Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 24th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon, members and guests. Welcome to the 37th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. We're here today for our first meeting on a study of first nations child and family services.

As is often customary, our first guest for the study is none other than the minister. It's great to have the minister, John Duncan, here with us as a witness, considering that we had several months in the not-too-distant past where Mr. Duncan was a member of our committee.

Great to have you back here, Minister, in a different capacity. I'm sure you will properly recognize the officials who are with you, but I will say that it's good to have Ms. Johnston and Ms. Cram back with our committee again.

Minister, we'll start with your opening presentation and then go directly to questions. Go ahead. You have the floor.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've been on this committee off and on since 1994. It is quite different to come here presenting rather than being presented to.

Thank you for your introduction. I do have two officials with me. They're both people I'm quite familiar with, and they do a good job.

I'm very proud of what the government has committed to do and what we've accomplished in the way of child and family services.

I appreciate this opportunity to assist the committee as it considers issues related to child and family services on reserve. We will do our best to answer the questions that the committee has, but I'd like to make a few remarks first.

Child welfare is one of the most complex areas of public policy, given that decisions about the care and protection of children have lasting effects on children, their families, and communities. All children are protected by provincial child welfare legislation, as child and family services are matters of provincial jurisdiction. Provincial governments delegate to service providers both on and off reserve and are responsible for ensuring that they comply with provincial legislation and standards.

Over the past 20 years, the number of first nations child and family services agencies has grown considerably. Today we have 106 of these agencies delivering programs under agreements with provincial child welfare authorities. The amount of funding provided by INAC, by the department, through its first nations child and family services program has increased dramatically, from $193 million 14 years ago to $550 million last year.

The welfare of First Nations children is a matter of great importance to this government, and we see tripartite partnerships as the best way to work together on improving outcomes for First Nations children and families on reserve.

There is growing evidence that a prevention-based approach to child and family services is more effective than previous, protection-based models. Studies have shown that early intervention helps keep families together and leads to better outcomes for children and families.

Three years ago, INAC completed a tripartite framework with Alberta First Nations and the province to implement a prevention-based approach known as the Alberta response model. It focuses on proactive intervention, on delivering appropriate services before problems escalate and become a matter for child protection.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Minister, I need to interrupt you there momentarily.

We note that the bells are ringing. I want to see if I can get concurrence from the committee to continue until we find out whether there is an urgent need in the House. The Standing Orders tell us we need to do that.

Is there concurrence that we continue at this time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have agreement.

Please carry on and we'll find out what's happening with the bells.

Go ahead, Mr. Minister.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

The preliminary results of this approach have been positive and encouraging. In the past three years, for instance, the number of Alberta first nations children in care on reserve has dropped; permanent placements are on the rise; and placements in institutional facilities are decreasing. These significant results are attributed to a delivery system that is also facilitating greater use of more appropriate types of placements for children, including kinship care, and post-adoption subsidies.

Since establishing this first tripartite framework in Alberta, partners in Manitoba, Quebec, P.E.I., Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia have also collaborated to conclude tripartite frameworks on first nations child and family services. This means that the new prevention funding model is now being implemented in first nation communities in six provinces, and is reaching 69% of first nations children who live on reserve.

Each framework now provides for specific prevention-based funding for first nations agencies to deliver prevention-based services on reserve. In the last four federal budgets our government has committed more than $450 million in additional funding to implement these enhanced prevention-focused approaches. When fully implemented, this funding will provide over $100 million annually in additional funding for the new approach under the six framework agreements.

I also want to say that INAC is strongly committed and continues to work with all remaining jurisdictions toward securing tripartite frameworks by 2013.

Recognition for tripartite frameworks for first nations child and family services came recently in a decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision involves a case widely referred to as the NIL/TUO, and Native Child and Family Services of Toronto appeals. The ruling describes the tripartite frameworks as, and I quote, “an example of flexible and co-operative federalism at work and at its best”.

This government recognizes that effective, culturally appropriate and family services play an important role in building strong, healthy First Nations families. And we will continue to collaborate with willing partners to fund these services in First Nations communities across the country. This is why we remain committed to implementing a prevention-based approach through tripartite partnerships with First Nations and provinces.

The responsibility for the issues that affect the quality of life experienced by First Nations peoples does not rest with a single group. It is a shared responsibility. Tripartite frameworks, such as those I have described today, facilitate the collaboration needed to make lasting progress.

Thank you, colleagues. We'll do our best to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Minister Duncan.

I'm sure some of you have already been advised, but there is a vote on production of papers scheduled in the House. It's a 30-minute bell. In that we are fairly close by, it's at the discretion of the committee, but we can continue until just before four o'clock, if that's okay with you. We'll proceed, but we will be interrupted by a vote at approximately four o'clock.

We'll go to questions from members. We'll begin with Ms. Neville in a seven-minute round.

Ms. Neville, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, I wish you well on that side of the table. You have onerous responsibilities.

I brought this motion to the committee largely to assess whether the level of funding to first nations child and family services on reserve is comparable to the funding for child and family services off reserve.

I understand that the tripartite agreements signed to date have included additional federal funding. You referenced $450 million, but you also said in there “when it's fully implemented”. Has this brought, or will it bring, the level of funding up to a comparable level?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

I believe that right from the day we've signed these tripartites, there's been increased funding in each case, and that's ongoing. From the best of our analysis, this does create the equivalency you're talking about.

Every province has a different arrangement in many ways: different program design, different legislation, and so on. I don't think the comparability is a simple exercise. It isn't on education either.

A sign of the fact that this is working is that we started in Alberta. That's been in place the longest. The stats there are indicating good results. One of the reasons it started was because the provinces were recognizing that a prevention-based model was better than an intervention-based model and they were getting good results.

Between the tripartite agreement, demonstrating results, and people looking at the Alberta example, we now have people kind of knocking at the door saying they want in. So that's why we've now got six provinces covered. We expect to have full coverage by 2013.

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

I have many questions, and the researcher has prepared some wonderful questions as well. I'm just trying to get through them.

In the Auditor General's audit of the first nations child and family services program and the subsequent March 2009 report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, your deputy minister wrote that the department's response to recommendations on modifying directive 20-1 and implementing the funding formula based on need would be informed by an evaluation of FNCFS in Alberta, which is expected to be completed in the summer of 2010.

Was it completed, what was the result of that evaluation, and how is it informing INAC's response to the committee's recommendations?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

I know what you're talking about, but I think I'll defer to Odette here to give a better answer than I would.

[Odette Johnston, Director, Social Programs Reform Directorate, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

The Alberta evaluation is just in the process of being finalized. However, the results from that evaluation say that it is making a difference. It is pointing to some issues of development of capacity. The capacity is taking a little bit longer to develop in the agencies and communities. Also, community acceptance of a different type of approach is taking some time.

I think you had asked earlier, as well, about the timeframe and funding that we are providing in the various jurisdictions. We are sort of pro-rating it over the years.

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

What does that mean?

[Odette Johnston]

We're increasing the funds incrementally over the years because we're finding that it's taking a little bit longer for the agencies to provide workers and to find workers in the communities, and to build their capacity up to a level to provide enhanced prevention.

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

Okay.

Although former studies have clearly recommended that funding be done on the basis of need, the new “enhanced prevention” frameworks do not implement this recommendation fully. Only the maintenance funding stream is fully needs-based while the operations budget is based on a fixed model.

I believe that the first nations agencies have the flexibility to shift funds between their funding streams, but doesn't this still leave these agencies open to an overall deficit if a need jumps above the fixed rate for operation--for example, if the rate jumps well above the rate of 6% that's assumed because we know that in a number of cases it ranges as high as 28%?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

It's a detailed question, so I'll let Odette answer again.

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

It's detail that we need.

[Odette Johnston]

What we've done with the formulas is that we have looked at the average percentage of children in care in a particular province. We've based...part of the formula is fixed for the core operating of the agency. We had decided that when we looked at this, we needed to provide some level of consistency per agency. We didn't want that to be shifting from one year to the next, thereby affecting their ability to provide services.

The percentage of children in care drives the number of protection workers. There's a sufficient amount of funding in the formula, we feel, for them to provide a consistent level of services in operating.

The maintenance is re-based each year, based on the percentage of kids in care and the cost of their care each year. So we look at that each year.

If there is a situation where an agency is coming way over and above what they are able to accommodate, we do have provisions in our agreements for them to come back to us and we'll take a look at that.

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

What does that mean?

[Odette Johnston]

To date, we have not had an agency that's come back to us on that. We've been able to accommodate the needs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Ms. Neville.

Mr. Lemay, please go ahead for seven minutes.

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

Thank you.

Thank you for being here, minister.

We can easily understand why you are not up on all the files, particularly this one, which is highly complex. With regard to the tripartite agreements, I don't bear you a grudge and I don't want to be aggressive. Everyone here knows that the interests of children are extremely important. I just want someone to explain something to me that seems hard to understand and that concerns Quebec.

I carefully looked at what the Auditor General prepared. The problem is that some aboriginal communities are remote. I think the problem differs depending whether you are in a large city or in a remote community. There are a number of remote communities in Quebec and, despite the agreements, discussions and social workers, one fear remains. People fear that, under Quebec's new Youth Protection Act, children will be taken away from their environment in crisis situations. I understand this situation very well because I have pleaded in so many cases of this kind. Under the new Youth Protection Act, parents are given a certain amount of time to put an end to a problem situation, or else a permanent solution will be found for the children. I don't know whether the tripartite agreement with Quebec draws that distinction. Quebec's aboriginal chiefs have told me that if we intervene in this manner, we could well empty the communities of their young people.

I have to weigh my words and I don't want to cite any bad examples, but let's take the case of a child from Kitcisakik or Winneway who has to be removed from his parents. He can't be left at his parents' home because the situation is going to continue. However, in that village, everyone belongs to the same family.

My preamble is very long, but I'm coming to my question. Has all this been taken into account in these tripartite agreements? If so, how are you going to go about it? I'm trying to understand, just as aboriginal people back home are trying to do. They're afraid that we'll empty the communities of their young people and that they'll lose their culture as a result.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you, Marc.

So far, last August, so we're talking over a year ago now, Canada, Quebec, and first nations did reach agreement on a child and family services framework in Quebec. That framework will provide an additional $59 million, or almost $60 million, over five years to implement the prevention-based approach on reserves. I understand that 12 of the agency business plans have now been reviewed and all but one of the 18 agencies have finalized their funding arrangements. So there's great progress.

In terms of the provincial legislation and the question you had on that, I'm going to ask Christine to respond, please.

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

Pardon me for interrupting you, but, with all due respect, I don't just think this is a matter of millions of dollars. I'm definitely going to listen to the deputy minister because I'm very concerned about this matter.

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

I do have something to add, Mr. Lemay. Aboriginal people's concern about the provincial act is one of the reasons why we signed a tripartite agreement with Quebec. They're afraid their children will be removed, for lack of any other options for keeping them in the community. So the objective of the tripartite approach is to ensure that services are available in the communities and that there are options enabling children to stay in their communities.

Mr. Johnston mentioned earlier that not all the necessary services are offered on a regular basis. That takes time. So, in the action plans prepared by each of the communities, they explain how they will be able to offer those services.