Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 12th, 2008

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

That means children are put in care rather than to support the family?

[Jerome Berthelette]

That means they didn't have access to those services that would help maintain the child at home with their parents and provide the parents and the family in general with the supports needed, when the child is taken out of care, to have the child brought back to the family, where the child's well-being could then be followed and ensured.

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

That's outrageous. Sorry.

Under 4.51, around the outdated funding formula, you said earlier that you can't just look at this in the context of funding. I agree, it's a much larger issue than just funding. But between that comment was the comment around the Alberta model, that it would take roughly a 74% increase, is my understanding, to have those services.

The Assembly of First Nations and the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada have filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, alleging that the services are underfunded at roughly 22% of what a provincial government would fund those equivalent services. Did you look at that at all?

[Ronnie Campbell]

There are two flows of funds, so I'll try to simplify it. One is to pay for the cost of children in care, and those are the funds we talked about earlier. In fact, I don't think we've fully answered the member's question about reallocation. The department pays those funds, and it finds the money somewhere in the department; it takes money from housing and infrastructure and the like.

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

[Inaudible--Editor]...in 4.72.

[Ronnie Campbell]

The other stream of funding is to fund the agencies, and that's based on a formula. That doesn't take into account two very important factors. One is the actual number of case files the agency may have. The other is the evolving nature of child care services, from the more interventionist to, nowadays, a more prevention-type model. So it doesn't take into account either of those kinds of things.

The member is right that a lot of the people we talked to in this particular field say the manner in which the funding formula is developed and implemented encourages taking children out of the home rather than prevention, because a lot of the time these prevention services are just not there. One can only presume that people faced with reality have to do something, and they can only do what they've got the tools to do. I think we mention also in 4.35 that when provincial-level services are not available, then there are indications that children not receiving prevention or in-home services would instead be placed in good care. That seems to be a view that a lot of the professionals....

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

I know with the human rights complaint that was filed, in fact, one of the comments that came out is that there are more children in care now than there were under the residential schools. So people are seeing this as the residential schools played out again in a different way. It has a devastating impact on the families and their communities.

I just want to touch on Jordan's Principle for a moment, because of course that was my motion that the House unanimously adopted, which I'm very grateful for. However, what we've seen is very little effort to actually implement the spirit and intent of Jordan's Principle. In fact, in Norway House Cree Nation currently there are 37 children. The health minister recently announced that the services would not be interrupted, but it does point to the jurisdictional disputes ongoing between federal and provincial governments.

But I wonder if you could also comment on this. It's not only between federal government departments; it's also between federal and provincial governments and territorial governments. Did you look at the jurisdictional dispute between federal and provincial governments as well?

[Ronnie Campbell]

I will get Mr. Berthelette to answer that. I will say, though, before he does that, that we do have an example in the chapter about the dispute within the federal family, if you like, between Indian Affairs and Health Canada. Mr. Berthelette has already commented on that.

In terms of federal-provincial jurisdictional debates, I'll let Mr. Berthelette answer.

[Jerome Berthelette]

No, Mr. Chair, we didn't actually go into detail and take a look at federal-provincial jurisdictional issues.

[Ronnie Campbell]

Mr. Chair, it's probably worth adding, though, that some of the interaction we have observed between the provincial governments and Indian Affairs has been communication that standards are not being met and that children are not getting the service they should be getting, trying to encourage Indian Affairs to do something about that. We have seen some cases where the department did react. The little we saw of that was not a traditional “you do it, no, I'll do it” type of thing, but certainly there are a lot of professionals involved in this field who do want to see those children get a good level of service.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

Mr. Bruinooge, you have seven minutes.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank our witnesses today, and of course the Office of the Auditor General for another important report. Of course, our government is very pleased to be adopting all of the recommendations your office has made.

I believe we need this advice, and of course as a government we've faced a number of issues and have adopted as many important resolutions as we can to each area. But we've inherited many problems. We do appreciate that, and this is another one.

I would like to focus more on one section that I thought was quite interesting in paragraph 4.91 of your report, where you spoke somewhat at length about some of the accountability elements. You indicated it was difficult for the department, and of course through your audit, to receive meaningful reports as to how the dollars that were spent were actually allocated within the communities.

Aside from wanting you to maybe expand a bit on this analysis, I'd also like to ask a question in relation to.... In 2006, as a government we attempted to incorporate part of a piece of legislation before the House called the Accountability Act. We sought to extend the power of the Auditor General's office to first nations communities. Do you believe that had we been able to actually have that part of the legislation passed--of course, it was removed by our opponents--incorporating the power of the Auditor General's office to extend to first nations communities, it would have assisted your office within this specific section of your report?

[Ronnie Campbell]

Mr. Chair, in a word, no. I don't think that was the issue at hand here in terms of whether or not and the extent to which first nations agencies were spending the money appropriately. I think the information that is needed is information on the outcomes, the results in relation to the children. That's not information that can be developed by auditors. To be fair to the department, from the work we've done, we've seen that this is not a well-developed area. We look for other people who do this really well, to be able to measure outcomes of children in care. There's not a lot being done in that area.

There has been some recent work in British Columbia, but the type of information we're talking about here is information on the extent to which those children are progressing, developing, the risk is being mitigated...and those are the types of conclusions that professionals in that area, in that field, would have to come to--social workers as opposed to auditors.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

You also commented on the funding model itself and how the number of children in care in a community didn't necessarily receive similar funding levels based on the number of individuals in a community. For instance, one community of 200 people might have four children in care and would receive basically the same amount of funding, or more, than a community that maybe had 50 people and 20 children in care. I think you made a recommendation for a funding model change. Perhaps you could expand on what that model would look like.

[Ronnie Campbell]

Thank you.

I'll ask Mr. Berthelette to talk to that, please.

[Jerome Berthelette]

Mr. Chair, what we found is that the funding formula does not take into account the actual number of children in care, the types of services or the complexity of services that might be required to take care of the children that are brought into care. We also noted that the funding formula is based on 6%, so as the honourable member says, a first nation with 14% children in care would have to work on an operations budget that is based on having 6% children in care. The impact of that funding formula on services is that the agency is unable to provide the sorts of services that are required for the number of children who are brought into care. They spend more time taking care of the children who are actually in care and do not have sufficient time to take care of ensuring that children are not brought into care.

So the change in the formula in Alberta is good, because it will provide 74% more funding for the operations side and incorporate prevention into the services that are being provided. But the problem we saw with the formula, and that we anticipate will continue, is that it's still based on the 6% and won't take into account the needs of communities where there are, say, 14% of the children in care.

What we'd like to see is a formula that is more closely tied to needs, that's tied more closely to what is actually required to take care of the children in care in particular communities.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

The Alberta model you spoke of is, of course, still in the process of being fully implemented. The government is interested in having other provinces adopt it as soon as possible. You also suggested that the 74% increase was going to make up for perhaps some of the lack of funding that might currently exist.

Is there any measurement of other provinces that your analysis took in?

[Jerome Berthelette]

Well, Mr. Chairman, we didn't do an analysis of what is required in the other provinces to make up the difference between the funding for the level of programs in place and the funding that would be required under legislation. I would just note that in Alberta, when this work was actually done, what the department found was that it would require 74% more funding to make up that difference.

I would expect that in the other provinces the departments would probably find there is some difference. Whether it's 74% or not, we can't say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

That concludes our first round.

We'll now move into our second round of questioning, with five-minute turns.

We'll begin with Ms. Keeper from the Liberal Party.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank you as well for being here. This is long overdue and a most welcome report.

I'd like to ask you a number of questions, and I think what I'll do is ask you the questions first and then you can respond.

I'd like to ask about the Alberta model, because I was wondering whether there was an agreement between the feds and the Province of Alberta whereby the province would fund part of the model. So are part of the services funded by the province? Who has been responsible for picking up the increase in the costs?

And on that point, I'd like to ask you if that cost-sharing model is the recommended model for federal-provincial agreements? I ask that because in Manitoba we went through a devolution process, which actually meant there was less money, I believe, for capacity and services in first nations child welfare.

I know I'm asking a bunch of questions, but I have another one about the special allowance payments. Now it says they will be cut as of April 1, 2008, and that the first nations agencies have not been informed of this. Could you give us any more information on that?

The other final question I have is about Jordan's Principle and health care services. Once a child is in care, you said they would be provided with the ability to access non-insured costs. Now, these children are often going into care to access what for other Canadians are insured costs. I'm wondering whether you have looked at the burden of costs on the child and family services program, because children are not able to access those health services otherwise.

[Ronnie Campbell]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think Mr. Berthelette is going to handle most of this, but I just want to respond to the comment about the Alberta model being the recommended model. In our report, we're not recommending that model per se; we're recommending a funding formula that recognizes the range of services that are now being offered to children outside reserves and that also takes into account the reality in terms of the number of children each of those agencies has to deal with. That's the core of our recommendation.

What the government has already done is it has entered into an agreement in Alberta that, as Mr. Berthelette says, has resulted in their at least addressing that range of services to try to make sure that children on reserves have access to a similar range of services, and that's what has caused the 74% increase in the federal funding.

We do want to say, however, that that model itself has its imperfections, and a major one is the fact that it still presumes the 6% rate.

So I just want to distinguish between what we're recommending and what's been....

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

So is the 74% increase in costs being allowed because it's seen as a pilot project?

[Ronnie Campbell]

I think that's a question better put to the department, if they're able to come here, but I think they're recognizing that it's needed. I think they're now recognizing that is what's needed because that is what's available to other children in the province of Alberta, and if they're going to fund services to a provincial standard, then that's what it takes.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

I'm just not clear, because in Manitoba there was a whole process where there was a transfer of administration to first nations child welfare agencies. There was a working relationship. It's had its problems, definitely, and one of the key problems has been the underfunding.

In Manitoba they recognize that there's a whole range of services that are needed too, and we've long been asking for funding for those services. Prevention services are a key component. So why is it that Alberta is being recognized for that work? Is it because the province is delivering those services?

I'm not clear about that. Is the province delivering those services?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

A short answer, please.