Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 18 - Evidence - June 15, 2005 - Afternoon meeting
CHARLOTTETOWN, Wednesday, June 15, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 1:10 p.m. to examine and report upon Canada's international obligations in regards to the rights and freedoms of children.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Welcome. We will start the afternoon session. We are the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights, and we are tasked with the mandate of examining and reporting upon Canada's international obligations in regards to the rights and freedoms of children, in particular the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Our first witness this afternoon is Jamie Gallant, President and Chief of the Native Council of Prince Edward Island. She is accompanied by Paula Thomas, Chief Finance Officer.
The floor is yours.
Ms. Jamie Gallant, President and Chief, Native Council of Prince Edward Island: Good afternoon. Before I begin, I want to welcome you to Abegweit and the traditional territory of the Mi'kmaq Nation. I would like to thank the Senate committee for allowing me to address you here today.
My name is Jamie Gallant. I am the President and Chief of the Native Council of Prince Edward Island. My organization is provincially affiliated with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, which is one of five national Aboriginal organizations. Representing Aboriginals nationally and provincially, we represent the off-reserve Indians, Métis, status, non-status and other Aboriginal people who reside outside of Indian Act reservations or northern settlements.
On P.E.I. today there are approximately 382 Indians, according to 2001 census data, who live on the four reserves across the Island; approximately 960 Aboriginal people resideoff-reserve and are not necessarily from this Island or theseIsland reserves. Within the city of Charlottetown, there are about 735 people who self-identify as being Aboriginal.
Canada's previous report to the United Nations uses the terms ``Aboriginals'' and ``First Nations'' throughout the report, often interchangeably within the same paragraph. To us, this clouds the issue of representation of Aboriginal people throughout Canada that is inclusive of all indigenous groups, regardless of legal definition. ``First Nations'' are those people who have the legal definition of ``Indian,'' which is imposed upon them via the Indian Act and indicates someone who may reside on reserves. As I am allowed only a brief period of time, I will make my submission and I will not bother getting into that detail.
When I look at Canada's previous submission to the United Nations, under ``Federal Programs and Services,'' the majority of the information refers to ``Aboriginals,'' when in reality those programs and services are geared more towards Indians residing on reserves, now called ``First Nations.'' This gives the reader the wrong impression that Canadian Aboriginals all benefit from federal programs, when in reality the Indian children living on reserves receive a significantly different services from other children in Canada; urban children and off-reserve children, whether living in rural communities or not, are further marginalized by this disparity.
Heritage Canada has been very instrumental in supporting our organization's activities and is to be commended for that support.
Although article 44 states that the report will be provided to various levels of government and non-government organizations, to my knowledge neither the Native Council nor the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples has received Canada's report, and we have not received any indication as to where this report can be obtained.
My response to article 6, the right to life, survival and development, is that programming to alleviate post-colonial effects on Aboriginal societies has not reduced the suicide rate of Aboriginal youth, which is five times the national average. Although P.E.I. is such a small province, our communities are very tight-knit. A year ago, a young community member from one of the Abegweit First Nations committed suicide, and that has now created a chain reaction among our youth. We find more and more suicide attempts of community members, whether they live on or off reserves, and that greatly impacts our young people, children and families.
Regarding article 8, the preservation of identity, when it talks about Aboriginal self-government arrangements, these arrangements are only available to First Nations citizens. They do not allow other Aboriginals jurisdiction over civil procedures under the Divorce Act. The current system is detrimental to Aboriginal cultures where community supports for children are eroded through the adversarial mentality resulting from family court proceedings. Children become commodities within a marginalized group, which further diminishes Canada's fiduciary promises under treaties, off-loading Canada's responsibilities to Aboriginal children, in essence. Socialization of culture is lost when grandparents are denied access through custody arrangements. Children lose contact with their extended family.
The report talks about the Aboriginal child welfare program and my comment is that, once again, that is geared towards First Nations citizens. Social workers within the system have no understanding of Aboriginal cultures, which impacts negatively on our children.
Article 17, access to appropriate information and linguistic needs, talks about SchoolNet. SchoolNet is a program that is once again geared towards First Nations children and is not accessible to off-reserve Aboriginal children.
We also looked at Aboriginal language programs, which are delivered by the Assembly of First Nations to First Nations, usually the reserves. Off-reserve and urban Aboriginal children are at higher risk of losing their language because they do not have that connection to the culture that is provided through these programs.
Family law and alternative care would only be available to First Nations under self-government agreements.
I have taken information from the report on Canada's response, so if I am losing anyone, I apologize.
When I looked at adoption, under article 21, again the authority of family law and the adoption issues would only be available to First Nations under self-government agreements. This is not available, as per my understanding, to the off-reserve communities.
When I looked at article 19, regarding abuse and neglect and basic health and welfare, the design and delivery of health and welfare services and programs are available, once again, only to First Nations.
With respect to health and health services, in articles 6 and24, currently the Native Council of P.E.I. is investigating an Aboriginal Head Start program for urban Aboriginal children. There was one, I believe, approximately 20 years ago. I am not sure what took place with that program but we are told that the numbers are not high enough in P.E.I. That is discriminatory towards our children because our population is as high as that in downtown Toronto. Our children still need these programs and services so that they can excel and connect with their culture and their communities.
We acknowledge the disparity between Aboriginal child health indicators and those of the general Canadian child population. We applaud federal initiatives such as the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effects Program, the National Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program, NNADAP, and the Aboriginal Diabetes Strategy. We administer the National Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program and the Aboriginal Diabetes Strategy for our off-reserve people here within the province currently.
The transfer of health facilities, community health programs and resources is targeted at First Nations. We are supportive of the Aboriginal health research initiatives and are looking at ways currently to become more involved in doing research of our own.
Federal assistance for First Nations communities to assume responsibility for health services does not apply to off- reserve Aboriginal communities. Currently our people attend local care, and some of the services that are geared towards First Nations are not provided off-reserve, once again, which creates problems in certain cases, in certain families.
Regarding social security, child care and facilities, inarticles 26 and 18: To my knowledge, the Native Council of P.E.I. does not benefit from the frameworks to guide and implement national child care benefits reinvestment initiatives as they are, once again, for reserves.
Standard of living, in article 27: The Native Council of P.E.I. appreciates CMHC's rural and native housing program; however, this may not adequately serve the need for required housing units. The Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, or RRAP, has a First Nations component, most specifically.
Dwellings with lone female parents and Aboriginal households are mainly those on reserves. There are no adequate protections for lone female parents when evicted from reserve housing, as human rights violations are not addressed due to jurisdictional issues. Matrimonial property rights are the major issue for Aboriginal women who are forced to leave the reserve due to these types of decisions made by chief and council without consideration for women and their children. This contributes to further marginalization of Aboriginal women and children by subjecting them to live off- reserve or in urban environments where the aforementioned federal programs and services are no longer available.
This has actually happened here in Prince Edward Island, where chief and council made the decision to ban a single parent from the reserve due to circumstances beyond my knowledge. That person was then led to give her children to care services because of the assistance and support not being there.
Regarding article 34, sexual abuse and sexual exploitation: We feel that Aboriginal child welfare professionals lack the adequate cross-cultural sensitivity training required to really deal with these issues when it comes to Aboriginal children. Most alarming is the recent case of Judge Ramsay sexually assaulting young Aboriginal prostitutes in British Columbia. This case resulted in a couple of RCMP officers being investigated also.
The Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres has questioned the prevalence of toleration. There are many unsolved cases of Aboriginal women in Canada who have been murdered, and numerous other women have gone missing. Young Aboriginal women are also included in this. Their destinations of street and drug life may be some of the post-colonial effects. That is where we applaud, as an organization, the national Native Women's Association and their Sisters in Spirit campaign. We think that is definitely a worthwhile project.
Speaking about provincial programs and services, the Native Council of P.E.I. is very grateful to the provincial government for providing us financial assistance in numerous areas, including economic development. We have a tripartite agreement and they assist in our drug and alcohol program as well.
Canada's previous submission indicated that P.E.I. was funded through the Youth Initiative Fund and provided a program called ``Help Every Aboriginal Learn,'' or HEAL, along with a teen mom workshop dealing with parenthood.
Our experience is that off-reserve and urban Aboriginal people realize more benefits and program delivery through the province, rather than through the federal funding to the First Nations and tribal councils. The Native Council of P.E.I. would support a new fiscal transfer to the province if it incorporated services and programs geared towards off- reserve Aboriginal people.
In conclusion, I would like to thank you for allowing me to address your group here today, and I will answer any questions.
The Chairman: The Native Council of P.E.I. is off-reserve, but does it include people who could gain reserve status? Or does it include all Aboriginals who do not have status on the reserve? I come from the West and each province is different.
Ms. Gallant: The Native Council of P.E.I. is a community of Aboriginal people. I am non-status. My father is a registered Indian with the Lennox Island Reserve up in Lennox Island, in the western part of the Island. Our membership is a combination of people who have status from one of the reservations either here on the Island or from across Canada. We have members who are Cree, Saulteaux and Ojibwe. We include various nations along with people who have come from the Métis settlements out in the western part of the country. We represent a variety of people as an organization. Paula is a status Indian from Lennox Island.
Senator Pearson: Thank you very much for your report and for having taken seriously the challenge of responding to the convention as the framework for your remarks. I think it does elicit the usefulness of the convention as a way of highlighting issues. I think you have raised, in my mind at least, questions that have been very useful.
The first thing I wanted to say was that I am interested in your comment about the definitions of ``Aboriginal'' and ``First Nation'', because you are perfectly right: The term ``First Nation'' is an Indian Act definition. We have heard before, in the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, that we need to do some thinking about what that term means, instead of using it as a generic term; that if it is used, it needs to be explained each time that that is the way it is being used.
So I am glad that you brought that back to our attention. It does underline the constant challenge, particularly in a small province like Prince Edward Island, of the problems of who has jurisdiction over what. As Aboriginal children move from one environment to another, it is as if they should themselves carry the federal fiduciary responsibilities with them, as opposed to somehow becoming defined differently as they move from one place to another. It is the same child with the same kind of background. This was the opinion that we put into the study on urban aboriginal youth that we did: You should not be defined by location. You can be self-defined in other ways, so you should be able to carry the privileges, or federal responsibilities, with you wherever you go and then work it out in arrangements with the provinces in ways that are fair.
I think the next point you made was about the unfairness of some children getting more services or fewer services, depending on where they live and who has been responsible for them. Sometimes that works to the advantage of a child on the reserve; sometimes it works to their disadvantage. It's the same thing for Aboriginal children living off-reserve. I think it is a question that the Committee on the Rights of the Child has brought to our attention twice with respect to Aboriginal children, so it is an ongoing question that we as government should be responding to, so thank you for laying that one out.
I am sure you must be acquainted with Cindy Blackstock from the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. She and her group are in the process now of developing observations out of a day of study on indigenous children that occurred two years ago, based on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. She was present when Canada presented to the Committee on the Rights of the Child. There was a day especially devoted to issues around indigenous children.
I wanted you to know about that because I think it is something you might have some input into at some stage. We are looking not just at the rights of the Aboriginal children in Prince Edward Island but basically all over the world, and there should be greater consistency in how they are defined. I think she is an Aboriginal from British Columbia and has been very good on these issues. I think that the Committee on the Rights of the Child is seized with this issue, and you will be hearing more about it; I will make sure that you are all connected.
The final point I wanted to make is that one of the things we are discovering throughout this inquiry is that there is an absolutely inadequate effort to communicate the reports, the results and the concluding observations from the Committee on the Rights of the Child. This information has not been communicated to Aboriginal organizations such as the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples or the AFN or the others. Some of the recommendations we may be looking at include what the communication plan should be, what the government should ensure and how the different groups should be made aware of what is going on if we are going to make good use of the convention. That was a very helpful comment.
I do know that Ethel Blondin-Andrew and I made an effort to circulate a poster around the Convention on the Rights of the Child to all First Nations, in this case the First Nations by definition. We got a mixed response. Some of them took it and were interested and others did not take it. But that was a one-time shot. There should be something more consistent, because I do think that these are children's rights issues and the convention is a really good tool to help your population of young people.
I do not know if you want to comment in response to the things that I have shared with you, or if you would like to have more information or give us more information.
Ms. Gallant: Yes. In terms of the first comment that you made in regards to First Nations and the definitions that are being used, from where we stand as an organization and as a community, I think every child should have the right to access programs and services equally, regardless of residency or what category they fall into. I think that is where we are coming from when we talk about the different groups of Aboriginal people and the categories with which we have been provided. As a non-status person, although I am Aboriginal I do not have access, or my children would not have access, to the programs and services that status Aboriginal children would have. As an organization and community, those are things that we do not see as being fair, or as being right when it comes to the development of our children. We want every child to excel, regardless of where they live or what category they fit into.
Senator Poy: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Gallant. You made the difference between status andnon-status Aboriginal people very clear. Are non-status Aboriginals the ones who do not live on reserves?
Ms. Gallant: No, not necessarily. Status Aboriginal people are people who are able to register under the federal government's Indian Act. My father's mother was a status Indian and that status carried on to him. My mother is non- Aboriginal. When my father and my mother got married, I was not in a position to receive status because of the way the Indian Act is outlined. It is the guide for how we as Aboriginal people are identified.
You do not necessarily even have to be Aboriginal to live on a reserve. A number of people enter into mixed culture relationships, so you could have an Aboriginal family where the mother is non-Aboriginal or the father is non- Aboriginal; but still their children are in a position to receive their status basedon 6(1) or 6(2) of the Indian Act. There are different categories; it is very confusing.
Senator Poy: In other words, you do not carry your father's status?
Ms. Gallant: No.
Senator Poy: Do you carry your mother's status?
Ms. Gallant: I carry no one's status. I do not have status whatsoever. I am non-status. I will let Paula explain a little bit more because she is status and she can probably fill you in.
Ms. Paula Thomas, Chief Finance Officer, Native Council of Prince Edward Island: I am status, which means both my parents were card-carrying members of a reserve. They passed their status on to me, which made me a 6(1) status Indian.
Senator Poy: When you say ``6(1),'' is that just a number?
Ms. Thomas: It is a category of the Indian Act.
My son's father is non-Aboriginal, so my son falls intoa 6(2) category. That means he cannot pass on his status; although he has full rights and privileges under the Indian Act as a status Indian, he cannot pass them on.
Senator Poy: I see.
Ms. Thomas: As a 6(1) status Indian myself, I can.
Senator Poy: So when you say you are Aboriginal, that has nothing to do with how much Aboriginal blood is in your body, in your veins?
Ms. Thomas: No.
Senator Poy: I am sure the other senators are clear on that. It is just that I am not. You mentioned that there is a very big difference between the benefits for Aboriginals who live on reserves and those who do not. Can you give a couple of examples?
Ms. Gallant: Sure. I guess I would not say ``benefits''; what I would suggest is programs and services that are provided. The programs and services for Aboriginal communities are developed based on First Nations or reserve communities. The Aboriginal Head Start program automatically becomes a reserve-based program, and it is very hard for off-reserve Aboriginal communities to access funding dollars to administer programs such as that to assist, whether it be children, youth, adults, or whatever the case may be.
One of the big areas is health care. On a reserve you have access to a health care facility right on your reserve. If you live off the reserve and you are status, non-status, whatever the case may be, you are then required to go to a public walk-in clinic. It is not as culturally sensitive as if you were to go into a reserve-based health clinic. There are various programs that are initiated more for on the reserve than off, such as the Aboriginal Workforce Participation Initiative. I could probably go on for a really long time.
Senator Poy: Even for education?
Ms. Gallant: Yes. Post-secondary university education is filtered through the First Nations, so that means if I live on the reserve and want to go to UPEI, I make my application and I then become a priority. However, if I am an off- reserve status member of that reserve and I want to go to the same course at the university as a person who lives on the reserve, it has been our experience that the off-reserve status people are put on more or less of a waiting list. Once everyone who is on the reserve has been served, then the off-reserve applicants are next. It is administered by the First Nation communities, so the Aboriginal people who choose not to live on those reservations are at a disadvantage when it comes to accessing that program.
A lot of the programs that are geared towards First Nations communities are for the members of those communities. However, there are some programs where members of the band who have moved away from the band can still access those programs or services.
Senator Poy: Is the Native Council of P.E.I. working for the benefit of everyone on-reserve and off-reserve, or just thoseoff-reserve?
Ms. Gallant: We actually work with those who are off-reserve. We have a number of members who move from their reserve community into the city of Charlottetown, or Summerside, or wherever the case may be. We work with all Aboriginal people but we represent the interests of the off-reserve people.
Senator Oliver: We are interested in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I have your statistics on the number of Aboriginals and I would like to break themdown a bit. For instance, the numbers you gave were based on 2001 statistics, so today there are probably about 400 Indians who live in the four reserves, about 960 Aboriginals off-reserve, and within the Charlottetown area, there are probably 735 people who self-identify as Aboriginals. How many of them are between the ages of one and 18?
Ms. Gallant: I cannot give you the definite answer to that, but I would have to say at least 50 per cent.
Senator Oliver: Are the numbers of children on reserves increasing or decreasing?
Ms. Gallant: I think the number of Aboriginal people is increasing, in general. I would say that the number of children born to on-reserve families is increasing, but then those families move off-reserve very shortly after the child is born.
Senator Oliver: Why is that?
Ms. Thomas: I grew up on a reserve. I lived there for the majority of my life, but I moved off when I went to further my education. It was a very big surprise to me how different life was off-reserve and I quickly realized that I wanted to raise my children away from the reserve, due to the high prevalence of sexual abuse, drug abuse, alcohol abuse and just the limited number of opportunities that would be there for me or my child. A lot of the decisions made on a First Nations reserve are unilateral and are very family-based — on my reserve anyway — so a lot of families feel they have better opportunities once they leave.
Senator Oliver: I appreciate that answer a lot; indeed, that was what I wanted to get to next. Once I found out the number of children, both on- and off-reserve, I wanted then to start talking about the rights, privileges and abuses of children, to try to find out from you if those rights are being violated. What types of things would you like to tell this Senate committee that is studying this, and what types of remedies would you like to see to the violation of Aboriginal children's rights?
Ms. Thomas: My personal belief is that especially people on reserves need to be educated, that you cannot keep it a dark little secret and just pretend it is not there and hope it goes away.
Senator Oliver: Sex abuse, you mean?
Ms. Thomas: Any abuse. A lot of people will just say, ``Well, my uncle drinks.'' They will never speak of him, and all his problems are over there. It is that type of thing that prolongs the cycle of all this abuse.
Senator Oliver: Jamie, you wanted to comment?
Ms. Gallant: We only have two communities, but the two that we do have in Prince Edward Island that are reserve- based are very secluded. They are away from cities or towns or even a store. Personally, I have never experienced life on a reserve. I have lived in a very small community, a very small town. But life on a reserve, as per my understanding, is very secluded and everything that happens, everyone knows about. There is a lot of abuse and the abuse is based on addictions to alcohol, drugs, prescription drugs — whatever the case may be. I am not saying that that is happening only in reserve communities, because that is not the case, but it is increasing and it is starting to affect the children of those communities. As a parent, if I were to live on a reserve with my children growing up in that lifestyle, definitely for my children's sake I would want to move away from that. That is where I see the trend of individuals moving away from reserve life into urban or rural communities. That is my understanding as to the reason why this is taking place.
Senator Oliver: May I ask you this, then, in view of what both of you have said about life on reserves for children between one and 18 years? Where there has been in Prince Edward Island a history of various types of abuse, a lot coming from abuse of drugs and alcohol, and sexual abuse and so on, would you want to make a recommendation to this committee about the committee doing something about moving these childrenoff-reserve as soon as possible and back out into the community? Would you go that far or is that a viable solution?
Ms. Gallant: I think that is something that happened to us years and years ago when our children were taken from our communities into residential schools, and I am just using that as an example. When you take a child away from the community, then they lose that sense of culture and that sense of connection. I think what needs to happen is more support being provided to these children and these families on reserves.
Senator Oliver: Remedies you would recommend would be remedies that take place on-reserve, although Paula said she was happy to move off-reserve.
Ms. Gallant: I think in many cases there are supportson-reserve, but I do not think those supports are being utilized to their full advantage. I think where my comment would come from is that once those individuals decide that it is time to move away from this lifestyle, those same supports have to available when they move to the city of Summerside or the city of Charlottetown. In no way, shape or form do I think that those services that are being provided to the reserve community should be taken away, but one of my comments would be that those programs and services have to be increased so that, when people finally decide that this is not the way that they want to live their lives any longer, they have supports on the outside. Then it is not a situation where they have to decide to live on a reserve so that they can be supported. They would have that choice. In a lot of cases the supports aren't there once they make that decision to leave.
In some cases it is a life or death decision. When you look at a mother who lives with an abusive man who may be addicted to alcohol or drugs or whatever, and she decides she needs to leave for her own safety and her children's safety, what we are saying is that those supports need to be available for them outside of that reserve base.
Senator Oliver: Paula, do you agree?
Ms. Thomas: Very much so.
The Chairman: In your submission regarding standard of living, article 27, you state that ``Matrimonial property rights are a major issue for Aboriginal women who are forced to leave the reserve due to these types of decisions made by chief and council, without consideration for women and their children.'' You should know that the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights recommended to the government that it move immediately to apply the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is available to every Canadian, to Aboriginal women on reserves in these particular situations. Unfortunately, the government did not move on that report and we have had to file since a second report demanding, in essence, that the government do something about this immediately. Now we are waiting to see whether the minister and the House of Commons move on it.
I think you have put your finger, rightly, on the issue. It is between the federal government, which has a fiduciary responsibility, and the chiefs and the councils, who also have a responsibility to their communities. As a result, we are having trouble getting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to apply. The Convention on the Rights of the Child has rights for children, rights for the families of children.
Do you think that the chiefs and councils are aware of their obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child? Would some recommendation from this committee, that the federal government begin to disseminate information immediately throughout Canada, throughout the Aboriginal community, on the rights that are there for children and families under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, go a long way in encouraging the kind of action on-reserve that is necessary?
Ms. Gallant: I would like to start by commending you for making that recommendation and then for going back and demanding that they follow through with the recommendation. First off, I would like to say thank you.
As per chiefs and councils and whether or not they understand their obligations when it comes to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the rights of children, I am not sure I can answer that question, because I have never experienced being on a reserve or being in such a position. I would suggest that it is not taken as seriously as other issues that are front and foremost when it comes to being a leader in a community.
The Chairman: In your own work as the youngest elected member here — and I commend you for that — have you thought about using the Convention on the Rights of the Child in your negotiations with either the provincial or the federal authorities, and have you used it as an education tool for your own citizens?
Ms. Gallant: I can honestly say that we have never used it in negotiations. I am relatively new — I have been here for only approximately six months — so it has not been taken advantage of by our administration as of yet, but I definitely think that it is a tool that needs to be utilized because I think that more public awareness is definitely needed when it comes to the members of our community. We have done some awareness sessions in regards to children and their rights. They have not been developed based on the convention but on the experience of local experts, but it is something that we as an organization will definitely consider and will definitely move on.
The Chairman: I remember when we never talked about urban Aboriginals. They were almost equated to First Nations citizens and so it was a problem between federal and provincial financing, unfortunately. We did not look at people; we looked at financing and whose responsibility it was. It is really only in the last 20-some years that we have come to understand the fact that so many of our Aboriginal communities are not on reserves. Then, of course, with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we recognized the Métis as part of the Aboriginal group and started to struggle with this whole issue of what is the fact of urban Aboriginals.
In your opinion, what are the key problems that urban Aboriginals face as opposed to all Aboriginals? That is another story about rights and about integration or assimilation and all those discussions we have had about how to go about making a fair relationship between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals. What is the greatest problem urban Aboriginals face? We have heard from northern communities that their isolation has bred the teenage suicide and drug problem, the lack of education and resources. As urban Aboriginals, what is it you face in P.E.I. as your greatest challenge?
Ms. Gallant: One of our major challenges is definition. We find that we engage every day in a battle to define who we are. Those definitions are being imposed upon us by provincial and federal governments and other Aboriginal organizations.
Representation is an issue that is not spoken of when it comes to this province and our Aboriginal people. It is one of those things that we would rather not talk about, usually. That is not my opinion but it is the opinion. We definitely face a lack of resources when it comes to programs and services that are delivered to Aboriginal people. There is a disconnect when it comes to our communities and I think that that has a lot to do with the politics that are played on- reserve, off-reserve — representation — who gets money for which group of Indians. It is sad, but those are realities that we are faced with here in the province. Because we are so small and because I am so young, I guess these are things that we have no problem discussing openly with individuals. I know that they usually do not get discussed but these are some of the challenges.
When they leave the reserve, our people are also faced with, as Paula said, a completely different life, so we have to do a lot of work with individuals. We have had cases where people come to the city of Charlottetown and are just in amazement because there is so much. People struggle with the new lifestyles, the lack of cultural awareness or sensitivity when it comes to making the transition from one environment to another.
We also face discrimination — major discrimination. I face discrimination myself because I do not look like an Indian. There are lots of challenges that we face as Aboriginal people in Prince Edward Island. I would have to commend the provincial government in terms of the work that they have done thus far with our organization. They have been very supportive. As individuals you can support an organization, but it is a lot harder to support individuals standing on their own. There is still a lot of work to be done in terms of people feeling comfortable in their own skin.
Senator Pearson: I think, Jamie, you are an example of the value of youth participation. As you know, one of the principles of the convention, the cross-cutting principle, is the participation of young people. I think, in my experiences working with Aboriginal peoples, this is the challenge: to get the voice of young people magnified to the point where they can have some impact on what is happening within the community. I say that because not only are you young now, but you talk about having your eyes opened at age 16, and of course there is the fact that both of you are women.
I wonder if you have some ideas or some thoughts that we could put into our recommendations, perhaps, about the engagement of young Aboriginal people — the value of participation and what would be useful for us to recommend. Do you have some ideas for us? I think we want a confirmation from you.
Ms. Gallant: I think it is imperative that people listen to what young people have to say. Although I may look young, I have experienced more in my life than I ever anticipated, so a lot of young people bring experiences and stories that really can benefit different discussions and processes such as this. I think that when you are engaging young people you really have to give them an opportunity to wear your jeans and just have a conversation. I think a lot of people get blurred down in that, that it is not about reality. There needs to be reality when you are talking with young people, especially young Aboriginal people, because they will tell you their stories. They just want to make sure that you are listening and that you are listening for a reason.
A lot of our young people are provided token positions because it looks good, but that will not get them anywhere. We have a lot of dynamic, confident young Aboriginal people who can move mountains. It is just a matter of engaging them and ensuring that it is meaningful engagement, that it is not tokenism, such as I experienced at one time. I think that the words and the wisdom of young people definitely can be used to the advantage of this committee and other committees throughout the years.
Senator Pearson: In this structure under INAC First Nations, has the chief and council electoral process been counterproductive in terms of getting young people involved, or is it not relevant one way or another?
Ms. Gallant: I honestly could not answer your question, although Paula might be able to.
Senator Pearson: The chief and council model was imposed as a function of the Indian Act. Therefore, it is an imposed function, and it seems to be that young people have difficulty getting their voices into the governance on reserves.
Ms. Thomas: I know as a young person on the reserve you really do not have much say, but since I have moved off I have been dealing with the Native Council of P.E.I. We have a board of directors that helps runs the council. We have a youth board of directors that is a voting position and helps to make decisions. I find that we can engage youth a lot more strongly and with more passion and conviction in what they have something to say about, because they know they have a vote, a voice.
On the reserve there are functions for youth. Usually you go and tell people what they want to hear and have lunch, or do whatever it is that you are there to do, and then you go home and do not think about it again. I know that, when growing up, I never thought about politics because no one listened.
Senator Poy: Ms. Gallant, you are a chief. Is there a band of which you are chief?
Ms. Gallant: No.
Senator Poy: It is the Native Council of P.E.I.?
Ms. Gallant: Yes. I am the President and Chief of the Native Council of P.E.I. The Native Council of P.E.I. is a community of Aboriginal people from different First Nations: people from all across the country who have moved to Prince Edward Island and who have the need for representation when it comes to their issues, their concerns, their lives and their families. They then become members of the Native Council of P.E.I. and we as a community advocate on their behalf.
Senator Poy: Do they have to join or they are automatically part of your native council?
Ms. Gallant: When we speak on behalf of the members of the Native Council of P.E.I., they are members. But when we provide programs and services, those programs and services are provided to all Aboriginal people, regardless of membership within the organization, because we believe strongly that membership should not allow or disallow you having access to services that are provided for you as an Aboriginal person.
Senator Poy: Would you have a large number of young people on the Native Council of P.E.I.?
Ms. Gallant: Yes, very large.
Senator Poy: Are they very active?
Ms. Gallant: Very active, yes. As Paula said, we have a Provincial Youth Council. We structured our organization so that our youth could have a voice and so that they would have a decision-making body. Our council is made up of two people from each of the three counties within the province. They have a Youth Annual General Assembly where they come together, very similar to our organization, and they make recommendations to our board and to the members of our community. We also ensure that our youth are participants at our organization's Annual General Assembly and that there is a platform for them to engage and to provide direction to the organization for the next year so that they can be involved and so that we are meeting their needs, as well as those of the community at large. We have a very strong youth structure, and they are very active, believe me.
Senator Poy: Paula was saying that as a young person within the reserve you really have no voice. There must be a lot of competition between the chiefs and the councils of the reserves and your organization because young people would want to leave and be part of your organization. Is that right?
Ms. Gallant: I am a strong believer that everyone has a choice. Everyone has the choice to live wherever they choose to live within this province and within this country. So those are not really arguments that we have ever engaged upon. We had said, ``You receive money for these individuals based on structure or whatever, and we would like your support.'' But we have never really engaged in discussions or arguments regarding where someone lives. It is more about representation.
Senator Poy: I am talking about the leadership. Is there conflict with the leadership of the reserves? Would they try to take money away from you, funding and so forth?
Ms. Gallant: We do not get any money. I think there is always a conflict when you work in politics and you live in politics.As Aboriginal people you are borne up in a political society and that's just the way it is. I think that the conflicts that come between the two communities are more about representationthan about conflict between actual individuals. You can gohead-to-head with someone regarding a program, but at the end of the day, when it comes down to making a decision on an individual, that is when you take the gloves off and start to talk as people. I think we all represent our own interests. We all have our own characteristics and needs when we do get into arguments, let's say, but, all in all, we are all here for the same reason. That is the way I look at it.
Senator Poy: Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you. I think we have gone over our time. We appreciate that you have come and been so forthright and frank about the situation in Prince Edward Island. I think you are also good politicians for your cause and diplomatic in the way you describe the relationships. I think that will speak well for P.E.I. and your organization and the children here.
We hope that you will continue to look at the Convention on the Rights of the Child and what role you should play as leaders within your community in furthering the rights that children have under that convention. Hopefully, you will look to our report for valuable suggestions that will be of benefit to you.
We thank you for coming. If you have any other thoughts you want to share with us later, this study will continue for some time, so if you have anything else you would like to add, I would appreciate hearing from you.
Ms. Brenda Goodine, Early Childhood Program Consultant, Early Childhood Development Association of Prince Edward Island: Senators, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today on behalf of the Early Childhood Development Association. The work of your committee and inquiry to support children's rights within Canada and abroad is timely. The last decade has been a very exciting time for individuals who care and educate young children within the early childhood system.
The federal government's leadership in allocating resources and developing programs has provided Prince Edward Islanders with an opportunity to develop new services and supports for young children in our province. Here in Prince Edward Island we have seen children and their families receive much needed support and access to services like the development of family resource programs and the implementation of the publicly funded kindergarten system.
The Understanding the Early Years, or UEY, research project has provided valuable information to support decisions and planning to ensure that our children are among the most prepared for the challenges of the public school system.
In many ways we can take pride in how things have progressed. Collaborative partnerships and working relationships between the federal/provincial/territorial governments and community groups working on behalf of young children have been strengthened and further developed. However, are we truly assuring the rights of every child on Prince Edward Island? We know through valid research that high quality early childhood care and education programs support optimal development of all children regardless of their social and economic circumstances.
Although in Prince Edward Island we have one of thehighest rates of availability to licensed child care, there are only 4,000 licensed child care spaces for approximately 10,000 children. We know that more than 80 per cent of mothers with children under the age of six are attached to the workforce. We live in a time of social and economic circumstances that require families to have two incomes, where possible, in order to assure themselves of the basic quality of life we have come to expect in Canada. It is under these circumstances that the importance and role of high quality early childhood care and education programs becomes most apparent. Early childhood care and education programs are a critical support system and partner for families in supporting the care, education and healthy development of children.
What are some of the critical indicators of a high quality early learning and child care system or program? We know that the training and education qualifications of early childhood educators directly impact on the quality of the program that children receive. We know that the type of environment and resources accessible for children to learn through play-based experiences is another strong predictor of quality. We know that the support and commitment of other stakeholders and partners contribute to that quality.
In Prince Edward Island, we have a dedicated, committed group of 400 educators working in our system; however, current working conditions impede resources to post secondary training. In the last three years, an innovative partnership with the SRDC — Social Research and Demonstration Corporation — through the employment training programs has provided access for early childhood practitioners with three or more years of experience in the sector to achieve an early childhood care and education diploma. In spite of this program, many individuals working in the system are untrained.
Wages and working conditions within this sector remain a barrier and impact the ability of individuals working as early childhood educators to provide and support quality services. A high percentage of individuals working with and without training credentials in the early childhood system are reliant on two jobs to ensure a basic quality of Canadian living. When the adults who care for our children are struggling to meet their own basic needs and maintain a Canadian quality of living standard for themselves, this affects their ability to meet the care and learning needs of children. This has an impact on the quality of the program delivered to children and subsequently, I believe, on the children's right to a quality care and learning experience. We do not have a solid system of well-trained early childhood educators, and those who are well trained are overburdened with the current working conditions. Our most skilled early childhood educators continue to leave our early childhood system for other employment options.
The development of a mechanism to recruit and support the talents and expertise of qualified early childhood educators is critical to ensuring high quality programs. Federal and provincial governments must continue to work together for the ``professionalization'' of early childhood educators by developing quality standards of practice and mechanisms for accreditation and of course by providing the appropriate fiscal resources to ensure a quality-of-living wage.
Individuals, programs and communities have been creative and resourceful in order to provide the best quality of environments possible. In my day-to-day work through the MIKE program — Measuring and Improving Kids' Environments — I have had the opportunity to work with many full-day licensed early childhood care and education programs and stand-alone school-age programs. Through this program, educators have assessed their environments, identified their strengths and barriers, and continue to work daily on improving and achieving a higher standard of quality. However, creativity and resourcefulness only take us so far in achieving quality learning environments for all children. Few spaces or facilities have been purpose-built with universal design principles for the inclusion of all children. Development of regulations and legislation addresses the basic health and safety needs of the children, not the standards of quality required to achieve optimal child outcomes.
The rights of children are not well considered in the economic development of our communities, large and small. I believe that legislation and guidelines are required to support the accountability of municipalities and municipal developers in their responsibility to consider the rights of children. This could be demonstrated by becoming active partners in their responsibility for healthy child development and by supporting families through allocation of green spaces in developing areas — and that these be play and discovery centres, not typical playgrounds necessarily — and design and completion of purpose-built facilities of which the community has some ownership.
Research supports the importance of well-trained early childhood educators and environments as indicators of quality. As I understand from the OECD review, we lag behind other nations regarding our allocations as a percentage of the GDP. In fact, as a nation we allocate 2.6 per cent for our children in the public education system, 6 to 18 years of age, as compared to 0.2 per cent for the preschool years. Lack of financial resources has a direct impact on the ability of communities and provinces to develop and support an early childhood system.
The Early Learning and Child Care Agreement poses an opportunity to strengthen our system; however, it will not assure the rights of all our Island children. The funding levels, as set out under the guidelines of the Social Union Framework Agreement, or SUFA, are based per capita, providing Prince Edward Island with too little funding to create the change required to increase accessibility and availability, address quality concerns and needs, and create a strong early learning and child care system. In the allocation of resources, consideration of a fair and equitable formula is required to ensure that a base of resources is available, regardless of where children live.
Perhaps when we as a nation reconcile the right to make a living with the rights of children, and truly act to support the family of today, we will assure the rights of children today and in the future. Ongoing education is needed on the rights of children and the vision the rights create. Decisions that will impact on the rights of children need to be made because they are in the best interests of children, rather than merely due to political will. Wouldn't it be wonderful if, within 10 years, Canada has created such a strong system of early learning and child care in support of children's rights that we are called upon to mentor and support others at the international level?
I thank you for your time, attention and care for Canada's children.
Senator Pearson: Thank you for coming and for making your presentation. I do not know if you were in Regina a couple of weeks ago when I spoke there on the rights of children in early childhood.
Ms. Goodine: No, I did not have the opportunity.
Senator Pearson: My personal belief is that we should have a system that is available to all, as is the health care system, but not imperative, in the sense that you do not have to send your child for child care. I feel very strongly about children's rights and that children have very different needs in early childhood. Once you hit the school system, the door closes behind you. I think flexibility is needed up until that time in order to respond to the needs and rights of children at that stage.
Children's rights are ``all rights for all children.'' The rights are interrelated, and I feel strongly that the child's right to a family, for example, is extremely important in connection with their rights to early care and learning.
Could you make some comments about the degree to which your organization incorporates the parents, and the child's attachment to his or her parents, within the system?
Ms. Goodine: In a high quality early childhood care and education program, you should see day-to-day interactions between early childhood educators and children's parents. I think that is one of the things that make our system a little bit unique and different from the public education system. Every morning and every evening there is opportunity for parents and educators to develop a rapport, a relationship, and to work together around the care and education of these young children.
I think that when the system is well resourced and people are able to work on that critical partnership and relationship, parents are actively involved in a child's day-to-day education and care in a number of ways, whether it is through special events oropen-door policies that encourage parents to come by at any time. Educators work really hard at being respectful of each individual family unit and responding accordingly. I am not sure if that answers your question.
Senator Pearson: It is part of your policy. I also think that many of your child care workers are parents themselves, of course, so you have this sometimes ironic situation that their children may be in another child care setting than the one in which they are working. I am not criticizing that because I know it is one of the realities. There were two things that we discussed in Regina. The other one was the absence of males from the profession. Do you have any reflections on that?
Ms. Goodine: I think we have two of 400 workers that are male. That would be our ratio.
Senator Pearson: When you talk about the training and so on, I think that is another thing that needs to be taken into consideration: How can you attract more men into the profession as you professionalize it?
Ms. Goodine: I think that is directly linked to the wages and working conditions, which are barriers that the sector experiences right now. I am not sure we have always attracted the most talented and skilled of individuals to the sector due to the conditions of employment. People may come to it and leave it very quickly in order to sustain a lifestyle level that they prefer. I think that I see early childhood care and education programs as a very strong partner with today's family. I am a parent myself and was extremely and forever grateful for the early childhood educator who was part of our family life for an eight-year period. When my youngest child thinks about the important people in his life, she is one of the people at the top.
Senator Pearson: I do not think it is necessarily contradictory, but I think we have to remember that we are talking about all rights for all children.
Ms. Goodine: Yes, all rights for all children. My concern is that in the regulated sector we do have some standards and guidelines, but I suspect we have a lot of children being cared for in unregulated care; and that is not to say that those caregivers are not skilled and very high quality individuals, to some extent. At the same time, I do not think they have a support system to do the best they can and so I have a concern about those unregulated situations where people who are unaware of local regulations may be caring for more children than they should be. What does that impact on, then, and how do parents understand what to look for in terms of quality?
Senator Pearson: A lot of that goes to education.
The Chairman: You say there are 4,000 licensed child care spaces in P.E.I. for approximately 10,000 children. The 4,000 licensed care spaces do not take into account all kinds of child care that may be informal; is that correct?
Ms. Goodine: That is correct.
The Chairman: Those spaces are provincially regulated?
Ms. Goodine: Yes.
The Chairman: So any care outside of that — having a friend or a mother or grandmother care for your child — would not be in those 4,000 spaces?
Ms. Goodine: That is right.
The Chairman: You say about 10,000 children require spaces. Is that the number of children in that age category or have you done some sort of survey to prove there is that shortage? In other words, I am trying to figure out how many children are between ages one and five in P.E.I., and how did you come to the number of 10,000?
Ms. Goodine: We have approximately 10,000 children, as I understand from the last Stats Canada results, between the ages of one and five. The 4,000 licensed child care spaces include our kindergarten system, licensed family child care, as well as group licensed care. All I am saying is that there are 80 per cent of our mothers with children under the age of six, approximately. More than 80 per cent are in the workforce, but we do not have 80 per cent of the children because those 4,000 spaces also include school-age care and after-school care.
The Chairman: I guess that is where I find it a little confusing. You are saying that 80 per cent of the mothers with children are attached to the workforce. How do you come to the conclusion, then, that those 80 per cent of mothers require licensed day care? That is what your submission leads to and I am wondering how you came to that conclusion.
Ms. Goodine: Well, that would be a bias on my part, obviously. We know that not all families have a choice and access to licensed child care. Do we know for certain that parents do not want licensed care for their children? I think that is another question that we need to ask of parents.
The Chairman: It has been a long time since I have heard someone refer to the Social Union Framework Agreement. We heard a lot about it when it was being negotiated. I have just looked at some research that came out recently from one of our think tanks in Canada saying the Social Union Framework Agreement is dead, in essence, is not being used by governments, that it is time to move on to something else — or not.
You seem to still put some weight on it, but in a negative way, because you are saying that the Social Union Framework Agreement had a bias against you to start with; is that correct?
Ms. Goodine: Well, that is my understanding and interpretation of agreements and covenants in trying to understand why we only get this much of the pie when resources are allocated. They changed the social transfer system and we now have the Social Union Framework Agreement, although when you read the agreement it is hard to shake out what it really says or does not say. As a community organization, we are told these are the reasons why we get the resource base we get.
Senator Oliver: We are a Senate committee and Senate committees do a couple of things: One of the things they do is develop new public policy; another thing they do is look at possibilities for new legislation. The thing that caught my eye in your presentation was when you were talking about the third level of government. We have the federal government, the provincial government and the municipalities; you are making certain suggestions for legislation for municipalities. We are a federal committee representing the Parliament of Canada, and under the Constitution Act there are some things for which the federal government has the powers, and other things, the provincial government. I would like to look at your proposal for legislation and guidelines that are required to support accountability of municipalities and municipal developers in their responsibility to consider the rights of children. You say, ``This could be demonstrated by becoming active partners in the responsibility for healthy child development and support of families through allocation of green spaces for play and discovery.'' Would that be a federal power or would that be more the property of civil rights under a provincial power?
Ms. Goodine: I would expect that you would know better than I where it fits. I was looking at it in terms of having to put all ideas on the table. As a community group we rely on the support of others to help us identify how to translate this information. It seems like at a federal level we can articulate certain things, but it rarely trickles down to the local level. We still have some work to do to help municipal governments understand what their role and responsibility is. You hear in the media about federal transfers coming to help with infrastructure of communities and that kind of thing, so as a Senate committee, do you have any influence on how those resources can be allocated? That would be my question back to you.
Senator Pearson: I understand your point fully. The second part of what you say concerns design and completion ofpurpose-built facilities. Can you tell me a little bit about a purpose-built facility? What does that entail?
Ms. Goodine: It means taking our young children and child care programs out of the basement of buildings or off the second floor of buildings and giving them facilities that are built with them in mind. Such facilities have lower windows, are barrier-free so that a child, whether developing in a typical way, physically, or having some mobility challenges, can access the environment with ease. We have a lot of facilities. Again, communities have been well intentioned and owners of programs have made the best use of the facilities to which they have had access. Very few programs have been developed in Prince Edward Island for a facility created with them in mind, so we have a lot of physical structures that have been adapted, and they have not necessarily been adapted to be accessible and universally inclusive of all children.
Senator Pearson: I am interested in the phrase, ``purpose-built facilities.'' Would there be booklets and brochures that would actually list and define and elaborate on purpose-built facilities for children, which recognize the needs and rights of children?
Ms. Goodine: A specific publication does not come to mind, but I know of other provinces in Canada that have done a lot more work than we have here on Prince Edward Island. The first province that comes to mind would be British Columbia, in the City of Vancouver. They have done some work around some design principles. I know there are some building architects, as well as landscape architects, looking at creating play spaces and building structures with young children in mind, regarding how spaces can most meet children's learning and play needs.
Senator Pearson: That is really fascinating.
Senator Poy: I would like to ask a question about the early childhood educators. You said you have a committedgroup of approximately 400, but you also said that wages and working conditions within this sector remain a barrier and impact on the ability of individuals working in this sector.Do these 400 individuals have teaching diplomas and are they recognized as teachers?
Ms. Goodine: Not all of them, no.
Senator Poy: Only some of them?
Ms. Goodine: Only some.
Senator Poy: So their pay would be very different from those with teaching certificates or teaching degrees?
Ms. Goodine: That is part of the challenge of our sector. There is not a great deal of difference between the hourly wage received by somebody who has training and qualifications and that received by somebody without training and qualifications.
Senator Poy: They all get the same?
Ms. Goodine: Pretty close. It ranges. There would be maybe $1 or $2 difference in the hourly rate of pay.
Senator Poy: Can you give us a comparison between the pay of someone in early childhood education and someone who is teaching, say, in the kindergarten system?
Ms. Goodine: The kindergarten system is part of our early childhood system and I think their hourly rate is somewhere around $12 an hour, bare minimum. However, if you teachfour-year-olds and you have an Early Childhood Diploma, your wage may be $8.50 to $9.50 per hour. There has been an allocation of resources that has allowed people teaching certain age groups to receive more pay than others.
Senator Poy: This is because of the provincial government?
Ms. Goodine: The publicly funded kindergarten system runs for three hours a day. If I am working in the system and I am teaching kindergarten for three hours in the morning, I get $12 an hour. But if I am working in the afternoon with a group offour-year-olds, although I am using the same teaching abilities, for a different age group, I probably earn less.
Senator Poy: Are these facilities licensed by the provincial government?
Ms. Goodine: Yes.
Senator Poy: You were saying that there are inconsistencies in the facilities, because some would be better than others?
Ms. Goodine: Yes.
Senator Poy: Because of availability?
Ms. Goodine: Based on availability. As well, a lot of programs are privately operated and would be renting facilities available within the community. Very few have been purchased and built. We have very few non-profit programs in Prince Edward Island. I know that is a little bit of a national debate: Should the system be all non-profit or should it be private sector?
In Prince Edward Island, in reality everybody is non-profit. In a lot of communities, if the local church has space, they have rented their space out for the child care or kindergarten program. It is not that the church hall is a bad thing; it is just the program is often in the basement. It is often down a flight of stairs. Often there are no windows. Children do not necessarily have access to the typical things that they need.
I live in the largest growing town in Prince Edward Island and we just went through a core development vision for our downtown area. When planners were asked the question, ``What about the early childhood care and education program?'', because they had envisioned a new junior high, a new senior high, a new church and all sorts of things, their first response was, ``Well, that will be in the basement of the church.''
Senator Poy: ``Early childhood'' means age four and under?
Ms. Goodine: Early childhood care and education in Prince Edward Island is for children of age five and under.
Senator Poy: Age five and under.
Ms. Goodine: Kindergarten is part of our early childhood care and education system.
Senator Poy: But then kindergarten would be under the provincial program?
Ms. Goodine: The funding, yes. Parents do not pay for kindergarten. Parents are still required to pay for care for children of age four and under.
Senator Poy: What is the percentage of private facilities compared to government-funded facilities? You mentioned that some of these are privately run?
Ms. Goodine: Most of our programs on Prince Edward Island are privately run.
Senator Poy: They are licensed by the government?
Ms. Goodine: They are licensed by the government, and those that offer a kindergarten program are provided with funding from the Department of Education to support the kindergarten program.
The Chairman: When you say ``private'' and then I think you used the term ``not for profit'', by ``private'' do you mean someone who either opens their home or hires a space?
Ms. Goodine: Yes.
The Chairman: They could or could not make money on that, I guess. Would not-for-profit facilities continue to turn the money back into the facility?
Ms. Goodine: I guess I see it a little bit differently.``Not-for-profit'' here tends to be a program that is operated by a board of directors in a non-profit entity; whereas ``private'' or the commercial sector would be an individual who often is an early childhood educator and has decided to open their own program, rents a space, hires people and offers a program after they go through the application and licensing process.
The Chairman: So the 4,000 spaces would include both, then?
Ms. Goodine: Yes.
The Chairman: All right. Because I think you made the comment ``not-for-profit'' and then you said something about ``private'' and you said, ``Well, I do not think they make much money.'' Is that the point you were making?
Ms. Goodine: That is the point I was making, yes. I think they are all in a non-profit state, if you were to look at their books.
The Chairman: Is there much discussion in the community as to child care and whether or not there should be more incentives to help families at home or to improve the day care? In other words, is it the topic it used to be in some communities? Or is it more difficult for you to capture the public in a debate? You just told us about your town going through a whole redevelopment. When you asked the question about where the early childhood development program would be, they answered, ``In the basement.'' Is that indicative that early childhood education is not high up in the public debate, that perhaps health and other issues are debated more in the community?
Ms. Goodine: I am not sure we have done a great job of connecting with parents of preschool children, to hear their voice and what they think. Part of it is the circumstances they find themselves in. They are busy working every day. Most of these public meetings tend to be held in the evening, after-hours, when parents still have child care issues. We have a sense from our affiliate organization in Ottawa, the Canadian Child Care Federation, which has done a parent poll, that the majority of parents want access to licensed child care for their children if they have to be engaged in work or in the education system.
I would expect the same is true on P.E.I. Does it mean that people want a variety of options? Most definitely, because a large child care program may not be the option for every community. We have fishing communities that require more access to child care spaces from May to October than they do the rest of the year. We still have not done a great job of meeting the seasonal needs of families and wrapping supports around them, in terms of their situations.
The Chairman: Just for the record, could you tell us what the minimum wage is in P.E.I.?
Ms. Goodine: I will need help with that — it is $6.80.
The Chairman: One of the other issues that we have run into is the whole issue of mental health in Canada. We do have another Senate committee studying the issue; but Senator Pearson and I, for example, sit on the legal and constitutional affairs committee, and as we change criminal law and as we deal with youth, we find that a lot of the problems are mental health issues that are not addressed until these young people grow to the extent that they come in conflict with the law. Then, of course, they get trapped in the system or they get in a criminal system, when in fact the roots of their problems were, in many cases, either behavioural problems or mental health problems at the front end.
We were told recently in a piece of legislation that there simply are not the resources and the support systems to identify the problems of children early; or in other cases, when schools and caregivers identify the problems, there certainly have not been the resources for children. Yesterday we heard that we seem to tend to view drugs as an answer, rather than all the other behavioural and mental health solutions there could be. Can you shed any light on whether P.E.I. is facing any of these problems? If not, what is the greatest child care issue regarding the child, as opposed to the system, which you have told us about quite adequately.
Ms. Goodine: In my day-to-day work with programs, certainly their challenge is to meet the unique needs of children. We view every child as having a special need. We have mechanisms of funding in place to support us in caring for some children with special needs, but children who may be exhibiting some behavioural or emotional difficulties challenge programs. Do they always have adequate resources and support systems to follow through with that? I do not believe so. A lot of development and work has been done in recent years. P.E.I. is a small place and that is an advantage for us. Once relationships are forged, we can work together pretty quickly. But I would say that is an area where we are still trying to find adequate resources to help educators provide the best support possible.
The Chairman: Do you have a problem with fetal alcohol syndrome that is sufficiently noticeable to be a cause for concern?
Ms. Goodine: I would consider it a hidden problem. I am not sure that we always get clear diagnoses. Sometimes we have to operate on the premise that this might be one of the contributing factors to the child's difficulty. It is more within a spectrum; a child may have subtleties of behaviour that challenge people. We have had access to some information and training, and that is building. Certainly more could be done.
Senator Pearson: I am interested in the fact we heard this morning, and you mentioned it again in your report, that Prince Edward Island had been an Understanding the Early Years site. Did it cover the whole Island?
Ms. Goodine: Yes.
Senator Pearson: You must have received some very interesting data from that. I think one of the things they were intending to do was to demonstrate what kinds of programs and community supports were in place for children.
Ms. Goodine: Yes.
Senator Pearson: I think a child care system is still unclear in many people's minds, but I think you are looking at a whole variety of things, ranging from the drop-in centre for parents to the full-time group day care. Is that not right?
Ms. Goodine: Yes.
Senator Pearson: It is across the whole spectrum and I think that is an important thing to emphasize. I think that is what fits best to the varying needs of children. We have just heard from the Aboriginal community about the Aboriginal Head Start,on-reserve and off-reserve programs, the Community Action Program for Children, the Canadian Pre-Natal Nutrition Program. How do they figure into your data about licensed spaces?
Ms. Goodine: They would not be considered licensed spaces. The family resource programs are not licensed child care spaces, so any work that they do with families would not be included in those 4,000 spaces. The on-reserve Aboriginal program right now would not fall under the provincial legislation, although we are collaborating and working together.
Senator Pearson: The off-reserve Head Start program was funded by the federal government. Do you have any of those programs for Aboriginal communities?
Ms. Goodine: No.
Senator Pearson: I got the sense that you did not.
Ms. Goodine: We have a Head Start program. There has been a Head Start program for a lot of years, but it is universal to all children.
Senator Pearson: It is not an Aboriginal Head Start program, although I know there had been some funding for those kinds of programs. With the new monies that are coming with the child care agreement, there is also a large amount set aside — $100 million, I think — for Aboriginal programs. I think it is exciting to have an opportunity to be able to map everything, because I think that it points out that when we are looking at early childhood we are trying to put in place a whole variety of pieces. One would hope that there would be coordination among them. When you talk about working mothers, it may be that they have husbands at home or men at home who are looking after the children. There is a bit of a role change here.
Ms. Goodine: Actually, in the Understanding the Early Years research, there are some pieces of data that point to the fact that children who have fathers home seasonally, caring for them part of the year, are actually achieving higher scores on the EDI scale than those who do not have that access and support.
Senator Pearson: That is interesting. I like to think that we are actually moving ahead, even though I know there is a whole lot left to do.
Ms. Goodine: It feels like it is standing still sometimes.
Senator Pearson: There is a whole lot left to be done but it is an opportunity to educate the public. You were saying that you do not actually know how many parents really want child care. You can say it generically, as the Canadian Child Care Federation does, from a survey; but if you look at Prince Edward Island, and some of us look at our own children and grandchildren, we know that there are some parents who do not particularly want it. What you want is access for all who want it.
Ms. Goodine: That is right. As a province, we are looking at how to maintain the Understanding the Early Years kind of data, because this project is coming to an end. It is done as of July 31. It has been valuable and in many ways it feels as if we are just — to use Jamie's phrase — ``getting comfortable in our own skin'' and learning how to use the information. The way it has been delivered to us will change, so, hopefully, there will be some way to do that.
Senator Pearson: I commend the Early Childhood Development Association of P.E.I. and the Canadian Child Care Federation for having developed so many materials that actually relate to and incorporate the convention and help people to understand their part. It is always a little harder when you are working with very small children to help them understand what their rights are and to remind the workers in their training that this is something at which they need to be looking. It is certainly something that we are encouraging, but I know that the federation has already done an excellent job. Hopefully, all its members are using their materials.
The Chairman: Thank you for coming this afternoon and giving us a picture of Prince Edward Island from the early learning perspective. I hope you will follow our work and our recommendations about the Convention on the Rights of the Child and, in a broader sense, the needs of the children in Canada. So thank you for your input today.
Ms. Michele Pineau, Prince Edward Island Association for Community Living: I would like to start by thanking you on behalf of the Prince Edward Island Association for Community Living and also on behalf of the Autism Society of Prince Edward Island. On behalf of my colleague, Bridget Cairns, I would like to thank the standing committee very much for this opportunity to present our perspective on where Canada is in terms of children's rights and freedoms. We appreciate opportunities such as this in democratic countries such as our own to have a voice and essentially to take on a bit of a voice for those who do not have as much of a voice as some of us are fortunate enough to have. So thank you very much for this opportunity.
To get into the content of what we are here about today, it is our position that Canadian legislation has progressed considerably in addressing its obligations towards children with disabilities. I will name a couple of examples: Tax initiatives such as the Child Disability Benefit have been a welcome relief for families of children with disabilities; and the development of a national early learning and child care strategy that has universality and inclusion, among other major guiding principles. At the same time, there are numerous and varied challenges in evaluating whether or not Canada's legislation is truly meeting its international obligations in regards to the rights and freedoms of children with disabilities. We feel this is mainly due to jurisdictional and ministerial boundaries. However, this has a particular impact on monitoring obligations on key issues such as education, health care and service delivery. We feel effective collaboration between federal, provincial and territorial governments is essential in ensuring that these obligations are being met in an inclusive, comprehensive and consistent manner.
To speak to these challenges, we are finding that a lack of consistent and current data, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, itself, and Canada's reporting and monitoring present particular challenges for conceptualizing, if you will, and meeting the obligations of children with disabilities. Further, the gap — and when I say that, it is sometime a narrow gap and sometimes a rather large gap — between legislative policy and actual practice is an issue for children with disabilities and their families. This, too, varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from ministry to ministry.
Next, we have some items on data and statistics.
Ms. Bridget Cairns, Director, Prince Edward Island Association for Community Living: One of the things that is really hard to monitor is how well Canada is doing. When research is done, it is really hard to compare one methodology to another. It is very difficult for us to determine that. It is also the definition of a disability; ``intellectual disabilities'' sometimes merge with ``learning disabilities'' and with ``mental health.'' To monitor that I think we need to come up with universal definitions of certain disabilities so that we can then monitor them through different types of research. That one definition would definitely help everybody. That suggestion has been made but I guess it has not yet been followed through. I believe that the concluding remarks in Canada's second periodic report requested that we provide more comprehensive data in regards to programs and services. Unfortunately, that has not happened, so if the Senate would consider that, it would help us greatly. I think it gets difficult when you consider what other countries determine to be an intellectual disability or a learning disability. It is a big challenge but it would definitely be a lot easier to monitor our progress.
Article 23 is where we would fit in as the Association for Community Living, though if we are looking at monitoring the rights and freedoms of all children, I would hope that we would not be excluded from all the other articles.
Regarding article 6, despite the commitment to respect the life of each child, genetic testing is still happening for children and if they are diagnosed, or there is a prognosis of a disability, there are opportunities for terminating the pregnancy. We really need to put some kind of emphasis on the rights of the child in article 6.
Article 9 states that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will except in cases of abuse. Unfortunately, children with disabilities are institutionalized, and I think we need to protect the rights of those children under article 9 as well. So if we could help families and/or caregivers where the rights of the child prevent them from being led them into an institution, I think that is where we need to go.
I would hope that we would emphasize article 28, the right of the child to education, including children with disabilities. ACL's primary goal has always been inclusive education, so if we could somehow get that in there, that would be wonderful. There are some articles where disability is excluded. Basically, we fit into article 23, but we would like to see disabilities incorporated somehow into all articles of the convention.
Some key issues here on P.E.I., more specifically, include families being means-tested, so if they have a moderate family income, usually they are not eligible for disabilities benefits, which then leads to exclusion and poverty for families, alongside the disability. There are lengthy waiting lists for children's services. Children do not seem to be getting the support or the early intervention necessary to provide them with the opportunity to lead a full life as best they possibly can. There is age discrimination for children's services. Once you attain school age, you basically lose all services; children stop being able to have a full, inclusive life in the education system.
Even though we are in Canada, there is a huge gap of language capacity. A lot of therapists and support staff do not have bilingual capacity in Canada. We really need to promote that, because there are francophone families who are not getting support in the language of their choice.
On P.E.I., the Department of Health and the Department of Education seem to conjoin as the child comes of age and it is a battle of who is responsible for the child. It really affects families and the rights of children.
Do you want to jump in with your specific recommendations?
Ms. Pineau: Yes, I will comment on the lack of bilingual capacity, in reference to official languages. Albeit we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which secures public school education, without early intervention as a basis for the foundation years, public education is almost inaccessible, even though it is a guaranteed right. We are also seeing sometimes a deterioration of the collaborative model in that early intervention is a team approach, but sometimes we see the team eroding away, bit by bit; that is a concern and we do not know how to remedy that. Looking at consistency of services across departments may help.
We also hold the position that early childhood educators, in general, and special needs assistants and IBI therapists for children with autism spectrum disorders, in particular, are grossly underpaid. I think the national child care strategy will address that, at least to a certain measure. But we feel that the labour injustice needs to be looked at. It is not only a labour injustice but a disservice to our children with disabilities, as well.
Further specific recommendations for improved respect for children, particularly children with neurological developmental and intellectual disabilities, would be periodic and independent auditing of services. By that I mean service delivery models and also the effectiveness of the services themselves. If there could be some kind of mechanism put in place for a periodic and independent review process, then that would be a tremendous benefit.
In respect to autism, diagnoses are increasing at an alarming rate in that the prevalence of autism in Canadian society now outnumbers Down's syndrome, childhood leukemia and diabetes combined. We feel that there needs to be a national strategy developed to address this phenomenon and that this strategy must look at causes and research, cure, or improvement protocols. But it must also strive for forthright and consistent sharing of best practices, continually revisiting our service delivery models, because this is a field of rapid change in learning and theory. We have to keep up and we have to continually strive for excellence in a pan-Canadian approach, seeking to include the expertise of international professionals.
Here in our own jurisdiction, we feel that children are being denied their rightful universal access to Canadian health care. A number of human rights complaints remain unresolved on the table, some of them dating back a number of years — three years — that have not yet been heard. Most children are facing one- to two-year wait lists. We know the value of early intervention, and early intervention is not happening, essentially. When a child receives an initial diagnosis and then is told to go home, well, the parents obviously are told to go home and read and, ``We will be in touch with you in a couple of years' time.'' That is where we are.
I would also like to speak for a moment on minority linguistic rights in terms of general education as a right, and also in terms of the education of children with disabilities. I am sure it is similar throughout all of Canada, but in Prince Edward Island it is our position that there must be comparable infrastructure programs and services for both official language groups. This is an issue as much for preschool children as it is for schoolchildren and, in fact, for communities in general.
We are always struggling to find how we can guarantee these rights for the preschool group. They do not quite seem to fit into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or we haven't found a way that we can sell that. All too often the Association for Community Living finds that the linguistic minority is required to sacrifice either infrastructure programs or services, or both. Adequate infrastructure and programs are essential and they need to be there. A linguistic minority group should not have to choose either/or, is what I am trying to say. The intent of article 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not that minorities must choose which they want: education in their official language of choice or adequate facilities and comprehensive and varied programs of study and services.
We are seeing two alarming phenomena, really, out there in the community. We are seeing parents having to fight, and I mean fight, for linguistic rights for their children, oftentimes having to go as far as the Supreme Court of Canada. We are also seeing parents choosing the option of the linguistic majority rather than their first language, so as to have access to adequate infrastructure and high quality, varied and comprehensive programs for their children. This is especially so in order to access supports for their children with disabilities.
Ms. Cairns: Currently we are meeting our obligations under the CCRA, but as Michele said, theories and practices are two different things, and it depends on the jurisdiction. So we are saying we are headed in the right direction, but we still need to make improved steps to meet the needs of our children.
Senator Pearson: Thank you so much for coming. We are really pleased to have someone representing the rights of children with disabilities. It is a very challenging and moving area. It is fast moving as well as being emotionally moving. It has evolved a great deal in my lifetime and in the right direction, I must say. You have pointed out that autism and things like fetal alcohol syndrome are disabilities that have increased in the last few years and present special challenges.
I have a question to Michele about the French language population of Prince Edward Island.
Ms. Pineau: I am thinking that it is in the vicinity of 6 per cent. Maybe not quite. I should have verified that. At the same time, we have had a very effective assimilation process in Prince Edward Island due to anglophone dominance and due to what I colloquially refer to as ``systematic and institutional assimilation.'' There are a great many Islanders of Acadian and francophone descent who no longer speak the French language, unfortunately, so it does somehow depend upon how you qualify it. I am thinking of the French-speaking population, however, and we are somewhere in the vicinity of between 4 and 6 per cent of the population.
Senator Pearson: Do you have a French language school board?
Ms. Pineau: Yes, we do have a very effective French language school board here on Prince Edward Island. It is a provincial board, so it covers the Island tip to tip, which presents various challenges in its administration; but it is doing a wonderful job and I am very, very pleased with the services that we have received at the school-age level through the French language school board.
Senator Pearson: Is that relatively new? Has it always been there?
Ms. Pineau: It has been in place. We have gone through a period of consolidation and the closing down of small schools. Through that process a great many of the French language schools closed and were consolidated into larger, English-speaking school facilities.
The French language school board, as we know it now, has been in existence since the 1980s. Education evolves over time, as we all know, and the Minister of Education makes periodic changes. For instance, I can remember when we had five school boards on Prince Edward Island and we are now down to three: two English boards and one French board. We went through a period of time when there was not a French school board, and now we do have one again. It was before my time of having children that they were very effectively established, but I am pretty sure it was in the 1980s; I can certainly look that up and report back to you.
Ms. Cairns: I will jump in here to be the advocate and take the other side. Families with children with disabilities are now choosing to enrol their children in French school. Unfortunately, the schools do not have the capacity to support that. They are willing but they just do not have the capacity. Because of not seeing the need for our children's therapies and whatnot, unfortunately, they just do not have the bilingual capacity. We have a lot of children who are in a French school where there is legislation to state that they can only speak French in that school. The school has to make an exemption for the student and have therapies and programming in place in English, so parents have to make the sacrifice of doing that. It makes it a very hard relationship between schools and parents because they are so fixated and the number one policy is that it is French only. We have to fight for and advocate for the parents.
The Chairman: Are all services for disabilities now available in Prince Edward Island? You no longer have to go off the Island to get them?
Ms. Cairns: Some parents do continue to go to the IWK Health Centre in Halifax.
The Chairman: They do, still?
Ms. Cairns: They do. There is a shortage of physicians. Retention is very hard for us in Prince Edward Island, so we have a bit of an issue with our therapists and speech therapists. We have a lack of speech therapists on Prince Edward Island. It is an issue of staff retention.
Senator Oliver: I think you have given a very good, comprehensive paper with some very practical directions to the committee on things that we should look at putting possibly in the form of recommendations of one kind or another. To quickly summarize, you said that there is a lack of current and consistent data and that is something that we as a committee can look at. You said there is a lack of consistent monitoring of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is extremely important; that there is a serious gap between the legislative policy and the practice for the disabled; and that we need to have a national strategy and to look at our service delivery model, particularly for the disabled. Those are some of the concrete things you have said.
What I want to ask you to elaborate on is the very last sentence in your paper and your very conclusion, and it is a bare-bones conclusion. I would like you to give us, as a Senate committee, something specific to hang our hats on. In particular you say, ``The federal government must take a more active role in coordinating a national effort to realize the rights for all children that are secured under the CRC.'' What specifically did you have in mind by a more active role in coordinating a national effort?
Ms. Cairns: In terms of that, we take the word ``inclusion'' as a key word.
Senator Oliver: I did not hear what you said.
Ms. Cairns: The word ``inclusion'' seems to be the word that is used in policies, to include children with disabilities and other minorities. Unfortunately, the policies and practices are not focused on the inclusion of children with disabilities. We were hoping to have a national inclusive disability agenda from the federal government that would then be monitored and coordinated through transfer payments and policies and practices of provinces and territories.
When federal dollars are allotted and transfer payments are made to the provinces and territories, it is then up to the minister responsible to take that money and assume where it is going within that realm.
Senator Oliver: Are you saying you want to have conditions put on that? You tell me; I like your words.
Ms. Cairns: I think, politically, you said it better.
Ms. Pineau: I think putting on conditions is a tricky area to go into but direction is what is required. Direction and guiding principles are what I think may bring us more consistency across jurisdictions and a true pan-Canadian approach to include children with disabilities and family support in policy in future legislation or in revisiting current, existing legislation.
Ms. Cairns: Right. For example, we have legislation that says all children will go to neighbourhood schools with their siblings, which is basically inclusive education. Unfortunately, there are cases where you can get into the definition of ``inclusion,'' or ``inclusive,'' where the child is in the school but not participating with their classmates in the school system. They are being pulled into rooms and segregated and there is not a lot of direction to bring them back into the classroom at the appropriate time. So even though policy states that children with disabilities should be included in the regular classrooms with their classmates in their neighbourhood schools, the actual practice of that is not happening because the policies, procedures and resources available are up to the principal at that school.
Senator Oliver: In the education example you have just given, is that not a provincial right under a provincial education act and, if so, are you saying that the only way that the federal government can have some say and give some direction, to use your word, is in relation to the transfer payment?
Ms. Cairns: I think that could be one way. There needs to be a federal/provincial/territorial agreement on the rights of children in terms of inclusive education, employment and whatnot, not just, ``Okay, this is for education,'' and the money is transferred and then it is up to the provinces and territories. If we are looking, nationally or internationally, at the rights and freedoms of children, we need to really focus where the resources and funding are going, because children are being segregated. Parents are pulling their kids out of schools and developing home-schooling opportunities, so there are kinks in the system that I think the federal, provincial and territorial governments can and need to sit down and iron out.
Senator Oliver: Do you know if there are any federal/provincial groups or agencies looking now at the drafting of the very thing that you two are talking about?
Ms. Cairns: The Canadian Association for Community Living has been working for 50 years with the federal government, and then we have our provincial and territorial bodies that have been working with our government bodies on this.
Senator Oliver: On drafting some language for direction?
Ms. Cairns: On asking the federal government to lead the way in coming up with a national disability agenda.
Ms. Pineau: To just add to that, I think the approach that our national federation is taking is submitting position papers and that type of thing, so I do not know if we are quite at the point of drafting legislation so much as still basically advocating. That is the level that we are at now. Just to add to what Bridget was saying, my own perspective is that I will be the first to admit I do not necessarily have the answers. It is far easier to pick holes and find where the gaps are than to come up with concrete solutions. Maybe that is for another day, a day that we do not have eight meetings back to back.
Senator Oliver: It is part of our job as a committee, and because you are the experts, we are asking you to give us some direction, that's all.
Ms. Pineau: I think a really good example is the national child care strategy. I think that is a perfect example of the type of approach that we would like to see, in that it is all encompassing; it is pan-Canadian in its approach; it is inclusive. We are drafting agreements between the federal government and every province and territory, and that is really something to be celebrated and something to be built upon as well.
Senator Oliver: I did want to say that Senator Poy and I have given several speeches in the Senate of Canada, trying to raise awareness of autism, so it is not something that has gone unnoticed in the Senate. I just wanted to add that and I am sorry she is not here.
The Chairman: On the first page of your brief, the last sentence, you say the CRC, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, is the first and only legally binding document to address the rights of children within the UN framework. Well, as this committee has found out, it is not legally binding on Canada as yet. We have signed and ratified the treaty, but it has not formed part of our law; parts have and other parts have not. It is a very legal argument. I heard you say to Senator Oliver that you thought it was a legally binding document and that you could see the government taking the lead for all the provinces.
Our committee will be struggling with whether the government should take all steps with the provinces to make it legally binding, or whether at least they should be more consistently applying the convention, so we are in that kind of a debate. I think one of the difficulties is that Canadians have not understood what ``ratification'' means. Could that be where you were trying to answer Senator Oliver, saying that is where the lead is, because it is a binding document, where in fact it is not?
Ms. Cairns: Duly noted. I learned something today.
The Chairman: Based on that, have you spent much time within your association discussing the Convention on the Rights of the Child? I laud you on starting your discussion, which is one that I am very much taken by, and on looking at the international perspective and judging that Canada is doing quite well. However, for a developed country, we should be doing better, both externally and internally.
Have you spent much time within your association on the Convention on the Rights of the Child and speaking to the government as to why they haven't put it into full force and effect? You said you have pulled out article 23, so you have been working with that article, as opposed to the whole convention?
Ms. Cairns: The dynamics of P.E.I. are such that because we are so small and there is a lack of resources, we rely heavily on our federal group, the Canadian Association for Community Living, for statistics such as this because we are more concentrated on the day-to-day stuff and supporting families, in a reactive mode. Michael Bach, our executive vice-president, has been working closely with the federal government, as well as Diane Richler from Inclusion International. That is a body that supports us and actually educates us on more of the expansion outside Prince Edward Island walls. We do work and we meet quarterly, so that is when we then get educated on the bigger picture of children with disabilities' rights and freedoms.
The Chairman: How long have you been working on identifying autism? Have you taken that up in the last couple of years because of the increasing caseloads or was it signalled earlier than that? In other words, is it a five- to 10-year problem to you, or is it a five-year problem?
Ms. Cairns: I guess we can just age our children and then know where we are at. We are both parents of children with autism.
Ms. Pineau: To my knowledge, the first diagnosis in Prince Edward Island was in the vicinity of 12 years ago. We have had rapid growth since then. I think the alarm has been going off during the past five years, for sure, here on Prince Edward Island. Having said that the first diagnosis was 12 years ago, it is without question that there have been many non-diagnosed children — now adults — living in Prince Edward Island institutions who have autism spectrum diagnosis and therefore did not receive any intervention services.
Ms. Cairns: Or they had received a diagnosis of mental retardation only, with no identification or diagnosis of autism.
Ms. Pineau: Along with building capacity in terms of intervention services, we have also gone through a process of building capacity in the diagnosis of different disabilities. There was a lack of capacity up until a certain point in time.
The Chairman: You said autistic children in the past probably were not diagnosed and now, as adults, are institutionalized?
Ms. Pineau: For the most part.
Ms. Cairns: We do have institutions on Prince Edward Island. There are other people in community care facilities, which, as parents, we call ``mini-institutions.'' Currently, others are being placed in manors when they are age 40, because we just do not have the vision any more, I think, to buy into community living. We need to rejuvenate that so that the other is not a practice. The legislation says that people have the right to live in their own community, in their own home; unfortunately, institutionalization is still happening across the world.
Senator Oliver: Have these people, the 40-year-olds, been re-diagnosed scientifically, recently, where it was determined that they are autistic?
Ms. Cairns: I do not have numbers on that. I would say the diagnosis would have stayed as a mental retardation or developmental delay.
Senator Oliver: But you know that they are autistic?
Ms. Pineau: Just in layperson's terms, we feel strongly that that is an occurrence.
Ms. Cairns: We could have to convince the families of that individual or convince that individual to get re- diagnosed, and I think that would be onerous.
The Chairman: In some cases we were told, under the area of mental health problems, that perhaps they could be in a more ``community'' setting if there were housing for them. Is lack of housing part of the mental health problem or is it the fact that they need the kind of supervised, institutional care that leads them to the more closed kind of setting?
Ms. Cairns: I think there is a lack of planning for the individual.
The Chairman: Planning?
Ms. Cairns: Yes. Some of them do not need support; some do need support; some do have mental or emotional disabilities alongside of intellectual ones. I think, because it is soperson-centered, that it would have to be lack of planning. Obviously, there is a lack of housing options to support an individual's personal needs.
Senator Pearson: I worked a fair amount with Michael Bach and I have huge respect for him and his capacity to conceptualize. I know that Sherri Torjman of the Caledon Institute is working on the Advisory Committee on Disabilities to the Minister of National Revenue. They are looking at tax benefits and those kinds of things, so there is movement to develop a national disability strategy. I think it is something to put into the Public Health Agency's discussions.
There is quite a lot of open discussion going on now around public health goals in Canada. It is supposed to be a national discussion and therefore each province is having a chance to put in something like that. I think one of the obvious goals would be the inclusion of children with disabilities, in the ways that you have been describing. It is a process that I encourage you to take part in, and one way you can take part in it is logging on to the Public Health Agency website. I am not sure of the exact details, but you are probably better on websites than I am.
One of my opportunities with the Canadian Association for Community Living was to attend their meeting in Ottawa a couple of years ago where young people were self-advocates, so I wanted to make some comments about the participation of young people with disabilities in decisions about them.
Ms. Cairns: On Prince Edward Island we do have P.E.I. People First. They have their own board of directors and support staff. That is basically what every parent of a child with a disability wants: their child to have their own voice, and if they do not have the capacity to speak, that they are supported to express their views. It is essential that self- advocates actually have their voices heard.
Prince Edward Island is looking at school improvement and student achievement and I thought it was just great, everybody was basically saying the same thing. Then a student stood up and said, ``Why aren't you consulting with youth and the students if you want us to achieve?'' It is so essential. You can consult with us on student achievement, but you really need to speak to the students. In terms of adults with disabilities, I think it is essential to speak with individuals. When we are talking about our children, I guess the families would be the main focus there. I think self- advocates will bring a great perspective on what it was like back then, and where we are now. They can probably actually do some measuring for us, in a more general sense, of where we are and what we have achieved so far.
Senator Pearson: When these young people speak, they do a lot to break the stereotypes.
Ms. Cairns: They do and they actually surprise us a lot. They understand it a lot more than we give them credit for, so it is great. I know that the Canadian Association for Community Living has put together a Youth Speak group. It is made up of youth, with and without a disability. It is nice to see today's youth who are without a disability willing to participate and to take time to commit to disability issues. We have some great leaders coming up.
Senator Pearson: Your association deals primarily with children with developmental or —
Ms. Cairns: This is where we get into the definition of an intellectual disability. We usually advocate for families of children with Down's syndrome or autism. There is a Cerebral Palsy Association; but their P.E.I. executive director is not well currently, so we have taken on that capacity. Children with epilepsy did not exist, but now they do, so we do not turn families away.
Senator Pearson: Do you have any version here of the association called PLAN, Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network? It is a wonderful organization based in Vancouver that has been developing family networks. It is a whole way of developing the network for parents with children with disabilities who are getting older. The parents want to make sure that various things are in place for their children, for when their children are no longer children, obviously, for when the parents are no longer there. I highly recommend it. It is a very imaginative approach.
Ms. Cairns: We are actually planning on meeting with families for a two-day family networking, starting September 25. P.E.I. has a huge number of aging parents still caring for their son or daughter at home. We have identified up to about 400 individuals. Unfortunately, there is no plan in place.
Senator Pearson: I am sure that PLAN must also have a website. I am trying to think of her name — Vicky. She just received a meritorious Canadian award for the work that she has done with her disabled child. Her child is what set her off, as it often does. It is a very good plan. It has been supported by the McConnell Foundation, so if you cannot get the information from PLAN, get it through the McConnell Foundation, which is easily accessed.
Ms. Cairns: We are trying to change legislation for families because we cannot leave trusts or wills to our sons or daughters currently. We are trying to do some stuff for our seniors.
Senator Pearson: They may have already developed some best practices and can give you some ideas.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your brief. As I said during my intervention, I am pleased that you are putting your difficulties, your organization, in a world context, and I thank you for bringing the particular perspective of P.E.I. to us.
It has been very helpful because we try to touch on different areas of the convention, and you have helped us focus on the disability issue in a way that we have not before. We thank you for that and for the work that you are doing here.
The committee adjourned.