Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 9th, 2019

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

Thank you.

Thank you to all four groups here.

We're going to continue that. Preventative care is only mentioned once here, in section 14. President Chartrand, should preventative care—you were talking to the other side about it—be given more emphasis in this bill?

[David Chartrand]

What I'm cautious about—you never heard me come out with recommendations to change the language too much in the legislation, and I'll tell you why first. Then I'll answer your question.

My fear is that there are going to be so many amendments and requirements to change this, to change that to answer everybody's problems, that it ends up not being resolved and passing before June. My worry is a serious worry. If it dies on the floor, what happens to it? That's a serious matter that I and my people and my children that we mentioned in the report have concerns about.

The issue of where I think an answer can be found, Kevin, is that it will give us the mandate to prioritize the importance of culture, of family, of community. We will use that as our prevention measures to make sure it's a guarantee the child will never leave our families again. I think that is protected in essence. It's an important aspect, and we will have control of that, not somebody else. Prevention will automatically kick in and automatically find itself in the policies we will create, the authoritative powers to oversee our own children.

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

I do have an issue because I'm on your website and you're showing 3.5 staff members supervising 500 foster homes.

[David Chartrand]

That's what I go to. We just raised that with the province. I'm under provincial funding, remember that. I'm not under federal funding.

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

I see only 3.5.

[David Chartrand]

I hope you can tell that to my premier. Because at the end of the day when I go back to Manitoba, I just echo that strongly, myself and the grand chiefs in Manitoba, that the system is designed so that we can't....

How do you expect to manage these foster homes with only 3.5 staff?

In the fact of giving us funding, let me say this to you, Kevin; it's a serious matter here for all of us to consider. I hope you will take a stand on this. I think Manitoba and one other province are the only two in the country that raked back the child allowance money. They take back that child allowance money which should be set aside for the children and their future.

But in Manitoba, the government takes it back. They clawed it back. There's a court case coming right now. But guess what they just did to us in Manitoba, Kevin, in answer to the 3.5? They short-changed us on the total amount of that child allowance money that was clawed back before. Instead of, say, hypothetically, giving me, I think it was $53 million, they clawed it back because they used the child allowance money before. They cut back that $6 million. Now, in order for my agency to be opened they are forcing me to spend my child allowance money to run it. It's not clawing back, they're saying. Well, they are making me spend it. They are shortchanging me.

At the end of the day the first nations are going through the same thing. For the SCO, it was $17 million, I believe. When you start looking at these numbers, they are scary. That child allowance money is for those kids. That money should be put in a trust for them. That money should be used for them. A lot of them stay there for a decade or more. When they leave there one day, at least they have a head start in life. But if you're forcing them to pay for their own child care system through the federal child allowance money, that's a shame.

That's why we only have 3.5 staff right now, Kevin, because our premier is slashing and cutting right now. Child welfare is not a priority.

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

Thank you.

I have to move on.

I am also from Treaty No. 6. So Tischa, thank you very much for video conferencing from my city of Saskatoon.

You mentioned Jordan's principle this morning. Where should this fall in this bill?

[Tischa Mason]

I think it goes with needs-based funding. I think it's about access to services for children and families and the placement of a child.

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

Okay.

Marlene, I'm going to go to you because I don't know if a lot of people know, but you have one of the most difficult regions in the country. You're dealing with places like Red Pheasant, Saulteaux, Sweetgrass, Mosquito and so on.

You mentioned today the need for children to be reunited with the parents in a timely manner.

Do you think the bill adequately addresses this need? You mentioned that, Marlene.

[Marlene Bugler]

I believe it provides an avenue for it to happen. It's going to depend on each first nation and each child and family service agency to work that out within their own legislation that they develop under this legislation. It's a priority we've always had. We do it every day. Our practice is making sure that we provide early intervention supports to children and families.

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

What happens if a child becomes a government ward? Should the bill address a priority to reunite the child with their family?

[Marlene Bugler]

Yes, it should be first and foremost. That's our common practice. At a first nation child and family service agency that I work with, that's always our first goal, to keep the family together. We do the intake and risk assessment and determine what level of risk there is. If the risk is low, then we will look at sustaining the family unit with intensive supports rather than removing the child and then trying to work with the family. We work with the family right away as a whole.

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

Ms. Whitecloud, thank you for your presentation. Can we have your thoughts around what we've been talking about here?

[Katherine Whitecloud]

I haven't made a direct reference to Bill C-92; I've left it unsaid. One of the reasons is that there are so many people who are actually working in the field. My colleagues who spoke earlier this morning have spent a great deal of time and effort in addressing these matters and have done so through the national advisory committee and through the regional forums that have occurred throughout the country.

Mr. Waugh, my background is as an educator. I was a teacher. I'm a director of education and I've taught in universities. Although I do not speak directly to Bill C-92, there is a reason for that. In our culture we do not give voice to things that are real. It's like when you step out the door and it's raining. You tend to look at each other and say, “Hey, it's raining.” For us that is silly. We know it's raining. We don't have to voice it.

It's a completely different approach. In my work and my efforts in supporting our children, I live in my traditional ways and utilize the knowledge and experience I've gained throughout my entire professional life in service to our people.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

I tried to be very polite, but we have to move to MP Rachel Blaney for the next round of questioning.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you.

I would like to thank all of the witnesses who are here with us today. Your testimony was very valuable.

One of the major concerns that I have with this legislation is that it is framework legislation. Multiple witnesses have told us that principles within the legislation around funding are missing.

We see it in the preamble, and there have been recommendations that it be moved from the preamble into the legislation. We have also had recommendations from multiple witnesses that the principles from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal about about equitable funding and looking at the realities as needs-based, as many of you have mentioned today, should be in the legislation so that we can hold to account whatever government is in power to make sure that indigenous children across this country are getting the resources they need to be cared for in the way they should be cared for.

I would like to start in Saskatchewan, since you're on the screen in front of us. Could you speak to any concerns you have about funding and whether you agree that the principles of funding should be right in the legislation?

Tischa.

[Tischa Mason]

I think that principles of funding should be in. Going back again to Kevin Waugh's comment, if we don't think it's clear enough, even with Jordan's principle, perhaps another section could be added to clarify the Jordan's principle funding more.

With funding in general, we're looking at the difference between equitable, which is equal for all children despite race or family situation, or needs-based, which I think takes into consideration the different historical contexts of colonialism, residential schools and trauma that first nations had, which may require that the needs of first nations are different from other children's. That's why we're looking at an emphasis of needs-based funding, and we're looking at the core principles.

I think the best interests of the first nations child or indigenous child are paramount. We're looking at prevention-focused versus apprehension-focused promotion of well-being of children and the need for protection by offering whatever appropriate services are designed to maintain, support and preserve the family in the least disruptive manner, keeping indigenous families together when it's safe to do so and keeping children in culturally appropriate environments and the provision of child, youth and family services that are community based and culturally relevant.

When we looked at our research report, there is this whole continuum of care when we're looking at child welfare. Part of our literature research, as well as our work with elders and other subject matter experts in doing knowledge research, was to take a look and pick apart child-centred functions, family-centred functions, community stewardship functions and guardianship functions, which are maybe more institutional, and understanding throughout those processes where the need for funding could support and lessen the trauma on children and families wherever it is in the child welfare transitions.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you.

Can I come back to you, David?

[David Chartrand]

Of course I would support a principle of having surety, because in this day and age, can we still come down to a point of trust among each other as governments? I think you said no matter which government is in place. I think it's paramount.

What I want to make clear is this. I don't want any change to the legislation if it's going to hold back the bill. If the bill is going to move forward with agreement of all parties—especially the sitting government—and they're okay to put the clause in there, and it wouldn't hold back legislation or make change, then I would support it.

However, I'll make it clear—and, Rachel, I think your question is very important—right now the formula in Manitoba, even in the mandated agency, is based completely on the whim of government.

In our agencies, the ratio is 700:1. If you have more than 700:1, a new agency should be evolving. In one of our agencies, we have over 1,200 in that agency, which is 500 over and above the requirement.

The ratio is also 25:1, client base to social worker. We're surpassing that, and we're going back to the danger zones of 30, 35 or 40:1, and that's scary stuff. Kevin raised the issue that 3.5 staff to watch all these foster homes is unbelievable.

There are no provisions in the legislation in Manitoba pertaining to funding. It's based completely on the whim of a government. If there are provisions here, as long as they doesn't hold up the act, I am all for it, and I definitely would support it.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Speaking to that, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to take this opportunity to move a motion. One thing that happened in this committee, which was unfortunate, was that on May 2, we were supposed to have five hours and we were only able to have one hour.

My motion is asking for those four hours, because I want to make sure the testimony is done.

My motion is:

That, given the committee did not hear four of the allotted hours of witness testimony on May 2, the committee's study of Bill C-92, An Act representing First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, be extended by an additional four hours on May 14.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

Mike.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Yes, thank you, Chair.

I thank my colleague for moving the motion.

The difficulty I have is that we need to get this bill back to the House as soon as possible. I'm really concerned about delaying it any further than need be. It's very unfortunate that we weren't able to fill that hour. There was certainly more than enough notice given to different organizations that wanted to participate. I empathize with the fact we weren't able to get people for those four hours, but I really don't want to delay this any further. I want to get this to the House as quickly as possible to ensure this really important legislation gets passed.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Cathy.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It was four hours that were committed to. We have a number of people who have asked to speak who are on the witness list. We do have a date set for clause-by-clause and we've committed to long hours, but I think we have evenings. Other committees work in the evenings. Other committees work on the Mondays and the Wednesdays. This is important enough that I think everyone should be heard. Certainly, we're willing to commit to an evening; we're willing to commit to a Monday or Wednesday to hear from the witnesses who have asked to be heard and still meet the deadline for our clause-by-clause analysis.

We certainly appreciate and will be supporting Ms. Blaney with her motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Dan.