Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 2 - Evidence - Meeting of November 17, 2004
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 17, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:22 p.m. to examine and report on the involvement of Aboriginal communities and businesses in economic development activities in Canada.
Senator Nick G. Sibbeston (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we are here tonight to deal in part with our special study that will deal with economic development as it relates to Aboriginal people in our country.
Tonight we are fortunate to begin our study and have Dr. Fred Wien with us. I will give you a brief synopsis of his background. He is from the Maritime School of Social Work at Dalhousie University in Halifax, and is actively involved in Atlantic Aboriginal economic development, health and social issues on various levels, including the tripartite level and directly with the Mi'kmaq organization and development corporations. His areas of expertise are community socio-economic development, research methods, social policy and the development of Aboriginal communities. He was the Deputy Director of Research, Employment and Economic Development for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
Welcome, Dr. Wien, and thank you for traveling from Nova Scotia to appear before our committee.
Professor Fred Wien, Director, Atlantic Aboriginal Health Research Program, Dalhousie University: I have not prepared a formal presentation. I am here mainly to answer your questions about the ambitious task you are embarking upon.
I think that there are things happening in Aboriginal communities, that the situation is quite different now than it was a decade ago. I think there are good examples of successful economic development going on, as well as continuation of the pattern where some communities are still struggling. If you intend to go on a series of visits, you would be well advised to visit both successful communities and those that have not been able to break out of a pattern of dependence.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
Senator St. Germain: Have you any recommendations from your expertise and travels of where we could look at comparables?
Mr. Wien: Yes. It would not be hard to come up with a good list of communities for you. I am not sure how many you are planning to visit but there is, for example — and you may be familiar with it — a national organization called the Council for the Advancement of Native Development Officers, CANDO, which represents native development officers working at the community level. They have a national conference each year, and on each occasion they present an award to individuals and communities for outstanding success in the field. One suggestion would be to take a look at the award winners for the past several years and choose some of those communities.
There is also, I think, a network of people who work in this field. Of course, many of the ones that I know are academics, but they are spread right across the country. Each of them is quite familiar with the communities in their particular region and can advise you on where to go and where you might get the most interesting point of view.
To be more specific, in Nova Scotia there are two communities that have really broken out in the last seven or eight years. One is Membertou, located in Sydney, Nova Scotia, and the other is the community of Millbrook, adjacent to Truro, Nova Scotia. Both have been able to reverse many years of stagnation and dependence through quite interesting and aggressive business development patterns.
There are other communities in Nova Scotia that are doing interesting things and some that are really struggling. That is by way of example. I think in each province we could make up a list for you.
Senator St. Germain: In your studies, have you been able to identify the linkage between high-quality education and the success factor of successful nations?
Mr. Wien: Yes. I have been interested in thinking through what it is about Membertou and Millbrook that has allowed them to break out of a long-standing pattern. I do not think there are simple answers, but I do know from my own research that those two communities have, on average, the best educated Mi'kmaq population on reserve in the province, and they have had for a number of years.
Also key to their success is the building of a strong public service, where they have deliberately brought back to their community individuals who have succeeded elsewhere, members of the community, and put them into responsible positions. In fact, in the case of Membertou, I met one of those people when I was working with the royal commission. We had a meeting in Toronto with the banking industry, and there was Bernd Christmas from Membertou working on Bay Street. He is one of the people that they have brought back. That has been an important factor, I think.
As far as education is concerned, there are two things. One is the high average level of education in the population; the second is well-qualified key individuals who have provided leadership from the vantage point of the band council and its divisions.
There are other things that are important. Millbrook's location is advantageous, so I would not say those are the only things but those are two of them.
The Chairman: Dr. Wien, some of us are interested in the subject of Aboriginal peoples and we notice that there are certain areas of our country and certain Aboriginal peoples that have been successful. In other areas of the country, Aboriginal peoples have not been successful. We are interested in knowing what are the elements and factors that make it possible for some Aboriginal people to succeed while others have a hard time and struggle to do so? Would you comment generally on that?
Mr. Wien: Yes, I would be happy to. I understand that you will be meeting in a couple of weeks' time on the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development and they will speak to the results of their research where they have explicitly compared successful tribes and those that have not been so successful. They have a well articulated theory that goes well beyond the narrow technical considerations relating to, for example, access to capital or technology and so forth. They have a broader interpretation that brings in things like the capacity of the tribe to make decisions for itself rather than being dependent on an external controlling department like the U.S. Department of the Interior or the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, in our case. They also point to the importance of developing infrastructure and institutions, the role of culture and so forth.
I will leave it to them to articulate their theory, but the other thing I would say, from a Canadian perspective, which differs somewhat from the American, is that one of the themes that the royal commission emphasized and perhaps the central point when it came to economic development, was to try to change the opportunity structure for the communities. In other words, do not just put in another manpower training program or a small business loan program or something like that, but try to do something about the fact that many communities are very poor. They are not rich in terms of resources, they may be geographically isolated and so forth.
We put in the royal commission report a lot of emphasis on, for example, expanding the land and resource base of the communities so that they would have a better opportunity structure out there of which they could take advantage.
There were other things, but those are some of the factors that we think are important.
One interesting research question is to look at communities in regions where that opportunity structure has changed. It might have changed because of a comprehensive land claim agreement or because of a treaty land entitlement settlement in the west, or because of a court decision like the Marshall decision in the east, where suddenly the opportunities have expanded. It seems to me we would find — but I have not seen that research done systematically — that there is no problem when the opportunity structure changes for the communities to take advantage of it, and to change their situation. There are still questions remaining about to what extent are they planning for the long term, are these developments sustainable and those kinds of issues.
One explanation for why some regions are languishing is that they may not have had that opportunity to get into a better situation.
Senator Banks: Doctor, can you circumscribe regions and say, First Nations people in this region do not do well and First Nations people in this region do? Is that possible? Have you found in your studies that that is the case?
Mr. Wien: It is more likely you would find variations within regions, that some do well and others not so well.
Senator Banks: And they could be close to each other?
Mr. Wien: That is correct. In fact, Millbrook in Nova Scotia has done quite well. Indian Brook is 20 minutes away and has not done well.
Senator Banks: It is not really a regional thing?
Mr. Wien: No.
Senator Banks: A few minutes ago you talked about the difference between who was making the decisions, someone else, either a hired gun if I could put it that way, or a government department on the one hand, and the people, on the other hand. I gathered from your expression that when it is done by the people it is always better, or virtually always better?
Mr. Wien: Yes. That comes through particularly in the Harvard results. The first variable they talk about is what they call sovereignty, the ability to make decisions yourself and not be constantly reacting to an external department. Then they will follow up and say, if you have the decision—making capacity but then do not have the institutions and infrastructure to make wise decisions and to set proper ground rules for business development, keep political decisions away from business decisions, and so forth, then you could still be in trouble. Sovereignty is not a sufficient condition but they would say that it is a necessary condition.
Senator Gustafson: Dr. Wien, would you care to make some comments on the Aboriginal people's health? I see you have done quite a bit of work on that.
Mr. Wien: In the health field?
Senator Gustafson: In the health field and just generally, is it improving and to what extent?
Mr. Wien: We are just about to find out whether it is improving or not. There have been two national health surveys conducted involving Aboriginal samples that are normally excluded from Statistics Canada data. That is why I cannot give you chapter and verse on the results, but there was the First Nation and Inuit Regional Health Survey conducted in 1997. The follow-up study has just been completed and is in the data analysis stage. In fact, when Mr. Phil Fontaine attended the First Ministers' Conference he had some of the early results in his back pocket. In Nova Scotia, we were able to take the same sample at both points in time to see what change is occurring but I am not able yet to say what the results are.
I would make two points about it. One is that there are some very serious health issues, and they have to do with things like smoking levels, which are double provincial averages, and also very high rates of diabetes. There are also certain communities, as you know, where there are serious mental-health-related issues that might manifest themselves in substance abuse or in suicides and things like that.
We tend to say that suicide rates, for example, are high generally in the Aboriginal population, but Michael Chandler and his colleagues at University of British Columbia, UBC, have done some comparative work on that. They are finding not that it is high in all communities but, rather, that there are a few communities with rates that are out of sight, and then a large number of other communities where it is quite low, where they have managed that issue quite well.
They are trying to figure out the circumstances or characteristics of communities where that rate of suicide is very high compared to where it is very low and what that tells us about what to do with the situation.
Senator Gustafson: What about facilities like hospitals and people to man them?
Mr. Wien: I have one other comment about the health status. Generally you will find that it is worse on — reserve, and better off — reserve and in urban areas but still worse than the non-aboriginal pattern.
We were just talking about access to services today. One of the difficulties in limiting access, particularly for people on-reserve, is the almost interminable jurisdictional squabbling of two varieties. One is between what used to be called Medical Services Branch, now called First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs as to who is responsible. For example, if clients in the child welfare system also have health-related problems, is it the responsibility of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada or Health Canada through First Nations and Inuit Health Branch? They have not been able to resolve that jurisdictional dispute.
The other, of course, is the endless dispute between federal and provincial governments, particularly for off-reserve people. I would say that is the main thing that is limiting access to services, particularly for people who are on-reserve.
Senator Hubley: I am on the fisheries committee, and my question will pertain to the relationship between community development and economic development. If I might use a fishing situation as an example — and there may be other situations that you can help us with as well — if there is an adjacent fishery, if there is fishing off the coast of say a northern region and if the Aboriginal people who live close to that fishery do not have the infrastructure to avail themselves, they are not able to partake of that fishery, even given allocations and things of that nature. They have very special needs in fishery, and they have a tradition that dictates those needs.
There seems to be a gap between the Aboriginal peoples wishing to get an economic development going and the infrastructure that they have. Would you please comment on that?
Mr. Wien: Yes, I very much agree with that point. To do economic development successfully you need to go beyond the narrow confines of economic considerations, such as whether there is enough capital available or enough support for small businesses, and so on. You need to consider the broader question of institutional development, for example: Do they have a development corporation that could play the leading role? Have they sorted out the proper role of political leadership in economic development? The catch phrase is always that you should separate business and economic development, but that is simplistic. Political leadership does have a role in providing a vision, in developing the institutional base, in attracting back to the community people who can provide leadership and so forth. They do have an important role, but they should not be telling businesses, you cannot lay off someone because it will affect the number of votes I get in the next election.
I think what happens, and your example illustrates it, when you try to achieve economic development without having that institutional base, you end up with maybe short-sighted developments, or perhaps people will be inclined to hand over their fishing licence to a non-Aboriginal business and then take some of the profits off the top. That does not do much for them.
In the royal commission, we did 16 or so case studies across the country. We were in the area south of Calgary, which has the reserves with the largest land base. I was very surprised that for decades and decades the bands had been leasing that land out to non-Aboriginal farmers, getting a lease fee of some kind, but not doing anything more with it than that.
I think the Harvard people are right in stressing the institutional base, the importance of governance and so forth.
Senator Hubley: Government has a more in-depth role to play when it comes into the mix here. Training or education can take on many forms in order to give Aboriginal people the opportunity to be successful, such as not leasing the land but, in fact, learning skills of how to till land or how to use the land more productively for themselves and gain the reward for that. Where there are gaps in training or education, does government have to take a more aggressive role?
Mr. Wien: No, I do not think so. There are many people in each region who are interested in this and who have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done to change the situation. It is more a matter of listening and trying to put the right framework and programs in place that would allow them to succeed.
For example, in the area of capital funds, there is a network of Aboriginal capital corporations across the country. I am on the loan advisory committee of the one that serves the Atlantic region. They are regarded as a lending source of last resort. In other words, if a person cannot go to the bank and get a loan there, if they are deemed to be high risk or too small to bother with or whatever, then they will come to the Aboriginal Capital Corporation. However, it is very difficult for those corporations to maintain themselves from one year to the next because, understandably, they have a higher ratio of loan losses than a bank, for example. Yet, they do not have funding for their core staff. In other words, they have to maintain their operation based on the loans that they give out and the interest that they get back.
I am oversimplifying because there are some subsidies here and there, but that is the kind of issue that needs to be addressed. They are in a no-win situation. There will be many examples, and I think people will tell you what they think they need.
The Chairman: Dr. Wien, I come from the Northwest Territories where Aboriginal people have been relatively successful.
In part, maybe that is because the Aboriginal people are in the majority and have, over the years, made advancements in all aspects of society — government, business and such cultural institutions as the CBC. Over time, land claims have been settled with the Aboriginal peoples in the various regions — with the Inuvialuit since 1984, and other groups in the late 1980s and 1990s.
We have two major economic development projects happening. One is in Yellowknife, centering on the diamond mines, and one is in the delta involving oil and gas and the prospects of a gas pipeline. Aboriginal people have done reasonably well in taking advantage of these projects.
It has occurred to me that the North might be a unique situation because they have had the benefit of being a significant force in all aspects of northern society, but also they have access to funds and have property rights or lands and minerals because of land claims. When you look at situations such as the North, where Aboriginal people are successful, can these be used as examples? Looking at all the factors that make Aboriginals successful in the North, could you use this as an example or as a model to say that in order for Aboriginal people to be successful, these factors need to be present? Have you thought about that? Would you care to give some comments on that?
Mr. Wien: You are correct in pointing to the comprehensive land claim settlements as being one key factor. Unfortunately, in many areas of the country that is not an option. People might argue perhaps through their treaties that there are some rights there, as the Marshall case concluded, that could be used for economic benefit and so on. The difficulty with the comprehensive land claim situation is that not everyone has access to that particular scenario.
The Chairman: When you look at other successes across the country, such as the areas in B.C. around Kelowna, Kamloops, and Vancouver, where native people are located close to metropolitan areas and where their land, in a sense, becomes valuable, would you say that a factor in the South for Aboriginal success is being able to take advantage of their situation and develop those potentials, or having access to resources such oil and gas in Alberta? That is the case in Hobbema and other areas of the country. I am sure there are areas in Saskatchewan, and I am aware that in northern Saskatchewan there seems to be an area where Aboriginal people are very successful. I wonder if you can relate Aboriginal success in the South in part to their location and the resources that they have.
Mr. Wien: Yes, I do think that being able to develop an economic base in an urban area or near it is quite an interesting strategy, given the fact that a lot of economic activity is located there, particularly in the service sector but sometimes in manufacturing as well. It is interesting to me that Aboriginal communities have been able to carve out a piece of the urban action, if you like, even if they are not particularly well located. Let me give you several examples.
In the case of Membertou, located in Sydney, while the situation is changing now, historically, that urban location for Membertou has not been a very positive factor for them. They have not been involved in coal and steel and so forth in Sydney. However, in the mid-1990s, the chief at Membertou, and this is an example of leadership and its importance, decided that the situation of welfare dependency and deficits and so on could not continue, so they decided, even though they were located in Sydney, to develop an urban base in Halifax. They rented an office suite in the Purdy's Wharf tower on the Halifax waterfront, with a beautiful boardroom with a view over the harbour. They just felt they needed a presence in Halifax, and they felt that given that their strategy was joint ventures with major corporations and so on, that they would have much more success doing it from that base rather than trying to fly people into Sydney and into this relatively poor community. That is one example of deliberately carving out an urban strategy.
Also, in Western Canada, bands in provinces like Saskatchewan and Manitoba have benefited from treaty land-entitlement settlements. I am not sure if you are familiar with them, but they are a kind of compensation for treaty promises and calculations that were not met over the decades since the treaties were originally signed. The bands received either grants of land or fairly substantial monetary compensation for infringements on their treaty rights. A number of those bands have chosen to use the money that they obtained to develop businesses in urban areas. They might develop an industrial mall or a hotel or a variety of activities in the urban area.
In fact, now, when we talk about urban economic development from an Aboriginal perspective, it is not just people who have lived in the urban area for a period of time; it is also rural bands that have incorporated an urban element into their strategy. When you are visiting across the country, that would be something to look at as well.
The Chairman: I just attended Resource Expo, a native international trade association conference, in Vancouver last week. There were Aboriginal peoples from all across the country who have been successful in setting up corporations, partnerships and so forth. It seems that their success is invariably tied to resource development. Companies that are in resource development are willing to cooperate and have taken the initiative of cooperating with Aboriginal people so they too can benefit from development. Do you care to comment on that?
Mr. Wien: Yes. There are some examples of best practice across the country of companies like Syncrude, for example, that have made a significant commitment to reaching out to Aboriginal communities over many years. They have developed linkages that involve not only employment and training but also supplier contracts and that kind of thing.
It is interesting that the relationship with the community goes beyond simply narrow economic considerations. They might sponsor an awards night or they might provide scholarships for students. They might have meetings with the chief and band council. It is a broader and more multi-faceted relationship than simply an issue of, "How many people do we employ, and are we able to retain them?"
The other comment I would make is that for some companies that have opened their doors more recently, one of the factors that motivates them, and I am not critical about this, is that it is sometimes advantageous to them to have an Aboriginal partner when they are bidding on federal government contracts, for example, in defence, construction areas and so forth. They are doing it for reasons that go beyond wanting to do the right thing; they also have business reasons for doing it.
One of our students in economics at Dalhousie did a thesis on that strategy of joint ventures. One of the conclusions she came to was that, again, the degree to which the Aboriginal community can take advantage of that kind of strategy depends on its own institutional development. If they have the right people on staff, if they negotiate the agreements properly, if they are strong enough to counteract all the resources that are on the corporate side, then chances are that they can derive real benefit from a joint-venture kind of strategy.
Senator Gustafson: I served the Souris Moose Mountain area and Assiniboine area, where there are several reserves in the northern part of the province, and one of the greatest problems where there was land settlement was between the federal, provincial and municipal governments as to who was responsible for what. They would come to the member of Parliament, especially the municipality and say, "We have a problem here, but we cannot pin down the federal or the provincial government as to whom is responsible for roads or whatever the situation is." That seemed to be the biggest hold-up in getting things straightened around.
Mr. Wien: Yes. It takes up an enormous amount of energy.
Senator Gustafson: Is that still there?
Mr. Wien: Yes. In fact, I am thinking of a research project to document just how wasteful that kind of dickering is.
Senator Gustafson: It is an end. You run up against a block wall and you cannot move.
Mr. Wien: It is a handicap that particularly Aboriginal communities and businesses face because they are in this rather unique constitutional and jurisdictional situation.
The Chairman: Are there any further questions?
Dr. Wien, would you care to comment on Canadian society as such? I think there is interest and a certain concern in our country for the plight of Aboriginal people. The Prime Minister, I know, has had one round table conference this fall, and there are further round tables planned to deal with different aspects of Aboriginal people such as health, education and economic development.
Do you find in your work and studies that there is a certain consciousness or concern with regard to the plight of the Aboriginal people, particularly as to means? How are Aboriginal people in our country to be lifted up and made able to contribute to Canadian society? Do you have thoughts on that? Is Canadian society ready and willing to be of assistance to Aboriginal people in their plight to get on their feet?
Mr. Wien: I could make two comments on that. First, in working with the royal commission over a four-year period, I found that the level of receptivity and interest on the part of the Canadian public to Aboriginal issues went up and down quite a bit. In the early stages of the commission's work, between 1992 and 1994, in the context of Oka and Meech Lake and the Charlottetown Accord, I thought there was considerable interest, not only on the part of the Canadian public but in sectors like the media and so forth. If we had been able to report within a two-year period, the timing would have been very good.
What happened was the attention of the country shifted. Governments became very concerned with deficits at the provincial and federal level. The Reform Party was taking a different position on Aboriginal issues. I had the feeling then that there was not a lot of interest in a royal commission report which might state that in order to rectify the situation, at least for a certain period of time we might have to spend more rather than less.
When the commission reported in 1996, the Minister of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at the time did not seem particularly interested. However, within a few short months, economists, bankers and others started to document the fact that we would quickly be in a situation of surplus and we could do some things that seemed impossible beforehand.
There was a new minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada in the person of Jane Stewart who, I think, took the royal commission report as a framework. She said she had it on her bedside table, which I am not sure I would recommend. She organized a formal response on behalf of the federal government to the royal commission report. A lot of things came out of that, for example, the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, the apology for residential schools, and so on. There is considerable fluctuation.
The other point I would make is that at a general level — and opinion surveys bear this out — there is a strong level of interest on the part of the Canadian public in supporting Aboriginal peoples and reducing the inequalities in health, education and other areas. That support is still there. Where it breaks down is when push comes to shove and you have a situation like the fishery where there is a limited and, perhaps, declining resource. Because of court decisions and other things you are trying to reintroduce a new set of players into the fishery with licences, quotas and so forth. At the level of individual fishing communities, hostilities quickly develop because you have set up a competing kind of situation where people will see that if these people come in, then we will get less.
I was in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, for example, when some of those incidents occurred. It spread not only from the wharf, but into the school system where the school children were divided.
The Chairman: If there are no further questions, I want to thank you, Dr. Wien, for your presentation. You are the first witness in our study. We will focus on this issue of Aboriginal people and economic development for the next year or so. You have helped us focus on the issues that we need to deal with. I want to thank you very much for coming here this evening.
Mr. Wien: Thank you for the invitation. If I can help in any other way I would be happy to do that.
The Chairman: This completes the formal part of our committee meeting tonight. We now need to go in camera and deal with some technical budget matters. I will conclude this portion of our meeting and ask all spectators to leave because this needs to be an in camera session.
Is it agreeable, though, that our staff remains, senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The committee continued in camera.
The committee resumed.
The Chairman: Members have had a chance to consider the budgets. I will call the committee meeting back to order to deal with the budgets of our committee.
We could deal with these in turn. The first budget is to deal with legislation of $19,617 to cover the expenses of our committee dealing with legislation to the year ending March 31, 2005. Are members agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is moved by Senator Gustafson, seconded by Senator Hubley. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
The second budget is to deal with the special study on involvement of Aboriginal communities and businesses in economic development activities in Canada, and a budget of $105,955 to cover expenditure to the end of March 31, 2005. Is there agreement? Senator Hubley makes the motion, seconded by Senator Gustafson. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried. The third budget is for legislation; it is an application for budget authorization for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006, for $36,540. Senator Gustafson moves, seconded by Senator Hubley. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
A new version of the draft budget will be submitted to the committee at a future meeting.
Let me just tell you about our plan for future meetings. We have a witness for Wednesday, November 24, Manny Jules, former chair of Indian Taxation Advisory Board and former chief of Kamloops Indian Band. For Tuesday, November 30, Professor Jon Altman from Australian National University via video conference; and on Wednesday, December 1, professors Stephen Cornell and Joseph Kalt, co-directors of Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development.
We are still awaiting a response from the Assembly of First Nations leader, Phil Fontaine, and Judy Whiteduck, who is responsible for economic development for the AFN. We are also considering inviting George Erasmus, co-chairman of the royal commission. Those are the witnesses that we have lined up thus far for future committee meetings.
We anticipate, if we have approval for our budget, to go on a fact-finding trip to Yellowknife, Inuvik, the latter part of January; and in the spring sometime, a fact-finding trip to B.C. and Alberta. The next subsequent trip will be to northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. We will do that either this spring or probably next fall. That is the plan of the committee thus far. Are there any comments on this?
If not, thank you very much for attending. I appreciate your attendance. Our next meeting is next Wednesday.
Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned.