Human Resources Committee on Dec. 1st, 2009

[Patricia Bacon]

For each band and where they come from? Most of them are long-term Yukoners. Some of them are transient. In the summer the demand for our service does go up, and a lot of that is a more transient population. Our core population of people we serve, anywhere from 50 to 70 people a night, are Yukoners who live here year round, many of whom are of aboriginal descent and have lived in the Yukon a long time.

The issues they are dealing with are complex. A number of them are dealing with substance use issues, addictions, as well as mental health issues. Many of our clients are infected with hepatitis C; some with HIV are co-infected as well. You may not know this, but the Yukon has the highest hepatitis C rates in all of Canada. We have twice the national average. Many of our clients are dealing with hepatitis C as well, often from passive injection drug use or behaviours that put them at risk for hepatitis C, such as unsafe tattooing practices and that sort of thing.

Our clients are struggling with a number of issues, including systemic racism, systemic poverty. Many of them are residential school survivors as well who are dealing with complex trauma in their past, so substance use or abuse is in their lives as well as mental health issues. They are really struggling on a number of fronts. The outreach van provides some basic counselling support services for them, some outreach nursing services. For many of our clients, the only health care they will access is the outreach nursing services from the outreach van. They will not go to the hospital for health care. They do not have a physician. For some of our clients, the only health care they get is from the outreach nurse who works on the van twice a week.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

How are the systems we have in place--education, health care, social programs--failing these people and their families so that many people are falling through the cracks and ending up there?

As far as our aboriginal, indigenous, first nations folks, it's obviously a great start in the land claims process. There seems to be a huge focus now on the north being the new frontier again. We're going to develop it this time by putting the army there to protect it from encroaching superpowers who might want to steal our resources. But we haven't done a very good job of sharing the resources we have in the first place, which we've already harvested to a big degree.

The demographics tell us that the fastest growing sector of our population is our aboriginal people. That's where our future is. That's our potential. They're our workers of tomorrow, our geniuses, researchers, and health care workers, yet we're missing a whole ton of them.

We talk about income security, housing, and social inclusion. They're all nice words and concepts, but when the rubber hits the road, where do we start?

[Grand Chief Ed Schultz]

Well, I'm glad you asked that question, because it was a failure on my part to mention it in my earlier presentation. So the Creator works in great ways.

In my mind, and in the minds of many of the people I work for, we already have the framework upon which to start invoking this change of attitude and approaches. That's captured in this modern treaty we have with Canada and with the territorial government.

We know that we've already undergone a 10-year review, and right now we're having difficulty in that review process in how we're implementing.... The real wisdom is to look at how we are implementing this arrangement, how we are implementing this partnership. The partnership is framed, as I mentioned before, not just on giving first nations this, that, or anything. It was more than that. It was more about collaborative governance. It's more about collaboration and cooperation and the delivery of public programs and services for the social well-being of indigenous people, but also by extension, if you read that treaty, of other Yukoners and Canadians.

When we look at some of the fundamental problems associated with this, we have, for example, a single-window approach that Canada takes to looking at this picture through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The obligation by Canada on the treaty is with corporate Canada. It's not with Indian Affairs by itself. Indian Affairs doesn't represent all the various aspects of corporate Canada and all the things corporate Canada does. There's Human Resource Development Canada, there's Environment Canada, there's DFO. I don't have to tell you that; you know this already.

We know that historically in our country, in the development of our governance, we very much have stovepiped our institutions and our ministries. What we wanted to bring to bear in this treaty was, let's find a way to move away from that to where we have greater collaboration. Let's work on making sure these local first nations communities have some basic infrastructure, some basic community support, and public programs and services that they can deliver to help start addressing social ills that were caused by colonial practices that happened in the past.

When we look at these reviews, we're looking at some of the federal policy barriers, and there are a number of them. There are too many for me to share with you now, but I'll share them in the written presentation. These are identified barriers, and even acknowledged by many federal representatives as barriers, yet no one is prepared to come forward with a solution to overcome these barriers that prevent Yukon communities from accessing some really good programming that could help them start working on some of the initiatives required to achieve wellness.

I know when I was in Russia in 2000--I was there for two weeks as a guest--I looked at the social condition. We know that Russia came off 90 years of Communism. I was there as a guest and I got to see a lot of things. One of the things I paid close attention to was the social condition of the Russian population. What was interesting to me was the correlation between the indicators of the Russian population and the indigenous population in this country: rampant alcohol and drug abuse, high rates of crime, high rates of suicide, incarceration, etc. If they had taken the word “Russian” out of it and just put “Yukon First Nations” or “Canadian Indians”, I wouldn't have really known the difference. The indicators were the same.

It's obvious that when we as a country adopted the Indian Act and the application and the principles outlined in there in terms of a real social system, it really did a disservice to the Indian people, although that may not have been the original intent of it, but that was the result. It created an air of dependency and it created a system where people were systematically handled from cradle to grave.

This happened, of course, through the life of the Indian Act. We finally shed ourselves of the Indian Act in 1993, as I said, but we're still wrestling with how we now move forward. How do we move forward now? We have these treaties that are in place that provide for the partnerships, that provide for the fiscal arrangements required.

The problem we always have--and I'll just say it--is that DFO as a ministry is not fully cognizant of its responsibilities under this treaty. Environment Canada is not fully aware of what their responsibilities are. Human Resources Canada is not fully cognizant of their responsibilities. It wasn't just Indian Affairs. So corporate Canada in Ottawa has to find a better way to implement these modern treaties. When I look at what the experiment here is--and that's what it's called by some--we have a shot as Canadians at really doing something that's meaningful and purposeful in terms of helping correct some of our history and adjusting the social dynamics to bring about greater equilibrium between indigenous people and other Canadians.

If we can start making inroads in that light, I think other parts of the country would look at that and say, hey, there are some useful tools that maybe we can consider. We recognize that in other parts of this country there are challenges for the local indigenous populations. We need to find innovations. Right here we have the opportunity to do that.

I would really recommend strongly that Canada get on with implementing these treaties, and I would certainly highly recommend to you as a standing committee that if you have the opportunity to look at our treaties, look at what they say. There's a lot there. There's a lot of good stuff there that most Canadians aren't aware of, and when they do become aware of them, particularly parliamentarians.... I used to be in politics and I used to salivate at the mouth when I saw something good. I wanted to do that. I wanted to be a part of that. That would be my recommendation for what we need to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks, Tony, and thanks, Ed.

We're now going to move to the last questioner for this particular group of witnesses.

Ms. Cadman, you have the floor for seven minutes.

[Dona Cadman, Conservative, Surrey North, BC]

Thank you.

I applaud you for having so many self-governing.... It's amazing. I think we should be looking at you to see how you're doing. You could be a model for us. I know down in the lower mainland of B.C., there are a lot of first nations, and all they do is squabble and fight among themselves. They haven't come to grips yet.

How did you become self-governing? What was your process for that?

[Grand Chief Ed Schultz]

Originally it was a process of engagement with Canada at the front end. As you know, in 1973, around that time, Canada had introduced the white paper. The white paper was rejected by many aboriginal people across this country as being just an exercise in assimilation, which was not something we wanted to see as a people.

Our people pulled together. At that time we were pretty separated here in the Yukon too. We had the Yukon Association of Non-Status Indians, which represented all the non-status Indians. We had the Yukon Native Brotherhood, which represented all the status Indians. There was the Yukon Aboriginal Women's Council. I can't remember all the names because I was just a boy back then, but they were all quite divisional in their thinking on how to approach it. They all had the same cause that they wanted to champion, to deal with poverty, low education rates, and all that sort of stuff, but the real debate and division was on how to tackle it.

Eventually it got to a point where the engagements had too many different representations. As a consequence, I think, as I read the material, it allowed for the other governments to not be as responsive as they needed to be. When they amalgamated here in the Yukon, they amalgamated with the firm view that they were going to amalgamate based on their historical relationship to each other and not because someone put a geographical boundary at that degree and that latitude to say that they're separated, because that was something imposed upon our people.

We also recognize that the distinction of “status” and “non-status” was something that was also very divisive in our communities. For example, in my family I was a status Indian. My sister wasn't, even though we had the same parents, the same mother and father, because of the application of the act. I was born just before my parents got married, so I became a status Indian. Since my father was of mixed blood and he wasn't status and my mother married him, she lost her status, so then my sister became a non-status.

We knew that was a very divisive issue in our communities, and people started wearing these tags. It wasn't simply an administrative tool any more for the Department of Indian Affairs to distinguish how much money would be rolled out to pay for Indian support; it became a very divisive thing amongst the people. You know, you're not really an Indian, but you are. We learned to get beyond that.

Then we engaged ourselves with Canada, as I mentioned, and as a response to the white paper we tabled Together Today for Our Children Tomorrow with Canada, indicating that we wanted to have a different approach to the relationship between our peoples.

You have to remember at that time there was a lot of talk about the Alaska Highway pipeline coming through here. There were a lot of people talking about a lot of big money and a lot of wealth was going to be made. We said, hang on a minute, we missed the fur trade, we missed the gold rush, and we missed the mining boom of the 1960s and 1970s. We're not going to miss this one. As I was saying in my presentation, our communities had better get a benefit from this. Historically, every time there's a major economic stimulus, we get nothing.

In terms of what Canada can do, it's to make sure, particularly because you have a higher jurisdiction in the territories than you do in the provinces, that systems are set up so that local northern communities really get maximum benefit from the things that happen in their own backyard. If we had the proper basic infrastructure in these communities, and I'm not suggesting that it's going to solve all our problems, but it would put us miles ahead of the game if people have healthy environments upon which to try to get wealth.

When your're trying to deal with a plaguing problem...I admit openly, publicly and otherwise, that I've had my challenges with alcoholism and drug abuse in my past, and I know what those challenges are from an individual perspective. When you feel that there's no hope of getting a job or any meaningful role, you have no hope or prospect of doing anything other than shovelling ditches, and this, that, and the other thing, it helps to perpetuate a negativity about yourself.

When you go to get a drink of water and you can taste the minerals in the water, when you can see the open dumping of sewage in freshwater streams, when you can see all kinds of things going on around you and you seem powerless to do anything, that actually reinforces what people are already feeling as a result of that poverty. It helps perpetuate the despair and the hopelessness in it.

If we could get the basic infrastructure, I think it's one of the major building blocks for getting us away from poverty, but that alone in itself is not going to help. I think the feds have to really look at a type of stimulus outside of the grandiose projects. We know about the expanded exploration for oil and gas, the Mackenzie pipeline, the Alaska pipeline, diamonds, off-sea drilling, all those big, big, glory projects, which are fine if they happen. But when you look at local economies, what do you have available? How can you create a sustainable economy that allows the greatest margin of people...?

I had the opportunity to tour the Scandinavian countries in Europe, which have similar geographical terrain, climate, population, and challenges. I think we could learn from other countries. They have some very interesting approaches to local economy stimulation. We're very open-minded here in the Yukon about exploring what those are. I would encourage Canada to explore those things, too.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's about all the time we have.

[Grand Chief Ed Schultz]

That's my fault. I'm long-winded in my answers when I get going.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I wanted to finish up with a question to Ms. Bacon again. I'm really appreciative of the kind of work your organization does.

Talk to me about funding. I'm always curious about what local organizations have to endure just to make things happen. Do you get any kind of government funding at all, even municipal? Do you fundraise? Talk to me about your volunteer base and your operational base.

[Patricia Bacon]

Thank you for asking.

Blood Ties is one of the organizations that support the outreach van. Blood Ties is funded both territorially and federally. We get AIDS community action program funding, which is under federal funding. We also get hep C strategy dollars.

Speaking of hep C strategy dollars, one of the things I would encourage the committee to look at is to make sure that hep C funding continues over the long term. It has been precarious from year to year. I think the federal government needs to reinforce its commitment to hep C strategy dollars and to funding agencies around it.

That's what the picture looks like for Blood Ties. One of the things that Blood Ties does is contribute staff to work on the outreach van as an “in kind” type of help. The outreach van has four different organizations, all NGOs, who work together to put the van on the road. Those four organizations work in partnership with the territorial government for funding. The outreach van up to 2007 was running on its own without any government funding whatsoever. We were able to put the van on the road for up to two to three nights a week. It was really on a shoestring. It was just organizations contributing staff in kind; it was relying on the donations of the business community and volunteers to put this project on the road. It was hard to maintain, though, so finally we worked in 2007 to negotiate with the territorial government to come on board as a funding partner.

The territorial government helps keep the van on the road. Now, the van is on the road six nights a week; four nights of that is through the support from the territorial government, and two nights a week it would have run anyway through the in kind donations. That's how it is spread out.

It also relies heavily on volunteers to prepare sandwiches and soup and stuff like that, so it's heavily volunteer-driven for the food component as well. And there are donations, for example, of socks and clothing and that kind of thing. The nursing services that are provided two nights a week are completely in kind donations from Kwanlin Dun First Nation, which is a first nation community here.

Without the volunteer, in kind donation of the business community and the other NGOs, it would be a service that couldn't be offered, and it's an essential service in Whitehorse. Unfortunately, it continues to be an essential service; it's very important.

As to funding, definitely there's always a need for a greater commitment to funding. Conversation came up earlier about why we continue to have some problems and why people are falling through the cracks, as Mr. Martin has been asking. I think that at a broader level we need to be more critical about the way we fund programs in Canada and how we address issues. I'm probably shooting myself in the foot here, but I tend to think that when we continue to fund on an issue basis or on a disease model we are missing the mark.

For example, our work at Blood Ties is funded under a hep C and HIV funding envelope; we're funded to address HIV/AIDS and hep C in the Yukon. The problem is that we really need to be funded to address the broadly defined social determinants of health, which go much beyond hep C. I can be giving out all the condoms I want in the rural communities of Yukon, but when we're talking to, say, women in rural communities who are not feeling empowered to negotiate condom use, for a number of reasons that are going on and that are very broad, I can be there saying here's your condom, because that's what I'm funded to do. But nobody is funded to address those broader issues. I think that is one of the real problems in Canada. It's a problem in the north especially, with the smaller populations. We all have our little islands and we're all funded around our disease models or our “one issue” model. We are not addressing the issue in the way it needs to be addressed, and I think we need to be looking at this in a really critical way.

For example, one of the themes coming up all the time is housing. Housing is very important because it's a broad issue. When I talk about needing a variety of subsidized housing models, it's because housing is so integral to so many other aspects of social conditions.

Basic housing is a human right. It has a direct correlation to people's risk of HIV infection; it has a direct correlation to substance use and abuse; it has a direct correlation to risk of hep C; it has a direct correlation to an ability to work through and resolve trauma and to move forward and to feel empowered and to feel that you have a status in your community. We need to be looking at it at a much higher level. Those are challenges that need to be faced at the federal level, and they need to filter down. I think we need to stop necessarily funding on a disease model and look more at how we empower organizations, NGOs, and other governments territorially and municipally to address the broader social determinants of health that can effect real change and that will have a direct outcome in terms of our seeing a reduction of substance use, of hep C, of HIV, as well as of other problematic issues for people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Michael.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

We should go for another hour or so, Chair, I think.

There are two things I really want to flag here for our researchers. One is what Patricia is talking about. It's interesting that in our work in international development now, people are starting to realize that you'll have people going in to look at malaria, some to look at HIV, some at tuberculosis, some at sanitation, some at housing. In some cases it's faith-based organizations or NGOs. But we need to strengthen the public health systems of those countries and empower them to make everybody stronger collectively, and we're not doing it in our own country. I think this is really important. I don't know how we address it in the report, but it has to be flagged.

The other thing I want to mention is something that Ed said, which was to make sure that local communities and people get benefit from the economic development in their own backyard. That's something that normally might be the purview of Industry or Finance or Natural Resources, but in looking at anti-poverty, I think this is something this committee has to spend a little bit of time on when we get back and start looking at what we've heard: the whole issue of whether there will be a role, or a recommendation from this committee as to how we do this, in our “alleviation of poverty” piece.

I want to thank you for those contributions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

And I'll finish off by saying thank you very much. We realize that you people are on the front lines and are making things happen. From a government point of view, we're trying to see how we can augment and support and strengthen and leverage what you guys do on the ground floor.

So thank you very much for being here today. There has been some great discussion already in the two groups we have had this morning, and we have heard some new things that we hadn't heard, believe it or not. This is always great, because it gives us once again some unique perspective, and that's why we do this.

Thank you once again.

To my colleagues around the room, we have a break until 11 o'clock, if people need to check out or whatever.

We're going to suspend now for half an hour.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We'll get going again. It's 11 o'clock.

I want to welcome here Mr. Dougherty. Thank you for being here, sir. And we have Mr. Routledge and Ms. Hrenchuk. Thank you all for taking time to be here.

As some of the members may or may not have told you, we've been doing this study for the last year or so, and we wanted to get out west. Then it was suggested by some of our members that we couldn't go out west without at least trying to get up north. This is the first time for many of us, and we are thankful and grateful for the hospitality we've received since we've been here. It has been an eye-opening experience for us as well, in terms of some of the nuances that are not exactly different. I'm sure you could have told us that, and will tell us that, but just the same, thank you so much for being here.

I'll start with you, Mr. Dougherty, for seven minutes. I believe you're from the social justice committee at Sacred Heart Cathedral.

[Michael Dougherty, Co-Chair, Diocese of Whitehorse, Social Justice Committee at Sacred Heart Cathedral]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Welcome, and thank you for being here. You have seven minutes.

We'll hear from our witnesses, and then the MPs will take time to ask some questions, to perhaps clarify some of your statements. We're certainly interested in hearing about some of the things you're doing up here, as well as making some recommendations that we can bring back to our government.

Mr. Dougherty, I won't talk any more. I'll turn the floor over to you. You have seven minutes, sir, and I'll make a bit of a hand gesture when you get close to the seven. By all means, you can finish your comments and complete your thought processes.

[Michael Dougherty]

The social justice committee at Sacred Heart is part of an emerging network of social justice committees, certainly in this community. Three high schools have social justice committees now, and the United Church, the Anglican, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic churches all have elements of more or less formal social justice activities.

When we were initially set up by Bishop Thomas Lobsinger—he died in a plane crash in 2000, but he established the committee in 1991—he gave us a dual mandate to act locally, but to act globally as well. He saw these two factors as inextricably linked.

That has led us to be instrumental in local initiatives, such as setting up a weekend soup kitchen. For a long time, there was not a place in town on a daily basis where a person who was hungry could securely have a warm meal. The Salvation Army provided five days a week, but nothing on the weekends. In 1992, I think it was, one of our initiatives was the local weekend soup kitchen, which, for over the last 17 years, has literally served tens of thousands of meals to the local hungry in our community. It's done as an organizational model that is very light on its feet. We have volunteers from a wide variety of organizations who take on the responsibility of one Saturday or one Sunday a month, or maybe once every two months. So there's a broad network of people who are engaged in this fundamental need in our community.

At the same time, we've tried to develop active solidarity linkages and relationships with groups like DESMI, which is a socio-economic development organization working with indigenous peoples in Chiapas, Mexico. We've sent people down there, they've sent people up here. We have fundraised for them and they've provided us with certainly the wisdom of their experience working on grassroots development in their area.

Education on both of these fronts has led us to an understanding of the common underpinnings of the problem of poverty and inequality at all levels, from local to international. Networking, as you've heard from others who have made presentations to you before—the anti-poverty coalition and others—is really fairly important in northern communities. In fact, it's essential. It's certainly been part of our efforts here too. We feel that it is a baseline for us to be engaged in broader networks.

We share the analysis of local and global implications of poverty with groups like KAIROS, the Canadian ecumenical church-based social justice movement, which I'm sure you're familiar with. As they note in their mission statement:

Informed by biblical teaching, KAIROS deliberates on issues of common concern, striving to be a prophetic voice in the public sphere.

Inspired by a vision of God’s compassionate justice, KAIROS advocates for social change, amplifying and strengthening the public witness of its members.

Responding to Christ by engaging in social transformation, KAIROS empowers the people of God and is empowered by them to live out our faith in action for justice and peace, joining with those of goodwill in Canada and around the world.

Similarly, we have had speakers up from Make Poverty History—which I'm sure you're aware of as well—and we have engaged in some of their campaigns. As you recall, from their perspective, poverty is a violation of human rights on a massive scale. They have pushed us to support the United Nations millennium development goals and certainly Canada's support for them, where minimum targets are set to reduce poverty, hunger, illiteracy, discrimination against women, and environmental degradation. Just like their goals, which targeted 2015 as the key date, there are other organizations that we've been linked to. For example, Campaign 2000--which you also are aware of, I'm sure--sparked, I think just last week, another motion on the floor of the House of Commons. Both pointed to the fact that we've been woefully remiss in meeting those targets.

But that doesn't deter us, from our perspective, in terms of seeing the linkage between the local and global, and how essential it is for us, if we're addressing local needs, to have before us the global reality as well.

Make Poverty History, of course, cites the need for a shift in national and international policies to eliminate poverty. Here, what they want and what we do as well and what we advocate in our social justice committee, is quite in line with their perspective, calling for more and better international development aid—certainly justice on the trade issue, cancellation of debt, and, like Campaign 2000, calling for an end to child poverty in Canada. These campaigns are mirrored by other organizations you've heard from, I'm sure—Canada Without Poverty and others.

Often there's a real gap between what we hope to achieve and the vision that is offered at the government level. We often hear the rhetoric, but the reality is there's often a fairly large gap between the two. Some of those are just by nature of the structural reality we're in and surrounded by.

One of my first experiences of a government that was presenting a vision of a very different way of structuring the social and economic conditions they were facing was Chile. I had the opportunity, with a student group years ago, to be in Chile during the 1970 election, which brought Salvador Allende and the Popular Unity Party to power. They had a very different perspective that was offering concrete alternatives, making clear choices. The choices they were advocating, in terms of bank reform, land reform, basic restructuring of their society to address the great inequality that exists between rich and poor, were subverted by the international structures they were enmeshed in. So unless we can envision changing those larger structures and truly making them in line with Catholic social teachings, a preferential option for the poor, an option that sees our image of progress we've promoted since the Industrial Revolution as being essentially bankrupt, as our social encyclicals since the turn of the century have said, there can be no progress toward complete development of individuals without a simultaneous development of all humanity in the spirit of solidarity.

I can leave it at that. I had a bit more, but you have my notes as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you. I hope we'll cover that with some of the questions in the following round.

I want to welcome Don Routledge from the Yukon Housing Corporation.

[Don Routledge, Senior Program Advisor, Yukon Housing Corporation]

Thank you very much.

Before I begin, I want to say thank you very much for coming and thank you very much for inviting us. We don't have many opportunities like this. This is very helpful for us.

In the presentation I'm going to give today I'd like to highlight some of the accomplishments our respective governments have achieved in the last couple of years. I'd like to conclude with a couple of areas in which we could improve our working relationship in our programs and maybe give you some ideas to take back to Ottawa.

As the government agency responsible for housing, Yukon Housing Corporation plays a supporting role in addressing homelessness and poverty issues. We contribute by providing social housing to people in need. Affordable housing is an important factor in the fight against poverty. The social housing portfolio managed by Yukon Housing Corporation is approximately 575 units. With current and projected construction, we expect to add an additional net 100 units to our portfolio by the end of 2011.

We are creating employment through the construction and maintenance of our housing stock through Canada's economic action plan and with funding from the Government of Yukon. Our projects are currently providing year-round employment for over 100 Yukoners, which leads to more indirect jobs and benefits the economy.

In 2009, Yukon signed on with Canada, through Canada's economic action plan, for approximately $60 million in economic stimulus funding to build and retrofit social housing. Yukon was the first jurisdiction to fully commit all the funding in the current fiscal year. Yukon Housing Corporation extends its appreciation and gratitude to officials at Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for its assistance and to the Government of Canada for its financial assistance.

Our Department of Economic Development has calculated that current contracts will create over 100 person-years of direct employment and 22 person-years of indirect employment. With this funding we are already building affordable housing for seniors in the communities of Watson Lake, Teslin, and Faro. In addition, two family housing projects are under way in Whitehorse. With this federal funding we will create approximately 95 new units, and this construction is under way. We will have more social housing and seniors housing starting in 2010.

Over the next two years, Yukon Housing Corporation will be constructing approximately 130 new affordable housing units throughout Yukon. Although some of these units will replace aging housing stock, there will be a net increase to the portfolio of approximately 100 housing units. With these significant investments, both present and future, by Yukon and Canada, the housing corporation's portfolio of 575 units will increase by 100 to 675, which is an overall increase of about 17%. Therefore, together we are helping Yukoners who are most in need.

Previously, through the Canada-Yukon affordable housing initiative, we built a new nine-unit facility to house seniors in the community of Haines Junction. In Whitehorse, we built the athlete's village project, including a 48-unit seniors building and a 24-unit family residence for Yukon College students, as part of the 2007 Canada Winter Games. Altogether, with funding from the Government of Canada and the Government of Yukon, we added 81 units of affordable housing for seniors, college students, and families. With that particular investment, we increased the social housing portfolio by 11%, and we increased the number of affordable housing units for Yukon College by approximately 35%.

While we are making improvements in social housing in Yukon, it is important that we present to this committee an appreciation of some of the major problems the Yukon faces with regard to sustainable funding for affordable housing.

In 1998, Canada and Yukon signed the social housing transfer agreement. This provides Yukon with greater flexibility in the delivery of housing; however, there is a descending funding formula, and by 2029-30, Canada will no longer contribute any funds to the delivery of social housing in Yukon.

The affordable housing initiative is very difficult to implement in Yukon. The current program allows for 50-50 cost-sharing up to a maximum of $75,000 per unit. However, it costs approximately $300,000 to build a new unit in Yukon. Instead of a 50-50 partnership, it becomes a 25-75 relationship, plus Yukon is responsible for all lifetime O and M costs associated with the unit.

Current funding from Canada--be it from the northern housing trust, the affordable housing initiative, or Canada's economic action plan--is limited to simply capital expenditures. Jurisdictions such as Yukon are required to bear the sole financial responsibility for O and M costs, and this is difficult.

Yukon needs a comprehensive and sustainable long-term funding approach with Canada that reflects the cost of construction and the O and M requirements associated with the delivery of affordable housing.

In conclusion, Yukon is doing its best to maximize federal funding, yet a strengthened partnership that is more reflective of the housing needs of Yukoners will better assist in the delivery of affordable housing.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Don.

We'll move to Charlotte Hrenchuk from the Yukon Status of Women Council.

Thank you very much for being here today, Charlotte. We'll turn the floor over to you for seven minutes.

[Charlotte Hrenchuk, Coordinator, Yukon Status of Women Council]

Thank you.

Before I begin, I would also like to thank you for the opportunity to present to your committee. It's not often that Yukon women have a chance to participate directly in national public consultations.

The situation of women's lives north of 60 is a world apart from that in the south--economically, socially, and culturally. Isolation, a harsh climate, lack of resources, lack of accessible and affordable transportation systems, underdeveloped infrastructure, a high cost of living, a high rate of social problems, limited opportunities for employment and training, and the legacy of residential schools and colonization contribute to poverty and homelessness for Yukon women. These conditions contrive to keep many Yukon women living in the cycle of poverty, with little hope of escape.

Twenty-three per cent of our population is aboriginal, compared to 3.3% for Canada. The legacy of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse of aboriginal women as well as cultural alienation and lack of respect are greater in the north. Consequently, rates of spousal abuse, homicide, and sexual assault are higher for aboriginal women. Aboriginal women live with inequities under the Indian Act and face discrimination daily. These are all social determinants of poverty.

Yukon women are 2.9 times more likely to experience sexual abuse and are more likely to be killed by a spouse. The gap between the families with the lowest and highest incomes, an indication of income inequity, widened during the past decade, with single mothers the most affected. Child poverty is women's poverty, which is increasing in our hostile environment. More women and children are accessing soup kitchens, the food bank, and emergency housing.

The Yukon Status of Women Council released our study of women and homelessness in the Yukon in 2007, which I am submitting to the clerk. The report reveals the determinants and impacts of women's homelessness. Homelessness and poverty are inextricably linked. Homelessness in the north is largely hidden, especially among women. In the Yukon, survival sex is a common way for women to keep a roof over their heads, as is couch-surfing in homes with inappropriate men. At minus 40 degrees, women can't be choosy. We've learned women will get drunk in order to be admitted to detox and can find respite in a women's transition home only after they have been assaulted. We have no emergency shelter dedicated to women and children, and little for youth.

What we've found is that every woman is vulnerable to homelessness and the attendant poverty, given the wrong set of circumstances. Per capita, shelter use is highest in the north. Our housing prices have risen drastically in the past few years. The median rent in Whitehorse in December 2007 increased 3.7% from the previous year, and it increased again by 3.4% in September 2009. The vacancy rate for Whitehorse is 2.6%.

Women and children stay in abusive relationships because there is nowhere else to go. The Department of Indian Affairs social assistance rates have not risen in 10 years and lag behind current territorial rates. Present rates for shelter, food, and the bare necessities leave women caught between paying the rent and feeding themselves and their children.

As in the rest of Canada, lone-parent families headed by women are disproportionately represented among the poor. The situation for aboriginal women is even worse, with 73% of lone-parent mothers living below the low-income cutoff in 2000.

Employment inequities, discrimination, and part-time and seasonal work are the ingredients of poverty and homelessness. We must stop punishing and penalizing women in poverty and help women break the cycle. Poverty forces women to make decisions no one should have to make. Women lose their children to the child welfare system if they do not have adequate housing or cannot afford to feed and clothe them adequately. Disabilities can condemn women and their children to a generational life of poverty.

Poverty is the enemy of sustainable growth. Poverty means more than a low or inadequate income. It means poor health, illiteracy, lack of housing, debt, addiction, deep feelings of despair, and the inability to take advantage of economic growth and opportunity.

Canada needs to address poverty through a gendered human rights lens and assist Canadians to achieve a sustainable livelihood. This would enable all citizens to cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain and enhance their capacities and assets, provide sustainable life opportunities to the next generation, and contribute to the life of their communities.

The following recommendations for the federal government would go far to reducing poverty in Canada and the Yukon. The first recommendation is for a national anti-poverty act based on human rights, sound gender analysis, and sustainable livelihoods, with targeted goals and deadlines. This would assist Canada in fulfilling our obligations to the international treaties that Canada has signed outlining the right to adequate housing and food.

Institute a national housing policy that includes a woman's needs throughout her life cycle, as well increasing funding and support to housing and homelessness initiatives. Require the territory to end the clawback of the national child benefit supplement. Raise and index the social assistance rates of the Department of Indian Affairs. Change employment insurance rules, which put seasonal and part-time workers, mostly women, at a disadvantage. Change the reliance on per-capita-based funding formulas for housing, homelessness, and social program funding to one based on need, which reflects the higher costs of living and building in the north. Involve those living in poverty in creating solutions. And finally, increase support to community organizations working to alleviate poverty, dispel myths about the poor, and change the systems that contrive to keep women trapped in the cycle of poverty, homelessness, and despair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Hrenchuk.

We're going to start with Mr. Savage, who's with the Liberal Party. He'll have seven minutes for questions and answers.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for coming here today.

It's our pleasure, as well as our obligation, to be here and to understand what's happening in this community. It's been very illuminating, at least inside, so far.

I want to start off with Mr. Dougherty. Twenty years ago, when Parliament adopted the goal of eliminating child poverty by 2000, I don't think there were as many faith-based groups involved in that as there are now. It's my experience that there's been a resurgence of the faith-based communities being involved in the issue of poverty. And not just in Canada. You mentioned KAIROS.

If you look at the work of the churches you mentioned here in Whitehorse involved in social justice issues, and if you look at the Catholic Church through Development and Peace, the United Church through the Micah Challenge, the Anglican Church through the Primate's World Relief and Development Fund, and the international effort as well, I think there's a big, big role for faith communities to play.

This is only theory, but based on my experience in my own community—I'm from Nova Scotia—I think for some time there was sort of a sense that faith-based groups almost weren't.... I wouldn't say they weren't welcomed, but they weren't seen as equal partners in the fight against poverty, that they came at it from a faith-based angle that seemed a little bit out of touch with a secular society, which I think we've turned around now.

And I think there's a huge potential. We heard yesterday in Vancouver from a number of church organizations that were doing work that you're doing—interdenominational, multi-denominational poverty groups—and I think there's a big, big role for groups like yours to play. I said at the Social Forum in Calgary that I think one of the keys in getting an anti-poverty plan adopted by the government—not just by this committee but by the government—is people who don't consider themselves activists. People who go to church on Sunday and see it as their obligation to their Creator to actually do something for others don't think of themselves as activists. They do get involved in certain issues—same-sex, for example, and I heard from lots of people who disagreed with my view on civil marriage, and I'd tell them, “Now, get involved politically. Get involved politically in the fight against poverty.” We've seen what it can do through Make Poverty History. And these white bands show that there is a big network. I encourage you to be involved.

Now, I just wonder if you have any thoughts on the specific role of faith-based organizations.

[Michael Dougherty]

Certainly there were quite a few more organizations that existed prior to the famous cutbacks of the mid-1990s. We used to have a very well-articulated network of what were called global learner centres across the country, and easily 75% or more of those, once the CIDA funds were cut, evaporated. The same was true for the coalitions. KAIROS is the result of an amalgamation of coalitions. There used to be 13 independent coalitions. PLURA--Presbyterian, Lutheran, United, Roman Catholic, Anglican--was the domestic social arm. Cutbacks over time have forced them to rationalize into one structure, the KAIROS structure. It's been collapsed down rather than expanded out.

Certainly when you look at Yukon history, the first hospital in Yukon was built by the famous Father Judge, a Jesuit priest in Dawson City in the gold rush era. The first schools were church-based. The first emergency relief structures outside of the traditional networks that existed in the first nations communities here were church-related. They played that role consistently over time. The first women's shelter, I think, was probably Maryhouse, which was set up here in 1954. So those were all church-related structures, but they often became disarticulated when they entered into funding relationships with higher governments and that funding was removed.

So you have that yin-yang often of people becoming engaged, establishing organizations, seeking to grow, getting funding, and becoming reliant on that funding, and then that funding is removed and those organizations are reduced or gone. But certainly when you look at it, there has been continually in the Yukon a wellspring of community sentiment such that when there's a family in despair or when there's a disaster of some kind or the ongoing reality of poverty, the generosity of folks is really quite impressive. I've seen it in the annual food drives here, and we'll be beginning Christmas drives soon for folks. Churches often play a part in that, as do other non-governmental members of civic society in general. They range all along the continuum of charity through justice towards solidarity.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I think you could mention the Salvation Army as well, particularly with their kettles they're setting up now, which we're going to be seeing.