Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 12th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Welcome to the 28th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

So many of our recent meetings have been televised that I've always worn my jacket, thinking I needed to look good. But this one's not televised, so today I can get away with taking off my jacket, as can you.

It seems like only minutes ago we decided we wanted to have people from the Auditor General's office come to visit us, and lo and behold, here you are today.

I'd like to welcome Ronnie Campbell, Assistant Auditor General, and Jerome Berthelette. Gentlemen, if you could make a presentation of 10 minutes or so, we'll follow that with a round or two of questioning.

With that, I turn it over to you, Mr. Campbell.

[Ronnie Campbell, Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss our May 2008 report on the first nations child and family services program.

With me today is Jerome Berthelette, the principal auditor responsible for this audit.

The audit examined how Indian and Northern Affairs Canada manages its First Nations Child and Family Services program. Our colleague, the Auditor General of British Columbia, conducted a concurrent audit covering child welfare services for aboriginal people in B.C.

Mr. Chairman, some of the most vulnerable children in Canada are first nations children. At the end of March 2007 there were about 8,300 on-reserve children in care. This number represents more than 5% of all children living on reserves and this percentage is almost eight times higher than the percentage of children living off reserves who are in care.

In 2007, INAC spent $180 million for operating and administration costs of providing services to children and families ordinarily resident on reserves.

With this funding, INAC supported 108 first nations agencies that provide a range of child welfare services to about 442 first nations. INAC also used the funding to pay for the services provided on reserves by provinces. In addition, INAC spent $270 million for costs related to children placed in care by first nations agencies and the provinces.

In 1990, the federal government adopted a policy that includes a requirement that the services provided to first nations children on reserves meet provincial standards, are reasonably compatible with services for children off reserve, and are culturally appropriate.

We found that the department has not defined what “reasonably compatible” and “culturally appropriate” mean. Furthermore, the department does not sufficiently take into account provincial standards and other policy requirements when it establishes levels of funding for first nations agencies to operate child welfare services on reserves.

Mr. Chairman, the department's funding formula dates back to 1988. It has not been significantly changed since then to reflect variations in provincial legislation and the evolution of child welfare services. In addition, the funding formula assumes that all first nations agencies have the same percentage of children in care--that is, 6%--and that the children all have similar needs. This assumption leads to funding inequities, because the percentage of children in care, as well as their needs, varies widely. The outdated funding formula means that some children and families are not getting the services they need.

Mr. Chairman, last year, through federal, provincial, and first nations cooperation, the funding formula was revised in Alberta. This revision links the funding provided to first nations agencies in Alberta to provincial legislation. When fully implemented in 2010, the formula will provide 74% more funds for the agencies' operations and prevention services. While this is encouraging, we found, however, that the new formula still assumes that a fixed percentage of first nations children and families need child welfare services. Agencies with more than 6% of their children in care will continue to be hard pressed to provide protection services when they also have to develop family enhancement services.

In our view, the funding formula should become more than a means of distributing the program's budget; it should also take into account the varying needs of first nations communities.

Funding is not the only issue. We believe that ensuring the protection and well-being of children requires that INAC, the provinces, and first nations agencies have a clear understanding of their responsibilities. Up-to-date agreements are essential. We found that INAC had no agreements on child welfare services with three of the five provinces we covered in our audit.

Finally, we found that INAC has little information on the outcome of its funding on the safety, protection, or well-being of on-reserve children. It does not know whether its program makes a positive and/or significant difference in the lives of the children it funds.

The large percentage of first nations children in care calls for all the parties involved in the child welfare system, including first nations and provinces, to find better ways of meeting their needs. INAC has indicated it will seek authority to extend the approach taken in Alberta to other provinces by 2012.

Mr. Chairman, your committee may want to invite the representatives from INAC to provide information on the work plan developed by the department to implement our recommendations. It may also consider inviting representatives of first nations agencies to provide more information about child welfare issues on reserves.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement. My colleague and I would be pleased to answer any questions your committee may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you very much.

We will use our normal procedure, whereby we will have a first round of seven minutes.

To begin today, from the Liberal Party we have Ms. Neville.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you.

Thank you very much for coming and for standing in the hall waiting until we agreed to let you in the door. Thank you also for this report; it's an important one.

As you undoubtedly are aware, we are all, I think, around this table committed to the equality of opportunity for all children, and particularly first nations children. You talked in the report about money for housing and infrastructure being allocated to child and family services, but you said that moneys were reallocated for other projects. We know that moneys are constantly being reallocated in the department, and I wonder whether you could speak to that a little.

I was out of town this past week, but my understanding is that the minister has dismissed the report, saying this is not about money. I wonder, in your answers, whether you could comment on the need for additional resources. We heard the previous minister blame the victim for the increase in the number of children in care. We're quite pleased to see your report come out, in which you clarify that in fact that's not the case.

I'd like to focus a little on the jurisdictional issues. You talked about an expectation that the department would have clear authorities and expected results for the program. I'm going to ask a few questions and then let you answer.

Do you think the jurisdictional barriers or the issues are really a barrier, or a scapegoat, and what would you recommend to overcome these potential barriers? You talk about the lack of formal agreements in place. What are the barriers to accomplishing these agreements?

You also talk about a need to facilitate coordination between the child and family services program and other relevant INAC programs. What types of barriers are there within the federal government to this? Is it Treasury Board guidelines, territorial turf wars—what is it?

Some time ago, and it's really some time ago, I met with the child and welfare division of the department, and I think we should call them in. They indicated at that time that they had a plan that was ready to roll, and it's quite clear that no plan has been rolled out.

I don't know whether I'm making myself clear, but I'd like some comments, really, on the jurisdictional barriers that are in place, as you see them.

[Ronnie Campbell]

I think there were several questions there, and I thank you for them. If I miss one, or if my colleague and I miss one, then please just remind us.

You talked about a response from the minister. I don't know what comment you're referring to. I think the response we've received—

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

She must have been out of town.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I said I was out of town. I said I was advised. Let's be clear.

[Ronnie Campbell]

I have no view on that, because I'm not aware of the comment, but certainly the response from the department has been that they've agreed with all the recommendations, and part of that response has been that they intend to seek authority to take the Alberta arrangement and expand it to other provinces.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Can I just interrupt you there? You talked about two other provinces by 2012. We're currently at 2008. Four years in the life of a child is a long time. Do you see a way, or does your audit show a way, that such a plan can be accelerated?

[Ronnie Campbell]

That's a good question. Our audit didn't get into that, because what we're talking about here is a departmental response to the audit. But certainly I think that would be a really good question to pose to the department.

You're absolutely right that time is of the essence. I think there have been several studies in this area that all point to similar issues. We talk about a fundamental disconnect between the way the funding is calculated and allocated, the disconnect between that and the reality that both the children and the first nations agencies face. So a lot of that won't get fixed until those funding agreements line up against the range of services the children need. But I think ways to accelerate the implementation of the department's response would be an interesting question to pose to the department, should you choose to have them come to the committee.

In terms of barriers and reallocation, I'm going to ask my colleague, Mr. Berthelette, to try to deal with that, and when he's done, if there's anything we've missed, please let us know.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you.

[Jerome Berthelette, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Mr. Chairman, the issue with respect to the barriers between programs is discussed in paragraphs 4.38 to 4.41 on pages 16 and 17 in our report. There we note the coordination between departments is poor, and we particularly highlight the relationship between Health Canada and Indian Affairs with respect to, in this case, the availability of non-insured health benefits to children who are brought into care.

We note that there is a fundamental difference of point of view between Health Canada and Indian Affairs with respect to who is responsible for the provision of health services once a child is brought into care. Health Canada's point of view is that once a child is brought into care, it should be treated like any other child who is brought into care, and the cost of non-insured health benefits should not be covered by Health Canada. Indian Affairs' point of view is that the status of the child does not change, and the ability to access non-insured health benefits should not change just because a child is brought into care. So what happens is that Indian Affairs has temporary authority to cover off health care costs, non-insured costs, when Health Canada will not pay for those costs, but it can only do so once Health Canada has said to the agency or to the foster parent, “No, we will not cover that cost,” and that foster parent or that agency has gone through the appeal process. This can result, as we note in the audit, in delays with respect to children accessing services.

The problem in this case is the terms and conditions of the programs. In order for Jordan's Principle, for example, to be able to work effectively, changes in the terms and conditions of the programs are going to have to occur so that the department that comes into contact with the child in the first instance will actually be able to cover all the cost and then go to the other departments, or perhaps even the provincial government, for reimbursement.

In large measure, it's a structural issue related to the way the programs are set up and the stovepiping that has occurred in the way the programs are established.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Lemay, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen. We decided just last week to meet with you, and I very much appreciate your coming here today.

I have problems with the Auditor General's report regarding first nations child welfare services. The Quebec government just amended its Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse (Youth Protection Act). Pursuant to the new legislation which came into force on April 1, 2008, children can be taken out of aboriginal communities, and the family has a year to improve. Otherwise, children could be put out for adoption.

If we invest $180 million and the problem is not... Some agreements have not been concluded. Is the problem with the provinces and the federal government, or with the federal government and the Department of Health or the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada? I will ask the Auditor General and her representatives to tell us who is not doing their job.

[Jerome Berthelette]

Mr. Chairman, the honourable member has raised a very interesting question. The delivery of services for children on reserve is a very complex situation.

In large measure, it's perhaps not a question of who is not doing their job, but perhaps it's more of a question of how we make sure that each of the sectors or jurisdictions responsible for delivering the service and supporting the service on reserve is actually coordinating what it is doing and that they are all supporting each other.

We noted, for instance, that in a couple of the provinces in which we conducted our audit there was no federal-provincial agreement with respect to the allocation of responsibilities between the federal and provincial governments and the first nations. It would be good, and we recommend that Indian Affairs actually enter into these types of agreements with each of the provinces. In their response, Indian Affairs has said that this is something they are going to do. Once they do that, and once they are able to allocate the responsibilities more appropriately and make sure the supports are better coordinated, I suspect we will see fewer problems on the jurisdictional front and more cooperation. Having said that, there are still structural issues with respect to how the formula is set up and the fact that it has not provided sufficient funding for provincial services that are required under provincial legislation.

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

I appreciate the diplomacy displayed by the Auditor General and her representatives. It is like music to my ears. However, as a federal member of Parliament, when I read in paragraph 7 of your presentation that: "[...] the department has not defined what 'reasonably comparable' and 'culturally appropriate' mean." A colloquial expression comes to my mind right away: "Good heavens! What will it take for them to get it done?"

What will happen is that very soon, children will be taken out of several Quebec aboriginal communities, and they will not be returned. Call this whatever you want, but as far as I am concerned, this is assimilation. If you take a six-month-old or a one-year-old child out of its community and put it out for adoption, it will not be any more an Indian than you or I am.

Who will make sure that the department defines the terms "reasonably comparable" and "culturally appropriate"? It has not done it for the past 20 years. I am very uncomfortable with this sentence.

[Ronnie Campbell]

Thank you.

Clearly, that's the department's responsibility. In 1990 they developed the policy, the implementation of which we're auditing in this report. The department decided the program and funding should support activities that meet provincial standards, that have a degree of compatibility to them, and that are culturally appropriate. It's the department's policy that says that, so the responsibility quite clearly is on the department to determine what those things mean, how they will implement them, and then go ahead and implement them.

The member is absolutely right, it's been since 1990 and that hasn't been done.

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

It has not been done since 1990. Now, in 2008, 8,000 children need support each year. We should prepare the minister psychologically and psychiatrically for his appearance before us two days from now. This must be included in his budget. If I have understood your statements, nothing was provided for for the children in those communities in the funding formula that goes back to 1988. Is that what you are saying?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

A short answer, please.

[Ronnie Campbell]

A big part of this solution isn't funding, I'm afraid. As Mr. Berthelette said, this is a complex set of issues. There are jurisdictional issues and basic program definition issues, but the funding of the program, if it's to meet its objectives, has to be related to the objectives it sets out. One of the objectives is to meet provincial standards. The funding needs to be calculated on a basis that understands what those provincial standards are and what needs to be done to meet them. Just going with a formula is going to be hit and miss; as we've seen in cases we've reported in the chapter, more often than not it's miss.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, Mr. Campbell.

Ms. Crowder, you have seven minutes.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming before the committee.

I think many people have been aware of the underfunding, incompatibility, and a lot of the other issues. I think this report clearly outlines that this is a serious problem that we can't ignore any longer.

You don't need to comment on this, but I also want to point out that in the B.C. report, which was a parallel report, they talk about the fact that 51% of the children in the province's care are aboriginal. That's a shocking number when you consider the percentage of the population.

In paragraph 4.19, under comparability, I have a quick question around the fact that one of the things they look at in many provinces are least disruptive measures and every attempt to support the family to keep them in place. You didn't specifically look at comparability, but did these disruptive measures come up?

[Jerome Berthelette]

Mr. Chair, the issue of least disruptive measures came up quite often while we were conducting this audit, particularly within the Alberta context, where they use what they call the differential response models. That came up, and it was clear, particularly in the Alberta context, that before this agreement was entered into with Alberta, the family enhancement program was not available to the first nations agencies who were funded by Indian Affairs.

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

That's right, the family enhancement program is not available to agencies funded by Indian Affairs.

[Jerome Berthelette]

It was not available.