Health Committee on Nov. 7th, 2006

[Chief George Neepin]

Very quickly, I'll respond to that from the perspective of overall funding of communities and how priorities obviously get set.

As I mentioned in my presentation, health takes a back seat to a lot of the issues, not because nobody likes health, but because it's just a matter of how crisis matters are dealt with. Families in crisis, as I mentioned, are a critical issue in the community.

For example, in terms of basic needs, we take roads and transportation down south for granted. They're a high priority for many of our communities. By the time you go through a lot of the priorities, then you start looking at the children. I'm sure we would find no child in any of our communities who would not attend a structured program if it was ever set in our communities. But then we'd be in a crisis if we found that children didn't come whenever you formed or planned something in the community.

Right now, in my own community, you see a lot of children looking and asking, “When are we going to do this?”, or “When are we going to do this again? Didn't we have fun when we did that last time?” So they're looking, and I think that's the important thing right now. We're fortunate that we're not here talking about children not wanting to do things, and I think that's an important thing too.

But overall in our communities, health and recreation seem to take a very low priority because of the crises that many of our communities are in.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Chief Neepin, I think you actually mentioned that recreation is not seen as a core program in social funding, and you also mentioned that there is a cap on health funding. Is there a difference, then, between what Canadians might receive in terms of the funding under provincial jurisdiction versus what first nations do in the same areas?

[Chief George Neepin]

The way the funding is right now, many of our financial administrators will tell you that before we sign on the bottom line for any kind of program, contribution agreement, or anything, they'll predict already that we're going to be falling short. There is a policy out there that says it's own-source revenue, where we have to come up with our own moneys. That's why business opportunities are so important. That is why we have to make sure our businesses have to be healthy and strong, so that we supplement the funding that we need and many of the community needs that we have out there. We have to have thriving economies, but that's been a struggle as well for many of our communities.

A lot of times when we see priorities, families in crisis because of funerals and things like that, those take precedence over the basic needs of children for recreation and things like that. So that's what I keep harping on--priorities. As I said, children will come, but a lot of the time the priorities are unfortunately elsewhere for community leaders like me, like housing—and speakers have mentioned our overcrowded housing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Would anyone else like to answer the question?

[Connie Seidule]

Yes, I have something to add.

Just in relation to your question about the access to funding, one thing I know for Inuit programs, and I suspect also for first nations and Métis, is that when the pots are being decided upon in terms of how much is going to be put toward an initiative, most of the time it's based on a per capita cost analysis. That doesn't take into account the many complex issues related to barriers to access or the different needs that indigenous people face. I think that's a very important thing to remember.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Peter, and then if Ernie wants to add anything, he can.

[Peter Dinsdale]

I'm one of the younger ones up here, and sometimes I get impatient with the speed of change within our own organization and with the things we want to do. I'm reminded by the elders we work with that it has been a really short time that aboriginal people in this country have had relative freedom. This isn't really the forum, but it relates directly to poverty.

I'm the first person in my family to go to university, and that was not seen as a good thing. That was a bad thing. I was leaving the community and I was going to school. What was I, a snob? Wasn't where we lived good? I guarantee you that my child will have a different expectation for education.

So irrespective of what programs come up, what our broad aboriginal agenda is, once we determine what that is, it needs to include access for people to go to school to change the poverty cycles we live in today. Poverty is real. We face it everyday in friendship centres. Soup kitchens and food banks are unfortunately our most well-attended programs. I think it really is symptomatic of a broader dysfunction that we need to heal, but for me, education is probably the gold key for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Anyone else? I don't want to push anyone, but if—

[A voice]

What about Ernie?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I don't see Ernie indicating that he wants to speak on it, but if he does, then he will.

Go ahead.

[Bernadette deGonzague]

I just have one other comment.

Every year, public health units do an annual nutritious food basket costing for each region. Before coming to this meeting, I was asking our public health nutritionist if she is aware if the provincial social assistance program uses that cost estimate in determining a family's food allowance. To the best of her knowledge, she said, no, they do not. In Timmins, I think the most recent estimate was at least $600 to feed a family of four, but a family might only be given $400 for a food allowance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Do you have any further questions?

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Do I have more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

You have enough for a very tight question, and then I'll ask for very tight answers.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

I'd like to ask a question about the food security issue. Because we are seeking recommendations and what role the federal government can play, I would again put out to the floor a question about how important food security is in terms of access in the north.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Who would like to answer that? Jim?

[Jim Deyell]

Yes.

Food security is paramount, and we have great difficulties in managing to get food into the north. We've logistically been challenged, and I think we've met success, but not always. However, the food mail program is paid for by INAC, it's managed by the post office, and there are a number of hoops that one must jump through to get the program to work. I find them prohibitive. They're definitely prohibitive to the quality of the produce that ultimately lands in front of the consumer.

We are encouraged at this point to seek alternative ways of doing this. However, the purse strings stop with INAC, and they pay the bills. We can get it there, but there are things in our way, and there are things that bother us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you.

Madame Gagnon.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Thank you for your comments, and above all for the picture you have painted of aboriginal health, especially with regard to the quality of their nutrition. You present a very disturbing and worrisome report. We need to make a concerted effort to redress this situation.

You mentioned a global plan. Given the number of challenges that all the aboriginal communities need to address, what timeline do you have in mind to really make some adjustments before you can alter the reality of Aboriginal people? How do you rate Health Canada's follow-through in terms of the challenges you have to deal with? You mentioned transportation, improved nutrition, better sports equipment, poverty and affordable housing. This represents many challenges and is part of the government's responsibilities. Whether the Liberals or the Conservatives were in power doesn't really matter because they failed miserably and the outcome is disastrous.

Different communities have different expectations; they have programs that are better suited to them. We will need to sit down with federal government representatives and with health authorities in order to establish an action plan.

How long will it take to meet all these needs? Have you assessed it? This is a rather long question, isn't it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Let's see what we get for an answer. Does anyone want to give it a try?

Go ahead, Peter.

[Peter Dinsdale]

I'm certainly not flippant enough to say I know how long and how much in particular, but I will say a lot of work has been done in some of that regard over the past year and a bit. We've been looking at some of the structural changes that might need to be made to our education system, to our housing systems, and to other systems, to make the investments where they need to be made, certainly in a first nations, Métis, and Inuit context, with the Kelowna process and aboriginal round table process that occurred. Our concern, frankly, and the other side of that, is that we need to have an urban action plan, which hadn't been contemplated in that process.

I think there are two timelines that we need to consider. The first is that any immediate investment in children will pay off in this generation. If you wait another mandate, if you wait another ten years, then the next generation will benefit. I think that's the first answer. Kids not being hungry at night, kids having access to quality food and programming, can have an immediate impact.

I think the longer-term issues, with the broader health in our communities, is going to take a better collaboration between the first nations, Métis, and Inuit governments and the Government of Canada, and a broader action plan with the provinces to deal with the cities.

I don't think that's an answer for you, but certainly from my perspective, when we sit down and look at how to make these changes, that's the kind of landscape and timeline that we see.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Yes, Lorne.

[Lorne Keeper]

Much like Peter says, for example, there's the language loss. Language can be restored in one generation. I believe one generation is a good target.

I also believe the government has to give the responsibility back to the people it serves. They just have too much control over our lives.

I worked in Nelson House for ten years, with the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation. When I left that community, the board I worked for asked me what the number one issue in their community was. To me, it was the issue of wellness. Because oftentimes all we do is blame, we have a difficult time dealing with the shame in our lives. So I believe we have to take back control that is rightfully ours.

A couple of years ago, I heard Reg Alcock, the former President of the Treasury Board. He was speaking to the chiefs, and he said that as President of the Treasury Board he had big responsibilities. At the same, he questioned his authority, but he said he knew the federal government had fiduciary responsibility to the first nations of this land and that the government should leave them be. He said the government should fund them with something like federal transfer payments to the provinces. They should send the first nations the money and let them decide where it goes.

But, no. As Chief Neepin said, something like 160 reports have to be done by first nations in terms of accountability. As first nations people, though, we have to have control of our lives. That's the only way.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question, but first I'll make a bit of a comment, Peter. This is the second time we've come across each other. You did a really good job presenting at the finance committee as well on behalf of the organization, so I want to compliment you for that. I know we had a chance to talk afterwards, but based on the speed of the finance committee meetings, it was pretty much in and out pretty quickly.

One of the things that I think you and I talked about briefly afterwards was the investment this government made in the last budget, specifically dealing with education. The $450 million that we invested or have put in the budget for on-reserve funding is to deal with three specific areas: education, water, and housing. The education portion of it is the one I wouldn't mind asking you about.

We've really tried to ensure that the gains you talked about and the specifics of education play a significant role in the future outcome, but I don't think that's specific to anyone; I think it's specific to all Canadians. From an organizational perspective, have you had a chance to begin to see, over the last few months since the budget, how that funding from an education perspective could be focused in the area that we're dealing with today?