Health Committee on Nov. 7th, 2006

[Peter Dinsdale]

Respectfully, I might have to defer, because my groups aren't really eligible to access the funding in any way, because it's on-reserve. We deal solely in an off-reserve context, and there has been no investment in education and an off-reserve framework. It might be a better question for Mr. Neepin or some of the education people. But I'm not trying to duck the question.

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

No, that's fine.

[Lorne Keeper]

What are you asking specifically?

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

What I'm saying is that we have $450 million that was added for on-reserve housing, water, and education. On the education side of it, it seems to me that this is a perfect opportunity to see that part of the education funding is actually put to good use with respect to the issue we're talking about today. I wondered if you could comment on that and on determining a strategy as to how we might achieve that.

[Lorne Keeper]

In my presentation I talked about capacity-building at the local level and about the communities growing their own professionals. For example, at the Manitoba First Nations Education Resource Centre, we have some training initiative cohorts, and we now have three speech and language pathologists trained in Manitoba. Also, in the last couple of years, we have had 37 special education resource teachers certified in first nations communities. Prior to that, there was no such initiative.

If the government of the day wishes to address this issue, you can start with capacity-building, identifying things such as the one Bernadette talked about, the dieticians, nutritionists, and nutrition councillors. Health professionals have to be trained, and the best way to train people at the local level is through cohorts with partnerships with universities. It can be done.

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

I agree with you. I think those are all excellent points. I guess the outcome I'm trying to arrive at is consistent with both of us, in that funds are allocated within the budget. That $450 million is in here. There's an opportunity to access those funds, and you've all presented the opportunity for programs that could be put to good use to address the issue.

I'm suggesting, as Chief Neepin did, that there are partnerships to be had, that there are funds to be accessed in this budget. It would seem to me that there's opportunity here.

Actually, following up on that a little bit with you, Chief, I know you commented with respect to the P3 partnerships. Could you acknowledge or perhaps identify a way in which we could form that type of partnership in dealing with the issue of child obesity, as to how we might frame it and how it might be undertaken?

I'm sure the chair will be a little less lenient with me on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

If he answers very quickly, that's fine.

Did you have a response, or do you want to pass on it?

[Chief George Neepin]

I'll just pass on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

That's fine.

Ms. Priddy, you have five minutes.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to everybody who has come today.

I want to use an example that Bernadette used, but I think it is not uncommon to other people who have spoken at the table. On a scale of one to ten, I'd like to know how big a problem it is, although I may be able to answer without doing it.

You talked about the fact that the funding for one of the programs was a six-month funding, and now you've received information that you can get more funding for six months. Very often, it's project funding and it's six months. Quite frankly, it's impossible to do a six-month program without knowing if you're going to have six months after that, because you'd design it differently. I'm interested in knowing—and not only from you, but from anybody who wants to answer—whether the six months and six months is based on goals that you have set. Is that based on benchmarks that have been set either by you or by the federal government? Is it based on the outcome of whether you've met those benchmarks or have moved toward those benchmarks? Or is it just kind of six months' funding, which is a huge problem in terms of implementing any kind of a coherent program at all for anybody?

[Bernadette deGonzague]

Thank you for your question. If I could speak to this, and I think to Ms. Gagnon's question on the timeline for when we would expect to see changes, when the ADI was first started we received three years of funding. At the end of those three years, in the month of March, we were told we would have another year for the next year, and it has been going on like that, the last time for six months.

How do we expect to do diabetes prevention and the kinds of lifestyle changes that we need to make with short-term projects and short-term funding? It's not based on our goals. It's not based on our expectations. These are the guidelines that come down from Health Canada.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Thank you.

To anybody else who would like to answer that question, in the programs that you are running that do not have long-term ongoing funding, are you involved in helping to set those benchmarks upon which your funding is going to be contingent?

[Christine Lund]

I'm in the same boat as Bernadette. My funding is from the same source of funding, and we, too, just received confirmation yesterday that we will be extended. But we were on pins and needles. How do you prepare a program if you don't know that you're going to be continuing? You can't even plan next month, never mind next year.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Or how to keep your staff—and Jim said the same thing.

I guess I'm really getting at the number of hoops, who sets the hoops, and so on.

[Bernadette deGonzague]

If I could add to that, this funding was not a renewal or an extension. It was a submission of completely new project proposals that were not evaluated on the basis of a past evaluation of existing programs. They were all considered brand new projects. The five years that we have experienced were not considered in giving us the new project funding.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

I'm trying to look at the overall question of what we can do systematically.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Very good question. Thank you very much.

Mr. Batters.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

I'm going to let Mr. Dykstra go for twenty seconds.

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

I just have one other question that I want to ask, and it's to Bernadette.

You commented about the program that you had just been approved for, I assume in this fiscal year. It sounded like it was focused on obesity, or was it not? I wonder if you could just very quickly expand, as I turn my time over to my good friend who gave me the time in the first place.

[Bernadette deGonzague]

It's the aboriginal diabetes initiative. The focus is diabetes prevention, but certainly obesity prevention is a large aspect of that.

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

Very quickly, once the program is done, it would be great if you could report back. Or, as you work forward, I'd love to see the results in terms of how that program goes.

[Bernadette deGonzague]

A national evaluation was done on the program a couple of years ago, but we never heard back on any results as far as projects from across the country are concerned.

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

That's a shame.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

It sounds like an exciting initiative.

First of all, I'd like to welcome everyone to committee and thank you for your excellent presentations. I've learned a lot today.

I know this is a crucial issue for first nations, Métis, and Inuit people, especially considering, as we covered earlier, the well-known genetic predisposition toward diabetes among your population and given the clear evidence of the link between how increased income equals a better diet and better health outcomes.

I'll address this one to Peter, just in the interest of time. Given that income is important, Canada's new government has introduced a universal child care benefit of $1,200 per year. Part of child care clearly is nutrition, nutritious snacks and food, for Canada's children. I wonder if you can comment on the benefit of that, and also on the fitness tax credit, which is $500 per year for children under the age of 16. There have been comments made today about the large percentage of first nations people who are very young individuals, and certainly I would think that a fitness tax credit must help in some way, shape, or form.

I'm going to ask a second question, and then we'll get back to Peter.

On the benefit of those two initiatives, will there be some help there for first nations, Métis, and Inuit people?

My second question will be short, Mr. Chair, with a minute here, so that both have a chance to respond.

Mr. Keeper, I couldn't believe the example you used about the price of milk and how much more expensive milk is in the north in Manitoba, as compared to, say, the community of Winnipeg, yet whiskey is the exact same amount of money because of regulation. I find that sickening, and I agree with your comment that something is wrong with this picture. I would like your comments or someone's comments on how we can change this, on how we can regulate the price of healthy food, so that it doesn't cost more in the north, because the status quo is clearly obscene.

Those are my two questions, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We will start with Peter, and then I'll go to Lorne.