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

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

I understand everything you say. That was done on the federal side. However, the problem is that, on the other side, Quebec's Youth Protection Act sets a time frame. I read it quickly, but it seems to me it sets a minimum of one year and a maximum of two years for the situation to be rectified. So there isn't enough time. There's a risk of confrontation. That's where it causes a problem.

Could we proceed more quickly?

[Christine Cram]

We're trying to implement the approach as quickly as possible. I must also tell you that the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador has had a lot of discussions with the Government of Quebec on this matter to determine how we could work taking into consideration the act and so on.

With regard to the situation in Quebec, we must ensure that all services are available quickly. We entirely agree with you that children must not be removed from their community in order to get access to services or be permanently placed with possibly non-aboriginal families.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Lemay.

Unfortunately, we don't have enough time to give a third speaker the floor before the vote.

So we're going to suspend the meeting and resume after the vote is held in the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We'll resume.

Thank you for your patience, members, Minister, and officials.

We'll continue where we left off. We got halfway through the first round of questions.

We're now going to Ms. Crowder, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for coming today.

I want to start with the comparability of service. I think we know that it's a large issue, and the minister already touched on it.

I want to come back for a moment to the Auditor General's report. In her report, in 4.25, she says, “In our view, INAC needs to define what is meant by reasonably comparable services and find ways to know whether the services that the program supports are in fact reasonably comparable.” In recommendation 4.26, she said, “define what is meant by services that are reasonably comparable” and “define its expectations for culturally appropriate services and standards”.

I haven't seen anything to say that analysis has been done. In fact, I think when Ms. Johnston was speaking, I wasn't able to determine what this analysis was.

What specific analysis has happened around comparable services? What specific analysis has happened around culturally appropriate services? Can the committee have the results of the studies that were done on comparability?

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

Thank you, Jean.

There's been quite a bit of a look at this whole area from the public accounts committee, as you know. In October we had a progress report on provincial comparability. Also, the committee is actually requesting a further response by December 10.

I know this is a difficult area from a comparison standpoint and getting information from the provinces that makes sense.

Once again, the detail of the question, I think, probably requires some help for me.

[Odette Johnston]

When we go out and talk to the first nations and the province on a particular approach, we do an analysis of what is happening in that particular jurisdiction, how they deliver prevention, and what types of services are being provided. We look at provincial salaries. We look at caseload ratios. We take that very much into consideration in developing the approach, in developing the costing around what we're going to be doing.

When we were asked to respond to the public accounts committee, the information that we had with respect to provincial salaries is public information, and we did provide that information to the committee. However, caseload ratios are not public information, and we've had some difficulties trying to get permission from provinces to share that type of information.

In terms of the analysis we do, we look at those types of things when we're developing the costing model. However, the other thing we look at is that in each of the provinces, they will be delivering different types of services.

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

Excuse me just for one moment--sorry--but my question is this: can the committee have access to the analysis that has been conducted between the provinces and the federal government?

The Auditor General was very clear in her report that INAC has not analyzed and compared the child welfare services on reserves with those in neighbouring communities off reserve. I think that's the crux of it. When you have a community on reserve and a community off reserve that exist side by side, what the children on reserve get is different from what the children off reserve get.

That's the level of detail. Have you looked at the differences in services and costing between on reserve communities and off reserve communities? If you ship the child off reserve and they become a ward of the province, they get a different set of services.

That's the kind of comparison we want to know if you've conducted.

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

Christine.

[Christine Cram]

When we're moving to the enhanced prevention approach, we do that analysis. So to me your question is whether we can provide that analysis we've done.

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

That's right.

[Christine Cram]

The only thing I would say is that we would just need to ask for the agreement of the province, I think, and the first nations to provide that information. But we can show you what our conclusions are and the analysis we've done for the jurisdictions that we have moved to an enhanced prevention approach.

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

So you can provide that to the committee?

[Christine Cram]

Yes. I'm just saying that we have a lot of working papers and a lot of working information. I just feel we would need to check with the province that we're not providing any—

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

So you'll follow up with us on that?

[Christine Cram]

Yes, we can.

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

Next, I know you're well aware that there are some provinces that have so far not been included in the enhanced prevention services. I have a letter in response to a letter from the Province of British Columbia indicating that the then minister would not be able to meet with the Province of British Columbia. It is dated January 21, 2010. This letter was in response to a request from British Columbia for a meeting to do with both the enhanced prevention services and the implementation of Jordan's Principle.

I wonder if you could update us on the progress of both with the Province of British Columbia and the Province of Ontario, the agreements of which, according to the Auditor General, have not been updated since 1981.

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

I can update you on the Province of British Columbia. I've had discussions with Mary Polak this month, and they're very interested in what we would call a tripartite. They are currently funding 15 aboriginal groups to explore a governance model as an alternative to the delegated model that's currently supported. It looks as though we are, at the officials level, moving towards an enhanced prevention model with British Columbia. There have been discussions between senior officials provincially and in INAC beginning this month as well.

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

Do you have an anticipated...?

Oh, sorry, am I out of time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Yes. Unfortunately, that finishes that round, Ms. Crowder.

Now we'll go to Mrs. Glover for seven minutes.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I too want to take a moment to congratulate our new minister. I must assure you, as your replacement in this chair, that I have some very big shoes to fill, but I appreciate you appearing here today to help us understand a little bit more about this one topic.

Minister, I've heard repeated a number of times the comment that this is a historic tripartite agreement between each of these provinces. I'd like to ask you if you would just take a moment to explain to us why these are considered historic tripartite agreements that are being signed. Why are they so important? If you could just expand a little bit on the tripartite agreements, we'd appreciate it.

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

Why are they important...?

Oh, by the way, my shoes are size 11.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

You see?

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

Of course the agreements are important, because what could be more important than our children? We all recognize that education is a priority. Education is a priority for everyone these days. But even more important is that our children are growing up in a family environment as much as possible. And if the family environment's not appropriate, then government does have a responsibility.

We are trying to work with willing partners, first nations and provinces, to build stronger first nations families. In order to be proactive, we have to move to a prevention-based model, so that's what we've done. I think it's a great success story. I wish we could say the same about all of our social programs, that they were actually moving as quickly as these have in a positive direction.

Basically, all of this has happened since 2007, and I think it's something this government can be quite proud of. I think the provincial partners and the first nation partners can be very proud as well. From your province, Grand Chief Ron Evans was very complimentary after the tripartite was entered into.

There's a reason that we have six provinces and more than two-thirds of on-reserve children now covered. It's because this program is seen to be working.

I think the financial commitment that we've put in is rather extraordinary. We've done it without fanfare, and we've done it for all the right reasons. We've done it because it's the right thing to do.