Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 7th, 2019

[Chief Dora Wilson, Hagwilget Village First Nation, Office of the Wet'suwet'en]

[Witness spoke in Wet'suwet'en]

[English]

My name is Yaga’lahl. I am from the house of Spookw—a Gitksan house—and the Wolf Clan. I'm a hereditary chief. I'm also an elected chief.

The village that I come from is on our house territory, which is the house of Spookw. Our membership is now 792, of which two-thirds are living off reserve. They're everywhere; they're in different provinces and even some are in the States.

One thing that concerns me is that there are different acts and provisions that are made for our aboriginal people and a lot of times we're told only after the fact that these things have become law or whatever. One thing that concerns me is the problem where we are dictated right from birth to death.

When I was born, I was number 68. When I got married to a non-native person I was 12-1B, and lo and behold in 1985, I became C31. Afterwards I was reinstated into my village and I became 222. That's a headache remedy, you know? It's interesting that we're given so many numbers. Where else is that done?

I feel that one of the things that happened with our village makes it very unique. We are the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en in my village. The houses and the clans represented there are almost equal. There are nine houses of the Wet'suwet'en and nine house of the Gitksan.

How that came about is that many years ago, there was an abundance of salmon coming up the river at the village that I come from and where I was born and raised. People from the east used to come and used to prepare their salmon in our canyon. The canyon bottom is like 292 feet from the bridge above. There's a silver suspension bridge that goes across the river. They used to come and do fishing there and then go back to their own village. Some stayed because I guess they saw some handsome people on the other side, and there was some intermarriage then.

We're talking about two different nations that would be involved in this bill. What is important to us is our feast hall where all of our problems are taken. Anything that happens within our culture is settled in that feast hall. The Father Clan is a very special group. They are required to always be available, like, for me. In that case, he's also from my Father Clan, so it's interesting.

I think extended family is what really should be considered when you're thinking about children in care. Extended family, I feel, are the ones who should be considered first, but also, now, especially when expenses are so high, those families sometimes need to have some extra help, which in my village we do. I will give you an example.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

You're running out of time, Chief Wilson.

[Chief Dora Wilson]

I have a grandfather who's on the old age pension. He has two grandchildren who are orphans. They are 11 years old and eight years old. He's looking after them. We couldn't give him any help money-wise, but we were able to help him by putting in a support worker to help out with looking after the children.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

[Chief Dora Wilson]

Thank you very much for listening to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We are moving on to our guest who is on video conference: Michelle Kinney, deputy minister, health and social development.

Welcome. You can start any time you're ready.

[Michelle Kinney, Deputy Minister, Health and Social Development, Nunatsiavut Government]

I'm here today to provide a few thoughts on Bill C-92, and provide a perspective as a professional who's worked in the field for more than 30 years in both child welfare and mental health, and for the past 15 years as deputy minister of the Department of Health and Social Development for Nunatsiavut Government. That's in Labrador in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We represent about 7,000 beneficiaries.

Perhaps more important, I'm an adoptive parent, a parent of a traditionally adopted daughter; a foster parent of approximately 19 children, and a step-parent of a daughter who now has her own foster daughter, my granddaughter. I've been intricately entwined in the child-welfare system from both a personal and professional perspective for about 30 years.

I would like to start by commending the drafters of Bill C-92, as I feel the legislation is much needed and is timely. The principles of the bill—the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality—are ones that the Nunatsiavut Government fully supports and ones that have guided our own work within child welfare. I am pleased that the federal government recognizes that a new approach is needed and is taking steps to empower decision-making by indigenous governments, families and communities.

We have seen the impacts first-hand in our communities when children are removed from families and communities and assimilated into non-indigenous families and communities, often by the best-intentioned caregivers and professionals. We recognize that, as an indigenous government, we cannot simply criticize the current systems but need to play an active role in addressing the issues and proposing solutions.

Nunatsiavut Government has taken a very proactive approach in addressing child welfare and is taking steps toward devolution. We've implemented Inuit-specific bachelor of social work programs, a foster home recruitment and retention campaign with two social workers attached, and supervised access for families with children in care. We've engaged in an Inuit child welfare review with the child and youth advocate's office within the province, which will be finalized by June 1. We've taken an active role in consultations regarding the new provincial Children and Youth Care and Protection Act and are a big part of a policy working group around that new act. We have created a position of indigenous representative to carry out many of the duties that are listed in that new act around indigenous children.

We've developed an adoption protocol for Labrador Inuit children, and we exercise regularly our intervenor status in any adoption matters. We've developed a process for cultural continuity plans. We've done a lot of training that we call “allies in healing”, focusing on intergenerational trauma and healing training for professionals, including lawyers, child welfare workers and social workers involved in that system. We also have created a family connections program, which is an intervention program that I'm going to speak to a bit later. We've also carved out a portion of housing dollars received from the federal government to support families who are at risk of their children coming into care or potentially could have their children returned with appropriate housing and supports.

Often, we have been trailblazers and have struggled with having the province recognize our role in advocating and supporting Inuit children, families and communities, and the need for indigenous social work practice has been challenging. So having the support of Bill C-92 would mean a lot to us. We generally have had to foot the bill for developing all of the above or have sought out project funding and initiatives.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time speaking to the actual bill, as I think the intent and content for the most part are on track. However, I would like to speak to a key element that I think needs to be included in the legislation and is missing from our own provincial legislation as well; that is preventing children from coming into care.

Although not explicitly stated, this legislation seems to imply that the focus is on providing services when a child comes into care, stating:

The best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in the making of decisions or the taking of actions in the context of the provision of...services in relation to an Indigenous child and, in the case of decisions or actions related to child apprehension, the best interests of the child must be the paramount consideration.

The financial cost of having a child come into care is huge. In a time of fiscal accountability, that alone should give folks cause to look at the system. As a foster parent, I receive $2,000 a month to care for my current foster child. I also receive child care and additional expenses. Imagine what a parent could do with half this amount of money. They could pay rent, pay heat and light bills, buy groceries and pay a babysitter for a short break. Often we're told that prevention is the responsibility of another department—education, public health, etc.—but I'm speaking about specific, targeted interventions that will support families and prevent children from coming into care.

Nunatsiavut Government has developed a model of prevention and intervention. We call it the family connections program. It has been funded under the national family violence prevention initiative for three years. It was seen as a promising best practice, so it has now been extended for an additional three years and is currently being evaluated. We believe the model has supported families, kept children out of care, reunited children with families and involved the extended family in planning for children. With the addition of the creation of some supportive housing units, it has also provided safe spaces for families.

Within our communities, health and social service providers and their organizations intend to, and strive to, provide safe, effective and appropriate service programs to their indigenous clients. However, the reality is that many indigenous people have experienced having their cultural identity, beliefs and lifestyles maligned by non-indigenous service providers. The result is that there is often low utilization of available resources. It's well known that people who need services the most often do not engage in those services, and when they do, it's with reluctance. Services are provided many times as a one-off. In the past, service providers have often advised families on “what they need to do”, but this model allows families to advise service providers on “what they need help doing”. Sometimes, seemingly small things create stress. An unexpected expense, a family illness, a child having issues at school, paying a phone bill or hydro bill, buying winter clothing, family contact, financial issues of many kinds—they add up to an incident of relapse in addictions and family violence.

To effect change, strong relationships must be created that are supportive and non-judgmental, that value every member in the family, and that do not exclude, fragment or isolate individual family members. Interdisciplinary practice is an approach and philosophy that considers the family as a holistic unit. The western response to family violence and/or dysfunction seems to be counterintuitive to the Inuit way of life. Generally, women and children leave the home and enter a shelter that provides short-term safety. Counselling supports are offered to individual family members. Men often become involved in the justice system. As the cycle continues, all too often families are further fractured by children being placed in care. History repeats itself, and families once again become fragmented and dislocated, this time by family violence and addictions.

While it is recognized that there will be times when families can't remain together, with appropriate supports, inter-agency collaborations and community and cultural supports, family healing becomes possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

You have one minute remaining.

[Michelle Kinney]

Okay, thanks.

It's felt that by providing direct services into homes, families can stay together, and fewer children will come into care.

My last point is that any legislation must come into effect with appropriate financial resources to make it effective. This doesn't necessarily mean more money; perhaps it means a more flexible way of using resources. For example, we have new provincial legislation coming into effect in June, and it's much improved. However, they've identified a large role for an indigenous representative for ensuring cultural continuity, engaging indigenous governments etc., but the expectation is that the indigenous governments will carry this role with no financial resources given. Having this position will potentially mean fewer children coming into care or leaving their community, or children returning to families more quickly, so the upfront cost is minimal in the scheme of things.

Thanks for taking the time to listen.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

Our final presenter is Mr. Peter Hogg.

[Professor Peter Hogg, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

This is a very new experience for me, this topic, and it's a great privilege to hear from the three chiefs who have just spoken and the person who has just spoken, who I don't think is a chief, but is extremely knowledgeable. That has been very helpful.

I think it is important to state that the act is constitutional. I don't think anyone would suggest for a minute that it was not constitutional, but the power over Indians and lands reserved for the Indians would clearly cover this kind of legislation.

I have not had any experience with this particular topic. I have worked very closely with some first nations, in particular the Yukon first nations, because I helped them to negotiate a land claims agreement and a self-government agreement. That was one of the most gratifying experiences of my life. I spent a great deal of time in Yukon working with the Yukon first nations.

My experience with aboriginal people has really been quite limited and, in particular, the kind of family problems which this bill is hoping to greatly address is not something that I can say anything very much about, I don't think.

The principles behind the bill seem to be very sound and I have nothing to offer in the way of criticism. There is nothing in the bill, as several speakers have mentioned, about resources. For example, there is no provision in the bill for a caregiver to be remunerated for that work. I would have thought that in many situations that would be an important thing, and if resources are not made available for that, then a lot will not happen.

That would be one suggestion I would make, that there should be resources made available and that would enable, for example, caregivers to be remunerated. That would be very good.

That's probably all I can say, Madam Chair, and I'll be happy to chime in, in response to questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

We're going to begin the questioning part of the session.

Mr. Amos, you have seven minutes.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Chair, thank you to our witnesses. I would agree with Professor Hogg that this has been illuminating.

My question follows on our discussion which commenced Tuesday around the division of powers topic. There is additional testimony that's required on this topic, in particular because Professor Newman from Saskatchewan raised the issue of the prospect of court challenges around clause 7 of the bill, particularly with regard to the specific reference to the provinces.

Professor Hogg, on this particular legal question, what are your views with regard to the appropriateness of this legislation referring directly to the provinces, and does that jeopardize in any fashion the vires of the bill?

[Prof. Peter Hogg]

I am not knowledgeable, as I have acknowledged, but it seems obvious to me that there is a need, or a perception of a need, for legislation of this kind and that it would be very helpful, I think, to enact the legislation with the resources that would be necessary to make it effective. I can't see any disadvantages in doing that.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I want to push a bit further on this. Have you encountered federal legislation where specific reference is made to the provinces where they're identified as an order of government impacted by legislation? What I understood from Professor Newman's comments was that the prospect of this legislation being in some way binding upon them could cause difficulties down the road.

[Prof. Peter Hogg]

Binding on whom?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

On provincial governments.

[Prof. Peter Hogg]

I don't think the legislation purports to be binding on provinces, but as pointed out by the chiefs in the panel before me, surely there is a role for co-operation among provinces, the federal government and aboriginal governments. I think putting the pieces together in a way that is useful and fruitful obviously won't be as easy as all that, but I think that will be the key to success.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

In the 2013 edition of your volume Constitutional Law of Canada, which is the most recent version I've seen—I'm sure there are more up to date versions—you indicate your support for the view that Parliament can legislate, as regards indigenous peoples, “even if the laws would ordinarily be outside of federal competence”, in other words, within provincial competence, for non-indigenous persons.

[Prof. Peter Hogg]

Yes, you've said the power over the language from 1867 is rather archaic now, but the power over “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians” is not limited to things that are under other federal heads of power, and so it is a unique power and it does capture a lot of powers that are thought of as provincial powers, property and civil rights, that sort of thing. It turned out to be very useful that it's not a narrow power, it's a wide power, and coupled with some co-operative assistance from other levels of government, I can see this could be good.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

In my remaining minute, I wonder if you would agree this would be an area where the constitutional doctrine of the double aspect would be applicable. Up until now, no federal government has previously attempted to legislate in this area of child welfare, leaving it effectively to the field of provincial law, and to the extent that there were agreements made with indigenous nations, indigenous peoples, and it was taken care of in that manner. Now a new framework is being set up so that indigenous peoples can assume entire control, giving it a triple aspect, if you would, indigenous, federal and provincial. Would you agree?

[Prof. Peter Hogg]

It's going to be for Parliament to decide whether this statute is one that should be supported. I would have thought that it should be, but I can certainly understand that there would be people who would say that family law is a provincial matter and we shouldn't be encroaching on that. I don't think that's the right approach with respect to aboriginal people and indigenous people.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

The questioning now moves to MP Kevin Waugh.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll start with Mr. Hogg, and then I'll go to the others on the panel.

You mentioned funding. If you had to write a requirement for funding into this bill, what would it look like?

[Prof. Peter Hogg]

Even if you didn't have a specific number, you could put into the bill that the resources would be provided by the federal government for the needs of the implementation of the act. Even if you didn't have an actual number, there would be an assurance from the federal government that there would be funding available to, as necessary, carry out the purposes of the bill.