Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 3 - Evidence, May 29, 2006
OTTAWA, Monday, May 29, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 4:04 p.m. to examine and report upon Canada's international obligations in regards to the rights and freedoms of children.
Senator Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Good afternoon senators, and a particular welcome to our two witnesses, Jennifer Lamborn and Cindy Blackstock. I understand, Jennifer, that you would like to begin first and then we will hear from Cindy, after which the senators will have questions to put to you.
Jennifer Lamborn, Research and Policy Support, Native Women's Association of Canada: Good afternoon. I would begin by thanking the committee for allowing the Native Women's Association of Canada to appear here today. ``Meegwetch'' for that. We are here to discuss Canada's international obligations with respect to the rights of children. I will be direct: The status of Aboriginal children in this country demonstrates that there is still much to be done.
As I have only a short period in which to speak with you today, this is not the forum to fully describe the socio- economic status of Aboriginal children in Canada. To summarize, research tell us that, compared to other children in Canada, Aboriginal children are more likely to experience poverty, to suffer health problems and to be placed into child welfare care. In short, the research tells us that Canada is not fulfilling its international obligations when it comes to Aboriginal children.
The question then becomes, what should be done? Canada must adopt a holistic approach that recognizes the full range of children's needs. From an Aboriginal perspective, a holistic approach is one that promotes the four principles of being: that is, mental, emotional, physical and spiritual. It should be noted that the Convention on the Rights of the Child reflects this Aboriginal perspective as it specifically mentions the physical, mental, spiritual, social and emotional development of children.
Like the four principles themselves, the rights of the child are interdependent. Canada must not make the mistake of satisfying one set of rights to the exclusion or neglect of others. Therefore, in recognition of the interdependence of rights, NWAC believes Canada must immediately address the following two issues: First, ensuring an adequate standard of living for Aboriginal children and, second, protecting the culture and identity of Aboriginal children.
Recent statistics tell us that three out of five Aboriginal children under the age of six live in poverty, that 41 per cent of Aboriginal children off-reserve live in poverty, and 44 per cent of on-reserve dwellings are considered inadequate. Based on this information, Canada is clearly in contradiction of article 27 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which affirms a child's right to an adequate standard of living. Furthermore, article 27 directs states parties, in accordance with national conditions and means, to implement measures to assist parents in fulfilling this right.
Canada recently announced a 2006 budget surplus of over $600 million. Canada then does have the resources to work towards improving conditions affecting Aboriginal children in this country. Not only is the money available but a strategy has been developed. The Kelowna agreement of November 2005 set aside $1.6 billion over the next five years for housing and infrastructure for Aboriginal people.
Now, having addressed my first point regarding standard of living, I would like to turn to protecting the culture and identity of Aboriginal children. Right now, Aboriginal children are severely over-represented in child welfare care. Thirty to 40 per cent of all children in care in Canada are Aboriginal. To protect their culture and identity, Canada must eliminate the over-representation of Aboriginal children in child welfare care. The over-representation of Aboriginal children in care violates two articles of the convention; specifically article 8, the right to preservation of identity and article 20, which affirms the child's right to their family environment.
It is imperative to understand that the child welfare crisis is entirely preventable. Poverty, inadequate housing and substance misuse are the key contributors. Two of these causes, then, are structural, meaning that they are largely outside of parental control. As such, improving housing and infrastructure, which was my first appointment, as per the Kelowna agreement, will also serve to decrease the number of Aboriginal children in care.
Last, Canada must also increase funding for what is known as least disruptive measures of child welfare. These are programs that provide support to parents which, in turn, permit children to remain in their homes in a safe environment. This too will decrease the number of Aboriginal children in child welfare care.
To summarize, NWAC believes that the Kelowna agreement should serve as a foundation for future strategies. Adhering to the spirit of the agreement is Canada's best course for fulfilling its international obligations with respect to children. NWAC was encouraged to learn that Paul Martin recently introduced a house bill that seeks to implement the Kelowna accord, and we do hope that the Senate will do everything in its power to support this bill.
Again, thank you for allowing NWAC, the Native Women's Association of Canada, to appear before you today. I will close by saying that we would be happy to help the committee with anything in the future to do with the rights of children.
The Deputy Chairman: It is our pleasure to have you before us, not just yours to be able to come.
Cindy Blackstock, Executive Director, First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada: Good afternoon honourable committee members. There are more First Nations status Indian children in child welfare care today than there was at the height of residential school operations.
For every Canadian who reflected back on that time and said, ``I would have made a difference, had I known,'' your chance is now.
As I recently stated to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights at the United Nations, observing international commitments around culture means being able to define what your culture is and to grow up with members of your group. In Canada, we have one of the few race-based pieces of legislation in the world — the Indian Act. That signals the beginning of the relationship of Aboriginal children and the Government of Canada. When Canada measures blood quantum to determine which are status and non-status Indian children and then issues status cards to those who meet the sufficient criteria, it might sound like an overstatement but it is a statement of fact. We have normalized this in our country. Of course, it is not mandatory because countries such as New Zealand have other ways of respecting self-identification for indigenous people, but in Canada, this is not the case. My comments are regarding status Indian children, and therefore the matter I present will be within the sole jurisdiction of the federal government to make a difference.
Many of you have heard about the overrepresentation of Aboriginal children on numerous risk factors, and no doubt many of you have said, ``If I knew the solution, if we had the resources, if it was supported by the First Nations, we would do everything possible to make it happen,'' and so, it is all true. We know that 10.23 per cent of status Indian children in four sample provinces are in child welfare care. That means that 10.23 per cent of the entire population of status Indian children were away from their homes as of May of 2005, compared to about 0.5 per cent for non- Aboriginal children. The reason for that is neglect, and many of those issues that contribute to neglect in Aboriginal families are outside of parental control.
Then we ask the question: ``What can we do about it?'' The Department of Indian Affairs provides funding for status Indian children on reserves according to a funding formula known as Directive 20-1. That directive applies in every region except Ontario. That formula was developed in the 1990s, and has not been substantively amended since that time.
It is important to understand what the formula does fund. It provides unlimited funding for First Nations child welfare agencies to remove children from their homes. It is then that you assume that removal is, of course, a last resort. It is for every other child in the country, but not for First Nations children on reserve, because the department provides next to no funding for families to safely care for their children, even though, one, it is the right thing for the situation these children are in and, two, it also makes the most economic sense. Many of the First Nations agencies will tell you that it is not a problem to get $300 a day to put a child into foster care, but try to give $25 to a family so they can afford to feed the child and keep him or her safely in their home, and it is not possible under the current formula.
With those challenges ahead, last year First Nations agencies and a series of 25 researchers came together to develop a solution. It is documented in the report Wen: De, The Journey Continues, and it measures the shortfall in the current federal funding formula, which is $109 million per year for First Nations children on reserves. This is a shortfall in meeting the bare comparability of what is provided to non-Aboriginal children. This is not to make up for the impacts of residential school, but to ensure that these children have the same opportunity to live safely in their homes — $109 million.
What happened with that? The Assembly of First Nations unanimously agreed with that solution. Therefore, here we have a problem. We have a solution that was jointly developed by First Nations, it has unanimous support amongst First Nations communities, and we have a government running a $12-billion surplus. Yet, as you know from the last Speech from the Throne and having been informed through internal sources, there is very little indication that this inequity will be redressed. You can say to yourself: ``How has this situation gone on for so long? What have First Nations done about it over the years?'' They have been advocating for a decade for a review of the formula, and one was completed in 2000, with 17 recommendations which were never implemented. This subsequent Wen: De report contains an evidence base of over 500 pages of evidence gathered by the best researchers in the country and costed out by one of the most esteemed economists, Dr. John Loxley from Manitoba.
It is my feeling that failing to implement this solution will not only perpetrate another crisis on a generation of First Nations children who, not unlike their ancestors, are growing up away from their homes and families unnecessarily. For me as a Canadian, it calls into question the very assumptions of what we as the Canadian people hold most highly. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantees everyone equal benefit under the law. We say we do not discriminate on the basis of race. We want to give children — especially those who are most vulnerable — every opportunity. If we as a country know that this mass removal of children is happening, that it is unnecessary, that we have the solution, that we have the money to do it, and yet we do nothing, what does that say about us as a country? What message does it send to all children in Canada?
People will say, ``What will you do? What else is needed for the change to happen?'' Unfortunately, First Nations children and families on reserves do not have the same access to redress mechanisms as non-Aboriginal children. The provincial advocates of child welfare have no jurisdiction over the federal government. As you are well aware, there is no federal children's commissioner. The Human Rioghts Commission, under article 67, prohibits anything coming forward under the Indian Act. As a result, we have a situation where children and families have no recourse to redress the human rights violations other than the courts. Those children who experience the most grievous human rights violations are denied access to redress systems that would most help them bring their cases forward to the Canadian public to have them redressed.
The good news is that that can change. If the federal government were to implement the Wen: De recommendations, based on the estimate of an $8-billion surplus, a smaller percentage under a surplus of $12 billion, we estimate it would cost the Government of Canada 1.5 per cent of the budget surplus to fully implement all of the recommendations and ensure that these children live safely at home. We also feel that it would save Canada money to resolve its jurisdictional disputes between the provinces and the federal government to ensure that every child, regardless of race, has equal access to child welfare services. It is something that First Nations communities want, and it is something that embodies those things that we hold most highly about Canada.
Government faces many priorities about its budget every day and it is difficult to make decisions, but surely abused and neglected children should rank near the top of those priorities. You have a chance to make a difference. I hope Canada will.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you for your presentation. We will now turn to questions from the senators.
Senator Kinsella: First of all, I want to say thank you to our distinguished witnesses. I was pleased to hear Ms. Blackstock tell us that your organization participated in Geneva as a non-governmental organization. Was the committee before which you appeared examining Canada's report under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights?
Ms. Blackstock: It was.
Senator Kinsella: I think it is fantastic to see Canadian non-governmental organizations making the effort to give testimony before the human rights committee; both the committee that deals with the economic and cultural rights and the committee responsible for the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In my opinion, clearly, the UN international system is only as effective as the non-governmental organizations make it. I extend my congratulations.
In the past, that committee has drawn attention through its criticism of Canada's failure to comply with the economic, social and cultural rights covenant, and, in particular, focused on child poverty. I think it helped to move the issue to centre stage, but then it receded.
How do we keep these things on the front burners? As we are focusing here in this committee on the compliance by Canada on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, what strategic advice would you give us?
Ms. Blackstock: I would recommend a number of things. One is that serious consideration be given to the establishment of an oversight body on children's rights at the federal level. I know your committee has considered that and looked at the model of the New Zealand children's commissioner, who investigates both systemic and individual complaints. The value would be if they emphasized systemic complaints, because individual complaints can be dealt with in the regions, according to provincial child advocates. It provides an opportunity to identify systemic issues to which the government would then have an opportunity to respond.
The second opportunity is to educate members of Parliament and fellow senators about the issues that are confronting First Nations children and other Aboriginal children and, more important, the fact that there are solutions for those pieces. It is about all of us bringing our skills and knowledge to the table to ensure that those solutions are implemented.
Perhaps the third measure is to continue to ensure that the discourse about this situation continues, and that things such as the Human Rights Commission's exemption under section 67 be re-evaluated. Why is it that there is a blanket exemption on the part of the Human Rights Commission for anything to do with the Indian Act? It does not make any sense.
Senator Kinsella: My supplementary question is to that particular point. There is nothing stopping any member of the Senate from rising and presenting a bill to propose an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to simply repeal that section.
What is your sense as to the consensus in the Aboriginal community for the removal of that exemption, in other words the non-applicability of the Human Rights Act under the operations of the Indian Act?
Ms. Blackstock: We are not a representative organization. We are a service organization. Most people want to see the gross inequities that exist with First Nations addressed, and that includes non-Aboriginal Canadians.
There is an interest in having a valid forum outside of the courts to hear this matter and encourage government in a stronger way to implement solutions.
My own view, and the organization's view, is that we would see the lifting of the exemption under section 67 as being the first step in that direction.
Senator Kinsella: I recall the process involved at the officials' levels in the drafting of the Canadian Human Rights Act and was never satisfied then, as an official, as to the rationale for doing this, but it is similar to the reservation under the children's convention, which is article 21, I believe. Would you share with us your views as to whether Canada should go about the business of removing the reservation that we have with reference to the children's convention?
Ms. Blackstock: Is that with regard to adoption?
Senator Kinsella: It is and with Aboriginal children.
Ms. Blackstock: That came up at the last periodic review of Canada before the Committee on the Rights of the Child.
One thing that it is important to understand is that amongst the different programs the federal government funds, and adoption for First Nations communities is not one of them, there is no accessible funding for them to develop culturally-based adoption programs, although there is great interest in doing so. There have been some enormously successful pilots, such as the custom adoption program developed by Yellowhead Tribal Services, which was funded by the province and which has had enormous success. One thing that we have been saying to Canada is that the first step in removing that proviso is to support Aboriginal communities in developing adoption programs, and that would include for First Nations on reserve. That would involve the federal government expanding the current funding directive to provide adequate funding for adoption, and once that is done, that type of prohibition should be removed. It is not that Aboriginal communities do not want to do it; it is that they need the resources to do it well.
Senator Munson: I am new to this committee, but not new to the issues of Aboriginal youth. As a reporter, I first covered the story at Davis Inlet, and had the first video out, and thus was sensitized to that issue, especially after working in China for five years and seeing the poverty there, then coming back to my own country and seeing the unacceptable poverty in our own backyard. That was in the mid to early 1990s, and I am still astounded. I recently went out West and talked to Aboriginal youth at a hotel there. Thus, for me to play a role with other colleagues on this committee is very important. I hope we come up with a new report so that we can do something more than simply what is always the case — as I found out as an ``accidental'' politician — merely, a lot of talk. However, we do not seem to move a great deal on many different issues.
Aboriginal children living off-reserve is an issue, and it is a serious one. They have few resources and so on. I would like to ask about them. What role do you see, for example, in the Convention of the Rights of the Child in resolving some of these issues for off-reserve children? We do not know how many there are, and they seem to disappear through the cracks. There is a lot of talk about them but not much in the way of effective legislation for dealing with them. I know the situation was addressed in the Kelowna accord, but that seems to have passed us by.
Ms. Blackstock: You are right. The situation of Aboriginal children living off-reserve deserves a lot of attention. Even in child welfare, we know from the Canadian incidence study on child abuse and neglect that at least 60 per cent of the children identified as Aboriginal in that study coming to the attention of child welfare workers were off-reserve. One key component in the observation of the convention is to ensure that Aboriginal children have their rights respected under article 30, which gives specific recognition to the importance of indigenous culture in the form of culturally-based services.
We have an excellent model evolving in Manitoba where there are four authorities that will deliver services in child welfare off-reserve: one that is a non-Aboriginal authority, one that is for southern First Nations, one that is for northern First Nations and one for Metis people. The wonderful thing about it is that if you are a Metis person, you can choose to be serviced by the Metis authority, or you can choose one of the other authorities as well. That goes for every client. It reaffirms the ability of people to be serviced by the organization which best reflects their own culture and the culture of their children.
The second thing it does is exercise a little bit of quality control because you can then make a choice about which authority you have the most confidence in to deal with these difficult issues. We would like to see an expansion of that type of innovation across the country.
There are only three other off-reserve Aboriginal child welfare authorities. Otherwise, people are serviced by the mainstream authority. There is one in Vancouver, an evolving one in Victoria, Native Child and Family in Toronto and Mi'kmaq child and family services in Nova Scotia. We would urge that attention be paid by the provinces and by this committee to fulfill their obligations to ensure that those children have culturally-based child welfare services.
I do not know if my colleague has anything further.
The Deputy Chairman: I would like to speak to that particular point. I come from Manitoba, and I have been a strong supporter of the establishment of the child and family services system there. You have been addressing the issue of resources, and one fundamental problem that is coming to light in the system in Manitoba is that there has been an inadequate resource and training base for the workers within the system. Now when there are some so-called failures, blame is being placed on the Aboriginal child and family agency instead of the blame being placed where it should have been in the first place, namely, the inadequacy of the establishment of the child and family agencies in the first instance.
There was one glaring incident where 800 cases were turned over to the child and family Aboriginal agency in a 24- hour period. When some of those cases fell through the cracks, it was not the Government of Manitoba that was blamed; it was the Aboriginal child and family service agency that was blamed.
I would like you to address the fact that when we establish these new, innovative systems — and I am all in favour of them — we must make sure that we adequately fund them at the same time.
Ms. Blackstock: That is absolutely true. Your point is well taken. There are two elements of that of which to be mindful. The provinces have not provided a lot of in-depth, culturally-based services for Aboriginal people off reserve, so when an Aboriginal agency opens up, it typically experiences a great deal more demand. It is not a question of just transferring the existing envelope; it is about increasing that envelope to meet the needs of the greater population that will be accessing the services.
The other element is that the provinces are working in the context of a provincial child welfare agency, so they can rely on the Attorney General for different types of support. An Aboriginal agency off reserve does not have that same type of infrastructure. Therefore it needs to be supported in terms of building that support into the cost formula.
Nice Trocmé, from the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect, did some analysis in the Wen: De report. He makes the argument that if you compare an Aboriginal child with a non-Aboriginal child, the needs of the Aboriginal child, in terms of the demand on the child welfare system, are twice as many. There should be twice as much funding to meet the needs of an Aboriginal child than for non-Aboriginal children in the same circumstance. It is a very important issue.
Senator Munson: It is interesting; we have our suggested questions here and we have other ideas. This past weekend, I was in Toronto and I ran into a Toronto Star photographer. He mentioned to me that if I ever had a chance to talk to someone in the Aboriginal community, I should ask a question. I have gone up to Northern Ontario with Mr. Bartleman and worked with different programs up there. The photographer suggested that I ask a question dealing with the difference between young Aboriginal women and men.
Has there been such a study? Do Aboriginal women have a better chance of success in the society in which we live? Do they have role models? He seemed to be saying to me — this is anecdotal — that the women seem to have a better chance with role models and programs to get out of the cycle of not having much in the way of education, and moving on to become doctors, lawyers, nurses and builders within the community, as opposed to young men, who seem to be living in rough times and do not seem to have the same advantages. Is that a fair summation or is it not?
Ms. Lamborn: To be honest, I cannot answer your question. The Native Women's Association of Canada deals primarily with grown women, although we do have a section that deals with youth. We do have some fantastic young women who volunteer with our organization. One of them recently won a Governor General's award. We have an overwhelming number of women looking for scholarships. However, as far as a study goes, I do not have an answer for you.
Ms. Blackstock: Senator, I can add a little bit to that answer with regard to child welfare. As part of the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect, we wanted to see if there were differences in the situations between male and female Aboriginal children in the child welfare system. We found that there were not a lot of differences between those populations for the purposes of that study.
Aboriginal women, on the whole, are doing better in the education system. This is not isolated to the Aboriginal community. It is true of non-Aboriginal people as well in Canada in that the efforts of the women's movement made in the 1960s to support the next generation, which would have been young women of my age, has paid off and we are ending up with a more highly educated female population in comparison to the male population. We will have to invest in the boys to ensure that they maximize their potential as well.
Senator Munson: In another incarnation in my life, I worked for a short period of time as a consultant between CTV and the Prime Minister's Office to help out on the First Nations Governance Act at that time. I was asked to help deliver the message. What I discovered in my three or four months of consulting there was the degree of the commitment by the department and by the ministry, and the number of people who wanted change. I also noticed within the main leadership of the Aboriginal community the idea of accountability and being open about everything, not necessarily having chiefs appointing who gets what, and so on. That never happened, obviously, with that act. It never saw the light of day.
Is there anything to give you hope today that, perhaps by taking bits and pieces of that act, in terms of accountability, the Aboriginal community can help itself by governing within itself?
Ms. Blackstock: Overall, First Nations have enormous reporting mechanisms. I think that the Auditor General was just before one of the esteemed committees here, saying that in addition to producing audited financial reports on an annual basis — done by accounting firms which are qualified to do that — they must issue other types of financial reports. That is true of First Nations agencies as well; they issue those reports on a monthly basis. There is also accountability to the community itself in delivering child welfare services.
I am also putting forth the idea that accountability is an important issue for any government. We all need to be accountable, especially with dollars that are channelled for children. This applies to the Government of Canada as well. Why is it that the Government of Canada is comfortable at the moment with underfunding status Indian children by $109 million in child welfare services? This is an accountability question. It speaks to the obligations of the Government of Canada, pursuant to the non-discrimination provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child; its obligations under the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and, perhaps most important, under our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees every person — and we would hope most especially children — equal benefit under the law.
In our research, we talked about evaluation for First Nations agencies. Everyone across the board who participated in the First Nations agency survey agreed with that. They want to know that they are making a difference. No one wants to hide from accountability. They want the resources to be able to provide those services to their community members in such a way that no community member can say that no one can imply that we deserve less simply because of our race and place of residency.
Senator Munson: What will change with the $109 million?
Ms. Blackstock: With the $109 million, First Nations families on reserve will be given the same opportunity to care as safely for their children as do non-Aboriginal people. That service that my colleague mentioned, the ``least disruptive measures?'' Under most child welfare law, you must exhaust every alternative before considering removal. Those services are funded by the provinces, but not by the federal government under the funding formula. The federal funding formula provides an unlimited amount of funds to remove children.
There has been no cost of living increase in the federal funding formula for First Nations agencies since 1995, and the measure we have discussed would redress that shortfall. One can surely imagine that if we are starting with a limited pool and there is no cost of living adjustment, we are falling further and further behind.
It would also include some important components to assist with accountability. One of the things that communities have been saying is that we need to collect data in order to be able to understand if we are making progress. Some First Nations agencies are still on pen and paper while others have computer systems, but we need to bring those up to standard so that those agencies who are on the pen-and-paper regime can not only track their own data but contribute to a national pool of data where that type of analysis can happen.
That is a sample of some of the recommendations.
Senator Poy: You mentioned earlier on, Ms. Blackstock, that over 10 per cent of children are removed from the homes of First Nations families, but in the general population that figure is under 1 per cent. Do I understand that correctly?
Ms. Blackstock: That is quite correct. We had disaggregated data from four sample provinces. As of May of 2005, 10.23 per cent of status Indian children were in foster care, compared to .67 per cent of non-Aboriginal children.
One thing that was staggering to me was that even though non-Aboriginal children in these three provinces composed over 93 per cent of the population, in raw numbers there were more Aboriginal children in child welfare care. In Manitoba, close to 80 per cent of the children are in child welfare care. It is a real challenge.
Senator Poy: These foster homes, are they First Nations foster homes? I am trying to think what kind of foster homes they are put into when they are removed.
Ms. Blackstock: That is an excellent question, and it raises the issue of what is known about these children. Sadly, provincial child welfare data systems vary greatly. Very few of them actually capture cultural match of placement. However, in the Canadian incident study we were actually able to do a little bit of comparative analysis between Aboriginal children on and off reserve, and it gives us the first glimpse of what is happening with First Nations agencies.
The good news is that First Nations children on reserve were three to four times more likely to be placed with community extended family than the same child off reserve. Therefore we can see that these agencies, despite all these barriers, have been greatly successful at keeping these children in their home communities. It also makes the argument that we need to really support off-reserve communities in order to have that same access to those types of services.
Senator Poy: As far as foster homes are concerned, if it is off reserve do you think maybe there is a lack of these foster homes of First Nations families that come forward and say they want to be foster parents to the children? Do you think that is a possibility?
Ms. Blackstock: It is interesting because that same quandary arose when First Nations agencies were established. It is true that when you are working with impoverished communities, it is difficult to find people who are in a position to care for other children. I will give one example from British Columbia. For over 50 years they had been operating the provincial child welfare system, and providing services to the First Nations community. Then at the time they transferred the mandate, they had five Aboriginal foster homes. Five years later, the First Nations agency had over 90 foster homes because they get a different level of support, they have relationships with community members and also they were able to utilize their existing resources to amend policies where necessary.
I am not talking about safety standards here. For example, you might have a standard under the provincial government that says the child cannot share a room. I do not know about you, but I grew up for 14 years with my sister under the lower bunk, and that is not a safety issue for many children. Why not amend it, if it means that a child gets to stay in their home? Agencies have been innovative on that particular piece.
Senator Poy: With respect to the numbers of children removed from their homes, can you expand on that? Why are there so many removed from their own families?
Ms. Blackstock: I would argue, on the basis of the data, that it is for two reasons. One is this inequality. If you provide no money to families when they are in crisis and wait until the crisis gets bad and then remove the child, but provide unlimited funds to keep the child away from the family, that does two things: First, it ensures that a greater population of children go into child welfare care, and probably stay there because of the lack of the services that the family has to try and redress the situation. Second, we must understand that we need to make sustainable investments in housing, poverty reduction, as my colleague said, and substance misuse services for Aboriginal people. In providing child welfare we need to measure risk, not only at the level of the child, not just at the family level but also the societal risk. We as child welfare providers, and perhaps other Canadians as well, need to develop solutions that integrate those three levels of risk. Currently, we focus on the family only.
Senator Dallaire: I will take my question from a little farther out and then come closer to home.
About five years ago, I was giving a speech in which I said, among other things, that Canada was a nation that had no colonial past. At the end of my presentation, a nice lady from the First Nations stood up and said perhaps I had forgotten about our history with the First Nations. Therefore I would consider that we have an extensive colonial past vis-à-vis our First Nations, and that our whole philosophy is still a colonial, paternalistic philosophy. We have not shifted from that. This runs contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the child rights under the UN Charter and all its extensions.
Taking it from there, I was very much involved for years with one of the social development priorities that Minister Maria Minna brought into CIDA, which was called child protection. That involved an extensive series of activities that we perform internationally to assist in child protection. When I sought to find out how we actually take that experience from the field and bring it home, versus taking any experience we had had at home, perhaps through learning our lessons with our First Nations and adapting them for overseas, I found that there was a lot of research going on about how we handle people overseas, but next to nothing going on here.
My question is: Should we not be looking at an outfit like CIDA to consider opening up a venue other than simply Indian Affairs and the provincial structures in order to bring some innovative and potentially more in-depth assets to some of these complex problems?
I will end that question with the following: When the genocide was ongoing in Rwanda, one of the first things I received from the international community was that they wanted to save the children. There was a big push by NGOs and governments to export the kids out of Rwanda. I took a firm position that I would not permit any of the children to be exported because I could get a lot more out of the monies that would be provided to fly the kids out. In other words, if they gave me that cash, I could help a lot more kids inside the country.
This sounds like the same scenario that we have here. Therefore I am asking you whether we should be involving another set of parameters in attempting to bring some other dimensions to this problem?
Ms. Blackstock: I would say that my greatest hope and comfort for this generation of First Nations and Aboriginal children in this country is that many communities already have the solutions. It is now a matter of giving them the same level of resources so that they can implement those solutions.
I was at a gathering recently where some non-Aboriginal NGOs in child welfare were talking about all the things that they could do for Aboriginal children, and that was most appreciated. However, one of the elders said to me that these NGOs do not realize that we already have the solutions. They do not need to come up with solutions. They need to support us in getting the resources so that we can implement our own best solutions.
That is not just an opinion. It is supported by research. We know from Cornell and Colt at Harvard University that the higher the degree of self-determination by indigenous communities, the more sustained their socio-economic outcomes. Many of you have probably heard of that research, or saw the presentation made by those two individuals.
Michael Chandler and Christopher Lalonde, from the University of British Columbia and the University of Victoria respectively, looked at the issue of Aboriginal youth suicide. They found that, in British Columbia, 90 per cent of the suicides were taking place in 10 per cent of the First Nations communities. Why? Some of those communities actually had a zero per cent suicide rate. What possibly could be the difference? We had similar experiences with colonization, as you probably know. The answer was that the higher the degree of self-determination in that community, as expressed by women in government, First Nations control over child welfare, fire and police services, education and health, those were the communities with the zero to low suicide rates. The ones without such standards had the very high suicide rates.
I have the great honour of collaborating internationally with other indigenous peoples. We formed the indigenous subgroup on child rights, which is the first international focus point on indigenous child rights. We share information there. I think the very first step is to recognize that these communities have all worked hard to come up with their own solutions.
Given the situation that these communities are experiencing, it is a credit to First Nations communities that not more children are in care, despite the number of 10 per cent, as tragic as that is. I would say that we should invest in the solutions that have already been developed.
Senator Dallaire: To be quite honest, I am not sure what your answer is because the international development effort is in fact structured to provide empowerment and to build capacity in those nations, and not to make them dependent. That is the angle I was coming from.
My second question concerns the empowerment of women to a greater extent in the decision-making and in the solutions to which you referred. I am not sure that cash is the solution but rather the maturing of a process in which the women's involvement could be far more dominant than potentially what is already evolving.
Ms. Blackstock: You are right about CIDA. They provide funding for communities around the world for international development. As a first step, they work with the community to develop a sustainable community development plan. We do not do that with First Nations in Canada. In regard to economic and social development in First Nations communities in Canada, what we do is we roll out federal programs. I will say today that the Aboriginal Head Start program is what you need. People take advantage of that opportunity. However, it may not be a priority in their community.
As a first step, we need to provide funds to communities to do that sustainable planning and then resource it according to their own priorities. That is my comment on that particular piece. I think that would make an enormous difference in the communities themselves. They would be able to respond to local priorities. It would also affirm their own responsibility and accountability in implementing solutions for kids in order to make a difference.
Senator Dallaire: One of the solutions to many of the conflicts we find within Aboriginal communities around the world is the lack of not only cash but the brain power and effort behind the philosophy of international development. Am I to understand that if the funds were made available, the structure that the ministry has and how it presents all its cases would permit that leap ahead in solving many of these socio-economic problems? Or is there something more to it than that?
Ms. Blackstock: Of course, it is more complicated than that. Where communities have been given the opportunity to develop prevention programs and least-disruptive measures, the benefits have been substantial in terms of reducing the numbers of children who come into child welfare care over time, and also in terms of economic benefits. It is more economically feasible to place supports in a family than to remove the children and place them into more expensive institutional forms of care.
Academic research and evaluation show that where people have had that opportunity, it has had positive outcomes. Of course, as you probably know, many First Nations communities have never been given that opportunity.
Senator Dallaire: Some communities are matriarchal while others are not. In the male-dominated communities, as opposed to the matriarchal communities, do you see more of a problem in regard to the abuse of children or the reaction to children, including the sexual exploitation of girls, and so on?
Ms. Lamborn: The history of colonization has broken down many of the traditional matriarchal societies. Even in the societies that had strong women leaders, they are still working to rebuild that aspect within the patriarchy. Violence against women and children is a problem across the board. I am not sure if I can delineate clearly between matriarchal and non-matriarchal societies because they have fallen apart over the years. They are only now starting to rebuild. Thus it is difficult to answer your question in the way you pose it.
Senator Dallaire: Out of the body of study, has there come a requirement to empower women and to provide them with more capabilities within those communities so as to build some of these solutions?
Ms. Lamborn: I am from the Native Women's Association of Canada. We are one of five national Aboriginal organizations in Canada. Our mandate is to work specifically with First Nations and Metis women in First Nations and Metis societies and within Canadian society as a whole. We have a great number of programs to empower women, such as those which provide funding for training and employment. We do a great deal of work on violence against women. Our organization is represented at the table with other national Aboriginal observations to empower women. That is our focus. We do everything through a gender lens.
That work needs to be done. It is ongoing. There is still a great deal to be done. The fact that we have one national Aboriginal organization that focuses specifically on women is a good move forward.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: My concern is this. Once the money is allocated to the natives for additional funding for the welfare of children, is there someone who will ensure that the money goes to such a program? I ask the question because, often, the money goes somewhere else because those in charge are able to do that.
Ms. Blackstock: This same query comes up in different forms, as you can imagine. What is often said is, ``We acknowledge the inequity but, if we redress it, will it be used properly?''
Let me say that there is more accountability in place for First Nations than there is with regard to the transfer payments that are issued to the provinces for children's issues. With those payments, there is no requirement for any accountability, including a financial report on whether those funds benefit status Indian children in the child welfare system. First Nations agencies issue to the Department of Indian Affairs, at minimum, a monthly financial report and an audited statement by an independent auditing firm. There are also the contribution funding agreements with Canada that specifically spell out the terms of how funds are to be used within the ambit of that contract. With that degree of assurance, I am not too sure what additional things could be provided.
By and large, First Nations agencies have performed amazingly well financially. If anything, it should be an encouragement to say that we have had that degree of compliance and we should move forward with confidence to redress this inequality. We know there are First Nations agencies out there who can make a difference for these children, and we have the accountability mechanisms already in place.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: My other question concerns child abuse. I have been getting letters from people across Canada concerning sexual abuse of native children. If a complaint must be made, they make it to the First Nations social committees, but then many of those look the other way. I also found that in many cases the RCMP do not want to get involved. I think there should be something put in place to obligate the RCMP to look into this abuse of native children.u
Ms. Blackstock: This is an important issue. Through the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect, we have determined through two cycles of the study that Aboriginal children are less likely to be reported as being victims of physical or sexual abuse than are non-Aboriginal children. Perhaps that is a glimpse of a contribution that Aboriginal people can make to the rest of Canadian society.
With regard to whether a First Nations agency properly intervenes, you are probably aware that these agencies must follow provincial legislation. They are obligated to implement provincial child welfare legislation which would put the safety and well-being of the children as the paramount accountability. There are signed agreements to that effect. If they are not being implemented, then the province has the ability to implement them.
The same is true with respect to the RCMP and the Criminal Code. There may be a need — and we have heard reports, too — of on-reserve drug trading, et cetera, where there has been some reluctance to report. That is an issue of implementation and resources. There are many great RCMP officers and police officers doing good work in communities. However, there needs to be resources and implementation of those regimes that we currently have in place. That would go a long way to eliminate those circumstances.
The Deputy Chairman: You indicated in your presentation that you think there are three primary causes for the number of children taken into care. You indicated those causes are housing, poverty and substance abuse.
I would like to focus on housing for the moment. When on a reserve, I observed that the overcrowded and inadequate housing, in many cases, is an unsafe environment in which to raise children. The parents might be trying their best but in some cases, children are removed from the home environment by a child welfare agency, even though they might be placed in a similar inadequate housing situation.
Could you address the housing issue and explain the implications for children living in a house occupied by 20 or 30 people that would normally house a family of four or five?
Ms. Blackstock: The issue with housing is graphic, and has implications for child maltreatment, as you correctly say. The answer is to make long term investments in housing so that people can come back into a safe home, and to deal with the inequities. We know from two cycles of the Canadian incident study that housing is a key factor that drives child welfare care in the case of Aboriginal children. It is an issue that is closely related to poverty. Think of yourself as a family member. Imagine living under the conditions that the honourable senator outlined, where 15-20 people live in a house that is in poor condition, that does not meet building code standards and that might have mold problems. How would the quality of care for the children in your care be impacted? With many people living in such close quarters, sanitation might be an issue. You might have environmental health issues caused by mold or inadequate ventilation. Many of you are aware of the research on the implications of overcrowding on the social psyche and the well-being of a family. The child would grow up in an environment where there is more chaos and environmental stress than if the child were in an adequate, non-crowded home.
It is important to note that dealing with the housing issue only is not sufficient. We know that from the Davis Inlet example, where communities were relocated to new housing but where there was not an equal implementation of the plans for support for children in those communities in dealing with addiction issues. There needs to be sustainable investment in housing, because it is a crisis. For those who have not been to a First Nations community, I recommend that you go. It is one thing to hear me talk about the situation, but to see it is to believe that it is true. I recommend that you go and see it.
As well, we must give these families every fighting chance to support themselves in their current environment and, it is to be hoped, in improved conditions over time.
Senator Kinsella: Is the per diem rate paid to a foster family on reserve comparable to the per diem rate paid to a foster family to which a First Nations child might go off reserve, although the family might not be an Aboriginal foster family?
Ms. Blackstock: In the jurisdictions for which we have that kind of data available, the answer to the question is no, the rates are not comparable. In a United States Supreme Court decision a number of years ago, a person receiving the child of another family member receives less than a stranger receiving that child. The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the decision and deemed it discriminatory.
Senator Kinsella: In Canada, when a child from a First Nations reserve is placed in foster care and a child in a neighbouring non-Aboriginal community is placed in foster care, the family to which the non-reserve resident child goes into foster care will receive more per diem from the province than the family on reserve will receive.
Ms. Blackstock: That is typically true. The other important factor is that off reserve we have voluntary sector services that augment the quality of life for families. Such organizations are typically not present on reserve. You not only have a family that is receiving less per diem but also families with less support.
Senator Kinsella: In terms of dollars and cents, there is a cash difference between what is paid to a foster parent in a white community and what is paid to a foster parent in an Aboriginal community. That sounds like discrimination to me.
The Standing Senate Committee Social Affairs, Science and Technology has completed a major study on mental health in Canada. Part of the report deals with the tragedy around suicide, and alludes to the many factors that might come into play in dealing with suicide. The data you indicated on the suicide rate in one part of the country was very telling: Ninety per cent of the suicides are accounted for by 10 per cent of the communities.
Everyone agrees that one human right is the right to life. We are looking at the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the child's right to life, and suicide is such a tragic assault on that right to life. Could you speak more to that from your experience, because that data was impressive.
Ms. Blackstock: It speaks to the fact that we need to invest in suicide prevention programs perhaps in a different way than we have done in the past. Stereotypically, we provided counselling at the level of the child and of the family. Those are important supports and should probably continue, but we need to look at this situation more broadly. In their research project, Chandler and Lalonde explained the difference by saying that we have always thought that all children formed their identities in the same way. However, their hypothesis is that that is not true. For non-Aboriginal children, they have an essentialist identity formation: You are special because God made you special. As well, keep in mind that the basic human rights of these non-Aboriginal kids have been recognized and they are not struggling for food and water, as many Aboriginal kids have to do.
The authors told us that the identities of First Nations kids are formed in a narrative way, by the lands they have lived on, by the legacy of their ancestors, by their relationship to community members and by their responsibilities in the future. If they can look around in that narrative and see adults of their group having grown up and able to make decisions that positively impact the community, that sends a strong, affirming message back to those young people. On the other hand, if they look around and all they see are people who always need to consult with the Government of Canada before they do anything, then that sends a different type of message for the identity formation of Aboriginal children; one where they do not have the power to make change in their own world and to make their dreams come true. I submit to you that along with the right to life is the right to dream, and I think that we have taken that away from many kids.
Senator Kinsella: In closing, I would refer you to the work with the Yurok and with the Sioux done by Eric Erikson in the past. He was really the pioneer of ego-identity.
Senator Dallaire: I have taken over the committee on sexual exploitation of children in Canada.
I know that 50 per cent of families are headed by a single parent. Has sexual exploitation of girls become normalized, due to the last 100 years of mishandling the situation, or is it still foreign and haphazard, happening due to circumstances?
Ms. Blackstock: Two things are happening: In Canadian society, we have normalized the risk to Aboriginal children. We no longer question the fact that 30 per cent of the kids in child welfare care are Aboriginal, or that 50 per cent of the young people who are being sexually exploited are Aboriginal. It is as though that is the way things have been and we assume that is the way things are in society, even when we are faced with an opportunity to make a difference and reduce those numbers. We have normalized it, which has taken away from the tragedy that it is. Each one of these young people should be given a full opportunity to make a difference, including children facing sexual exploitation.
I do not believe it is normalized at all in Aboriginal communities. The large number of First Nations support agencies vying for resources to work within families and redress child maltreatment tells us a number of things. It tells us that we know there are problems in our community where the rights of our children and youth are being violated. It says that we want to be part of that solution and that we know we need to engage with others for help where we do not have the solutions on our own or we need more information to implement the solutions.
It has been my experience that there is an acknowledgment of the problem of sexual exploitation in First Nations communities but there are very few resources to address solutions.
Senator Dallaire: You come back to resources, cultures and so on. In a number of cultures, if a girl has been exploited sexually, whether voluntarily or not, the community will reject the girl. The girl is considered to be the guilty party, rather than the male.
Does that atmosphere exist in First Nations communities? Are those girls rejected? Does the community make it difficult for them to ``come in from the cold,'' if I may use that expression, or is there an acceptance by the families and the communities that such things have been happening? Are they more welcoming of those girls?
Ms. Blackstock: I cannot cite any research on that subject because, to my knowledge, none has been done. However, I was a child protection worker in a non-Aboriginal community for about eight years in the province of British Columbia before working in a First Nations agency. I have seen incidents of isolation of exploited children in both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities. The question is how can society turn that around, what can we do to ensure that these children are provided with the level of support necessary so that, although there is no way of recovering from the experience, they can bring themselves to a point where it becomes part of their past and not the defining moment of their future.
The solution is community education. Sadly, in Canada, the most unsafe place for most children is in their family home. It is not the predator behind the bush that is the problem, but the people in the family home. We need to educate people to the fact that they have a duty to ensure the safety of all children. The first level of responsibility begins in our own family, including with regard to sexual exploitation.
Senator Dallaire: Would the tools for resolution be different for the First Nations? I return to the fact that the scale is vastly different compared to non-Native communities. Should there not be a different set of tools or, culturally, is there an ability to work on that in a different way?
Ms. Blackstock: We must be open to various solutions in a diversity of communities. I was working primarily in Vancouver as a child protection worker. We found a disproportionate number of children and youths there from isolated communities, and I know that you have previously heard evidence on that aspect as well. There are very few resources for young people like that. They end up on the streets of Vancouver and would, unfortunately, be very vulnerable to sexual exploitation.
The solutions for those communities would involve bolstering services. For a community in an urban area, it might be a matter of finding the right mix of services that includes affirming cultural responsibility for the care and protection of children.
I do not know of any Aboriginal community in either Canada or the United States where the abuse of children has been traditionally tolerated. In fact, in my community the punishment for abuse of children far exceeds anything that would be meted out under the Criminal Code of Canada today. It was considered an enormous travesty, not only to the child but to future generations, because we understand that there are multi-generational impacts from sexual exploitation. We need to leverage those things, but we need to provide support services in the context of each community.
Senator Dallaire: Therefore we have not created an atmosphere of tolerance within the First Nations communities of sexual exploitation of children. Is there another way to attack the problem?
Ms. Blackstock: Canada has contributed to sexual exploitation by underfunding the available services. I know that comes back to the issue of resources. If you had two populations, one of which was 15 times more likely to come to child welfare than the other, which would you underfund by about 50 per cent in the family support services? The reality is that it is the First Nations communities that have been underfunded.
Senator Munson: I was struck by your submission about adoption. You said that Canada must not make the mistake of satisfying one set of rights to the exclusion or neglect of others. This deals with the mental, emotional, physical and spiritual approaches. You told the tragic story of Sarah de Vries, and I was quite moved by it. She was Black and Aboriginal and was adopted by a Caucasian family. They loved her, but they did not satisfy her inner needs. Then she disappeared on that horrible farm in British Columbia.
Should we not all be learning a lesson from this? I am thinking that, in this day and age in this country, tens of thousands of families are adopting Chinese children. Is there a message here for us all with regard to these young Chinese girls as well? We should be really paying attention to this moving testimony as to what has happened in your community.
Ms. Lamborn: This is something I have thought about a great deal since reading that book, because it brings up the whole question of intercultural and interracial adoptions. In that case, Sarah's family made no efforts to allow her to interact with people of her own culture. She never had a chance to go to a Friendship Centre or to interact with other Black people in Vancouver. She was surrounded by people who did not look like her and did not experience the same things that she did. That is significant. We do not know how things would have turned out if she had had access to other people who were like her. However, in our submission it is not a blanket statement that we should never have intercultural adoptions. That is not the implication here.
Senator Munson: I am not saying that, either. However, there is a sensitivity there.
Ms. Lamborn: It was mentioned earlier that in the Convention on the Rights of the Child there are some conflicting articles. On the one hand, we have the right to an adequate standard of living, while on the other we have the right to identity. If we are talking about Aboriginal children living on reserves where they do not have adequate housing or clean water, it comes down to which right you will fulfill. Will you fulfill their right to an adequate standard of living by removing them from the reserve, or will you let them keep their identity but let them stay in unsafe conditions? That is why I emphasize the need to invest in housing on reserves. In that way, you will be able to fulfill both.
Senator Munson: You talked about the oversight committee on children's rights. In our interim report we talk about establishing a children's commissioner to monitor the implementation of the convention and protection of children's rights in this country and an arm's length independent institution. Do you agree with what we are saying or is that something different?
Ms. Blackstock: I agree with that. However, I make two provisos. First, there needs to be a designated Aboriginal official overseeing the welfare of Aboriginal children. That speaks to the point that many times Aboriginal children's issues become just that: an issue. Without the level of focus, particularly in the case of children who do not have access to other redress mechanisms in the same way as other non-Aboriginal children do, that is, First Nations children on reserve, there needs to be a higher level of vigilance than an individual would be able to provide.
If that office could focus on systemic issues, that would be of far more value. We see systemic issues manifested at the level of the child. Often, however, they affect a broad sweep of children. By addressing one systemic issue, we can often benefit the well-being of a large population of children, versus looking at individual rights violations.
I am not arguing against addressing individual rights violations. I am saying that a group such as that should deal with systemic reports, primarily.
Senator Munson: Where are we as a nation headed if we do not have these resources? You used the word ``crisis.'' What kind of crisis are you talking about? As most of us know, Aboriginal youth is the fastest growing youth population in this country.
Ms. Blackstock: In the Wen: De report there is something about the ``cost of doing nothing.'' Some people feel that doing nothing is cost-free. The reality is that we will have another generation of Aboriginal children grow up away from their homes when we could have done something about it.
One of the best definitions of reconciliation I have heard is not having to say sorry twice. Canada is warming up to saying, ``I am sorry'' for the residential school fiasco, but now there are three times the number of children in child welfare care than there were when there were residential schools.
We know the problem. We have the solution. By God, we have more than enough resources to redress it. As we know from data, children in the care of child welfare systems have lower rates of educational success, higher reliance on income assistance and more involvement with the justice system. By doing nothing, I think we put our own moral credibility as a nation at risk.
The Chairman: Ms. Lamborn and Ms. Blackstock, I want to thank you very much for this introductory phase to our study. I want to assure you that this is not the end of this matter. We have planned a western tour involving the four western provinces. At least one full day will be dedicated to the issues of Aboriginal children when we move west into those communities.
We will be going at least to Vancouver, Winnipeg, Regina and probably Edmonton. From one of those communities we hope to go into an Aboriginal community so that we can experience that firsthand. I am hoping it will be in Manitoba where committee members can see a child and family service agency run by Aboriginal people at work, and the difficulties that exist in that particular situation.
I have also instructed our clerk to ensure that all senators get a copy of the Wen: De report since you have referenced it on a number of occasions. It would be important background for them for the next step on this journey.
I want to thank you very much for your presentation this afternoon.
The committee adjourned.