Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

[Arlene Johnson]

Yes.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

And did you see an increase in the number of people providing that service? Can you comment on some of the positive things about opening that unit and what it was able to do in the context of the services that you provide?

[Arlene Johnson]

When we were able to do the prevention work with our families, it allowed us to keep children at home and deal directly with the families, and provide services to families without removing children from their homes and communities.

We said in our report that the average increased cost for reimbursement for actual expenses for children outside the family home was 25.3%, and when we diverted the funds to a more proactive model in our prevention model, the rate of increase per annum was 4.3% over--

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Those are some real positive aspects of your delivery, that's great. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rickford.

Let's go to our second round now. This will be the same format, but just five minutes instead of seven, so it forces us to be even more succinct.

Let's go to Ms. Neville, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for coming, and a particular welcome to the Manitoba delegation.

I'm sitting here actually somewhat in shock as I'm listening to your presentations this morning. I'm not saying this in a partisan way at all. I'm sitting here somewhat amazed at what appears to be, for at least two of the jurisdictions, a real lack of consultation with the communities and INAC.

It seems to be a top-down or an INAC-directed approach. I'm sitting here and thinking what's made Manitoba different, and to some extent, Ms. Loeppky, you've talked about the aboriginal justice inquiry, which we all lived through one way or another.

Let me just ask, has any research been done on the enhanced research model, or has it been put into place on speculation? Has there been any significant research done?

[Elsie Flette]

Not that we're aware of. We are aware of a preliminary evaluation that was INAC-driven on the enhanced implementation in Alberta. We don't know what research they used to arrive at 20% of the families, which is very key to the model. We know the 7% in Manitoba comes directly from children-in-care statistics. We know the Wen:de report that did a lot of research--

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

That's what I'm comparing it to.

[Elsie Flette]

--would not completely support the way INAC is moving ahead with it, and we are wondering why they didn't rely on that research.

We also know that in the western region of Manitoba there was a block that was supported and funded by INAC. That block funding pilot was evaluated a couple of times by independent evaluators and has seen some real successes. The question we had was, why would INAC not try to replicate that? Because as they forced that agency into this enhanced model, that actually worked to the detriment of that agency because they are well ahead of the game in terms of developing an enhanced prevention program.

That agency, within three years of implementing a preventive approach by reprofiling and reinvesting their maintenance dollars, saw their children in care drop from 10% of their population and they have maintained it between 6% and 7% over the last ten years. So there's been some considerable success there. Now, with this new model, they are actually losing money and are going to be taking a step backward if we can't find a way to address that anomaly for them.

[Carolyn Loeppky]

I think the other factor that has to be looked at is that while we're working with a very specific model that's tied to a funding scheme, overall when you begin to look at the prevention initiatives that have been embarked upon across the country and in other countries, there are significant evaluations that are attached to many of them. The fundamental premise they are built on is that if you can invest in families, if you can keep children with families and support them in their communities, you will see better outcomes for children. I think when we begin to look at individual models that are being evaluated, there may be different criteria or circumstances that are attached to them that may impact their outcomes.

When we started to look at prevention, we did some research. We looked at the Alberta model, and we looked closely at what was happening in some of the states in the United States and also in other countries. We started off by actually building our own conceptual framework for prevention, which we used very much as a guide when we started our discussions with the federal government.

I think the funding parameters that impact a model also have to be looked at. We're very new into this, and one of the things we want to do as we move forward is to look at the funding model, at how the funding model and the premises of the funding model impact on the outcomes we see for children and families but also on the other services that are there for a community that may not be specifically child-welfare-driven. That's something we know as we move forward: there are going to be health services, community development services, and economic issues of communities that are going to impact the results of what we can do within our sector.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay. That's it. Believe it or not, it runs rather quickly.

Thank you very much, Ms. Neville.

We'll go to Mr. Dreeshen, who will be followed by Monsieur Lévesque and Monsieur Clarke.

Mr. Dreeshen, go ahead.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

Actually I would like to pick up on what you just mentioned, Ms. Loeppky. One of the commentaries we have of course has to do with whether or not we have the proper type of training and how we're going to expand and look at things such as culturally appropriate child services. I know that the Saskatchewan child welfare report, for example, spoke to this type of concern as well. I just wanted to quote part of it. On page 14 of the child welfare report it said the following:

Commentators and researchers are increasingly clear on the fact that the conditions which contribute most to a child’s risk are conditions that the child welfare system itself often does not have the mandate or capacity to directly address. As noted earlier, we use a child welfare solution when the primary drivers are outside the child welfare service mandate.

So there are a lot of concerns and a lot of issues that are involved here. One of the witnesses we had, last week I believe, talked about the training that is out there so that when case workers are looking at situations they're actually dealing with culturally appropriate solutions.

I'm wondering if you could perhaps comment not only on how significant the culturally appropriate solutions are in dealing with the services in that manner but also on the training of the individuals who are providing this in your jurisdictions.

[Dwayne Gaudry]

According to the panel review you're talking about, no matter what changes the Province of Saskatchewan makes—there were 12 recommendations that came out of it, and Howard was a part of that—no matter what kinds of risk models or safety models.... You talk about things being “culturally appropriate”, but you still have staff by the province, which is under unions. There are so many great aspects of the Saskatchewan Ministry of Social Services, but you still have people there who clock in from nine to five. They have no idea what culture is. They have no idea of the socio-economics that come from the first nation. A lot of these people move from the first nation into the city because of opportunity, and then you have culturally inappropriate things, and pretty soon you have staff and people out there who have no compassion. All they follow is policy. So when you have policy and culture...no money is going to pay for it.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Do you have some ideas as to how we can shift that?

[Dwayne Gaudry]

Ron Pollock has been with the ministry of social services for 38 years. It's a great honour to have Ron sit as my chairperson; we got some backing.

[Ron Pollock, Chairperson, Kanaweyihimitowin Child and Family Services Inc.]

Excuse me, I wasn't expecting to speak, so I'm totally unprepared.

I think what you find, when you look across the province at culturally appropriate services, is that it's going to vary greatly from region to region within the province you move to. There are about four different dialects within Saskatchewan, such as Saulteux, Sioux, Cree, Dene, and they all have their own cultural base. Some of these cultural bases, even within the Cree community, communities that are close to each other, will vary.

I think it almost has to be done by community. There has to be consensus within the community in relation to what kinds of services are going to get provided and how it's going to occur. That may be quite different from one reserve, for example, to another reserve.

I think cultural appropriateness really needs to be determined at the local level.

I hope that makes sense to you.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Loeppky, did you...?

[Carolyn Loeppky]

When we started looking at the new model for the delivery of services in Manitoba, there were a couple of key things that were identified as needing to be in place. One was that the authorities were going to be looking at the mandating of agencies. And they are culturally representative of their communities. You have first nations north, first nations south, and the Métis community, as well as a general authority.

We considered the issues of workers in the system as one of our key issues when we looked at the need to have culturally identified people working within the agency. We were very aware of the need to look at opportunities for people within the communities to gain professional expertise, as well as having the local flavour of the culture they were representing.

Early on we looked at some investments in both of our universities, and also in a new program called the aboriginal focus program at the University of Manitoba. That was to look at offering a variety of different academic and university-level programs, both at the diploma level and the social work level, to increase the number of aboriginal people working within our systems. I think Elsie will be able to talk a bit more about this.

This is a continuing initiative. It needs to be something we continue to look at as an emphasis or focus. I think when we begin to look at changing hands for our system, in terms of what the intent of the aboriginal justice inquiry was all about, we are still in the process of that. More attention needs to be addressed to it, but I think we're on a path where we will see more aboriginal people working in the system and working for the people they represent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All right, we will have to leave it there. We're well over time.

Thank you very much, Mr. Dreeshen.

Maintenant, Monsieur Lévesque, pour cinq minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen.

I quite often see colleagues left speechless by the evidence that's presented here when it concerns the first nations. I stopped being left speechless a long time ago. Every time, in a number of fields, including education, health and, today, child services, this confirms the poor understanding of a department that may be too big, one that I consider a government within the government.

I heard my colleague the parliamentary secretary play with words earlier. It made me smile, for one rare instance in this case. He mentioned "Mantario"; he could have said "Hommanitoba", and that would have been more meaningful, I believe.

Ms. Leoppky, you said you had to work with a number of departments. Do you mean federal or provincial departments or a combination of the two? Can you state all the departments you have to operate with?

[Carolyn Loeppky]

We work with departments, both at the provincial level and at the federal level.

At the provincial level, we work collaboratively with the health, justice, and education departments, primarily, and with an area we call healthy living. In those different sectors there are different programs that affect child welfare and children in families.

At the federal level, we work cooperatively with the Department of Health, FNIHB, and INAC. Primarily those would be the three we would tend to work with. At some points, too, we work with the area that deals with child care, because we also have in our portfolio the area of early learning and child care. So there are probably about eight different departments overall we tend to work with.

In Manitoba we work with some formalized structures inside our own provincial government in terms of looking at the overlapping and/or supporting and complementing jurisdictions. We have Healthy Child Manitoba. It has a very formalized structure and legislation in place to look at cooperation and collaboration between and within our own government.

With the federal government we have a couple of things we work on. We have a Manitoba children's agenda that has been in place probably for about seven or eight years. We work collaboratively with the federal government to identify children's issues that cross over multiple departments. Then we have, at the working level, as I indicated earlier, a working group with INAC that looks at the variety of different issues related to child welfare. In addition to that, we also are working with the audit and evaluation sector in INAC in a collaborative effort to look at quality assurance reviews, in terms of financial areas, of all the first nations agencies we have.

So when we begin to look at the variety of intersects and the people who have responsibility or the mandate to serve children and families, it is an array. It does require a lot of cooperation, collaboration, and at times negotiation to try to reach an end result that we believe will help children and families.

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

That's a lot of people, madam! And I understand. One word was said earlier, when we talked about geographical decisions on assistance granted to the communities, rather than talk about a decision that mainly concerned the facts or the situation.

Since you regularly work in this field, I wonder whether, at some point, in a free moment, you've imagined a single, combined organization that would have the necessary powers to operate directly. After imagining that, would you have had the opportunity to put that down on paper so that you could propose it to the committee, which might perhaps support it?

[Elsie Flette]

I can tell you that the main drivers in Manitoba for children coming into care are addictions, domestic violence, and housing. Those are all under the umbrella of poverty. If we had a good anti-poverty organization, that would be key. We know that first nations families are disproportionately poor. So that, I think, would maybe be the dream way to go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Lévesque.

The next member to speak will be Mr. Clarke, followed by Ms. Crowder, Mr. Weston and Mr. Russell.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming in today. For some it's been a long journey.

First of all, Mr. Cameron, you sat on the child welfare panel, correct? Now, one of the three major observations made in the Saskatchewan child welfare review panel report, “For the Good of Our Children and Youth”, was on the nature of the system itself. Can you describe from the report the threshold system? It was mentioned that it was for the most part the main problem.