Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 12th, 2008

[Jerome Berthelette]

I may not have explained just how the model works and the federal-provincial relationships. Maybe I should take a second to compare and contrast Manitoba and Alberta, to start with, and then get to the honourable member's question more particularly.

In Manitoba, as the honourable member has mentioned, the governance with respect to child and family services has changed significantly in the past couple of years. In response to a number of reports that were released in Manitoba, the province, the first nations, and the first nations agencies have put in place first nations authorities, an authority for the first nations agencies north and the first nations agencies south. This authority is, from my perspective, and perhaps even from the perspective of the first nations, a step along the road to assuming jurisdiction for first nations child and family services within the province of Manitoba. It gives the authorities oversight over the first nations agencies and it gives them the ability to go in and audit standards and to take a look at how the funding the agencies receive is actually spent.

The agencies themselves in Manitoba receive funding through two streams. The first stream is a federal stream, where the money goes from Indian Affairs to the first nations agencies. The second stream is a provincial stream that flows from the province to the authority and then from the authority to the first nations agencies. Some work will need to happen in Manitoba between the federal government, Indian Affairs, the province, the authorities, and the first nations agencies to determine how, going forward, they are going to implement a formula that will be consistent with the authorities that are now in place in Manitoba.

In Alberta they have pretty much a standard arrangement in which you have delegated first nations agencies that provide services on reserve to first nations families and children. These delegated first nations agencies receive their funding through Indian Affairs directly, and the Province of Alberta provides the oversight with respect to standards for these agencies. As we noted in this chapter, both Alberta and B.C. have brought to the attention of the federal government on a number of occasions that the funding that was being provided to the agencies and their respective provinces was not sufficient for the agencies to deliver the full range of services required under the legislation.

In answer to the honourable member's question, I can't explain why Alberta would go first and the others would follow, except that it was referred to as a pilot project in the first instance by Indian Affairs, and it is moving from a pilot project to becoming a full-fledged program.

In order to do similar work in other provinces, it will take some time, and Indian Affairs is going to have to put in place some sort of an action plan so that between now and 2012 we'll have negotiated agreements with each of the provinces and put in place an agreement that will allow the agencies to deliver the full range of services.

As Mr. Campbell has mentioned, it may be a question that the committee would want to take up with the department with respect to what does that plan of action look like, how do they plan on proceeding with the other provinces, and what do they think is required for them in terms of both funding and expertise in order to make sure they achieve the 2012 date?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, sir. I appreciate that this is complex and that it was not possible to give a short answer, but.... Anyway, we appreciate the detail you've presented.

Mr. Albrecht, you have five minutes.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the Auditor General and the team, and also to the witnesses who are here today.

I'm going to focus on paragraph 4.51 again, going back to the funding formula's being outdated. You point out there that it was designed in 1988. I think we can all agree that a formula that was established 20 years ago would need some constant tweaking, at the very least, so I agree that changes are past due.

You refer in the next couple of paragraphs, specifically in paragraph 4.52, to the point about the formula's being based on the assumption that a first nations agency has 6% of on-reserve children placed in care. Then a little further in that paragraph you refer to the fact that in the five provinces you covered, it ranged from 0% to 28%.

To follow up on this concept of prevention models, as opposed to treatment models, I'm wondering whether there's any openness to or thought given—I don't see it in the recommendations, but maybe it's referred to elsewhere in the report—to how we can learn from those communities where the experience is actually less than 6% and as low as 0%, which would be ideal.

How can we learn from them and then possibly find ways to replicate that positive experience, to go beyond just correcting the funding formula and try to minimize the need and keep the percentage below 6%, and at the very least have it well below the 28% that you've indicated as the high experience?

I don't know whether you understand the gist of where I'm going here; it's to try to go beyond just the funding formula to deal with the issues at the grassroots level, so as hopefully not to need the funding formula at all. I know that's idealistic, but we've got to shoot for something.

[Ronnie Campbell]

I think that's an excellent question, Mr. Chairman.

I would hope there is something to be learned from those communities that haven't seen the need to bring children into care. I think probably all the members of this committee are aware that there are a variety of complex social factors that result in children being put at risk, and they've been well documented. Nobody is suggesting for a second that if you fix this program you fix everything that ails aboriginal children; that's certainly not the case.

I think if you have the opportunity to talk to the department about their action plan and about making all this happen, that question gets to the very substance and root of some of the issues in the program. It would be very useful to learn from those communities that have maybe been fortunate through other socio-economic circumstances. But one wouldn't know unless one were to ask the question, and I think it would probably be very helpful to get that information from the department and ensure that they're asking themselves those same types of questions when they expand the program.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Okay. Just to follow up, you're not aware, then, of any discussions that have resulted from your study that would have maybe nudged the department in that direction, as far as the Auditor General's report is concerned?

[Ronnie Campbell]

No, I'm not aware.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I would just say, Mr. Chair, to assure Canadian taxpayers that their dollars are well invested and that first nations people have the benefits all other Canadians have, this is an area I would like to see us pursue in the future. Possibly we could discuss this with officials when they come back to the committee.

On the next page, in paragraph 4.55, you refer to the fact that the formula is not adapted well to small agencies. I find that surprising, especially when the next paragraph talks about 50% of the agencies being actually under this 1,000 cut-off point.

Could you expand a bit on that? Paragraph 4.55 says that “exceptions could be made”. Could you give us an example of how this small-community, small-agency situation developed and what kind of exceptions are referred to there?

[Jerome Berthelette]

Mr. Chairman, the formula is set up on the basis that for economies of scale it would be better if the agencies served a population of children of approximately 1,000. That would give the best economies of scale.

Unfortunately, or because of factors beyond the control of Indian Affairs, or anybody else for that matter, there will be situations, or there have been situations, in which perhaps because of where a community is located, perhaps because it's a small isolated community, it would not be possible to pull together enough first nations to have a population of about 1,000 children. In that case, Indian Affairs will take a look at the situation that exists. The agency will also look at what other services it can provide, and it may enter into an agreement with the province to provide services to individuals living off reserve but situated close to the reserve. So through a strategy like that, small first nations agencies have been trying to deal with that issue, and Indian Affairs has agreed that in those cases they could go ahead and do that. But in an ideal situation, it is always better to have a larger population and to serve more communities, because that gets around the issues we point out at paragraph 4.56, issues with respect to governance, conflict of interest, training, and management.

But, as I say, in many of those situations, Mr. Chairman, where you have small agencies that are still being funded by Indian Affairs, they may be providing services off reserve as well and supplementing their funding that way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lévesque, you have five minutes.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, please excuse me for being late.

I am certain that you also studied the Quebec report on youth protection, especially on the children of Nunavik. The problem is more serious in Nunavik because it is an isolated region where the villages, with populations of between 300 and 400 people, are many kilometres away from each other. Generally, the people who work in youth protection mingle with the families and have to face serious problems. They have no housing to put these children up. Therefore they get sent back to their families. In other first nations communities, children are treated in social centres. In most of the first nations population centres, the social centres are running at a deficit because the first nations are unable to pay the real costs incurred by the child services.

In these circumstances, I wonder whether the department's money is a good solution. I think that we should remedy the situation by getting at the root of the problem, by providing competent personnel as well as places for housing the children and protecting the people involved. Would it not be preferable to go about it in this way rather than to provide a heap of money that will in no way help to protect the children?

[Jerome Berthelette]

Mr. Chairman, we have not read the study on the children of Nunavik. We focused our efforts on the child and family welfare service programs of the Department of Indian Affairs. In most cases, this had to do with first nations that reside in the south of Canada.

Nevertheless, the problems raised by the study are more or less the same as the ones that were observed in Quebec and in the other provinces during our audit. The reserves do not have enough housing or space to keep children in their communities. The communities and the government must find a way to improve this situation. If the officials remain unable to house the children, the children will have to leave their communities to live in other towns or villages. This is very hard on the family and on the children.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

One and a half minutes.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Would you be able to recommend to the department as it manages this project, to lay the foundations before setting up equipment outdoors? This would mean that houses should first be built in the communities and competent people should be appointed. This is what the investments are meant for at the outset. Would you be able to recommend this to the department?

[Ronnie Campbell]

Mr. Chairman, departments make allocative decisions as they see fit. The irony here, and I'm sure it won't be lost on members, is that part of what the department has done in order to fund the costs of children in care is actually to have taken money from housing and from community infrastructure. It's a very complex set of issues, some long term and some very immediate, and I would presume and would hope that officials in those agencies faced with a situation where a child was at risk would deal with that and worry about the longer-term solutions later. But that's the irony of the situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

Mr. Clarke, you have five minutes.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A little background here. I'm first nations. Being an RCMP officer in my background, having lived on reserve, worked on reserve, and also having worked in partnership with family services on the reserve, I've seen the apprehensions take place, and it's very frustrating. It's a hard burden, and it's hard on the heart when we have to see that.

The question I have here is probably twofold. One, with this study, did your committee go into these communities and look, or was it basically survey-type questions?

Second, as we look at the 74% from the Alberta government, what idealistic number would you suggest could help fix this problem?

[Ronnie Campbell]

In answer to your first question in relation to going into communities, I would say that it is part of our methodology. Whenever we are auditing any program that affects first nations or aboriginal people, it's always to go to the communities and always to speak to the people who are affected by the programs.

We don't audit first nations organizations. Like the honourable member, I've lived in communities and I understand where he's coming from, but we always do that as part of our audit work. In this case, the audit team visited 18 agencies in the five provinces and visited 12 individual first nations communities.

In relation to the question on what the ideal number is, as Mr. Berthelette pointed out, it will probably vary from province to province and it will probably vary over time. There is a hope, and I think a lot of people have expressed it, that if you get the model right and you start to fund some of those preventative services and try to help those families before they reach the point of crisis, in time the number of children going into care will be reduced. Over time, I think, things will change, but among provinces things will change. The only information we do have is the new Alberta model, as part of it deals with a range of services. In the first year, they've identified that by 2010 it will be up to 74%, but I would imagine that would vary from province to province and over time.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

As the Assistant Auditor General, what type of formula would you recommend?

[Ronnie Campbell]

We've recommended a formula that I'll let Mr. Berthelette speak to in more detail. We've recommended a formula that not only addresses the needs of the communities but also addresses the range of available services. I think that has changed. To be fair to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, since that formula was first developed in 1990, I think there's been an evolution in thinking on services. I think there was a time when the apprehension of children was more the norm—off reserve as well. Now the thinking is much more toward prevention and early intervention, trying to prevent agencies from having to take children away.

So the formula we're recommending addresses what's available in terms of services and what the needs are in terms of the number of children. The Alberta model, if you like, is part of the way there; it certainly does try to address that evolving range of services. What it doesn't do, though, is to address the funding that goes to the first nations agencies for their operations, and that's based on the 6%. One of the consequences of that is that those agencies have difficulty attracting social workers and other skilled staff, and when they do get them, they tend to be young and new to the field and can make more money elsewhere. So they can't keep the staff either. That's a big problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

Ms. Crowder, you have five minutes.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

In paragraph 4.10, you pointed out the fact that this whole issue can't be looked at in isolation, that we have to look at poverty and adequate housing, caregiver substance misuse, and so on, which all relate to child neglect occurring on reserves. But you also point out that aboriginal children are more likely to be reported for neglect than non-aboriginal children, but they're not overrepresented amongst reports of child abuse.

When you looked at the Alberta model, were there any pieces put in place that also considered housing, poverty, and those things? I would agree with you that if we're just operating in this silo mentality, where we're dealing with child welfare and not dealing with the broader socio-economic issues, we're really just going to shift the problem around. Did the Alberta model include any of those factors?

[Jerome Berthelette]

Mr. Chairman, the Alberta model includes early intervention and prevention services, family support for children with disabilities, and protection of children involved in prostitution. So the Alberta model is fairly broad, but as I understand it, from what I remember seeing while we were doing this audit, it doesn't get to the issues of housing and poverty per se.

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

And those are some of the root causes. I know the Wen:de report and other reports have talked about the root causes often being socio-economic.

In conjunction with the Alberta model, again, you pointed out in paragraph 4.13 the fact that little is known about the outcome of children placed in care, but that from a recent, limited B.C. report, outcomes related to children in care were poor and that children who had been in care were less likely to complete high school, and so on. I know I've seen some other things, such as the higher incidence of their ending up in the criminal justice system, and so on.

Again, does the Alberta model have built into it a mechanism to look at outcomes in the long run? I know it's only been in place for a year, but intrinsic to the model, does it build in the review of those outcomes?

[Jerome Berthelette]

Mr. Chair, I'm not an expert on the Alberta model.