Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 5 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, June 19, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 4:03 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: Honourable senators, we are here again examining and reporting on Canada's international obligations in regards to the rights and freedoms of children. Having looked at an overview of the convention, we now look at specific areas of concern for implementation of the treaty with respect to children in Canada.
We have today as witnesses, Chief Angus Toulouse, the Ontario Regional Chief, and Mr. Jonathan Thompson, in charge of social development and languages. Welcome, gentlemen. We are pleased you are able to attend today. I understand Chief Toulouse will give an opening statement, and then we will go to questions.
Chief Angus Toulouse, Ontario Regional Chief, Assembly of First Nations: I would like to begin by thanking the committee for allowing the Assembly of First Nations to appear today.
We are here to discuss Canada's international obligations to First Nations children as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The status of First Nations children in Canada demonstrates a situation in dire need of action. The report by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, released in 1996, included a focus on children, but ten years later we have yet to see any real action. Some indirect progress was made last November at the first minister's hearing in Kelowna, but a major effort focused on First Nations children is still required. The commitment made in Kelowna to a ten-year plan to close the gap in the quality of life between First Nations and other Canadians must encompass the needs and aspirations of our children. We believe this must occur at the upcoming First Ministers Meeting on Aboriginal issues committed to by Prime Minister Harper for 2008. The need for this meeting becomes only too clear through a brief review of some current statistics.
Statistics show that 1.2 million children in Canada live in poverty, almost one in six. This proportion more than doubles for Aboriginal children. According to the 1991 census, nearly 80 per cent of all on-reserve Indians have incomes below $20,000. Based on the poverty level established by the Canadian Council on Social Development, this means that 84 per cent of on-reserve households have incomes below the poverty line. Currently, about 130,000 First Nations children are under the age of nine. More than 100,000 of those children live below the poverty level. This situation is clearly in violation of article 27 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which entitles every child to an adequate standard of living and requires state parties to provide material assistance and support programs to implement this right.
In 1996, a 2-per-cent cap on funding growth was imposed on all First Nations core programs and services by the federal government. The 2-per-cent cap has not kept pace with inflation or First Nations population growth, and this gap has created an acute crisis for First Nations education. First Nations are falling further and further behind, and the loss in real dollars for purchasing power is over 13 per cent. As a result, the funding shortfall for on-reserve education for the 2006-07 fiscal year will be $172 million. If the existing funding mechanisms continue, there will be a funding shortfall of over $1 billion in education by the year 2011.
The education funding crisis has resulted in a significant First Nation education outcomes gap that has been documented by the Assembly of First Nations, First Nations and independent researchers. It was also outlined in the Auditor General's report of 2004.
According to the 2001 census, only 31 per cent of First Nations youth aged 15 to 24 have attained at minimum a high school diploma or certificate, compared to 58 per cent of non-Aboriginal Canadians. According to the 2001 census, only 36 per cent of First Nation adults between the ages of 25 to 64 have attained a post-secondary degree or diploma or certificate, compared to 54 per cent of non-Aboriginal Canadians. This situation is clearly in violation of article 28 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recognizes the right of the child to education.
Even if First Nations children manage to receive an education, their potential success is thwarted due to a lack of economic and employment opportunities. While some First Nation communities currently offer child care services, the Assembly of First Nations estimates that more than 250 First Nation communities do not have regulated child care within their communities. Furthermore, most communities currently offering child care and early childhood development, ECD, programs are not adequately funded, resulting in lack of spaces, especially a lack of services or spaces for children with special needs.
According to the regional health survey, approximately 12 per cent of First Nations children live with disabilities and special needs. It is estimated that yearly costs for regulated child care vary between $5,000 and $12,000 per year for children without special needs. Based upon the lower estimated costs of $5,000 per year, the total national yearly cost estimates for First Nations child care is approximately $454 million. First Nations child care costs for children with special needs are, at a minimum, doubled. It is estimated that even with the federal early childhood development and child care programs, there remains a significant funding gap of $373 million for First Nations.
There are more First Nations children in child welfare care today than there were First Nations children in residential schools at the height of their operation. We should all be alarmed at this reality because we all know about the tragic multigenerational consequences of residential schools. For example, as of May 2005, 10.23 per cent of status Indian children in four sample provinces were in child welfare care. For non-Aboriginal children, the number is 0.5 per cent. The child welfare system does essentially the same thing with First Nations children that the residential school system once did. It removes First Nations children from their families, communities and cultures, and places them in mainstream society. This practice is clearly contrary to articles 5, 8 and 30 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Article 5 recognizes the rights of parents, extended family members and communities ``to provide...appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.'' Article 8 protects the right of the child to preserve his or her identity and family relations. Article 30 affirms the rights of indigenous children to enjoy their own culture or to use their own language. This practice would also be in violation of article 6 of the draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, if ratified, which protects the rights of indigenous children from being removed from their families and communities.
As confirmed by the report of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, poverty, inadequate housing and substance misuse are key factors in the child welfare crisis. Therefore, the solution lies mainly in implementing article 27 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires states to take appropriate measures to implement the right of every child to an adequate standard of living.
The commitments made at the First Ministers Meeting in Kelowna marked a significant first step in addressing the root causes of the overrepresentation of First Nations in the child welfare system. If the Kelowna commitments were implemented, this agreement could go a long way toward bringing Canada into compliance with articles 5, 8 and 27 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is the most comprehensive single treaty in the human rights field. It covers all the traditionally defined areas of human rights, civil rights, political rights, economic rights, social rights and cultural rights. The four core principles of the convention are non-discrimination; devotion to the best interests of the child; the right to life, survival and development; and respect for the views of the child.
The convention protects children's rights by setting standards in health care and education as well as in legal, civil and social services. The articles of the convention lay out the foundational principles upon which all rights must be achieved. The articles call for the provision of specific resources, skills and contributions to ensure that children develop to their maximum capability. Canada has two reservations and one statement of understanding to the convention. Canada's reservation to article 21 relates to adoption and the right of Canada not to apply provisions of article 21 to the extent that it might be inconsistent with customary forms of care among Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Canada's statement of understanding with respect to article 30 of the convention asserts that the state's measures to implement the rights in the convention under article 4 must be applied with article 30 in mind.
Article 30 addresses the importance of not denying indigenous children the right to enjoy their culture and community with other members of their group, to practice their religion and to use their own language. By ratifying the convention, Canada has committed to protecting and ensuring children's rights and to holding itself accountable for this commitment before the international community. Canada has taken a multifaceted approach to implementing the convention. However, with the exception of the Aboriginal Head Start program, none of these measures have been targeted specifically to First Nations children.
With respect to funding on-reserve child welfare care, directive 20-11 from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada provides a funding formula that has proven to be completely inadequate. It provides funds for First Nations child welfare agencies to remove children from their homes but not to help families provide safe care for their children. Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits First Nations people on reserve from seeking redress for human rights violations from the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In terms of addressing inequalities regarding funding of First Nations child welfare care, the lack of a tribunal or a commission means that First Nations must rely on the courts, a costly approach. I have a number of recommendations with respect to bringing existing policies in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
First, adopt a holistic approach to coincide with the approach taken in the convention — an approach that involves the physical, mental, social, spiritual and emotional development of children. Second, ensure an adequate standard of living for First Nations children by fulfilling commitments such as those made at the Kelowna meeting. Third, protect the culture and identity of First Nations children by reducing the number of First Nations children under the care of child welfare services. The high number of First Nations children in care violates articles 5, 8 and 30 of the convention and goes against Canada's statement of understanding in respect of article 30 of the convention. Fourth, put in place the least disruptive measures of child welfare, and provide care and increased funding for the measures. These programs support parents to allow them to keep their children with them in a safe environment. Fifth, create a federal oversight body on children's rights by continuing to support the objectives and principle of closing the gap in ten years, as established in Kelowna. The underlying factors affecting the dismal status of First Nations children, such as poverty, education and adequate housing will finally be addressed. We need to maintain these initiatives and build on them. We need to make a difference now.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak to this important matter.
The Chairman: Thank you for submitting your brief. It is the first time the committee has heard the tie-in between the convention and the rights of Aboriginal children. It is welcome in our work and it will help us determine recommendations with respect to Aboriginal children.
We will go to questions.
Senator Munson: Welcome. Concerning the tie-in between the convention and the rights of Aboriginal children, how do we get the attention of the government in this regard. In my past many lives, First Nations governance legislation was proposed that went nowhere, but there is still hope in some circles while none in others. Kelowna produced great hope that seems to be drifting by the wayside but now, there is new hope. As a reporter, I was greatly frustrated when I covered these stories. Now, as a politician and a member of this committee, I am trying to help develop policy and new ideas.
Are First Nations children any better off than they were ten years ago? How do we apply this convention to the rights of the Aboriginal child? Will people actually respect those rights and build upon what you have been trying to do?
Mr. Toulouse: Settling residential school issues is one thing. We talk about multigenerational effects of legislation or assimilation policies of government toward First Nations. It will take time to reverse those effects so that our First Nations children in communities can embrace their culture and language again. There has been a tremendous loss especially to a good number of youth of their identity as a First Nations person.
To me, that is one area that is a starting point in relation to the government understanding that we need to heal from these effects. Continuing to have more of our children in care and continuing to place them in homes where the language and the culture is not prevalent is not going to help that child deal with loss of identity, but how do we bring that issue to the attention of government? We need your support and support from First Nation leadership to bring this issue into the same light as the national chief did for the issue of residential schools. Addressing those issues can be a start.
I see difficulty in this government wanting to put its own stamp on and its own development in the process. That is what most frustrates First Nation leadership, because at the community level we are still fighting and struggling with the same issues as governments come and go. Yet we keep bringing back these issues individually as chiefs of First Nations, as service providers of First Nations and as a collective of the Assembly of First Nations, AFN.
These issues have been brought forward by way of resolutions and concerned letters many times to government. We will continue to do that, but we need to bring to light much clearer examples of the problems.
Jonathan Thompson, Director, Social Development, Education and Languages, Assembly of First Nations: Senator Munson's question allows me to wander a little bit: How do we get the attention of the federal government — this one or previous ones?
It has been a frustrating battle and a challenge for me over the last nine years or so, dealing with child welfare, specifically as was touched on in the regional chief's discussion, and other social issues. One challenge touched on again by Regional Chief Toulouse is the notion of short political cycles and problems that require long-term fixes.
For the situation facing First Nations children vis-à-vis the child welfare system, no, money is not the only answer. The problem is far more complex than that. Minister Prentice touched on that fact only this morning. He was talking in the House in response to a motion by an opposition member in support of the Kelowna accord. Of course the debate was over Kelowna and the reference to the napkin, the one-page document and the whole thing. However, the minister did highlight an important fact, that the problem is complex.
We cannot look at housing, for instance, as the fix to reducing the number of children on welfare. The Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect: Major Findings — 2003, recently brought to the committee's attention by Cindy Blackstock in her appearance here, talked about the fundamental reasons for children coming into care — poverty, housing, substance abuse and so forth. There are a lot of reasons those things are there and, again, one quick fix.
Therefore how do we get the federal government's attention? The numbers, as startling and dire as they are, have been there for some time yet the government has not moved. Is it not a sexy enough issue? I do not know what the challenge or the problem is.
In recent discussions with the national chief we talked about how to go about this differently. What different angle or perspective can we take? One thing we can talk about with respect to a number of children in child welfare is their outcomes; their life outcomes, their educational outcomes and their health outcomes. They are all negatively impacted by their presence in the child welfare system, whether it was a brief or an extended period of time.
When you look at the penitentiaries across the country and the number of First Nations and Aboriginal inmates in those institutions, how many of them have been at one time or another part of the child welfare system? A great many of them have.
One thing we could look at is the cost to the taxpayer. Every elected government in Canada is aware of what their voters worry about, and that is often their tax dollars. Those tax dollars go a long way towards dealing with the cost of individuals in penitentiaries, poor health outcomes, poor educational outcomes, the social welfare system and the costs associated with those things. That is one angle we talked about.
As well, the issue gets right down to liability on behalf of the federal government in terms of the unequal funding provided for not only child welfare agencies but family violence prevention shelters and the like, so there are issues there.
The government has recently started to move on family violence prevention. From what I understand, it is because they were presented with potential legal action that would expose a certain amount of liability. That type of atmosphere or approach is not generally one that brings a partnered approach to solving a problem. Unfortunately, as indicated by Regional Chief Toulouse, often that is where we are left. The courts are also an expensive approach to addressing the issues.
The cost of doing nothing, Senator Munson, to the general public, to the federal government, to the taxpayers of Canada — and the human cost — is enormous. There is a potential waste there. Certainly there is the issue of liability on behalf of the federal government.
Senator Munson: Are First Nations children worse off today than ten years ago? You talked about a loss of identity.
Mr. Toulouse: I would say so. There are so many youth who feel despair where they take their own lives. That must be a gauge of where our children have come from and what they are experiencing. Many of these people who take their own lives are youths. I was talking to Grand Chief Stan Beardy of Nishnawbe Aski in Northern Ontario, and he told me the numbers are astronomical. Every week in one of those remote communities there is a tragic circumstance where a young person takes their own life. To me, that says we are no better off, and we may even be worse off, than we were ten years ago.
Senator Carstairs: You began by thanking us for allowing the AFN to appear. I want to thank you for coming before us.
I have a number of questions, but I will begin with what I call short snappers.
Would you in your own words tell me how important you think language is in the life of an Aboriginal child, and the acquisition of their Aboriginal language?
Mr. Toulouse: Fortunately for me I can still speak the language, and the language is so important to us. Many younger people from my community do not speak the language as much as my generation. It is so critical because it touches on who we are. The language captures, when you speak it, how we relate to one another, how we share and how we laugh. To translate something when you visit is not the same. The language is what makes us unique in how we describe, how we relate and how we communicate with one another.
Without that, many of our children remind the adults now that you cannot forget about us and you cannot continue to not provide language in our First Nations schools. This situation happens so much that many of the First Nation communities that control their own band-operated education systems want to go to immersion up to a certain grade because of the importance of the language.
Senator Carstairs: Thank you. You recommended what we recommended in our interim report, which is the development of a children's commissioner. Why do you feel that role is particularly important to the Aboriginal children in Canada?
Mr. Toulouse: I hope they would be able to use such a body again to bring to light the unfairness of removing children from their culture and placing them in someone else's culture, then expecting that child not to worry about that experience at any time in their lives. This child at some point will wonder why he or she was not given the same kind of cultural teachings and spiritual ceremonies as many of his or her relatives. To me, it is critical for the individual to have the spiritual connection to the community.
Senator Carstairs: On page 13 of your presentation, you acknowledged that the Aboriginal people have been left out of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Is it the position of the AFN that they should be included?
Mr. Toulouse: I believe the position of AFN is that they be included in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Internationally, we want to support other indigenous people throughout the world in having such an act to ensure fairness in terms of how they are dealt with.
Senator Carstairs: Finally, today in The Globe and Mail, a front-page picture and front-page story told of youth in the Palestinian authority who wanted to be arrested by Israeli authorities so that they could go to jail because life in jail was better than life on the streets in the Palestine area. I think you could tell a similar story. I know of all too many children who acted out in order to end up in the Manitoba Developmental Centre, because life was better for them incarcerated than it was, unfortunately and tragically, in their own community. I would like you to comment, because as Senator Munson indicated, we can get a front-page story for a Palestinian child, so why can we not get a front-page story of that magnitude about an Aboriginal child who is hurting just as badly?
Mr. Toulouse: That is so true, and the sad state of many of our youth is they feel much more secure in an environment such as the penitentiary system. That is the sad part of the whole system.
I heard from one youth about a year ago who is serving time. I forget where. It was out west. He talked about being placed in homes when he was growing up, how he was taken away from his mother, how he was able to rejoin his mother, and how he felt loss when his mother died. He was left alone in a system where he ended up being part of a gang, then leader of a gang, and not wanting to be in that kind of circumstance. Unfortunately, he said, that is where his comfort level was at that time. He realized after going through some spiritual awakening, after having medicine people visit him in the penitentiary, that there is another way to really accept who he is, which is to go back to the traditions and the culture. That is where he finds his safety net now. The language and the culture is important, and I hope it shows those people in the penitentiary system that there are other ways to deal with the hurt. Many of our elders are willing to assist.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I am interested in questions about children, and girls in particular. My understanding of Canada's collective statistics is that a lot of energy in the 1970s and 1980s went into collecting statistics on men and boys, and girls and women. Then in the 1990s and into this century, we have gone to gender neutral words such as ``youth'' again. It is difficult to find out if there are any differences for girl children and boy children. For instance, you spoke of youth who took their own lives. Are they mainly boys or girls, or is it 50-50? In the sex trade, I have made an assumption it is mainly girls who go missing. I am aware of the missing sisters campaign. Is there a gender difference in youth in care? Can you generally speak to that issue?
Mr. Thompson: Unfortunately, there are not a lot of gender specific numbers for, in particular, youth. Education is not necessarily my area. My area is more on the social side. I know that educational outcomes are proving to be much greater for First Nations women, young women and girls, than boys.
Senator Nancy Ruth: That means they graduated from high school.
Mr. Thompson: Yes: I think the rate is almost the same as nationally in Canada as well.
In terms of the breakdown for numbers of children, even when it comes to First Nations children in care, we do not necessarily have those numbers. We are not even able to get specific numbers from provincial agencies. Not all First Nations children are in the care of First Nations child welfare agencies. More children are in the care of provincial agencies, and the agencies do not even have the breakdown vis-à-vis First Nations versus non-First Nations.
When it comes to the sex trade, if you will, the Sisters in Spirit campaign is indicative of that problem. The problem is greater for females and males, but still a problem for males as well. That is evident in our major urban areas.
Senator Nancy Ruth: What about suicide?
Mr. Toulouse: I do not think it discriminates. I would guess it to be 50-50. There are also real costs in caring for the inmates that Corrections Canada shares from time to time in terms. Because there are not as many, it is much costlier per person for a female than it is for a male in terms of the age group in the prison system.
Senator Nancy Ruth: One reason I am interested in this subject is that I do not believe that public policy can be developed on a gender-neutral basis for any community within Canada. There are different problems for different groups, whether it is race, gender, disability or whatever. Is the AFN interested in collecting more statistics with a gender perspective so that their policies can better meet the needs?
Mr. Thompson: We are absolutely interested in collecting whatever data will assist us in improving the situation for First Nations people, whether they are youth or whomever. We as an organization are looking into gender-based analysis, or formally approaching policy and programs with a gender-based analysis lens.
Senator Nancy Ruth: It may not be the best way to go. Do your research or talk to me before you go down that route.
The Chairman: Mr. Toulouse, in your opening statement you said that even if First Nations children receive an education, their potential success is thwarted due to a lack of economic and employment opportunities. Can you expand? Are you talking about opportunities across Canada or opportunities on reserve? I am from Saskatchewan where I have seen the growth in education and the difference it makes. However, much of the focus from the chiefs, et cetera, is on economic development of the reserve, where youth are able to see opportunities in the whole world, not just in Canada.
The complaint is, how do you ensure that First Nations children are being educated? How do you have them support their own community while still fulfilling their own ambitions, and provide them with opportunities across Canada. There is a disconnect at times between the reserve and the urban setting next door, for example the reserves that I am familiar with, and the Regina settting. Can you comment?
Mr. Toulouse: As far as youth wanting to have economic opportunities in or near a First Nations community, I believe that First Nations communities want to ensure that there is potential for employment for any youth if they wish to remain in their First Nations community. That is the desire.
As in any mainstream community, you will find youth who do not necessarily want to stay in the home city or town. They want to explore other parts of the country so a certain percentage of the population will always want to move out.
I come from a First Nations community and I am chief of our community. For the most part, the majority of youth always remind me that we need economic development to create employment opportunities so they can stay and take care of their parents, and continue to be who they are. They want to ensure that their children know their culture, language, ceremonies and traditions.
That is just as important as having economic opportunities but everyone these days, in order to survive, needs an income above the poverty line. That requires a job, which requires opportunity for First Nations communities to work in partnership with the private sector or in another joint initiative.
First Nations want to provide an opportunity for their youth to come back after they complete their academic studies and gain experience in their fields to offer their services to the community with much more skill and academic qualifications.
Not all youth want to go to the city. There is a tremendous demand for housing at the community level that is not all seniors or individuals who are not returning. The demand is coming from youth who have settled, are engaged and about to be married, or married, and are not interested in leaving the area. There are more youth on-reserve than off- reserve.
I wish to correct a point. As much as you hear government saying that more people live off-reserve than on-reserve, the figures include Metis and all the Aboriginal sector. There will be more off-reserve because there are no reserves in the far north or in Metis communities. Because of those numbers I need to say that there are more First Nations on- reserve than there are in the urban setting.
Senator Mercer: Thank you for coming here today to enlighten us to a certain extent and to remind us of some statistics, which I find demoralizing, speaking as a Canadian. There are more First Nations children in child welfare care today that there were First Nations children in residential schools at the height of their operation. We have not come very far. This is a condemnation of the entire system no matter which government is in power. The tendency is to be political but I will resist because there is no advantage in it. Multiple governments have been in power since they abandoned the residential school program and still, we are in a mess.
Tomorrow morning, the chair of the committee will arrange a meeting with Prime Minister Harper, the Minister of Finance, Mr. Flaherty, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Mr. Apprentice. We have 15 minutes of their time. What two, three or five things would you tell them need to be done immediately to repair the problems outlined today?
Chief Toulouse: If you have 10 to 15 minutes, you could say that honouring the Kelowna agreement is a start: the financial commitments agreed to by the premiers and the government of the day. That would go a long way to closing some of that gap.
As well, you could speak to recognition of First Nations governments. Historically, for countless decade and generations prior to the Child Welfare Act, the Indian Act and the Constitution, 1867, First Nations took care of themselves. We did not need enforcement or protection services. There was a place for the child and a responsibility that was well understood by the clan and by the traditional system of the day.
Recognition that we are still in a position to take care of ourselves would go a long way in terms of the federal and provincial governments of the day understanding that their policies and legislation often do not make sense to First Nations peoples trying to raise children within their culture and traditions. Raising them within their own culture is in keeping with what is best for the child.
If some of these issues could be stated, it would help. We need resources that were identified through many discussions and much work by many people. Conclusions showed that some bridge resourcing is needed to carry out the programs and services currently in place.
Senator Mercer: In my previous life prior to coming here, I spent a lot of time speaking with Aboriginal people across the country about engaging in the political process and understanding the power of the ballot box. I know for a fact in at least 45 constituencies across the country, if the Aboriginal population were to vote together in large numbers, they could effect change in those 45 constituencies.
We are into our second minority government. It would seem to me that the opportunity is even greater now than it has been in the past. If we could motivate all Canadians to participate in the political process, and particularly in this case, motivate the Aboriginal community to participate, that is a tremendous amount of power to wield in and around this city, in this Parliament and in the House of Commons. I hope the Aboriginal leadership will continue to consider this. I know there is a long history, and certain cultural backgrounds dictate that it is not a positive thing, but I encourage people to discuss it.
Nothing rules more than somebody who can deliver people to the House of Commons. That gives you such great influence, and I continue to see groups sell themselves short by not participating. The points that you made regarding 15 minutes with Mr. Harper tomorrow morning are good ones and ones that we can build on, and I thank you for that.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I understand everything in your presentation, as I grew up in the First Nations and I know all the problems. Do you feel that racism plays a part in people taking employment outside their communities?
Mr. Toulouse: Yes, unfortunately, it is a factor. We have individuals who are struggling. I will use Ontario Works as an example, which is a welfare system. It requires the individual to find a way back into the system for the individual to be in a position for some retraining.
We have experienced occasions where First Nations communities try to work within that piece of legislation, and because there is no economic development in their home community, they have to look outside to the urban settings to place individuals for training.
It is a non-starter, because no First Nations individuals are allowed to take employment opportunities from nearby townspeople. It is unheard of in many of what I call our frontier towns or cities near First Nations.
Unfortunately, that form of racism still occurs. It was sad to see racism rearing its ugly head in the conflict at the Douglas Creek Estates in Caledonia and Six Nations territory. A lot of the time, it was not necessarily the townsfolk. Individuals coming in to assist create that racism, if you will. That someone else brings it in is really the sad part, but it is there.
As a First Nations individual, I felt it. I continue to feel it. It is difficult to describe, but it is there. I am sure many other immigrants may concur that they feel the racism, as well. In my opinion, what First Nations feel the most is the systemic, institutional kind of racism, where we are often shut out. That kind of racism is what I find to be most prevalent.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I have certainly seen it most of my life. My only other question regarded the Kelowna accord, and Senator Mercer touched upon it, so thank you.
Senator Zimmer: Thank you for your presentation today. I am sitting in for Senator Dallaire, who is currently at the first meeting of the United Nations Advisory Committee on Genocide Prevention in New York City.
I was also pleased to come today because my cause is young people in Canada, and when I say that, I mean all young people of all races. I grew up in Saskatchewan and attended the University of Saskatoon. I was a classmate with Madam Chair.
There was a community close to Saskatoon, known as Sulland, which is now part of an urban reserve. My question is: We speak of educated Aboriginal young people. Do they stay in the city or go back to the reserve? There now appears to be a third option: the urban reserve. Do they go to the urban reserves and work there?
Mr. Thompson: Chief Toulouse talked about how individuals want to be where they are most comfortable, and where they find their identity supported and their culture respected. In the case of Saskatchewan, where the urban reserve is becoming an option, it definitely will be something they take advantage of.
If you are asking whether there should be an expansion across the country of other urban reserves, say, in Winnipeg or Saskatchewan, it probably would be beyond my mandate to speak to because that would be the decision of the individuals and the nations within each region.
In Saskatchewan, they find them to be very advantageous, I guess you would say, to be able to have a bit of an uplifted world, if you will. However, at the same time, as Regional Chief Toulouse said earlier, in terms of the numbers for First Nations on-reserve or off-reserve, the tide is moving the other way, where the shift is back to the community as opposed to away. More recent numbers show that to be the case if you take the Aboriginal group apart from the pan-Aboriginal view, if you will.
Mr. Toulouse: A lot of the First Nations go where there is a collective in terms of the culture and the spiritual connectedness that they may have, which is as important as the spiritual lands of their home community. It is more the collectiveness they seek, because this is where they can find their language, culture and ceremonies. I am not familiar with the urban reserves, if you will, in the province of Saskatchewan.
Senator Zimmer: I was looking at it as a third option. I was not speaking only of employment, but of business opportunity. Apparently, the model in Saskatoon is working well. It has assimilated into the community and is welcomed. It gives them another option, not only for employment but for business opportunity.
Senator Nancy Ruth: This question is about international conventions. Canada has been condemned for its treatment of Aboriginal rights in all kinds of conventions: the economic, social and cultural rights convention; the agreement on discrimination against women; and the child convention we have talked about. All these conventions have horrible things to say about Canada in general and in particular about Aboriginal peoples.
How might you or the AFN suggest to us what we can do to get the Canadian government to implement some of the criticisms in these international conventions here in Canada, so it would be to your advantage? What can we do to give Canada a bit of a boot? We are curious about this. Any ideas are welcome.
Senator Kinsella: My questions are straight to the point. First, some important laws of human rights do not apply to Aboriginal Canadians. Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act does not apply to normally reserve-resident Indians. I think that is how the clause reads.
Under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Canada has registered a reservation of non- application of its convention to Aboriginal children. In both those cases, what is your view as to the rationale behind the exclusion caused by the reservation under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?
Second, can you recapitulate your position on section 67?
Mr. Thompson: The first question goes back to Senator Munson's question of how to get the federal government to act upon the issues that we talked about today.
Certainly, the issues are the same. You are just bringing in the international spin in terms of how they do or do not conform to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international instruments. That issue has been the kicker for us. We have been struggling with that same question: How do we get the attention and the subsequent action or requisite action on behalf of the Government of Canada?
We all see various tragic stories noted in our national and local papers. We have various condemnations on the international scene vis-à-vis international instruments. We have meetings upon meetings with various federal departments talking about these statistics we are confronted with year in and year out.
Unfortunately, it often requires a tragedy of some sort to get action. For example, in the instance up north where they had to move the community, it is not the location necessarily of the community. It is a band-aid approach. I am getting off topic, but it is a pet peeve of mine in terms of not addressing the fundamental issue.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Without the press behind it, it is hard to get the politicians' attention.
Mr. Thompson: That is right, but going a bit further, it ensures the federal government does not stick another band- aid on it. Money is required, but simply throwing money at it does not help. We have to understand why the situation is there and what are the fundamental reasons. Then, address those. Those types of measures, unfortunately, will likely take some time to turn around. Within the political cycle, that is often not a particularly attractive approach or answer. I think that has been part of the problem.
I apologize for getting off track a little bit. Could I ask you to repeat your question?
Mr. Toulouse: You talked about section 67, human rights and the exemption of First Nations. I think federal government has misused or abused it in terms of lack of resources provided. The worry at the First Nations level is that we receive finite resources at the community level. I will use education as an example.
We had our own band-operated school up to eighth grade. Some of the parents said they wanted to send their children to another educational institution off-reserve. As much as we wanted to support it and say that they had that right, we could not. Collectively, we only had sufficient resources to provide one kind of education facility with limited resources. We may not be able to offer music, the whole science gamut or this or that; we wish we could. Many times the parents said their children had rights. The federal government could provide only this much. Our collective wish is to have our people go to school in our community, but they have an individual right to French as a second language, even though we offer our own language.
To me, sometimes limiting the resources of First Nations has been misused. That pits us against our own people who want something different, when we cannot say yes, we will agree to it. At the end of the day we would be criticized for not managing our resources because we have a deficit of a few million dollars.
There are issues around how that lack of funding has been misused by the federal government in the past.
Senator Kinsella: What about the reservation under this UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? Canada made a reservation saying they did not want to meet the standard as it applies to Indian children.
Mr. Thompson: Are you referring to Canada's reservation in terms of article 21 as it relates to adoption?
Senator Kinsella: Yes, I am.
Mr. Thompson: When it comes to adoption of Indian children, what we say goes back to the notion of the desire for First Nations to have the right for those children to remain in their customs and traditions. It is also in relation to an issue tied to funding. If we have children in customary care in our communities, for instance, the funding to support that child will be significantly less than if that child was put into a foster home or care outside the community.
That is one of the scenarios where we would like to see some change. That answer is in relation to your question on Canada's reservation to article 21.
Senator Munson: I have two quick questions because the issues already have been discussed in a substantive way.
On page 7, you talked about approximately 12 per cent of the First Nations children having a disability or special needs: is this much higher than the national average?
Mr. Thompson: Yes: I cannot tell you how much higher off the top of my head, but it is probably double.
Senator Munson: You refer to disabilities and special needs such as what?
Mr. Thompson: With respect to children, there are developmental and physical disabilities. This area is greatly in need of attention, not only in terms of getting the culturally appropriate assessment tools in place, but also to get a handle on the various federal efforts in the area of special needs. The approach right now is ad hoc. We would like to see some sort of organization brought to the issue to get a better handle on what is, and what is not, there.
Often folks in First Nations communities are forced to send their children away. For some of these children to receive the proper services, they have to be taken into care, regardless of the parenting skills and quality of that home.
Senator Munson: Would a children's commissioner fulfill the role of advocate and address these kinds of needs, as we talked about in our previous report?
You agree with it and this committee agrees with a children's commissioner. What is needed to go beyond a recommendation so perhaps the present government can do something about this?
Mr. Thompson: I will go back to this morning's discussion in the House. Minister Prentice talked about the need for structural change.
This area probably would fit into the category of structural change. There are specific things I would like to talk about in the area of child welfare. I think this issue would be something we could look at in those Kelowna-type discussions, where we would get at the larger structural pieces that need to be looked at with First Nations, the federal government and the provinces and territories. Maybe we could get it on the agenda for 2008 and have discussions ensuing in the short term.
Senator Mercer: We always sit around tables in this place and talk about the bad news stories in the Aboriginal communities, but there are some success stories.
There are good news stories. There are reserves that are working aggressively and doing well for various reasons. Does that success spill over into the child welfare side on the reserve? On reserves where the economics are good — I am thinking of the Membertou Reserve in Nova Scotia where my friend, Bernd Christmas, was very much involved — are there fewer social problems, less alcoholism and fewer problems for children on reserves where the economics are better? If the answer is yes, that underscores why we need to fix the other problem first.
Mr. Toulouse: Economics is part of the answer.
First Nations themselves need to be engaged in some kind of community development at the community level that talks about everything. I have seen how a community can begin to heal itself, its woes that have been there multi- generationally.
They have started talking about it to one another and addressing individually their need to go through healing processes so their families and the community can go through healing processes as well.
Even though most of the answers are internal, First Nations have requirements sometimes to seek outside help in facilitating such discussions. There are communities that have 2,000 to 3,000 people. This kind of work is more the long-term answer than the short-term economic development fix. At the end of the day, that person is still cashing a cheque and still wants to do what they have done historically, which may not be necessarily a healthy activity. However, if the person is already healthy, that person will take part in healthy activities to support the family and the community.
I think that is where a lot of the challenge is. Some economic development is key. I would hazard a guess that the community you spoke of has gone through a lot of that community development to arrive at the economic development they all seek to benefit from.
The Chairman: Chief Toulouse, thank you for providing us with a written brief that lays out some of your concerns and recommendations with respect to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Thank you for an honest and frank dialogue. We hope we are part of the solution and not part of the continuing problem.
The committee continued in camera.