Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 21 - Evidence - March 2, 2011
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 2, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 4:17 p.m. to study current issues pertaining to Canada's largest cities (topic: social inclusion and cohesion).
Senator Art Eggleton (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: I call this meeting to order. Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
We continue with our study pertaining to Canada's largest cities on the issue of social inclusion and cohesion. At this meeting, we will be dealing with issues involving urban Aboriginal peoples and their inclusion in our cities.
On the first panel this evening we have some inside people, so to speak. From Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC, we have Allan MacDonald, Director General, Office of the Federal Interlocutor; and Denis Carignan, Director, Office of the Federal Interlocutor, Saskatchewan.
Our old friends from Statistics Canada frequently come to our meetings and give us all sorts of valuable information. It may baffle us at times, but it is very helpful. Today, we have Jane Badets, Director General, Census Subject Matter, Social and Demographic Statistics Branch, who is assisted by Cathy Connors, Assistant Director, Social and Aboriginal Statistics.
Ms. Badets will speak first, followed by Mr. MacDonald, after we will have a question and answer period.
Jane Badets, Director General, Census Subject Matter, Social and Demographic Statistics Branch, Statistics Canada: Thank you for inviting Statistics Canada to present to you today. We have numbers, as we always do at Statistics Canada. I have a presentation deck in both English and French.
We were asked to provide information on the living conditions of Aboriginal people in urban areas. Given the amount of time that I have, I can only touch on some topics, although we have lots of information. I will give you some highlights in a few key areas and talk about some key indicators around the demographic situation of Aboriginal people in urban areas, which include health, education, labour and housing conditions. I will conclude with family situations and feelings about community.
Slide 3 gives a few definitions. There are many ways to define the Aboriginal population or Aboriginal peoples. We asked a number of questions on the census form, and we used a self-reported definition. Respondents would have had to self-identify as a First Nations, North American Indian, Metis or Inuit person.
Today I will use the term ``population centres.'' Statistics Canada has moved from only using the term ``urban areas,'' given the complexities of how we could classify different parts of the country as urban or rural. We now call them population centres — the definition is in front of you — which is an area with a population of at least 1,000 people and a density of 400 or more people per square kilometre. Where I can, I will talk about cities, what we call census metropolitan areas and census agglomeration.
Slide 4 shows the growth of the Aboriginal population over time. We have been collecting data since 1901 by way of an ancestry concept. In 1996, we introduced the self-identification question that I talked about in the definitions.
We see growth in the Aboriginal population. In 2006, the Aboriginal self-identity population was just over 1 million. Sixty per cent of that population is First Nations or North American Indian, one third is Metis and the rest is Inuit.
The Aboriginal population is growing. It is a young and diverse population. Slide 5 breaks out the diversity of the Aboriginal population to show growth and how that compares to the non-Aboriginal population, and also the factors affecting the growth.
As we can see, the Aboriginal population is growing faster than the non-Aboriginal population, but this growth differs by Aboriginal group. For example, the Metis was the fastest growing Aboriginal group; it grew by one third during this period compared to 5 per cent for the non-Aboriginal population.
All Aboriginal groups are growing because of natural increase, or fertility. For example, the Inuit and First Nations with registered status had a growth rate of about 12 per cent each, and that was largely due to natural increase.
There was certainly natural increase for Metis, but there were other factors, which are indicated by the yellow shading. We find that more people are self-identifying as Metis, for a number of reasons.
The other group that is growing quite quickly is First Nations without status. Some of that growth is due to natural increase, but there are other reasons having to do with the determination of who is status.
That gives you a sense of the growth. It is a young population. Overall, the Aboriginal population median age is about 27 years, compared to 39 years for the non-Aboriginal population.
Slide 6 shows where the different Aboriginal groups live. Over half of the Aboriginal population was living in population centres in 2006. Forty-five per cent of First Nations people were living in population centres. This includes 74 per cent of First Nations without registered Indian status and 38 per cent First Nations with registered status. Some of those, of course, will be living on-reserve.
The majority of Metis were in population centres. A growing proportion of Inuit are living outside the Inuit homeland, and I will talk a bit about that.
Slide 7 shows some cities where First Nations live. Not surprisingly, the largest numbers were in Winnipeg. In fact, Winnipeg had the highest Aboriginal population. One in ten residents in Winnipeg were Aboriginal in 2006.
Slide 8 shows where Metis were living by city. Again the largest numbers were in Winnipeg, followed by Edmonton and Vancouver.
Slide 9 shows where Inuit were most likely to live outside the North. While the numbers are small, there is a community in Ottawa-Gatineau, Yellowknife, Edmonton, Montreal and Winnipeg.
Turning to key indicators, slide 10 shows a variety of health characteristics for the three Aboriginal groups compared to the non-Aboriginal population. This is the off-reserve population, so it includes both rural and urban areas. We can see that each Aboriginal group living off-reserve was less likely than the non-Aboriginal population to report that they had excellent or very good health. Each Aboriginal group was less likely than the non-Aboriginal population to say that they did not have an activity limitation in their day-to-day living conditions, and each Aboriginal group was more likely to report diagnosed chronic conditions.
Slide 11 shows their educational profile. We are looking at the 25-to-54-year-old group, and this is more of the urban population. The proportion of the Aboriginal population with a college education was about the same as that of the non-Aboriginal population living in population centres, at around 22 per cent. Aboriginal people were slightly more likely to have trades than non-Aboriginal people. However, we can see that Aboriginal people were more likely to have less than a high school education and less likely to have university credentials.
Slide 12 gives some information about the employment situation of Aboriginal people living in population centres. They did have a lower employment rate at the time of the 2006 census, and there were differences between each Aboriginal group, with Metis having the highest employment rate at 75.9 per cent.
Slide 13 shows the same population, 25- to 34-year-olds with post-secondary credentials. We see that the gap narrows and comes closer to the non-Aboriginal population and that the employment rate varies by city. For example, it was 81.7 per cent for Aboriginal people living in Montreal and 78.5 per cent in Vancouver.
The next two slides are about housing conditions, another important area. We usually use two key indicators, one around crowding and the proportion of those living in a crowded dwelling; and the other is self-reporting of whether your dwelling is in need of major repairs, for example.
This slide looks at crowding. We can see that the percentage of Aboriginal people living in crowded dwellings was higher in Western cities, in particular, Prince Albert, Regina, Saskatoon and Edmonton. In contrast, Aboriginal people living in Montreal, Ottawa, Gatineau, Toronto, and Vancouver were less likely than their non-Aboriginal counterparts to be living in crowded dwellings.
Slide 15 addresses the element about whether they felt their dwelling was in need of major repairs. We can see across all major cities shown here that Aboriginal people were two to three times more likely than non-Aboriginal people to report that they were living in a dwelling that needed major repair. That is another way of looking at housing conditions.
I will talk about family situation and community. Slide 16 shows the family situation of young Aboriginal children is living in urban areas compared to those living in rural areas. While a highest proportion live with two parents, we see that a higher proportion of Aboriginal children in population centres were living with one parent compared to their counterparts in rural areas. It could be that the one parent is elsewhere, such as in the city for education or work, so we do not know the full situation. However, it gives us some indication of family situations.
Slide 17 shows the proportion of people living in low-income families for populations centres. Looking at total age groups, we can see that the rate of low-income Aboriginal families is higher compared to non-Aboriginal families. Children are defined as under the age of 15 years. The highest proportion of children living in low-income situations were First Nations children at 38 per cent. Proportions for Metis children were 25 per cent, and Inuit were 26 per cent.
I will conclude with some information from the Aboriginal Children's Survey, ACS, which looked at parents and young children and their feelings about the communities they lived in, in particular in population centres. They were asked to rate their feelings from excellent to poor for a variety of community facilities or activities. We see that relatively high proportions of children in population centres had parents who rated their community as excellent or very good as a place for good schools, adequate facilities for children and health facilities. On the far right of the slide, you can see that a lower proportion rated their community in an urban area as excellent or very good for First Nations, Metis or Inuit cultural activities.
That is a brief overview to give you some very high-level trends. Slide 19 summarizes what we know: Aboriginal people in cities or population centres constitute a growing and diverse young population. They lived in larger numbers in the Western cities, such as Winnipeg, Edmonton, Saskatoon and Prince Albert. They were less likely to have a university education but a fair proportion had college or trades. Employment rates were lower, but the gap narrowed when we looked at people with post-secondary credentials only. Their housing conditions varied by city. Certainly, feelings about community were important, as were family situations.
The Chair: I would like to clarify one thing. You talked about population centres and rural areas. Under ``rural'' are you including reserves for First Nations?
Ms. Badets: Yes. We tried to pull that out on a few charts. It would not be in the population centres, I do not believe.
Cathy Connors, Assistant Director, Social and Aboriginal Statistics, Statistics Canada: For any of the data from the Aboriginal Peoples Survey, the reserves would not be included.
Ms. Badets: In most cases, they would not be included.
The Chair: Reserves are not in here. It is only people off-reserve.
Ms. Badets: For the most part, no, but we tried to show that, where possible. I would have to look at the specific slide, but most often we showed that separately.
Allan MacDonald, Director General, Office of the Federal Interlocutor, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators, for the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about the social inclusion and cities and to focus a bit on urban Aboriginal issues, as our colleagues from Statistics Canada have begun to do. The front part of my statement picks up on much of the data that Ms. Badets has gone through. I will go through that part quickly and turn the conversation over to a particularly different approach. I want to highlight some of the high-level findings that my colleague has gone through.
To give an overview of the urban Aboriginal population, this is a very large, growing and diverse population, in particular in the West but not exclusively. There are significant urban Aboriginal populations in the East as well. At present overall, 54 per cent of all Aboriginal people live in cities. This number has grown significantly in the last 10 to 15 years. For example, in Winnipeg and Edmonton, the Aboriginal populations have grown by 50 per cent and 60 per cent respectively since 1996, which is incredible. Also, as Ms. Badets indicated, this is a very diverse population made up of First Nations, Inuit, Metis and non-status Indians, many of whom have been living in cities for awhile. It is not just new immigrants coming into the cities. There has been a stable population in the urban environment for some time. According to Environics Research Group, this will be a permanent population in the cities going forward that will have an increasing impact on cities.
To conclude on some of the demographic diversities, this snapshot changes from city to city. As the data indicates, in Winnipeg, for instance, the Metis population is predominant. In Vancouver and Toronto the First Nations population is predominant. Ottawa has a very large Inuit population. There is diversity between the cities.
With respect to the socio-economic situation, the data that Ms. Badets indicated is telling. The bottom line is that the promise of moving to and living in a city for a better jobs, education and services is not being realized by many Aboriginal people.
I will take the conversation to a different approach after moving through some of the demographics. I will talk about some of the policy and programming complexity that exists in the urban Aboriginal environment. In this environment of our large cities, we have three levels of government delivering a wide variety of services to this population, some targeted to the Aboriginal population and some to a wider audience. On the federal-government side, more than 30 departments deliver programs in this area. These multiple jurisdictions and multiple points of service delivery plus a very mobile population and great diversity have created a complex policy and programming environment, for which no one level of government or department is actually responsible. That creates the possibility of programming gaps, duplication and, in some cases, jurisdictional confusion. It is not exactly chaos, but it is a complex policy and programming environment.
In 1997, the federal government looked at the situation in the urban Aboriginal environment and decided to take a leadership — not ownership — role to address some of these issues by creating the Urban Aboriginal Strategy, UAS.
In 2007 the Government of Canada committed $68.5 million over five years to the UAS with the goal of working in partnership to increase the economic participation of Aboriginal people living in key urban centres.
The UAS currently operates in 13 cities across the country: Vancouver, Prince George, Lethbridge, Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, Prince Albert, Saskatoon, Thompson, Winnipeg, Thunder Bay, Ottawa and Toronto. All of these cities have significant Aboriginal populations. In addition, we are also doing some preliminary work in Montreal and Halifax.
The UAS works in these cities through community steering committees, and these committees have participation from the urban Aboriginal community and all levels of government. In some cases, we have utilized existing community structures to work through, and in other cases, we have established community steering committees from within the community. In all cases, our approach has been inclusive of the diverse nature of the urban Aboriginal environment.
These steering committees help to identify local priorities and work collaboratively with all levels of government to address local challenges. While each city is unique and has developed its own local priorities, all of these cities target the same three national priorities that have been established under the UAS: improving life skills; promoting job training, skills and entrepreneurship; and supporting Aboriginal women, children and families.
When local priorities are established, we are able to target and coordinate federal programming to meet those needs rather than having communities adjust their needs to meet our programming requirements. One of the fundamental pillars of the UAS is engaging and supporting communities in their efforts to interact with government, which can be confusing.
Another pillar of the UAS is horizontal coordination across the federal government. One of the innovations that we have pioneered under the UAS to enhance federal coordination is the creation of horizontal terms and conditions. This is a mechanism by which other federal government departments can, in effect, pool their money and flow their funding through a single agreement to a recipient, which not only coordinates federal efforts around a project but also makes it easier on the recipient to interact with government. This innovation also seeks to ensure that federal financial investments are maximized, well aligned and mutually supportive.
The UAS has been successful in creating innovative partnership opportunities amongst all levels of government and various stakeholders, which is another key component of the strategy. To date, UAS projects have involved over 100 partners in all levels of government, non-profit organizations and the private sector. As a result of this, over the past three years, $41 million of UAS funding has leveraged $42 million of funding from other funding partners — $22.2 million from provinces and municipalities, $6.6 million from Aboriginal organizations and $13.3 million from the not- for-profit and private sector. In addition, other federal government departments have contributed money to these same UAS projects.
The UAS projects we are supporting in partnership with others are having a positive impact on the urban Aboriginal community and the cities in which we operate. For example, we have provided life-skills training to young Aboriginal mothers seeking to transition to the workforce from bad domestic situations, supported training and apprenticeships for Aboriginal youth and helped urban Aboriginal youth exit the gang life. We have also influenced municipalities to provide greater focus in this area and formalized our relationships with governments to align and coordinate our efforts to address urban Aboriginal issues in the complex environment that I have outlined. These are some of the successes of the UAS.
In closing, and on a more general note, cities are becoming home to an increasing number of Aboriginal people, and this is a fairly dramatic and recent phenomenon. The Urban Aboriginal Peoples Study in 2010, completed by Environics, told us that in the urban environment, Aboriginal people are making a choice to live in cities to pursue the promise of a better future for themselves and their families. They seek what they call the ``good life'' — better education, jobs and a better future for their children.
I do not think we have all grasped the implications or the opportunities of this for our cities, and I welcome the interest of this committee on this matter as it pertains to social inclusion in cities.
I will stop now and entertain your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I have heard about the frequent movement between urban areas and rural reserves by First Nations, and the phenomenon is called ``churn.'' Does Statistics Canada have any statistical information on the frequency of those moves or how many people are involved?
Ms. Badets, what particular challenges does this pose?
Ms. Badets: Statistics Canada does collect data on that. At the time of the census, we asked respondents where they lived one year ago and where they lived five years ago. In that sense, we can monitor that. It is at specific points in time; we do not see all the movements, and it is a little difficult to follow.
We have not done much research into that. I know that some parts of INAC have done a little more. We do see a lot of mobility. We have to quantify that, but it is there.
The Chair: Mr. MacDonald, does that back and forth movement of people pose particular challenges?
Mr. MacDonald: I will add a couple of things. First, it is not just a reserve phenomenon. People in the non-reserve and remote communities are moving into the urban environment as well. We have done some research on migration into cities and have quantified that to some extent.
There is lots of mobility within an urban Aboriginal environment as well, and both of those things create challenges for policy and programming. It is hard to track the Aboriginal population; it is hard for them to access the services they need to access; and we do not always understand when and how Aboriginal people are coming into the cities, so we cannot prepare accordingly for that type of transition. That movement alone creates an extra complexity in the environment.
The Chair: The Youth Gang Prevention Fund, YGPF, to try to keep Aboriginal youth from getting into gangs is a good idea. I understand that the money expires at the end of this month. Do you know whether it will be renewed? Do you anticipate that?
Mr. MacDonald: The Youth Gang Prevention Fund is not in our department. I am not sure what department it is in. It is probably crime prevention or Public Safety Canada. I do not know the status of that.
The Chair: I will ask about the Urban Aboriginal Strategy. You have pointed out that committees exist in each of these 13 communities.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes.
The Chair: As well, you are having another look at two more. Do all levels of government and the community participate in that in the 13 that exist?
Mr. MacDonald: In most cases, yes. That is certainly how it has been designed. These are supposed to be broad- based committees with inclusive Aboriginal participation as well as participation by both levels of government.
The Chair: Do municipalities participate in it as well?
Mr. MacDonald: In some cases they do, yes.
The Chair: Do you think this is a good vehicle? Has it been generally working quite well?
Mr. MacDonald: I think it has generally been working quite well. I do not think that there has been the same level of coordination and effort to bring all the parties together under one window into the community in the past.
The Chair: You have said that it exists to improve life skills, promote job training, skills, entrepreneurship and to support Aboriginal women, children and families. What about housing issues for Aboriginal peoples? Those are big issues, as we learn from Statistics Canada. Another big issue is education, namely, graduation and moving into post- secondary as opposed to dropping out. Are these areas that the UAS and these steering committees could be addressing?
Mr. MacDonald: They could certainly be helping. In some cases we are partnering with other federal departments, such as in the Homelessness Partnering Strategy, HPS, to make their dollars go a bit further.
The focus of this strategy is more on the areas that I have mentioned. Other programs focus more specifically on housing and homelessness. There are some Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, programs and HPS programs.
The Chair: You have ideal collaboration here. These steering committees could have their mandates expanded. If they are well representative of all the elements that have come together to try to help support Aboriginal people, it sounds as though it is a good vehicle.
Mr. MacDonald: I agree. In some cases, we are partnering with the groups to make the money go further. Currently, the focus is on the areas that we have established there. Certainly, as I have indicated, there are projects that do include housing initiatives.
The Chair: YGPF does not come under your jurisdiction. We need to check on that and find out how that is going.
Mr. MacDonald: That particular program does not fall under our rubric, but we do have some projects that support similar goals.
The Chair: I thought you mentioned it.
Mr. MacDonald: There is a project in Regina called the Regina Anti-Gang Services, RAGS, where we partnered with Public Safety Canada to put a project in place. That specific responsibility is with a different department.
Senator Dyck: Thank you for the presentation. I am quite familiar with many of the statistics from 2006. Those are the kinds of data that turn my crank. I have questions about gender in the data presented and whether you have broken it down with respect to Aboriginal women with degrees or the gender difference of Aboriginal people going into trades.
As well, Mr. MacDonald, you talked about the UAS. You mentioned that one of the national priority areas is supporting Aboriginal women, children and families and that one of the funded projects is helping young Aboriginal mothers transition to the workforce from bad domestic situations. With respect to the data provided, can you determine or suggest that perhaps one reason that people move from reserves to urban centres is that women are leaving, whether for a better life generally or to escape domestic abuse, for example? Can you determine whether there is a loss of status by marriage? I do not believe that those factors were addressed specifically or whether they can be addressed from the data collected.
Ms. Badets: I do not have with me numbers on the proportions of Aboriginal women by group, trades and university. Certainly, we can get that information. However, we know that Aboriginal women, especially First Nations women, come back later to do their education. They might have early family formation and come to post-secondary education later. We would have to look at it in terms of completion, especially with university degrees.
Senator Dyck: I know that it is about twice as high for Aboriginal women than for Aboriginal men. An interesting statistic in a news article was that Aboriginal women with university degrees earn as much as non-Aboriginal women, but they still do not earn as much as non-Aboriginal men. The degree helps significantly.
With respect to status and non-status, slide 6 indicates that 74 per cent of First Nations people without status live in population centres. That is why I asked whether loss of status was part of the reason for moving to cities. Without status, you cannot live on-reserve.
Ms. Badets: That is all we would know. I do not think we ask that question in any of our surveys. Certainly, you are right; the slide speaks to 74 per cent of First Nations without status living in urban areas.
Senator Dyck: Slide 16 shows Aboriginal children living with one parent. Do you have data to indicate whether that is living with a mother versus living with a father?
Ms. Badets: Yes, we would have that.
Senator Dyck: Would it be mostly with a mother? Do you recall?
Ms. Badets: Yes, it is mostly with a mother.
Mr. MacDonald: I do not have the specific data here, but I know from the types of programs we run that by far most of the single parents living in an urban environment are young mothers with children as opposed to men living with children. I am not belittling the fact that there could be a reverse situation, but the majority are single mothers.
Senator Dyck: Within the funded programs under the UAS, are any directed to educating women on self-protection and other safety issues against violence? Are there such programs?
Denis Carignan, Director, Office of the Federal Interlocutor, Saskatchewan Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: Those types of projects have been funded. It varies by community because each community sets its own priorities for their community. For example, in Regina, one of the priorities is escape strategies from violence and gang lifestyle. Projects have been funded in the past that have that type of content.
Senator Dyck: Slide 14 shows Aboriginal people living in crowded dwellings and indicates that it is higher in the western regions. Do you have any thoughts as to why that should be the case?
Mr. Carignan: Anecdotally, we have seen a lot of that with a fairly strong labour market and economy, especially in Saskatchewan. In the three centres, the vacancy rates are less than 1 per cent and the rents are very high. It makes it challenging for people at the lower income levels to find suitable places to live. We are seeing much more overcrowding.
Senator Callbeck: Mr. MacDonald, you talked about the UAS and said that it is working quite well and making a difference. It is a five-year strategy. Has there been any discussion about renewing the funding?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes. The strategy ends in 2012. The government will have to make a decision where it wants to take it next. As is the usual case, the government will have the option of renewing, terminating, adjusting or expanding it in some way. I imagine that the government will have a number of considerations, such as expansion, working more closely with the National Association of Friendship Centres, NAFC, and programming on reserves. We will have to think about many questions in the context of renewal.
Senator Callbeck: Has there been any discussion to date?
Mr. MacDonald: There has been some internal discussion, but we have not engaged communities on where we want to take the UAS. The government has not weighed in yet on where it wants to take the program.
Senator Callbeck: In the first part of your presentation, you talked about the complexity of policy and programming. We have three levels of government and 30 government departments delivering programs. There is no question that it is confusing. Do you have any recommendations that might simplify the situation?
Mr. MacDonald: I do not want to trumpet the UAS as the solution to everything, but there are three things you need to do to reduce complexity. First, you need to have better federal horizontal coordination; government departments need to talk to each other a bit more and develop tools through which they can flow funding.
Second, governments need to work better together. In some cases, that might mean formalizing relations with provincial and municipal governments to target particular areas.
Third, you need to support the urban Aboriginal community to set their own priorities and do their own planning. We need to respond to their priorities. Those are three general recommendations I would make — build the capacity of the community, coordinate the federal government across the board and work more closely with other governments who have a big stake in this as well.
Senator Callbeck: You said that no one government or group is responsible. Do you think one entity should be responsible? Would it help if one person were responsible for coordinating the various departments and agencies involved?
Mr. MacDonald: The federal government shows some leadership in this area. About 10 to 15 years ago, this issue did not have much of a coordinating sphere around it. The federal government is showing some leadership; communities are building their capacity; and the provinces are coming around as well. I am not sure that one party has to own it, but there needs to be some leadership. The federal government has shown some leadership in the area.
Senator Callbeck: Slide 11 shows the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal population aged 25 to 54 by the educational levels. College levels for each group were pretty much the same at 21 per cent and 22 per cent. There is a big gap at the university level, with Aboriginal people at 10 per cent and non-Aboriginal people at 27 per cent.
Do you have any data that suggest the reason for this large gap?
Ms. Badets: The census provides that snapshot through educational profiles. We look at it over time, of course. We also do the Aboriginal Peoples Survey. I do not think we have ever asked Aboriginal people why they do not go on to university or why they drop out of high school. It is not something we know specifically. I am sure many people have many opinions on it, but we do not know the answer.
Senator Callbeck: There is no data. Slide 14 shows the percentage of Aboriginal people living in crowded dwellings. In Calgary, the percentage for Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people is the same. Why is that so in Calgary as compared to other cities?
Ms. Badets: My colleague talked about what is occurring in Saskatchewan, for example, and the types and availability of housing, in particular for low-income situations. Maybe Calgary is good in terms of people having access to affordable housing.
Mr. MacDonald: I cannot answer that, but it jumps out at me.
Senator Merchant: We are dealing with statistics. Your information comes from census data, and Aboriginal people move a lot. How accurate is your information? What kind of return you do you get on the census?
Ms. Badets: A census is a big undertaking. Certainly, Statistics Canada uses all possible ways of getting that follow- up and the best quality information. It is the best quality information in Canada, but that is not to say that we do not miss people. Overall, we miss about 2 per cent of the population in total. We know that some groups are more mobile, such as young males, recent immigrants and Aboriginal people, making it a little more difficult. We make efforts to outreach to Aboriginal organizations and communities as well. We have a liaison program of Aboriginal officers across Canada working with Aboriginal communities to promote the census and explain why it is important.
Certainly, we do our very best; and it is the best data that we have.
Senator Merchant: Now that we are changing the census procedure, are you concerned that making it voluntary will change the quality or quantity of statistics that you receive?
Ms. Badets: We are asked this question everywhere. We will do the new National Household Survey, NHS, which is voluntary. We will not know about it until we have collected the information. We are making all kinds of efforts to promote the importance of this information to Canadians. We are enumerating in the North, and it is going quite well. Certainly, it is important for all Canadians to participate in the National Household Survey and provide us with the quality information that we need. We are hopeful that it will be useful information.
Senator Merchant: Are you concerned?
Ms. Badets: We are confident that it will be usable information. Until we have collected, analyzed and processed the information, we will not know for sure.
Senator Merchant: To the whole panel, are things improving for Aboriginal communities as compared to 10, 20 or 30 years ago? Could you tell us the areas where there has been no improvement, some improvement, a lot of improvement, as well as the areas that you are concerned about? How is the Aboriginal population doing?
Mr. MacDonald: I will take a shot at that. I focused on the urban environment. We have seen an improvement on a number of the socio-economic indicators, but the gap still persists. As the Aboriginal population improves along that scale, so does the non-Aboriginal population. The issue will be to close the gap.
Out West, there will be a potential labour market issue as the young Aboriginal population comes into the labour force to meet the huge demand. That will present itself as an opportunity to close the gap or as a problem that will increase significantly. You will have to target that young population and get them educated in some of the trades and into apprenticeship programs. That is probably a significant public policy issue to look at in the future. In particular, that will be in Western Canada.
Senator Merchant: Has there been an improvement in the health of First Nations people in cities?
Mr. MacDonald: I cannot say, because I am not aware of that data.
Ms. Badets: I am not sure either. We may have looked at it, but I do not know offhand.
Senator Merchant: Some of this is self-reporting data. Do First Nations people complain as much as non-Aboriginal people? We use different tools and work differently. How accurate is the picture? I know you are trying to present the best information, but I wonder how accurate it is.
Senator Cordy: This is very interesting. We are studying the issue of inclusion. It is sort of sad when we have to have a special panel on Aboriginal peoples in terms of being included in the Canadian population.
Slide 18 shows parents of young Aboriginal children under six years of age, excluding reserves, and their satisfaction with a number of issues. Is the data self-reported? How is the survey taken?
Returning to Senator Merchant's questions, what are the expectations of people who move to urban areas? I have heard that perhaps their expectations are not as high as they should be. Perhaps you can tell me how you obtained this information.
Ms. Connors: For the Aboriginal Children's Survey, we asked the parents of children under the age of six to report. We asked them to rate their community from excellent to poor. It was a scale for a number of different areas within their communities. This was the parents' perception of how they felt about their community as a place with good schools or a place with adequate health facilities.
Senator Cordy: Did you collect any data on Aboriginal people living in urban areas or population centres with respect to the attachment they feel to their urban area?
Ms. Connors: We did not ask those questions on the survey. It was really questions about the facilities and the activities within their community. We did not ask specifically about their attachment to their city.
Mr. MacDonald: Environics recently did an interesting survey, as I mentioned, the Urban Aboriginal People Survey. They looked at exactly those types of questions: What are the attitudes and aspirations of people living in the city? There were some interesting findings.
I would refer the committee to have a look at the survey in detail. In general, the findings are that cities are very welcoming places for urban Aboriginal people, and urban Aboriginal people feel that they can make quite a contribution to the cities in which they live without giving up their cultural background or heritage or aspirations as well. It is not the best methodology out there, but it is an illuminating survey from a different data source than Statistics Canada.
Mr. Carignan: On a project-specific basis, in Saskatchewan, each of our steering committees has set cultural identity as a priority. In all three cities, we have projects related to transferring and bringing that cultural identity in for our First Nations and Metis people in our cities, primarily in schools. In Regina, we are funding an elders and residents program along with the province and the public school division. The purpose is to get people to see a role model inside the school. It is having a positive effect in terms of attendance, which in turn is affecting some of the results that we are seeing in the 30 schools in which these people work.
Senator Cordy: I think if you had programs in all the schools, that would affect the numbers shown on the graph on slide 18. The lowest numbers are how they feel about First Nations, Metis and Inuit cultural activities. If you were to do that, I would think those numbers would go up.
Mr. Carignan: They would rise.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much for your presentation. Mr. MacDonald, you said that in 2007 the Government of Canada committed $68.5 million on this Urban Aboriginal Strategy with the goal of working in partnership. You also said that you work in cities through local community steering committees and that in all cases, the approach has been inclusive of the diverse nature of the urban Aboriginal environment. Could you tell us what you mean when you say that it has been inclusive and then how you achieve this inclusiveness?
Mr. MacDonald: As I have indicated, we work through these community steering committees. In some cases, we have had to establish these in cities where we have not had an existing structure with which to work. We ensure that these committees have representation from First Nation, Inuit — where there is an Inuit population — and Metis and that there is a service-delivery component to it. We have the participation of provinces and municipalities as well. That is what we mean by inclusive.
We are at the table as well, as a partner of the federal government, and we bring not only our office to the table but also other federal government departments, depending on the nature of project. It is a broad-based, inclusive partnership that is inclusive of the community and also governments and other stakeholders that have an interest in the urban Aboriginal community.
Senator Seidman: I am specifically interested in the Aboriginal people. We have the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Métis National Council, the Inuit and the Assembly of First Nations, all these groups. Are they all involved in the UAS?
Mr. MacDonald: There are local organizations, people representing them or people un-affiliated with the national organizations but still First Nations, Inuit and Metis people. It is a broad-based, inclusive approach.
Senator Seidman: It is interesting that the federal government is involved in off-reserve Aboriginal issues. I would have thought this would be provincial. Would you explain that to us?
Mr. MacDonald: There was a view in the past that the federal government would deal with on-reserve issues and the provincial government would deal with off-reserve issues, but that becomes an esoteric debate after a while. The federal government has a strong interest in the urban Aboriginal environment. We spend lots of money there, not just through our office but through many other programs. It is important that we track those investments and make the most of them.
My experience in the past is that if you start arguing over whose jurisdiction it is, you will get nothing done, as opposed to when you have a practical focus, working with provinces and municipalities on the ground. I do not want to get into issues of jurisdictional wrangling. The federal government has an interest. I think we have a role, and we can play that role without getting into that debate.
Senator Seidman: You said that the federal government is showing leadership, not ownership. That is a particularly interesting statement.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes.
Mr. Carignan: I am a First Nation member of a First Nation in Saskatchewan. I have been working as a federal public servant for about 17 years, mainly on the Aboriginal file on-reserve with Statistics Canada and INAC. This particular strategy is the reason that I came to work for the federal government. It allows us to be connected to the communities; it allows us, as a management culture, to listen to the community interests first and then find partners willing to work with us. That is something that really represents the future of government.
The Chair: That is a good, strong message with which to complete this panel. Thank you to all four of you for being here.
We will turn now to our second panel on the subject of social inclusion and social cohesion, dealing with Aboriginal issues.
I welcome our panellists for this part of the meeting. We have David Chartrand, Vice-President, Métis National Council. He is also the president of the Manitoba Metis Federation, MMF. The Métis National Council, MNC, is the recognized voice of the Metis people nationally and internationally. It receives its mandate and direction from the democratically elected leadership of the Metis nation governments from Ontario westward.
We have Betty Ann Lavallée, National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. She is also former chief of the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council and a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces. Accompanying Ms. Lavallée is Randy Martin, National Bilateral Relations Director. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, CAP, is a nationally incorporated umbrella organization. It represents the interests nationally of its provincial and territorial affiliate organizations.
We also have Rick Simon, Regional Chief, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, Assembly of First Nations. The Assembly of First Nations, AFN, is the national representative organization of the First Nations in Canada. There are over 630 First Nations communities in Canada. The AFN secretariat is designed to present the views of the various First Nations through their leaders.
Welcome to all of you. I will start in the order that I have introduced you, if I might, unless you have a preference to go in another order.
David Chartrand, Vice-President, Métis National Council: Thank you for having us here this evening. It definitely is a pleasure for us to be here to give a quick snapshot of the state of the Metis people from Ontario West, from our perspective. In case people are not aware of the Métis National Council, it is our national body that represents the Metis governments from Ontario to British Columbia. We have five provincial governments, each governed by a ballot-box election province wide. It is the only Aboriginal government structure that is formed in the way that it is across Canada. We are proud of it. We hold it dear to our hearts and vigorously protect it to ensure that every member has a right to vote for its leadership.
The Chair: I forgot to mention one thing. Could each of the three of you who are making opening comments keep your comments to seven minutes?
Mr. Chartrand: That is my plan. I just wanted to make sure people knew who we are.
Statistics Canada defines ``urban'' as a community of 1,000 or more inhabitants. By that definition alone, the Metis would fit into a large category because we live in smaller urban centres. As an example, we dominate Winnipeg with 53 per cent of the Aboriginal population being Metis. We look at that segment of the establishment of our homeland. I heard some questions about mobility. We are not as mobile in the cities. We live in the cities and have been there for some time — in fact, two or three generations now in the urban centres.
I was listening to the previous discussion, and I wanted to go into detail on the statistical method of documentation that we have been able to gather. I do apologize that I have not been able to translate this into French. I tried quickly to put it together. I know I did not give you enough time to read it, but I would hope you would read the entire document that we presented.
My view is completely different to that of the earlier presenters. It is not working. In fact, it is in worse shape than ever. It is unfortunate that it is in that state. As a good example, you heard that the government referenced $65 million spent on urban in the last UAS. In fact, the Metis received 6 per cent of that, yet we dominate such a large populous base in Western Canada. We are not a participant of the process. We tried to be a partner from the beginning; we tried to work with it. It did not take us anywhere. In fact, we are not very fond of it.
I am very proud to say that two prime ministers have now recognized unfortunately that the Metis continue to fall through the cracks. Paul Martin acknowledged it openly and strongly, and Stephen Harper referenced recently at a meeting that the Metis are falling through the cracks and that something has to be done. In the Manitoba Metis Federation, one government alone, we have 52,000 voting members who are 18 years of age or over on our registry. We have a large body to administer and oversee.
We are quite concerned that the continuation of the direction of this program is not beneficial at all. If you use the scenario of a population of over 1,000, under the Urban Multi-Purpose Aboriginal Youth Centre Initiative, UMAYC — they have since changed the name — if a Metis village had 700, 800 or 900 people, it would not be allowed to have any youth programs. Even if we bordered a community that was five miles away from us and had the same populace, we could not join together to be accepted as being eligible for that program.
It truly has been, in our view, something that has been misguided. I know the bureaucracy truly believes in this program. I do not hold anything negative toward their belief, but I know by facts. I have been in politics since 1988. I have been elected too long — I think five different terms. I received 85 per cent of the vote in the last election. It is a challenging issue when you find yourself in a position where governments come and talk about inclusion and inclusionary processes, a partnership, yet they do not include the government that is there representing the people.
One of the things I hope you will see in our document when you read it is that there are so many different groups. You heard the previous speaker talk about subcommittees of 20 or 30 groups together, and those groups are such a mishmash everywhere. They are trying their best to do a service themselves. In fact, it is the only funding that some of them have, and it is not coordinated. You do not know who is going left or right or which door is being opened or closed; there is no coordination.
Statistically, you can see by the evidence throughout urban centres such as Winnipeg that things are not better; they are worse. Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, HRSDC, funds a program now called the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy, ASETS; it was originally called the Aboriginal Human Resources Development Agreement, AHRDA. MMF has ranked top out of 81 AHRDAs in Canada for the last 10 years. It is one of Canada's best programs. It has worked wonders. We have been able to employ and overcome all of our targets that have been imposed on us by the government.
Instead of teaming up with that type of program, the bureaucracy, the government created another program that actually competes with this program instead of partnering with us. If you do not have your football team all working together but have just a quarterback, you will not get far if you do not have defensive. If you do not have a good coach, like the Montreal Canadians are seeing, you will not win. You cannot win with one hockey player. The same concept applies to our process. There is no coordination or a sense of inclusion for Metis governments. As I said, statistics cannot deny that we can prove that we had 6 per cent or $4 million out of $65 million was transferred to our five governments.
At the end of the day, there is no benefit to anyone. It is unfortunate. There is not enough properly coordinated investment. If we are to invest in something, we should look at the short and long term. We should not just invest because it looks good in the media one day and then not wonder about the results. The Metis have always paid taxes and continue to pay taxes today. We pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes annually, and we are not getting our fair share back.
In a nutshell, Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, the Metis feel strongly that the UAS is not a successful program at this point in time. We have a number of structures that we can bring to the table, as the provincial government does. We manage the entire child welfare in Manitoba. We have the mandate and the legislation to oversee all of the child welfare. Instead of coordinating that, bringing all of those resources and partnerships to the table, they exclude us. It is unfortunate, but that is the direction that the department and the bureaucracy have taken, and it truly has held us back.
I tried to keep it within seven minutes.
The Chair: You did very well. I have been looking through your document. You have some recommendations on page 9, the last page of the document, so members can look at that.
Betty Ann Lavallée, National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. It is an honour to speak to this committee on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin peoples about social issues in Canada's largest cities.
I am a status Mi'kmaq woman and have lived all my life off-reserve. I am from Geary, New Brunswick, and I am the former chief and president of the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council, NBAPC. On September 12, 2009, I was elected as National Chief the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. For 40 years, we have represented the rights and interests of off-reserve, status and non-status Indians and Metis people living in urban, rural, remote and isolate areas throughout Canada.
I applaud the work this committee has undertaken to look at social inclusion and cohesion pertaining to Canada's largest cities. The report of the Subcommittee on Cities entitled In From the Margins: A Call to Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness states, ``Despite an extensive array of programs . . . the results being sought are not being achieved.''
Since Senator Croll's 1971 report Poverty in Canada, the committee has heard repeatedly that not much has changed or improved. Both Senate reports focus attention on particular populations, including Aboriginal peoples and single parents, and made recommendations on housing, early learning, education, employment, health care and poverty.
Although some things have changed since 1971, social issues continue to plague our cities, our societies and our peoples. We are also confronted with new challenges, such as issues with accessibility to technologies and the Internet, which can widen the gap between the haves and have-nots.
Christa Rust, in her article Measuring Progress, Strengthening Governance and Promoting Positive Change: Developing sustainability indicators with Winnipeg's urban First Nations community, speaks to the challenges that urban Aboriginal peoples face and states, ``The dynamics of these challenges are poorly understood and, as a result, most policy responses are ineffective.'' The challenge before this committee in addressing urban issues is significant, and I hope to add our views to this discussion.
CAP supports the recommendations contained in the Senate subcommittee report about poverty reduction, the development of a national housing and homelessness strategy, early childhood education, training, education, health and specifically the recommendation that an Aboriginal working group be formed to identify priorities for urban Aboriginal peoples. We would like to work with you on the formation of this working group. Just for clarification, when I talk about early childhood education, I use the term ``from the womb to the tomb.'' Learning is lifelong. It starts in a healthy mother and produces healthy babies, healthy learners.
We also support the recommendation to continue and expand support to Statistics Canada for the collection, analysis and dissemination of data that is important to the evaluation and improvement of social programs. We need this data and information to make evidence-based decisions on policy and programs for Aboriginal peoples living in urban areas. Without the data, we cannot plan for the proper resources that would be required.
Based on years of research on the onset of various diseases and social problems, we know that disease and poverty are linked. Research also tells us that in any community where one exists, so does the other. Where both exist in a community, researchers tell us that we are very likely to find numerous examples of social exclusion and a lack of cohesion in that community. We need to continue to conduct and utilize research to develop problem-solving models.
Aboriginal women have a key role to play in developing and implementing these models. Their traditional roles have always revolved around nurturing not only their family members but also their communities. Methods of how to include elders, youth, newcomers and visitors are part of their traditional and inherent wisdom. Aboriginal women were traditionally given decision-making responsibilities in this regard. Their decisions were generally acknowledged as being wise and very practical. These qualities can be utilized by urban community leaders, private businesses and all levels of government when making community-based decisions in boardrooms, community halls or at policy tables.
Much research has been done on indicators and impacts of Aboriginal youth participating in criminal activities. The criminology researchers tell us the same things as health and sociological researchers: Poverty, exclusion and oppression are linked to participation in criminal activities.
In CAP's work on the number of Aboriginal youth participating in gangs and gang-related activities, we have learned that their participation is often not a conscious choice, but a choice made out of what some call ``habit.'' The majority of these youth live in major Canadian cities such as Vancouver, Edmonton or Winnipeg and are at or below the low-income cut-off levels for that city.
Their parents, other family members and their circle of friends live in similar conditions in the same city neighbourhood or another nearby. These similarities of ``living in poverty'' and ``living in urban areas'' combined with a relatively long family history of social exclusion, oppression, discrimination and shame are the indicators for the development of the habit.
We know that pride and cultural identity contributes to well-being. Without this, youth are more likely to engage in criminal activities, substance abuse and join gangs. Aboriginal youth need a sense of pride and cultural identity.
Aboriginal youth are falling through the cracks of the educational system. Many are being passed from one grade to the next without the proper schooling, or they drop out or graduate with low literacy rates. Once again, the question now becomes whether we should do more research to prove what we already know, or whether we should begin to utilize the research already completed to develop and apply new models of addressing the questions of poverty, education, and employment in urban communities.
CAP supports the Senate committee's recommendation to develop a national housing and homelessness strategy. Our provincial affiliate organizations in Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador all operate off-reserve housing corporations or shelters for women, children and the homeless. Many of these were started well over 40 years ago.
CAP is holding a national housing workshop next week using funds received from the Office of the Federal Interlocutor. We will be bringing our provincial affiliate housing representatives together to discuss housing from a national perspective. The primary outcome of the project is the development of a national housing strategy for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Although housing is a provincial jurisdiction, CAP is very concerned about housing for off-reserve Aboriginal peoples throughout Canada.
Canada denies jurisdiction over Metis and non-status Indians under section 91.24 of the Constitution Act. Most provinces take the position that non-status Indians and Metis are a federal responsibility. The consequence is that 600,000 Metis and non-status Indians have become trapped in a jurisdictional vacuum where there are few government programs for Aboriginal peoples. This is the principal reason why we have not reached our full potential in Canadian society.
In its report fourteen years ago, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, RCAP, observed that the jurisdictional issue ``is the most basic current form of governmental discrimination.'' RCAP recommended unblocking this issue by action in the courts and observed that until this discriminatory practice has been changed, no other remedial measures can be as effective as they should be.
CAP is proceeding with the Daniels v. Canada case. It has been in the system for the last 15 years, and it will now be heard in May. We will take it to the Supreme Court of Canada. This case is to determine if Metis and non-status Indians are Indians under section 91.24.
After 40 years of advocating for and representing the interests of off-reserve non-status and status Indians and Metis Aboriginal peoples living in urban, rural, remote and isolated areas throughout Canada, we see that the main ways to improve the socio-economic conditions of our constituency are education, economic development and supporting human rights legislation, such as the matrimonial real property act. We must utilize the research already done and continually conduct new research to develop and apply new models to address the questions of poverty, education and employment in urban communities.
We must make a strong link between research, policy and the development of programs. CAP is working to develop strategies with the federal government on the whole-of-government approach to address these issues.
The Chair: Thank you for your support of the report In From the Margins, which is a product of this committee.
Next we have Rick Simon, who represents the Assembly of First Nations.
Rick Simon, Regional Chief, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, Assembly of First Nations: I would like to thank you for the opportunity to highlight some of the challenges urban First Nations citizens face and to try to contribute to the study on social inclusion and cohesion in Canada's largest cities. I will attempt to give you an understanding of what the views are of the Assembly of First Nations. They represent all their First Nations citizens.
I want to acknowledge my colleagues here, David Chartrand of the Métis National Council, as well as Betty Ann Lavallée, a fellow Mi'kmaq, who represents the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. I have been with the Assembly of First Nations, AFN, for a number of years and a regional chief for 17 years. I have worked in every aspect of the organization over the years and have been involved in every portfolio. I also had a couple of terms as Deputy National Chief of the AFN. I have been involved in First Nations issues for many years. I look forward to helping you understand where the Assembly of First Nations is trying to go in this whole issue of involvement in urban areas.
In particular, I would like to draw your attention to three critical issues related to addressing the basic needs of urban First Nations citizens: safety, the role of First Nations governments and the portability of our rights.
Addressing the basic needs of urban First Nations citizens, which include safe and affordable housing, food security, education and employment, has important implications for community safety, social cohesion, local economies and Canada's prosperity. First Nations people are the fastest growing segment of the population in Canada, especially in cities in Western Canada. First Nations people make up a significant share of the population.
Despite differences in the size and the composition of urban First Nations populations across Canada, First Nations citizens living in cities lag behind non-indigenous city dwellers in social and economic indicators. They have higher unemployment, lower income, poorer health status, poorer housing, higher rates of homelessness, lower levels of education and a greater dependence on government support.
We know that First Nations women, often the heads of single-parent families, are over-represented in urban populations. This is a direct result of government policies. Our people do not feel safe far too often. Many of our missing and murdered indigenous sisters disappeared from urban areas.
Leaders of all governments need to do a better job of supporting community security and in particular our youth. For too many First Nations youth and young adults, gang involvement and violence are a part of their reality. In fact, Ms. Lavallée spoke to that. We have done work in that area over the years and are currently in the process of trying to work toward some strategy around gang violence. Like everything else, there is no money within government to do the work. That is just an example of the fact that we can highlight the issues, but trying to do the work is better done at our level than at your level.
The protection and safety of First Nation women and children is a basic human right consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. A priority on safety and security through education and critical supports such as recreational facilities and support networks is needed. Our people need to feel comfortable at these places. It is easy to say that cities have YMCAs or similar facilities, but unless our people are comfortable going there, they will not go there. That is pretty obvious.
We have made education a priority because it is a key to unlocking the full potential of First Nations citizens. We feel that education will be the foundation for lasting and positive change. The statistics speak for themselves in that area. As you can see over time, the education of First Nations peoples is getting better; it is the key to moving forward.
We need to work together to determine the appropriate role of First Nations governments in urban First Nations government. Last week, I chaired a panel in Toronto. The forum was hosted by the friendship centres. It was interesting to see how the panel played out. We started off in a small room like any of the other forums. However, our forum was so big that we had to move into the main plenary, which we pretty much filled. That is how much interest there was. We sat for close to an hour, and the feedback was incredible. We talked about AFN and how they are trying to lay out an urban strategy. The feedback from all the different levels of people in the room was positive. The message was that it is about time; what has taken you so long?
The Urban Aboriginal Strategy policy renewal is an opportunity for the federal government to rethink its approach and move away from the problematic pan-Aboriginal framework. As we said earlier, AFN wants to take responsibility for all their citizens regardless of where they live. Thus far, policies have done poorly in taking urban First Nations realities into account and ensuring that programs and services are available regardless of place of residence. This persistent lack of coordination and collaboration has resulted in fragmented services, chronic underfunding and service gaps and has negatively affected the quality of life of urban First Nations citizens. We need a more comprehensive continuum of care across jurisdictional divides and uncertainties.
I heard the comments earlier about not wanting to see any federal-provincial wrangling. We do not want to see that either. However, we are not involved in that wrangling as First Nations people, so we are standing on the outside watching you guys argue about what is best for us, and that is not acceptable.
The best way to establish a continuum of services is to invest in and strengthen the connections between First Nations governments and their citizens. In fact, any restrictions on First Nations rights based on residency off-reserve are not consistent with our inherent and treaty rights as protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In its 1999 Corbière v. Canada decision, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized this fact. We know what followed from that. We have people wanting to come back to our communities. We have people voting in our communities. They want housing and involvement. The monies did not follow the judgment.
Our rights do not stop at the reserve boundaries that Canada imposed on our nations. The UN declaration recognizes our right to self-determination and self-government and calls on all of us to work in mutual respect and partnership.
The longitudinal research of the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development has demonstrated clearly that indigenous self-determination leads to better socio-economic outcomes. First Nations governments and organizations, service providers, such as the friendship centres, and different levels of government need to work together to change the political landscape. Social inclusion for urban First Nations citizens means that they need to be able to act as full citizens of their nations, as well as of Canada.
Above all, it means that we need to strengthen our inherent and treaty rights and to assert our jurisdiction. We need significant investments in First Nations. Investments in First Nations are investments in Canada's future and are a collective well-being, especially in large cities where the majority of Canada's population lives.
The Chair: Thank you. We will go to questions.
I want to explore two things: youth gangs and the UAS. On youth gangs, the federal government put in place a prevention fund. Has that fund has been successful? What do you think should happen to it? The fund is due to expire at the end of this month. Do you know whether it will be renewed? Do you think it is doing the kind of job that it should do? Apparently a high number of Aboriginal youth are becoming involved with gangs; and we can appreciate why this is so. What do we do to prevent it? Is this program good? What are your comments?
Ms. Lavallée: We are aware of the program. After holding the conference on gangs in Saskatoon earlier this year, we are putting together a proposal to address the issue. We are looking for a pilot site where we will work with some of the individuals. It is a joint venture with former members of gangs who have participated in this conference. Included as well were the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Saskatoon police and officials from City of Saskatoon. We are looking for a site to address this issue.
The Chair: Do you receive any funding from the UAS for this?
Ms. Lavallée: No, but we are hoping to receive some.
The Chair: Who receives money from this fund?
Ms. Lavallée: I cannot answer that question.
Mr. Chartrand: There is no question that the gang initiative the government is trying to deal with is not working. In fact, there is a rise in gang members, especially in Winnipeg. We have a vast number of gangs. Our Metis government challenged us to look at ways and means from within our own resources, since we do not get resources from this program.
We created a program that we encourage everyone to look at on our website, www.mmf.mb.ca. It is called Standing Tall. We work with all the schools, and it is making a difference. This program was brought in from the Maori in New Zealand, where they adopted a methodology of family members working directly in the schools. The program has been adopted by the province. That is a good example of a system that will tackle the issue of trying to prevent the younger generation from entering gangs.
The Metis government is not involved in the UAS at all. As I said, we are a big government in Manitoba, but we are not involved.
The Chair: I will come back to the UAS. For now, I will ask Mr. Simon to comment on the gang issue.
Mr. Simon: I was about to ask what the fund is and who it funds. This is the first I have heard of it. I know that AFN has made attempts over the years to coordinate some sort of strategy around gang violence. The chiefs have come to us many times. I am aware of a couple of different occasions that I can speak to you about.
We had a former Native RCMP member who was a specialist in gangs. He worked with AFN for a number of years to try to develop a strategy on gangs. At the end of the day, we went down the road with the RCMP to the point that they were preparing to fund a major strategy, but nothing came of it. It is nice to talk about the idea, but when it comes down to the dollars and cents, we are not getting anywhere. We have even looked at the concept that Ms. Lavallée talked about. At one time, we brought in a former gang member from the Winnipeg area as an expert on the issue to help us create a strategy to keep First Nations youth off the streets and out of gangs. The same thing happened: We started into the work and began to see some results, and then the resources dried up. A real effort needs to be put into that aspect.
The Chair: Do you both prefer to have your organizations funded separately as opposed to a pan-Aboriginal gang fund? Can you initiate this to get some federal funding? Is that what you prefer?
Mr. Chartrand: My presentation is based on that. Too many groups are chasing too few dollars. We have one of the most democratic systems in the homeland of Canada, and we are proud of it. One of the challenges is that we have many tools. In Manitoba, the MMF and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs are working in conjunction to bring our resources of expertise and our programming resources together. We have the mandate for child welfare. First Nations and Metis have their own mandate province wide. We deliver in the different sectorial fields. We agree, as the First Nations government and the Metis government, to bring all those resources together, in addition to the few UAS funds available, to enhance the programs and make them successful. The idea was turned down by the government, which is mind-boggling to us.
The pan-approach will never work. There are no measurables. Anyone who wants to spend money in that field, like any business, needs to look at where that money is being spent and to have measurable targets. I encourage you to look at one of the best programs that we have ever seen come out of Canada: ASETS, which has a distinct-based approach.
The Assembly of First Nations and the Métis National Council want a distinct-based approach because it is a measurable process. We can measure what is being spent, what is being done and what is being achieved. You cannot measure these things using the pan-Aboriginal approach of the Urban Aboriginal Strategy. We spent hundreds of millions of dollars during the last few years. However, ask me if we can produce evidence of success.
The Chair: I will move on to the UAS. I believe that Mr. Chartrand said that it does not serve Metis well and that he prefers something that would involve Metis directly. Maybe all three of you prefer something such as that. We have heard that that it is an opportunity to create community steering committees, which has been done, that bring together on a horizontal basis the federal government, provincial government and municipalities, all of which should be involved along with community people.
Could you comment on whether you think this should be done separately for First Nations, Inuit and Metis? If so, fine; say that. Also, if it is to be along the current framework of the UAS, how could it be made better?
Mr. Chartrand: Without question, we emphasize that having a direct relationship with the Metis government is the way we dream of it happening. We believe that accountability is fundamental. If we are to spend this kind of money, we want to ensure that it is spent where it can be managed and measured at the same time. We know that all of the monies spent — hundreds of millions of dollars in the last 15 years or so — have not achieved the end result. In fact, it is the worst-case scenario in Winnipeg. We have been struggling vigorously with Canadian Heritage and with other departments that administer this.
To give you a quick snapshot, $100 million was announced under the UMAYC program, but we had to shake the Chretien government to get 12 per cent of that because the Metis were left out. Canadian Heritage took 10 per cent of the $100 million for administration costs to manage the fund and spread the $90 million across the country. When it was turned over to us, we were told that we could not have administration money.
With the UAS, they want to give us $0.5 million, but they want us to deliver the program without new administration money. They want me to have all the accountability and responsibility with no tools. I said, ``Are you crazy? You guys deliver it.''
It is spread out too much, and there is no way to capture it and measure the actual successes. There is no way to know whether there is duplication or triplication of services. I believe that enough money is being expended, but it is just spread out everywhere. If you pull in that money and sit down with the Aboriginal governments, you will see a change because we have other resources to bring to the table. If you do not include us, you will never see change.
Ms. Lavallée: I would like to touch on the gang issue a bit. After hosting the gang violence conference, my governing body has realized that this issue cannot be dealt with by one Aboriginal organization. Such an issue will require all of the national organizations working together. Gang violence is not limited to just urban areas. It goes back and forth between on-reserve and off-reserve and involves family situations.
I have learned only recently about the UAS. I have been in my position for about a year and a half, so I am trying to get up to speed on all the files. I had a briefing from the Office of the Federal Interlocutor on the UAS. My understanding of the program is that its purpose is to bring together local resources, municipalities — all the partners including health, if needed — so that people can work collectively to address the need. I have talked to some of my members who sit on some of these urban strategies. They decide what issue of the day is to be addressed. It is not driven by government; it is driven by those who come into that room. They decide. It is grassroots driven. It sounds good.
The Chair: Mr. Simon, how can the UAS be made better? Is it working? Mr. Chartrand says that there should be a separate one for Metis.
Mr. Simon: I agree with that. Currently the federal government, the provinces and the municipalities are the driving force, the lead, the ones working together, and there is no involvement of the First Nations at that level. It is pretty hard for them to devise a strategy with us standing on the outside. If we were on the inside, as we would like to be, we would have much to offer.
The Chair: You are saying that you are not involved with the UAS?
Mr. Simon: Not that I am aware of.
The Chair: Who is? We will move along.
Senator Dyck: I will ask similar questions, and I will follow up briefly on the Aboriginal youth gang issue.
I received a report a year or two ago from the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation. They had done a survey in Winnipeg on high school dropouts. High up on the list were drug use and involvement in gangs. You have indicated that education is the way forward. In any sort of programming involved, do you see that link within your constituencies between involvement with drugs or gangs and failure to complete high school? What sort of programs or policies need to be put in place to overcome that?
Ms. Lavallée: The impression I got from the gang members I talked to at our conference in Saskatoon was that this is now intergenerational gang activity, passed from mom and dad to the children. Unfortunately, these individuals did end up in the corrections system, and there was nothing there to support them or to keep them away from the activities to which they were exposed.
One gentleman mentioned that he had to actually leave his community and go away because he knew that the minute he went back, he would be right back into the cycle again. They could have a psychologist there, working with the gang members in the prison system. As he said, there is a lot of adjustment for these individuals. They are not quite open. It takes a lot to get through to them. He made it very clear that there must be programs in place when these individuals exit the corrections system to support them on their journey. They must have involvement and an onus on the individuals.
Mr. Chartrand: Thank you for the question, Senator Dyck. I think you are hitting the nail on its head. Education is the light bulb of the future. If we can get more emphasis on the educational side, we will see a great change. We have seen it with Standing Tall, just a small program of that nature. We were able to introduce it to four or five schools, and it will be province wide.
The Maori people saw great despair among their citizens in New Zealand, so they brought in the parents to sit in the classroom and work with the children. We have introduced that, going on five years now, and schools are demanding that it be introduced all over, not just for Metis children. It could be for any child. It gives the teacher more time to focus on what they are there to do, which is to teach. The strength of that program is that the parents meet. For example, if little Johnny did not show up for school, they would not just mark him absent. The teacher aid, or the parent aid, as we call it, would go to the family home to see what is happening and why Johnny is not in school. Therefore, the two parents talk to each other, so it connects people.
The Maori statistical findings showed a dramatic increase in student graduation and score levels in all their exams. We are seeing the same happening in Manitoba. Definitely education is fundamentally a great program.
We have to look at how these programs are being created. I use the analogy of UMAYC initiative. When that program was introduced, it was designed for education, to get the kids back and proactive in school. We partnered with many schools. Last year, it was cancelled completely, and Canadian Heritage changed it to Cultural Connections for Aboriginal Youth, CCAY — that was more for jobs. There is nothing wrong with getting jobs. However, if we do not have an education, if we do not focus on that, that is a short-sighted process to have a temporary job. If we invest in education, no one can take that from you. If you get an education, you can advance yourself to a better degree and a better lifestyle.
We need to look at the programs. If our governments were involved and actually had a an input and a say, not just municipal, provincial and federal bureaucrats meeting to decide what is good for us, you would see us influencing the education sector to be a priority at the top level of investment. However, we do not have a say. We are told they will put 20 people together in a room, and they will talk to these 20 grassroots people. I am elected by grassroots people right across the province of Manitoba, from the south base of our province right to Churchill. I have to campaign not in one region but the entire province. It is a challenge, but when we hear that directly from our citizens, we are ignored. The bureaucrats do not listen to us.
Education is definitely the answer.
Mr. Simon: Senator Dyck, this is a very good question. My comment would be that everything is connected. The reality is that everything is connected. As Ms. Lavallée said, the youth leave the communities. We know they are leaving the First Nations communities because of the economic and social conditions in those communities. It is a no- brainer. They will go to the cities with nothing under their belts. What do you think will happen?
When I say that everything is connected, I will give you an example of what is happening currently when we try to help ourselves. The Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia are the only group in this country that took jurisdiction from the government. We have a Mi'kmaq self-government agreement in education. We are into our tenth year. By working together as 13 communities, we have built two schools that would never have been built if we depended on the federal government. Right now, the agreement is in jeopardy. Why? The government, for whatever reason, sees us as being too successful, in our view, and they are talking about issues such as own-source revenue. They are saying, ``As a community, you are doing well, so build your own school.'' That is a no-brainer.
In addition to that, some communities are paying for their own extra police forces. The same situation is happening with policing agreements. They are saying, ``Use your own-source revenue and start paying for your own police people.'' It does not make sense.
One of the chiefs in our region has been a chief for 30 some years, and he has always said that education and economic development are the keys to climbing out of poverty. Just because we are starting to show some results after 10 years, do not jump in and try to claw back. It has been 100 years of going backwards. In 10 years, we will not change that. We need a longer term of 30 or 40 years before we start saying that own-source revenue is a big thing. Those dollars get reinvested back into the communities. Those are two examples of how we see issues that are working against us.
Senator Cordy: I will also ask about education. Those of you who have looked at our report are aware that we know the tie-in between poverty and exclusion from societies and crime levels; and education is certainly a way to get out of that. As a Nova Scotian, I am disappointed to hear that the self-education for the Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia is in danger of being decimated. I remember the struggle just to get your own schools in Nova Scotia. It would be a shame if that were done away with, because it is successful. It does not sound like a good strategy to me.
Mr. Simon, you talked about portability of rights, and I think you said that you need to be able to act as full participants in your nation and in your country. I wonder if you could expand on that a little. What are the problems, and how can we solve them?
Mr. Simon: Thank you, Senator Cordy. First Nations peoples are adamant that their rights are not specific to being on a reserve. We have always advocated to government that there needs to be a mechanism so that they can exercise those Aboriginal and treaty rights wherever they are. For a government to say that treaty rights to education or housing stop at the reserve boundary, it is ridiculous.
My colleagues here are talking about the same situation. They are saying that it is people in the community. Mr. Chartrand talks about the Metis, and, in my case, I talk about the First Nations people in the cities who are all of a sudden under provincial jurisdiction. There is that wrangling between who has the responsibility for First Nations people. It is the federal government on-reserve. You guys need to work that out and find a way to deal with it, because the issue will not go away.
Clearly, the younger generation is being more empowered, they understand their rights better, and they are getting more impatient. They need to find a way to exercise their rights regardless of whether they choose to live in their First Nation community or choose to step outside and go into the mainstream and still have those same opportunities.
Mr. Chartrand: I think what must be understood is this new phenomenon happening in Canada, when we talk about rights, of the Metis being the new kids on the block. We will win more and more rights. A recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Manitoba was on this whole position of Canada and the provinces, that there is no fiduciary or constitutional responsibility to the Metis. The Court of Appeal ruled against that and said that clearly a fiduciary Crown responsibility exists to the Metis people. We won at the Supreme Court of Canada, and there will be many more cases coming.
As Mr. Simon said, more and more people will respect this whole issue of rights, especially duty to consult, which is a Supreme Court ruling. It will force the private sector to deal with us, and they will not be carrying it on the backs of the federal and provincial governments. The private sector gets away with a lot. No disrespect to them; they have their own objective. However, from our perspective, once the governments actually start to acknowledge that duty rights exist for us and that inclusiveness must happen, then the private sector will have to bring money or resources to the table to partner with us. That will change the fundamental operations in our communities, drastically, in fact.
Senator Merchant: Thank you for being here. You work at the community level, and many of you have been involved for a long time. Benjamin Disraeli said, ``There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.'' The previous witness gave us, I am sure, a truthful picture of the statistics of whatever information they have gathered. However, you gather different information because you are working with people right on the ground.
We have a very high number of Aboriginal people in our penal system. Do you think that the current policies of the government are moving in the right direction? Do your people and the justice system have issues to work out? How can we help your people to defend themselves in a more appropriate and timely manner? What tools do you need to give them? Locking people up is not the answer.
Ms. Lavallée: One way to keep these people out of the penal system is to give them affordable housing, an education and a job.
Mr. Chartrand: In fact, I worked for the Department of Justice Canada for 10 years before I left and became president in 1997. I saw too many of our people being locked up, even before these tougher positions were being taken. Much of this has to do with incarcerating our citizens on the premise that they did not have the support mechanisms at home or some way to show that they could get a job or create an opportunity for themselves. There was no option. It was strike one, strike two, strike three. You got a fine, then probation, and then jail.
In the non-Aboriginal society, one of the reasons the incarceration rates are dramatically different is because families can say, for example, ``I have a job for my son,'' or the person has a job, so the judge looks at it from a different perspective, that there is an opportunity for this person. For Aboriginal people, those opportunities are not there. That is why you see a lot of incarceration occurring.
Getting tougher, I believe it is an approach that will not work. I honestly believe that at the end of the day, we will see more of our younger kids getting into a school of crime because they will go mix with the professionals that are locked up for some other reason. These young kids will learn faster and increase their understanding of how to commit crime in a more lucrative way. They will see it as a way to live. The Metis see a rise in our people being incarcerated, and we are worried about that. We need to invest in education and jobs.
I offered the federal and provincial governments an opportunity, and I still have the opportunity, but no one has taken me up on the offer. I suggested starting a program for federal inmates. When they come out of the institutions, we always just let them out, and the first thing they do is go on welfare at $198 a month. The best way is to have a job lined up for them before they are released from the institution. Let us have a job lined up while they are there for the last six months. Let us set up a partnership with the private sector.
I will choose Willmar Windows Ltd., in Winnipeg, as an example. We will pay the salary for that inmate. For six months, that person will work, bank their dollars, on the condition that the company has to hire them permanently, and I will pay their salary for six months. Let us put in $50,000 each, just to test it. I have never had anyone match me on that $50,000. That is a standing offer for Canada and the provinces. Jurisdictionally, they blame each other and will not take responsibility. Once that person is released, he or she is the responsibility of the province.
Mr. Simon: Thank you, Senator Merchant. I want to make two points. Everyone around this table is aware of the late Donald Marshall Jr. There was inquiry. He spent 11 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. From that Marshall inquiry, in our case, in Nova Scotia, there were a number of recommendations. We have followed through on them.
One of them is a forum where the federal, provincial and Mi'kmaq governments can sit down together. We have a tripartite forum in our province. I am the executive chair; I oversee it. One of the successes that has come out of this is the Mi'kmaq Legal Support Network, which deals directly with the communities in relation to all these issues that we are talking about. Court translation is an example. We are doing that so that people do not go to court and not understand what is happening and plead guilty just to save time. That is one example. We have court workers who work with people so that they see options rather than just spend time in jails.
This even relates to such areas as child and family services. We are having those problems right now, with problem kids in the communities. We have to send them to the only facilities that can deal with kids with problems, and those are in the United States. That results in kids coming back to our community like inner city gang kids, and they are supposed to be going there to be helped. We have tackled that. We have taken on the challenge and said to the government that we can design our own facilities that are culturally relevant to our First Nations kids. They do not have to go to the U.S. or other parts of Canada where they come back with this gang mentality. We are not smart enough to design those. Government will not listen to us. Maybe you will take some of those notions into consideration.
The Chair: Thank you to all of you for participating in this, and giving us your thoughts. You have given us much to chew on and think about.
Thank you to the members of the committee. That brings us to the conclusion of this meeting.
We are back tomorrow morning at 10:30 a.m. We will be starting our consideration of Bill C-35, an amendment to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. That will be tomorrow as well as next Wednesday. Then I am hopeful that on Thursday we will be able to return to the post-secondary education report.
Mr. Chartrand: Thank you for listening to us.
The Chair: Thank you very much. This meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)