefully, this will break down some of these bureaucratic walls. You are correct; that is our biggest frustration.
I referred earlier to the presentation we had in Ontario yesterday where an Aboriginal person, a member of the friendship centre, outlined how these programs for the federal and provincial governments cross each other and overlap. We have to deal with that problem. It will take a serious change of attitude, though.
Senator Johnson: If we do not get past that, we cannot progress.
Mr. Caron: I agree with you.
Senator Johnson: That is our frustration.
Mr. Caron: There will be no lack of effort on my part.
Senator Johnson: Hopefully, our committee report will have some impact. However, I think aggressive measures will have to be taken, because the current situation stops things from improving.
Mr. Caron: Some provincial examples are now emerging. The Alberta government identified Aboriginal issues as a cross-government priority and built into the performance contracts of deputy ministers of each of the line departments the requirement to report on what they had done about that as part of the eligibility for performance pay. This has resulted in a fairly significant change in attitude in the Alberta government.
The Chairman: It has not really. They just cut out a lot of programming for urban Aboriginals last week.
Mr. Caron: I was not aware of that. From our perspective, there is a much more coordinated approach. Saskatchewan has put together a 13-department initiative. I cannot remember how many ministers the Premier of British Columbia brought to the table to meet with the Aboriginal organizations. He told the Aboriginal organizations that all of the ministers were there for them, not just the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.
We are seeing more of a movement toward that kind of thing, but I agree that that is our biggest challenge.
Senator Hubley: We touched earlier on how important education is to the health care system, and in general. There is nothing within the federal expenditures for urban Aboriginal people that targets education. Is that because the educational programs fall under health and social services, things of that nature?
Mr. Caron: No. It reflects the fact that for the most part the federal government has taken the position that education, apart from job training, has been the responsibility of the provincial government off-reserve, although the post-secondary education program that is administered by the Department of Indian Affairs applies both on- and off-reserve. A proportion of status Indians living off reserve get PSE. In fact, they all go to university off-reserve, but even some who normally reside off-reserve have access to PSE. That is confined to status Indians and Inuit. It does not apply to Métis or non-status Indians. PSE is one of the biggest federal government programs, but most of it goes to reserve residents.
Senator Hubley: Do daycare, kindergarten and that type of thing come under the same program?
Ms Anzolin: Daycare, like education, is a provincial responsibility. Although status Indians do get some daycare assistance through the Aboriginal Human Resource Development Strategy, that is not the case for urban Aboriginal people.
Senator Hubley: The graph indicates that only 1 per cent is allocated for Justice. What is that money used for, since it seems such a small amount of the pie?
Mr. Caron: That is the Aboriginal Justice Strategy, which is a Department of Justice program. It is not a big program, with funding of only $3 million to $4 million per year. Although it is not a significant percentage, it is a very important program, for which the provinces have highly praised the federal government. It is largely an off-reserve effort, one that has achieved some good success. The 1 per cent does not include the monies spent on the justice system, which is quite significant when you include Corrections and so on.
Senator Hubley: I encourage you to keep working on your program because it will be helpful in the future.
Senator Carney: I spent 10 years in Senator Sibbeston's part of the country navigating my way through status, non-status and Métis programs. It seems that not a lot has changed in the last 20 years. What advances do you believe have been made in 20 years in this alphabet soup of status and non-status?
Before answering that, could you tell me how you define "Métis" at an operational level?
Mr. Caron: That is a difficult question. There are two competing definitions of Métis. There is the view put forward by the Métis National Council, which is that the Métis are the historic Métis of the West. The Congress of Aboriginal People advocates that Métis includes anyone of mixed ancestry who chooses to identify as Métis.
We have not taken a position on that issue. We do not have Métis-specific programming. We have pan-Aboriginal programming that is based on Aboriginal self-identification. Different departments have different ways of looking at this, but it is based on Aboriginal ancestry. Non-status, Métis and Indians qualify.
With regard to how much progress we have made on programming, one of the issues that we will be faced with is how we distinguish among Aboriginal people, and whether some of those distinctions continue to make sense. Much of the current programming is based on status, which at one point was synonymous with need. A significant portion of the Aboriginal population is not needy. The question is whether you continue to provide programming based on status or move towards a needs basis. That is a significant question that we may face.
I wish I could tell you that we have made a lot of progress on the issue you raised, but I am not sure that we have. Numerous programs are available based on different qualifications, and the question becomes whether we are achieving the right social policy objectives with the distinctions that we make. The reference group that the Prime Minister has created will be studying that issue. It is a huge one.
Senator Carney: It must be hard to coordinate programs if you do not know for whom you are doing it - given self-identification. Would you say that you are dealing with everyone who is not on the band list?
Mr. Caron: The pan-Aboriginal programming that we have is mainly business-oriented, economic-development programming. I understand that people who are can prove affiliation with an Aboriginal organization are eligible to apply. There is a limited supply of money, so they are in a queue, but that is basically the way it is administered.
For Indian-specific programming, obviously you must be a status Indian and, if it is on-reserve, a member of that First Nation.
Senator Carney: Your material says that an estimated $270 million is directed to Aboriginal people but that less than 50 per cent of the funding is locally delivered. What happens to the rest of it? Does that mean that it is allocated in the program budgets of the bureaucracy?
Ms Anzolin: That is right. It is centrally held; it gets down to the person on the ground.
Mr. Caron: It does not go into the bureaucracy. It all goes to the Aboriginal people; it is just that 50 per cent is delivered from Ottawa and 50 per cent is delivered locally.
Senator Carney: Give me an example of a successful pan-Aboriginal program that you are working on.
Mr. Caron: We do not deliver any of these programs. Aboriginal Business Canada has run pan-Aboriginal programming in terms of business development programs that have been successful. Head Start, which started off-reserve, has been a successful program. Those are two I can name that have achieved good results.
Senator Carney: I have a special interest in the impact of Bill C-31, which was passed in 1985, because Aboriginal women in British Columbia have brought me that issue. Do you do any work in that field? What is the effect of Bill C-31 on Métis women?
Mr. Caron: It is in the long term that the biggest impact of Bill C-31 will be felt. There are two things. One is the Corbiere case, in which the right of off-reserve people to vote in band elections was upheld. That, in my own view, is going to change the face of Indian politics significantly.
Because of the high degree of intermarriage with non-Aboriginal people, as I understand the membership rule, if one of your parents was non-Aboriginal or non-Indian and you marry a non-Indian and have a child, that child does not qualify for status. It has been projected that we could come to a point, not all that far off in the greater scheme of things, at which there will not be that many status Indians and a large percentage of non-status Indians will be living on reserves. That is an issue, to me, that comes out of Bill C-31.
Senator Carney: There has been a direct impact on urban migration, which is the connection to this committee. Bill C-31 has been one of the biggest reasons for urban migration off-reserve.
Your observation highlights a problem to which we have not paid sufficient attention. We have been told that some bands will be extinct in a couple of generations because there simply will not be any more status Indians as a result of the way the marriages are taking place. I think Alan Cairns says that, in British Columbia, 50 per cent of Aboriginals have married non-status Indians, which now makes up the majority of the Aboriginal population.
Mr. Caron: There is a high percentage of intermarriage.
Senator Carney: Is that built into your programming?
Mr. Caron: It is a significant issue that Indian Affairs is facing. They could tell you more about it than I can.
Senator Carney: Does that trend not widen your clientele and narrow theirs?
Mr. Caron: Potentially, it does. It depends on what is done about the status rules in the long term. There are various ways that you can go, and an option may be to take a look at the status rules. That is my personal opinion. The question becomes this: When there is a high percentage of non-status Indians living on reserves, does that affect the way the federal government delivers programs to those reserves? That is a significant issue for all of us, but especially Indian Affairs, in terms of the membership rules.
Senator Carney: I want to push that because we have not been able to describe the problem. Under the Constitution, as we all know, the Métis are considered to be Aboriginal people. On the reserves, band members can go to the band council for redress of grievances. What about the non-status Indians living on the reserve? What is their recourse for grievances? How do they establish their Charter rights?
Mr. Caron: Of course, the Charter applies on-reserve. Someone who is not a band member does not have a right to vote, and that is the big issue. That is another thing that, in terms of the governance work that Mr. Nault is doing, they will have to look at.
Creative solutions have been developed in certain areas, for example, Sechelt, with which you are probably familiar. The non-Aboriginal people residing on that reserve have an opportunity to be heard; they have a forum in which to address their complaints. Solutions like that are being explored in various areas.
There is some concern by First Nations people about non-band members having a full right to vote. Other types of solutions being explored are a bridge between a full right to vote and a right to voice one's concerns.
Senator Carney: Those who live in the urban areas have recourse only through their right to vote.
Mr. Caron: With Corbiere, they have a right to vote, and that is significant; those who are not band members, of course, do not. In terms of their own urban community, their right is primarily to vote in municipal and provincial elections.
Senator Carney: I have been impressed by the excellent work of the friendship centres in British Columbia. They have done a wonderful job.
However, the British Columbia government has combined Aboriginal affairs with arts, culture, women, and almost anything else that was left over. According to the minister, the reason for doing that is immigrant, women and Aboriginal women have many concerns in common.
What, in your knowledge, is the British Columbia government doing in this area?
Mr. Caron: Unlike the predecessor government, this government has indicated, at least in its Throne Speech, that the off-reserve urban situation is a priority. We had some outreach from that government, suggesting that it wants to work with us, short on specifics at this point.
Senator Carney: You do not know anything we do not know?
Mr. Caron: No. I can say that in all honesty.
Senator Carney: Too bad.
Senator Pearson: I understand that during your presentation, which I missed, you raised the issue of children exploited in the sex trade in Vancouver. I was in Vancouver prior to yesterday to discuss this issue with a number of people, including some young Aboriginal women who are working on it. The reality is even worse than I had anticipated. The experience of those who are working in the field is that the numbers are growing, and that there are tremendous interests involved. I am not asking that you solve this; I am just relaying some of this information. The implications of organized crime in this area are huge, apparently, along with the drug trade. There is a cross-jurisdictional aspect here.
The people I was speaking are involved in a coordinated effort, a committee, but they are feeling unnerved. Is anyone in the office of the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-status Indians working specifically on this particular problem, which is one manifestation of organized crime, but the worst kind because of its implications?
Mr. Caron: Work is being done on general child prostitution by the Department of Justice, and a committee in Vancouver that consists of a number of federal departments is working on the urban Aboriginal issue. The province is showing an increasing interest in becoming involved in this issue. They and the Aboriginal people of Vancouver, the Aboriginal Council, have identified child prostitution as the number-one priority. They are now trying to take stock of what they might be able to do and, in that regard, they have batted around a number of ideas. The top priority of the new head of our committee there is to try to develop an action plan to deal with this issue.
Everyone should be aware that Vancouver has been identified as an international sex tourism stop. It is very high on the list. The demand is mainly for young Aboriginal kids. Trying to eliminate that is the top priority for those in Vancouver who are working on it, and they will be working quite closely with the Department of Justice.
Senator Pearson: One young person told me that the marketing in this trade is getting better. My question was: How can we diminish the demand? The response I got was that this, in fact, is a flourishing business. It is a challenging problem.
My second question relates to justice. The federal government lays aside a certain amount of money to assist young Aboriginals who get into trouble with the law. However, the concern among those working directly with them, and among some Aboriginal people, is whether there are enough controls on that money to ensure that it gets to where it is supposed to go. How do you get it if you happen to be working with young kids in downtown Vancouver or Manitoba or wherever? How do you deal with the provincial side of that?
I do not expect a complete answer, but I would like to hear your thoughts on that.
Mr. Caron: Are you referring to being able to lever more provincial aid?
Senator Pearson: If the new act comes into being, additional monies will be available. How will that money be distributed? That is the question being asked by many Aboriginal people working in youth justice.
Mr. Caron: All ministers, including the Prime Minister, have expressed the concern that the money get to those who need it. Increased attention has been given to ensuring that processes, which are necessary, are efficient. We have had a problem, not just within government but in Aboriginal organizations as well, where the administration has been somewhat top heavy. We are trying to focus on that. The present evaluation requirements are quite rigorous in terms of demanding demonstrable results. That provides at least a way to measure federal government performance.
Senator Pearson: It is important to keep track, if and when the act comes into effect, of whether the additional monies that appear to be promised are getting to where they can be best used.
I have one final word on behalf of the young people who have spoken to me on the issue of prostitution. Those young people do not like to be called "child prostitutes." They are children who are being exploited in the sex trade. The term, "child prostitute" is a stereotype; and that also applies to non-Aboriginal young people. I always tell them that I will pass on their message on their behalf.
The Chairman: We have been working on this study for at least two years. Mr. Caron, you have known me for a long time, and you know that I have been involved for a long time in the programming and the issues involving urban Aboriginals. Our agenda was developed after visiting the Aboriginal agencies that work in the streets with the urban Aboriginal people. We asked about their successes and the gaps that they find in trying to work with the people in their communities.
We found that the friendship centre in Winnipeg was not doing the job that it was supposed to do. Politics were getting in the way. In fact, there was a feud. However, we were very impressed with the work done by the native centre. That would be a example for other cities to follow. The native centre trains people in the restaurant business, in crafts, and they have schools which provide training in other subjects. They also have a day care facility. They have the Aboriginal Headstart program. The work they do is very impressive. It is Aboriginals working for Aboriginals, right at the community level.
Across the road from that centre is Thunderbird House where Mary Richard is doing a fantastic job. However, the group working on the anti-gang program in Winnipeg is having a very difficult time getting funding. That comes right to the point Senator Pearson mentioned. That anti-gang program is so vitally important because it encourages kids to stay off the street and get back into school. There is also healing facility in that centre, which is just wonderful.
In Alberta, we visited to seven different agencies, who all told us that, because of the way funding is distributed to Aboriginal or political organizations, they could not access that funding. The process is flawed in that these unaffiliated smaller agencies have difficulty getting funding. I am sure you know that, especially in Métis politics, the message is: "If you did not vote for me, I am not going to help you." That is a major issue.
In Alberta, the people who are involved in this work out of two or three different buildings, and the staff is split up. The political organizations sometimes do not know what is happening at the community level. We need the political organizations to know what is going on.
Denise Thomas who works in the southeastern part of Manitoba is doing a wonderful job there. She is accessing the funding and getting it into the communities.
What is your department doing to try to ensure that the smaller agencies can get funding to run their programs? In Alberta, over 23 per cent of Aboriginal programming in the urban areas has been cut. The Ben Calf-Rope Society had to cut their Going Home project which worked with kids and encouraged them to go home and to go back into the main stream. As well, the Boyle Street Co-op had to make several cuts. The list goes on. Programs for the very vulnerable in our society have been cut, and that is a serious matter.
How can PCO work to establish a process of funding for the smaller agencies that are doing good work? It is not the political organizations which are doing the work, it is the programming agencies.
On another topic, the Métis have been fighting for many years to have a census done specifically for Métis. Of course, doing a census costs money. The Métis do not have any money to conduct a proper census. Is there any funding available so that the organizations can do a census? They were doing one in Saskatchewan in co-operation with the provincial government, but and I do not know how that has worked.
In relation to the definition of "Métis," I have a recent report by Harry Daniels and Paul Chartrand that I commissioned. I would be happy to send that report to you. It deals with the problems of the definition and the challenges that we face in defining the "Métis." The authors are two well-known and well-respected Métis lawyers and leaders.
You also talked about bureaucracy. Has your department created another bureaucracy?
Mr. Caron: We are not a separate department so we have not imposed a further layer of bureaucracy on this. We only have powers of persuasion; we do not have powers to direct. The program delivery is done through aligned departments.
Having said that, we are not without influence. In terms of service delivery - this is an issue that has not only been picked up by us but by some of the aligned departments as well - the question of divorcing program delivery from politics is high on the list, as well as getting it to the organizations that will actually deliver the product. It is something that is part of the minister's mindset. It is not something we can necessarily direct.
To give an example of Mr. Goodale's thinking in terms of the Aboriginal Centre in Winnipeg, when a single window was discussed, neither the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs nor the Manitoba Métis Federation would agree. Therefore, we set it up with the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg. Initially, neither one of the former organizations was all that happy about it, but it worked out. The notion of picking an organization that will actually deliver, and making a distinction between politics and program delivery, I think, again, is part of the minister's mindset. It is probably one of the issues that this reference group of ministers will consider.
As to conducting a census, we do have an amount of money set aside for Métis enumeration that is based on provincial matching. One province has picked that up. Those negotiations have gone nowhere. The Métis Nation of Saskatchewan was not happy with the report they got back from their own consultant, so those talks have become bogged down. No other province has picked up the matter. We must consider whether there is a different way to approach that particular issue, and I know that the Métis National Council has some suggestions.
Senator Carney: You talked about the inability of small organizations to access funding, and you mentioned Alberta and Manitoba but not British Columbia. We also heard that in British Columbia.
Mr. Caron: I will ask Ms Anzolin to respond to the question on the survey. We have not had good data on Aboriginal people off-reserve, especially Métis. The data on status Indians and Inuit could be improved, but the data on Métis is really behind. We hope that, with the Aboriginal Peoples Survey, we can do a better job.
Ms Anzolin: A separate Métis survey is being conducted through the Aboriginal Peoples Survey. I understand that Statistics Canada will be making a presentation to your committee later, when I am sure they will be able to give you more information on that.
Mr. Caron: There is tendency to approach Aboriginal issues on a national basis, that is, to take one set of statistics and draw conclusions, as opposed to looking at the regional elements. The situation differs so significantly from one area to another that I think our programming has to be more attuned to that reality, as opposed to saying there is a national program and X dollars goes to each province. It may be that the focus should be greater in some areas than on others. Getting good data is a crucial step towards being able to do that.
The Chairman: I have one comment regarding Bill C-31. Under Bill C-31 "status" only goes back one generation. The children of the young women today will qualify until they are 18 and then they will be cut off. That is already creating a terrible situation within communities and within families. I know that you cannot do anything about it, but perhaps with your influence you can raise that subject when you discuss the implications and provisions of various documents.
Senator Carney: I am a little confused as to how you can conduct a census if you cannot define who will be the subject of the census. Could you clarify that? How can Statistics Canada conduct a census of the Métis when no one can agree who is a Métis?
Mr. Caron: It is based on self-identification. The survey question reads: "Do you identify as Métis or Métis in combination?" That would be instead of us specifying: "You are Métis if..."
Senator Carney: What is a "Métis in combination"?
Mr. Caron: A question in the 1996 survey asked people to identify whether they were Aboriginal only or of mixed ancestry. A multi-ethnic response was created. Interestingly, the 1996 census indicated that people who identified as Métis were primarily in the West. A large percentage of people, when asked if they had Aboriginal ancestry checked "yes," did not identify as Indian, Inuit or Métis. We do not know if this is the famous "My grandmother was an Indian princess" syndrome, but it has a potential impact on your earlier question about programming. If we design programming based on status, that may affect the numbers of people who choose to identify as Métis, Indian or Inuit. I have heard ministers say they do not want to influence people to identify as a particular category of Aboriginal person based on federal programming. We do not want to artificially encourage migration to one category or another.
Senator Carney: Is that not rather like shutting the barn door after the horse has left?
Mr. Caron: There are some interesting choices for the future. We may have to do business differently in respect of our current programs.
Senator Carney: Do we have a list of these programs, Madam Chairman?
Mr. Caron: We have undertaken to provide a list of federal programs offered off-reserve, and broken down by departments. You will have a list of the various federal government programs off-reserve. The breakdown as to how much is spent in the cities is unscientific. We take a percentage of population resident in the city and work with that rough number. We do not have statistics that show a certain amount is being spent in the city and a certain amount is being spent in the rural areas.
Senator Johnson: How many Métis are there now in the country that you have identified?
Mr. Caron: It depends on the definition.
Senator Johnson: You have a chart showing the urban Aboriginal populations in the cities.
Mr. Caron: I think that roughly 200,000 people identified as Métis in the 1996 survey. That figure depended on which definition is used. If you put the question to people and there were conditions attached to it you might get a different response and, therefore, the numbers would be different. The position of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is that anyone of mixed blood who chooses to identify as a Métis is a Métis.
The Chairman: That is interesting, because in order to have a nationality you must have at least four things: You must have a language, you must have a country of origin, you must have a culture and a history, and you must have been able to govern yourself. Nationality has nothing to do with blood quantum, which is the big issue today. In addition to that, in order to get funding, the mixed bloods in Labrador had no recourse but to identify with one or the other of the Aboriginal nations. They chose the Métis in order to get funding.
This is the tragedy of the matter. We have been struggling with this for years. I was chair of the Elders Senate Commission of the Métis National Council on this issue. We consulted across the country and decided on a definition; then the political leaders took over and did their thing.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. In the report of Harry Daniels and Paul Chartrand you will see the difficulty involved in defining who is Métis. Many of them, other than the western Canadian Métis, chose Métis in order to get funding.
Senator Carney: Is the documentation you are giving us called the "Guide to Federal Urban Initiatives"?
Mr. Caron: That is part of it. That book is three years old now.
Senator Carney: Could you give us an update to that?
Ms Anzolin: The inventory we will be giving you is based on estimated departmental funding in 2000.
The Chairman: I would like to thank you very much for a very interesting presentation and discussion. You have enlightened us on exactly what PCO does. You do a good job with the limited resources you have.
Mr. Caron: Thank you for the opportunity to be here. Your questions and comments were helpful, and they will aid us in our work.
The committee adjourned.