Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 14 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 27, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:35 a.m. to examine and report on the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, and on other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators and invited guests. We are ready to begin.
This morning, we will hear from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada with respect to chapter 4 of their report, which was issued earlier this month. I will now introduce the senators who are with us this morning. On my right, Senator Peterson is from the province of Saskatchewan and, next to him, is Senator Gustafson, also from Saskatchewan. On my left is Senator Dyck, from Saskatchewan as well. I am your chair, privileged and honoured to be so, from the province of British Columbia. The west has taken over.
Honourable senators, please join me in welcoming, from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, Mr. Ronald Campbell, Assistant Auditor General, and Mr. André Côté, Director. Gentlemen, we look forward to your enlightening us with respect to the challenges faced in the area of First Nations child and family services. Once your presentations are made, the senators here and others who may join us will have questions for you. I hope you are prepared to respond to them. I am sure you are, since you have done so adequately in the past.
I will turn the meeting over to you, Mr. Campbell, for your presentation, if you are so inclined. The floor is yours, sir.
Ronald Campbell, Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity to discuss our May 2008 report on the First Nations Child and Family Services Program. With me today is Mr. André Côté, the director responsible for this audit.
[Translation]
The audit examined how Indian and Northern Affairs manages its First Nations Child and Family program. Our colleague the Auditor General of British Columbia conducted a concurrent audit covering child welfare services for Aboriginal people in BC.
Mr. Chair, some of the most vulnerable children in Canada are First Nations children. At the end of March 2007, there were about 8,300 on-reserve children in care. This number represents more than five percent of all children living on reserves and this percentage is almost eight times higher than the percentage of children living off reserves who are in care.
In 2007, INAC spent $180 millions for operating and administration costs of providing services to children and families ordinarily resident on reserves.
[English]
With this funding, INAC supported 108 First Nations agencies that provide a range of child welfare services to about 442 First Nations. INAC also used the funding to pay for the services provided on reserves by provinces. In addition, INAC spent $270 million for the costs related to children placed in care by First Nations agencies and the provinces.
In 1990, the federal government adopted a policy that includes a requirement that the services provided to First Nations children on reserves meet provincial standards, are reasonably comparable with services for children off reserves and are culturally appropriate. We found that the department has not defined what ``reasonably comparable'' and ``culturally appropriate'' mean. Furthermore, the department does not sufficiently take into account provincial standards and other policy requirements when it establishes levels of funding for First Nations agencies to operate child welfare services on reserves.
Mr. Chair, the department's funding formula dates back to 1988. It has not been significantly changed since then to reflect variations in provincial legislation and the evolution of child welfare service. In addition, the funding formula assumes that all First Nations agencies have the same percentage of children in care — six per cent — and that the children all have similar needs. This assumption leads to funding inequities because the percentage of children in care as well as their needs vary widely. The outdated funding formula means that some children and families are not receiving the services they need.
Last year through federal, provincial and First Nations cooperation, the funding formula was revised in Alberta. This revision links the funding provided to First Nations agencies in Alberta to provincial legislation. When fully implemented in 2010, the formula will provide 74 per cent more funds for the agencies' operations and prevention services. While this is encouraging, we found that the new formula still assumes that a fixed percentage of First Nations children and families need child welfare services. Agencies with more than 6 per cent of their children in care will continue to be hard pressed to provide protection services when they also have to develop family enhancement services.
[Translation]
In our view, the funding formula should become more than a means of distributing the program's budget; it should also take into account the varying needs of First Nations communities.
Funding is not the only issue. We believe that ensuring the protection and well-being of children requires that INAC, the provinces, and First Nations agencies have a clear understanding of their responsibilities. Up-to-date agreements are essential. We found that INAC had no agreements on child welfare services with three of the five provinces we covered in our audit.
[English]
Finally, we found that INAC has little information on the outcome of its funding on the safety, protection or well- being of on-reserve children. It does not know whether its program makes a positive and/or significant difference in the lives of the children it funds.
The large percentage of First Nations children in care calls for all the parties involved in the child welfare system, including First Nations and provinces, to find better ways of meeting their needs. INAC has indicated that it will seek authority to extend the approach taken in Alberta to other provinces by 2012.
Honourable senators, your committee may want to invite representatives from INAC to provide information on the work plan developed by the department to implement our recommendations. It may also consider inviting representatives from First Nations agencies to provide more information about child welfare issues on reserves.
That concludes my opening statement. My colleague and I would be pleased to answer any questions that your members may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Campbell, for that excellent, precise and concise presentation. We have with us as well Senator Sibbeston, who is the vice-chair, and Senator Dallaire, from the Province of Quebec.
Senator Dallaire: I apologize for being late.
The Chair: My first question to you, Mr. Campbell, as the deputy Auditor General, is that I have been in this place for 25 years and the more things change, the more they stay the same when it comes to dealing with First Nations. Whether it is water implementation, economic development, education or welfare and child services, which we are dealing with at the present time, do you not think it is time we revisit the entire program with the idea of designing something that is functional?
A lot of very good people work in that department, but by nature of the design or the composition of that department, it is failing in so many areas to service the constituency that it was set up to serve. Many of us have spoken out. It is not a partisan issue. It is a question of dealing with the First Nations people in a manner that brings them up to the same standard as the rest of Canadians.
I do not know whether your department has ever made a recommendation. It goes without saying that the Auditor General and the Auditor General's offices are greatly respected in the country. RCAP and various other reports have recommended changes but, as I said earlier, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I do not know if you have a view, or whether it is fair to ask you whether you have a view, as to what should be done and how it should be done, from your perspective. Many of us are calling for that but we cannot see one department looking after so much with so few. In spite of the dedication and commitment of the people who work at INAC, it is just an airplane that will not fly.
Mr. Campbell: Yes, I do have some views. The central question, I think members would agree, is a question of policy, which is one that the Auditor General does not comment on. However, there were several elements to your question that would be worthy of comment.
First, I would agree with you that there are many good people in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs working hard and trying to do the right thing. You mentioned a number of audits that we have done in the past — education, water and now this particular audit. I would refer members back to a follow-up report we did in 2006, where we looked back at several audits that we had done in relation to programs that affected Aboriginal people. Some of those programs were in Health Canada, but most of them were through the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.
We did a follow-up to see what progress had or had not happened. Then we went a step further to try and identify what we called critical factors that affected government's ability to make real inroads in this particular area. It is fair to say that with many of the programs for which INAC is responsible, they are actually delivering provincial-like programming, whether it be education or municipal-like services such as water and, in this case, child and family services. They do not have a legislative base upon which to build those programs. Other governments do.
When we looked at water, we asked ourselves what other people do for water. Provinces have legislation and standards and that passes down to the municipalities, which implement them. None of those were available or existed on reserve. In many cases, I think it has been the same for child and family services.
As programs have advanced and evolved in provinces, INAC has been faced with two challenges: one is playing catch-up, trying to catch up with what is happening in provinces; the second is doing so as a matter of policy within the department as opposed to having a legislative base.
There is a lot of validity to the question you raise. We, as an office, have not dealt with it directly because we do not comment on matters of policy. However, there is a consistent thread running through many of your comments and many of the previous audits that we have done.
Senator Peterson: Perhaps this question is along the same lines. According to your report, the jurisdictional dispute seemed to be a serious problem here. Children are suffering and you have indicated that you do not have assurances that the services are meeting provincial standards. Is there a way out of this situation? The provinces seem to say that it is the responsibility of the federal government; the federal government says ``We are there but we are trying to meet you halfway.'' How do we make progress on this situation? Do you have any suggestions?
Mr. Campbell: As an office, we tend not to comment directly on funding, but in this case we have done so. The funding formula is an important part of this story. Indian Affairs has established the objective of funding services that meet provincial standards. Part of the solution to the problem you posed is that whatever the provincial standards are, Indian Affairs needs to know what they are, needs to know what the components are relating to them, and needs to fund them accordingly. If that were done, that would be a major step toward funding something that you intend to fund. When you have a funding formula that is dissociated from the objective you are trying to achieve, then it would be no surprise that there will be gaps in the services you can afford to deliver.
Senator Sibbeston: Where I live, in the Northwest Territories, the matter of child welfare is handled by the territorial government. In many cases, they have agencies run by a board of Aboriginal people that manage all matters dealing with social welfare. In my area, it is the Dehcho Health and Social Services Authority. It seems that they are making progress. Aboriginal people are very involved, and children are no longer sent south. They look to place Aboriginal children in native homes wherever possible. In that regard, at least where I come from, the matter is handled reasonably well in the north. The study is really in relation to the south, where there are First Nations reserves and the disparity exists between Aboriginal people and the rest of society.
The question is one of funding. One of the issues you raise is the need for funding. It seems that there has not been any change since 1988. The funding formula in place now is from that era. That must be addressed.
Apart from that, the question is the general state of Aboriginal society. One wonders why so many children are in this situation of needing care from people other than their parents. It says a lot about Aboriginal society and the need to improve their standard of living, et cetera.
Could you comment on that, please?
Mr. Campbell: As we mentioned in the audit report, fixing this particular program will not fix what ails First Nations children. There are many studies showing that poverty, unemployment, housing, et cetera, have an impact on children and their needs.
I agree with the point made by Senator Sibbeston. This audit did not touch on the territories. It focused on five provinces south of the sixtieth parallel.
Senator Gustafson: In item 3 of your presentation, you mentioned that there were about 8,300 children in care on reserves. Is that the total number of children in the INAC operation?
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Côté is better placed to answer that question.
André Côté, Director, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Yes, that is the number of children INAC funds because they are outside their parents' home.
Senator Gustafson: Do you have the total number of children as a whole?
Mr. Côté: Living on reserve?
Senator Gustafson: Yes.
Mr. Côté: We do not disclose the number, but this represents about 5 per cent. There are about 160,000 children up to the age of 18.
Senator Gustafson: In item four of your presentation, you said that INAC spent $180 million for operations and administrative costs. How much is that per child?
Mr. Côté: We do not report on that basis because the costs vary from one child to another. It depends on the type of placement. A child in foster care is relatively cheaper than a child placed in a specialized institution. That answers to the different needs.
In our report, we indicate that the formula is based on about $800 per child, whether in care or not.
Senator Gustafson: Your job is to analyze the situation and report on it. Do you feel that the $180 million is adequate?
Mr. Campbell: We do not audit the child and family services agencies. However, in the course of their audit, the auditors visited a number of First Nations communities, as we always do. In this case, we visited 12 communities and 18 First Nations agencies.
The $180 million Senator Gustafson refers to is funding for the operation of those agencies. The funding formula has not changed since 1988, and we are being told by the agencies and the provinces that the agencies have difficulty attracting, hiring and keeping qualified social workers, et cetera. They are not able to pay the same rates as the provincial agencies, for example. We were told that they tend to get young, inexperienced staff who get better offers soon after they start. Therefore, there is a significant turnover. That is the impact of the funding from their point of view.
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: I would be ready to acknowledge that people work hard in the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada building. But on the other hand, there are washers and dryers working equally as hard.
In light of the results we may study regularly, I am not so sure about the quality and orientation of work in this department, whether it is their methodology or their inability to adopt a proactive attitude. On the contrary, the department seems to deliberately maintain or to be unable to review obsolete procedures or methodologies that are far from meeting the requirements.
The last time you came here, you told us that there was almost no new methodology initiative developed to deal with the complex problems this department is confronted with in the implementation of its mandate; no new philosophy; and not even the will to allow a comprehensive internal reform to fill up those needs.
This is only one example of a place where people work like machines, a place that seemingly cannot be modernized or changed in a significant way, even though results are not delivered.
Is there a deep-rooted problem in the culture of this organization that has allowed it to survive for so many years without taking any important action for some kind of a reform?
[English]
Mr. Campbell: I am not sure I recollect the specific comments to which Senator Dallaire refers, but the question is well taken.
There are a couple of things worth pointing out in relation to the question. First, I would refer back to my earlier response to the chair's question. The department is in a position of trying to fill this provincial void. It is trying to play catch-up in an area where provinces normally have jurisdiction and where provinces tend to operate through a legislative base.
We mention in the report that the attention given by the department's staff at headquarters to this important program is not great. The human resources applied at headquarters at senior levels are insufficient. Having only a small number of people who are not at the most senior levels affects how people perceive and manage a program. However, to be fair to the department, we observed the beginnings of a change, but how far that goes remains to be seen. In Alberta, there has been an attempt to begin to address the ever-changing and evolving menu of services available to First Nations children.
There are two major problems with the funding formula. First, it is not designed to address the needs of the children and the services currently available; and second, the operating funds for those agencies have been insufficient in many cases.
Alberta has begun to try to recognize that there is a changing world in terms of the services available to children. Many people have told us that because of the way in which the program operates, they are funded toward intervention. For example, they will fund to take children out of the home. That might have been the mode some time ago but all of the provinces that we visited apply a preventive approach and subscribe to early intervention with a wider range of services available to the family before the need to take the children out. In Alberta, we have seen the first attempt by INAC to fund the services toward that particular menu. The government has said that it will expand that to other provinces. We will see how it goes.
Senator Dallaire: I took over the committee once headed by Senator Pearson that focussed on exploited children around the world. I have refocused the committee on the sexual exploitation of Aboriginal children. I have discovered discrepancies in how the two societies look at the protection, care, rehabilitation and reintegration of those children. Often, there are no references or resources and people do not know where to turn for help. When they do find help, it is generally substandard because there is insufficient funding to attract appropriately qualified people to handle this society's exacerbated problems. You need such people to be more qualified when they are going up north. You do not see an attitude of proactiveness in attempting to grasp these problems and wrest the initiative from the catastrophic scenarios. You either pick up crisis management or change. However, we are not in an era of change; we are in an era of reform and revolution in attempting to bring the needs from quality of life to demands in a complex society.
I am trying to get you to give me a deliberate answer on its attitude, culture and philosophy of its work toward helping Aboriginal children. Do you not see that the department does not have that intrinsic ability to drum up the initiative and develop innovative approaches to these problems? Is it because the department does not have the resources or the brain power to bring about results within a culture of wanting it to happen?
Mr. Campbell: Yes, I agree with that. Part of the question was why the department is unable to do the things that the senator mentions. With all due respect, there might be some value in having departmental officials appear to explain the world in which they live. I agree fundamentally with the comparison made. The senator talked about proactiveness, and in my previous statements I talked about an environment of trying to play catch-up. These are two very different things and I think that the senator has a very good point.
Senator Dallaire: May I continue, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: That is fine.
Senator Dallaire: In order to bring reform to an organization so that it can shift gears to dispel the attitude of, if it is not broken, do not fix it. We do not have the tools for this to be worked on now. I will give you an example. We have the five-year business plan process. People work on the current year because it is real money in the budget. They are working on the next year because the estimates are being called. In year three, it becomes a little shaky, and in years four and five, it is funny money. I could approach an organization such as the department and ask who is working on year six and I am sure that I would learn that no one is working on year six, which next year will be year five. Is it true that no separate entity is trying to leap the organization ahead with the depth of hard scientific abilities, managerial skills and leadership dedicated to comparing year six to year ten in order to move these societal yardsticks? This is not a situation where we can simply solve it this year and expect it to be fine for the next 20 years. This is about human beings, and you must be on the problem every two or three years to revise policy so that things do not fall apart because people change. Am I right in saying that?
Mr. Campbell: I would say that is a fair statement. The senator talked about a separate entity and that is a key point in the setting of how the program operates. There is not a separate program for First Nations children because it is part of INAC. Funding for that comes out of the same bucket of funding for housing, infrastructure and other things. Within the department, people are trying to do many different things, often borrowing from one program to fund another program in the process. There is no separate entity whose prime focus is child and family services, or that has senior people leading the work. There is no separate budget focused solely on this area so most of the elements that the senator speaks to are missing.
Senator Dallaire: I met the current and previous ministers and I find that there is a disconnect between what they articulate knowledgeably and what the bureaucracy does that operates under them. I am not sure whether that political influence has prevented significant influence because it is being cut off by procedure. Is it your view that the organization's structure is so tight and introverted that political influence is diffused before it is able to influence significant reforms within the bureaucracy?
Mr. Campbell: Senator, I am not in a position to be able to answer a question on how the political and bureaucratic worlds operate.
Senator Dallaire: Have you not seen it appear in your work when you receive significant direction from the minister? I know you do not analyze policy but surely you see the directives when they come in from the minister.
Mr. Campbell: It might be worth reflecting on our previous work on those critical factors that influence Indian Affairs' ability to make change. One critical factor that we indentified was the roles and responsibilities of the department. Sometimes it could be seen as conflicting responsibilities. There is a lot of stuff in there. Most other bureaucrats who are delivering programs have legislation to go back to that was passed in their legislature, laying out what politicians have decided to do and how to do it. The Indian Act does not specifically mention many of the things they do. The provinces are doing new things and the federal department is belatedly trying to catch up without the tools or the guidance that other bureaucrats expect to have.
Senator Dallaire: I appreciate your candour.
The Chair: I was at a meeting with Minister Prentice at the Fairmont Hotel at the airport in Vancouver. One of the First Nations leaders welcomed Minister Prentice and said that in the 25 years he has been in the First Nations political sphere, Mr. Prentice was the twenty-third minister he has had to deal with.
Senator Dyck: I listened carefully to the answers you have provided. With regard to children in care in Aboriginal communities, three big issues come to my mind. The first is why there is an increased incidence of Aboriginal children in care compared to the rest of Canadian children. The second is whether the programs that are being offered are adequate with respect to funding and culture appropriateness. The third is what the outcome is of the child welfare programs.
I will focus now on adequacy of programs. Further to what Senator Dallaire was saying, it seems as though INAC is focusing on funding, probably because the culture of INAC is such that they are used to programs that provide financial resources without the department having thought through their mission statement and the goal of that segment of INAC. It sounds as though they do not have a dedicated unit with a specific mandate or purpose other than actual resource allocation, which is very different. It is similar to land claims wherein they have not grappled with the spirit and intent of the programs but only with funding.
You have offered some suggestions on how the funding formula might be increased, but it seems to me that that is only a short-term solution. You point out in item 13 that only three of five provinces have agreements with INAC with respect to the child welfare programs. What is the impact of this on the two provinces that do not have agreements? What kind of items are covered in those agreements? If those agreements are really important, how can we make the other provinces and INAC come to agreements? Would the agreements facilitate the offering of better programs for the care of Aboriginal children in the system?
Mr. Côté: We found agreement in two of the five provinces that we audited. Is your question how the others are doing without an agreement?
Senator Dyck: Yes. Is it a good thing to have an agreement?
Mr. Côté: Definitely. We believe that in these two provinces it is much clearer who has the responsibility and who is to fund what. In the three provinces that we visited that did not have agreements, there remains uncertainty as to how the federal funding will be applied and how the provinces will monitor the services that are being funded.
Senator Dyck: It sounds as though the agreements are dedicated more to tracking the money, how much money is received by the agencies and how that money is administered.
Mr. Côté: No, not necessarily. The two agreements are very different. One is with Ontario and the other is with Alberta. There is a tendency to go on the funding, but the funding is tied to the programs and services that are supposed to be made available by these provinces to First Nations.
There could be some ambiguity in the case of Alberta, for example, as to what the role of the province is when it delegates the services to First Nations and the funding comes from the federal government. However, as we point out in our report, the formula is being changed in Alberta to calculate the funding to First Nations on the basis of the provincial legislation, and that should take care of that difficulty.
Senator Dyck: Is there any way in which we can pressure INAC to form agreements with the provinces that do not have agreements?
Mr. Côté: As Mr. Campbell pointed out, you might want to ask the department what they are currently doing with respect to the other provinces. We know, through the audit work we have done, that they are in discussions with a number of provinces, but we do not know exactly where they stand.
Senator Dyck: Your report did not monitor what happens to off-reserve First Nations or other Aboriginal children. This is strictly for on-reserve?
Mr. Côté: It is strictly for on-reserve because this is the scope of the program we audited. Indian Affairs is mandated to fund on-reserve only, while provinces are supposed to fund for services off-reserve.
Senator Dyck: Is it your assessment that if you are not a reserve child and are in care, you would probably get better programs off reserve than on reserve?
Mr. Côté: Generally speaking, that is the case. The Auditor General of British Columbia did an audit that covered both on-reserve and off-reserve, and that may be of interest.
Senator Peterson: You indicated in your report that there is little information on measuring outcomes. What type of indicators need to be developed, and by whom, to allow your department to quantify performances more adequately and effectively?
Mr. Campbell: Our work indicates that this is not an area that anyone does particularly well. While Indian Affairs gets the brunt of her comments in this chapter, we looked for who does this well and what the standard is, and many people we talked to in this business agree that there is much work to be done there, but what happens to the children must be fundamental to anyone who has responsibility for a program like this. Work is being done in British Columbia through the ombudsperson there. Some people are talking about that, but it is not a well-established area of measurement.
Senator Peterson: Do you think the funding and delivery of programs are correlated and are working properly? I have read that in some cases the funding goes for three years while the program goes for four or five years. What do they do at the end of the three-year period? Would it help to get the funding and the program delivery together?
Mr. Campbell: Tying funding to the services being delivered is vital. This is not a case of sunset funding, where a program is expiring in three or five years. As Senator Dyck mentioned, the need to have agreements with the provinces is important. As Mr. Côté had said, when the agreement speaks to the services that are going to be delivered to the children, the funding will flow from that, as opposed to saying we will pay X dollars. That is the problem, because sometimes the child needs services that are different from those provided by the dollars that are available. If you can tie the funding to the services that people are able to deliver, then the children have a much better chance of getting the services they need.
The Chair: Mr. Campbell, I know that your department does not comment on policy. You have clearly laid that out; but you have also said that there are common threads in the process where we are failing First Nations. Funding for education for non-Aboriginals can run up to $11,000 per student per year, and in many cases is around $9,500, whereas with First Nations it is $6,300. That is an average that I have seen from sitting in this chair.
How do you think we could move governments? This is not partisan at all. The present government has decided to deal with the emergency items such as water and land claims that are causing conflicts. We have the specific land claims legislation. In the past we have had Minister Nault, who came up with some fairly substantial recommendations but was not able to get them through government.
I have sat on this committee for several years in this place, and in the other place formerly as well. The Office of the Auditor General is a nonpartisan part of government. Somehow a strong message has got to come out of a nonpartisan entity in government in our parliamentary structure to deal with this issue. As I said earlier, the plane just will not fly. It does not matter whether we have Billy Bishop, Jan Zurakowski, Yeager or Armstrong sitting in the department; if the airplane does not fly, it will never get off the ground.
I am reaching the point of frustration, like many members here. We study these issues, and they all come back to an original base. We find that, as the process fails, INAC or DIAND seems to be the problem. I do not know whether you can comment any further, but we need an outside influence as well to effect the change that is necessary.
I know the complications of Parliament because I have been here. I have sat in the House of Commons and I sit here. I know the complications that exist with minority governments, majority governments and a litany of things.
Do you see your organization, which is the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, being able to assist us in effecting the change required that has been brought forward by all senators at this committee meeting here today?
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Chair, we do want to be helpful. We have a mandate, however. You are right: We do not and we should not comment on policy.
Having said that, I would recognize that I have sat here before on a different program, giving similar answers to similar questions, having reported on similar deficiencies. You are absolutely right in that case. You had mentioned some of the issues that Parliament has to deal with. I cannot imagine any solutions in the social programs being effected without reaching agreement with First Nations and, as discussed earlier, with the provinces.
However, I would step out and say this: When it comes to delivering social programs, I am not aware of any other jurisdiction that does it this way. I would hope that within that, that you would let me respect the fact that we have a mandate that does not allow us to comment on policy, but if one were to look for comparisons I am not sure one would find one easily. I will stop there.
The Chair: Thank you. You did it well.
Senator Dyck: I wanted to go back to the first issue I raised in the previous round of questions, and that was the increased incidence of Aboriginal children in welfare programs. Would you care to shed some light as to why you think the numbers are higher and why they might be increasing at a greater rate in the Aboriginal population compared to the rest of the Canadian population?
Mr. Campbell: As I mentioned, the audit team spent a considerable amount of time talking with people in First Nations communities but also in the First Nations child and family services agencies. One of the major concerns expressed to us was the fact that there is funding there to put children in care but there is often not funding in place for alternative services. As I mentioned earlier, provinces have moved quite significantly to preventive type programs, and in many cases in First Nations communities the preventive type programs are not there.
One of the fears expressed to us, and we mention it in the report, was that there is no funding for prevention at the end of the day that could very well be causing more children to be taken out of care because, in many cases, that is the only thing that is funded.
Senator Dyck: Could you elaborate a little more on what types of preventive programs are not being funded? It sounds as though you are saying that children are being put in care because the money is there, rather than being put in another program because the other program is not available. Did I misunderstand what you were saying?
Mr. Campbell: No, that is what I intended to say, and it is certainly what experts in the field have conveyed to us.
Senator Dyck: Could you give me one example of an alternative that a child could have been put into rather than into a child welfare program?
Mr. Côté: One example could be that when we talk about preventive services, you have to explain to the parents of the child. Instead of taking the child from the parent and placing him or her in a foster home, you would work with the family as an entity, the parents and the child, in order to improve the parenting skills of the parent in being able to care for the children.
It takes different services and resources to provide a service like that. As Mr. Campbell pointed out, in many communities or agencies the funding is not available for those types of services, but it would be if the child is taken out. The key difference is working with the parents as well when you talk about prevention.
Senator Dyck: Is what is needed a program that is more holistic, looking at treating the family unit, and perhaps the community at large, rather than this piecemeal approach?
Mr. Côté: Yes, you are right. As we pointed out in our report, when a high number of children are in care in a community, you have to look at the community as a whole. Perhaps it is not in terms of service, but in the whole area of services, not only this one. You are dealing with a situation that is very different in nature than what these kinds of programs are usually dealing with.
Senator Dyck: What role do you think abject poverty plays in all of this, the difference in the socioeconomic status between many First Nations on reserve versus the rest of Canadian society?
Mr. Côté: We have looked at studies that have tried to identify factors that would cause these discrepancies in terms of children requiring services, and poverty and housing have come out on top of these factors for First Nations.
The same studies, as we point out in our report, also identify that it is the incidence of neglect that is often found in First Nations communities. In terms of abuse and more serious issues, it is about the same as everywhere else. However, neglect is often tied to poverty and housing. Those are the kinds of things they have identified.
Senator Dyck: It is important to point that out, because I think the media portrays many First Nations communities as being communities where there is a lot of sexual and physical abuse, and that the factor of poverty is often overlooked and underplayed. Thank you for making that point clear.
The Chair: Senator Dyck, I think I have spoken about that before, where a First Nations chief from Manitoba was in my office and pointed out that there was up to six families living in a 1,000-square-foot house. I do not know how they existed. He broke down and said that it is frustrating because kids cannot study, education fails and abuse is there. I think we are aware of that, but how we deal with it is the real question.
Senator Gustafson: Item 15 of your presentation says that First Nations children in care call for all parties involved in the system, and then you indicate that the Province of Alberta is doing something that you would recommend to other provinces. What exactly is that?
Mr. Côté: Thank you for the question. With respect to this program in particular, what we have seen in Alberta is the tying of the funding for First Nations to what the province is doing in its own legislation. That is the model that the department and the province have adopted. It seems to us that it makes a lot of sense to link the funding with what these agencies are tasked to do.
Beyond that, a few years ago Alberta modified its legislation to make more prevention services available throughout the province in order to reduce the number of children who would have to be taken into care. According to the preliminary figures they had when the department embarked in discussion with them, it was fairly successful in reducing the number of children in care. Since Alberta is also serving some First Nations communities, they were seeing these positive results in both places, on reserve as well as off reserve.
Senator Dallaire: I would like to return to the position you indicated regarding policy, and how you do not audit policy. My previous experience has been that in one department you could not ask for a paper clip without it being in the policy statement of the department — White Paper as a major reference — and that if your work was not linked to the policy, it had no authority. You could not buy equipment for the army if it was not part of the policy of what you wanted the army to do.
I then moved to another department, international development, where the policy branch had no power. The policy was there in an advisory capacity, some sort of expertise, and held no hammer at all on what the different branches were doing. The VPs of different branches had an enormous amount of autonomy.
It seems to me that policy is not an insignificant factor in assessing how people are actually moving the yardsticks. It also serves as strategic guidance for them and provides the boundaries for what they are doing.
Have you seen such an authoritative body within INAC that has an overwhelming policy authority on how things evolve in that department? Without your having audited it, did you at least see where this direction is emanating from?
Mr. Campbell: Yes. They have policy branch and policy sections in most of the programs. We do audit the implementation of policy, but we do not comment on whether a specific policy is appropriate or not.
In this case, they are operating a significant social service program on the basis of policy. When we audited the implementation of that policy, we observed, among other things, that the funding was not linked to the services that they were supposed to deliver and the objectives of the policy, and that there was inadequate information on the outcomes.
Senator Dallaire: I want to push you a little further, if I may. If the policy is outdated and if the policy itself is erroneous in not keeping up with the times, or perhaps the policy has not shifted with the legislation that might have been brought in, would it not be within your purview to say that they are working from this policy but surely this policy is not meeting the requirement either? Or is it just the implementation of the policy that is not meeting the requirement?
Mr. Campbell: I am sure many bureaucrats would argue that often when we audit the implementation of policy, it would appear to them that we are actually making comment on the policy.
Senator Dallaire: I have been on the receiving end of that.
Mr. Campbell: We cannot see ourselves being put in that position, because we will come back and audit the implementation of a policy. We should not have a view on what the policy should be, because it would affect our independence, and we certainly could not do that.
You could look at many of the audits we have done. We have spoken about how policies have been implemented. It is for others to decide whether or not that policy can be fixed and therefore implemented better, or whether the policy needs to be changed. There are cases where we do bump up alongside policy, but we do have to keep that line very clear.
Senator Dallaire: You do, however, make the comment that there is an absence of legislative authority?
Mr. Campbell: Yes.
Senator Dallaire: That is often interpreted through policy.
Mr. Campbell: That certainly is an observation. We have observed that before. It is not for us, I think, to say that this thing must be solved through legislation. That is for other departments to decide.
We did this a number of years ago on audits of non-insured health benefits, where you have a large and complex program that is delivered as a basis of policy. I know that when we had one of many hearings at the public accounts committee, bureaucrats did, under questioning, eventually make the point that it is preferable for a bureaucrat to be living a program that has a basis in legislation as opposed to just in policy. That was the view at that time.
It is important for us to make the point that many of the programs that INAC delivers, other people deliver through legislation. INAC delivers programs through policy, and it is for government to decide whether or not they want to continue doing that. If they do want to continue delivering those programs on the basis of policy, we will continue to audit how that policy is implemented.
The Chair: There is no question that your independence and neutrality must be maintained. We are certainly not trying to put you at risk with the present government or any future governments, Mr. Campbell.
However, with respect to thinking outside of the traditional box — I hate to use that term — we can look at the success stories, like Osoyoos Chief Clarence Louie and Chief Robert Louie in Westbank, and I speak of them because that is the province I represent. They have stepped outside and, in certain cases such as Westbank, they have sought self-government.
There are over 600 First Nations. My belief is that there is no government in the world that can possibly deal with that many entities in a comprehensive, efficient manner. Has any recommendation ever been made that a governance structure should be established for linguistic groups or treaty groups so that a higher level of efficiency can be arrived at?
In these one-offs, where you have 600 and some First Nations, when a problem erupts, the government rushes in and deals with them as individuals, and it is micromanagement instead of macromanagement.
That leads me back to the fact that we must consider what was recommended years ago, namely, that we must establish a better governance structure. In this business of trying to deal with 600 units across the country, you would have to be a minister for 10 years to be able to get to all of them in order to understand their problems because their problems are unique unto themselves.
Could you comment on that?
Mr. Campbell: I will carefully, Mr. Chair. Again, a simple question we ask ourselves when we audit programs is what other people do in similar cases. If you look at education or health, the rest of society organizes itself into school boards, and they have a number of schools within that school board and they build some capacity for curricular development, teacher training and those things that serve all the schools within that school board. When you see schools operating entirely on their own, that is different from how the rest of society operates. It is the same thing with health. We organize ourselves into health boards.
The one thing we have talked about in the past is the need to build institutional capacity for First Nations. Where that rests belongs in the purview of others. Having that institutional capacity that can help support, guide and develop those programs as they find their way into the communities is, as I said earlier, how other people do it. It is unique where we would separate things into 600 different pieces and try to operate them individually.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Campbell and Mr. Côté. I thank both of you for your candid, straightforward answers on a difficult topic. We thank the Auditor General and her office for allowing you to be with us here this morning. On behalf of the senators, we wish you well in your continuing work on First Nations.
The committee adjourned.