Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Cities
Issue 1 - Evidence, April 3, 2008
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 3, 2008
The Subcommittee on Cities of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 11:12 a.m. to examine and report on current social issues pertaining to Canada's largest cities.
Senator Art Eggleton (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: The meeting is in session. Welcome to the Subcommittee on Cities. Today we are studying poverty among urban Aboriginals.
[English]
Our subcommittee is building on work done previously at the Senate in the matter of poverty, particularly the 1971 report headed by Senator David Croll and the 1997 report by Senator Cohen entitled Sounding the Alarm: Poverty in Canada. At the same time, our study is complementary to work being done by the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, chaired by Senator Fairbairn. At the request of Senator Segal, it is dealing with the issue of rural poverty. Therefore, we are trying to pull this together.
Today, we have three panels, each of which will speak for five minutes. Ms. Peters is an urban social geographer from the University of Saskatchewan. Her work has focused on urban Aboriginal people. She was a policy analyst with the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and has since studied urban settlement patterns among Aboriginal peoples, as well as self-government in urban settings.
Mr. Hanselmann was recently appointed Director of Research, National Association of Friendship Centres. He was previously with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC, and was the author of several studies on urban Aboriginal issues in Western Canadian cities for the Canada West Foundation. He has demonstrated an interest in urban Aboriginal policy development.
Ms. Steliga is the Executive Director of the Lillooet Friendship Centre in British Columbia. There are 117 friendship centres across Canada; 24 are in British Columbia. The centre offers a victim assistance program, a food bank, a meal program and addiction treatment services.
Welcome to all three of you.
Evelyn Peters, Professor, Department of Geography, University of Saskatchewan: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the subcommittee. Part of my academic work involves tracking census data on urban Aboriginal people.
There is a variety of contradictory ideas about urban Aboriginal in cities. On the one hand, some literature suggests that Aboriginal people migrating into cities would create ghettos characterized by poverty and create challenges for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. On the other hand, some perspectives emphasize the socio-economic progress of urban Aboriginal people.
I want to look briefly at the some of the statistics and at the existence of urban Aboriginal poverty, the diversity between cities, the diversity within the urban Aboriginal population and change over time. Additionally, I want to address issues of concentration. Periodically in the media, reporters suggest that there are ghetto-like conditions, especially in Western cities, paralleling the U.S. experience.
I want to mention a couple of things before I address the statistics. It is important not to look at the statistics only at face value. They reflect a history of dispossession and colonialism. It is not just poverty; it is poverty in a particular historical context.
Also, many Aboriginal people feel that census data consistently presents them as lacking, rather than highlighting some of their strengths. I use census data because of its breadth and its comparability over time, but it is important to recognize there are critiques about the use of this data.
Please turn to the tables in the presentation, and I will highlight some of my remarks with reference to the tables. The first table is an aggregate drawn from the 2001 Census. I used the 2001 Census because the 2006 economic data have not been released yet. The first table compares things like income, poverty, good income and unemployment rates for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people.
You can see that there are substantial differences. For example, the average income of urban Aboriginal people is about two-thirds that of non-Aboriginal people. At the bottom, the unemployment rates for Aboriginal people are about 16 per cent, while the unemployment rates for non-Aboriginal people are about 7 per cent. There is diversity on aggregate.
The next table is complex, but it looks at different large cities. I wanted to highlight with that table the fact that the situation of Aboriginal people differs in different cities. There is still more poverty among Aboriginal than non- Aboriginal people, but the gap is bigger in Prairie cities, especially Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg and Thunder Bay, though Thunder Bay is not usually seen as a Prairie city. However, it falls into that socio-economic category.
The gap is less on aggregate in larger cities: Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. I will look at the unemployment rates for Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg and Thunder Bay. There is up to a 15 per cent difference there between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. The unemployment rates are at the bottom of the table. That is compared to a difference of between 3 per cent and 5 per cent for Toronto, Ottawa-Gatineau and Montreal.
The urban Aboriginal poverty is different in different cities, and I think the implication is that probably different policy mechanisms are required.
Tables 3 and 4 emphasize that there is also a difference within the urban Aboriginal population. Table 3 compares 1991 and 2001. It shows that the unemployment rates have gone down over that decade. There are more people with a university degree; there is a larger proportion with high school education; and there is a slight decline in people receiving government transfer payments.
Some researchers argue that there is an emerging middle class in the urban Aboriginal population. It is important not to see the whole Aboriginal population as characterized by poverty. There is also success there.
On the other hand, there are real poverty issues in some segments of the population. Table 4 looks at statistics from a study that I did with some students in Prince Albert in Northern Saskatchewan, in which we interviewed 123 First Nations people. These people are hidden homeless. The average age is 26; average monthly income is less than $400; 60 per cent are on social assistance; over 15 per cent have no income; only 15 per cent are employed; less than a quarter have high school; and almost half have a substance abuse problem.
Within the Aboriginal population there are different needs — needs for post-secondary education, for housing and for addictions programs. These are basic human needs.
The next table is complicated, and I will summarize it rather than take you through it. When we talk about change over time, it is important to look not only at changes in the Aboriginal population but also at changes in the non- Aboriginal population. These are special cross-tabulations from Statistics Canada. I know I am jumping around to different data sources, but one of the issues is the difficulty of getting comparable data over time.
The third column from the left shows that between 1981 and 2000, there is clearly improvement in the First Nations and Metis or generally Aboriginal populations in cities. There is a slight decline in poverty, a 2.6 per cent increase in individuals with good income, a slight decline in the unemployment rate, an increase in the participation rate and an increase in managerial, supervisory or professional occupations.
The non-Aboriginal population's statistics also improved over time. When you put these together, it is clear that there is an improvement in the urban Aboriginal population, but the gap itself is narrowing because there are also improvements in the non-Aboriginal urban population. That this gap is narrowing slowly is a matter of concern.
The last table is just one attempt to look at the issue of concentration. This compares the 2006 data, which are out now, to the 1996 data. I look mainly at Prairie cities because they have the largest numbers and proportion of Aboriginal populations. This is one way of looking at the issue of concentration.
We identified inner city or core areas on the basis of the age of housing. It is a standard way that geographers approach the inner city. I looked at the percentage of the core area that was Aboriginal in 1996 and in 2006, and also the percentage of the total Aboriginal population of the city that lived in the core area. That is one way of getting a sense of whether concentration is taking place.
The second set of data, for Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg, shows that the percentage of the core that is Aboriginal has not increased dramatically between 1996 and 2006. It has gone down slightly in Edmonton and increased a bit in Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg, but 80 per cent or more of the people living in the core are non- Aboriginal, and there has not been a huge increase.
If we look at the percentage of the total population of the census metropolitan area that is Aboriginal, a larger proportion of the Aboriginal population lives in other areas than in the inner city or core, and that has not changed dramatically either.
Let me put this carefully. It is the case that some Aboriginal people are living in very poor areas and in poor housing. That is a matter of major concern. However, it is not the case that what is happening in Canadian cities is similar to what happened in U.S. cities where huge ghetto areas emerged — 70 to 80 census tracks that are almost entirely Black or Hispanic and living in desperate poverty. That is not happening in cities in Canada.
That is not to say that it is not a concern where Aboriginal people are living in poverty and poor housing. However, we have to use models or approaches that reflect the urban Aboriginal situation and not import models from other countries.
The Chair: That will generate a few questions. Mr. Hanselmann is next.
Calvin Hanselmann, Director of Research, National Association of Friendship Centres: Thank you for inviting me here today. I am appearing in my capacity as Director of Research for the National Association of Friendship Centres, NAFC. I have spent most of the last 15 years working on urban Aboriginal issues, primarily from a policy research perspective.
I have been invited to speak today about poverty among Aboriginal people living in major cities. Given the brevity of time, I want to address two main issues: how governments could better coordinate their activities to improve outcomes among urban Aboriginal peoples, and the need for more appropriate research. Hopefully my opening remarks, together with those of my co-panellists, will contribute to an informative and productive discussion.
I understand that the subcommittee is interested in ways in which governments could better coordinate their activities to reduce poverty among urban Aboriginal peoples. Let me be frank, friendship centres are the best investment governments have been making, and could make in the future, to coordinate their activities to reduce poverty among urban Aboriginal peoples.
Aboriginal friendship centres are the country's most significant urban Aboriginal service infrastructure. For decades, friendship centres have been on the ground, lending support to thousands of urban Aboriginal peoples on the pathway to greater self-reliance, accomplishment and enduring success.
Visitors to friendship centres can find access to cultural programs, education, training, employment counselling, health programs and other services. There are very few urban Aboriginal peoples who have not benefited from friendship centres.
In terms of coordinating their activities to improve outcomes, governments have done very well from their investments in friendship centres. For example, in 2006-07, friendship centres across Canada leveraged approximately $16 million to deliver over 1,200 programs on behalf of federal, provincial, territorial, municipal and Aboriginal governments, worth almost $90 million in total. This is how to coordinate activities to improve outcomes.
However, the budget for the Aboriginal Friendship Centres Program has been virtually unchanged since 1996. For more than 10 years, friendship centres have been forced to make do with no increase in support. Imagine if you were a business owner or a manager being forced to deal with increasing costs without being able to increase your revenues for over a decade.
Therefore, I recommend that the subcommittee recommend that the Government of Canada immediately work with the National Association of Friendship Centres to ensure that the Aboriginal Friendship Centre Program budget is increased in the next federal budget to account for increases in population, inflation and future growth.
It is clear to anyone with an interest in urban and Aboriginal issues that the rapid increases in off-reserve and urban Aboriginal populations have not been matched by a corresponding increase in scholarly or policy attention. Furthermore, the work that is undertaken is not always done collaboratively with members of Aboriginal communities. This severely limits its practical import and uptake.
For years, the NAFC has called upon governments, researchers and others to pay more attention to urban Aboriginal policy research. However, we have not seen the level of activity that is needed or warranted. In response, the NAFC has decided to take a leadership role in the urban Aboriginal policy research field. We are currently involved in two major initiatives.
The first is entitled ``Informing Program and Service Needs of Urban Aboriginal Peoples through a Geographic Approach.'' This is a data-driven exercise to analyze the Aboriginal population in 117 communities in which a friendship centre is located, as well as an additional 107 ``gap'' communities in which a friendship centre does not exist even though there is demonstrable need. The purpose is to give the NAFC and decision makers a better idea of the service needs of the urban Aboriginal population.
The second is the Urban Aboriginal Knowledge Network. This initiative seeks to create an international policy research network focusing on Aboriginal concerns in urban settings. In Canada, this network will take the form of interconnected think tanks, bringing together academics, Aboriginal and local community leaders, government representatives and public and private stakeholders. Together, they will develop a socially relevant and academically rigorous research program focusing on urban Aboriginal policy issues and best practices. The overarching goal of the network is to achieve a better life for Aboriginal people living in cities and towns.
It is regrettable that no one in the Government of Canada is doing this research, and that an underfunded Aboriginal organization finds it necessary to do the work. The most significant challenge facing the NAFC in taking this leadership role and attempting to fill the research void is a lack of resources. Therefore, I recommend that the subcommittee recommend that the Government of Canada provide funding support to the National Association of Friendship Centres to facilitate the pursuit of a robust urban Aboriginal policy research agenda.
Urban Aboriginal poverty will be alleviated only when we turn our minds to the challenges facing urban Aboriginal service delivery and only by having timely and relevant information about the communities in which Aboriginal peoples live. I therefore want to leave you with two points.
The first is the need for the federal government to increase its investment in the Aboriginal Friendship Centre Program. An enhanced program would go far in facilitating coordination among and across governments in attempting to address urban Aboriginal poverty.
The second point is the importance for the Government of Canada and others to support the research efforts of the National Association of Friendship Centres. It is only through sound, appropriate, inclusive research that decision makers such as yourselves can be adequately informed on these important issues.
No informed observer would suggest that governments in Canada are responding adequately or appropriately to their urban Aboriginal citizens. There is much more that could be said about urban Aboriginal issues, and I am sure your study will contribute to the dialogue that is needed. I trust that you, as honourable senators, will do all in your wisdom and your power to help remedy the situation.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your clear recommendations. Now we will hear from Ms. Steliga.
Kama Steliga, Executive Director, Lillooet Friendship Centre, National Association of Friendship Centres: Thank you. I also sit on the National Association of Friendship Centre's executive. I come today humbled by the opportunity to share the on-the-ground perspective and some of the initiatives for the Friendship Centre that I, as a community member, have had the opportunity to be involved in.
My background is in community development and clinical counselling. I have been involved in a number of local, regional, national and international initiatives on community development work, service gaps in population health, and development of services in the same accord.
The Lillooet Friendship Centre is celebrating its thirtieth anniversary this year. We are excited to look back over the years and recognize the growth and success that we have had over that time. We are the largest social service organization in the community. Currently, we offer 24 different programs on employment, family and health services, as well as recreational, culture and community development services.
We are the third-largest employer in our community. We receive a core revenue base from the Aboriginal Friendship Centre Program of $103,000, which we leveraged into an annual operating budget of just over $2 million this coming year. The federal contribution makes up approximately 25 per cent of our core revenue base, but the bulk of our core revenue is provincial, municipal and Aboriginal government, as well as foundational and corporate sponsorship.
As indicated, we have a vast service operation. A fundamental value of the friendship centre movement is grassroots community development. From the moment that an individual enters one of our offices or the friendship centre, our poverty reduction strategy begins. Later I will share a story that highlights some success and certainly identifies some gaps regarding the poverty issues faced by Aboriginal people living in urban centres.
I will speak to our infrastructure and capacity, not only as a local organization but as a provincial and national organization. It is recognized that the numbers of Aboriginal people moving to urban centres is increasing and that we have a transient population. Therefore, the infrastructure that exists within friendship centres at a sister-centre level is truly powerful. I have a community that is two hours away in Kamloops, British Columbia. Many of our residents or community members may move from Lillooet to Kamloops. We are able to provide a great deal of continuity of service because of the existing service infrastructure and the work that we do with the other 24 centres in our province and with the 117 centres in many other provinces across the nation. The capacity, knowledge, experience and excellence of service for Aboriginal people is valid across Canada.
One role of the friendship centre is to provide Lillooet's urban Aboriginal strategy. We facilitate relationships and partnerships with non-traditional stakeholders. We have been able to bring many stakeholders to the table who traditionally would not have been there, through our work with First Nations communities and our municipal and regional districts for various events and initiatives. We bring provincial and federal departments and First Nations together to co-create services that truly meet our unique needs and fill the service gaps. The friendship centre has been instrumental in this success in our community and in many other communities.
The story I want to share is a common one. It is probably a common experience for a service organization, but it highlights the opportunity that community members, especially in crisis, have when they enter the friendship centre and the services that we provide. We hold a full complement of services that work to address many of the gap areas, so we are able to provide continuity and a safe and relationship-building experience for individuals who come to our centre.
A woman is in a violent relationship, and the RCMP are called. The file is referred to our victims' assistance program. The woman and her children are forced to leave that experience by leaving the home, and they are connected to our victims' assistance program. From there, the woman enters the friendship centre. Likely, she is connected to our Stopping Violence Against Women Program, which looks at some of the social and internal issues that she might face in her relationship and in her personal journey.
Her children might be connected to our pre-school program and our family centre. We also have a youth centre so that there are opportunities for her kids to begin to engage in other supportive services, including cultural and recreational opportunities that are at no cost, and she can then participate with her children.
The cultural opportunity and services provided are empowering. Our perspective is such that we do not try to weave culture into what we do. Rather, we weave what we do into culture. What we do is immersed in the value and intrinsic identity that many of our people who move to an urban centre have lost touch with.
The woman in the Stopping Violence Against Women Program might also be involved in individual counselling and group counselling. We have employment services and training opportunities, so she might become engaged in those to build her employability skills. Kids are able to move through some of the other, more specific programs, for example for children who witness abuse. We are able to address those core issues.
Some of our staff and many of our volunteers have been clients. They have come through the friendship centre in crisis and have engaged in a safe and supportive environment. They have built capacity and skills and, in turn, have volunteered and given back and continued down that continuum.
We have housing programs, food programs, support for re-entry into the job force, and a number of other programs all within the same safe infrastructure within the community. That has been a huge success in our community, especially in terms of culture and safety.
We recognize that the need is growing, because in our community we are seeing more referrals to our addiction programs. We are seeing greater numbers of homeless people, so we have been targeting the hidden homelessness, in particular our youth. We had young ones a few years ago who were couch surfing, but they have run out of couches. Addressing the problem is becoming a serious issue in the community. It requires a multi-pronged approach, and our friendship centre has been able to create some meaningful, valid service within our community.
The Chair: Did you want to wrap up? We have your recommendations in your brief.
Ms. Steliga: You have the brief. There are a number of recommendations. You will notice that the recommendations take a multi-pronged approach to addressing poverty issues, particularly around Head Start programs and homelessness initiatives. We look especially at the excellence of friendship centres. They are making a difference on the ground, and we are looking at how we can build on that.
The Chair: Thank you. I will ask questions that are somewhat specific to your presentations, but you can all comment on any part if you want. I will state all my questions for each of you.
Ms. Peters, our researchers had provided us with a series of statistics. Fifty-four per cent of the Aboriginal population is now living in urban areas. They are predominantly young and concentrated in Western cities. Urban Aboriginal people tend to fare better on a range of socio-economic indicators than their reserve counterparts. The Canadian Council on Social Development found that Aboriginal people living in cities were more than twice as likely as their non-Aboriginal counterparts to be living in poverty. Another study found that more than half of urban Aboriginal households were living below the low-income cut-off line. The incidence of poverty among urban Aboriginal populations is greatest in Western urban centres, which you focused on.
These statistics are not necessarily inconsistent with what you have said. However, you painted a slightly different picture by supplementing them and saying that there are success stories too. We appreciate knowing that.
Are these statistics compatible with yours?
In relation to urban areas, you specifically talked about the cores of cities. In Toronto, where I come from, much of the poverty can be found in what used to be called the suburbs. They are now part of the city, but in areas that are not traditionally considered the core of the city. Have you taken that into consideration?
Mr. Hanselmann, you made it quite clear that you consider friendship centres to be the best investment governments have been making. I am glad to hear that. You make the point that funding has not been increased since 1996. That makes two governments of two different political stripes guilty on that count.
However, there are several other programs. There is the Aboriginal Human Resources Development Strategy, AHRDS; the Aboriginal Human Resource Council; and the Urban Aboriginal Strategy, UAS. Have you any comments or thoughts about those?
The Winnipeg Partnership Agreement was signed in 2005 between the three orders of government. It does not deal exclusively with Aboriginals in Winnipeg, but it was focused to a great degree on that. Is that a good model?
Finally, Ms. Steliga, in your recommendations, you mentioned Jordan's Principle. Could you tell us what that is about?
Ms. Peters: I emphasize both the success and the lack of success because my Aboriginal colleagues at the University of Saskatchewan get tired of the assumption that all Aboriginal people are poor and living in poor inner-city neighbourhoods. I think it is important to have a balance.
I agree with you that the statistics showing that Aboriginal people are disproportionately poor are important. The reason for emphasizing both is that strategies for dealing with Aboriginal poverty are important, but it is also important to deal with other needs, including educational needs.
The general public thinks that all Aboriginal people have their post-secondary education funded. That is not the case. Only First Nations associated with a band may have access to some funding. That needs to be addressed, along with a variety of poverty programs.
I know this was not exactly your question, but I want to build on a few points my colleagues mentioned with respect to addressing poverty. When we look at the data, we see that one thing that helps move people out of poverty is employment in government and community organizations.
Ms. Steliga said that the people who work in the friendship centre are often people who came to the centre in crisis and then were able to find employment. That is an important source of moving people into professional and well- paying occupations. The problem with many community organizations like the friendship centres is that their funding is not enough, and they can never depend on funding from year to year.
I would like to support what my colleagues have said about the work of the friendship centres. It is important that friendship centres are blind to status. They do not provide programs only for First Nations or only for Metis people. That is particularly important in cities in the West. They provide services to Aboriginal people no matter what their legal status.
With respect to suburban poverty, I did work with the 2001 Census looking at areas of concentrated poverty. Geographers define this as areas where 40 per cent of the households or individuals are below the poverty line. Again, Aboriginal people are disproportionately represented in those census tracts compared to their representation in the city. Census tracts are neighbourhoods of between 3,000 and 5,000 people.
For example, there are very poor census tracks in Saskatoon. The proportion of Aboriginal people in Saskatoon is about 10 per cent. The proportion of Aboriginal people in these census tracts is about 25 per cent. However, even in these areas of high poverty, Aboriginal people do not make up all of the people in these census tracts, and they do not make up all of the poor people in these tracts.
I looked at the 2006 data, and there is only one census tract in a large census metropolitan area where more than half of the population is Aboriginal. That one census tract is in Winnipeg, where 60 per cent of the population is Aboriginal.
This is not to say that there is not poverty and that Aboriginal people's living in poor neighbourhoods with poor housing is not a problem. However, it is not the same as in the United States. I hope that answers your question.
Mr. Hanselmann: You asked about some of the other federal programs existing in urban centres that may or may not address needs of Aboriginal peoples living in those centres. You mentioned the AHRDS, the UAS and the Aboriginal Human Resource Council.
To my knowledge, the Aboriginal Human Resource Council is not a program per se. It is part of the larger AHRDS policy that was unveiled about 10 years ago. Therefore, I will set aside the council itself and speak to the others briefly.
I have done research on the ground talking to urban Aboriginal people; service providers; federal, provincial and municipal government officials; First Nations government officials; and Metis officials. As I mentioned in my presentation, this research goes back approximately 15 years and leads me to some major conclusions. One conclusion is that it is important to cooperate, coordinate and communicate among government departments, policies and programs.
The Aboriginal Human Resources Development Strategy would be an example of where the opportunity to coordinate federal efforts was missed, initially. The urban AHRDS program did not take advantage of the existing infrastructure in cities, the friendship centres. Another infrastructure was created to deliver the AHRDS in urban centres.
That seems counterintuitive. As I said in my comments, friendship centres have been very successful in leveraging the core funding that they receive through the Aboriginal Friendship Centre Program by attracting federal, provincial, territorial, municipal and other programming and then using that programming to better meet the needs of the Aboriginal populations that they serve. Ms. Steliga spoke to that as well.
From what I have seen more recently, I would suggest that Human Resources and Social Development Canada must have come to a similar conclusion, because they are redesigning the AHRDS to open up the opportunity to leverage the existing infrastructure — friendship centres — by allowing them to participate in the process of competition for AHRDS delivery.
The Urban Aboriginal Strategy you mentioned is limited to 12 or 14 cities. Its budget is limited. Again, to a great extent, that program replicated the existing infrastructure. The Urban Aboriginal Strategy policy design attempted to take some of the lessons that were learned from the urban Aboriginal homelessness program and from the Urban Multipurpose Aboriginal Youth Centre initiative. Some of that infrastructure was to create a community-based committee that would guide and advise on programming specifics in a centre or in a city.
Infrastructure already existed in every one of the cities that the Urban Aboriginal Strategy targeted. That existing infrastructure was the friendship centre. The friendship centre is governed by a volunteer board and staffed by Aboriginal people who live in that city. Again, an opportunity was missed in terms of coordinating with the existing programming that is already in those cities.
The Chair: Ms. Steliga, did you want to respond?
Ms. Steliga: I recognize that a few of your questions were to each of us. I want to start with a couple of comments in response to the other questions and then address the one that you directed toward me.
I would like to address the comment about friendship centres being status blind. Certainly we serve all Aboriginal people regardless of status or identity. We also serve non-Aboriginal people. The Lillooet Friendship Centre is the largest social service organization, either non-Aboriginal or Aboriginal, and we serve all of our community members, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. It is an opportunity to develop a legacy that builds relationships and works to increase understanding and reduce racism in our community and across the nation.
The other piece I wanted to add is that there will forever be discussions on data and the presentation of data. It is important to be mindful of what lens we are using to identify data. Many times we talk about census tracts, which are communities of 3,000 to 5,000 people. I am not disputing that, but in my experience communities will often define themselves. It is like taking pieces from five different puzzles and trying to make a picture. When we look at communities within communities or inner city communities, ghettos, projects or whatever we want to call it, we do have those experiences in our Aboriginal communities. If the census tracts take in a larger sub-community outside of that, it sometimes skews the information as well. Therefore, I think we need to be conscience of the lens we are using to look at data. That is why I support doing specific research on urban Aboriginal issues.
We certainly applaud Jordan's Principle and were pleased to see it passed in December. It was very important that the principle be received and promoted. The difficulty, however, is that specific wording for its application is lacking. Right now, it is a principle. There are a number of Aboriginal children and youth across this country whose health hangs in the balance because governments are disputing over jurisdiction and residency issues around who is paying for what.
Jordan's Principle addresses that issue, stating that children's health will come before that discussion, that no child's health will have to wait for the dispute to be resolved. However, there is no meaningful language or policy to put that principle into application. Therefore, we recommend that there be an opportunity to formulate how governments will address those issues provincially, federally and certainly within First Nations; who will step forward first; and how that will play out so that the health of a child or a youth does not hang in the balance of political funding issues.
The Chair: Thank you. I could go on for some time with all of you, but I will let my colleagues take it from here.
Senator Keon: I will begin with the friendship centres. I spent quite a bit of time at the one on Hastings Street in Vancouver. There is no question they are doing a tremendous job.
I have a particular interest in population health. To influence population health, one has to deal not only with health services but also with public health, prevention and the entire social structure that involves housing, food, water, education and so on.
We visited Cuba to look at the way they have organized their population health. They have had superb outcomes around their polyclinics, which deal with all of these issues.
Ms. Steliga and Mr. Hanselmann, can you see a way that the friendship centres can be integrated into community health and social service centres that deal with this whole spectrum? Furthermore, can the friendship centre model be integrated and expanded? I do not mean assimilated. I think you have to preserve what you have, but it could be integrated with the rest, I think. If that could be achieved, could this be applied to the Metis and the Inuit populations?
Ms. Steliga: You qualified a bit saying not assimilation but integration. Do you mean ``integrated'' in the sense of a one-stop, all-service provider within a community?
Senator Keon: Yes.
Ms. Steliga: I believe that what you described exists in many friendship centre communities. A population health perspective is a core value. We may traditionally call that something else, but definitely it is a population health perspective. The integration has existed, not only for the community sense of integration but also, in my experience, for the system's integration.
A number of our projects involve all of those sectors because we recognize that all of those systems need to be present when we are developing and when we are looking. Our activities are to go farther upstream to identify what the issues are there, rather than looking at the crisis at the bridge or the crisis downstream. I do believe that is happening in most communities, but certainly there is an opportunity to build on that piece.
For me, economic sustainability in a community comes from health. If we address those population health determinants, that is what we will move toward; that is where we will be. I certainly believe that exists and is available to continue to build on. In some communities where it may be difficult — there are many issues — I think we have a model that can be tweaked to look at the unique needs of each community and to work on that.
International communities and states are looking to the friendship centre model. It has come up in a number of international discussions because the model is very reflective of that.
Senator Keon: I would like to complete this with Ms. Peters, because the key from a population health perspective is to establish an appropriate data bank that can give ongoing analysis and assessment of progress. I put this question to the head of the Canadian Institute for Health Information, CIHI, and I talked to Statistics Canada about it and individuals just yesterday who have done huge global data banks.
Their perception is that yes, this can be done. If we go, for example, to the model that Ms. Steliga has just described, and we integrate it, expand it and get the community model that brings the dozen or so components of population health together, it is quite feasible to build a data bank into that.
What do you think?
Ms. Peters: By data bank, do you mean something that is comparable over time?
Senator Keon: No, I mean to establish electronically all the parameters we want to measure at the local level, on the ground, that can influence population health — how we are doing with housing, food, clean water, maternal health, early childhood education? The list goes on.
Ms. Peters: I think it is possible. It requires a real commitment on the part of different data collectors, and also quite a bit of work to ensure that they are measuring the same thing. I know that in B.C. there has been some integration of health and census data. It is quite expensive.
I am not sure that we need that data. We have enough data to show that there are needs here. I agree with Ms. Steliga that maybe the census tracks hide some pockets of poverty. Yes, there are some enumeration or dissemination areas or smaller areas with 300 to 500 people that have higher levels or concentrations of poverty. I know this is not what you asked, but I am not sure that the data is the issue.
I say that we do not have the U.S. situation here partly because in the U.S. ghetto models, the situation seems hopeless. I do not think the situation in Canada is hopeless. There is a real poverty problem among urban Aboriginal people, but it is something that people can cope with.
Part of the reason for looking at success is to say that there is capacity within the Aboriginal population to deal with this, to create some models and approaches that work. Part of the problem is funding and predictability of funding. I am not sure it is a data problem.
Senator Keon: If we do not have data, we do not know how we are doing.
Ms. Peters: Yes, data to trace improvements. That is a real challenge, because even if we ask the same question in different census years, people answer it differently. However, I would agree that there needs to be more willingness among federal and provincial agencies to create data, so that the effectiveness of programs can be evaluated over time.
A bit of material exists that does suggest that services provided by Aboriginal organizations are more effective. However, it is a few case studies, and we need a broader picture to see how we are doing and what particular programs and approaches work.
The Chair: I have to slip in a supplementary to Senator Keon's question. As I understand it, the friendship centres are based on First Nations. What about cultural sensitivity to Inuit or Metis?
Ms. Steliga: Friendship centres are status blind. We are not pan-Aboriginal. We are status blind in that we serve, and are designed at a principal base to serve, First Nations, Metis, Inuit, non-status — many identities and cultures. I come from B.C, which has just over 200 distinct First Nations and many different language bases.
We respect the territory that we reside within as a cultural base, but we also recognize that although I am in St'at'imc Nation territory and many members of St'at'imc Nation access our centre, we also have many Cree, Metis, Ojibwa and Mohawk members. Everyone comes to the centre, so it is an opportunity to provide service to all regardless, to build on what we can and to support their cultural identity.
The Chair: Is that true across the country? Is that cultural sensitivity taken into consideration?
Mr. Hanselmann: Yes, I would agree entirely with what Ms. Steliga said. Part of the reason for that sensitivity and a strength of the friendship centre movement is that the friendship centres are community-governed.
You asked about First Nations, Metis and Inuit. There are communities in Canada where the friendship centre board is predominantly Metis, because that reflects that the community is predominantly Metis, and the services provided in that centre reflect the Metis culture and identity. Other centres are predominantly Inuit.
If the honourable members of this committee went to a friendship centre in the North of Canada, in an area that is predominantly First Nations or Metis, you would see friendship centres with similarities among them, but you would also see community distinctiveness that reflects the reality of the situation on the ground. That is a strength of the model: it is a broadly based model that is adapted locally to address local needs.
Senator Munson: I have three separate questions, which I will put to you all at once.
The first deals with racism. These are startling figures that we see, and always people seem to say, ``Oh well, there are drug addictions, and people who have left their homes, broken families, and so on.'' I am wondering how you work on attitudinal changes in these small communities and friendship centres. When two people come to the same employer with the same background — one is Aboriginal, one is not — who gets the job? Is that sort of thing prevalent, and if so, how do you deal with it?
Second, on the issue of no budget increase in over 10 years, who in the bureaucracy or the political environment is making these non-decisions? Ten years with no money — how do we change that? How do you do your business adequately on a budget that has not been increased in 10 years?
My third question is about the recommendation for a national office of child and youth health with a permanent adviser. I would like to have some details on how you would see that work. Since you welcome non-Aboriginals in the friendship centres, would that national office encompass people who are non-Aboriginal in dealing with those issues?
Mr. Hanselmann: Thank you, senator, for the questions. I will take the first response, if I may.
In terms of budget, the Aboriginal Friendship Centre Program is housed in the Department of Canadian Heritage. I do not want to speak too strongly, but the fact is that the budget has not been increased in 10 years. Departmental officials should be asked why the case has not been made to cabinet for an increase in the budget.
If honourable senators of this committee want to look at the report of the Department of Canadian Heritage on plans and priorities for the last fiscal year, you will see that working on the business case for Aboriginal Friendship Centre Program enhancement was one of the priorities identified by the department. I would invite senators to call officials of the department to ask how they did on it.
As for racism and how to work an attitudinal change, I have written in the past, and still believe, that there is a strong role for the private sector and the public sector to work together on educating the public about the realities and challenges that confront Aboriginal people and are offered by Aboriginal people living in our urban centres. Racism is driven mainly by ignorance or lack of understanding, which is based on lack of knowledge, so public education would help to diminish the racism.
Those are the two areas that I am able to give you advice on, and I leave it to my co-panellists to deal with the other areas.
Senator Munson: I would like to get an answer on the national child and youth issue. I have gone down to the Aboriginal friendship centre in Ottawa, in the shadow of Parliament Hill, where you can see what they do within neighbourhoods, of Hintonburg and Mechanicsville, which have strong characteristics. You are right that they welcome all people who live in the neighbourhood, not just Aboriginals.
It strikes me that you do not have enough money to do the job. I would appreciate it if you would speak to that and to the proposed national office of child and youth health, please.
Ms. Steliga: I will make a brief comment on racism from a community development perspective. It is about individual relationships and on-the-ground work. The more that people reach out, the more they feel engaged and safe and the more opportunities they have to learn about our differences, commonness and uniqueness. Organizations that do on-the-ground work bring people together to create safety and initiatives for people to belong, and that is where we start to address issues around racism.
Racism seems to have moved to a covert place; it is happening more behind closed doors, and then it is played out in various subtle and covert ways. If we build relationships on the ground and work towards peace, then friendship centres can be instrumental because of their inclusiveness, not only from nation to nation but certainly Aboriginal to non-Aboriginal.
Senator Munson: Where is that covert place?
Ms. Steliga: That covert place behind the doors? Our covert place is the subtle message that lives within our families and surfaces at our dinner tables. The messages are sent in a covert way, not openly sent the way they used to be heard.
Senator Munson: They are whispered.
Ms. Steliga: There is an old community development belief that if you want a sense of the community, you visit the local high school and spend some time. Often, high school students in their raw way play out exactly the kinds of experiences that are happening at a covert level within a community. It is all about relationships and that one-to-one kind of peace.
On the national office of child and youth health, I am from B.C., where we have a provincial office and a provincial adviser for children and youth. We have recognized that often a number of community issues can be looked at, dealt with and spoken to from a child and youth perspective. It is an opportunity to look at the needs of the growing population, because youth is the largest growing population in Canada, in general, and certainly within the Aboriginal population. To have the opportunity for a specific office would lend more to youth, child and family issues. I appreciate the population health perspective and having some core opportunities to look at Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal health issues.
Senator Munson: Thank you.
Ms. Peters: I would like to add some comments on the racism question. I agree with Mr. Hanselmann about the need for public education. That cannot be the sole responsibility of Aboriginal organizations. It needs to be much broader. In Saskatchewan, many in the public arena still think that urban Aboriginals do not pay taxes, which is a cause for constant resentment although it is just not true. That kind of public education needs to happen.
As well, on relationships, research on non-Aboriginal people, immigrants and minority groups has shown that having these groups work together is effective in reducing racism. They begin to know each other and to understand that in some ways they are alike and have more in common than they previously thought. Relationship building is an important component of anti-racism work.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I am totally absorbed in this presentation this morning, and I thank each of you for all that you are teaching us and offering to the committee.
I will focus on children and youth. Although others may wish to participate in this small discussion, I will direct my questions to Ms. Steliga. Speaking about the Lillooet Friendship Centre Society, you mentioned kids first. My mind stopped there because I wondered about the Aboriginal Head Start On Reserve program. Is that another name for the program? I am not only interested in that program but also very concerned about it. Any comments on that from the three of you would be appreciated.
From your experience and your direct contact with families, in particular children and youth, is anything in any way a true follow-up to the Aboriginal Head Start On Reserve program? I used to ask this question in New Brunswick when we had the early childhood initiatives. What follows them year by year? It is as difficult a question for our provinces as for any part of Canada.
I also want to ask a specific question about Dr. Leitch's recommendation. I read her report. It is comprehensive and a good report in most ways. However, Aboriginal Head Start was relegated to an appendix under ``Early Childhood Development.'' She recommended that we reach up to 25 per cent of Aboriginal children in five years. That is a very soft target and does not make me happy. If our goal as a nation is in five years to reach perhaps up to 25 per cent of Aboriginal children, we will keep failing. What about the other 75 per cent or more children?
You say now we are reaching only 10 per cent in the urban areas. I wonder if we are reaching 10 per cent overall. You may not know that. I guess serving only 4,500 children at this point is good. I do not want to call it an abysmal failure, but it is a slow start.
I have talked to some of my colleagues in the Senate from communities concerned with and attached to the program. Its philosophy is excellent. I cannot think of anything more important, particularly if there is follow-up through elementary, middle and secondary schools.
However, I want to know how you reacted to the target. You put it in your recommendation, but I suspect you did it because it was also the target in her report. Your first three recommendations are from Dr. Leitch's report, although I am sure you support them.
I would like discuss Aboriginal Head Start. If we will have greater health, hope, employment and better housing, it has to start with the children and their families.
Ms. Steliga: Absolutely. To clarify, the Lillooet Friendship Centre's kids first program is not an Aboriginal Head Start initiative. It is as close to being a Head Start program as possible without Head Start funding. We support and believe in the model. Only a few communities across this nation have a Head Start program.
I can speak only about Head Start in B.C. We have only a few Head Start programs off reserve and no new Head Start program is created unless one closes. It is difficult to hear of a community's excitement over starting a Head Start program when the reality is that it means somewhere else has lost one.
Our kids first program is funded through the province and is modelled after Head Start. It is vital and instrumental in terms of foundational skills for children.
I also see the impact it has within families. As a result of its participatory level, many young mothers, fathers, care givers and extended families that participate are also building their capacity and skills by being involved. Therefore, the program reaches even farther.
The 25 per cent target reflects the recommendation from Dr. Leitch's report. I wholeheartedly agree that 25 per cent is not an appropriate goal when we are talking about the kinds of issues and sustainable changes that we envision for the future. Twenty-five per cent is not adequate.
I do not know the exact number of children being reached off reserve. It is around 10 per cent nationally. I am also curious to know what programs similar to Head Start are being funded in other provinces or territories like ours in Lillooet, to see what the access level really is.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: You said that for one Head Start program to begin, another has to drop out. This is a terrible reflection on how we are dealing with this sad situation amongst our children and youth.
Would you know whether there has been any increase over time? Was it about 1995 that Aboriginal Head Start began?
Ms. Steliga: It began in the early 1990s. My understanding from B.C. is that it is capped, and there has been no increase, in our experience. I recognize that it is a federal program, but I only have connection directly with our experience in B.C.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: In centres or communities that have been fortunate enough to get an Aboriginal Head Start program, is there any organized effort or plan to follow those children to ensure that whatever benefits have accrued are not lost once they are outside the program?
Ms. Steliga: Formally, no. I believe there are many discussions happening now in recognition of the gap for 6- to 12- year-olds. A number of different federal initiatives such as Head Start address the younger Aboriginal children, and the Urban Multipurpose Aboriginal Youth Centre initiative addresses ages 12 and up, but there is nothing for the 6- to 12- year-olds.
There have been discussions and lobbying efforts to look at services for that age range. I think that is the critical piece in tracking the success of the Head Start programs. We have seen development around Aboriginal literacy programs and pilot initiatives that help address some of that and could track some of those pieces. I am not aware of anything formal to look at the impact. It is purely conjecture and anecdotal evidence.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I had the joy of visiting Eagle's Nest Aboriginal Head Start in downtown Vancouver. It was beautiful — culture personified in an exemplary way. It made me want what was happening there for all children. Do you know that particular centre?
Ms. Steliga: I have been there once.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: The centre is small, but lovely. I was fascinated by all forms of the culture. Everything they are doing is strengthening the culture, language and music.
Senator Cordy: Thank you to all three of you. Your presentations were excellent.
Should the friendship centres be under the jurisdiction of the Department of Canadian Heritage? Does the Aboriginal Friendship Centre Program belong in that department?
Ms. Steliga, you said in the documentation we received that there is no better poverty reduction than creating more and better jobs. I agree with that, not just from the perspective of economics, but from the perspective of the family. If families are able to support family members, then everyone feels good about themselves.
Dr. Peters, your statistics were mainly from the West. I know that in Nova Scotia the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has done a lot of work in economic development for Aboriginal peoples.
The economy is booming in Alberta. In Nova Scotia we get brochures in the mail, and periodically there are job fairs looking for Nova Scotians to move to the West. Are this economic boom in Alberta and the boom that is starting in Saskatchewan having a positive effect on Aboriginal peoples? Are Aboriginals benefiting from the boom that is taking place in the West? That is my second question.
Mr. Hanselmann, you spoke about the need for cooperation, coordination and communication, the three Cs. Do we have the three Cs when we are dealing with federal government, the bureaucracy and the health and heritage departments?
Also, is there a good working relationship between the provinces, the federal government and the municipalities to ensure that the programs are properly managed? Ms. Steliga mentioned children sometimes being left in a bad health situation because of the question of who will to pay for it. Are there other such situations?
Those things should not happen. One should worry about jurisdictional matters later, but get the job done. Is enough discussion happening between federal government departments and between different levels of government to ensure that only good things are happening? If we have problems, are we able to work through them and solve them by working together and communicating?
My last question has to do with one of your recommendations, Ms. Steliga, and your comment about the friendship centre advantage. I think that on-the-ground initiatives do the best work, rather than huge bureaucratic things. Dealing with the people involved works best.
You spoke about the development of a bilateral accord. I would like some details on that. If we were to recommend a bilateral accord, what would we say? What would be in the accord? How would such an accord be beneficial?
The Chair: I counted at least four questions. Witnesses, you may take them in any order you like.
Senator Cordy: There were four questions.
Mr. Hanselmann: Your first question is where should the Aboriginal Friendship Centre Program be housed. Our board is currently grappling with that question. As a staff, we put to the board an issue memo on that question. It was not framed exactly that way, but it basically comes to the same thing. The board has taken that memo under advisement and has not made a decision on it.
It is instructive that those who are wiser than I and much more experienced in the field than I am have not come to a decision.
Senator Cordy: If the decision is reached, could you let us know?
Mr. Hanselmann: I will make that undertaking. If the National Association of Friendship Centres board is willing to allow me to share with you its decision when it makes the decision, then I will.
In terms of dealing with the question among the honourable members here, the program originated in the Department of the Secretary of State when that department existed. Those of us familiar with the machinery of government over the decades might describe that department as the petri dish of the federal government; it was where new ideas were housed temporarily to assess whether or not they were good ideas. If they were good ideas, the Prime Minister and his Clerk of the Privy Council would decide where they ought to be housed on a more permanent basis.
Unfortunately, that concept broke down at some point, and when the Department of the Secretary of State was dissolved in a machinery change some years ago, its programs were moved into various departments. Whether or not there was a fit was not part of the question, it seems.
As I said, when our board has come to a conclusion on this, if we can, we will share that decision with you.
Do we have cooperation, coordination and communication? No; simply put, no.
I called for that over five years ago in a series of studies that I did on behalf of the Canada West Foundation. At the time, I was making an observation about the obvious lack of cooperation, communication and coordination not only among the federal, provincial, municipal and Aboriginal levels, but also within individual levels of government. At the time, I observed through interviews with federal officials that some federal officials were unaware of what other federal officials were offering to the same client in the same city. Clearly, there was a shortage of communication there.
I do not think we are significantly farther ahead now than we were then. Is there a good working relationship between federal and provincial governments and municipalities? I think what is missing in that question is ``and Aboriginal people,'' and I think it is imperative that Aboriginal people be at the table during intergovernmental discussions about service delivery in urban centres.
Where the Urban Aboriginal Strategy exists, there has been a concerted effort by the Government of Canada to make those connections. Where the Urban Aboriginal Strategy does not exist or did not exist at a particular time, people in those communities have often done the work themselves.
One of my favourite examples is Calgary, a city I used to live in. The Aboriginal communities in Calgary, the municipal government in Calgary and the provincial government of Alberta got together and, led by the Aboriginal communities, came to a common understanding of what they needed to do and how they wanted to do it.
The federal government was the late entrant to that table. To their credit, the federal officials on the ground in Calgary came in with the right perspective: this is not about the federal government taking control and being deterministic and directive, but rather about coming in as a partner.
In those examples where we have federal, provincial, municipal and Aboriginal partnerships, I think the communication exists. Unfortunately, there is a shortage of those situations.
Some of my background is in intergovernmental relations. Therefore, when you ask about the federal-provincial- municipal discussions, I would urge that you include Aboriginal people in those discussions. Are they happening? The short answer is ``no.''
In the period between 2004 and the fall of 2005, the Government of Canada chose to step away from the existing forum, the federal-provincial-territorial-Aboriginal, FPTA, process, which was comprised of federal, provincial and territorial ministers and leaders of Aboriginal organizations. In the FPTA process, at the ministerial and national leadership level, meetings took place. However, more importantly in terms of addressing needs and issues, the officials who worked below those ministers and those leaders met more often and had an ongoing dialogue.
To my knowledge, we have not had an FPTA meeting on Aboriginal issues since early 2005. I stand to be corrected if that is untrue. That process was replaced. The decision was made in Ottawa that it was not good enough; we could do better. That decision was made largely without including the provinces, the territories and key Aboriginal people.
That area is in need of further efforts. I think I have attempted to address all of your questions, and I thank you for the questions. Thank you for listening to me as I drone on about federal-provincial-municipal-Aboriginal relations.
The Chair: Do other panellists wish to respond to any of these questions?
Ms. Peters: Just briefly, is the economic boom having a positive effect on urban Aboriginal people? I know there are labour force statistics that include the West, but I have not looked at them recently. We will have a better idea once the 2006 Census data on urban Aboriginal people is released.
I do know that, historically, when there is an economic boom, housing costs also go up; this has been documented in Calgary and Alberta. You get a decrease in Aboriginal unemployment rates, but you do not know whether that is because more of them are employed or because more cannot afford housing so they go back to reserves in rural communities. At this point, I do not have a good sense of that.
With respect to the question of who should administer the Aboriginal Friendship Centre Program, I want to point out that we have had almost half a century of debate between federal and provincial ministers and ministries about who is responsible for urban Aboriginal people. The royal commission suggested that that be resolved. It really needs to be resolved and, as Mr. Hanselmann said, it needs to be resolved with the input of Aboriginal people. Fifty years of debate is getting to be too much.
Senator Cordy: Even for government.
Ms. Peters: Even for government, yes.
Ms. Steliga: I would like to comment on the employment boom and the bilateral accord.
I certainly am not operating based on any statistical information, but my observations come from being involved, doing the work and looking at the patterns that come from day-to-day experiences. Based on that, I think that an economic boom is starting in B.C. There are many opportunities leading up the 2010 Olympics.
B.C. is finding that there is a shortage of skilled labour in the province. We were involved in a capacity project — really a mapping project — a few years ago, taking stock in our area of the employment capacity in the Aboriginal community. We looked at what opportunities exist leading up to the 2010 Olympics, what we could work toward and what we could build on.
There is certainly recognition from an employment perspective that the Aboriginal population has largely been untapped in terms of providing a large, skilled workforce in this nation. Given the right opportunities and support, a skilled Aboriginal population could meet many anticipated needs.
In terms of poverty, we are dealing not only with unemployment, but also with underemployment. A number of people work seasonal or part-time jobs, particularly the high Aboriginal population where I live, working part-time or seasonal jobs at minimum wage. They still need and seek services in all of our areas because they cannot meet the rising costs associated with the boom, like housing.
As for a bilateral accord, friendship centres are a service organization. We are non-political; we do not seek representation in the political sense. We do not have representative status for urban Aboriginal people. We are not the elected political body for Aboriginal people who live in urban settings.
We have vast experience; we have knowledge; we have opportunities to bring the voice of the urban experience to the table. However, we are often left out of those tables because we are not representative government.
First Nations governments and the federal government may work toward policy decisions, but because we are a service organization, we are not involved in those discussions. Ye, we feel that our experience and the work we do could inform their policy decisions.
That is the friendship centre advantage. Having a bilateral accord with the federal government provides us with a secured opportunity to bring that voice to the table so that when those policy decisions are being made, they can be informed by the urban perspective. Many who sit at that table do not have the same experiences at that vast, 50- or 60- year level. That is part of the advantage and the reason for the recommendation around securing that relationship, role and voice through an accord.
Senator Munson: Is the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples in agreement with seeking a bilateral accord?
Ms. Steliga: With respect to a bilateral accord, I think it `is important for friendship centres across this nation to acknowledge our Aboriginal leadership. We are not seeking representative status and have no intention to do so in the future; we are service providers. For us the issue is about bringing voice; it is not an issue of political representation.
I do not know what the Aboriginal Peoples Congress would say about a specific accord.
The Chair: Let me come back to the question I asked at the beginning about the Winnipeg Partnership Agreement. I sense that you have not had much experience with it, but I would like to look at the model.
The idea is to have the three levels of government, plus people from the community, become involved in designing and then carrying out an agreement on a specific project. It could be in any area; it does not have to be relevant to Aboriginals. It is a model for intergovernmental relations to come together, along with the community, of course.
While it covered more than Aboriginal issues, the 2005 Winnipeg agreement seemed to be centred largely on Aboriginal issues. Is that an appropriate model — the three orders of government plus the community coming together, drafting up a plan and then executing it?
Ms. Steliga: I am not aware of that agreement.
Ms. Peters: It is a pretty new agreement. We are not quite sure how it will work in principle. From what I know, it did involve Aboriginal groups in a meaningful way in decision making about the design of the agreement. Among policy-makers who look at urban Aboriginal issues, the model seems to have many possibilities.
Mr. Hanselmann: Rather than looking at the Winnipeg Partnership Agreement as a model to be emulated and transferred to other municipalities and communities, I would suggest that the members of this committee try to determine what the ideas behind the Winnipeg Partnership Agreement are that are transferable — that is to say, what principles are behind it.
As you say, Mr. Chair, when you talk about federal, provincial, municipal and Aboriginal people coming to a table, you are talking about an idea. There are a number of models that use that idea. The Urban Aboriginal Strategy is one, and during its pilot program phase, it was tied into the Winnipeg Partnership Agreement. Similarly, there was a Saskatoon federal-provincial-municipal agreement for the City of Saskatoon, which attempted to use a little bit more of a cookie-cutter approach than would be appropriate in the circumstances.
For me, the important point to draw to your attention is not the idea of saying that something is the best practice and therefore we should apply it across the board. Instead, it takes more analysis to determine what ideas were behind a program or initiative that works, to identify the ``promising practices,'' which are the ideas that work, and to then offer those ideas to communities to adapt as appropriate.
That brings me back to my earlier call for support for the friendship centres, because they embody many of the ideas that work. They are the one-stop service delivery that is status-blind, Aboriginal-governed and Aboriginal-inclusive. Many good ideas that work are embodied in friendship centres, and that is part of why they are the appropriate investment for the government.
Senator Munson: I would like to get back to the Department of Canadian Heritage and the question of funding and the understanding of training. That is an important part of our report. A business case has been presented that shows no increase in funding over the last 10 years, which means that you are working with 1997 dollar amounts. How can you keep staff? How do you encourage people to work with the community from the friendship centre environment? Money is not always a motivator, but people have to make a living. It must be difficult to operate with a 10-year-old budget.
At the local and national levels, how do you encourage people to come to the friendship centre when someone in government has been shutting the door to you?
Ms. Steliga: It is important to add that not only are we working with 1996 funding, but also, just prior to that, the government had rolled back approximately 20 per cent of the funding. It had been reduced and it has not increased since then.
If you spend a lot of time with people who do social service work, you hear many similar comments: ``We are not here for the pay;'' ``It is not all about the money;'' and, ``We are lifers.''
I have been at the centre for 18 years. I have worked in a provincial ministry department, in a school district and in a number of other organizations and sectors. I have stayed at the friendship centre for 18 years because I love my job. I am passionate about my job, and I am able to give back to my community and to the movement itself. I have accessed and been involved with friendship centres for a longer time than my working career, which has provided me with an opportunity to truly give back.
The friendship centre movement holistically supports employees in many different ways. We capitalize on the passionate work of people, which certainly is not all about the money. We recognize that we are a capacity training ground. We are constantly attracting, training and saying good-bye to many great people, because they are attracted to other organizations. Currently, we are in competition with B.C.'s Ministry for Children and Family Development to hire Aboriginal social workers, but we cannot compete. Even if we are funded, there is no parity because we cannot offer the same opportunities that the ministry can offer its employees.
I attended a meeting in B.C. on leadership. We talked about friendship centre stuff, and someone asked a question of the 100 or so chiefs in attendance: Could everyone who has ever been employed by or accessed or worked at or been to a friendship centre please stand up? Only two people in the entire room did not stand up. Many of those chiefs had been employed by or attended a summer camp sponsored by a friendship centre. I remember saying, wow! It was truly moving. To be involved in and give back to that kind of work is huge.
That is our backbone. At a volunteer level, many women are involved in the friendship centre movement. That fundamental value keeps us growing, but we need resourcing. We are at the maximum of being able to continue the work that we do. It is difficult.
Senator Munson: Can you speak to the national level, briefly?
Mr. Hanselmann: It is perhaps even starker than you imagine. Funding has been kept at the 1996 level. The salaries in the Aboriginal Friendship Centre Program design are based on the 1976 service delivery model. Funding is not 10 years out of date; it is 30 years out of date.
Senator Munson: I appreciate those comments because they reflect what we have heard today. We can talk about hope, but the reality is that it takes money to do the job along with the hope and commitment. I appreciate your answers.
Ms. Peters: The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples also recommended more dependable and higher levels of funding for the friendship centres.
The Chair: I would think that we should try to find out why this budget has been frozen for 10 years, which is incredible, and reduced by some 20 per cent just prior to that. Going back further, a lot less money is available today for something that, from what we are hearing, has been a great success.
Ms. Steliga: Mr. Chair, may I have one brief moment to go back to Senator Keon's question?
You talked about a population health perspective and a national database. I want to mention that the friendship centre has a national database. Currently, we operate with program outcomes, and it might be interesting to look at a population health outcome level. The infrastructure and database are in place for 117 centres across Canada. Perhaps there is an opportunity to begin there with population health outcomes.
Senator Keon: I will follow that up with you. I am aware that some Aboriginal communities have databases and that basic infrastructure can be expanded. I will speak to you more about this.
The Chair: I thank the witnesses. You have all been most instructive and helpful.
The committee adjourned.