Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 8th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Good afternoon members, witnesses, and guests.

We are here for the 41st meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. We're continuing our study of the first nations child and family services.

We're welcoming today the national chief. It's great to have National Chief Shawn Atleo with us this afternoon.

I'd like to first say that I apologize to our witnesses and guests as well for the late start here this afternoon. This is what occasionally happens—and this is essentially out of our control—when the parties take a decision to move the votes around. Normally the votes this afternoon would have been at 5:30, at the end of the meeting. We get off to a bit of a late start on Wednesdays as it is. In any case, I apologize for the lateness of our meeting.

I'd also like to welcome Cindy Blackstock. Cindy is here representing the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada.

As we customarily do, we begin with statements by each of the—

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I have a point of order. It will mean no disrespect to our witnesses, especially since I'm meeting Mr. Atleo for the first time, who is the chancellor of a university whose campus is in the riding I represent.

The reason I'm raising this is that I've just learned that there's some litigation involved.

I'm not familiar with the details, but I understand, Ms. Blackstock, that you're involved with some litigation, and I understand the crown may be involved. As a lawyer, I've been trained that whenever there's litigation and you are a defendant or related as a party, counsel for the other party has to be involved, and it severely constrains what can happen between the parties.

So I would just suggest that perhaps we should go in camera and just understand better what the ramifications are of our meeting and exchanging information with the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay. It is a legitimate point of order.

The issue that Mr. Weston raises is one that speaks essentially to privileges for members. When items or questions are before a committee or before the House that involve matters that are before a court or some other judicial proceeding, there are restrictions that both witnesses and members should be guided by. It's called the sub judice convention. I'm sure that some members may be aware of it.

As to the question of going in camera, it's really up to members if they choose to do that. In deference to our witnesses, both of whom I understand are applicants in the case that's before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, there are implications for our witnesses there as well.

I saw one hand up. Ms. Crowder and Mr. Russell. I'll take Ms. Crowder first.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I guess I'm a little concerned about this just in the fact that we had the department before us, and they're a defendant. We weren't in camera when we heard their testimony. So I don't see any reason why we can't hear from the national chief and Ms. Blackstock not in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay. I have Mr. Russell and Monsieur Lemay.

Mr. Russell, go ahead.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was going to use the same argument.

I have, in my five years here, not had us go through a vetting process of who had actually brought a claim against the crown. There are many different aboriginal organizations and individuals that have claims against the crown. Some have been ongoing for years. I'm sure that this issue will, if the government wants to make it an issue, certainly arise when we deal with specific claims. Almost all specific claims of one sort or another are against the crown, and we're going to be doing a major study on the specific claims tribunal process and large claims. All of these are claims against the crown in one way, shape, or form. Some are in litigation, some are outside of litigation, and some are in various processes.

So I can't see how this would inhibit in any way the privileges of us to ask a specific question. In fact, the onus would be on the witnesses whether they would feel comfortable in answering a specific question and in what manner they chose to answer a specific question from us.

I have no problem with going with an open format, not in camera, and of course I would want to hear from these particular witnesses on this study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay, thank you, Mr. Russell.

Monsieur Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, two of my colleagues have already expressed their views on this matter, and so I have little to add. First of all, it has to be public. Second, the government has testified publicly. We must continue in that manner. Third, I hope that Grand Chief Atleo is involved. Otherwise, there would be a serious problem.

As well, it seems clear to me that the grand chief must be present. He is not here as a claimant but in his capacity as Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations of Canada. He therefore speaks for the first nations. It would be unfortunate and cause irreparable harm if he were prevented from testifying. I think that the grand chief misunderstood me, Mr. Chair. I think there has been a slight interpretation problem. Do you hear me, grand chief?

Mr. Chair, I hope that the grand chief will remain with us and speak on this very important issue, which directly concerns all the aboriginals he represents through the chiefs of Canada. In my opinion, we shouldn’t see problems when there are none. We should start immediately; we have only an hour and a half left.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I'll take one last intervention, and then we'll decide where we go.

Go ahead, Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Chair, I seem to have been unable to get my message across. It may be because I spoke in English. I don’t want witnesses to appear in camera, but I want the committee to discuss, in private, whether or not we can question the witnesses. Mr. Russell was asking if our questions would be limited in scope. The most important issue is the protection of witnesses. If they appear before a court or a judicial body without the benefit of counsel and we ask questions, as we intend to, it could be prejudicial to the witnesses.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I'll be really quick, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All right, go ahead, Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

In response to that, one of the witnesses is a lawyer. So I don't think she needs protection.

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock, Executive Director, First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada]

No, I'm not a lawyer. Sorry.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Oh, no. Okay.

I think they can decide.

But also, we had the Tlicho, who have a billion-dollar lawsuit against us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you all for your interventions on this.

Mr. Weston's point is principally a caution more than anything, the way I see it. There are only four instances when members are cautioned about what they say in committee or in the House. One, of course, is unparliamentary language. Another is if the speech is repetitious. The third is if it's not relevant to the orders of the day. Fourth is when the item is sub judice, which essentially means that it's an item that is before the court.

There is a legitimate concern, in recognition of our witnesses, more than anything, since they are the applicants in this particular action. Members need to use some caution in the kinds of questions they pose so that the witnesses aren't in a position of saying anything that might prejudice their position before the court or the judicial proceeding.

When it most often comes up is when there is a criminal proceeding, not one of this sense. Even though the testimony we have at standing committees is essentially under the realm of parliamentary privilege, and no action can be taken against a member or a witness for things they say here in Parliament, in the same vein, what they say here is public.

The House has considered this, going back to 1976, when a special committee looked at this question of rights and immunities. It sided with the view that members and ministers, both in terms of their questions and the responses that are offered--a response is typically during a question period scenario--have to be cautious about what they say. In the same vein, if there are members of the committee or witnesses who are party to such an action, they need to be guided accordingly.

I'll finish this with one statement. This is from O'Brien and Bosc, on page 100. It's an excerpt: “...the imposition of the convention should be done with discretion...”.

I'll just say that it's also voluntary. One of the speakers alluded to the fact that it's voluntary on the part of witnesses what they choose to say. You can voluntarily impose your own restrictions. You will probably know more about the proceedings than the person asking the question, so you can voluntarily restrict what you say at committee.

Furthermore, “...when there was any doubt in the mind of the Chair, a presumption should exist in favour of allowing debate and against the application of the convention”. That simply says that it's the practice of the House, when the debate is in question as to whether it is sub judice, to err on the side of allowing free expression.

That's where we are.

Mr. Weston, if that's a satisfactory answer to your question, I sense that there isn't an agreement by the committee to go in camera. Unless there are further questions on this particular issue, I think we'll go to our presentations and proceed from there.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Perhaps the witnesses have already spoken to counsel before coming and have taken advice on whatever issues may be sensitive.

As a member of a bar--a member of three bars--I've been involved in awkward situations before. So I'm just very determined that we not put ourselves or our witnesses in a difficult situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I think that's fair, and I thank you for bringing this to the attention of the committee. I think it's important to understand what limitations may be in place. If that's helpful for members and for our guests today, I think we'll proceed accordingly.

Let's begin with Ms. Blackstock. I'm not sure, Ms. Blackstock, if you've done one of these before. I'm sure you probably have at some point. It is customary to give a ten-minute presentation, and then we'll go to Chief Atleo for ten minutes. Then we'll be opening it up to questions from members.

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's an honour to be here, and I'd like to thank all committee members for convening a session on this important issue.

This is an opportunity like no other. You have a chance today to make a difference in the lives of tens of thousands of children, and all it will require is for you to breathe life into the very values that our honoured veterans have fought for in the Second World War, in Korea, and now in Afghanistan. They fought for the right to be free to be who you are in your own culture, the right to be treated in equitable ways and not denied things because of race, and the right to live in a diverse society as valued members of the country. We've turned the page on residential schools, but sadly, we've turned over the page on child welfare. There are three times the number of first nations children in child welfare care today than there were at the height of residential school operations. First nations children are not more likely to be abused than other children. Rather, it is neglect driven by poverty, poor housing, substance misuse, and inequitable services that drives the problem.

Even worse, these are issues we could do something about. If we were dealing with over-representation driven by sexual abuse, that would be very difficult to deal with. But over-representation driven by other factors is something we can do something about.

For over a decade, the INAC has understood that it underfunds children's welfare services on reserve. In its co-commissioned report authored in 2000, it looked at one of its major funding regimes, directive 20-1. In that report, it found that it underfunded first nations children by 22%. The department agreed with those findings. It didn't implement the recommendations that would have made a huge difference for first nations children.

In 2005 there's a separate report, again on the directive. It found the shortfall was at least $109 million, using the most conservative financial figures and excluding Ontario and the territories.

We also know that the department has been subject to the Auditor General of Canada's report. The directive, the new enhanced tripartite approach, and the Ontario 65 agreement—the three funding arrangements used by the department currently—were all found to be inequitable.

We can talk about inequity. It feels almost clean and sanitary. It feels like it doesn't have an impact. And yet we need to look no further than INAC's internal documents, which call the impacts of its own financial arrangements on children “dire”. Its 2007 fact sheet, which was on its website until it was used in the tribunal and had to be replaced, talks about linking the inequalities in child welfare funding with the growing numbers of children in child welfare care.

These are not neutral inequalities. They are affecting the most vulnerable of children. I'm going to spend a moment on each of the funding regimes. Then I would like to talk about Jordan's Principle. I will conclude with what we could do together to change this.

Directive 20-1, which INAC's own internal department briefing notes calls “dire”, is still applied to children in British Columbia and New Brunswick. The Government of British Columbia as recently as December of 2009 wrote to the Minister of Indian Affairs appealing for the full and proper implementation of Jordan's Principle and calling the minister's attention to the tragic impacts of inequitable funding. They requested an urgent meeting. As you know, Parliament was prorogued in January 2010. The minister wrote back and said he didn't have time to meet. Children in those two provinces continue to be severely underfunded. The department is currently beginning an initiative where they'd like to go to what's called “actuals” on maintenance in British Columbia. That would impose further hardship on the first nations agencies in those regions.

That formula was developed in 1989, long before there had been significant advances in what we know about first nations child welfare, and the formula has not kept pace.

The other approach that's being offered by the department and spoken of here by the minister is known as the Alberta enhanced approach, or the tripartite approach, depending on the phraseology currently used by the department. That is a modified form of the directive. It was developed unilaterally by the Department of Indian Affairs and is offered to first nations as the exclusive alternative to the directive. So if you're a first nation in Quebec, you cannot come up with a formula that would be evidence-based and meet your needs and enter into a conversation with the department.

There is a national template for that formula. It was reviewed by the Auditor General of Canada in her 2008 report. Although she says it's an improvement on the directive, it is still flawed, and it's still inequitable. Yet that continues to be the only alternative offered to first nations children across the country. You either take dire and inequitable, which the department characterizes the directive as, or you take flawed and inequitable. I, for one--as well as, I think, many Canadians--expect a far greater standard from the country than those two options.

The other funding formula used in the country by the Department of Indian Affairs is about as old as I am. I'm 46 years old. That funding formula is 45 years old. It was developed as a bilateral agreement between Canada and the Province of Ontario. First nations had no input into that funding formula, and yet it continues to be applied to first nations children in Ontario.

The Auditor General looked at the 1965 Indian welfare agreement and found it to be inequitable, yet no progress has been made in working with first nations in Ontario or first nations child welfare agencies in Ontario to address those shortcomings.

I should also bring to the attention of members that, going back to 2000, a joint review conducted by the department and the Assembly of First Nations suggested that a special review be conducted in Ontario on that exact funding arrangement. That was over a decade ago, and that has never been acted upon.

Now we move to Canada's north, where there are many first nations children, and there is not a single first nations child welfare agency. First nations communities have wanted to assert their responsibility to look after their own children. As recently as November of this year, the Carcross First Nation has been trying to engage Indian Affairs in negotiations so that they can establish their own agency to meet the needs of children.

In the Northwest Territory, 75% of the kids in care are first nations. It makes sense to provide culture-based care, yet Indian Affairs is not even willing to come to the table.

And what about Jordan's Principle? Some of you would have been there that day, on December 12, 2007, when Ernest Anderson, Jordan's father, stood in the gallery looking down at all of you, as you voted in favour of Member Crowder's motion in support of Jordan's Principle. That principle would have ensured that no first nations child was denied or delayed in receiving any federal or provincial government service because of jurisdictional quagmires between the federal and provincial governments.

Since it was voted on, the federal government has decided to narrow Jordan's Principle to apply only to children with complex medical needs with multiple service providers. We find that out of step with Jordan's Principle and quite frankly a bit distasteful. To take the important memory of a child and reframe it is a narrow principle of equality.

Having had the honour of meeting Ernest Anderson an his family, I can say there is no room in that family's heart for any level of inequality. And there should be no room in the Government of Canada's heart for inequality for children either.

What can we do about this? Well, we have a situation in which we know the problem. The Government of Canada does. It has not one, not two, but three different solutions. This problem has persisted, whether the government has had billions of dollars in the bank and a surplus, or now, as it's spending billions on projects such as fighter jets, economic action signs to point out where the stimulus funds are being spent, or the G-8. It's not a question of financial capacity. It's a question of calling to all Canadians and asking the fundamental question of whether any level of inequality should be rationalized and accepted as a Canadian value.

Today in the mail I got a package of letters from some students who are 14 years old, from Chaminade College Preparatory School in California. One of the letters is from a 14-year-old girl. She says:

It is very important that everyone around the world knows about the residential schools of Canada. Some of the worst events in history happen because they have repeated the past. We do not want anyone to repeat this terrible residential school program that can be avoided so easily. I would also like you to know that I would love to help in any way possible. After looking at your website, I found some ways that I might be able to help. The first thing that struck my eye was Jordan's principle. I think Jordan's principle is a great cause, and I was happy to see all of the supporters you have. ...I would love to do things like raise awareness by telling others about the residential schools or make donations.

Fourteen-year-olds understand, as many Canadians do, that inequality is not a Canadian value. Inequality doesn't lead to a better generation of children. We can do better. We must do better. So let's do better.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Dr. Blackstock.

Now we'll go to Chief Atleo. Go ahead, for ten minutes.

[National Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

To the committee, I really appreciate your focus and attention to this study. My apologies to the translators: I told them I may go off script a little bit.

I'll start right off the bat to respect, first of all, that we are here at your pleasure.

Mr. Weston, the points that you raised are actually really important. They are not only important for consideration here and for our contemplation, but I think they speak to the bigger issue and the opportunity that I believe strongly is in front of us.

I think the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples being endorsed by Canada is a really important step. That declaration, in article 22, talks about the kids and it talks about their needs and their rights. I tell you without hesitation, and I know many of you feel the same, because you've been pulled into public service for your own personal reasons, that the kids slay me wherever I go. I was just talking to Quinn--he's a 17-year-old, an older child, and he doesn't mind me using his name. He's in treatment right now in northern Ontario, and I was so inspired to talk to him very recently. Quinn is going to do well. He's going to make it. I feel that in my heart. These are tough roads that these kids are hoeing out there.

I get to be in these villages and these communities across the country and meet with those kids. They only want things to change for the better. They will express it as wanting an ice rink, or they want to be able to play hockey, or they want a school, or they want their own bedroom. They'll express it in very simplistic terms, but in terms that really inspire you. Shannon's dream is an excellent example of that. That's leadership that's happening on the part of our young people.

Mr. Weston's point is important, because on any given day in this country we have on average approximately 100 cases before the courts that have to do with aboriginal peoples, very often described as first nations title and rights issues. I think about the constituency you serve in your territory. I can think back over the last 10, 15, 20 years in many of your constituencies about the number of conflicts we have engaged in. That's the pattern that we have to break, committee. That's the opportunity the doctor is speaking of here, and I strongly support what she's describing.

We get caught up in this notion of conflict, and the declaration inspires us to do better. It's says that jointly we must accomplish this effort.

This issue of whether we can talk while there's litigation going on is the purview and the privilege of governments to consider. Very much of this is also policy. So I implore you, as we carry out this work, to take the point that was raised here and include that in consideration about the overall relationship between indigenous peoples, in this case my responsibility to advocate for first nations, and the rest of Canadian society. You give effect to that relationship in your work.

So the work of this committee, focusing on children, is incredibly important to me. The question that was asked is not simply a procedural one for this committee. It speaks to the broader relationship challenge that we face. We must break that pattern. Whether it's at the Human Rights Commission or whether it's in the hundreds of other court cases that are before us every year, this is the opportunity that I feel strongly we have in this moment, to break that pattern.

This does require us to sit down. That's the reason why you're called to do a study in this area and your openness to allow us to offer some commentary, at your privilege, is deeply appreciated. Those kids are looking for somebody to advocate for them and we have the privilege to do that. So I wanted to respect and acknowledge the discussion that happened at the outset. I want to link it to the broader challenge we have here in Canada at this moment. Some of the biggest untapped potential that I feel this country has is in the indigenous youth population.

I am very much off script in terms of what I came here by and large to say, which is to build on and to support what Cindy has offered up here, and to recognize work like the endorsement of the declaration as an important step. Let's look at what that compels us to do, to recognize the work.... I think Cindy referenced the directive 20-1. Attached to that is the need for us to acknowledge that the government made some investments in the first nations child welfare program through the enhanced or Alberta model.

Those are examples of first nations stepping forward to be joint partners. In effect, that's like saying we will give effect to article 22 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to improve conditions for our families, in this case specifically for our children.

We're reflecting on directive 20-1. Work on policy is still outstanding and has to be dealt with to ensure that as we jointly develop the systems that will work, we're developing them in a sustainable manner that is going to support success.

Very quickly, I want to point out a few studies that compel us in our work, particularly the report done by the representative for children and youth, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, and the British Columbia provincial health officer, Dr. Perry Kendall. Their recent study looked at the six aspects of well-being: health, learning, safety, behaviour, family economic well-being, and connections with family, peers, and community.

I think this committee is well aware that the Assembly of First Nations, much to the credit of the chiefs across the country, has made education a top priority. Of course in this report as with others, education is seen as something we can immediately move to address, and as the government said last spring, we would continue to pursue a willingness to strengthen and reform it together. As this report and many others suggest, first nations education is undeniably a key determinant to quality-of-life outcomes for first nations children. The report in British Columbia concludes that aboriginal children have more health risks, fare worse at school, and are overrepresented in the children welfare and youth justice systems.

There are important economic imperatives as well. The study done in 2007 by Bowlus and McKenna articulated that the economic impact of not addressing child mistreatment was in the realm of $16 billion. So there are really important economic imperatives to consider across our entire child welfare, health, and in this case the justice system.

This report talks to us about the issue of complacency, and I quote: “It is easy to become complacent about at-risk child populations--impoverished circumstances and poor outcomes have come to be accepted for some of our children and youth.” But they go on to conclude: “This complacency can no longer be tolerated.”

Therein lies the reason for the importance of your study and for the impassioned intervention here that Cindy Blackstock makes.

We've spoken about directive 20-1. Reference was made to the Ontario welfare agreement and also the issue of the lack of agencies in the north, there being none either in the Northwest Territories or in the Yukon. And although it was already covered, I wanted to emphasize: very often we're challenged by the issues of lack of services in the north and immediate steps toward resolving these gaps are desperately needed.

We do know that funding of child welfare is by no means the whole story. We all know that even if the child welfare program was adequately funded and properly structured, we would still have children in care. Again, we must question the reason why. Cindy's organization has done an incredible amount of work through careful study. The prevailing reason children are in care is due to what is classified as neglect. And when we dig a little deeper, we find out what's behind neglect: poverty, alcohol and substance abuse, and the other social determinants I referenced earlier--education, things like housing.

So we have what some would suggest is complex and what many would say is made difficult because it is complex. It is unrealistic, therefore, to suggest that just one program will impact the changes we're looking for. We know it will require much more. It will require a coordinated, comprehensive approach to supporting, nurturing, and investing in children and their families.

As a country we need to understand the reflection that UNICEF's recent report concluded, as it reflects on Canada as well as other developed countries. The piece called The Children Left Behind documents the plight of children in the world's wealthiest countries. All Canadians should be concerned with Canada's ranking on inequality and child well-being, 17 out of 24 in terms of material well-being. And through further analysis it's clear that first nations, indigenous populations, are one of the key factors in this rate of inequity.

That's exactly what this intervention is about: reflecting that we must, as Cindy says, move to address these issues. In principle we must be committed to the very basic tenet that every child has a right to develop to his or her full potential. That's really the essence of what this comes down to.

I referenced the declaration earlier, so let me conclude in this way and summarize.

As the declaration says, we must really pursue a full partnership in addressing these challenges, as outlined in the original treaties that helped forge this country. The principles that underlie that are mutual respect, mutual recognition, fairness, and equity. We must be assured that services and programs for first nations are funded through fair and equitable fiscal arrangements based on sound economics and realistic escalators that adequately address cost drivers.

I would remind this committee that Canada also signed on to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. As you may know, because of the importance of protecting children, this convention is the first legally binding international instrument. The core principles of the convention include the right of every child to develop to his or her full potential, to not face discrimination, to safeguard identity, to survive, and to have their views respected. To me this is an incredibly important vision.

I believe strongly that we are embarking on an era of reconciliation, if I can describe it as such. The Prime Minister rose in the House of Commons in the summer of 2008 and apologized to tens of thousands of children who were pulled from their families. So I join Cindy Blackstock today in compelling the committee to not be complacent for the kids.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, chief.

We will now open up to questions from members.

Mr. Russell has the floor for seven minutes.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank National Chief Atleo and Ms. Blackstock for being with us and sharing their very impassioned thoughts. They come with some very concrete ideas and very substantive facts around this very telling issue.

But it's almost like a dichotomy, National Chief. We say we're in an era of reconciliation, yet on any given day there are 100 or more cases of litigation undertaken in this country that involve first nations, Inuit, or Métis. It's quite a dynamic to reflect upon.

To Ms. Blackstock, I will probably write this down and put it on my wall, because it's a hell of reminder: any level of inequality should not be rationalized. What a call to every one of us as parliamentarians. When we see an inequity, we have the ability to do something and we don't act. It's a powerful challenge to me and other parliamentarians around this table, I'm sure.

Having said that, I want to get to two specific points. When it comes to the enhanced model or this prevention model that has been touted by the department as the way forward, you made a statement that it is the exclusive path forward now for first nations child welfare agencies. Why is it the exclusive way forward if there are other options? Why is it the exclusive way forward when the Auditor General herself said it was flawed, in her report of 2008?

Second, when the officials of the department were before us touting the Alberta model that is now being imported to other provinces--or exported, whichever direction you're looking at it from--they didn't know any facts. They said there were some preliminary indications that it was working.

Do you have more information on that? I understand from some reports that you may have additional information on what's happening in Alberta. It would be very interesting to know if there's more detailed information regarding that model and what the results are.

Thank you.

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

Thank you for your question.

With regard to why it's the exclusive option, we don't know. That would be an important question to ask the minister. There were two jointly developed solutions in partnerships with first nations: the 2000 report, of course, the joint national policy review, or NPR, as it's better known; and the Wen:de reports, which were developed in partnership between the Assembly of First Nations and the department and included the expertise of over 20 leading experts. Both of those were set aside in favour of this approach.

How is it performing? Well, I would turn to two documents. One of them was actually prepared by the Department of Indian Affairs itself. The Department of Indian Affairs, as you may know, conducted an evaluation of the enhanced prevention focused approach in Alberta. I believe members asked either the minister or representatives of the minister about the findings of this evaluation.

I have before me now the powerpoint presentation that was prepared by the Department of Indian Affairs summarizing the findings. I quoted this in all the recommendations to you in my brief, so I would refer you to that.

I want to call attention to the fact that the study finds that 75% of the first nations agencies in Alberta found the funding to be inadequate. Minister Fritz, the minister for the province of Alberta, in her remarks at the Yellowhead Tribal Services Agency national conference advised publicly that the enhanced model is not meeting the needs of first nations children in Alberta.

That is repeated in Closing the Gap Between Vision and Reality, the final report from the Alberta child intervention review panel, which was concluded on June 30, 2010. So it's very timely.

Mr. Russell, I would call your attention to this report. It reports on gaps and services, and it says, “Further, there are distinct barriers and challenges associated with jurisdiction”—so that speaks to Jordan's Principle—“and the intersection of federal funding with provincial operational requirements.”

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Excuse me please.

Could you slow down; the translation is important.