Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 20th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Honourable members, invited guests and witnesses, welcome to the 31st meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

This morning we welcome Mary Quinn, Christine Cram, and Odette Johnston, each from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Christine is the assistant deputy minister, education and social development programs and partnerships sector.

This is on the topic of child and family services, a topic we had before our committee not too long ago, back in the spring. Now we are back to deal with some specific questions on the topic.

Members, I want to give you advance notice that we have a couple of items of committee business to deal with. We'll see how our questioning goes, but we'll have to finish off at 20 minutes to the hour in order to consider committee business.

We will begin with Ms. Cram.

[Christine Cram, Assistant Deputy Minister, Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you for inviting my colleagues and I to appear before your committee, Mr. Chair. We have come here today to bring your members up to date on our continuing efforts to improve First Nations Child and Family Services on reserve.

The Auditor General's report of May 2008 raised many serious matters concerning the management of First Nations Child and Family Services and we developed an Action Plan to respond to the Auditor General's recommendations.

In addition, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts made seven recommendations. The first recommendation was to provide the public accounts committee with a detailed action plan on the implementation of the Auditor General's recommendations. In a letter to the committee dated April 30, 2009, Deputy Minister Wernick provided the public accounts committee with the update on implementation we completed on March 31, 2009. The Government of Canada tabled its response to the report of the public accounts committee on August 19, 2009, which indicated that our department had responded to a number of the public accounts committee's recommendations, while others remained under review and analysis.

I can assure committee members that we recognize the seriousness of the matters raised in these reports, and that we are committed to building healthier, stronger first nation families and communities. We are particularly concerned with the safety and well being of first nations children.

I would now like to briefly talk about the partners involved in funding First Nations Child and Family Services and update the committee on what the Department has been doing to address the findings of the Office of the Auditor General's Report recommendations as well as those of the Public Accounts committee.

We do not work alone in supporting the first nations child and family services program. Three parties are involved. Provinces have jurisdiction over child welfare both on and off reserve, and where appropriate they delegate this authority to first nations child and family service agencies and first nations staff.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada provide funding to first nations, their first nations child and family services agencies, and the provinces to support the delivery of culturally appropriate child welfare services on reserve, including costs related to children brought into care.

INAC is in the process of reforming its first nations child and family services program by implementing an enhanced prevention-focused approach on a province-by-province basis. This new approach provides first nations child and family services agencies with improved capacity to provide prevention-focused services to on-reserve first nation children, and is consistent with the findings in academic literature and with provinces that have largely refocused their child welfare programs from protection to prevention. Studies have shown that early intervention improves family cohesion and stability, leading to better life outcomes for children and families. INAC has made progress in this area through tripartite frameworks in five provinces.

Budget 2006 marked the beginning of the transition of the first nations child and family service program to an enhanced prevention-focused approach with a financial commitment of $98 million over five years for Alberta first nations child and family service agencies. With the new funding for Alberta, reports indicate that there is already a shift in caseloads, an increase in families accessing prevention programming, and a rise in permanent placements. INAC is currently in the early stages of conducting a formative evaluation of the enhanced prevention-focused approach in Alberta, which will be done in collaboration with the Province of Alberta and Alberta first nations.

Budget 2008 provided an additional $115 million over five years to implement the new approach in Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, and Canada's economic action plan provided an additional $20 million over two years to transition both Quebec and Prince Edward Island to move to the enhanced prevention-focused approach. Total program expenditures are expected to be $560 million in 2009-10, which equates to a funding increase of 190% since 1996-97.

With five provinces under the new approach, 45% of first nation children living on reserve are or will be receiving expanded services. We continue to work with remaining jurisdictions to transition to a prevention-focused and culturally appropriate approach to child welfare on reserve, and the objective is that all will be ready by 2013.

While work is under way on program renovation and the shift to the Enhanced Prevention Focused Approach, we are also working to strengthen program management and accountability to ensure that the funding is leading to improved results for First Nation children and families.

With respect to the Office of the Auditor General report, INAC is now preparing its September 30, 2009 update on progress, which will go to INAC's audit committee on December 8, 2009. The Auditor General made ten recommendations and the department is taking steps to address them all. We have updated the program authorities, introduced new reporting requirements, articulated a guiding principle on culturally appropriate services, worked closely with provinces to ensure agencies are meeting provincial legislation, and increased compliance activities.

As well, we have had a preliminary meeting with our first nation partners to discuss program performance indicators, and preliminary work is under way to develop a national data management system. We are also making progress in implementing Jordan's Principle along with Health Canada. That department has clarified the availability of non-insured health benefits to eligible first nations children in INAC-funded care.

In terms of the seven recommendations of the public accounts committee, we have responded to or addressed three recommendations. As mentioned, we have provided the public accounts committee with an update on implementation of our action plan in response to the Auditor General and have addressed two other recommendations, which are similar to those in the Auditor General's report and relate to culturally appropriate services and the development of performance measures.

Recommendation 2 calls for the department to conduct a comprehensive comparison of its funding to provincial funding by December 31, 2009. The Government of Canada agrees with this recommendation. However, as indicated in our government response, it will be conducted on a phase basis. The first phase will consist of a comparison of jurisdictions that are already under the enhanced prevention-focused approach. The second phase will consist of jurisdictions that have not yet transitioned to the new approach and will require a substantial amount of time and work with the provinces and first nations. This phase is expected to be completed by 2012.

Recommendations 4, 5, and 6 generally concern provincial comparability and funding. The committee recommends revising the funding formula for those first nation agencies or first nations who have not yet transitioned to the new approach, basing the funding formulas on need and fully costing the funding model. With respect to recommendation 4, the revision of funding formula directive 20-1, the department recognizes that there is a greater need for prevention-focused services, and we are exploring options with respect to the funding formula for those jurisdictions that have not yet transitioned to the new approach.

In terms of recommendation 5, on ensuring the funding formula is based on needs, the enhanced prevention-focused approach ensures needs are met by providing stable funding for both protection and prevention services. Also, as outlined in our government response, the direct costs of maintaining children in care out of the parental home are based upon need and not on an assumed percentage of children in care.

With respect to recommendation 6, fully costing the program, this analysis is done on a province-by-province basis as the program is reformed, by taking into account the related costs in caseload ratios in the provinces.

Another issue of concern to the Auditor General and this committee is Jordan's Principle. As you will recall, Jean Crowder's motion on Jordan's Principle was adopted by the House of Commons in December 2007, with the support of all parties. The federal government has defined Jordan's Principle as a child-first approach for children with multiple disabilities in need of multiple service providers. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Health Canada are working with provinces to implement Jordan's Principle so that the care of children with multiple disabilities will continue, even if there is a dispute between governments concerning responsibility and payment of service.

In Saskatchewan and Manitoba first nations are actively involved in discussions to implement Jordan's Principle. On September 5, 2008, the Province of Manitoba announced it had reached an agreement with the Government of Canada to implement Jordan's Principle. As part of the agreement, a joint Manitoba and Canada steering committee is working on an implementation framework for Jordan's Principle. This committee has participated in case conferencing for several disabled first nations children and developed both a dispute resolution report and a report on services available to first nations children. They are now actively pursuing engagement with first nations.

On September 16, 2009, Canada, the Province of Saskatchewan, and the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations announced their tripartite document entitled Interim Implementation of Jordan's Principle in Saskatchewan, which sets out the parameters to develop, over the immediate term, a dispute resolution process, and over the longer term to examine broader issues that could have an impact on first nations children with disabilities. Canada is continuing to engage with the remaining provinces in implementing Jordan's Principle.

Only by taking a partnership approach can INAC support services that are provincially comparable and culturally appropriate, in keeping with the needs of communities.

My colleagues and I will do our best to answer any questions about what we have done and our next steps as we move forward.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you for your presentation.

You have seven minutes, Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Merci, monsieur le président.

Thank you very much for your comprehensive presentation. It's very helpful.

My first question you may not be able to answer, but if you can't, could you endeavour to get me the answer? Under the land claims, Carcross/Tagish First Nation, which is in my area, has the ability to take down that authority, and they've chosen to do that, but apparently it has been a long drawn-out process—far longer than they would like—with the federal government. Do you have any update on the status of that and if that will move along quickly?

[Mary Quinn, Director General, Social Policy and Programs Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you for the question.

We are familiar with the issue and I believe our deputy has written to the first nation. He did meet with them and he had a concern about the size of what some of the first nation agencies would be, given that there are some issues around size and how those agencies could attract and keep staff and do that kind of thing. Nonetheless, the deputy made it very clear in his letter that we will fulfill our self-government obligations, and if that is what the first nation chooses to do, that is certainly what we are amenable to.

I guess we could see if we could get a copy of that letter to you and then get a mise à jour up to today on where the situation is at.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Okay, that would be good. Could you just take back the message that we're very keen on that proceeding as quickly as possible?

My second point is could you just update me a bit on aboriginal head start, with your understanding of it? I know a few years ago it was a very excellent program of the federal government. We have a number—maybe four—in my region, but there is a lot more demand for it because it's such a good program. Is the funding increasing so that more people can take advantage of it? I am curious about the present status. I know there were some minor funding increases, but the local committee allocated them to the four existing head start operations, as opposed to accepting applications from the new ones that wanted some.

[Christine Cram]

Thank you for the question.

Head start is a Health Canada program, so I have to say I'm not completely up to date on what their plans are, but we'd be glad to raise that with Health Canada and get back to you.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

All right. If you could get back to the committee with anything you find out, that would be wonderful.

I'm not sure if Jean has the same question, but in your speech you said, “The federal government has defined Jordan's Principle as a child-first approach for children with multiple disabilities in need of multiple service providers.” My understanding of that debate was that when a child needed something, we did not want them to get shuffled between different governments. We wanted it to be child first, and served. I don't remember our saying only a child with multiple disabilities. It could be one disability, or it could be no disabilities. It was just a child who was sick who needed the service.

I don't remember it being multiple service providers necessarily. In fact, I think with Jordan it was one service provider who wasn't getting paid that he couldn't go to. It was one service, so this seems like a fairly constrictive and limiting approach versus what I thought the spirit of Jordan's Principle was: when there is a child who needs service, whether with a disability or not, that he be served by someone and then we'd figure out later who paid for it.

[Christine Cram]

Thanks for the question.

When we looked at how the federal government could go about implementing Jordan's Principle in working with provinces, what we found was that the service provision issues that were coming were related to children with multiple disabilities needing multiple service providers. The problem was how to organize all of those service providers to provide the services to that child.

Jordan himself had multiple disabilities, and the challenge was that the family, as I understand it, wanted Jordan to be able to return to his community. He was in hospital. Because all of the parties couldn't get together and agree on how that could be done and how they could provide the services, and who would pay for them, Jordan remained in hospital and died there.

So in looking at the spirit of the Jordan principle and how we'd go about implementing it, we had to agree on how we would approach it. So in working with the other partners and provinces, we came up with the issue of children who had multiple disabilities and needed multiple service providers. The issue then was how you could you make that provision of services happen for them.

In the two agreements we have reached with Manitoba and Saskatchewan, they've agreed to phase things so that the first phase focuses on those children with multiple disabilities and requiring multiple service providers—because they are most in need—and then looking in a second phase at the gaps related to other children.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Although this is not in your remarks, does this mean that a child with one disability who only needs one service provider is going to fall between the cracks if the service provider thinks they shouldn't pay, and therefore doesn't give the service?

[Christine Cram]

No.

Actually, what happens now is that in those provinces where we have arrangements, we use a case conferencing approach. When a case comes forward, you don't know whether it will be a Jordan's Principle case, meaning one in which there's a dispute between the various parties. So children who aren't getting the appropriate services, or feel they aren't getting them, come forward to the case conferencing processes. Then those case conferencing processes attempt to line up all of the services those children need, regardless of the number of their disabilities or the services they need.

We don't have to go into a dispute resolution mechanism unless there is a dispute somewhere. The dispute resolution mechanism says that whatever party is providing the service now will continue to do so. So they won't stop those services. Then governments or service providers will sort it out afterwards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Lévesque, for seven minutes.

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

Good day, ladies. Rarely do we have an opportunity to welcome only women.

The figures showing the amounts allocated to the different provinces seem rather jumbled. Are there any charts showing a breakdown by province?

[Christine Cram]

Yes, we can breakdown these figures for you by province.

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

Good.

You note on page 5 of your presentation that “Canada's Economic Action Plan provided an additional $20 million over two years [...]. Is that $20 million a year for two years, or $20 million for two years?

[Christine Cram]

That is over two years.

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

I see.

Communities in Quebec contend that they have received only half of what they said they needed for this activity. Quebec updated its legislation in July 2008. In your opinion, will the money allocated thus far minimize the impact of Quebec's legislation on communities and help them comply with this act?

[Mary Quinn]

I will try and answer your question.

A total of $60 million over five years has been allocated to agencies in the province of Quebec. We arrived at this figure in consultation with the Assembly of First Nations and the Province of Quebec. When we engage in discussions with the provinces and with First Nations, we always have letters of support. In one letter, the provincial minister and the agency that Mr. Picard belongs to expressed support for the very important announcement made in August and for the amounts awarded. We will re-evaluate the situation in five years' time.

As for the provincial legislation, the agencies come under provincial jurisdiction.

They delegate their authorities to the agencies.

Through our discussions with the provinces and with the Assembly of First Nations, we can be confident that the funds will be used to support planned services.

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

I recommend that a separate follow-up be done for each province. This would help us tremendously, since First Nations have told us that they have received only half of what they were originally requesting. You say that Quebec First Nations have personally told you that they were satisfied with the outcome, whereas we are hearing quite the opposite from other parties, particularly in light of the amendments to Quebec's legislation and the additional obligations that must be met. This is all part of your funding program.

[Mary Quinn]

Minister Strahl's announcement came in August and the amount was made public. However, agencies are still in the process of developing their plans. Once these have been drawn up, the funds will be transferred. As I said, the announcement was made and the funds will be allocated to the agencies. First, however, the plans must be finalized.

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

You mentioned $20 million for each of the two first years, for a total of $40 million. You also talked about $60 million over five years. If you allocated $40 million during the first two years, that leaves $20 million for the remaining three years. Is that correct?

[Mary Quinn]

I'm sorry, but I guess I didn't make myself clear initially. A total of $20 million is being allocated over two years, with a grand total of $60 million over five years.

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

With the correct figures, we can respond more appropriately.

[Mary Quinn]

Indeed. The announced funding is earmarked for prevention activities. Two year ago, we launched a number of pilot projects in a few Quebec communities to help them better prepare for the prevention approach. The prevention system produces better results that the protection system.

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

Do you allocate funding to any provincial ministry in particular, for instance, to health and social services?