Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 16th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning. I hope everyone is well. We're going to begin our meeting of the INAN committee. We have two presenters in our first hour. I call you up to the table.

The way the committee works is we'll give you 10 minutes each to do your presentation, and then after that there are a series of questions from committee members. When you're ready, one of you will begin. You've tossed a coin for whoever starts, and we'll get going.

[Del Graff, Child and Youth Advocate, Office of the Child and Youth Advocate Alberta]

I guess I'm elected to start.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Oh, very nice. Good. Del, welcome.

Del Graff, child and youth advocate from the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, Alberta, welcome to our committee.

[Del Graff]

Good morning, Madam Chairperson and the committee.

I would like to say I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you about suicide among indigenous peoples and communities.

My name is Del Graff. I'm the child and youth advocate for the province of Alberta. I'm of Cree, Métis, and German ancestry, and I've been married to a woman who's Métis from northern Alberta for 30 years. We have raised three children and we have two wonderful grandchildren. I'm very honoured to have the opportunity to speak with you today.

I would also like to acknowledge that the land on which we gather is the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.

As an independent office of the Alberta legislature, we provide direct services to vulnerable people throughout the province. Our advocacy efforts focus on children and youth in the child welfare and youth justice systems.

I also have the authority to review the deaths and serious injuries of young people receiving child welfare services or who had received services within two years of their death.

Unfortunately, what I have observed in this role is extremely unsettling. Since I took on this responsibility in 2012, my office has received 40 reports of young people who have died by suicide or been seriously injured after attempting suicide. Twenty-six of those young people were indigenous.

I'll be referring to two reports that my office has released in the last year. Both reports can be found at our website under “Publications”.

In 2016, I released a report called “Voices for Change: Aboriginal Child Welfare in Alberta”, a special report on aboriginal child welfare in Alberta. We talked to indigenous young people, elders, parents, caregivers, and professionals about their experience in child welfare. They also talked to us about what they think would make it better. I raise this here because the report provides a snapshot of what has happened in Alberta.

When we looked at the overrepresentation of indigenous people, this is what we found. About 10% of the young people in Alberta are of indigenous ancestry, yet they account for almost 70% of the young people in government care. Of those who are involved with child welfare but not in care, 38% are indigenous young people. Of those who are in temporary care, 54% are indigenous young people. By the time they reach permanent care, three out of every four young people are indigenous. What that means is that the more intrusive government is, the more disproportionate the numbers are.

In Alberta on a per-1,000 basis, for every 1,000 non-indigenous children, three will be involved with child welfare. For every 1,000 Métis children, 18 will be involved with child welfare. For every 1,000 first nations children in Alberta, 94 will be involved with child welfare. What that means is Métis children are six times more likely to have child welfare involvement than their non-indigenous peers, and first nations children are more than 30 times more likely to have child welfare involvement than their non-indigenous peers.

This has to be considered unacceptable by anybody's standards.

In April 2016, we released a report called “Toward a Better Tomorrow: Addressing the Challenge of Aboriginal Youth Suicide”. In that report, we talk about the experiences of seven indigenous young people who died by suicide over an 18-month period from 2013 to 2014. The deaths of these seven youth put a face on these tragic circumstances.

Two of these young people were brothers aged 15 and 18 who died within four months of each other. I'm using pseudonyms, as our legislation prevents me from identifying youth who are receiving designated provincial services. The names are most often chosen by family members. Fifteen-year- old Sage was a shy boy who dreamed of becoming a famous violin player or a rap artist, while his 18-year-old brother Cedar was outspoken and the protector of his younger siblings. They grew up in a home where they were exposed to family violence, addictions, and neglect. Their mom was a single parent.

Because of these concerns, child welfare services became involved with their family shortly after Cedar was born, and support services were provided in the family home. The boys were taken into government care when Cedar was three years old and Sage was six months old. Over time, there were efforts to return the boys to their mother's care, but, sadly, they were unable to stay with her. The boys moved into foster care and group homes, but they yearned to be returned to their mother.

By the time Cedar and Sage reached adolescence, they were both using drugs and alcohol and had stopped attending school. Sage was a very sad child, and he expressed that he did not know why. He died by suicide when he was 15 years old. Just four months later, 18-year-old Cedar also died by suicide. Both boys' manner of suicide was the same, and they both died in their mother's home.

I had the privilege of meeting the mother of these two young men, and she feels that Cedar ended his life because he felt he was to blame for Sage's death. Her grief is beyond words. She's very worried about her remaining children, who have told her that they've contemplated suicide.

The community where this family lives has been tremendously impacted by suicide, and this is not unlike other communities in Alberta or across Canada. The other five indigenous young people whose experiences we describe in our report came from different communities. Some lived in cities, some on reserve, some off reserve, and some in small towns. There were three girls and four boys, ranging in age from 14 to 18 years old. Some grew up in government care, while some were primarily raised by parents or relatives.

What did they have in common? It was family disruption and the legacy of residential schools; early childhood trauma from exposure to family violence, neglect, or abuse; and parents or caregivers who had addictions or mental health problems. Many experienced the death of a family member by suicide.

My report identified three areas where we think action should be taken for improvement.

First, we must pursue community-led strategies to address indigenous youth suicide. We cannot apply a one-size-fits-all approach to this issue. Each community is unique and has different circumstances and conditions. As a result, it's imperative that each community develop local strategies and solutions that are community led. I believe that government is best positioned to provide resources and to use its policies and financial levers to support community-led strategies.

Second, it is important that we address indigenous youth suicide holistically. What does this mean? It means that we need to demonstrate an understanding that youth at risk for suicide must be assisted physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. It means that communities need to engage families, community leaders, service providers, and key professionals to collaborate in the development and implementation of their community-led strategies. It means that those strategies should include efforts and responses across a continuum of suicide, including prevention, intervention, and aftercare.

Finally, our report calls for building and supporting protective factors for young people. When we talk about protective factors, we're specifically referring to conditions that promote the social, physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual health and well-being of children. We know with certainty that investing in protective factors greatly enhances a child's healthy development and prevents suicide. For example, a strong connection for indigenous youth with their traditions and culture can enhance their sense of belonging, of identity, of purpose and meaning for their lives, which will act as protective factors for them. Protective factors can be found at the individual, relational, social, and community levels. Individual protective factors like good physical and mental health, good coping skills, along with relational factors such as having positive role models and strong and healthy relationships with extended families and elders can make a huge difference.

Hope comes from protective factors. Dr. Chris Lalonde, who's a professor of psychology at the University of Victoria, was an expert committee member on our report. He speaks about resilience and protective factors in his work. He points out that there are a number of healthy indigenous communities across Canada that have very low concerns related to suicide. He suggests groups can look at the protective factors in those communities to see what's working well.

If you take those protective factors and work with communities to implement them, you'll likely see positive change. Risks can never be fully eliminated, but young people can be empowered with the skills they need to successfully navigate and cope with risks they encounter. Having this resiliency can help young people from turning to suicide.

It's my sincere hope that my presence here today moves governments, communities, and community leaders to act on the issues related to indigenous youth suicide. Further, I hope that as we move forward, we will find ways for young people to build on and celebrate their strengths, and that when they face adversity, they do so with a clear sense of who they are and where they come from, a sense that they are surrounded by people who love and support them and that they feel a sense of belonging to a healthy and caring community. That is what I think we all want.

I was told a long time ago that when you are really struggling with challenges in life, you need to go where you're loved. Every young person in this country needs to know where they can go for the love, comfort, and support that they need.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I'll be happy to answer any questions once the other presenters finish.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Meegwetch.

I want to apologize to the committee and to the guests. I normally point out that we're very grateful to be on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people. It's especially important as we've begun the process of truth and reconciliation. I wish to point out my apology on that.

Now, thank you for those insightful comments.

We're going to hear now from First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. I welcome the executive director, Cindy Blackstock.

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

Good morning. I too recognize the unceded territories of the Algonquin people.

My name is Cindy Blackstock. I'm the executive director of the Caring Society. I am also a professor at McGill University.

Faced with the tragic headlines of repeated deaths of first nations children and young people across the country, too often Canada's historical reflex has been to cite what it has done and to promise to do better. We say that first nations children and young people should be patient with the government, that we should all be patient while progress is done.

The word “patience” means to suffer without complaint, and I think this country is far better than asking children to suffer without complaint.

The issue linking the inequalities that first nations children experience in health care and the deaths of these children is not a new story in Canada. In 1907, 110 years ago, Dr. Peter Henderson Bryce, Canada's chief medical health officer, raised the concern about the inequitable health services provided to first nations children in residential schools and their preventable deaths from tuberculosis. A leading medical doctor at the time, president of the American Public Health Association and founder of the Canadian Public Health Association, Dr. Bryce said that medical science knew how to save these children, who he stated were dying at a rate of 24% a year or 48% over three years. He believed it would have cost Canada $10,000 to $15,000, but the Canadian government said it was too expensive and that it would take one step at a time. The children continued to die.

In 1908, one of the leading lawyers of the time and co-founder of Blakes law firm, Samuel Hume Blake, said in response that if Canada failed to obviate these preventable causes of death, it would bring itself “into unpleasant nearness with manslaughter”. People of that period found Canada's failure to respond to the health inequities faced by first nations children to be immoral and possibly illegal.

There are a number of reports that span the decades, pointing out to the federal government the inequalities experienced by first nations children. The deaths and indeed the harms done to first nations children are too numerous to recount in this short period of time, but I will take your attention to 1946, when the Canadian Welfare Council and the Canadian Association of Social Workers did a joint presentation noting the inequities in services to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in 1996; to the report by Dr. Patrick Johnston in 1983; and, of course, to the numerous reports done jointly with the Department of Indian Affairs in 2000 and 2005.

January 26 of last year provided a new moment of hope for this country. It ended a 10-year legal battle filed by the Caring Society and the Assembly of First Nations on Canada's inequitable treatment of first nations children in child welfare and its failure to implement something called Jordan's principle.

Jordan's principle is to ensure that first nations children receive equitable access across a whole range of public services on the same terms as other children, without delay. It was filed in 2007. The Canadian government fought it tooth and nail, but the tribunal substantiated the complaint and—relevant to this matter—cited significant evidence before it in the hearings that Canada was aware that mental health services were desperately required by first nations children due to the multi-generational impacts of residential schools. In Ontario specifically it was required by the Ontario Child and Family Services Act, yet federal officials testifying before the tribunal confirmed that yes, they were aware of that statutory provision, but no, Canada did not fund those services.

No, Canada does not fund those services, and kids were dying. The tribunal orders make specific mention of this in numerous paragraphs of the decision handed down on January 26, substantiating the racial discrimination by the Government of Canada and ordering Canada to immediately cease its discriminatory action. Specifically, it says paragraph 392:

...the application of the 1965 Agreement in Ontario also results in denials of services and adverse effects for First Nations children and families. For instance, ...the agreement has not been updated for quite some time, it does not account for changes...over the years to provincial legislation for such things as mental health and other prevention services. This is further compounded by a lack of coordination amongst federal programs in dealing with health and social services that affect children and families in need, despite those types of programs being synchronized under [the provincial child welfare act in Ontario].

Canada did nothing to respond to that particular section of the order. In fact the tribunal, in its April non-compliance order against Canada, cites the failure of it to immediately provide mental health services again. In July we get this announcement from the federal government that they're providing up to $382 million for Jordan's principle. It was a breath of relief for those of us who hoped that those poor kids in Ontario would finally get the mental health services they require, not only in Ontario but across the country, but that did not happen.

In September the tribunal makes another non-compliance order and specifically mentions Canada's failure to provide mental health services and asks for further details. It recognizes the $382 million announcement and the further announcement of $60 million on mental health, but it doesn't know what it means for children. They said those are nice numbers to hear in the air, but what does it mean for children and Canada's compliance with this order? All of that remains unclear.

Canada starts to clarify that on October 31, 2016, when it finally says that INAC is working with the Province of Ontario and first nations to discuss the provision of mental health services.

I want to make it clear here that the tribunal did not order Canada to discuss how to provide mental health services; it ordered it to immediately provide those mental health services. That's Canada's own document of October 31, 2016.

In January of 2016 we get a legal submission from the Government of Canada. We find out how much they've spent of the $382 million, and it turns out they've spent $5 million of that. That's 1.3% of that allotted money, and 91% of the claims are in Manitoba and in Saskatchewan, leaving only 9% for the remaining jurisdictions.

There are further non-compliance orders against Canada. We have cross-examined Canada's witnesses, and those transcripts will be made available publicly. When that evidence comes out, I think it would be well worthwhile for everyone who is on this committee to read it very carefully.

I want to back up and look at the consequences. Remember Blake's statement that Canada brings itself into “unpleasant nearness with manslaughter”. We like to think we learn from residential schools. I'm not sure that we always have. While Canada was failing to comply with the order, Wapekeka first nation sends an urgent mental health proposal to Health Canada dated July of 2016, right after the first non-compliance order handed down by the tribunal. It makes a plea for the immediate provision of mental health services, citing a suicide pact among the girls. Canada doesn't reply for some months. Then says it will discuss the provision of mental health services.

On January 10, 2017, Chantel Fox dies by suicide at the age of 12. Two days earlier, Jolynn Winter, 12 years old, died. We don't know if those little girls would have died had Canada implemented the order, but I think we can all agree around this table that it would have given them a fighting chance.

It's inexcusable to me that we can offer any justification for Canada's non-compliance. People have said to me that we can't afford to implement the entire order, to which I ask, what are first nations children losing to? The Canadian government is spending half a billion dollars on the birthday party. You're renovating Parliament. Is that more important than any of these kids?

Racial discrimination and inequity have been known to this country for many decades and years. Equity for first nations children need not be done a teaspoon at a time. A great nation and a great people and great leaders don't make excuses for inequality. They move with dispatch, because children's lives are on the line, and as Dr. Michael Kirlew, the physician at Sioux Lookout in charge of Wapekeka, says, these deaths are preventable.

You can talk about codifying this as a personal problem for first nations or for the kids or for what you're going to do for services, but as the World Health Organization has said, “social injustice...is killing on a grand scale”, and the one thing you can do in this committee is ensure that the federal government fully complies with that Canadian human rights order and with Jordan's principle.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you very much to both presenters. It was very informative and passionate. I'm sure our members will have a lot of questions.

The first questioner is MP Rémi Massé.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Graff and Ms. Blackstock for participating in the committee's work. It's very much appreciated.

We've heard many people speak about the major crisis plaguing aboriginal youth. We must find prevention solutions, and ways to heal and ensure this type of crisis doesn't continue.

My first questions are for Mr. Graff.

In your presentation, you spoke about three possible intervention areas, and one involves pursuing a community-led strategy.

Can you elaborate on this?

[Del Graff]

Thank you very much for the question.

When we looked at the issue of community-led strategies in Alberta, where we found some encouragement was in the strategy to address homelessness. There was enough of a framework and enough resources to have some kind of goalpost, but there was also enough flexibility so that each community could deal with its own concerns related to homelessness.

That's also within the context of having suicide prevention strategies at a larger level, both provincially and nationally. Alberta does not have a suicide prevention strategy that then provides a frame for that kind of approach with communities. In many ways, the most important thing is to get both a national strategy and a provincial strategy, because that enables communities to then lever the resources and address the concerns that are quite community-specific.

In my remarks, I also included the importance of having a range of groups involved, including community leaders, families, etc. It is absolutely critical that there be a broad level of involvement in those strategies, or else they will not be effective.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Do you have any best practices examples of this specific strategy that have worked in some communities? Do you have some concrete examples of things that seem to have worked and provided some solutions?

[Del Graff]

I don't have any specific ones at the moment, but I can certainly find them. One of the things I can say is that the work of Chris Lalonde has elevated some of those communities to become examples of where suicide concerns are at a very low level, and it is because these communities have had approaches that deal with those protective factors so that young people have been enabled to have the resilience they need when they face adversity.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

You caught my attention with your entire speech, but especially when you talked about protective factors. Help me to understand a bit more what you mean by those protective factors.

[Del Graff]

I can describe them as knowing who I am; knowing where I'm from; knowing what my values are, because they were instilled in me through generations and through extended family and my community; being a valued member of the community, having both rights and responsibilities; feeling embedded in a place that is healthy and that helps me when those adversities show themselves.

Those are factors that protect me when difficulties arise. I know what to do. I have resources. I have internal resources, but I also have support resources around me.

That is what I am talking about when I'm referring to protective factors.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Ms. Blackstock, over the course of its work, the committee has heard many times that the coordination of health services among the various levels of government is particularly complicated and that this could great gaps in health services delivery. You referred to this issue.

As part of a solutions-oriented approach, what measures would improve the coordination of services?

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

I think Jordan's principle is the answer, and that's what the House of Commons passed unanimously in 2007. It simply says that where there is a gap, the government of first contact pays for the service and then works out the jurisdictional issues later. As we know with mental health services in Ontario, this is statutory and confirmed by the department going back a number of years. It's a very simple solution.

Keep in mind that when people say that it sounds complex, it's actually not complex, because Canada has worked out arrangements with the provinces and territories to ensure that every other child in this country is not exposed to the level of risk that first nations children are exposed to.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

More specifically, do you think there are specific difficulties with Health Canada in the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch in terms of coordinating efforts to help prevent and resolve, which is a big word? Do you think there is a specific issue with one section of Health Canada, which is the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch? Are there any best practices that we can implement? Is there something there that we need to look at particularly?

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

I would recommend that there be an internal review both of INAC and First Nations and Inuit Health Branch in terms of an independent evaluation of their capacity to be able to implement the orders and respond to the many good solutions that have been put forward to them for improvements throughout the years.

One of the examples I would say is if we look at things like the CHRT order, where there was clear direction by the panel on how to resolve these issues, and yet Canada and the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch has not moved to resolve those matters, even when it was as easy as approving a mental health proposal from Wapekeka First Nation. I think that needs to be done internally in government to better prepare those departments to comply with the orders and take advantage of the good solutions that will come from this committee and that have come from past committees.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

That concludes your round of questioning.

We'll moving on to MP Cathy McLeod.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to both of the speakers today for their passion and presentations.

I think it was November 1 when the NDP put forward a motion, which was unanimous in Parliament, about the injection of $155 million. Sometimes you hear lots of numbers thrown out in terms of what's happening. Has that $155 million wound its way through the system to help children on the ground?

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

My information, based on the analysis of INAC submissions and of its public statements, is that nothing has been provided of that $155 million since the motion has been passed in the House of Commons.

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

That was a very specific motion. It was supported by the Liberals, and it was immediate. The word was “immediate”, so that certainly is a huge concern in terms of that piece not being followed through.

Did the tribunal indicate how that money could flow and how it would immediately support first nations children?

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

The tribunal lays out in its orders very specific measures for the rectifying of the inequalities that it sees as most urgent. Included among those is the provision of mental health services and ensuring that the Department of Indian Affairs is funding on a basis of need.

The department, I should say, can fund on the basis of need immediately in one way, and that is to provide actual costs for the prevention services and for the array of other services that first nations children need. They have it within their existing authorities. They do it already for maintenance and for many arrangements for which the provinces are service providers. They have simply not done it, despite calls by first nations to do it in this case.

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

In British Columbia, of course, we have the First Nations Health Authority. Have they managed to be more agile, nimble, and responsive in terms of mental health?

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

I have not seen any kind of evaluations in terms of its application for children specifically. I will say that on-the-ground reports are that they're providing more culturally based services, but it's important to recall that they don't provide child welfare services and—

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

But they would be responsible for mental health.