Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 9th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Good afternoon, everyone. It's 3:30, so we'll come to order. Thank you all for being here again.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging that we're meeting today on the unceded lands of the Algonquin people, for which we are very grateful.

Today we have two topics on the agenda. The first is to hear from Cindy Blackstock, the executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, to discuss the supplementary estimates (A) 2016-17. Then in the second hour we'll be hearing from Regional Chief Isadore Day from Ontario regarding our study on suicide.

We'll jump right in by welcoming Cindy Blackstock. It's wonderful to have you with us today. I'm happy to give you 10 minutes to share your thoughts with the group, after which we'll have rounds of questions. When there's a minute left, I'm going to hold up a yellow card so you know that we're nearing the end, and then when I hold up the red card, please try to draw to a close.

Without further ado, Cindy, you've got the floor.

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock, Executive Director, First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada]

Thank you very much, members, for having me here today.

I, too, would like to join in the recognition of the unceded Algonquin territory, and also to recognize Regional Chief Bill Erasmus, who is with me today.

We're here at a moment of Canada's history that many of our ancestors collectively prayed for, a time when we would reach out and embrace the reality that the federal government is racially discriminating against first nation children as a fiscal policy, and recognize that we have an opportunity to stop that practice and together raise a generation of first nations children who don't have to recover from their childhoods, and a generation of non-aboriginal children who never have to grow up to say they're sorry.

The undisputed facts are these.

In 2007 the Assembly of First Nations and the Caring Society filed a complaint against the federal government. There were two allegations.

The first one was that the federal government failed to implement equitable child welfare services for first nations children on reserve and in Yukon Territory and that this inequality was known to the federal government, that they agreed with it, and they had solutions to remedy it but failed to do so. Thus it perpetuated racial discrimination in one of the worst ways. As the tribunal would later say, that incentivized, and in fact led to, the removal of children from their families in ways that were similar to what happened during the residential school era.

The second allegation is with regard to access to public services. First nations children are often denied, delayed, or disrupted in their access to public services available to all other children because of jurisdictional payments disputes within the federal government or between the federal government and other levels of government. This has been going on for many decades. Jordan's principle was intended to allow first nations children to access services on the same terms as other children. It was passed by the House of Commons in motion 296 in December, 2007. That should have been the end of these disruptions and denials of services, but unfortunately, it was never properly implemented.

There were two findings from the case and, as you all know, the federal government, unfortunately, fought this case on legal technicalities for nine years. I think is important for us to realize that that period represents half of the childhood of a generation of children. However, on January 26 of this year, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal made two significant findings.

Number one was that the federal government is racially discriminating against 163,000 children. I think we need to let that sink in for a moment, because there are lots of issues that will come before this table, but I would argue that there is none more important than ceasing the racial discrimination against 163,000 little kids on reserve.

The second is that, yes, Canada's failure to implement Jordan's principle was racially discriminatory and unlawful. The tribunal noted in its decision that Canada—yes, indeed—knew better, had the opportunity to do better, but failed to do so repeatedly throughout history, and that this failure was resulting in the unbelievable removals of first nations children. In fact, we have in evidence that between 1989 and 2012, first nations children spent over 66 million nights in foster care, or 167,000 years of childhood. Many of those nights could have been spent at home, had these children not been racially discriminated against.

Another finding was that this disadvantage was broadening the disadvantage of residential schools. The tribunal makes specific note that Canada's current and ongoing racial discrimination is deepening the harm, and not narrowing the harm.

It immediately issued two orders. One is that Canada cease its discriminatory funding for child and family services and immediately implement Jordan's principle across all government services and across all types of jurisdictional disputes, ensuring that first nations children have equitable access.

There is lots of talk at this table about the necessity of, for example, accessing mental health services for first nations children, but I first want to talk about the burden that the federal government's racial discrimination itself places on the safety and well-being children. In evidence before the tribunal, we saw senior level federal government documents acknowledging that the government also funds inequitably education, social assistance, and basics like water and housing, on top of the known inequalities in child welfare. The federal government's own document stated that this creates dire circumstances. This woefully inadequate funding was putting children at high risk for death and that multiplier was affecting existing inequalities and getting in the way of children being able to live the lives they wish to have.

We know from a great study in the United States called the “Adverse Childhood Experiences Study” that the more multiple barriers that disadvantaged childhood experience, particularly in early childhood, the less they are going to be able to live a healthy and happy life. The ways you're treated as a child predict things like coronary disease in your sixties.

The other thing that's important for us to think about is the access by children themselves. We saw repeated denials of services. To give you an example, the Ontario Child and Family Services Act requires that mental health services be provided as part of the statutory requirements, but the funding agreement between Ontario and the federal government for child and family services has not been updated since 1978, meaning that those children on reserve were not getting reimbursed for these services that came in later versions of the statute. That meant that first nations children, according to the federal government's own witness, were denied these services, that Ontario was not picking up those services, and therefore the neediest children, the ones who were continuing to be disadvantaged by this ongoing racial discrimination, had no access to the very services that were intended to remediate it.

We all know that the tribunal's order is binding. I think that's important for us to keep in mind. This isn't another program where the government has discretion. The federal government welcomed the decision and chose not to judicially review it.

Since the decision, the federal government made a budget announcement, which it has profiled in later submissions as being its immediate relief measures. It has announced $71 million for child welfare for this year, rising to $99 million next year; but 50% of the full budget for child welfare is reserved for years four and five. I'll talk about that incremental approach, in that childhoods are not incremental and these discrimination orders are not to reduce the discrimination over five years, but to end it immediately. It's vital that this be done.

The other reason I feel that the $71 million is inadequate is that our own calculations at the society suggest that $216 million-plus is needed. However, even if we were to rely on the federal government's own conservative estimates, which in evidence before the tribunal have been said to be inadequate, a federal government document said that as of 2012, at least $108.1 million was needed. That number should have gone up, adjusted for inflation. There's no explanation as to why it went down.

Further submissions by the federal government to the tribunal suggest that not all of this $71 million is going to children and families. Only $60 million of it is going to children and families, and about $10.5 million of it is going internally for the department's own costs.

To give you a case study of what that means, that same 2012 PowerPoint point document in which the $108.1 million was cited suggests that a minimum of $21 million is needed for the region of British Columbia, but the federal government's own estimates say they're only going to be providing $5.3 million this year. That's about 25% of what was needed in 2012, and that number will only rise to $14.3 million after four years. Think about this. This is a child who was a baby and who's now getting ready to go to preschool, and they are only getting 67% of what the federal government projected as being necessary in 2012.

Another issue is program transfers. We welcome the federal government's announcements on water, housing, and fire protection, but we're also concerned, because we have seen on the record that the federal government has been transferring $98 million per annum out of infrastructure to offset its underfunding of education, social assistance, and child welfare. One PowerPoint slide we've seen from the senior federal level says that that amounted to half a billion dollars. So if those funds continue to be transferred, then we're going to see those deficits, those schools not being built, and the housing and the water not being allocated as they should be.

What are my recommendations? Number one is that the federal government must comply fully with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's order. We have issued a submission to the tribunal, dated yesterday, that spells out the significant shortfalls we have found in the federal government's compliance with that.

Number two is that we would reject, across all children's programs, any concept of incremental equality. No other child in this country has to be told “no” for five years and strive for equal treatment.

Number three is that we appoint an independent process to oversee and audit all first nations programs to identify areas of other inequality and to move swiftly, as part of a Marshall Plan, to redress those.

Another thing we need to do is ensure full implementation of Jordan's principle. That principle was passed and has never been fully implemented. Right up to today, children are being denied services.

Thank you, committee members. I welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Thank you very much for your testimony, Ms. Blackstock.

We'll go into a round of seven-minute questions.

The first question comes from Mike Bossio, please.

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

Wow. Where do I start?

I'm going to start where I have many times before with witnesses, and that is with the funding model itself. The reason is that I look at these contribution agreements, the grants and the programs, and there's no long-term sustainable funding in any of them. There is no self-determination in that funding. Can you speak to that in and of itself?

What do we need to change from a funding model standpoint that will enable and ensure that indigenous peoples, first nations, and reserves, etc., are the ones setting the priorities for their communities, rather than the paternalism that exists today, with the federal government saying that it will give them money for this area, money for that area, and money for another area?

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

That's the unfortunate part of the federal government's arriving at the $71-million figure. That figure was developed by the government without any consultation with first nations or with experts who know these funding formulas. We don't know where that number comes from, so that's an example of it. In my view, there need to be guarantees for adequate levels of funding that is flexible and needs-based to the actual community and the context of that community.

Thankfully, Member, in child welfare, we have a whole series of recommendations that have been jointly agreed to by the federal government over the years in these studies about how to improve child welfare. The caring society, being proactive in this area, revisited all those recommendations and sent them to the federal government in January—the ones that could be acted upon. Again, these were evidence-based, agreed to by the federal government, still had currency, and could address the needs of children, but were never acted upon. Unfortunately, we're still waiting.

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

I look at your recommendation to appoint an independent process over this. Just as we have an environment commissioner who looks at the environmental processes and policies that exist within government and audits those, your view—which kind of fits into this whole funding formula that I'm talking about as well—is that we have a commissioner of indigenous affairs to look at the funding mechanisms as they exist today and the shortfalls. Yes, our government is trying to make up for those shortfalls with a huge investment that has never happened before, recognizing that it's going to take a lot more for us to get to a level of adequacy.

Would you see this role as falling under the Auditor General? Once again, feeding into that whole funding formula, do you see that we need to.... What comes first, the chicken or the egg?

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

I would say that the the binding order comes first. We already have on the record the federal government's own document showing that shortfall and the current actions falling far short of that.

I hear the arguments in favour of an incremental approach. At some level, I'm sympathetic because we've arrived at this point via 148 years of racial discrimination against children, but we need to think about it from the children's perspective. Why would any child be asked to tolerate ongoing racial discrimination when the government knows it's doing it, has the figures to rectify it, and is choosing not to fully take those actions to remediate that? I think that's the question we have to come to terms with.

I've said to parliamentarians that I appreciate that you have to make hard choices when it comes to budget allocations. You can't do everything, but what are the hard choices that the Government of Canada, and Parliament as a whole, have made that leave the only choice being to give children an incremental shot at equality? Why isn't it that we can't move boldly and in a leap to address these known inequalities that are already on the books?

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

But at the same time, part of the problem we have to recognize is that, yes, we also have pending crisis levels of health care, and mental health. It goes across the strata beyond children, to housing and food security. Do you know what I'm saying? Yes, there are recreational facilities and educational facilities that need to be funded too. Yes, there is $216 million that we should dedicate towards the children's services.

There's an $8.4-billion investment that is being made by the government. Once again, it's a record investment. Do we increase that by $216 million, or the difference between the $71 million and the $216 million, and take from another area? Do you know what I'm saying? I agree that we don't want to shortchange them, but if you shortchange clean water, and if you shortchange education, and if you shortchange housing, if you shortchange health care, somebody is going to suffer. Children are going to suffer.

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

I don't think those are the only choices on a governmental menu. I look at discretionary costs in the overall budget, for example. I know there are discussions about sponsoring expo. I personally don't want to go to an expo if it means that children are being denied an equal opportunity to grow up with their families.

We need to be mindful that although you're juggling priorities, the federal government is under a legally binding order to rectify racial discrimination against children in this case. It is not a question of balancing priorities; it's a question of legal compliance, and that's what we're asking for.

The federal government has said it accepts the decision. I welcome that. It's not going to be realized until things change for children on the ground.

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

Yes. I'm with you. It's hard to argue against that, especially when it comes to children and the historical nature of the issue that we're dealing with here.

I'm also looking for long-term answers, not incremental answers. I'm looking for long-term answers from a funding standpoint. I look to individuals like you who have taken one area completely apart and been able to look at it and say, okay, this is the level of funding we need for it. This is the same sort of exercise we need to go through in every aspect of indigenous life to bring equality to the rest of what Canadians receive today. I'm looking to individuals like you to help us to work through that process to determine, okay, what are those levels we need to achieve and how do we get there?

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

I would say that you need that Marshall Plan, that Marshall audit, with full participation of first nations in that. You need to look at the recommendations that are already on the books, including in regard to the shortfalls, and develop a public reporting mechanism for those types of costs.

The Auditor General has laid out a good road map. I think the previous Auditor General would also be a great support.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Thank you both.

The next question is from Cathy McLeod, please.

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

You've clearly articulated your perspective on the financial gap and shortfall. It's a complicated world and one that you've lived in for a long time. It's a huge patchwork across the country in terms of models and structures and who's doing what. I know that in the riding I represent there are concerns that it's not working the way it should be.

First of all, do you have some examples not related to the funding issue? Have you put out recommendations around models, or is it very much a grassroots community process? Could you talk a little about that piece?

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

We work quite a bit at the caring society on what works. We know from the evidence that what works is community-developed programs around family safety. We have a program called the Touchstones of Hope. One of the biggest things taken from first nations communities through the residential schools, and arguably from the ongoing racial discrimination of removal of children today, is the collective vision of what a healthy child is. There are pieces of that. People have kept that, but that collectively held vision in many cases has been disrupted.

Touchstones of Hope allows people to reclaim that and develop community-based plans that are not just good for child welfare, but provide a benchmark for community and culturally based wellness throughout the life cycle. That has been proven effective in northern B.C. It was evaluated independently by the University of Toronto, and we see examples all over the world where communities are the decision-makers around what's best for kids. That's when kids do better.

We suggested to the government that $75,000 be made available to each first nations agency to begin reclaiming those cultural visions as part of the remediation resulting from the tribunal decision, but the federal government has chosen not to implement that this year. I find that concerning because I think that really is the baseline for ongoing success. It's that, together with flexible and sufficient funding levels over a long period of time.

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

Would that be part of the enhanced prevention focused approach or is that a separate initiative outside of that?

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

I think it definitely could be part of anything that you want call an “enhanced focused approach”, but I think we need to be mindful, Member, that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found the enhanced focused approach to be racially discriminatory. We certainly don't want to be replicating that model or bonding to that model. The tribunal says in bold underlined letters that it's looking for reform of the program, and it sets out a three-phased way of doing that: one, immediate relief, which is what I was talking about, that $216 million in the door to support what we know are the shortcomings across the four different funding models of the federal government; two, medium-term relief, which would be things around restoring these cultural visions; and, three, long-term reform, which will also require internal reform in the federal government itself so that it no longer replicates a pattern of knowing better and not doing better. It has to build capacity so that it is in a better relationship with first nations and first nations agencies and first nations children. That is the process the tribunal puts out. I support that process.

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

You mentioned northern British Columbia having a completely different set-up. How complicated is it, in terms of all the different provincial and territorial rules, and how those work from community to community and the adaptation and the agreements?

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

We do know there are experts on the ground level delivering those services in those complicated environments. They've been asking us to ensure that the federal government—which is what you have leverage over—supports their community-based solutions, and funds them adequately. The latter has consistently gotten in the way. Indeed, the other member noted just those one-year contribution agreements. Trying to plan the lives of children one year at a time doesn't make any sense for any governing body, and so longer-term solutions, multi-year agreements, and those types of things would go a long way to supporting progress on the ground.

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

With regard to multi-year agreements, it drives me crazy when people are having to give up leased space and don't have consistency in funding. I just look at the friendship centres, which are now three months into a fiscal year with no money. At times we don't have the nimbleness federally, and we need to allow that nimbleness, I guess, to be at a community level.

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

Right. We also, though, need to embrace the reality that the federal government has been oiled as a machine to racially discriminate against children for 148 years. How do we change that culture to support people to act in ways that are non-discriminatory? The Assembly of First Nations, in their submissions to the tribunal, offers a number of very helpful solutions, such as training all employees about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the history of child welfare funding, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision, and Jordan's principle. The federal government has said that it will discuss training of its employees, but it refuses to commit to that training.

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

Where are we in terms of more appropriately implementing Jordan's principle?

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

On April 24, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued an order to the federal government saying that its progress in implementing Jordan's principle was not meeting the order. It required it to do so by May 10, and to confirm that was done. It did issue a compliance report. We feel that's insufficient. We've issued a request for the tribunal to issue further orders. A mini-hearing will be held by the tribunal on June 23 and 24 to make that determination.

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

What do you feel needs to be done to fully implement Jordan's principle?

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

There needs to be funding allocated in the budget to realize it. The federal government needs to be able to embrace the full and proper definition of Jordan's principle. Also, the federal government's website has contact numbers that you're supposed to call to report a Jordan's principle case. My staff contacted all of those contact numbers and was not able to reach one person who could receive a Jordan's principle call. In fact, some of those numbers were out of order. We've advised the department that even at the front end, it needs to address those issues so that families and the public can present those matters.

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

Okay, thank you.