Proceedings
Expert Forum on First Nation Social Assistance Reform
September 3, 2019

Prepared by
Naiomi Metallic and Fred Wien

Proceedings
Expert Forum on First Nation Social Assistance Reform
Ottawa: September 3, 2019
Unceded Algonquin Territory

The Expert Forum on First Nation Social Assistance Reform was sponsored by the Assembly ofFirst Nations, the Centre for the Study of Living Standards and the Social Assistance Research
Program. These proceedings have been prepared by Naiomi Metallic and Fred Wien,
Dalhousie University
Dalhousie University sits on the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mi'kmaq. We are all
Treaty people

1
1

The
taken byby
Nick
Honig,
capturing
Militew(Rubythethroated
Hummingbird in Mi’kmaq).
The cover
coverpicture
picturewas
is provided
TumaYoung,
about thewhich
he writes
following;
In Mi’kmaq stories, the hummingbird is seen as the one bird that is able to communicate with manydifferent
life forces(bothanimals,andspirits).
Thisthatis whatthetocommunity
workers do. They“In Mi’kmaq
stories,the human,
hummingbird
is birds,
seen astheone bird
is ablecommunicate
communicate
with clients,
Band (bothadministration,
leadership
andanddifferent
levels of government. They may
with many different
life forces
human, animals,
birds,
spirits).
see themselves as being small, but like the hummingbird, can be determined fighters/advocates in theircommunities.
I see this as what the community social workers do: they communicate with clients, band
administration, leadership and different levels of government. The community workers
Eastern
Print
Communication
developed
the design ofcan
thebereport.
The editors are grateful to
may seeWoodlandthemselves
as being
small, but likethe hummingbird,
determined
Maile
Graham-Laidlaw
Hillel for their note-taking to capture the proceedings of the Forum, and tofighters/advocatesin andtheirInez
communities”.
Ashley Bach for her careful editing of the draft report.
Eastern Woodland Print Communication developed the design of the report. The editors are
grateful to Maile Graham-Laidlaw and Inez Hillel for their note-taking to capture theproceedings of the Forum, and to Ashley Bach for her careful editing of the draft report.

22Expert Forum on First Nation Social Assistance Reform
Ottawa: September 3, 2019
Unceded Algonquin Territory

Table of Contents
I.

Introduction

II.

The Big Picture: Trends in Inequality and Poverty in Canada
Andrew Sharpe, Executive Director, Centre for the Study of Living Standards

III.

The Legal and Policy Framework for Social Policy on Reserve
Naiomi Metallic, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University

IV.

Summary of the Discussion in the Morning

V.

Innovative Welfare Practices in Canada
Andrew Sharpe, Executive Director, Centre for the Study of Living Standards

VI.

Some Ideas About Best Practices Delivering Social Assistance to First Nations Persons
Living on Reserve.
Fred Wien, Professor Emeritus, Dalhousie University and Lead, Social Assistance
Research Program

VII.

Summary of the Discussion in the Afternoon

VIII.

Conclusion

Appendix A:

Forum Agenda

Appendix B:

List of participants

3
3

I.

Introduction

Social assistance, whether directed to the mainstream population or to First Nations, is not –according to Forum participants -- a sexy topic. Specifically, with respect to First Nation persons
living on reserve in Canada, it has been largely a neglected field except for those directly
responsible for administering it. Despite its substantive importance, it has not received a lot of
attention from the academic research community, for example, nor is it usually near the top of
the list of priorities for political leaders and governments.
Why is this the case? Perhaps it has to do with the history of providing assistance, which forcolonial and federal governments has been seen through the lens of limiting government
expenditures. Indeed, the major historical study of this social policy area has the title Enough to
Keep Them Alive: Indian Welfare in Canada 1873-1965.1 It may also have to do with the stigma
associated with being on welfare, the legacy of the English Poor Laws and their division of the
population in need between the deserving and the undeserving poor.
As Naiomi Metallic points out in her presentation reproduced below, providing social assistanceon reserve also does not rest on a very firm legal foundation. It was in 1964 that federal officials
were first given formal authority to allocate funds for assistance, but this was only through aTreasury Board Directive, not through legislation backed by Parliamentary approval. In addition,social assistance is normally provided to Canadian citizens by the provinces, and indeed federal
officials in the 1960’s were busy trying to get the provinces on board to deliver assistance on
reserve. They were unsuccessful in all cases except Ontario, with the result that “social” hasbeen funded by the federal Indian Affairs department with delivery devolved to individual First
Nations. The 1964 Treasury Board Directive tied social assistance to the policies and practices ofthe provinces and thus did not develop the legal, policy and administrative infrastructure thatwould normally attend such an important social policy. The provinces, for their part, were
understandably focused on the needs of their provincial populations and paid little heed to theimplications of their policies and programs for on-reserve populations nor did they consult
them when changes were in the offing. Indeed, First Nations have had virtually no input on thematter of social assistance at either the federal or provincial levels.
Yet this social policy area is so important on reserve. As data presented in Andrew Sharpe’s
presentation reveal, looking at First Nations across Canada, some 30 per cent of the population
living on reserve receives social assistance according to the latest statistics available (2016-17),
a number that is six times that for the mainstream population. While dependence rates vary
widely from one First Nation to another, almost 40 per cent of First Nations fall into thecategory of having more than 37 per cent of the population on assistance2. Data reported
Hugh Shewell, Enough to Keep Them Alive: Indian Welfare in Canada 1873-1965, Toronto” University of Toronto
Press, 2004.
2
Inez Hillel, Poverty, Inequality and Social Assistance among the Mainstream Population and First Nations in
Canada, Ottawa: Centre for the Study of Living Standards, December 2019. Study commissioned by the Social
Assistance Research Program.
1

4

4

below indicates that levels of poverty and dependency have declined substantially over the past
several decades in the mainstream population, but among First Nation persons living on
reserve, poverty and social assistance rates are multiple times higher than they are for themainstream population.
Our historical research in the Maritimes has revealed that, over the years after the
1964Treasury Board Directive, the administration of social assistance on reserve gradually
diverged from provincial norms as reserve-based administrators did their best to adapt “social”
to the needs and conditions of their First Nations3. Within the federal department, too, there
was an acceptance of the idea of reasonable comparability, allowing for flexibility inimplementation. In 2011, though, a sharp shift in federal policy occurred which required First
Nations in the region strictly to adhere to provincial standards on matters such as eligibility
requirements, level of benefits, and practices for meeting housing and utility expenses. Thisoccurred without recognition not only of different needs and circumstances on reserve but also
without taking into account all the ancillary services that provinces provide to their social
assistance clients, and which were not available to First Nations persons living on reserve.The
Chiefs in the region resisted strongly, fully appreciating that the pre-existing program wasalready inadequate and the policy shift would make matters worse. In response, Chiefs in theregion launched court proceedings and, in addition, the Nova Scotia Chiefs asked for research
to compare social assistance on reserve in relation to the Province of Nova Scotia. Our researchteam was also asked to assess what the impact of the change would be, if it were implemented.
Faced with this challenge, it became evident that the First Nation leadership in the region was
becoming increasingly interested in regaining control over social assistance policy and practice.
To aid in this process, our Social Assistance Research Program partnering with the Mi’kmaq
Rights Initiative was successful in obtaining a grant from the Canadian Institutes of HealthResearch (CIHR) to examine what a Mi’kmaq driven approach to “social” on reserve would look
like. After the court proceedings concluded, the Chiefs in the Maritimes prevailed upon the
Minister of Indigenous Affairs in 2016 to open the door to the possibility that the Mi’kmaq andMaliseet in the region would themselves determine their approach to this social policy area.
Additional funding was made available to support the research program, with both the federal
government and the Mi’kmaq and Maliseet organizations in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick andPrince Edward Island agreeing that the research should be undertaken in order to provide thebackground information that would be required to inform subsequent negotiations.
The first phase of research is now concluded, and steps are being taken for the Mi’kmaq andMaliseet to assume greater control over social assistance policy and practice4. Indeed, on Prince
Edward Island a Tripartite Agreement was signed in the spring of 2019 that makes important3
Declan Cullen, Heather Castleden and Fred Wien, Looking After Community: A history of social assistance policy in
the Mi’kmaq Communities of Nova Scotia, Halifax: Dalhousie University, 2017. See also Tuma Young, Cape Breton
University, Tptinewey: Mi’kmaq Elders Perceptions of Social Assistance, 2017 (with contributions from Deborah
Ginnish and the Mi’kmaq Association of Cultural Studies).
4
An overview of insights from the overall research program is forthcoming.

5

5

changes to the design and delivery of social assistance on reserve. In New Brunswick and Nova
Scotia, preparations are underway for the negotiation of self-government agreements.
Given the historical background, the last thing First Nations want is to continue to haveprovincial social assistance systems imposed on them. It is also the case, however, that theprovinces have many decades of experience in providing this “income resource of last resort” totheir populations, and indeed they periodically reform their policies and programs better tomeet changing circumstances, including changes in governments. In our experience, First
Nations are prepared to look at innovations modelled by the provinces as long as there is nointent to impose them. Equally, they are interested in learning from other First Nations who
may have gone further down the road toward self-determination in social policy to see what
lessons are to be learned there.
It is in this context that we joined with the Assembly of First Nations and the Centre for the
Study of Living Standards to organize the Expert Forum on First Nation Social Assistance. The
Forum took place on September 3, 2019, at the national office of the Assembly of First Nations.
While the specific context for the workshop is the Maritime region, it is the case that many First
Nations in different parts of Canada are interested in this issue, and the Assembly of First
Nations brings a national perspective to the proceedings, having hosted several workshops on
the subject. The Centre for the Study of Living Standards brings its expertise in labour
economics and secondary data analysis to the table.
The main organizing question guiding our discussion at the Forum was to seek the best advice
that participants would give to the First Nation leadership as they set about structuring theirown approach to social assistance, in order to contribute to the well-being and self-reliance ofcommunity members. The agenda for the Forum is provided in Appendix A. We invited both
Indigenous and non-Indigenous experts on the subject, and the participant list is given in
Appendix B.
The editors express their appreciation to the Assembly of First Nations for hosting theworkshop in their national office in Ottawa. We also acknowledge with thanks the careful notes
taken of the proceedings by Maile Graham-Laidlaw and Inez Hillel. These notes provide thebasis for the summary of the discussion found below.

6
6

II.

The Big Picture: Trends in Inequality and Poverty in Canada

Write-up of presentation made by Andrew Sharpe at the Expert Forum on First Nations Social
Assistance Reform, September 3, 2019, Assembly of First Nations, Ottawa, Ontario
Trends in poverty and inequality in Canada have been changing over time and are different for
Indigenous and non-Indigenous persons. The disparity is amplified for First Nations living on
reserve. This presentation begins by seeking to understand how poverty and inequality havechanged in the past thirty years. The intersection between poverty and social assistance isdiscussed in the second part of the presentation.
Between 1976 and 2017 there has been an overall positive story for poverty and inequality formainstream Canadians. Poverty has been reduced and inequality, after rising for several years
to the early 2000’s, has since remained stable.
Inequality Trends
After-tax income has risen for economic families in every quintile5. As illustrated in Chart 1,
since the late 1990s, the fifth or top quintile has risen the fastest, followed by the first or
bottom quintile. Interestingly, average after-tax incomes have been growing slowest for the
fourth quintile. This change is remarkable as it shows that average after-tax incomes are
growing at similar rates at both ends of the income distribution. This growth at both ends ofthe distribution can partially explain why inequality has been stable since 2000.

A quintile is a segment of a population representing 20 per cent of the population. Thus, when income
distributions are discussed, for example, the lowest quintile would be the one-fifth of the population with thelowest incomes while the top quintile would be the 20 per cent with the highest incomes.
577Canada Average After-Tax Income by Quintile of Economic
Chart 1: Canada Average After-Tax
Income by(1976=100)
Quintile of Economic Families (1976=100)
Families

Chart
1: Canada Average After-Tax Income by Quintile of Economic Families (1976=100)
150.0
150.0

140.0

140.0
130.0

130.0
120.0

120.0
110.0

110.0

100.0
100.0

90.0
90.0

First Quintile

Second Quintile

Fourth Quintile

Third Quintile

Fifth Quintile

Source: Statistics Canada, CANSIM 206-0031

2017

2016

2015

2014

2016
2013

2012

2011 2014

2012

2010

Third Quintile

Fourth Quintile

2009

2008 20102007

2006 2008

2006

2005

2004

2003 2004

2002

Second Quintile

2001 2002

2000
2000

1999

1998 1998

1996

1997

1996

1995 1994

1994

1993 1992

1990

1992

First Quintile

1991

1990 1988

1989

1988 1986

1984
1987

1986

1985 1982

1984

1983 1980

1982 1978

1981

1979

1978

1977

1976

80.0

1980 1976

80.0

Fifth Quintile3

Source: Statistics Canada, CANSIM 206-0031

Inequality, measured by the Gini coefficient, has been near-constant in Canada since 2000
(Chart 2). The Gini coefficient is the most common inequality measure, where a score of 0 is
indicative of a perfectly equal income distribution, and 1 indicates complete inequality where asingle individual holds all the wealth. The current Gini coefficient for after-tax income is 0.31.
However, the post-2000 stability in income inequality comes after significant increases ininequality between 1980 and 2000. As a result, while inequality has not increased since 2000, it
remains at the highest levels since data became available in 1976.

88

Gini Coefficients of Adjusted Incomes Canada (1976-2017)

Chart 2: Gini Coefficients of Adjusted Incomes Canada (1976-2017)
Chart 2: Gini Coefficients of Adjusted Incomes Canada (1976-2017)
0.450

0.450
0.430
0.430

0.410

0.410

0.390

0.390
0.370

0.370

0.350

0.350

0.330
0.330
0.310
0.310

0.290
0.290
0.270

0.270

Adjusted market income

Adjusted market income

Adjusted total income

Adjusted total income

Source: Statistics Canada, CANSIM 206-0033

2017

2016

2015

7
11978
97
19798
19
1980
8
19810
11982
98
2
1983
19
1984
84
1985
19
86
1986
1987
19
88
1988
19
1989
9
19900
19
1991
9
19922
11993
99
19944
19
1995
96
1996
19
1997
98
1998
20
00
1999
2000
20
02
2001
2002
20
04
2003
20
2004
0
20056
22006
00
20078
20
2008
10
2009
20
2010
12
2011
20
14
2012
2013
20
16
2014

19
1976

19776

0.250

0.250

Adjusted after-tax income

Adjusted after-tax income

4

Source: Statistics Canada, CANSIM 206-0033

Comparing market income and after-tax income illustrates that to some extent, income issuccessfully being redistributed through the tax-and-transfer system. Chart 3 illustrates theimpact of taxes and transfers on inequality reduction through income redistribution. Transfers
play a much larger role in reducing inequality than taxes. Social assistance, which will be
explored in detail later in the presentation, is just one aspect of the transfer system. The gap
between tax and transfer impacts is growing with transfers increasing in importance.

99Chart 3:
Impact ofandandTransfers
on GINI on
Coefficient(1976 - 2017) (1976 - 2017)
ImpactofTaxes
Taxes
Transfers
GINI Coefficient
Chart 3: Impact of Taxes and Transfers on GINI Coefficient (1976 - 2017)
0.110

0.110

0.100

0.100

0.090
0.090

0.080

0.080

0.070

0.070

0.060

0.060

0.050

0.050
0.040

0.030
0.040
0.020

Impact of Transfers

Impact of Taxes

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

Impact of Taxes

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

Impact of Transfers

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

1987

1986

1985

1984

1983

1982

1981

1980

1979

1978

1977

1976

0.020

19
76
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
10
20
12
20
14
20
16

0.030

5

Source: Statistics Canada, CANSIM 206-0033
Source: Statistics Canada, CANSIM 206-0033

Trends in Poverty
The national poverty reduction target based on the Market Basket Measure for 2020 has been
set at 9.7 per cent. This target was actually achieved in 2017. In 2011, the poverty rate in
Canada was 12.7 per cent and only started to fall significantly in 2015. The poverty reduction
target for 2030 is set at 6.1per cent of the Canadian population (Chart 4), at 50 per cent of 2015
levels.
The primary reason for the decrease in the poverty rate can be attributed to the new Federal
Child Benefit, which has led to very large decreases in poverty incidence among families withchildren. The rate of seniors living in poverty has also fallen due to improved Old Age Security
benefits.

10
10Chart 4:Poverty
Poverty Reduction,
Canada’s
Official PovertyLine,2011-2017
Reduction,
Canada’s
Official
PovertyLine, 2011-2017
Chart 4: Poverty Reduction, Canada’s Official Poverty Line, 2011-2017

6

Source: ESDC, 2019, Canada’s Poverty Reduction Strategy – An Update
Source: ESDC, 2019, Canada’s Poverty Reduction Strategy – An Update

The Canada Child Benefit (CCB) was introduced in 2016, and replaced the Universal Child Care
Benefit (UCCB). If receiving the highest rate, the CCB provides $6,400 per child for children
under six, and $5,400 for children between the ages of six and seventeen (Chart 5). Phase-out
rates begin for adjusted family net income above $30,000 and increases rapidly for incomes
above $65,000. The benefit is received per child, and indexed annually. For a family with twochildren, their total annual federal child benefit would have increased by nearly $2,000 in thefirst year the CCB was implemented. This resulted in the increases in after-tax incomes at thelowest quintile, and contributes to the constancy in inequality despite income growing at thevery top of the distribution.

11

11

MaximumFederal Child Benefits for a Reference Family with Two Children
Chart 5: Maximum Federal Child Benefits for a Reference Family with Two Children (One Child
(One
Child
6 and
One Child Aged 6-17), 1998-2019
Under
the Ageof 6Underand Onethe
ChildAge
Agedof6-17),
1998-2019

Chart 5: Maximum Federal Child Benefits for a Reference Family with Two Children (One Child
Under the Age of 6 and One Child Aged 6-17), 1998-2019

7

Source: ESDC, 2019, Canada’s Poverty Reduction Strategy – An Update
Source: ESDC, 2019, Canada’s Poverty Reduction Strategy – An Update

In 2016, the Working Income Tax Benefit was replaced by the Canada Workers Benefit (CWB).
The CWB supplements the earnings of low income earners with a refundable tax credit. It islargely considered to improve work incentives for low income Canadians.
Unfortunately, with the exception of the CWB, single adults without children have been largely
left out of the poverty reduction strategy – which has been reflected in the shifting
demographics of persons receiving social assistance. However, the CWB is a work-triggered
benefit and therefore only targets the working-poor. Single adults who are not currently
employed cannot access this benefit. Maximum benefit levels for families have risen from
$1,000 in 2007 to $2,355 in 2019, a 135.5 per cent increase. Maximum benefit levels for single
individuals have risen relatively more, a 170 per cent increase. However, singles’ levels are stillmuch lower than for parents, as maximum benefit levels were $1,355 in 2019, up from $500 in2007 (Chart 6).

12

12

WITB/CWB
Enhancements
forFamilies
Familiesand Individuals
Single Individuals(Maximum
Chart 6: WITB/CWB
Enhancements for
and Single(Maximum Benefit
Level
Benefit Level by Year)by Year)Chart 6: WITB/CWB Enhancements for Families and Single Individuals (Maximum Benefit
Level by Year)

Source: ESDC, 2019, Canada’s Poverty Reduction Strategy – An Update
Source: ESDC, 2019, Canada’s Poverty Reduction Strategy – An Update

8

Between 2015 and 2017, poverty rates for single parents fell 7 percentage points, the largest
poverty reduction amongst at-risk demographics (Chart 7). All other at-risk groups, single adults
between the ages of 45 and 64, recent immigrants, Indigenous persons living off-reserve andpersons with disabilities, the incidence of poverty fell by between 4 and 5 percentage points.

13

Chart 7: Poverty Rates for Canadians Most at Risk of Living in Poverty, 2015-2017

PovertyRates for Canadians Most at Risk of Living in Poverty, 2015-2017
Chart 7: Poverty Rates for Canadians Most at Risk of Living in Poverty, 2015-2017

Source: ESDC, 2019, Canada’s Poverty Reduction Strategy – An Update
Source: ESDC, 2019, Canada’s Poverty Reduction Strategy – An Update

9Trends in Social AssistanceSocial assistance is meant as a program of last-resort, for individuals who have exhausted allother avenues and are in need of immediate financial assistance. This section on mainstream
Canadians continues by focusing on social assistance trends and dependency rates in theprovinces.
The total number of beneficiaries in Canada, excluding First Nations living on reserve (except in
Ontario), fell considerably from 1998 to 2009. Since 2009, it has been rising slowly, potentiallyas a result of slower economic growth after 2008. However, the long-term overall trend is still
downward, as the number of beneficiaries and their relative importance has fallen considerably
since 1998 (Chart 8).

14
14

Total Social Assistance Beneficiaries in Canada, 1998-2018

Chart 8: Total Social Assistance Beneficiaries in Canada, 1998-2018
Chart 8: Total Social Assistance Beneficiaries in Canada, 1998-2018
3,000,000

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

1,000,000

500,000

500,000

Beneficiaries

Beneficiaries

Source: Maytree, 2019, Social Assistance Summaries 2018

2018

19
98
1
1998
99
9
20
1999
00
20
2000
01
2
0
200102
20
2002
03
20
200304
20
2004
05
20
200506
20
2006
07
20
200708
20
09
2008
20
200910
20
11
2010
20
201112
20
13
2012
20
20131420
201415
20
16
2015
20
17
2016
20
201718--10

Source: Maytree, 2019, Social Assistance Summaries 2018

Welfare dependency rates are measured by dividing the number of persons receiving social
assistance by the total population. Dependency rates at the national level in recent years haveremained constant at just above 5 per cent since 2014. In 1998, dependency rates were above 8
per cent, showing a significant decrease in the past 20 years (Chart 9). Chart 10 illustrates how
dependency rates vary tremendously between provinces, as have rates of change in
dependency between 2006 and 2018. In 2018, dependency rates were highest in Nunavut at
37.5 per cent, despite an 18.6 percentage point decrease since 2006. The Northwest Territories
and Ontario both had dependency rates above the Canadian average at 6.8 and 6.6 per centrespectively, and both provincial rates have been increasing since 2006. Alberta had the lowest
dependency rate at 2.2 per cent in 2018. However, this comes after a 47.5 per cent increase
from the 2006 dependency rate of 1.5 per cent.

15

15

Dependency Rate in Canada, 1998-2018

Chart 9: Dependency Rate in Canada, 1998-2018

9
8
7
6
%

5
4
3
2
1

19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18

0

Dependency Rate (%)

Source: Maytree, 2019, Social Assistance Summaries 2018

16

11

2006

2018

% change

Nunavut

46.0

37.5

-18.6

Northwest Territories

4.6

6.8

49.6

Ontario

5.6

6.6
Dependency Rate

17.8

Newfoundland and Labrador

8.9

Manitoba

5.146.0

Provincial and National Dependency Rates, 2006 and 2018
Chart 10: Provincial and National Dependency Rates, 2006 and 2018

Nunavut
Northwest Territories
CanadaOntario
Saskatchewan Newfoundland and Labrador
Manitoba
QuebecCanadaNew Brunswick
Saskatchewan
QuebecNova Scotia
New Brunswick
British Columbia
Nova Scotia
Prince Edward Island British Columbia
Prince Edward Island
Yukon
Yukon
Alberta
Alberta2006

5.0 4.6

5.6
4.9 8.9
6.7 5.1
5.0
6.1 4.9
5.3 6.7
6.1
3.4 5.3
4.8 3.4
4.8
3.5 3.5
1.5 1.5

Source: Maytree, 2019, Social Assistance Summaries 2018

6.3

2018
5.3
37.5
6.8
5.1
6.6
4.9
6.3
5.3
4.9
5.1
4.8
4.9
4.9
4.0
4.8
3.8
4.0
3.8
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.4
2.2
2.2

%
change
-18.6
49.6
17.8
-29.6
4.5
3.4
0.1
-27.3
-22.5
-24.8
13.5
-27.1
-3.7
47.5

-29.6
4.5
3.4
0.1
-27.3
-22.5
-24.8
13.5
-27.1
-3.7
47.5

12

Source: Maytree, 2019, Social Assistance Summaries 2018

Welfare incomes vary by province and by household type (Chart 11). In every province, welfare
incomes are highest for households with children and significantly lower for single adults
deemed employable. Benefits for adults with disabilities are limited, except for in Alberta andSaskatchewan if the person’s disability is deemed to be permanent and severe.

1717Jurisdiction

Single Person
Single Person with aConsidered
Disability
Employable

Alberta

Single Parent, OneChild

Couple, TwoChildren$8,027$10,225$19,743$28,989(or $19,705)
Annual
WelfareIncomes frombyBenefits
by Province, 2017
Chart
11:Columbia
Annual Welfare$8,124
Incomes from Benefits
British$13,096 Province, 2017$19,795$25,976
Jurisdiction

Single Person

Manitoba$9,494
Considered

New Brunswick

Employable$7,122

Alberta$8,027

Newfoundland
and$11,379
British Columbia$8,124
Labrador
Manitoba

Single Person with
$12,132
a Disability$9,837$10,225(or $19,705)$11,579$13,096$26,412$25,976$29,178$21,364$18,182$19,920$29,483$26,412$27,663$23,364$29,178$18,182$21,136$21,536$20,619$27,663$30,545$32,135$11,276$21,536$21,086$29,657$29,776$25,358$26,260$40,932$48,357$5,950$5,950$8,600$8,600$9,494$12,132$10,264$9,837

Newfoundland andPrince Edward
LabradorIslandNova Scotia
Ontario
QuebecPrince Edward
IslandSaskatchewan
QuebecSaskatchewan$11,379$11,579

Territories
NunavutNunavut
Yukon Yukon$28,989$23,364$7,433$7,122

Northwest
Territories
Northwest$19,920$19,743

Couple, TwoChildren $29,483$19,795

Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Ontario

Single Parent, One$21,364
Child$9,461$14,682$7,900$10,229$7,433$9,461$9,083$7,900$10,264$14,682$12,741$10,229$8,820$11,276$12,741(or $15,645)$25,358$26,260(or $15,645)$9,083$8,820$17,820$17,820$21,474$21,474$21,136$20,619$21,086$40,932$17,012$17,012$33,082$33,082$28,708$48,915$30,545$32,135$29,657$29,776$48,357$28,708$48,915

13

Source: Maytree, 2018, Welfare in Canada 2017
Source: Maytree, 2018, Welfare in Canada 2017

Welfare adequacy is measured by comparing maximum welfare benefits to the Market Basket
Measure (MBM), Canada’s official poverty line. Welfare incomes for single employable adults
are highest in Newfoundland and Labrador, reaching just below 60 per cent of the MBM (Chart
12). In New Brunswick, Alberta and Nova Scotia, welfare incomes are below 40 per cent of theMBM. The inadequacy of welfare incomes for single adults is shocking, especially whencompared to other household types. The least adequate welfare income for a single parent
with a child is in Nova Scotia (Chart 13), and yet is still higher than the highest income for asingle adult in any province. Quebec has the highest welfare income for single parents, reachingnearly 85 per cent of the MBM. Incomes for couples with children are comparable, ranging
between 82 and 62 per cent of the MBM Chart 14). The adequacy of welfare incomes forhouseholds with children is largely due to increases in the Canada Child Benefit.

18

18

Welfare Income for Single Employable Adult as Percentage of MBM,
Chart 12: Welfare Income for Single Employable
Adult as Percentage of MBM, 2017
2017
70
60
50
40
30
20

%

10

Sc
ot
ia
No
va

be
rta
Al

ick
Br
un
sw

Ne

w

Co
lu
m
bi
a

nd

Br
iti
sh

Isl
a
ar
d

Ed
w

wa
n

ec

Sa
sk
at
ch
e

Qu
eb

M
an
ito
ba

On
ta
rio
Pr
in
ce

Ne

wf
ou
nd
la

nd

an
d…

0

14

Source: Maytree, 2018, Welfare in Canada 201719

Welfare Income for Single Adult with Disability as Percentage of MBM,
Chart 13: Welfare Income for Single Parent withChild as Percentage of MBM, 2017
2017
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

Is
d

a
rt

in
c

e

Ed
w
ar

Al
be

d
la
n

ti a
Sc
o
No
va

Ne
w

Br

un
s

w

ick

w
an
Sa
sk
at

La
br
an
d

Ne
w
fo
u

Pr

nd

la
nd

is h
Br
it

ch
e

ad
or

a
Co

an
i
M

lu
m

to
b

bi

a

io
ar
On
t

ue
b

ec

0
Q

%

15

Source: Maytree, 2018, Welfare in Canada 201720

Welfare Income for Single Parent with Child as Percentage of MBM,
Chart 14: Welfare Income for Couple with Two
Children as Percentage of MBM, 2017
2017
Chart 14: Welfare Income for Couple with Two
Children as Percentage of MBM, 2017
Chart 14: Welfare Income for Couple with Two Children as Percentage of MBM, 2017
90

90
80
7080
70
70
6060
60
50
5050
40
4040
30
30
3020
% 20
% 2010
% 100
10 0

ia ia

is is

Noh Ch C
va o oSc lu lu
ot m mia b b

ia ia

Br
ta ta
iti N Nsh o oCo vava
BrBr lumb ScSoco
it it ia t t

Al A Ab e lb lb
rta e e
rr

ndnd

Ne
wP P
Qu
fo ri riQ
un n neQbeu udl ceceanc ebebd EdEdecec
an w wd a a
La r rbr d dad I I
orslasla0

M MM
an a aito n nNeNeb ait itww
obob
fofo NeSwaSsas
aa
unun
k
k
Br a adl dl unstchtchanan wi e e
ck w wdd
anan
Saanansk d dat L Lch a aewb b
Pranrarain N Ndodo
ce e eEd w wrr
w BB
ar r rd uu
I sl n n
an swsw
d i i
ckck
On O Ota ntnt
rio a ariorio8090

16Source: Maytree, 2018, Welfare in Canada 2017
Source: Maytree, 2018, Welfare in Canada 2017
Source: Maytree, 2018, Welfare in Canada 2017

Welfare incomes for adults with a disability are also far below the MBM poverty line, ranging
Welfare incomes for adults with a disability are also far below the MBM poverty line, ranging
from 50 per cent to 70 per cent of that standard (Chart 15). However, Alberta andfrom 50 per cent to 70 per cent of that standard (Chart 15). However, Alberta andSaskatchewan have both developed programs for persons with permanent, severe disabilities
Saskatchewan have both developed programs for persons with permanent, severe disabilities
that prevent the individual from working. In those programs, incomes are quite close to thethat preventthe individual from working. In those programs, incomes are quite close to theMBM 66.
MBM .
Despite having the highest welfare incomes for adults with a disability, single parents with a
Despite having the highest welfare incomes for adults with a disability, single parents with achild and couples with children, Quebec’s dependency rate is lower than the national average.
child and couples with children, Quebec’s dependency rate is lower than the national average.
In contrast, Alberta has an extremely low dependency rate and offers very stringent benefits.
In contrast, Alberta has an extremely low dependency rate and offers very stringent benefits.
However, most of the reduction in number of beneficiaries in the past three decades in Alberta
However, most of the reduction in number of beneficiaries in the past three decades in Alberta
has come from a tightening of eligibility criteria and work requirements.
has come from a tightening of eligibility criteria and work requirements.

6
The data in Chart 13 excludes the special programs in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
6

The data in Chart 13 excludes the special programs in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
21

21
21

Chart 15: Welfare Income for Single Adult with Disability as Percentage of MBM, 2017

Welfare Income for Couple with Two Children as Percentage of MBM,
2017
Chart 15:Disability as Percentage of MBM, 2017
80 Welfare Income for Single Adult with
70

90
80

60

70

50

60

40

50
40

30

%% 30

20

20

10
Al
be
rta

nt
a

ia

rio
Br
un
sw
Ailck
be
rta
No
v
a
Pr
NSoc
in
voat
ce
Sica
Ed
ot
ia
wB
arri
tdis
hIs
Cloa
lnu
md
b

Ne
w

ch
ew
Oan

M
an
Sa ito

ta
r

M io
an
ito
b

sk b
N e Br
at a
w iti
ch
fo s
ew
un h
C
an
dl o
an l
d um
Ne
an
w
d bi
La a
fo
br
un
ad
dl
or
a
Ne nd
w a
Br n
un d
Sa
sw…
sk
ick
at

0

Qu
eb
Pr
ec
in Qu
ce
Ed ebe
w
ar c
d
I sl
On and

0

a

10

17

Source: Maytree, 2018, Welfare in Canada 2017

Source: Maytree, 2018, Welfare in Canada 2017

The number of social assistance beneficiaries with a disability has risen steadily in the past
decade. This trend is known as the “medicalization” of welfare, where tighter eligibility
requirements make it more difficult for able-bodied and employable persons to receive
financial assistance. Mandatory work requirements may result in employable welfare recipientstransitioning back to the labour force (often into-low wage and precarious labour) or losing
their benefits. For this reason, only persons with an exemption from work requirements(usually due to disability) remain on social assistance for long periods of time.
The welfare program as it is currently structured requires destitution in order for a person to beeligible to begin receiving social assistance. The first criterion that an applicant has to meet istheir province’s asset exemption levels, that is what assets they are able to retain before claw
backs kick in (Chart 16). Asset exemption levels only consider a person’s liquid assets, so owninga home or car would not immediately prevent a person from applying for social assistance. If
the person were unable to transition back to the labour force or find an alternative form of
support, they would eventually be expected to sell their physical assets. However, a temporary
period of roughly six months is allowed in most provinces to give the individual an opportunity
to recover quickly.

22
22

Asset Levels – Exemptions
Provinces

Single Person Household

Multi-Member Household

NB$1,000$2,000

Provincial Liquid Asset Exemptions, 2018

Chart 16:
Exemptions, 2018
NSProvincial Liquid Asset $2,000
PEI
NL
Provinces
NB
MB
NS
BC
PEI
NL
AB
MB
QC
BC
ON
AB
QC
SK
ON
NU
SK
NU
NT
NT
YTYT

$4,000$2,500$3,500-5,000
Asset Levels – Exemptions$3,000$5,500SinglePerson Household Multi-Member
Household$1,000$2,000 $8,000-16,000$4,000$2,000$4,000$2,000$2,500$3,500-5,000$4,000$3,000$5,500 $1,125-1,612$627$4,000$8,000-16,000$1,500$2,500$2,000$4,000$10,500-16,000$627$10,000$1,125-1,612$1,500$2,500$1,500$3,000-4,000$10,000$10,500-16,000$500$1,500$3,000-4,000$1,000$500 $300$1,000$380-560$300$380-560$1,000-1,600$500 $500$1,000-1,600

Source: Maytree, 2018, Welfare in Canada 2017 and provincial websites

18

Source: Maytree, 2018, Welfare in Canada 2017 and provincial websites

Asset level exemptions in Alberta and the territories are all below $1,000. Such stripping ofassets makes it even more difficult for an individual to leave poverty even if they were to findemployment. Furthermore, a low asset limit prevents the individual from saving any of theirincome in order to smooth consumption over a given period of time, or invest their income inany meaningful way. Saving to move to a better paid job or return to school becomes
impossible. Asset exception limits are highest in Ontario, where a single individual can have up
to $10,000 of liquid assets.
Monthly earning exemptions determine how much a recipient can earn in addition to receiving
welfare benefits before their earnings are clawed back (Chart 17). Allowing recipients to keep a
portion of their earnings represents an incentive to work rather than depend exclusively on
their benefits. However, extremely low earning exemptions may not be able to outweigh the2323additional costs involved in finding employment, such as transportation, clothing andequipment, and childcare. After a recipients’ earning surpass the exemption rate, earnings are
reduced according to the provincially defined reduction rate. In addition to the reduction rate,
the recipient will potentially have to pay into Employment Insurance, the Canada Pension Planand provincial and federal income tax.

Monthly Earning Exemptions and Reduction Rates, 2017

Chart17:
17:Monthly
MonthlyEarning
EarningExemptions
Exemptionsand
andReduction
Rates,
2017
Chart
Reduction
Rates,
2017
For single employable adultSingle Parent with 1 Child or Couple

For single employable adult
Province or
Territory

Exempt Net
Earnings ($)

Reduction Rate(%)

Province orBC
Territory

Exempt Net
200
Earnings ($)

Reduction100
Rate (%)

230
200 0
200
230
300
0 200
150
20025030025075200100
200
150
200

75
100
100
70
75
75
100
100
70
70
25-75
7570
80
100
50
85
70
100

NS

250

PEI

AB
BC SK
MB
AB
ON
SK QC
NB
MB NS
ON PEI
NL
QC YT
NT
NB
NU

Single Parent
with 1 Child or Couple with 2with 2 ChildrenChildren
Exempt Net
Earnings ($)

Exempt Net
400
Earnings ($)

Reduction Rate(%)

100
Reduction
Rate (%)

230
125
400
200
230
300
200
125
200
200
250
400
300
150
200
150
400
200
400

75
100 100
70
75
75
100 10070
25-75 7070 75
80
50 100
85
70
100

25-75

250

25-75

250

70

400

70

NL

75

80

150

80

YT

100

50

150

50

NT

200

85

400

85

NU

200

100

400

100

Source: Maytree, 2018, Welfare in Canada 2017 and provincial websites

19

Source: Maytree, 2018, Welfare in Canada 2017 and provincial websites

24
24

Ontario has the highest earning exemption, set at $300 per month, after which earnings are
reduced by 75 cents on every dollar earned. While Saskatchewan is currently phasing out theirsocial assistance program for a newly reformed one, the old program that most recipients still
depend on allows for no exempt earnings at all. Most provinces allow recipients to earn about$200 monthly and clawback rates are 50 per cent or higher. Nova Scotia is the only exception,
where clawback rates increase gradually with income.
While increasing asset limits and extending the earning exemptions are seen as quick fixes tosome of the structural barriers that trap social assistance recipients in poverty, amendments tosuch narrow policies cannot reduce dependency rates alone. For example, asset limits andearning exemptions are highest in Ontario, yet it remains the province with the highest
dependency rate.
Indigenous Poverty and Social Assistance Dependency
This section focuses on trends in poverty and social assistance dependency for Indigenous
persons in Canada.
Median incomes have risen for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous persons between 2005 and2015. Income levels were higher in both years for non-Indigenous persons, with Indigenous
persons reaching non-Indigenous median income levels from 2005, in 2015.
Within Indigenous groups, median incomes were highest for Métis persons, and lowest for First
Nation persons, specifically for persons living on reserve. For non-Indigenous persons medianincomes in 2015 were close to $35,000, compared to just above $15,000 for First Nation
persons living on reserve (Chart 18). Inuit persons and First Nation persons living off-reserve
have comparable median income levels. The same positive news in terms of poverty reduction
for mainstream Canadians over the last two decades is not present in Indigenous communities.

25
25

Median Income (15 years and older) by Identity Group, 2005 and 2015,
Chart 18: Median Income (15 years and older)
by Identity Group, 2005 and 2015, Canada
CanadaChart 18: Median Income (15 years and older)
by Identity Group, 2005 and 2015, Canada

Source: The National Indigenous Economic Development Board, 2019, The Indigenous Economic
Progress Report
Source: The National Indigenous Economic Development Board, 2019, The Indigenous Economic
Progress Report21

Social assistance is much more prevalent within Indigenous communities, especially for First
Nations living on reserve. For First Nations living on reserve, the proportion of the population
whose primary income source is government transfers increase marginally between 2005 and2015, reaching just under 45 per cent of individuals (Chart 19). Dependence on governmenttransfers as the primary income source was nearly equal for Métis persons and non-Indigenous
persons. Despite this finding, median incomes remain higher for non-Indigenous persons thanMétis persons, however that gap has been reduced since 2005.

26

26

Proportion of Individuals (15 years and older) with Main Source of Income

Chart 19: Proportion of Individuals (15 years and older) with Main Source of Income fromfrom Government
Transfers
IdentityGroup,
2005 and 2015, Canada
Government
Transfers by Identity
Group,by2005
and 2015,
CanadaChart 19: Proportion of Individuals (15 years and older) with Main Source of Income from
Government Transfers by Identity Group, 2005 and 2015, Canada

Source: The National Indigenous Economic Development Board, 2019, The Indigenous Economic
Progress Report
Source: The National Indigenous Economic Development Board, 2019, The Indigenous Economic
Progress Report

22

The prevalence of low income among the First Nation population can also be derived from
Census data but the measures are not perfect for our purposes in that they include both onreserve and off-reserve populations. The measures used are also not consistent over time, butthey do show a prevalence of low income at about 30 per cent, more than twice the nonIndigenous level.

27

27

Chart 20 : Prevalence of Low Income among First Nation and Non-Indigenous Adults, 2005Prevalence of Low Income among First Nation and Non-Indigenous
2015
2005-2015
Chart 20 : Prevalence of Low IncomeAdults,
among First
Nation and Non-Indigenous Adults, 2005-2015
Year

First Nations

Year
2005
economic family
members2005 economic family members

First Nations

26.8

Non-Indigenous

26.8

8.4

2005
unattachedindividuals
2005
unattached individuals

49.6
49.6

28.1 28.1

30.4

14.5

2010

2010
2015

Non-Indigenous
8.4

30.4

14.5

29.7

13.8

First Nations data is for registered Indians living either on or off reserve. The low income measure used in 20052015
29.7 In later years it is Statistics Canada’s
13.8
is the Low Income Cut-off After Tax (LICO-AT).
Low Income Measure After
Tax (LIM_AT). Source: Statistics Canada Catalogues 97-564-XCB2006004; 99-014-X2011043; and 98-400X2016173.

Note: First Nations data is for registered Indians living either on or off reserve. The low income measureused in 2005 is the Low Income Cut-off After Tax (LICO-AT). In later years it is Statistics Canada’s Low 23
Income Measure After Tax (LIM_AT). Source: Statistics Canada Catalogues 97-564-XCB2006004; 99-014X2011043; and 98-400-X2016173.

When specifically considering child-poverty on reserve, the intensity varies drastically between
provinces. Manitoba and Saskatchewan both have incredibly high child poverty rates, both at
65 per cent of children living below the poverty line in 2016 (Chart 21). Manitoba andSaskatchewan also have the highest percentage of First Nation children in their respective
foster care systems. National trends are also extremely high, with 53 per cent of First Nations
children on reserve living in poverty. Poverty rates were only distinctly lower in Quebec, where
29 per cent of First Nations children are living in poverty on reserve.

2828

LIM-AT Poverty Rates (%) for On-Reserve Status First Nations Children,
Chart 21: LIM-AT Poverty Rates (%) for On-Reserve Status First Nations Children, 2006-2016
Chart 21: LIM-AT Poverty Rates (%) for On-Reserve
Status First Nations Children, 2006-2016
2006-2016
80
80
74
74
68
68
62
62
56
56
50
50
44
44
38
38
32
32
26
26
20
20

2006
2006
CanadaCanadaSaskatchewan
QuebecManitoba

2011
2011
British Columbia
British Columbia
Alberta
Manitoba
Ontario2016
2016
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Ontario

QuebecSource: Beedie, Natasha, David Macdonald, and Daniel Wilson (2019), Towards Justice: Tackling
Source: Beedie, Natasha, David Macdonald, and Daniel Wilson (2019), Towards Justice: Tackling
Indigenous Child Poverty in Canada
Indigenous Child Poverty in Canada

24Social assistance beneficiaries have fallen slightly for First Nations living on reserve since 1996,
but are still six times higher than the national average. The number of beneficiaries fell
between 1997 and 2001, stagnated and then began to rise again in 2003. There is limited
reliable time series data available, but assuming linear trends between missing years, numbers
would have risen until 2012, and then eventually falling to current levels (Chart 22). The age
distribution of welfare beneficiaries on reserve is much younger than for mainstream
Canadians. Youth dependency has been targeted through a variety of government employment
initiatives, but the success of the programs has been insignificant.

29

29

Total Social Assistance Beneficiaries On-Reserve, 1996-97 – 2005-06

Chart 22: Total Social Assistance Beneficiaries On-Reserve, 1996-97 – 2005-06

175,000
Chart 22: Total
Social Assistance Beneficiaries On-Reserve, 1996-97 – 2005-06
170,000
165,000
160,000
155,000
150,000
145,000

19
96
-9
19 7
97
-9
19 8
98
19 -99
99
-2
00
20 0
00
-0
20 1
01
-0
20 2
02
-0
20 3
03
-0
20 4
04
-0
20 5
05
-0
20 6
11
-1
20 2
16
-1
7

140,000

Source:Audit
Evaluation
SectorINAC,
2007
Indigenous
Services
Canada,2019
Source:Audit
andandEvaluation
SectorINAC,
2007
andandIndigenous
Services
Canada,2019

The welfare dependency rate on-reserve has fallen from 41 per cent in 1996 to 29.5 per cent in2017 (Chart 23). While this reduction is quite impressive, it varies greatly by region andindividual reserve. Many reserves have much lower dependency rates, whereas some reserves
have dependency rates as high as 80 per cent of the population.

30

25

Dependency Rate in On-Reserve, 1996-97 – 2005-06

Chart 23: Dependency Rate in On-Reserve, 1996-97 – 2005-06
43

41
Chart 23: Dependency
Rate in On-Reserve, 1996-97 – 2005-06

Dependency Rate in %

39
37
35
33
31
29
27

19
96
-9
7
19
97
-9
8
19
98
-9
9
19
99
-2
00
0
20
00
-0
1
20
01
-0
2
20
02
-0
3
20
03
-0
4
20
04
-0
5
20
05
-0
6
20
11
-1
2
20
16
-1
7

25

Source: Audit and Evaluation Sector INAC, 2007 and Indigenous Services Canada, 2019
Source: Audit and Evaluation Sector INAC, 2007 and Indigenous Services Canada, 201926

There is also data available from two national on-reserve surveys coordinated by the First
Nations Information Governance Centre. The question asked in these surveys is whether the
respondent received some or all of their income from social assistance in the year prior to thesurvey. National data reported in Chart 24 also shows a level of social assistance dependence inthe 30 per cent range, while data from Nova Scotia reveals a higher level, within a few points of
50 per cent (Chart 25).

31

Social Assistance as an Income Source: Canada On Reserve

Chart 24: Social Assistance as an Income Source: Canada On Reserve

Year

Males

Females

2007
2012

Total
33.9

39.9

35.8

37.9

2007 data comes from the First Nation Regional Health Survey (FNRHS) coordinated nationally by theFirst Nation Information Governance Centre (FNIGC). Respondents are adults living on reserve who
were asked if social assistance accounted for some or all of their income in 2007. The 2012 data
reflects national estimates calculated from the First Nation Regional Early Education and Employment
Survey (FNREES) using a similar question as in 2007 but for the year 2012. Respondents are adults lessthan 65 years of age. Data provided by FNIGC.

32

27

Chart 25: Social Assistance as an Income Source: Nova Scotia On Reserve
Year

Males

Females

Total

Social Assistance as an Income Source: Nova Scotia On Reserve

Chart 25: Social Assistance as an Income Source: Nova Scotia On Reserve
1996
51 per cent

Year
1996
2001
2001
2007

2007

Males

Females

43.7

54.2

43.7

Total
51 per cent

54.2

51.0

52.9

51.0

52.9

2013-142013-1449.0 49.0
personal
incomepersonal
53.8 householdincome income
53.8 householdincomeNote: Data from 1996 through 2007 comes from the First Nation Regional Health
Survey for Nova Scotia,

administered by the Union of Nova Scotia Indians (UNSI). For 1996, the survey asked adults living on
Data from1996
through2007source
comes fromthe FirstinNation
Regional year.
HealthSubsequently,
Survey for Novathe
Scotia,administeredreservewhat
wasthe mainof incomethe previous
questionaskedby theUnion of Nova Scotia Indians (UNSI). For 1996, the survey asked adults living on reserve what was the main source of
whether the respondent used social assistance for some or all of their income. The 2012 data comesincome in the previous year. Subsequently, the question asked whether the respondent used social assistance for somefromFirstincome.
NationThe
Regional
Early
Education
Survey(FNREES)and
alsoEmployment
administeredbyor alltheof their2012 data
comesfrom theandFirstEmployment
Nation Regional
Early Education
SurveyUNSI.
FNREES
includes
data
from
9
Nova
Scotiacommunities
and
3
from
New
Brunswick/PEI.
Both(FNREES) also administered by UNSI. FNREES includes data from 9 Nova Scotia communities and 3 from New
surveysare coordinatednationallyby thenationallyFirst Nation
Information
Centre (FNIGC).
Brunswick/PEI.
Both surveys
are coordinatedby theFirst Nation Governance
Information GovernanceCentre (FNIGC). 28

Conclusion
In conclusion, poverty reduction advancements have not been uniformly distributed acrossCanada and Canadians. The progress made by the improved Canada Child Benefit and theCanada Workers Benefit has had a positive impact at the tail end of the distribution. As a result,inequality has remained constant over the last 20 years but has not fallen. Levels of income forall quintiles of the population have risen. Within the Indigenous population, Métis populations
tend to fare better than First Nations, especially First Nations living on reserve.
Welfare dependency rates are falling for both Canadian and First Nations persons, but
dependency for First Nations remains six times higher than the national average. For
mainstream Canadians, the growing number of single adults and adults with disabilities onsocial assistance is a pervasive issue as poverty reduction strategies have favored householdswith children. On reserve, concerns over the high youth dependency rates leaves room toquestion whether the objective of social assistance should be to reduce dependency on the
program or provide an adequate living standard for those in need.
33

33

Provinces have not undertaken large scale welfare reform, yet many lessons can be learned
from the impacts small changes have had on social assistance recipients and trends in
dependency. Provincial data from Quebec contradicts the widely held belief that higher welfare
rates lead to increased dependency. Quebec’s dependency rate is lower than the national
average, yet welfare incomes are amongst the highest in the country for all household types.
Given the inadequacy of welfare incomes country-wide in reaching the MBM, this could
illustrate that there is the possibility to raise welfare incomes without incentivizing individuals
who are not currently on welfare to apply, or discouraging current recipients from seeking
employment.
Certain administrative changes to the welfare system such as higher asset limits or larger
earning exemptions would have positive impacts. Current asset limits require applicants to bedestitute in order to receive welfare, and keep recipients living in poverty by preventing themfrom saving money. However, increasing the asset exemption would most likely lead to anincrease in the dependency rate as more individuals would become eligible for welfare.
Increasing earning exemptions allows recipients to earn higher incomes and incentivizes work,without increasing provincial spending on social assistance. The interaction between thesepolicies would amplify the positive outcomes.
Finally, not all persons living in poverty in Canada receive social assistance. For this reason,
policies targeting all low-income individuals will have a larger impact on poverty alleviation
than changes to the welfare system.

34
34

III.

The Legal and Policy Framework for Social Policy on Reserve
Naiomi Metallic, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University

The legal and policy framework in which First Nations social assistance operates on reserve is
unique and does not resemble the way in which social assistance is structured or delivered in
the provinces. This presentation reviewed how this framework is unique and explains how it isproblematic and contributes to continued dependence on social assistance by First Nations.
The Structure of Social Assistance on Reserve
The situation on reserve is unique as there are three levels of government involved, operating
as follows:
1. Funding for social assistance is provided by the federal government.
2. Provincial rules and standards on social assistance are applied to first Nations throughincorporation into federal policy and funding agreements.
3. Through program devolution, First Nation governments and their staff deliver social
assistance services.
Off reserve, the provinces do all three of these things. The province funds social assistance. The
province determines the rules applicable to social assistance. Finally, provincial staff deliver theservices. Further, this is all done under a legislated framework: every province has a social
assistance act, which is generally also supplemented by regulation and policies.
The ‘system’ on reserve does not operate under a legislated framework. There is nothing in the
Indian Act related to the provision of essential services. While it has always been open to
Canada to legislate in this regard, the federal government has been reluctant to do so.
Origin of the Approach to Social Assistance in First Nations Communities
The origins of this approach date back to the post World War II era when social assistance andother social safety net programs were being developed by governments across Canada.
At this time, it was brought to the Canadian government's attention that First Nations people
on reserve were not receiving the services that citizens in the provinces were receiving, norwere they receiving the emerging programs of the social welfare state being put in place by thefederal government. A Joint Parliamentary Committee on Indian Affairs (1946) was formed toinvestigate the matter. Among its proposals was for the provinces to become actively involvedin the delivery of services to First Nations. This was consistent with the ethos of the time, thatviewed equality as formal equality—e.g., treating everyone the same. This ethos promoted
absorption by First Nations into the provincial mainstream instead of encouraging specific35
35

services and supports for First Nations, consistent with Canada's treaty and fiduciary obligations
to First Nations.
In 1951, Canada attempted to unilaterally delegate the delivery of services to First Nations to
the provinces through an amendment to the Indian Act. This amendment permitted provincial
laws of general application to apply to “Indians” on reserve. It has been speculated that Canada
hoped this would result in the provinces taking over services for First Nations. However, mostprovinces were unwilling to extend their services unless the federal government agreed toreimburse any costs incurred. Canada then attempted to negotiate with the provinces to takeover services on reserve, but most provinces were reluctant to participate. Only Ontario agree
to extend social assistance services on reserve through an agreement signed with Canada in
1965.
Initially intended as a stopgap measure in the hopes of reaching agreements with all theprovinces (although this never occurred), in 1964, Canada obtained Treasury Board approval toprovide social assistance on reserve based on the rates and standards in effect in the province
where the First Nation is located. This did not result in the federal government simply applying
provincial legislation on reserve. Instead, shortly after the Treasury Board authority was issued,
Indian Affairs Branch sent out a directive to all of its regional supervisors advising of the change
and instructing each region to produce “regulations which you feel should be applied to theadministration of relief assistance for Indians of your region. This will involve examination andadaptation of provincial regulations to our own particular situation…”. The circular made clear
the government's intention with this change was to “make available to Indians the full range ofassistance at the same scales and under the same eligibility conditions as other needy persons
in the provinces, in which they reside."7This process did not result in real ‘regulations’ but, instead, the regions produced policy
manuals based on department staff's interpretation of provincial social assistance policies. In
the Atlantic region, the first policy was passed in 1967 and it was applicable to all three
Maritime provinces (NS, NB and PEI).
In 1991, the Maritime region decided to develop individual policy manuals for each of the threeprovinces. These manuals reflected the transition to greater program devolution that began tooccur in the late 80s and early 90s Program devolution refers to the process whereby, throughtransfer payments under funding agreement between First Nations and the Department, theFirst Nation is enabled to hire band staff to deliver social assistance and other programs directly
to community members. This was intended to make program delivery more culturally
appropriate. However, First Nations are bound to follow the policies developed by the
Department as well as follow strict reporting requirements set out in their funding agreements.
In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, the 1991 manuals were amended once in 1994 and sincehave not changed, including rates given to recipients.
7

Indian Affair Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Circulate 107, July 20, 1964.

36
36

Problems with This Legal and Policy Framework
There are numerous problems arising from the structure of social assistance in First Nations
communities that are summarized below.
1. Premised on assimilation
The Joint Parliamentary Committee that recommended to Canada that the provinces should
administer services to First Nations was inspired by the belief that equal treatment of First
Nations involved their assimilation into mainstream provincial society. This belief was echoedlater in 1969 with Pierre Elliott Trudeau's White Paper Policy, which First Nations across Canada
vehemently rejected because they saw it as the death of their collective rights. Although
Canada formally disavowed the White Paper Policy, a similar rationale continues to underliesocial assistance policy on reserve. This is primarily due to the Treasury Board authorizationthat requires programming on reserve to be based on provincial rates and standards (this hascome to be known as the “comparability" requirement).
2. Leaves First Nations no role in social policy development
The arrangement whereby the federal government borrows provincial policy on social
assistance and applies it on reserve leads to an absurd scenario where no particulargovernment has a responsibility or mandate to devise coherent and sound public policy as it
relates to First Nations issues on social assistance. The federal government says it is not
responsible for developing social assistance policy and relies on provincial policy. The provincial
government says that it has no constitutional role with respect to social assistance on reserveand the fact that the federal government chooses to adopt its rules and apply these on reserve
is not its problem. Meanwhile, because of the requirements in their funding agreements tofollow the policies set by the federal government, First Nations have no say over social
assistance policy on reserve. This is an incoherent system of policy development.
3. The framework is not culturally appropriate
Provincial social assistance is steeped in Euro Canadian values, such as capitalism, liberalism
and individualism. Its central premise is based on the idea that loss of employment is only evertemporary and there are sufficient jobs in the market for those capable of working. Thisideology does not reflect the reality of circumstances on reserve, such as lack of employment
due to remoteness, racism and intergenerational impacts of residential schools.
It also does not take into account First Nations values around the distribution of resources andcollective systems of supporting each other. As observed by Shewell and Spagnut:…the idea that Indian poverty can be relieved, and solutions found through Euro-Canadian
welfare state measures was, and is, a profoundly ethnocentrically misguided assumption
37
37

[references omitted]. Historically, like any independent and economically self-sufficientpeoples, First Nations had their own ways of coping with times of scarcity and hardship. …
The main impact of the Euro-Canadian Social Assistance programme has been its
individualization of poverty and the undermining of collective and traditional patterns ofhelping, sharing and co-operation centred on interconnected kinship systems… 8
4. Contribution agreements model fundamentally flawed
The contribution agreements that make program devolution possible have long been criticized
as being inappropriate for the context of funding essential service delivery to First Nations (thePenner report raised this as early as 1981). They have been condemned as failing to provide
First Nation governments with any meaningful choice in regards to the funding and delivery ofservices. These are standard form agreements of the ‘take it or leave it’ variety. Unfortunately,
most first Nations cannot afford to ‘leave it’ since these monies are for providing services to themost vulnerable people in the community. Many have described the agreements as coercive,
one leader describing such agreements as “like having a gun put to your head.”9
The agreements provide few avenues for dispute resolution and in fact, preclude communities
from raising complaints in regard to policy or funding decisions. As well, in the absence oflegislative standards with respect to service delivery, it is difficult to seek redress in the courts.
Finally, these agreements have been criticized by the Auditor General of Canada and others forimposing inordinate reporting requirements and controls over First Nations. Some communities
are required to fill upwards of 100 reports with such administrative activities taking staff awayfrom carrying out their regular duties. Studies show that the department does not use theresults from these reports to measure or address outcomes in First Nation communities.
5. Violates the rule of law
The fact that this framework operates in a legislative vacuum is abnormal and problematic. The
Auditor General of Canada raised concerns about the lack of a legislative framework for social
assistance on reserve as early as 1990, noting that it provides little accountability and oversightby Parliament of departmental policy and funding decisions.
Lack of clear legislative standards negatively impacts on federal accountability, transparency
and accessibility and access to justice for First people. Treasury Board authorities anddepartmental policies are open to wide interpretation and courts tend not to want to interferewith departmental interpretations of such instruments. In the absence of clear legislative
standards about how the government is to conduct itself, there is significant discretion which
Shewell, H., and Spagnut, A., “The First Nations of Canada: social welfare and the quest for self-government” inSocial Welfare with Indigenous Peoples, ed., Dixon, J., and Scheurell, R.P., London: Routledge, 1995 at 41-42.
9
Chief Casey Ratt of Barriere Lake Nation in Quebec in Windspeaker, “‘A gun to our heads’ Pressure to sign new
funding agreement more widespread than first thought”, by Ball, D.P. (2013) 13:1.
8

38
38

can be subject to widely diverging interpretations and sometimes abuse. For example, in 2010,
the Harper government adopted an interpretation of ‘comparability’ that dramatically departed
from previous governments’ interpretation, which government staff acknowledged would
cause harm to First Nation social assistance recipients. This was challenged in a long court
battle, but ultimately the Federal Court of Appeal held the government was entitled to embracesuch an interpretation.
6. Severe funding issues
The legal and policy framework of social assistance on reserve allows for chronic underfundingof services to go unchallenged for long periods of time. This is in no small part caused by thefact that there are no legislated standards and the fact that it is difficult for First Nations tobring funding disputes to court.
In several reports, the Auditor General of Canada has noted that the department, while
claiming to provide ‘comparable services’ on reserve, does not actually track whether it does
so. It has been directed to do so by the Auditor General on several occasions.
The first case to recognize that the delivery of essential services on reserve permits chronic
underfunding and is discriminatory is the 2016 First Nations Caring Society case. The case foundthat the department had been knowingly underfunding child welfare services on reserve forover a decade. The decision further showed that the department is aware that it isunderfunding other essential services as well. An internal report from 2006 revealed that INAC
knew it was underfunding: “if current social programs were administered by the provinces, thiswould result in a significant increase in costs for INAC.”10
As noted earlier, social assistance rates in communities have not changed since 1994.
Compared to the provinces who regularly increase their rates based on cost-of-living andinflation, the fact that rates could stay so low for so long is shocking. But it is a by-product of
the framework which makes it exceedingly difficult for First Nations to challenge government
decision-making in this area.
This framework actively exacerbates poverty on reserve. First Nations poverty is not simply a
product of historical intergenerational impacts. This is an ongoing human rights abuse that is
occurring on a daily basis. It is responsible for First Nations having the lowest living conditions in
the country.
7. Other systemic problems
The legal and policy framework around social assistance on reserve also fuels additional
systemic problems. One is that the general Canadian public does not understand how programFirst Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (for the Minister ofIndian and Northern Affairs Canada), 2016 CHRT 2 at para. 267.
10

39
39

devolution works and that the federal government funds essential services on reserves in thesame way that provinces fund similar services within their jurisdiction. Many erroneously see
the funding of services on reserve as the federal government spending special monies in
exorbitant amounts on First Nation issues. As a result, many interpret ongoing poverty andsocial problems, not as a product of government neglect and underfunding, but as the fault ofFirst Nation peoples themselves, either because their leadership is perceived to be corrupt orincompetent.
Second, the framework has created a bureaucracy that is resistant to change and that is unclear
of its objectives. Because there have been no statutory objectives setting out the objectives ofthe department, staff have vacillated between 2 competing goals: (1) promote First Nation
well-being and help Indigenous people move toward self-government versus (2) policing of First
Nations funding agreements / ensuring First Nations compliance. The two objectives can beseen to be in conflict, e.g., staff who work towards Indigenous well-being and selfdetermination will eventually find themselves out of a job. Further, the nature of program
devolution, which focuses so heavily on agreements, can make staff emphasize theircompliance function over other objectives.
Recent developments that can be harnessed for change
In the last 5 years, there have been a number of events that give cause for hope for change. At
the very least, the following developments can be harnessed by First Nations to advocate fortransformative change in social assistance in their communities.
1. Caring Society
As noted above, this watershed decision found for the first time that chronic underfunding ofservices (there, child welfare) constitutes discrimination. Some of the key findings that are
equally applicable to the situation of social assistance on reserve include(1) Confirmation that Canada bears the primary responsibility to First Nations children andfamilies over child welfare under s. 91(24). This will make it much more difficult for
Canada to argue that it bears no responsibility with respect to essential services onreserve.
(2) The decision also confirms Jordan’s Principles, a rule that interjurisdictional squabbling
cannot be used to deny First Nations children and families services they are entitled to.
(3) Confirmation that systems that perpetuate residential schools/assimilation are
discriminatory. As noted earlier, social assistance on reserve was designed to be
assimilative.
(4) Finds that “comparability standard” (i.e., Treasury Board Authorization) is
discriminatory. Rates and standards that ‘mirror’ provincial services may bediscriminatory because, under domestic and international human rights law, First
Nations are entitled to substantive equality, meaning they are entitled to services that40
40

meet their “distinct needs and circumstances … including their cultural, historical andgeographical needs and circumstances.”
2. Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Report
The MMIWG Report emphasizes the importance of respectful relationships between First
Nations and other governments and takes a human rights and Indigenous rights approach,reframing what is often perceived as First Nations ‘unfilled needs’ in relation to essential
services as a denial of rights. The report also finds that long-standing interjurisdictional neglectof First Nations by both the federal and provincial governments constitute a violation of section
7 of the Charter, which is the right to life liberty and security of the person and not to be
deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Further, Call to Justice 4.5 calls upon “all governments to establish a guaranteed annual livable
income for all Canadians, including Indigenous Peoples, to meet all their social and economic
needs. This income must take into account diverse needs, realities, and geographic locations.”
3. New federal Department of Indigenous Services Act 2019
This new piece of federal legislation which replaces the old Department of Indian Affairs Act,
includes important standards and duties expected of the department that can be used to hold it
more accountable including in the area of social assistance. The act includes commitments to:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;
provide services that are needs-based and aware of socio-economic gaps;
focused on indigenous well-being;collaborate and cooperate over the development, provision, assessment andimprovement of services over policy;
strive to transfer departmental responsibilities to First Nations; andreport annually to Parliament on the department’s efforts to close socio-economic gaps
for First Nations compared to other Canadians and on the department’s efforts totransfer its responsibilities to First Nations (e.g., move towards self-government).

3. Indigenous laws
There has been a growing movement, fuelled by the Truth and Reconciliation Copmmission’s(TRC) report and the efforts of Indigenous scholars, to have Indigenous laws (conceived
broadly) recognized in Canadian law. This is starting to have some impact in the legal profession
and in the courts, and it is providing tools to allow First Nations to take greater control overtheir destinies.
4. Opening the door to self-government agreements in the Maritimes

41
41

A situation that began as acrimonious litigation in 2011 became an opportunity forcollaboration and a new approach in the Maritimes regarding social assistance on reserve. The
Department and First Nations in NS, NB and PEI have been undertaking research since 2016, in
preparation to moving towards First Nation control over social assistance. In New Brunswick
and Nova Scotia, this may take the form of a sectoral self-government agreement.

42
42

IV.

Summary of the Discussion in the Morning

There was an opportunity for discussion of the morning’s presentations and subject matter.
Some of the key points that were raised in discussion by Forum participants are summarized
below:•

One participant summarized the work of the Ontario Social Assistance Task Force which
submitted its report in October 2012 with 108 recommendations. Only two of the 108 havebeen implemented – one dealing with higher benefits and a second addressing claw backfor employment income. The issue is less about funding than it is about legal andadministrative structures and the complexity of the system, with administrators constantly
subject to new directives from the government. Caseworkers don’t have enough time tohelp people find jobs, and it is both inaccurate and unfair to describe persons withdisabilities as not being interested in work.

•

Any social assistance program tries to provide (1) an adequate level of benefits to allow
beneficiaries to have a decent reasonable life; (2) it needs to address the issue of claw backs
of benefits when people start to work, set at a level that doesn’t create a disincentive towork; and (3) it needs to be fair so that a recipient does not receive more benefits thansomeone working full-time. Governments need to achieve a balance among these threeobjectives, recognizing there are inherent tensions among them. Continuing special
benefits, such as those dealing with healthcare, are important as recipients transition toemployment. If phased out too quickly, it results in persons returning to social assistance, as
would happen as well if people lose a top-up for disability when they enter the labour force.

•

One arresting statistic is how little Canada’s income security system spends on people ofworking age, between the ages of 18 and 65. The bulk of the expenditures is for children
and for people who have retired, at the end of a career, or after a spell of employment (e.g.,
EI, Workers Compensation etc.). Many of these programs require people to work to pay into
them, meaning that First Nation persons with high unemployment and social assistancelevels do not qualify for benefits. This is a structural issue, not just a matter of social
assistance levels on reserve. The way in which the social security system is set up meansthat many people never get access to many of the programs and their benefits.

•

Assistance on reserve has a double-barrelled problem. It is constrained to follow
provincial/territorial rules which don’t work well even for mainstream populations, andadditionally there is the problem of distinctive conditions on reserve.

•

Social assistance is designed to be an airtight box. You have to be nearly destitute to qualify,
and once you’re in, it’s almost impossible to get out. The issue of claw backs, of depriving
people of their assets etc., is quite important.

43
43

•

It is vital to understand that some people are on “social” for only a short period of time, atransitory state, and you need to design a support system so that they can transition out.
For others, it is almost a permanent state, and requires a mix of policies and programs thatare quite different.

•

Are there other paradigms for dealing with the social assistance issue? One approach is tounderstand the historical context of colonialism, dispossession and dependence. In the past
century, starting with the Great Depression, the federal government responded to hardshipon reserve essentially through the provision of ever greater amounts of transfer payments,
treating the issue as one of shortage of individual resources. The harder path but the onethat would have better addressed the issue would have been to reinvest in the rebuilding ofFirst Nations – their economies, their governing structures, their education systems, theircultures. Some First Nations in different parts of the country are showing that, withoutstanding leadership and government supports, it is possible to transition away from highlevels of transfer payments and dependence. How do we scale up these successful cases toa larger number of First Nations?

•

One participant observed that everything we’re talking about today has been discussed forthe last 40 years. First Nations are asking for their own systems that are culturally
appropriate and integrated with the community’s other programs. There is concern withthe 1964 Treasury Board Directive, in which First Nations had no say, and also with
Ontario’s guaranteed income experiment (abruptly cancelled) being applied to First
Nations. This may threaten the ability of First Nations to provide wrap around services forclients as programs ger eliminated to pay for the guaranteed annual income.

•

There are important principles for reform of First Nation social assistance: (1) look at thisfrom a more holistic perspective and get away from barriers that prevent such an approach(2) if the goal is to revitalize Indigenous societies, recognize the distinctiveness and culturesof the different nations (3) get rid of the comparability (to provincial standards) criterionand shift to needs-based standard (4) recognize the experience of the provinces indesigning and delivering social assistance and learn from them as appropriate and (5)develop mechanisms such as tripartite structures that permit First Nations to influence
provincial policies and/or carve out room their own approaches.

•

It was noted that the jurisdiction piece is very important and needs to be part of theongoing conversation. In the absence of legislation and other appropriate structures, there
is a vacuum that exists.

•

While some First Nations have managed to rebuild their economic base, when you look at
those who have managed that transition from dependence, it has a lot to do with luck orwith their location in or near urban areas. We shouldn’t have to force communities into
capitalism in order to achieve “success”, a process that may also be assimilative.

44
44

•

Recent research addressing poverty in First Nation communities, working with fivevolunteer First Nations in different parts of the country, found that they did not accept
Western concepts of development and success. They articulated their own holistic
conception of what it means to live a “good life”, and how to get there.

•

It is important to understand regional variations and thus the different circumstances –opportunities, resources, cultures – that different First Nations have, especially contrasting
those located in the south versus the north. This provides the basis for arguing there needs
to be flexibility in programming and local control. In this sense, jurisdiction matters. How
can we be creative in thinking about what can be done locally? Are there ways to attach
support dollars to things like skill development, tuition or hunting? What are we doing to
make our people healthy and self-sufficient?

•

Further on the diversity point, B.C. has 203 First Nations, 30 languages and dialects,
including both urban and fly-in communities. The complexity of the system facing social
assistance workers, who may have Grade 12 education, is overwhelming with the “system”
emphasizing process rather than people. When the policy is thrown out and communitydriven approaches implemented (for example, in suicide prevention) it is working. Policy
and practice also need to take into account instances of trauma.

•

The social policy domain is central to any society’s cultural values and goals. We should takethis lesson from Quebec’s refusal to go along with P.E. Trudeau’s first attempt to reform theconstitution. We should also recognize that poverty is a collective issue and requires
collective strategies, not just programs geared to individuals.

•

In contrast to most First Nations, the north does have legislation relating to social
assistance, something that goes back to when the NWT was formed but referencing back tofederal policies. As Nunavut now experiences its 20th anniversary, there is interest in taking
another look at it e.g., a more holistic approach, addressing how to support persons stillengaged with the land for their livelihood, engaging with staff/clients/communities, moving
away from disability policy that doesn’t support people who are working or want to work,
using career development and “social” funding for grade 12 graduates, following up on the
MMIWG recommendations on enhancing services). Nunavut on the one hand has a highdependency ratio (40 per cent) but on the other hand perhaps has more room to makechanges by getting all levels of government on board. The issue is not lack of programming
but rather lack of connection of available programs.

•

An example of innovation and local determination is the Cree Hunters and Trappers Income
Security Program, which is not perfect but is a step in the right direction. Another Quebec
development – the agreement signed between the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec andLabrador (AFN QL) and the federal department in 2003 which gives some community
flexibility. But policies still need to harmonize with the province and there are funding

45
45

issues. Those who have contribution funding do not have the flexibility to take control while
those with a global funding agreement don’t have enough money to do anything extra.
•

Another participant underlined the difficulty of reforming social assistance, pointing to thesmall number of recommendations coming from the Ontario review that were actually
implemented. He referred to an experiment in Ontario where politicians were asked what
people should do to get off assistance. They mentioned six things: get help from family,save and build up assets, get work, get education or training, save in a cooperative fashion
with other people, and apply for the benefits for which you are eligible. All of them lead topunitive action under the welfare rules, such as a reduction of benefits, claw backs or asset
limitations. We need to reframe the whole discussion rather than looking for answers
within the “social” envelope.

•Among the more intrusive practices under current policy in British Columbia is the need forSocial Development Administrators (SDA’s) having to go into homes to monitor who all lives
in the home. In addition, clients need to fulfil work/ search requirements and may be asked
to go around the community and solicit “gifts” from community members when someone
dies. These proceeds go to funeral homes rather than to the bereaved family.

•

Also in B.C., the First Nations Social Development Society provided detailed
recommendations to INAC about reforming social assistance but these went nowhere. Moreuseful were tripartite discussions that included the province but provincial staff initiallyknew nothing about the delivery of social assistance on reserve. In the end, it’s all aboutbuilding relationships and learning – for example, are provincial dependency rates going
down because First Nation clients are returning to the reserve.

46
46

V.

Innovative Welfare Practices in Canada

write-up of presentation made by Andrew Sharpe at the Expert Forum on First Nations Social
Assistance Reform, September 3, 2019, Assembly of First Nations, Ottawa, Ontario

This presentation focuses on innovations in social assistance programs in Canada, concentratingon the provincial mainstream. Highlighted are six pilot projects, two disability programs andthree Nova Scotian initiatives. Impacts on the well-being of recipients and the labour force
consequences are explored to understand their relevance and potential for welfare reform.
Pilot Projects
Self-Sufficiency Project (SPP)
The most significant pilot project, the Self-Sufficiency Project (SPP), ran between 1992 and 1999
in New Brunswick and British Columbia. The SPP granted single parent welfare recipients anearnings supplement if they found full-time work and left welfare within a year of entering the
program. The generous earning supplement was meant to increase incentive to work and help
recipients permanently transition into the workforce. In New Brunswick exclusively, a second
version of the program called the Self-Sufficiency Project Plus (SPP Plus) was implemented. SPPPlus combined the earnings supplement with job search assistance.
The SPP participants earned higher incomes and reported higher well-being than the control
group who continued to receive regular social assistance. However, the impacts only lasted forthe duration of the project. Once the earnings supplement ended after three years, mostrecipients returned to social assistance. The only lasting benefit of the project was increased
work experience, but there is often little margin for finding better paid employment for lowwage workers. SPP Plus did yield lasting results; participants were more likely to earn above
minimum wage and less likely to receive social assistance. By helping participants findemployment, they were less likely to accept the first position available and instead found jobs
better suited to their skills.
Based largely off the SPP Plus project, Quebec ran a similar project between 2001 and 2005
called Action Emploi. The main difference between the programs was the SPP earning
supplement was dependent on income, whereas the Action Emploi recipients received thesame monthly supplement. Combining an earning supplement with job search training for longterm welfare recipients had a lasting increase in labour force participation for single parents
and women. These results might suggest that a successful work program would combine anearning supplement with job search assistance, placing social assistance recipients in positions
that pay above minimum wage, allowing them to provide for themselves and their family oncethe supplement ends.
Community Employment Innovation Project47
47

The Community Employment Innovation Project was carried out in Nova Scotia between 1995
and 2005. The project was presented as an alternative for Employment Insurance (EI) andIncome Assistance (IA) recipients. During the program, unemployed persons received
subsidized wages while working on community-based projects. The project was unique among
pilot projects as the employment opportunities were made available for a variety of skill levels,
therefore reducing the amount of underemployment that would otherwise occur if
unemployed persons and income assistance recipients were encouraged to take the first
position made available. Over the course of the project, participants reported positive impacts
on health and satisfaction. Unfortunately, after the projects ended, no permanent employment
positions had been created and no long-term economic improvements were found.
Basic Income Experiments11
Various basic income project experiments have been tried in Canada and worldwide, and thediscussion has once again been opened. The first guaranteed annual income project in Canada
was piloted in Manitoba from 1974 to 1979. Referred to as Mincome, residents in Winnipeg,
Dauphin and several other rural communities received a negative income tax for three years.
Dauphin was a saturation site; all residents were eligible to receive the supplement
independently of financial need. Throughout the experiment, Mincome recipients were lesslikely to be hospitalized for physical and mental health. Aside from improvements in health andincome security, little lasting impacts on the labour force were found. Researchers found aslight decrease in labour force participation, primarily observed in the secondary earner in ahousehold. Since recipients were aware they would only receive the negative income tax for
three years, it is difficult to predict how individuals would respond if the program were to havebeen a permanent fixture.
Ontario introduced a basic annual income pilot in 2017, using the format of monthly
supplements for the duration of three years. Hamilton, Thunder Bay and Lindsay were the test
communities. The experiment was designed to measure the impact of a guaranteed annual
income on food security, physical and mental health, housing stability, employability and labour
market participation. The program was abruptly cancelled in March of 2019. The cancellation of
the project will significantly reduce the ability to assess the impact of the program and draw
conclusion on its effectiveness.
Multiple provinces are considering implementing basic annual income experiments of theirown. Prince Edward Island is launching a secured-income pilot in January 2020 that hopes tobring all participants to 80 per cent of the Market Basket Measure (MBM). The project is quite
limited as the supplement is only expected to last three months, and only $225,000 has been

A lengthier discussion of the guaranteed income option is provided in Inez Hillel, Poverty, Inequality and Social
Assistance among the Mainstream Population and First Nations in Canada, Ottawa: Centre for the Study of Living
Standards, December 2019. Study commissioned by the Social Assistance Research Program.
11

48
48

invested in the project. British Columbia is also exploring the possibility of a basic income
project in the next few years.
Disability Programs
In Alberta and Saskatchewan, long-term programs for the permanently disabled exist which
provide significantly higher incomes and benefits than for persons in the general social
assistance program living with a disability. The Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped(AISH) in Alberta and the Saskatchewan Assured Income for Disability (SAID) both require thatthe person have a disability that prevents them from working and cannot be treated or cured.
The recipients received an income meant to meet their basic needs, medical needs and any
additional or unforeseen needs that might arise. In Alberta, a recipient earning maximum
benefits would reach 96 per cent of the MBM and a Saskatchewan recipient would reach 81 percent of the MBM. In both provinces, the number of AISH and SAID recipients increases every
year despite both provinces having relatively low dependency rates. Part of this can be
explained that the provinces have low unemployment, so persons able to work will haveopportunities to work. Many work multiple jobs to meet all their needs, however this renders
them ineligible for social assistance.
Education Support Programs in Nova Scotia
Education is often hailed a solution to leave poverty. Higher education is associated with higher
paying jobs and more financial security. However, in every province except Nova Scotia, awelfare recipient cannot be enrolled as a full time student and continue to receive benefits
unless they are completing their high school requirements. Nova Scotia has introduced two
programs that allow recipients to pursue post-secondary education.
The Educate to Work program allows welfare recipients to enroll at the Nova Scotia Community
College and receive a diploma or certificate while still receiving benefits. In addition to receivingsocial assistance benefits, tuition and books are covered for program participants. Career Seek
has the same objective of getting social assistance recipients into post-secondary education,
but instead allows recipients to attend any post-secondary institution of their choice. However,tuition, books and child care are only covered for their first year.
In order to participate in the program, social assistance beneficiaries must prove to a caseworker that pursing post-secondary education will lead to them finding a job. This introduces asignificant barrier to being admitted into the program as it is nearly impossible to guarantee theoutcomes of post-secondary education.
Another innovation introduced in Nova Scotia in 2010 is the Harvest Connection program. The
program is an employment support program that allows social assistance recipients to keep up
to $3,000 earned from seasonal harvest work, such as the harvesting of field produced crops(berries, vegetables and apples) and Christmas trees. Monthly earning exemptions candiscourage seasonal work for income assistance recipients since income is generated during
49
49

such a short frame and therefore more heavily clawed back. Harvest connection avoids thisproblem since the earning exemption is applied on a yearly basis. With the prevalence of
seasonal work in many provinces, this program can supplement low-income workers’ earnings
without affecting their benefits.
Conclusion
To conclude, while many pilot programs have been attempted to try and help recipientstransition from social assistance to the labour force, few permanent programs have been
introduced. However, past experiments indicate that wage supplements combined with job
readiness training can have lasting impacts on both recipients’ well-being and financial security.
Permanent innovations for disabled persons are present in two provinces, but need to be
introduced in the rest of the country. Given the additional costs associated with living with adisability and the reality that employment is not always a feasible solution, providing adequate
care for those who cannot earn a living should be a priority when discussing social assistancereform.
Nova Scotia has introduced a series of programs that address the systematic barriers faced bysocial assistance recipients. Eliminating barriers to education and encouraging seasonal work
are all simple innovations that other provinces could be following.

50
50

VI.

Some Ideas About Best Practices Delivering Social Assistance to First Nation Persons
Living on Reserve.
Fred Wien, Dalhousie University

While our social assistance research project has conducted some interviews among First
Nations in different parts of Canada, our most in-depth work has been with the Mi’kmaq and
Wolastoqiyik (Maliseet) First Nations of the Maritime provinces. In the course of the research,
we have come across some “best practices” that they have adopted or that they have learned
about from provincial authorities. I will summarize some key insights in this presentation. This is
not intended to be a laundry list but rather a stimulus for discussion later this afternoon.
1. The Importance of recognizing the diversity of the social assistance population.
Stereotypes and misconceptions about the social assistance population abound among thegeneral public and even among those charged with developing policy and programs. A common
misconception, for example, is that most people on “social” are unemployed but able to work,
leading then to policies designed to encourage/force labour market participation – policies thatare then applied across the board. Yet many people on social assistance fall into othercategories and employment may not be an option for them, even if jobs were available. They
may have serious health issues, for example, including activity limitations. They may be retired,waiting for a seasonal job to restart, going to school or looking after young children at home.
Even those on assistance who are deemed to be employable are not, in many cases, outside thelabour market. As Table 1 below, shows, for example, almost half the adults receiving social
assistance on reserve in the 2008-10 period in Nova Scotia were looking for work. More thanhalf had some employment or self-employment income during the course of the year, andalmost two-thirds pieced together an annual income from more than one source.

51
51

ssciseta?nce?
Who is oWnhaosiss iosntaan

Indicator

Indicator

Receiving assistance

Receiving assistanceNot receiving

Not receiving

Working for pay

26.4

Working for pay

26.4
Looking for work

47.9

67.2
35.4

Looking for work

Employment or47.9
selfemployment income

52.0

78.0
35.4

More than one income

62.2

78.0

Employment or self-source
employment income

52.0

67.2

48.9

Source: First Nation Regional Health Survey for Nova Scotia, 2008-10. Union of Nova Scotia Indians.
More than one income
62.2
48.9
sourceSource: First Nation Regional Health Survey for Nova Scotia, 2008-10. Union of Nova Scotia Indians.

Some may be young, single individuals without dependents, others are single parents or havepartners with children. Some are on assistance a short period of time, others for longer andsome are part of an inter-generational pattern of assistance. The point is that there isconsiderable diversity and First Nations require the flexibility and resources to tailor programs
and support services to their particular clientele. Social Development Administrators (SDA’s)
working on reserve have not had either the staffing or program resources to meet thesedifferent needs. If up to 50 per cent of the adults on reserve are relying on social assistance forsome or all of their income, issuing cheques to people takes up all of their time.
2. Improved record keeping
Current record-keeping on social assistance clients is understandably designed from an
administrative standpoint, designed to provide information about the number of clients,
whether they have dependents, what benefits are provided, and similar requirements. Yet,records that are filled in routinely by SDAs could be so much more interesting and helpful. Howlong has someone been on assistance and what is their pattern? Is it intergenerational? Under
what circumstances did they get in a situation where assistance became necessary? Under whatcircumstances were they able to leave their dependence behind? What supports helped themto make this transition? Answers to questions such as these, documented in records, would
allow SDAs and their First Nations to have a much better understanding of the cause andremedies for social assistance dependence.
3. Implementing culturally appropriate programming

52
52

circumstances were they able to leave their dependence behind? What supports helped themto make this transition? Answers to questions such as these, documented in records, would
allow SDAs and their First Nations to have a much better understanding of the cause andremedies for social assistance dependence.
3. Implementing culturally appropriate programming
In our on-reserve interviews in the Maritimes, including conversations with the SDAs, we heardof many instances of culturally relevant practices being introduced, or at least people wereexpressing aspirations to do so. Examples included the following:•

Building on Mi’kmaq and Wolastoqivik rights to hunt, trap, fish and gather on a 52
community level, communities are finding ways to make the bounty available toindividual families, for example through the establishment of community freezers.
This is an example of community-level measures that might also include otheractivities, such as the establishment of community gardens or kitchens. Distributing
fish within the community caught for food, social and ceremonial purposes isanother example of this pattern.

•

Giving special attention for cultural reasons to the developmental needs of children,for example by including a child benefit on welfare cheques additional to what isavailable from the national Child Tax Benefit•

Supporting elders in the community by paying for their heat and lights, for example,
or clearing their sidewalks in the wintertime. Since elders are not technically eligible
for such support because they receive federal pensions, communities often rely on“own source revenues” for this purpose.

•

Recognizing that Mi’kmaq and Wloastoqiyik people are traditionally quite mobile,
moving or visiting from one reserve to another, or to off-reserve locations. Finding
ways to support recipients even if they are not in one location need to be
developed.

•

One of the best adaptations of “social” for cultural and lifestyle reasons is the Cree
Hunters and Trappers Income Security Program. Created in the 1970s as part of theJames Bay Northern Quebec Agreement, hunters and trappers who are significantly
engaged in that activity during the year are allowed to earn revenue from theproduct and also receive a payment that allows them to have a year-round income
and continue this traditional practice.

4. Clients need a rich array of programs to help them succeed
Research is demonstrating that persons are much more likely to leave social assistance behind
if they have an array of coordinated programming to support their efforts. Our research in the
Maritimes demonstrates that clients living on reserve do not have access to the range andrichness of programs that provinces make available to their recipients. Yet, when the Harper
government was demanding after 2011 that First Nation communities have the same level ofbenefits and eligibility requirements as provincial, it showed little interest in insuring there wasalso comparability in ancillary programs.

53

53

We undertook a detailed analysis of this question in New Brunswick, for example, and came tothe following conclusions:
Our research identified 113 programs offered by the New Brunswick government that wererelevant and available to its social assistance clients. Of that number.
••••

Only 14-17% of provincial programs were available to persons living on reserve
In 25% of the cases, there was no similar program available on reserve
About 22% of the programs were marginally comparable, or it was hard to tell
Between 39 and 46% of the programs were reasonably comparable

There is another difference as well. Some social departments, as in New Brunswick, are able tooffer their own array of programs to clients through the department itself. This has somesignificant advantages in that programs and services can be tailored to the social assistance
population rather than the latter having to fit in to programs offered by other departments to abroader range of clients. In contrast, on reserve, the social department is basically geared up to
issue cheques and address special needs. It needs to negotiate with other, separate
departments if it wants to do anything else.
5. Delivering programs in an integrated manner: case management
Directors of programs on reserve and their clients often complain about the lack of
coordination in program delivery, with each service provider just concerned with their own areaof responsibility and clients having to go to multiple locations to have their needs met. Yetavailable research shows that providing services in an integrated, coordinated manner doesyield better results. One expression of this approach is case management, which starts with theclient expressing his/her goals and needs, a careful assessment of strengths and barriers being
conducted, and service providers indicating how they can contribute to the overall package.
Coordination may be achieved by having the client meet with relevant service providers in thesame room, or by a coordinator assembling the desired constellation.
The New Brunswick Social Development Department has made a major investment in thisapproach starting in the mid-1990s and claims to have achieved a major reduction in theirsocial assistance caseload—some 43 per cent in the first decade. It is encouraging to see thatIndigenous Services Canada is starting to support case management for the on-reserve social
assistance population, as well as the provision of pre-employment services. However, thisinitiative is still being ramped up and its longer-term funding is not secure.
6. Recognizing there are real disincentives to undertake training and employment.
For at least some clients, there are real disincentives for leaving “social” and entering training
and employment programs. This is not the case for everyone. For a young person on assistanceliving at home, a minimum wage, entry-level job that provides an introduction to the labour
force can seem to be an attractive proposition, especially if they do not have dependents and54
54are not paying much in the way of housing and utility costs. Even here, though, supportive
programming is helpful. One of the Wolastopiyik First Nations included in our project, forexample, makes it a requirement for young people living on reserve to engage in careerplanning, and also to work for a time in the community’s service sector establishments in orderto obtain work experience.
On the other hand, someone on assistance who is in charge of a household and supporting
dependents as well as receiving other necessary benefits won't see it the same way. One should
not be surprised if they do not show much interest in training for or starting a low-wage, low
future job because they would lose hundreds of dollars in housing, utility and child benefits
within a short time of leaving assistance.
There are some ways around this dilemma, in addition to adopting policies that phase out
benefits gradually. In one Mi’kmaq community, the First Nation has negotiated with a fish plant
located some distance away to provide jobs for reserve residents. The First Nation has a busthat transports workers back and forth, and their wages are paid through the First Nation,
thereby avoiding income tax deductions. Another approach would be to aim higher, that is toprovide longer-term education and training while being on assistance so that at least someclients are qualified to take up higher paying jobs with better benefits.
7. Tackling real barriers to people being successful
In addition to the disincentive effect, social assistance recipients living on reserve face anumber of other serious barriers to undertaking training and employment. Programs need to
be developed to tackle these.
The lack of transportation is one case in point. We are working with one Mi’kmaq community,
for example, to address the transportation issue. While the community is located only about 60
km. from an urban area, high levels of poverty mean that many cannot afford the costs
associated with driving. These include driver education and licensing fees, the cost of buying
and insuring a car, dealing with fines that may have accumulated, and so on. When wedeveloped a project to address some of these issues, we were amazed at the level of interest in
participating in the project.
8. Conclusion
These are some of the “best practice” ideas that emerged from our research in the Maritimes,
and I hope that they stimulate further discussion this afternoon. Longer-term, they may be ofinterest as First Nations in the Maritimes and beyond set about having a greater say in social
policy on reserve, perhaps even in regaining full control over this important area.

55
55

VII.

Summary of the Discussion in the Afternoon•

In P.E.I. in 2011, the federal government of the day proposed to have the Mi’kmaqcommunities adhere very closely to provincial practices on social assistance. The
communities resisted and joined other First Nations in the Maritimes in court action.
This also provided the impetus for the Mi’kmaq on the Island to develop their own
approach, with an emphasis on comprehensiveness, locally specific rules andregulations, social inclusion and building on assets the communities already had.
Background research was also conducted that included an assessment of gaps inprogramming, jurisdictional issues and best practices. While it took several years anddiscussions involving both federal and provincial representatives, on April 1 of this year
an agreement was signed on an approach to income assistance that is more appropriate
for the communities. It includes such elements as Mi’kmaq definitions (e.g., what is afamily unit), revised policy manuals, and a revised funding agreement that recognizedprior underfunding. The Mi’kmaq communities are investing in pre-employment support
programs, enhanced active measures and a case management approach to help theirclients move forward, and are seeing the results in reduced dependence.

•

What about the debate around having one basic income program compared to multiple
programs that recognize the diversity of the clientele and their needs? A First Nation
participant said they have looked at the guaranteed income option and find it would be
dangerous to have, if it means that other programs disappear. A better approach is casemanagement along with wrap around services, geared to local needs. Anotherparticipant noted that the debate on this has gravitated to the extremes –either you
have one basic income or you have 1000 different services and neither extreme will
work in First Nation communities. You need a hybrid system, maybe a basic income
program that incorporates other elements, plus case workers to assist people andprovide direction. But there are some advantages to a guaranteed income program, away of directing resources to the 18 to 65 year population in a manner that is
administratively simple, that avoids stigmatization and that does not require things likethe stripping of assets.

•

Another participant asked why Ontario’s Disability Support Program (ODSP) is
undersubscribed within First Nations in the province despite the fact that benefits areabout 60 per cent higher than the welfare program. The answer lies in difficulties ofaccess. ODSP is run by the Ministry and Ministry representatives are not present in thecommunities. Also, the medical forms and other requirements are difficult to meet.

•

One other area in need of improvement, which came up among the Innu in Labrador, isthe need to stop the practice of clawing back certain kinds of incomes, such as those
granted by the First Nation in the form of annual distributions.

56
56

•

Discussion of the Cree Hunter and Trapper Income Security Program. It is still
functioning but had some issues in the beginning e.g., too many people hunting leading
to pressure on natural resources; not enough people filling basic jobs in thecommunities because everybody wanted to be out on the land; youth leaving school
after a certain age and entering the program. Thus adjustments had to be made to avoid
disincentives. The amount of the subsidy is slightly less than income assistance. In the
Inuvik region, there is a collective freezer program that distributes food from hunting
and trapping, and that works well.

•This discussion raises the broader issue of where we are going with income security. Is it
only a matter of providing incomes, goods and services or do we need to look at it froman Indigenous lens, looking at quality of life and wellness and how to achieve that? How
do we shape assistance to fit in with community practices such as hunting and fishing,
and adapt to the community’s economic base? Is welfare a necessary evil that helps
support people through hardship? What are people in the communities saying about itand how to go forward?

•

Another participant stressed that a holistic approach is needed, addressing needs in all
four quadrants and achieving balance. There is a lot of healing that needs to take place
due to colonization, residential and day schools—mind, body and spirit – and it isn’t
possible to address these things with a pre-employment program. And now there is theopioid crisis. It’s a constant battle, and certain government policies don’t help – forexample, not being allowed to help a family just because they crossed the line that
separates on- and off-reserve.

•

Some people see “social” as an Aboriginal and treaty right, compensation for thedominant society taking our language, culture and resources. In this view, they are
justified in sitting idle at home. But the counterargument is that it is not such a right, it
was never part of our societies.

•

Administering “social” is a difficult task for front-line workers, with youth coming in atage 18 expecting to obtain support. Ultimately it is a much bigger issue than getting
people off welfare. How do you break the cycle?

•

One participant recalled her approach 15 years ago, when SDAs took active measuresgeared to employment and mobilizing wraparound services. More recently, providing
support to deal with mental health issues is the urgent priority.

•

If no employment is available, we need to recognize the values of other contributions
such as volunteer work and raising children. A closer look at self-employment is also an
option, to try to stem the “leakage” of resources to outside businesses. Developing astrong communication strategy, including web sites, posters and client brochures is also
warranted.

57
57

•

Several participants spoke about the value of a forum such as this, and the need to do it
annually perhaps under the auspices of the AFN. The latter started to discuss “social” inthe 1990’s but then the policy promoted by the federal government around adhering
strictly to provincial standards intervened. It is important for First Nation models to beat the forefront, not the imposition of other approaches, and it is up to the rights
holders to regain control. In this context, how can the AFN best contribute?

•

It was also noted by a government representative that “social” is not sexy and it is a
struggle to attract funding for new initiatives. Despite that, an AFN resolution helped in
putting case management on the table, although funding for this initiative is only year toyear. Indigenous Services has recently concluded discussions across the country, and areport summarizing what was heard is due to be released shortly. The encouraging signs
are that lots of “best practice” ideas are coming forward, new fiscal relationships withFirst Nations are beginning to be developed and there are good lessons to be learned
from the provinces. The key is to develop and maintain flexibility so that programs canreflect divergent circumstances.

•

While one can identify bits and pieces that are working, there is no ideal program out
there. This goes to a larger point, which is that – when policy goes wrong – it is due tothe fact that objectives are not spelled out clearly. And it is a hard sell to focus just on
providing adequate incomes. The objective should be to get people off welfare, and to
ground policy and programs in First Nation cultures and economic circumstances.
Another suggestion was to set an objective of providing a higher standard of living for
all, making employment a priority within this, and providing certain needed services
such as mental health. Make the argument that it costs a lot more to provide services toa population mired in poverty.

•

First Nations shouldn’t build on or be tied to provincial programs which don’t provide agood base even for provincial populations. The situation on reserve is substantiallydifferent when it comes to matters such as poverty and employment, not to mention
cultures. In this context, First Nations should get creative and build their standalonesocial policies with emphasis on coordination with other available programs. Linking to
the provinces reflects a 1960’s logic, and we are now in a different situation. As an
example, the new Indigenous Services Act now lists “social” as a federal responsibility.

•

Several participants spoke about their desire to keep the conversation going, and toestablish a network of people interested in this social policy area. It has been adetriment to the communities not to have had that until now. It is especially important
to hear from those working on the front lines. If we don’t address the issue of welfare, itwill have long-term intergenerational implications. We also need to figure out how tohold the First Nation leadership accountable on this issue, and to support leaders whowill bring it to the forefront with spirit and heart.
58
58

•

One tribal organization representative spoke about how well it has worked to break
down silos in service provision. Issues of confidentiality of (client) information arise, buton the other hand they all work for the same nation and have signed confidentiality
agreements. What do you mean when you say your funding can’t be accessed byanyone else? Why can’t we work together? Ask clients upon intake where they are,where they want to go, and what programs/services are needed.

•

We also heard about the First Nation Social Development Society in B.C. which was
designated as a centre of excellence and has worked with First Nations across B.C. toprovide support, share knowledge, and work to clean up social assistance files.

•

A First Nation representative from Quebec described going forward with a new
governance model, one that focuses on creating self-reliant and self-governing First
Nations seeking to achieve First Nation wellness. By March 2020, Chiefs will be in aposition to decide whether to proceed with this new governance model. In keeping withthis approach, we heard that New Brunswick completed a mapping exercise with First
Nation Child and Family Services Directors. They asked what it would take to make achild in the community healthy, as a step in the direction of determining programs andservices.

•

This has been a good conversation. The starting point should be with reclaiming
jurisdiction, but it need not be seen as a zero-sum game, where one takes jurisdiction
from someone else. It can be seen as a collaborative venture, being careful not to send
the message to others that you don’t want anything to do with them.

•

The differences from region to region are fascinating, and lots of good information is
being retained from this forum to take back to the community. Income assistance isn’t
at the forefront in any First Nation unless the cheques are delayed in being available,
and it is time to move this issue up the food chain.

•

We need to have a national forum like this every year, if the funds can be found.
Leadership is too reactive, and that is how they get so stressed out. They should be
active on the policy and funding front, not getting involved in day-to-day operations.

•

These kinds of meetings can help in getting the narrative out, in helping the wider
Canadian community understand that it isn’t just a story about being “down on yourluck”, or a matter of one person in twenty. It is a systematic issue.

The afternoon discussion concluded with sentiments expressed about its value, and with thanks
to the hosts for organizing it.

59
59

VIII. Conclusion
It is possible to identify several themes that emerged throughout the course of the day, ideasthat are worth considering as the First Nation leadership goes about reshaping social policy,
especially social assistance, on reserve. We would not go so far as describing these as
consensus items, because the discussion was not organized in that manner. However, these arepoints that typically emerged more than once and that did not attract incoming fire. We begin
with several “big picture” observations before turning more specifically to social assistancereform.
1. In Canada generally, levels of poverty and social assistance dependency have both declined
substantially in the past couple of decades. One of the main contributors to this decline has
been the Canada Child Benefit and its predecessors. Among First Nations on reserve, data is lessavailable but shows much higher levels on both indicators. For example, the social assistancedependency rate is six times higher than it is for the mainstream population, at 30 per centcompared to 5 per cent. It is useful for First Nations to have access to this kind of data so thatthey can support and advance their case for change. (Andrew Sharpe presentation).
2. The legal and policy framework for social policy on reserve is quite different than it is forother Canadians. Notably, three types of governments are involved but none has clear andcomprehensive responsibility. Federal authority rests on a 1964 Treasury Board Directive but
there is no dedicated legislation for social assistance, and First Nations do not have any role inshaping a social policy that so profoundly affects them (Naiomi Metallic presentation).
3. The historical context is also distinctive. For First Nations, almost everything – governance,
culture, access to resources, education – is shaped by a history of colonization and all that this
implies. It is a history of assimilation, dispossession, racism and external control. A major task,
then, is that of rebuilding Indigenous nations, including their economies. Without this, newgenerations of First Nation adults, youth and children will continually be driven to dependence
on social assistance, no matter how well the latter is designed and delivered.
4. The dominant society has historically, and especially in the last century, responded todestitution and hardship among First Nations by providing individual-level “solutions”, that is,by treating the issue as one of lack of personal or family income. They have not seriously
engaged in the more difficult but ultimately more effective approach of supporting therebuilding of Indigenous nations and all that implies. Indeed, they have often done the opposite
through First Nation relocations, residential schools, replacement of traditional forms ofgovernance, failure to recognize Aboriginal and treaty rights, and dispossession from lands andresources. Reversing this trajectory is essential if the goal of creating healthy and vibrant First
Nations is to be realized.

6060

5. On the positive side, First Nations that are able to rebuild their economies and societies arein a better position to achieve reductions in social assistance caseloads. They do this throughincreased employment for their populations, reduced levels of poverty, providing more
employment options for recipients and being able to enhance mental health and other services
by drawing on “own source” revenues. For its part, the social assistance program can contributeto nation building through such means as regaining jurisdiction, strengthening governance anddecision-making (e.g., providing appeal mechanisms), and optimizing welfare to worktransitions.
6. Workshop participants expressed skepticism about building social assistance policies andprograms on a provincial foundation, with some arguing that the latter doesn’t even work wellfor provincial populations. There is no ideal model “out there”, and First Nations need to becreative in moving forward. However, there is much that can be learned from the provincial
experience, such as models of case management that have been developed by New Brunswick
and other provinces, support for persons with disabilities (Saskatchewan and Alberta), andexperiments to support welfare to work transitions (Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Quebec)(Andrew Sharpe presentation).
7. There is considerable provincial and territorial variation on matters such as dependency
rates, benefit levels, liquid asset and earnings exemptions, reduction rates in the face ofadditional earnings, and support for persons with disabilities (Andrew Sharpe presentation).
8. Reform of social assistance in the First Nation context needs to start with regaining
jurisdiction and control, so that policies and programs can be shaped by local conditions andcultures. With a vision that includes the goal of building healthy and vibrant communities, First
Nation approaches are likely to reflect a holistic perspective emphasizing coordination among
available programs. They would also include adaptations to culture, as is the case with the Cree
Hunting and Trapping Income Support Program in Northern Quebec where income support isprovided to supplement earnings from the land in order to make a year-round way of life
sustainable.
9. Forum participants noted that providing a guaranteed income to those with low incomes has
some advantages. For example, it would be easier to administer, would apply to a wider
population including the working poor, would be less stigmatizing and so on. On the other
hand, it would not meet the varied needs of the social assistance population who require a
range of programs and supports, the continuation of which would be threatened if aguaranteed income were to be implemented. Forum participants recommended not going toeither extreme in this regard – that is, perhaps there is a role for a guaranteed income, but itshould not be at the expense of ancillary services.
10. In both mainstream and First Nation contexts, participants noted that social assistancereform is not a high priority among elected leaders. It is difficult to get their attention and theirsupport for change. It follows that consideration must be given to increasing the visibility and6161

profile of this important social policy area through appropriate communication and otherstrategies.
11. Forum participants also noted the importance of creating relationships and networks. In
that regard, several persons noted how informative the September 3 Forum has been for them,and the importance of continuing meetings such as this in the future, perhaps under the
auspices of the Assembly of First Nations.

62
62

Appendix A
Agenda: Expert Forum on First Nation Social Assistance Reform

Assembly of First Nations, 55 Metcalfe Street, Suite 1600, Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 6L5;
613-241-6789(Breakfast available at 8:00 a.m.
)
9:00 a.m.
Opening ceremonies- Opening prayer: Elder Thomas Louttit:- Welcome and opening remarks: Jonathan Thompson, Naiomi Metallic, Fred Wien
- Introduction of participants
9:30 a.m.
The Big Picture: Poverty, Inequality and the Role of Social Assistance- Andrew Sharpe on trends in poverty, inequality and social assistance in Canada- Naiomi Metallic on legal and policy frameworks for social policy on reserve
10:15 a.m. Nutrition break
10:30 a.m.
Open Discussion of big picture issues and alternatives- What policies/strategies have been or might be most effective in addressing
poverty/inequality in mainstream society? Among First Nations?
- Where does social assistance fit into this picture?
- What about guaranteed incomes? Enhanced child benefits? Rebuilding selfdetermining and self-reliant First Nations?
12:00 Discussion continues over working lunch
12:30 p.m.
Best practices: how can First Nation social assistance be structured so as tocontribute as much as possible to individual and community well-being?
- Andrew Sharpe on innovative experiments in mainstream jurisdictions- Fred Wien on First Nation best practices derived from the Maritime First Nation
research program
1:30 p.m.
Open discussion of best practices- What innovative practices are we currently seeing among First Nations?
- What lessons can we learn from mainstream models of assistance?
3:45p.m.
Closing Ceremonies- Closing remarks: Jonathan Thompson, Naiomi Metallic and Fred Wien
- Closing prayer: Elder Thomas Louttit

63
63

Appendix B
Participant List
Organizers and Hosts
1. Naiomi Metallic, Chancellor’s Chair in Aboriginal Law and Policy, Schulich
School of Law, Dalhousie University
2. Andrew Sharpe, Executive Director, Centre for the Study of Living Standards.
3. Jonathan Thompson, Director, Social Development, Assembly of First Nations
4. Fred Wien, Professor Emeritus, Dalhousie University
1) Indigenous and non-Indigenous Experts
1. Jessica Nadjiwon-Smith, Executive Director, Ontario Native Welfare
Administrator’s Association
2. Deborah Young, doctoral student, Carleton University
3. Jarrett Parker, Director of Income Assistance, Nunavut Department of Family
Services
4. Rosalie Sioui, Social Development Manager, First Nations of Quebec andLabrador Health and Social Services Commission.
5. Jason Walker, Managing Director, Indigenous Social Development andInnovation, British Columbia
6. Jennie Thomas, Social Development Manager, Cowichan Tribes
7. Colleen Denny, Mi’kmaq Rights Initiative, Nova Scotia
8. Ruth Levi from Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn Incorporated, New Brunswick
9. Kateri Coade from the Mi’kmaq Confederacy of Prince Edward Island
10. Robert Hassencahl, Tobique First Nation, New Brunswick
11. Don Drummond, former Associate Deputy Minister of Finance and CSLS
Chair, Ottawa
12. Michael Horgan, Bennett Jones, Former Deputy Minister of Finance and
Deputy Minister of INAC and President of ACOA and CSLS Board member,
Ottawa13. Hugh Schewell, School of Social Work, Carleton University, Ottawa
14. Martin Papillon, Université de Montréal, Montreal
15. Munir Sheikh, former Chief Statistician of Canada and co-chair of the Ontario
Social Assistance Task Force Ottawa
16. John Stapleton, Innovation Fellow, Metcalf Foundation. Formerly Research
Director for the Task Force on Modernizing Income Security for Working-Age
Adults in Toronto
17. Céline Hurtubise, Manager, Income Assistance, Indigenous Services Canada,
Ottawa
18. Patricia Ellis, Program and Policy Analyst, Social Programs, Indigenous
Services Canada, Atlantic Region
19. Marci Osmond, Social Development, New Brunswick, Fredericton

6464

Assistants and Advisors
1. Ashley Bach, Policy Analyst, Social Development, Assembly of First Nations
2. Maile Graham-Laidlaw, Research Assistant, Schulich Faculty of Law, Dalhousie
University
3. Inez Hillel, Economist, Centre for the Study of Living Standards.

65
65

Designed & Printed by: