Status of Women Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

We don't know; one of the things that is important to know, though—I know that you were particularly interested in the ties with residential schools—is that the Attorney General has assigned lawyers from the residential schools division to fight this case of equality against first nations children.

I actually send my documents to the residential schools division of Justice Canada, and it's those lawyers who are arguing this case against equity of first nations children today. In fact, when I was under cross-examination by the Government of Canada last year, it was by a lawyer who argued against residential school survivors in my own community. Among the first questions I was asked was not about the discrimination or the impacts or what was happening. It was “Dr. Blackstock, do you believe in God?” and “Were you in child welfare care?”

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Could you repeat that, please?

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

The transcript is posted on the I Am a Witness website so that you can see the proper transcript.

Among the first questions I was asked by the Government of Canada's lawyer was “Dr. Blackstock, do you believe in God?” and “Were you in child welfare care as a child?”

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Madame Demers.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you very much, Ms. Blackstock.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Ms. Mathyssen.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you for that, Dr. Blackstock. I'm speechless.

I wanted to ask you a question about the recommendations. These are marvellous, and I hope we can incorporate a number of them into our final report.

But number seven caught my eye. It says, “INAC must immediately provide training to INAC staff, particularly at the senior levels, so they are fully briefed on all reports, including the reports by the Auditor General of Canada, on INAC's First Nations child and family services program so they are in a better position to implement outstanding recommendations”.

I find it hard to believe they wouldn't do that as a matter of course. Is there a lack of training? Is it a lack of concern? Is it a matter of simply thinking they know better? Why isn't this training there?

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

It was interesting. I wasn't the only one under oath on the stand last spring. The senior official at Indian Affairs, Ms. Johnston, was called to testify under oath about the funding arrangement for child welfare. I've recreated a portion of her testimony on page 9. It's publicly available.

Ms. Johnston was in charge of the division of INAC that was responsible for preparing the responses to the Auditor General's recommendations in the 2008 report. She was asked whether or not she was aware if the Auditor General of Canada had any concerns about their funding arrangements. She said she wasn't sure.

This is the senior departmental official who heads the division responsible for implementing the Auditor General's concerns. Under oath in testimony, she admits she is unaware of whether or not the Auditor General has concerns, let alone what the recommendations are.

In other testimony, she said she was not aware of the national policy review done in 2000, other than that it existed. She was not sure what the recommendations were. When asked similarly about the expert review funded by the department in 2005, she could not speak to the recommendations. She just knew it flowed from the 2000 report.

In my view it's hard for bureaucrats to implement the recommendations if, under oath, senior officials in the department—those who are supposed to be experts advising the minister—are not aware of the contents of those reports and the recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

We have now ended this. I just want to thank Dr. Blackstock very much for coming and for giving us, as Madame Demers said, probably the single most interesting and definitive set of presentations of the problems and the solutions that we've had to date. Thank you again.

I'm going to end this session so that we can wait for the other session to begin. That gives us about a minute.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'd like to welcome Ms. Baggley and Ms. Murphy, who are from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. They are specifically from the social policy and programs branch and deal with child welfare only. That's their specific expertise and that's what I hope we're going to discuss.

Welcome.

You have 10 minutes between you, within which you can make a submission to us. Then there will be questions and answers.

As you know, we are looking at the issue specifically of child welfare. Something we heard over and over as we travelled across the country is that children being taken into care in large numbers is a real problem. As you heard, it is a larger number than the total number of children who were ever sent to residential schools, so we're going to be asking questions on that particular issue and on how your department is dealing with child welfare for aboriginal people.

Who is going to begin?

Ms. Murphy, will you share your time, or will you do the whole 10 minutes?

[Sheilagh Murphy, Director General, Social Policy and Programs Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

I'm going to do the opening remarks. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much. Please begin.

[Sheilagh Murphy]

I want to thank you for inviting Corinne and me to appear before the committee. It is a privilege for my colleague and me to be here before all of you as you continue your important work with respect to violence against aboriginal women.

Our department continues to be deeply concerned about this issue, and I appreciate this opportunity to assist the committee. However, there are many other federal and provincial programs that assist in addressing violence against aboriginal women, with first nations child and family services being one piece of a broader overall response.

The recent provincial report of the Saskatchewan child welfare review panel states that: 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 mandate.

We agree with this assessment, and I think it's an important lesson to keep in mind, while we work on this issue, that there are limitations to what each piece of the overall solution can achieve on its own.

I am joined today by my colleague, Corinne Baggley, senior policy manager with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Together, Corinne and I will do our best to answer any questions the committee may have, but first I would like to begin with a few remarks.

My predecessor, Mary Quinn, appeared before this committee in April 2010 and provided you then with an overview of some of the program areas within Indian and Northern Affairs Canada that support healthier and safer aboriginal families, including INAC initiatives that specifically target violence against women. Mary also explained how INAC works in partnership with other federal departments, provinces, and aboriginal peoples to contribute to the overall response to this serious issue, particularly on-reserve, but also in aboriginal communities and urban centres.

Although I won't get into the specifics about all these programs today, I would first like to acknowledge the multiple underlying causes that may increase the risk of violence against aboriginal women, such as lack of education, unemployment, and poverty, many of which disproportionately impact aboriginal communities and women. INAC works closely with aboriginal, federal, and provincial partners to address these underlying causes and build healthier and safer aboriginal families.

As an example, the reform of INAC's first nations child and family services program on-reserve involves a shift toward enhanced prevention services and will help to support parents and keep families together, which ultimately will enhance a sense of security among women who reside on-reserve and can decrease the risk of violence.

Child welfare is one of the most complex areas of public policy, given that decisions around the care and protection of children have lasting effects on children, their families, and communities. It is important to clarify that decisions with respect to the protection of children made by child welfare authorities, including delegated first nations child and family services agencies, are made in accordance with provincial legislation and standards.

All children are protected by provincial child welfare legislation, as child and family services are matters of provincial jurisdiction. Provincial governments delegate to service providers both on- and off-reserve and are responsible for ensuring they comply with provincial legislation and standards.

In the past 20 years, the number of first nations child and family services agencies has grown considerably. Today, 106 of these agencies deliver programs under agreements with provincial child welfare authorities. The amount of funding provided by INAC through its first nations child and family services program has also increased dramatically, up from $193 million 15 years ago to $550 million last year, in 2009-10.

As provinces began to shift their approaches to focus more on the prevention end of the spectrum of services provided under child welfare, INAC followed their lead through tripartite partnerships with willing first nations and provinces. In 2007, the federal government took action to help first nations child and family services providers to improve outcomes. This included working with provinces to ensure best practices in prevention-based services were brought to reserves, as well as broadening the tool kit of culturally appropriate services, such as kinship care. Over time, INAC's new approach to funding first nations child and family services, which we call the enhanced prevention focused approach, will enable first nations child and family services agencies to help keep families together.

Under this new approach, the agencies will have the flexibility and funding they require to ensure enhanced prevention services are available to at-risk children and families before a situation escalates into one that requires protection.

Three years ago, INAC developed a tripartite framework with the province and the first nations of Alberta to implement an enhanced prevention focused approach known as the Alberta Response Model. It focuses on proactive intervention, namely providing appropriate services before the problems escalate and become a child protection matter.

The preliminary results of this approach have been positive and encouraging. In the past three years, for instance, the number of Alberta first nations children in care on-reserve has dropped, permanent placements are on the rise, and placements in institutional facilities are decreasing. These significant results are attributed to a delivery system that is also facilitating greater use of more appropriate types of placements for children, including kinship care and post-adoption subsidies. Kinship care is an option that is used when children are removed from their home and placed in the care of a family member.

Since establishing the first tripartite framework in Alberta, partners in Manitoba, Quebec, P.E.I., Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia have also collaborated to conclude tripartite frameworks on first nations child and family services. This means that the new prevention funding model is now being implemented in first nations communities in six provinces and is reaching 69% of first nations children who live on-reserve. Each framework now provides for specific prevention-based funding for first nations agencies to deliver or purchase on-reserve prevention-based services.

In the last four federal budgets, the Government of Canada has committed additional funding to implement these enhanced prevention-focused approaches. When fully implemented, this funding will provide over $100 million annually in additional funding for the new approach under the six framework agreements.

I also want to say that INAC is strongly committed to and continues to work with all remaining jurisdictions toward securing tripartite frameworks by 2013.

This government recognizes that effective and culturally appropriate child and family services play an important role in creating strong and healthy first nations families. Moreover, we will continue to collaborate with willing partners to fund these services in first nations communities across Canada. This is why we remain committed to implementing a prevention focused approach by means of tripartite partnerships with first nations and the provinces.

Issues that impact the quality of life of first nations are not the responsibility of only one group. This is a shared responsibility.

It is clear that there are no simple solutions to the unfortunate ongoing situation of violence against aboriginal women, because it is a complex and multi-faceted issue. It is, however, my hope that moving forward with responsive and positive changes with such programs as on-reserve child and family services will go some way in helping first nations families to access the services they need before a situation escalates, and will help keep first nations families together.

Thank you. My colleague and I will do our best to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Ms. Murphy.

I will begin with the question-and-answer period. It's a seven-minute round, and that means the seven minutes include the questions and answers.

I'll begin with Ms. Neville for the Liberals.

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

Thank you for being here this morning.

This is one of those unusual mornings on which some of us have just come from the aboriginal affairs committee, where in fact we were talking about child protection and some of the disparities in funding between aboriginal and non-aboriginal children. We had the opportunity to hear from representatives of Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan, so there's a certain coming together between the two meetings this morning.

I want to talk about the enhanced funding approach. Dr. Blackstock referred to it. My understanding is that it was an approach developed by INAC and implemented by INAC.

I'm interested in knowing what kind of consultation took place with first nations communities and first nations authorities in the development of this approach. I want to know on what research it was based. Was there research done? What was that research? Also, what kind of evaluation has been carried out to date on this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Murphy, would you answer it?

[Sheilagh Murphy]

Yes, I'll start to answer, and then if Corinne can enhance that answer, she will.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes.

[Sheilagh Murphy]

In terms of our approach to enhanced prevention, INAC was following suit of provinces. The first province that we worked with was Alberta. They were getting good results with a protection approach, and we felt that it was appropriate for INAC to look at them in terms of its responsibilities for the on-reserve context of child and family services.

When the department looks at this kind of approach, it's a tripartite approach. We work with the province and the jurisdiction we're dealing with, as well as first nations. In terms of your question on consultations, in every jurisdiction where we've rolled out the enhanced prevention framework approach, we've consulted with first nations communities and leadership, as well as with the province, to arrive at an enhanced prevention model that works for that jurisdiction.

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

Can I just interrupt? I am interrupting.

What Dr. Blackstock indicated in her brief and what we heard earlier this morning is that it was imposed--that it was developed as a tripartite funding arrangement, and then imposed on first nations as an exclusive option to directive 20-1.

I'm curious to know if there was significant input from first nations that was incorporated into the design of this, or did you simply take the Alberta model and put it across the country where agreeable?

[Sheilagh Murphy]

When we introduce the enhanced prevention model, we work with the provincial jurisdiction and in close partnership with first nations as well, through both the developmental and implementation stages of the transition.

When we work in each jurisdiction, we don't take what was done necessarily in another jurisdiction and say that this is what you will follow. We expect that the agencies delivering the service will develop five-year work plans. They get an opportunity in developing those plans to look at the needs of the communities they're servicing. They look at the prevention and protection aspects of their services. They have to align with provincial jurisdiction and legislation and they work with the province and us to put those plans in place. They're reviewed and then they're put in place, so what a first nation agency might do in Alberta may not be the same thing as what one might choose to do in Manitoba.

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

What adjustments have you made to the plan since the Auditor General found it inequitable in 2008?

[Sheilagh Murphy]

In terms of the OAG findings, we've done a number of things to make adjustments to the program.

We developed a management response action plan to the report. The activities to date include completing the update of the program authorities in 2007 to include a broader and more culturally appropriate range of placement options with the addition of kinship care. Post-adoption subsidies and supports were authorized under provincial legislation and standards.

We have worked closely with provinces to ensure that agencies meet provincial legislation. We've updated the first nations national reporting guide to require business plans for those agencies entering into the new prevention model. We've articulated a guiding principle concerning culturally appropriate services. We've revised program reporting requirements and drafted performance indicators for discussion with partners and held a preliminary meeting with first nations partners--

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

I don't know what my time is like here, so can I just ask you one more thing?

Of the increased funding you mentioned in the CFS funding, what percentage is driven by children going into care? I have an access to information document saying that it's the vast majority--

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have one minute.