National Aboriginal Council on HIV/AIDS
Full Council Meeting

September 17-18, 2002
(Last modified December 17, 2002)
Delta Centre Ville, Montréal Québec

Draft Summary of Discussions

Present Day 2: Tuesday, September 17, 2002

Community Caucus:	Ken Clement, LaVerne Monette, Quinn Wade, Art Zoccole
First Nations Caucus:	David Lee, Renée Masching, Doris Ronnenburg
Métis Caucus:	Sheila Genaille, Albert McLeod,
Inuit Caucus:	Sarah Anala, Todd Armstrong, Roger Mannilaq
Health Canada Secretariat	Alain Houde,
Secretariat:	Senior Policy Advisor, Partnership and Coordination Unit, HIV/AIDS Policy Coordination and Programs Division, Centre for Infections Disease Prevention and Control (CIDPC), Population and Public Health Branch (PPHB), Health Canada Paul J. Hemming, Program Consultant, HIV/AIDS Policy Coordination and Programs Division, CIDPC, PPHB, Health Canada
Guests:	Susan Tolton, Manager, Prevention, Care & Treatment Programs Unit, HIV/AIDS Policy Coordination and Programs Division, CIDPC, PPHB, Health Canada Lina Racine, Program Consultant, Prevention, Care & Treatment Programs Unit, HIV/AIDS Policy Coordination and Programs Division, CIDPC, PPHB, Health Canada
Regrets:
Community Caucus:	Alana-Dawn Phillips, Denise Lambert
First Nations Caucus:	Garry Carbonnell, Anne Half, Duane Morisseau
Métis Caucus:	Fran Hyndman, Roberta Wraith,
Inuit Caucus:	Pitsiula Kilabuk, Elena Labranche, Franco Buscemi

Note that the original agenda was modified and that the Summary of Discussions follows the revised agenda.

---

Day 2 - Tuesday, September 17, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m.

Chair: Renée Masching, First Nations Caucus Chair

Opening prayer

Sarah Anala opened the meeting with a prayer.

1. Establish Quorum

With 11 of the 24 NACHA members not present, the question was raised whether the number of participants was enough to reach the quorum. Participants exchanged their views and their own interpretation of the rules governing the quorum within NACHA. To guide the discussion participants refereed to NACHA's Terms of Reference (TOR) and to the Co-chairs' TOR, but concluded that the TOR did not directly address the current situation. The only rule that was identified is that the quorum is obtained as long as representatives from three of the four caucuses are present at the meeting. Participants highlighted the fact that NACHA is an advisory committee to Health Canada and does not have a legal status like a Community-based Organization (CBO), NACHA needs to follow its own TOR and internal procedures while working within Health Canada parameters.

Participants discussed potential solutions in order to proceed with the meeting. They reached a consensus on:

• the fact that there was sufficient representation to proceed with the meeting;
  
• the result of a decision or an action item on which no unanimity is reached will be submitted, by e-mail or through teleconference, to NACHA members for ratification.

Action: Co-chairs to further define Quorum and if needed propose a change in the Terms of Reference.

2. Adoption of the Proposed Agenda (Tab. 1.1)

The agenda was approved with the following changes:

• items 1,2,3 and new business be standing items for all future NACHA face-to-face meetings;
  
• add to item 3: formally adopt December and May records of decisions and identify business arising from these meetings;
  
• item 6: Include a broader discussion on NACHA's vision and values to the discussion on the selection criteria for the institution of a Working Group;
  
• the Métis Caucus presentation was moved to end of the day 2 (Tuesday, Sept 17) and report on linkages made with Federal/Provincial/Territorial Committee on AIDS (F/P/T AIDS) to the end of the meeting (day 3, Wednesday, Sept 18);
• the item: new business was added at the end of the meeting (day 3, Wednesday, Sept 18).

Action: Secretariat to use the following items as standing items when drafting the agenda for each full NACHA meeting:

1. Establish Quorum
   
2. Adoption of the Proposed Agenda
   
3. Review the Draft Summary of Discussion and Summary of Actions from the previous meeting
   
4. The item: New business (to be added at the end of meeting)

 

3. Adoption of Draft Summary of Discussion and Summary of Actions from the December 2001 and May 2002 meetings (Tab. 2.1 - 2.2 - 2.3) and identify business arising
   

The December 2001 minutes were adopted in principle and members provided the following directions to the Secretariat:

• the orientation binder glossary needs to be updated according to the changes made during the December 2001 meeting;
  
• the definition of certain terms will need to be reviewed, and Quinn Wade offered his help for this task;
  
• the minutes need to reflect the commitment made by Keith Conn from the First Nations Inuit Health Branch (FNIHB) to provide NACHA with information on the allocation of the Canadian Strategy on HIV/AIDS (CSHA) fund and its impact on on-reserve communities;
  
• in order to be posted on the web site, the minutes will need to be reformatted to follow the standard format used for NACHA's minutes;
  
• in order to avoid spelling mistakes, the "Spell Check" should be used.

Actions: Secretariat to update the orientation binder glossary.
Secretariat to make corrections to the December 2001 minutes using the NACHA's minutes standard format.
Secretariat to circulate the December 2001 minutes to NACHA members for final review.
Co-chairs to provide authorization to Secretariat to post the minutes on-line.

Renée Masching noted that the Secretariat is aware that the May 2002 Summary of discussion does not meet the quality standard expected by NACHA. The Secretariat committed to improving the quality of the minutes and to respect appropriate time lines.

The May 2002 minutes were adopted in principles and members highlighted the following corrections and omissions:

• p. 3, Quinn Wade`s name needs to be added to the list of members present and Sarah Anala`s name needs to be spelled properly;
  
• p. 3, item 7, replace "Conduct of Conduct"by "Code of Conduct";
  
• p. 4, item 11, the action item should read: ...will coordinate the translation of the material into Inuktitut language. (and remove: as requested by Todd Armstrong);
  
• p. 4, item 11, the word Michif should be spelled properly;
  
• p. 5, item 12, under Community-Based Research (CBR), the following should be added: Marsha Hay-Snyder said that the deadline for the CBR relocation process is March 31, 2003 and that she agreed to provide NACHA with a breakdown of allocation of the .8 M Aboriginal CBR fund;
  
• p.7, item 13, LaVerne Monette`s name needs to be spelled properly;
  
• p.7, item 13, Denise Lambert needs to be added to the list of names of the working group members. The minutes should also reflect that the committee had done work during the meeting and reported back to the full Council;
  
• there is no record of the day 3 of the meeting.

Actions: LaVerne Monette to supply Secretariat with her notes of the May 2002, Day 3.
LaVerne Monette with the Secretariat to review and update the errors and omissions of the May 2002 meeting minutes.
Secretariat to circulate the May 2002 minutes to NACHA members for final review.
Co-chairs to provide authorization to Secretariat to post the minutes on-line.

4. NACHA's Vision, Values Discussion
   
5. Selection criteria for the institution of a Working Group Discussion (Tab. 7.5)
   
6. Review NACHA Epidemiology and Surveillance Subcommittee TOR
   
7. Ex-officio vs external members status discussion

(Renée Masching, chairing the meeting)
Note that the discussion on these 4 agenda items commenced prior to the presentation made by Health Canada's officials and continued following the presentation. The discussion on these items is summarized as a whole because all of these items are intertwined.

Renée Masching stated the importance of having a discussion on NACHA's vision and values at this point in order to ensure that NACHA's evolution is still in accordance with the initial vision and values that led to the creation of NACHA.

Renée Masching along with members highlighted the key elements of NACHA's roles and distinctive character:

• NACHA is there to influence and provide advice to Health Canada and other CSHA stakeholders, as well as to influence their respective agenda;
  
• NACHA has an important role to play in moving the HIV/AIDS Aboriginal agenda forward;
  
• NACHA is in a unique position to advance HIV/AIDS education among the First Nations, Inuit, Métis, and their communities;
  
• NACHA's members are made up of representatives chosen at the Summit which represents and involves a large number of communities (organizations, Aboriginal People Living with AIDS (APHA), etc.) that share a joint responsibility;
  
• NACHA's Caucus members are chosen for their skills, knowledge and abilities;
  
• NACHA's structure is a unique representation of all Aboriginal Peoples influencing each other and joining together in the fight against HIV/AIDS;
  
• NACHA members are involved because they care about Aboriginal Peoples infected and affected by the virus and each other.

Renée Masching and members stressed the need for NACHA to:

• be proactive instead of being reactive;
  
• make a difference;
  
• clarify the status of its internal and external members on subcommittees;
  
• examine ways to be more effective in delivering quality advice;
  
• develop confidence in themselves;
  
• consider the urgency of the HIV/AIDS related issues;
  
• leave political hats at the door;
  
• look forward through a strategic planning process;
  
• try to involve more people in the fight against HIV/AIDS by using the Summit to this end.

Renée Masching invited members to identify ways to improve the overall subcommittee structure in order to fulfill NACHA's mandate, vision and work accordingly with its values.

Members recollected that at its inception NACHA, as a whole, was meant to be the body from which Health Canada would elicit quality advice. The consultation process on Aboriginal HIV/AIDS issues was to be simplified. The creation of NACHA was also to be used as an opportunity to build capacity, and to lessen the workload of HIV/AIDS Aboriginal community representatives often asked to represent all Aboriginal Peoples on various consultative committees. NACHA was created to standardize the consultation process for all Health Canada Branches, Divisions or Units in order to access, in one specific location, the expertise/knowledge of all NACHA members.

Members identified signs for the need to review the subcommittee forming process:

• the rate of the number of subcommittees being formed is demanding too much time and energy of various NACHA members, this being true especially for the Co-chairs and has not alleviated the problem faced before NACHA inception: "too few people that were going to too many meetings";
  
• the processes/procedures are probably more cumbersome now than they were in the past (eg: need to define ex-officio members' role, need to get representation from each of the caucuses, need to get subcommittee decision be approved by NACHA as a whole, etc.).

NACHA members agreed to disband all subcommittees in their actual format. They will be replaced by small ad-hoc committees that would dissolve after the work is completed or by NACHA to whom specific tasks will be assigned. The ad-hoc committees mandate and the specific task for NACHA designated members will be assigned by NACHA members. These tasks could include: assistance to prepare for NACHA meeting, follow-up of any specific issue, etc. The mandate will need to provide clear directions, goals, objectives, and set time frames and budget constraint if necessary. Each ad-hoc committee and designated NACHA will need to report its activities, and actions to NACHA members and seek input from them. They will also need to link with the Co-chairs.

The new structure will allow NACHA to respond more quickly to any emerging issue and hire, if necessary, private consultants to develop background work on any relevant issue. The Co-chairs committee will remain and will become the pivotal point in handling all of the issues that might arise between NACHA's face-to-face meetings.

The Resource Allocation committee will be transformed into an ad-hoc committee. NACHA will need to assign one member to make linkages with each of the following committees or organizations: F/P/T AIDS, Ministerial Council on HIV/AIDS' Special Working Group on Aboriginal Issues (SWGAI). Quinn Wade will continue to be the NACHA link with the Canadian AIDS Treatment Information Exchange (CATIE). The Co-chairs will ensure the follow-up needed on the CBR, with Correctional Services of Canada (CSC) and the First Nations Inuit Health Branch (FNIHB). Co-chairs will look into establishing a Summit ad-hoc committee.

Members discussed, more specifically, the impact of the decision concerning the external NESS committee members. Everyone agreed on the need to find a respectful way to announce the decision to external NESS committee members as well as to Chris Archibald and Dana Reid from Health Canada. Members agreed that a letter needs to be sent to Chris Archibald and Dana Reid outlining NACHA's decision prior to the planned NESS meeting in late October. The contribution of Arlo Yuzicapi Fayant and Fred Andersen will need to be recognized and highlighted. The Co-chairs agreed to communicate the decision to Arlo and Fred and they will be invited to attend the upcoming co-chairs face-to-face meeting. NACHA members discussed the importance of the work that NESS has achieved and that was planning to achieve. Co-chairs will ensure that the decision will not affect the realization of the action items contained in NESS' work plan.

Actions: Co-chairs to draft a template for criteria to set up a working group.
Secretariat to draft a letter for Co-chairs review, to Chris Archibald and Dana Reid clarifying NACHA's position on NESS and to meet with them at next EPI meeting in October.

8. Updates on correspondence
   
   NACHA members discussed the response received from FNIHB on the letter dated July 25, 2002 addressed to Alexa Brewer requesting NACHA's involvement in FNIHB's annual work planning/priorities process. The response came in a letter dated July 30, 2002 signed by Anita Tuharsky-Ross, HIV/AIDS Coordinator, Primary Health care and Public Health, FNIHB explaining that Alexa Brewer was unavailable to respond NACHA's request until mid-September 2002. NACHA members expressed their disappointment in the fact that letter was not transferred to the acting Director of FNI HB's Infectious Disease Control Division or its superior.

Action: Secretariat to draft a letter for Co-chairs review to Paul Moreau, Director General of FNIHB requesting NACHA's involvement in FNIHB's annual work planning/priorities process.

NACHA members engaged in a discussion on FNIHB's involvement in NACHA's work. Just prior to the NACHA meeting, Alain Houde, Senior Policy Advisor, HIV/AIDS Division (who is responsible for the coordination of NACHA's secretariat) received a request from Anita Tuharsky-Ross for more FNIHB involvement in NACHA's work and meetings. Prior to this meeting Alain Houde committed to meet with Anita after the NACHA meeting to clarify the situation. Despite that agreement, Anita contacted Art Zoccole, Todd Armstrong and Sheila Genaille to express a similar request during the meeting.

Action: Secretariat to draft a letter for Co-chairs review to Anita Tuharsky-Ross to clarify NACHA's position with FNIHB with regards to its request to have representation at NACHA meetings.

NACHA members discussed the response received from Health Canada's HIV/AIDS Division Director Nina Arron, on the NACHA's letter dated July 25, 2002. In which NACHA was seeking more information on the Urban Rural Non-Reserve HIV/AIDS Aboriginal Community Project Funding. NACHA's Co-chairs received a response to this letter from Nina Arron in a letter dated August 9, 2002. Susan Tolton, Acting Manager and Lina Racine, Program Consultant of the HIV/AIDS Division's Prevention, Care & Treatment Programs Units were invited to attend this meeting in order to provide further clarification on the content of the response. Council members commented on the response received and identified the following issues to be raised with Susan and Lina:

• clarification is needed on the peer review process;
  
• funding guidelines require projects to predict what they are doing without a track record;
  
• lapsing funds may go to other non-Aboriginal community-based sources;
  
• questions 4 (work plan adaptation given the delay in funding) and 5 (information provided to the Minister on the impact of the delays) were unanswered in the response received from Nina Arron;
  
• time frames included in the chart are inaccurate and misleading;
  
• Aboriginal specific funding prevents Community Aboriginal groups from applying to AIDS Community Action Programs (ACAP).

9. Health Canada on the response from the letter sent by NACHA

NACHA members welcomed Susan Tolton and Lina Racine to the meeting. Susan Tolton provided an overview of the Programs Unit's funding streams available to Community-based AIDS organizations.

There are presently 13 funding streams:

• ACAP provides 3 types of funding; the regional project and operational funding which are administered by Health Canada's regional offices and the National Project Fund administered in Ottawa by the Programs Unit;
  
• Urban Rural HIV/AIDS Aboriginal Community Project Funding;
  
• National Non Governmental Organizations fund;
  
• National HIV/AIDS Information Service Initiative Fund;
  
• Program Innovation Fund for next fiscal year that will build on current Best Practice Fund;
  
• Capacity Building fund;
  
• Legal Ethical Human Rights fund;
  
• 4 different funds on CBR (2 specific Aboriginal funds).

Susan invited members to consult the Health Canada web site to get more information on all of the funds .

Susan pointed out that in order to access these funds Community organizations need to conform to the key criteria established for each fund. An organization can access funds by going through a competitive process. Each application is reviewed by a committee which provides its recommendations to Health Canada. The funds are designed to support creative and flexible responses to pressing HIV/AIDS needs. Susan also noted that the Best Practice Funding Stream, which will evolve into the Program Innovation Fund and the "Capacity Building" funds are two new funds. The Capacity building fund aims at developing skills to increase the capacity of individuals in service delivery. To access these funding streams, organizations need to demonstrate that project has national relevancy. NACHA members raised their concerns over the fact that there is no clear definition of what is considered as "national relevancy." Members from the Inuit caucus expressed the fact that a project in the North could be relevant across the country to numerous communities in the North but might not be relevant in the South. Susan acknowledged that there needs to be a clearer definition of national relevancy. At the moment this is being interpreted by the peer review committees.

Action: Susan Tolton to identify what criteria are used to determine what is defined as National relevant and send this information to NACHA for review and consultation.

Note that the meeting resumed at 1:30 p.m. with the same participants as the morning session.

Health Canada on the response from the letter sent by NACHA
discussion continued:

The discussion between NACHA members and Health Canada officials continued, and NACHA members were interested to know more about the administration of the Non-Reserve First Nations Inuit and Metis Community Project Funding. Susan provided background information on the fund. It consists of $1.2 million that funded 20 projects during last fiscal year (2001-2002). There are 17 projects being funded in the new cycle but not all funds have been allocated; a mini-call has been issued to support/enhance the already approved-funded projects. Susan invited members to ask questions so she can provide any clarification needed on the content of the letter NACHA received from Nina Arron. She also mentioned that she would take back any unanswered questions and any advice NACHA might have in the administration of this particular fund.

NACHA members mentioned that:

• the lengthy delay of 85 days to process a contribution agreement is unacceptable;
  
• the situation has impact on the staffing capacity of organizations;
  
• time frames included in the chart are inaccurate and misleading;
  
• clarification is needed on the peer review process;
  
• worry about the fact that lapsing funds may go to non-Aboriginal sources;
  
• lives are at stake when Health Canada does not deliver;
  
• the large turnover of Health Canada staff is causing delays since it affects services and follow-up on requests;
  
• there is a need to educate Health Canada staff on the impact and hardships that delays of project funding have on organizations;
  
• there is need to provide Health Canada staff with cross cultural training including Inuit and Métis cultures;
  
• Health Canada should consider involving NACHA representatives in its hiring processes and consider interchange with Aboriginal community staff;
  
• Program officers/consultants should visit projects during mid-cycle, not at its completion;
  
• Aboriginal specific funding seems to be perceived as preventing Community Aboriginal groups from applying to AIDS Community Action Programs (ACAP);
• in the letter questions 4 (work plan adaptation given the delay in funding) and 5 (information provided to the Minister on the impact of the delays) were unanswered in the response received from Nina Arron.

Susan and Lina reported that:

• the HIV/AIDS Division has made efforts to solve its staffing issues but recognizes that changeover in staff does cause some disruption for funded groups;
  
• the Non-Reserve First Nations Inuit and Metis Community Project Funding is one of the few funds where there has been no staffing gap;
  
• the Programs Unit staff are committed to process the call for proposals and the follow-up in a timely manner;
  
• the peer review committee consists of individuals representing Aboriginal communities, the mandate of the review committee is to rank each project proposal and submit recommendation for funding or not, to Health Canada;
  
• 
  Top of Page
  the process is not perfect, but the goal is to get the funds out to the funded groups as quickly as possible;
  
• Health Canada is a part of the government of Canada, with many levels of approval. Unfortunately delays can occur, and these delays can occur at levels outside of the Programs Unit, the chart shows some delays occurred at the different approval stages;
  
• for projects that have lost significant amount of time due to funding delays may have funds prorated or the term renegotiated;
  
• suggestions on training for staff were well received.

Action: Susan Tolton to provide information to NACHA on the steps/process that takes place in order to obtain the Minister's approval.

The discussion continued and participants focussed on the mini-call that was issued to support/enhance the already approved-funded projects. NACHA members stated that Aboriginal funding should remain in Aboriginal streams and were concerned that the regional allocation of funding would not be respected in this mini-call.

The allocation guideline, not written in the funding guidelines but used as guiding principles for the review committees, stipulates a certain level of funding to each region. NACHA stated that Health Canada should honour these guidelines. Susan stated that the decision to go on with a mini-call was taken to ensure that the funds in the Aboriginal fund were spent on Aboriginal projects. NACHA members voiced their concerns over the fact that moving funds from Province to Province perpetuates the "have" and "have not" areas and creates a context where community groups from the "have not" provinces compete unequally with the other regions of Canada.

The issue of capacity building within Aboriginal communities was also discussed. Everyone agreed to say that this is an ongoing challenge. Health Canada and HIV/AIDS Aboriginal organizations have a role to play to enhance the capacity of Aboriginal community to submit proposals and manage projects. On this note, a handbook with advice to sponsoring agencies and groups on how to avoid problems associated with contribution agreements would be a useful tool and should be done in partnership with some of the applicants.

Renée Masching thanked Susan Tolton and Lina Racine for their participation. Susan Tolton and Lina Racine expressed their gratitude for having been invited and hoped that this is the starting point of a fruitful working relationship between NACHA and the Programs Unit.

Debrief discussion after Susan Tolton and Lina Racine left.

NACHA members made the following comments:

• NACHA has a role to play in preparing a guest to come to NACHA meeting, if NACHA had provided appropriate background information to Susan and Lina they might have been in a better position to answer NACHA questions and address its concerns;
  
• it is important to invite people with enough knowledge to get straight answers to the questions asked;
  
• NACHA needs to consider inviting or writing to the Minister of Health, Deputy Minister or the Assistant Deputy Minister;
  
• Health Canada needs to take action and provide cross-cultural training to its staff;
  
• the fiduciary responsibility of the Federal government is not lived up to.
  
• some of the questions remain unanswered;
  
• feeling that the blame is resting with the projects and not the Health Canada process, the process needs to be changed not us;
  
• it seems that the government's approach is that one size fits all, but this is not the reality for many Aboriginal communities eg. Inuit, Métis and First Nation realities and needs are not always the same;
  
• it was agreed that CAAN would take the lead in boycotting the mini-call funding;
  
• NACHA members agreed that presenters need to be prepared when attending NACHA meetings
  
• following a discussion such as this one the chair needs to clearly identify the action item coming from the discussion.

Actions: Secretariat and Co-chairs to develop a process allowing for sufficient preparation of guests to NACHA.
Secretariat and Co-chairs to submit unanswered questions to Health Canada and in the future develop a process in advance (if possible) to ensure proper preparation of invited presenters.
Co-chairs to provide Susan Tolton with possible mechanism(s) for ongoing dialogue and input between NACHA and the Programs Unit.

10. Métis Caucus Presentation

As a cross-cultural exercise, Sheila Genaille made a powerful presentation on the Métis history and presented an overview of the issues that the Métis communities are facing. She distributed handouts which summarize her presentation. NACHA members expressed their gratitude for this opportunity and indicated that there should be similar presentations, on different cultures, at each meeting.

End of Day 2

---

Present Day 3: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 a.m.

Community Caucus:	Ken Clement, LaVerne Monette, Quinn Wade, Art Zoccole
First Nations Caucus:	David Lee, Doris Ronnenburg,
Métis Caucus:	Sheila Genaille, Albert McLeod, Duane Morrisseau,
Inuit Caucus:	Sarah Anala, Todd Armstrong, Roger Mannilaq
Health Canada Secretariat	Alain Houde, Senior Policy Advisor, Partnership and Coordination Unit, HIV/AIDS Policy Coordination and Programs Division, Centre for Infections Disease Prevention and Control (CIDPC), Population and Public Health Branch (PPHB), Health Canada Paul J. Hemming, Program Consultant, HIV/AIDS Policy Coordination and Programs Division, CIDPC, PPHB, Health Canada
Guests:	Ralf Jürgens, Executive Director, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network
Regrets:
Community Caucus:	Alana-Dawn Phillips, Denise Lambert
First Nations Caucus:	Garry Carbonnell, Anne Half, Renée Masching
Métis Caucus:	Fran Hyndman, Roberta Wraith, Duane Morisseau
Inuit Caucus:	Pitsiula Kilabuk, Elena Labranche, Franco Buscemi

---

The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m.

Chair: Todd Armstrong, Inuit Caucus Chair

11. NACHA Booklet

Todd Armstrong informed NACHA members that the booklet is not yet completed.

12. NACHA Budget Update

A revised version of the budget update is distributed. Todd mentioned that there is no issue with the budget.

13. Updates on the action items of the Co-chairs' meeting in Halifax

Art Zoccole reported on the action items outlined in the Summary of Actions from the Halifax meeting. Sheila Genaille volunteered to do the follow-up with Duane Shuttleworth on the creation of a logo for NACHA. The question of ownership of the documents produced by NACHA versus Health Canada was raised.

Actions: Sheila Genaille to contact Duane Shuttleworth to find out where is at in the creation of a NACHA logo.
Secretariat to contact Health Canada Communications to determine who retains ownership of documents produced and report back to NACHA co-chairs.

14. Consultants List

The co-chairs reported on the commitment made to develop a consultant list. They noted that this was not an exhaustive list and that names of consultants could be added at anytime. The purpose of the list is to have a pre-approved list of consultants that NACHA's Co-chairs could use if needed to undertake specific pieces of work, in which case Co-chairs would need to follow Health Canada guidelines since the contract would be signed between the consultant and Health Canada. Albert McLeod's name was accidentally added to this list and should be removed.

Actions: Co-chairs to draft a provision to add names to the consultant list.
Secretariat to remove Albert McLeod's name from the list of consultants on which it was erroneously placed.

15. Draft Conflict Resolution Policy

NACHA members expressed their appreciation on the work done so far on this issue. They also expressed the need to build on the work done and further develop NACHA's conflict resolution policy. The following should be considered:

• add time lines;
  
• a step needs to be identified in order to clarify the "conflict" and determine any potential solutions in order to come to a resolution;
  
• the definition of what constitutes a conflict needs to be developed;
  
• Aboriginal ways to resolve conflict such as a Sharing Circles should be considered;
  
• Health Canada conflict resolution policy should be considered.

Sheila Genaille and LaVerne Monette have attended a training on "harassment" where a conflict resolution process was outlined. They indicated their willingness to pursue the development of the Conflict Resolution Policy.

Actions: Sheila Genaille and LaVerne Monette to pursue the development of NACHA's Conflict Resolution Policy.
Secretariat to review Health Canada's conflict of interest policy and present it to the Co-chairs.

16. Strengthening Inclusion of APHA (Terms of reference)

Quinn Wade and Duane Morrisseau met by teleconference September 4, 2002 with the mandate to look at NACHA's TOR to strengthen the inclusion of APHA that would replace the draft Statement of APHA inclusion submitted by NACHA's Co-chairs at the May 2002 meeting. The proposed changes to the TOR are outlined in the teleconference Summary of Discussion.

Each Caucus expressed their views on the recommendation included in the minutes from the teleconference. Everyone reached a consensus on the fact that the implementation of the proposed changes is problematic for numerous reasons such as: each caucus is free to make its own decision on its membership and the nomination of its chair, recruiting APHA is a challenge.

Members agreed to the need for more inclusion of APHA and suggested that it should be done by strengthening the previous Statement of APHA Inclusion instead of revisiting the TOR.

Action: David Lee, Quinn Wade and Duane Morisseau to revisit this issue and come up with a revised Statement of APHA Inclusion.

17. Process to replace NACHA members

Sheila Genaille raised the question of the need to develop consistent and similar processes to replace Caucus members between Summits. The answer to the question resides in each of the Caucuses with members being responsible for developing their own recruitment policies. However, everyone agreed on the need to develop clear processes and to consider "standardizing" these processes. The current processes are too vague. Co-chairs should look to other Aboriginal movements to see how they are handling the issue.

Actions: Co-chairs to acquire information and draft a process on how to replace members.

18. Community Based-Research

Ken Clement, and Fran Hyndman met by teleconference August 23, 2002 with André Leury, Team Leader/CBR from the HIV/AIDS Division. At that teleconference André Leury committed to develop a clear work plan for the Aboriginal CBR relocation process. On September 11, 2002, André submitted tentative time lines intended as a guide for the completion of the relocation process of the general (Non-Aboriginal) CBR program. Aboriginal CBR stakeholders are invited to evaluate the degree to which these time lines could be adapted to the relocation process of the Aboriginal CBR Program.

Actions: Co-chairs to access the need to further develop NACHA's position on the relocation process.
Secretariat to invite appropriate Health Canada officials to the next meeting to discuss relocation process.

19. Resource Allocation

Doris Ronnenburg reported that the Resource Allocation Working Group members (Art Zoccole, Todd Armstrong and Albert McLeod) participated in a teleconference where Steven Sternthal, Manager of the Public Accountability and Operations Unit and Fernand Comeau, Policy Analyst with the Public Accountability and Operations Unit. Fernand informed the group that, due to the need to effectively integrate and link the work that will be undertaken in the Resource Allocation Review and Direction 10 (Strategic Plan development of the CSHA) as well as reduce duplication, the Public Accountability Unit is exploring the idea of combining the two groups into one steering committee. NACHA members voiced the caution that a careful need analysis with projections should be done to identify gaps and needs.

Action: Co-chairs to hire a consultant to identify resource allocation needs. A careful need analysis with projections should be done to identify gaps.

20. Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network

Ralf Jürgens, Executive Director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network made a presentation on the Legal Network's goal, objectives and activities. He invited NACHA members to consult the Legal Network web site: http://www.aidslaw.ca/EN/index.htm (This link opens in a new browser window) . Ralf also pointed out that:

• the Legal Network and NACHA need to partner on HIV/AIDS legal, ethical and human rights related issues;

• the Legal Network and NACHA would mutually benefit from capacity development workshops;
  
• HIV/AIDS has been treated "as normal" but it is not since it involves factors such as poverty and discrimination;
  
• HIV/AIDS requires increased leadership, funding, nimble response and a return to the activism of the past;
  
• the HIV/AIDS response has failed to include the most marginal segments of the population in decision making;
  
• the response requires risk taking from politicians and us;
  
• there is a need for increased international cooperation;
  
• the advocacy work should be based on solid analysis with a long term vision.

Todd thanked Ralf for his presentation. Ralf expressed his gratitude for having been invited and hoped that this is the starting point of a fruitful working relationship between NACHA and the Legal Network.

Note that the meeting resumed at 1:30 p.m. with the same participants as the morning session with the exception of Sheila Genaille.

21. Secretariat's roles and responsibilities

Alain Houde made a presentation on the role and responsibilities of the Secretariat. He pointed out that:

• part of his role as Senior Policy advisor is to coordinate the secretariat teams that support NACHA's and Ministerial Council on HIV/AIDS work;
  
• that team is situated in the Strategy Coordination & Partnership Unit of the HIV/AIDS Division, this Unit also coordinate the work of the F/P/T AIDS Committee and the Ministerial Council on HIV/AIDS;
  
• the Secretariat team undertakes a number of tasks associated with the administration and the development NACHA's work, eg: provide strategic support to co-chairs and committee members, facilitates communication among members, coordinate meetings and teleconferences, collect information, manages contracts, and provides financial reports;
  
• the Secretariat also updates Health Canada's senior management and facilitates linkages between NACHA and other Councils/Advisory Committees, Health Canada and other federal departments in order to foster a productive working relationship;
  
• the Secretariat has a strong will to establish an efficient working relationship with NACHA members where constructive input and suggestions can be expressed in a respectful way.

22. NACHA's Communication Plan

Members were invited to comment on the need for NACHA to develop its own communication plan. Members consulted CAAN's internal Communication Policies to determine whether CAAN's policies could be adapted to NACHA. Here's an overview of the comments made on this issue:

• The First Nations Caucus expressed that they could relate to the plan but that it required fine tuning and that it is too business oriented for NACHA;
  
• The Inuit Caucus indicated that the structure was all right but agreed that fine tuning is required to reflect NACHA's context. Inuit Caucus members also suggested, as a first step, to develop a flowchart to determine the gaps currently existing within NACHA communications;
  
• The Métis Caucus felt it was too detailed and also agreed that it should be tuned for NACHA and indicated the following considerations: teleconferences, emails, procedures to avoid losing communications, web site and ownership of documents;
  
• The Community Caucus thought it was good, but too detailed and suggested the following considerations: roles withing NACHA, confidentiality, transparency and that other plans are to be looked at.

Action: Co-chairs to draft communication plan suggestions taking into account the need to develop a flowchart to determine the gaps currently existing within NACHA communications

23. Draft Outline Progress Report (Tab. 7.4)

NACHA members expressed their satisfaction on the Draft Progress Report Outline. They mentioned the Progress Report should be developed based on the Draft Outline

Action: Secretariat to come up with a draft of the progress report for the co-chairs approval.

24. Report on linkages made with the Canadian Treatment Information Exchange

Quinn Wade reported that there has been only one meeting so far. Currently work is being done to develop CATIE's strategic plan.

25. Report on linkages made with SWGAI (Ministerial Council on HIV/AIDS) (Tab 3.7)

Todd Armstrong reported that a NACHA delegation (Todd Armstrong, Denise Lambert, Duane Morrisseau, David Lee) presented NACHA on June 10, 2002 to Ministerial Council on HIV/AIDS members. Ministerial Council on HIV/AIDS indicated in a letter to NACHA dated August 15, 2002 that SWGAI will be exploring options for linkages and will report back to Ministerial Council at its next meeting in early November. The Ministerial Council on HIV/AIDS indicated that it will contact NACHA shortly after the meeting to continue the dialogue.

26. Request for NACHA representation on the HIV/AIDS Awareness Steering Committee (Tab. 10.1)

Art Zoccole mentioned that Neil Burke from Health Canada is looking for an Aboriginal representative to sit on the National Steering Committee on HIV/AIDS Awareness. Members expressed their opinion that some generic campaigns are not effective for all Canadians. The need for an Aboriginal specific initiative was also identified by NACHA members. NACHA members decided not to name a representative because of the lack of information on the proposed campaign.

Action: Secretariat to organize a meeting between Neil Burke and Co-chairs to discuss NACHA's concerns and expectations about the Awareness Steering Committee.

27. Report on linkages made with F/P/T AIDS

Art Zoccole reported on linkages made with F/P/T AIDS. NACHA members identified F/P/T AIDS as a potential platform to voice concerns over jurisdictional issues and gaps in services.

Action: Co-chairs to develop questions to ask a F/P/T AIDS representatives and invite them to the next meeting.

28. Aboriginal Summit

Todd Armstrong provided Council with an update on the Aboriginal Summit. He reported that a consultant (Arlo Yuzicapi Fayant) was hired to develop a proposal for the 2003 Aboriginal AIDS Summit. The consultant developed a draft proposal with the help of the co-chairs. The proposal will be submitted to Health Canada for funding.

Actions: Co-chairs to look at the work plan to add intended activities for next years budget.
Secretariat to draft a letter to the appropriate Health Canada officials for the Co-Chair's review. The letter should include the rationales for the Summit's budget needed and time lines.

29. Involvement in the Canadian Strategy on HIV/AIDS Direction No 2

As a follow-up to the Montreal meeting Health Canada organized teleconference meetings to further develop the proposed actions. A teleconference was held on June 26, 2002 to discuss the direction specifically related to the Aboriginal Peoples. Participants on the teleconference held on June 26, 2002, identified NACHA as a key player for the implementation of action #3: Coordinate Aboriginal-Specific HIV Research Processes. During the teleconference participants identified several research initiatives (CIHR's Institute of Aboriginal People's Health, HIV/AIDS Division's Aboriginal CBR Program, Canadian Association of Health Research, NACHA's EPI and Surveillance Working Group. NACHA is expected to provide precision on the role it wishes to play with regard to action item #3.

NACHA members deferred this agenda item since too many Council members were missing.

Action: Co-chairs to confer with a consultant to determine who's best to take the lead on this issue

30. NACHA reporting framework to Health Canada

Todd Armstrong reported that at its May 2002 meeting, NACHA requested the Secretariat to draft TOR which would delineate its roles and responsibilities. In completing this work, the Secretariat recognized also the need to clarify NACHA's reporting mechanism to Health Canada. This would help differentiate NACHA's Secretariat roles and responsibilities versus the role of Health Canada. At the Halifax Co-chairs meeting in July 2002, a discussion on various reporting options was held.

The discussions included the following considerations:

• the need to be linked more closely to program and policy development;
  
• the need for NACHA's advice to be shared with Health Canada regional offices and other Branches, and;
  
• Health Canada's senior management need to pay attention to advice made by NACHA.

Co-chairs concluded that the best option would be for NACHA to report directly to the Director of the Centre for Infectious Disease Prevention and Control (CIDPC), Population and Public Health Branch, Health Canada.

NACHA members agreed with the conclusion made by the Co-chairs.

31. New Business

Todd Armstrong reported that a disturbing article was recently published in a Quebec newspaper. The article is entitled "Peril in Québec", it portrays a misleading and unrepresentative picture of the HIV/AIDS crisis. Members suggested that organizations like CAAN and Pauktuutit should write to the editor of the newspaper to condemn the article.

Dates and location of the next meeting are identified: January 16, 17, 18, 2003 in Ottawa

End of meeting