Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 8th, 2010

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

My apologies, Mr. Lemay.

“Given this combination of factors, the current system is challenged to provide equitable service levels for First Nations Albertans.”

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

So this is an evaluation of the enhanced model.

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

That is, and it was conducted by the Department of Indian Affairs itself.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Now, if I can recall the testimony, the department had indicated that there was preliminary evidence that there are fewer kids in care under this enhanced model than under the previous model. Now, they did say there was a caveat, that it hadn't been fully implemented yet.

Are there any numbers on that? We didn't get any from the department.

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

I was able to write to the information line that the Government of Alberta has. They have a website, and you send in your question and they send out the data.

They provided me with the following statistics as of March 2010. They say that as of the 2006-07 fiscal year, the number of status Indian children in care in Alberta was 3,535. As of April to January, the fiscal year 2009-10, there were 3,587. That is clearly an increase.

In the Closing the Gap report, the one reviewed by the standing committee, the standing committee notes that 65% of the children in care in Alberta are aboriginal, although aboriginal children only compose 9% of the population. They project that will grow to 70% over the next few years, if there is not a significant intervention.

Those are all publicly available reports.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

If they're publicly available, can they be tabled to the committee as part of the testimony?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

As you know, Mr. Russell, as long as they're in both official languages, if the witness has a document she'd like to submit to the committee she can do that. We'd have to find out exactly what the document is.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

It can be submitted and then translated for us, right?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It can't be circulated until it has been translated.

And that's it for your time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Russell.

And now, it’s your turn Mr. Lemay.

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

I listened to you, Ms. Blackstock. I also listened to you, grand chief.

I must admit, I don’t quite know what to think anymore. I must tell you that I have read just about everything. It seems to me that there are way too many reports for the work that has to be done. All right, so we won’t have another one. You are going to ask me how many it takes.

I submit that the federal government should move over, give the money to the provinces and let the provinces manage this according to the rules. These are provincial programs.

I find this difficult to understand. In any case, I can tell you one thing. I am convinced that the federal government is not involved in Quebec. It gave money to Quebec, and Quebec managed the programs. That is clear.

Is this due to a lack of funds? Or is it a case of two governments bickering about how to take care of the children? Meanwhile, today, this very afternoon, children continue to suffer.

I only want to understand in order to draw the line. I do not want us to discuss what goes on in courts, but it certainly has to stop. And so I ask myself and I ask you: What do you expect from us? What do you want us to do? Forty-two reports have been tabled. Ms. Blackstock, you mentioned it in your statement: this has been going on since 1965. Listen, this makes absolutely no sense at all!

I will ask only one question. You can take the remaining time to answer; tell us what you want us to do, here, today. If we have to compel the government to testify again, that is what we'll do. Please tell us, in concrete terms, what is needed and what you expect from this committee.

Naturally, that question is for you, too, grand chief. I would like you both to respond.

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

Thank you for your question.

The provinces were left by the federal government to implement child welfare across this country for first nations, and the results were devastating. For the same reason that we would champion first-nations-based education, we must support first-nations-based child welfare agencies.

First nations child welfare agencies are in the best position to care properly for children. Although we have a growing need for research that must continue to be done, the early evidence is that first nations children do much better when serviced by a first nations agency, in that they're much more likely to stay with their families and communities than in the past, when the provinces were providing that care. They're much more likely to stay in contact with their culture and traditions.

The important thing to understand, too, is that these first nations agencies are very passionate and capable. They have won numerous international awards for excellence, even though they're underfunded.

You asked, what do they need? They need an equal opportunity to succeed. The federal government has a responsibility to first nations children. It has a responsibility to all children.

I know governments are torn in all kinds of different directions, Mr. Lemay, and budgets are tight, but it just seems to me that when it comes to who we spend money on, children should be at the top of the pile. These are the most vulnerable of children. These are children who are experiencing neglect or other forms of maltreatment. There should be no space in any of our hearts for short-changing them.

We have quantified the shortfall. We have documented where it would be spent. We have talked about the best practices that demonstrate that when spent properly and when provided equitable funding, positive change for children happens.

We're asking for your support, and that of members of your party and members of all parties, to simply say that first nations children deserve a fighting chance in this country to grow up with their families. They deserve culturally based equity. They deserve a government that doesn't wait another ten years to implement the report's recommendations.

These children only get one childhood, Mr. Lemay. I started working on this in 1998. Some children are now 13 years old. They've never known what it is to be treated equitably by the Government of Canada. Let's make sure they don't turn 14 and experience the same thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Chief Atleo.

[National Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo]

Mr. Chair, thank you.

I agree that there isn't a need for more reports. The Wen:de report was a five-year initiative, a joint effort by the Assembly of First Nations and INAC. We can go further back. Prior to these reports was the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. As Cindy is alluding to, control of first nations education goes back to the early 1970s. We have brought that up to date, and we have been reaching out to the government. They've signalled an interest and a willingness to work with us. We would compel them to do that.

This is another example of first nations communities seeking to have a say in caring for their children, and that's exactly what Cindy is saying here. There is every reason why this can now move from discussion to action, based on the information that has been compiled over the years. We had previously advanced the notion of having a national child and youth advocate. We wanted to work from a greater body of data. That was the intention of the Wen:de report.

We have a vast body of work we can draw from. What's required is the will to establish an approach—not a one-size-fits-all solution—that first nations would jointly design. That has never worked. That's the legacy we're trying to break away from. That is essentially the Indian Act. We have the legacy of a one-size-fits-all approach. That hasn't worked, and I'd venture to say that it won't work into the future.

So both in education and in child welfare, we would compel this committee and the government and all of you to consider a short-term, jointly designed process to reform child welfare, and to bring in the experts who know exactly how this should be done. We work closely with communities, because we understand that they must be empowered to take responsibility for these issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, national chief.

It is now Ms. Crowder's turn.

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

I want to read a brief quote from the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996. It says: “It is to ensure that Aboriginal children grow up knowing that they matter--that they are precious human beings deserving love and respect, and that they hold the keys to a future bright with possibilities in a society of equals.”

It sounds like a pretty good goal to strive for. I appreciate, National Chief, that you talked about the economics of this.

This is from a report from the Canadian Council of Provincial Child and Youth Advocates, June 23, 2010. The statements also appeared in the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights report, Children: The Silenced Citizens. We're not just talking about child welfare. I'm not going to read through the reports, but they cite some key indicators and gaps. These are the headlines: “Aboriginal children are disproportionately living in poverty”; “Aboriginal children are disproportionately involved in the youth criminal justice and child protection systems”; “Aboriginal children face significant health problems in comparison with other children in Canada, such as higher rates of malnutrition, disabilities, drug and alcohol abuse, and suicide”; “Aboriginal children lag seriously behind other Canadian children in educational achievement”; “Aboriginal children are at high risk for sexual exploitation and violence”; “Death and injury rates for aboriginal children and youth are disproportionately high”.

That's kind of the view from 30,000 feet. I'm going to narrow it down here.

You pointed out that there are sufficient reports to identify what the challenges are. When the Auditor General was before us the other day, she and the assistant auditors general talked about comparable services and made some recommendations for the government.

When Mr. Berthelette was before us, he said that, in constant dollars per capita, housing expenditures had at the time they conducted this audit declined by 40% over a decade.

So we have three things here. We have the poverty, the infrastructure, and the lives of children. It is difficult for parents to raise their children in the way the royal commission talks about having children raised. Then we have the well-identified issue of comparable services. I wonder if you could both talk about comparable services.

Ms. Blackstock, I know you've been involved in studies of comparable services, as has the department, as has the assembly.

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

Thank you for your question.

I think it's really important that we understand that the standard in child welfare is one of safety and well-being of the child. That's the paramount consideration, much like the Canadian health care system. We don't feather out health care, saying this person needs a dollar's worth of health and all they needed was a bandage, and this person has chronic diabetes and a heart care condition, so they've been given a dollar and have had equity in health care.

That's not the way we as Canadians do it. We entitle every Canadian to a certain level of health. For children, it's safety and well-being. We know that for first nations children, more of an investment may be required to get them to the same standard of safety and well-being as other children. That may need to be done in different ways that are culturally based and reflective of their communities.

So when we look at comparability, we need to ensure we're taking into account the needs of these children. But I also think it's important to understand--and I read the minister's testimony--that the deparatment's own documents say what they're doing is inequitable. This isn't a question of whether there's some fuzziness on behalf of the department about whether or not things are inequitable; their own documents are saying this. So why wouldn't they take every possible measure, given the vulnerability of these children and their families, to address the problem, not in next year's budget, but immediately as a matter of national importance?

I'll leave it to the national chief to continue with comments.

[National Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo]

I don't think it can be understated that we're failing the kids. That has already been said here. There are approximately 27,000 kids in care, and we know what the studies say. I have the opportunity to interact with so many in our communities. Those in care are less likely to graduate from school. They're more likely to smoke, drink, do drugs, and get pregnant. We think about the booming population rates we have right now, the dark side of which is teen pregnancy. They're three times more likely to attempt suicide.

So we're talking about children who are in care with deep disconnects from family, territory, community, teachings, and elders. And of course we're talking about the kids in communities I visited recently. They are using slop pails and being sent out to fetch water from wells for the elders. There are eight to ten people to a home. Those aspects of well-being are so incredibly important.

Cindy talked about safety and well-being, and I mentioned health, learning, behaviour, family economic well-being, and connections with family, peers, and community. There is such a deep gap and disparity in services that cut across all of those aspects. It makes complete sense that we have those sorts of conditions.

What's required is to look at RCAP, the Wen:de report, and first nation control of first nations education, and get on with the work of transforming these areas. The only way to do that is jointly. There isn't anything out there that we can sort of grab, put in place, and say this is the magic bullet we've been looking for. We need to do what has not been done up to this point in history, and I think we can take this moment as the moment when we change how we do this business. We understand that there's a problem. We get lost and become complacent because it's too complex and it's out there. We need to make sure we treat this as a national priority and work with those most impacted.

People like Cindy and the Assembly of First Nations can play a facilitative role. Governments have a responsibility to really grab this issue and make a determined effort now to put in place a plan that will see us move from talk to action. We have examples of joint policy development in the past. I think about specific claims you were referencing. That effort was done jointly between first nations and government, and we seek to have similar considerations where first nations are directly involved in transforming the policy. We would do that jointly with government, work on the basis of the reports that are in place, and perhaps focus on child welfare.

What better way to transform these issues than by placing the children at the centre of our work? I think that would be a really important way to finally consider the types of conflicts we end up in. And it was referenced as jurisdictional. Let's point out that there are jurisdictional challenges we face between and among us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Ms. Crowder.

Mr. Dreeshen, you have seven minutes.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for coming here as we talk about this extremely important issue.

I taught school for 34 years. I have not mentioned this in our committee in the time I've been here, but there was a young man who was in our school who was blind. He was loved by everyone. He was in foster care. He was a native child. When he turned 18 he was whisked back to the reserve. A few short months after that, he was murdered. So I look at some of the types of problems, issues, and things that happen to our native children, no matter where they grow up.

I've also taught students that ended up committing suicide, not just natives, but non-natives as well. That certainly leaves a mark. I understand the same types of marks it leaves on native communities. So I thought perhaps this might be an opportunity as we talk about children and the care that is required for us to discuss some of these types of things.

Chief Atleo, I'd like some clarification perhaps of your position on the government's first nations child and family services program. As I mentioned, I am from Alberta, and we have a prevention-based approach that was first implemented there and has become, in my view, a model for the rest of the country. I note that in 2007, when former minister Prentice announced our new approach to child welfare on reserves, the former national chief, Phil Fontaine, said:

I congratulate Alberta First Nations for their work in creating a better approach to child welfare that focuses on prevention and collaboration. Today's announcement shows Minister Prentice has recognized the urgency of closing the gap in funding received by First Nations Child Welfare Agencies compared to provincial child welfare agencies. This needs to be implemented in all regions. The Assembly of First Nations is prepared to work jointly to achieve this goal.

That's what the former national chief had to say about the strategy.

So I'd like to know if you agree with your predecessor that the tripartite agreement between the Government of Canada, the Province of Alberta, and Alberta's first nations is creating a better approach to child welfare. Do you believe this approach would be good for Alberta's first nations?

[National Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo]

Thank you.

I think the principle of jointly designing programs with first nations is an important one to support. Certainly at the outset it is something to be celebrated. It's an opportunity, as the work in Alberta progresses, to evaluate the benefits and the challenges and what we've articulated here today. That includes the shortcomings with policy directive 20-1, which is one such example both Cindy and I have referenced.

We need to be cautious, though, in thinking that what works in one area and one particular jurisdiction is easily transferable to other jurisdictions. That's the challenge we face in all policy areas, and this is no exception.

Any and all efforts that are joint in nature must be recognized and supported, and that's important to do. I think about the first nations who have entered into self-government agreements, who are still looking for support to ensure that those agreements are followed through, upheld, and implemented in the spirit and intent with which they were first agreed to. So it becomes a vigorous process of continuing to implement those agreements in the manner in which they were first sought out.

So I respect and support the comments that the former national chief would make, particularly at the beginning of a process. Wouldn't it make sense now at this juncture to consider how we might strengthen and learn from that experience, from the notion of jointly designing an approach right across the country, but one that doesn't seek to impose the results in different jurisdictions?

I want to link this, if I may, to the earlier question about whether we shouldn't just transfer this to provincial authorities. The example you're describing is one where the first nations' jurisdiction was respected, recognized, and involved. That principle must be followed everywhere. That's what we will continue to advocate for.

I haven't spoken with Alberta first nations any time recently, but I would welcome their views, as my role as national chief is to support and advocate for first nations governments and what they aspire to.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

It's a significant point, and again I believe this was 2007 when that comment was mentioned. But just as recently as July 2010 in Manitoba, there is another quote, and perhaps you can tell me how that is working. It says: “This new funding model and enhancement framework will assist in decreasing the number of children in care and support families to stay together.” This was from Grand Chief Ron Evans. He went on to say: “It will also assist agencies so they will have the resources available to support children and families they work with in our communities. Prevention is critical to positive change for our people.”

It would seem to me that he was looking at the enhancement framework and looking at a way to take what is there in Alberta, and apply it to the situation in Manitoba. I'm wondering what your thoughts are with their ability to take that same type of a model and expand it.

[National Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo]

Again, to repeat what I've said, I certainly support.... The role of the Assembly of First Nations and my role specifically as national chief is to support and advocate when chiefs and grand chiefs are embarking on approaches that suit and fit their situation. To be cautious, suggesting that we should be implementing that everywhere, is something that we would suggest strongly.

We need to take the direction and have first nations communities and/or regions, however it is that they're organized, addressing these issues. They need to be the ones taking the lead. That's the sort of work that we have going back to the Wen:de report.

From what I understand—because I wasn't involved in the very beginning and would appreciate it if Cindy reflected on this—that report was by and large essentially put aside. That was a five-year report, and close to a million dollars was expended in that effort. First nations were directly involved in talking about how we should reform and address issues of child welfare in this country.

Those are important voices that should not be dismissed, just like the voices that you're describing in Alberta and Manitoba. They too must be respected and not dismissed.

I also want to balance my response with the notion that we need to be careful about just imposing solutions elsewhere.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you. Unfortunately, there is no time left. We will start our second round with Ms. Neville.

You have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I add my thanks to those of you who are at the table.

I'm sitting here, I guess, in sort of disbelief that in a country as abundant as ours, we are dealing with an issue of this kind.

I said the other day to the witnesses who were here that there is a real urgency in this situation, that a year in the life of a child, whether it's a five-year-old or a ten-year-old, is an eternity and has a profound difference on the potential outcomes of how they live out their life.

I'm thinking about the tripartite agreement that's being touted, and my colleague and I were just talking about this. It's a joint agreement, but it's a joint agreement, as I understand it, without choice. There has been no input into the development of that agreement, as I understand it, or full development with first nations communities.

I'm sitting here and thinking, what if we were to report out tomorrow the primary recommendation—as I'm listening to you speak about going back to the Wen:de report and looking at the recommendations there—and then begin not a hasty process but begin hastily a consultation process with first nations to implement the most appropriate way of dealing with this issue? Am I off base, or is that how we move forward?

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

Thank you for your comments.

Going back to the member's notation, I note that neither in Alberta nor in Manitoba has there ever been a statement by either of the first nations in that community that we've achieved culturally based equity with the enhanced approach. Of course the Auditor General agrees with that too. In INAC's own evaluation, they point out that 75% of the DFNA's--that's the Alberta first nations agency--funds are inequitable.

Your point is so clear. I was a child protection officer for over a decade. When we had reports of child maltreatment on children this vulnerable, we had 24 hours to investigate and do something about it. This has been before Canada for over eleven years, without having achieved the goal of culturally based equity.

We in the tribunal were recommending.... I think it's important to understand there is not a dime in there for the caring society or for the Assembly of First Nations. We want a going-forward policy that ensures culturally based equity for every child in this country. And what we were calling on is to update the Wen:de report to 2010 values, to offer that as a viable option to first nations, not an exclusive option but a viable option to first nations where the directive still applies, and in Ontario to do a special study on the 1965 agreement, as was recommended over a decade ago, to identify areas of inequality and to ensure that those are redressed.

In areas that already have the enhanced model, we should be working on an evaluation of that model, comparing it against the expert report of the Wen:de, taking into full account the Auditor General's recommendations, and immediately seeking redress on any areas of inequality.

I appreciate that the enhanced model is a better option than the directive, but it's still flawed and inequitable. My standard is equity for children, especially the most vulnerable children. If there's another standard that members are going from, like Canada can do a little bit better, a little bit less inequality is a good thing for these kids, well, I think that's what has contributed to where we're at now. I think our joint goal, together as a country, is culturally based equity for every child in the country.