Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

So you implement Jordan's Principle as a delivery agency, but you're still finding that the province and the feds will squabble?

[Brenda Cope]

Even the feds and the feds will squabble.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

INAC and Health Canada?

[Brenda Cope]

Yes.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Okay, thank you.

[Elsie Flette]

I think, for us, it's the same with Jordan's Principle. None of our agencies has received any instructions or protocols as to how it will in fact be operationalized. We've heard from both the province and the federal government that they've adopted it and it's great, but there's been no direction as to exactly how it will work. What we see at the agency level, and the way it's always worked, is that our agencies spend an inordinate amount of time, on a case-by-case basis, trying to figure out how they will get their money back.

You're right. The agencies, as the delivery agents, implement it, because we have the children. If a child needs a feeding tube, you have to buy it. You can't sit and wait for someone to figure out who's going to pay for it. The agencies are left with that cost, and until they sort out who pays, they don't get their money back. So it comes out of operations and creates funding pressures. Some of these children--medical, but not limiting the scope of Jordan's Principle to medical-needs children--are very high-needs kids, and their cost of care is very expensive. In some cases, we're talking $300, $400, or $500 a day. For an agency to have to put that kind of money out and wait months and months and months before someone figures out who's going to pay for what portion is very difficult for them.

On the comparable services front, I think the enhanced prevention approach holds some promise. I agree with what Mi'kmaw Children's Services says. To some extent, it just brings us up to comparable levels. I think it's critical that we implement it and do very close monitoring of how it's playing out. I'm reminded of Dr. Trocmé, who raises the comparison. If you have a clinic that treats children with colds and a clinic that treats children with cardiac arrest, are you going to fund them the same way? Certainly we know that the service needs, the complexities, and the issues facing our first nations children and the over-representation of those children in the child welfare system require a resourcing level that differs from what is provided to the non-aboriginal agencies if you are going to have service equity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Excuse me, there's less than a minute left here.

I know that we wanted to hear from all three. I'm sorry, Mr. Russell. I didn't want to jump in, but could we just go to Ms. Loeppky now?

Go ahead.

[Carolyn Loeppky]

Thank you very much.

One of the things that happened in Manitoba was that in our discussions with INAC, the authorities, and our agencies, we did something different from what is happening, from what I can understand, in other provinces. While most of the other provinces focused on what was referred to as the enhanced prevention model, we went a little further in terms of looking at how we could actually build a funding model that would include both prevention and the protection differences we have experienced in our province.

When we began to look at how we would shape the funding to an agency, we looked at what an agency would require to meet its mandate. We went through the development of ratios and formulas to address that. In Manitoba right now, the provincial government funds the authorities 100%, and that's for the oversight. Currently we still have work to do on what we call designated intake agencies. For our operations, we fund jointly, with the federal government, core and protection funding as well as prevention. We still have work left to do on child maintenance, on residential placement resources, and on our business information system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay, we'll have to leave it at that.

Thank you, Mr. Russell.

Now it's your turn, Mr. Lemay.

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

I see we have two more guests joining us. It would perhaps be appreciated if we could hear their comments first. I don't know what you think, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

They just arrived, and they're getting settled.

Do you want to go ahead? Mr. Cameron and Mr. Gaudry, are you ready to go?

[Howard Cameron, Beardy's and Okemasis Band Member, Kanaweyihimitowin Child and Family Services Inc.]

Yes, we are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay, let's go ahead, and then we'll come back and pick it up at the questions, Mr. Lemay.

I'd like to introduce now Mr. Howard Cameron, from Beardy's and Okemasis Band. He's a member of the band. This is Kanaweyihimitowin Child and Family Services. Welcome.

We have about ten minutes. If you want to divide the ten minutes between the two of you, go ahead.

Go ahead, Mr. Cameron, with your opening comments.

[Howard Cameron]

[Witness speaks in his native language].

My name is Howard Cameron, Senior, of the Beardy's and Okemasis First Nation, Saskatchewan. I am the ceremonial keeper for my community. As I hold this title, the role of the elder is inclusive. I am a father, grandfather, and great-grandfather.

I am honoured and humbled to have this opportunity to address the hearing. I bring to you a unified message on behalf of the first nations of Saskatchewan.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I believe the committee's decision to convene on this topic is a positive step in moving toward reconciliation by beginning to address the real needs of first nations children.

While I appreciate all of the witnesses' testimony that has occurred, Canada is not a uniform country. All first peoples vary greatly from region to region. I feel that I must address the unique challenges and needs of Saskatchewan first nations.

While there are numerous studies relating to the health and well-being of first nations children and youth in Canada—“UNICEF Aboriginal children's Health: Leaving no child behind” and “Best Interests of the Child”—there has not been much research specifically relating to Saskatchewan first nations children and youth. In February 2009, the Saskatchewan Children's Advocate Office released “A Breach of Trust: An Investigation into Foster Home Overcrowding in the Saskatoon Service Centre”. The Saskatchewan Children's Advocate Office illustrated the startling and often shocking realities of Saskatchewan children and youth.

I recently participated in the Saskatchewan child welfare review as a panel member. Over an eight-month period, we heard from over 1,200 participants—many first nations chiefs, first nations child and family service agencies, and many first nations people. What the panel heard is that there must be fundamental change in the provincial child welfare system and that the Saskatchewan government must do better to address the over-representation of first nations children entering and remaining in the child welfare system.

First nations children and youth in Saskatchewan face complex issues that adversely affect health conditions, nutrition, and their mental health. These issues, coupled with jurisdictional funding and challenges between the federal government and the Province of Saskatchewan, often make access to services extremely problematic. In some cases, the complexities of jurisdictional disputes prevent the development and implementation of needed programming and services.

We know from the 2005 “Wen:de: We are Coming to the Light of Day” report that there are three times as many indigenous children in care today as there were at the height of the operation of residential schools in the 1940s.

In Saskatchewan, as of June 2009, there were 3,519 children currently in care of the Province of Saskatchewan Ministry of Social Services. As of March of 2009, 1,209 first nations children have been placed in the care of first nations child welfare agencies on reserve, according to “Child and Family Services Statistical Report”, 2009. The Saskatchewan Children's Advocate has identified that within the Saskatoon Service Centre alone, 63% of children in care of the province of Saskatchewan are first nations children—“A Breach of Trust: An Investigation into Foster Home Overcrowding in the Saskatoon Service Centre”, 2009. In December of 2010, the Children's Advocate's final report, “For the Good of Our Children and Youth”, states: “While Aboriginal people in the province account for roughly 15 percent of the population, nearly 80 percent of children and youth in out-of-home care in the province at the end of the 2008-09 fiscal year were Aboriginal”.

The eighteen Saskatchewan first nations child and family agencies located on reserve in Saskatchewan operate under a delegated model of child welfare, under agreements from both provincial and federal governments. First nations children and family service agencies in Saskatchewan are funded by the federal government through Directive 20-1 and receive a small portion of funding from the Province of Saskatchewan. However, not only must the first nations child and family agencies comply to reporting mechanisms provincially and federally; they are also held accountable to their boards, individual first nations, and to regional standards outlined in the 1994 Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations Indian Child Welfare and Family Support Act.

A joint national policy review on Directive 20-9 completed in 2000 found that the funding provided to first nations child and family services agencies was inadequate and outdated. The funding formula for child and family services has not been reviewed since 1988. The last inflation-related adjustment occurred in 1995. Funding provided by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to the first nations child and family services agencies remains capped at an annual growth of 2%, while actual costs of operation for first nations child and family services agencies increase by 11% annually. Many of the recommendations of the national policy review have yet to be addressed.

In 2008 Saskatchewan first nations child and family services agencies received $104.8 million to implement the Saskatchewan prevention framework. There has been no investment in Saskatchewan by INAC since that initial investment. Many, but not all, of the 18 Saskatchewan first nations child and family services agencies have moved forward with prevention as part of their front-line work. A focus of the prevention framework is to reduce the number of first nations children in care on reserve. The first nations agencies are block-funded. Many are in the third year of this agreement and the increased number of cases, especially high-needs cases, causes a financial burden that impacts the ability to manage operational and maintenance budgets.

Increased transfers of cases from off reserve to on reserve increase the caseloads on reserve in moving them to INAC jurisdiction when placement breakdowns occur. The significant increase of cases on reserve is currently viewed by INAC as a contradiction of the Saskatchewan prevention framework. Increased numbers of high-needs cases overburden already challenged budgets to first nations child and family services agencies and severely impact maintenance and operational budgets further.

Saskatchewan first nations child and family services agencies have been funded for prevention but the funding set out by INAC has primarily been targeted to operations and salaries. The first nations child and family services agencies have very little flexible funding to purchase services. The resource for purchase of services for prevention in the formula is derived by calculating 6% of the population of first nations children on reserve in the catchment area that the first nations child and family services agency services. The other funding that is included in the prevention stream is for family enhancement workers, and it is not flexible funding but set funding for the agency.

An additional impact is that INAC does evaluate and make a budget adjustment to re-profile funds; however, these re-profiled funds are not provided back to the first nations child and family services agency. Re-profiling funds decreases the amount that the first nations child and family services agency would receive and is itemized as a budget adjustment by INAC. The funding formula disclosed during the development of the Saskatchewan first nations prevention services model and accountability framework agreement and the costing model did not outline the process of re-profiling funds, nor were agencies aware that they would lose access to these portions of funds. It is unclear at this time what has happened to the re-profiled funds, and in light of the re-profiling of funds by INAC, the first nations of Saskatchewan have requested a mid-term evaluation of prevention funding. First nations share a need to remain in their communities, where their ties to their culture, language, and value systems have the most impact and provide the greatest chance of success, by nurturing healthy adults and ultimately creating healthy parents, to disrupt the cycle of despair created by intergenerational effects of the residential schools.

If underfunding is not addressed as a priority matter, we will continue to see first nations children removed from their homes, families, and communities because of the lack of funding. Services cost money. Many first nations communities are not able to provide programs or services, not because of the lack of desire or expertise but because of the lack of funding.

We have seen the results from the residential schools. Let us learn from our mistakes and let us do better.

Merci beaucoup.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cameron.

I'd also like to recognize Mr. Dwayne Gaudry, who is also here on behalf of the agency.

We have about 30 seconds left. I don't know if you want to say anything, but maybe you can participate--

[Dwayne Gaudry, Executive Director, Kanaweyihimitowin Child and Family Services Inc.]

I'll just introduce myself. I'm the executive director with the Beardy's child and family services.

It's an honour to sit in front of you and to share again what Howard has said. I echo everything.

I appreciate the attention. Gitchi-Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That's great.

Thank you. Then we'll resume.

Mr. Lemay, you have seven minutes.

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

I'll try to be delicate.

When this matter of Jordan's Principle and so on was put on the table, I admit that, at first, I wondered whether it was worth the trouble.

I believe that my colleagues who raised this matter may have suspected the problem that was going on, but they didn't suspect that we were going to open such a Pandora's box. I'm impressed and at the same time outraged, and I feel powerless in the face of what you've just told us.

I'm going to say what I think. I've taken notes, and we're going to prepare a report. I'll let you respond. It seems to me that there are far too many officials who operate by operating this operation which doesn't operate, and no one is attending to it... The priority isn't the children. You'd think we'd lost sight of them.

The point is to determine who will pay for the pair of crutches. I know what I'm talking about because I've had a cane and crutches for a few months now. And I'm not criticizing you; one would say you're being told to deal with the problem and that perhaps someone will send you a cheque.

I think we should recommend eliminating this Directive 20.1. Something will have to happen. I agree with Mr. Cameron. This makes no sense. Things will get serious in the next few months. We haven't heard any witnesses from Quebec, but I'm very sensitive to that because the situation is the same in Quebec.

Should the federal government withdraw? Should it lower its expectations about being one of the funding parties? When I'm told that there are agreements spread over five years, I think that raises a problem: you have to go to Treasury Board every year, and that's year after year.

I want to hear what you have to say on that question. I'm going to leave you the rest of my time to answer—three or four minutes. What can we members do here to help you, to prevent what Chief Cameron said? I sense that this is coming on like a tidal wave and that's it's going to hurt us. Would a commission of inquiry be necessary? There have already been some.

What can we do in concrete terms to help you, and what we can include in the report that we are going to draft over the next week? That's quick.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have about one minute each for the four of you. If you could, please capsulize an answer in about one minute.

Let's go to Mr. Cameron or Mr. Gaudry and then we'll go across the table.

[Dwayne Gaudry]

I'm glad you mentioned that and asked, “What do we need to do?” Every year we have to bring it again before Treasury. We've set out a five-year plan through the enhancement project, but again, as Howard was mentioning, it's reprofiling those moneys; there are no real new moneys to change. It's just changing it. I'm sure that Canada or INAC announced the $104 million in that area, and we got excited, but again, it's just reprofiling those dollars. There's really no change.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay.

Ms. Loeppky.

[Carolyn Loeppky]

A minute is a very short period of time in which to talk about as big an issue as you present to us.

One of the things we need to do is work in partnership with levels of government and with those people who have a jurisdiction to provide service.

One of the things that we know as we move forward is that child welfare cannot do its job by itself; recognizing that there are other departments that we have to work with is also a very important component of what we do. We have to work every day, every week, every month, every year in pursuit of improving the services we have for children. It's not something that can be done with an overarching, futuristic kind of approach.

One of the things we can do is be very vigilant about what we're doing, how we're doing it, and when we're doing it. If we leave things too long, we see what has happened over time historically in terms of services. The kind of work that needs to be done has to be done looking at not only the funding but also the quality of services we are providing. We have to match those two components together and begin to look at ways of doing things differently.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you.

Ms. Flette.

[Elsie Flette]

If you make a recommendation that they do away with Directive 20-1, they will agree with you, because they are saying they're already doing it. So I think we should go a step further and ask, as we're doing away with Directive 20-1, what we are putting in its place. I think it's your job as parliamentarians to keep the spotlight on this thing. These are kids, at the end of the day, who are affected.

It would be helpful if there were some kind of external mechanism—not an inquiry, but an accountability structure—outside of INAC for INAC to report to on a regular basis. The Auditor General's report has helped us a great deal, but it's a question of having some body that INAC has to report to on the state of affairs for first nations children working with the first nations. There's lots of expertise there that they're willing to bring to the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay.

Ms. Johnson.