Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 7 - Evidence - Afternoon meeting
REGINA, Tuesday, September 19, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 1:05 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.
The Chairman: Honourable senators and ladies and gentlemen, we will begin the afternoon session. We are here to examine and report on Canada's international obligations in regards to the rights and freedoms of children. We are particularly interested in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the Government of Canada signed and ratified in 1989 but did not implement through legislation. We are here to determine to what extent the convention has been implemented and whether it has made a difference for children in Canada. Our first panel will be from First Nations Child Welfare Association.
Dexter Kinequon, Executive Director, Lac La Ronge Indian Band, Indian Child and Family Services: Good afternoon. Our band is one of the largest First Nations in Canada; it is a multi-community First Nation with 7,300 band members living both on and off reserve. We are situated in Northern Saskatchewan, approximately 760 kilometres north of Regina.
Our agency has been in operation for 12 years. We deliver child and family services to the six communities of Lac La Ronge Indian Band. We are one of 18 First Nations child and family services agencies delegated to provide child welfare services on reserve in Saskatchewan. As an executive director involved with the delivery of services to children, I am honoured to attend here today to provide our experiences and observations in child welfare regarding the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Many First Nations families and communities had hoped that Canada's ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was a signal of a new beginning. First Nations people thought there was finally recognition that the involuntary and disproportionate removal of thousands of First Nations children from their families, communities and cultures by child welfare systems was not acceptable.
The hopes of First Nations people were again raised by the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples completed in November 1996. Unfortunately we have not seen the changes we would have expected from the recommendations of that report.
More recently, the commitments to First Nations people through the Kelowna Accord of February 2006 appear to be receding into history. The status quo continues with little hope that the lives of our children or the next generation will improve in any substantive way.
Our agency, in partnership with other agencies and with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, participated in a national policy review of INAC's authority to fund a range and level of child and family services comparable to what the provinces provide off reserve. A report with 17 recommendations was presented to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in June 2000, and we have yet to see any significant changes or improvements.
The consequences of maintaining the status quo are that the gap in family and community wellness between First Nations and non-First Nations communities gets wider and the change process that is needed is delayed.
Our agency is working with other agencies to establish a First Nations family and community institute. First Nations and the Government of Saskatchewan agree that the development of the institute would be a significant source of support to the agencies in policy, standards and program development and would provide for the coordination of research and training. Existing federal government authorities, however, do not allow them to provide operational funding for this type of initiative.
Resources, supports and capacity development are necessary to overcome the legacy of the residential schools and other policies that have been developed without the participation of First Nations and that have not provided a forum for First Nations to resolve the operational conflicts these policies create in our communities. Those policies have also not resulted in First Nations children and families sharing a comparable level of wellness and security; nor have they brought about improved access by First Nations to the range and level of services that other Canadians enjoy. There has not been development of preventative measures to improve the life chances of future generations of First Nations children and families.
First Nations should have access to the federal forums that develop, review and revise policies that affect First Nations children and families. First Nations also require the resources to develop their own policies, standards and methods of accountability.
As the Senate of Canada recently reported, Canada shares the responsibility for the implementation of the convention with the provinces and territories. Unfortunately, there has been no coordinated effort to ensure that First Nations children benefit from the convention, particularly in relation to Articles 20 and 30.
The Saskatchewan Children's Advocate reported in 2000 that three out of four First Nations children in care are placed in non-First Nations resources. We believe that that is a gross violation of Articles 20 and 30 of the convention. The best interests of the child is the usual reason given to justify the placement of children away from their families and alternate resources. The definition of "the best interests'' has been established by several court cases. Rarely, however, does the continuity of the child's culture influence the placement of the children in care. Safety and the lack of appropriate resources are the most common justifications used to ignore the convention. It is our belief that First Nations have the right to determine the best interests of a First Nations child.
National and provincial governments develop policies that have significant impacts on First Nations families without the participation of First Nations. We agree with Mr. Rodolfo Stavenhagen, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people. In his report dated April 25, 2006 he says:
In consultation with indigenous peoples' institutions, the Special Rapporteur recommends the establishment of bodies for consultation and participation on all general and particular measures that affect them, with special attention to legislation, natural resources and development projects. He considers crucial, in parallel with the new laws, the establishment of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms and practices and mechanisms for the implementation of the standards established with the participation of indigenous peoples. Parliaments should establish, where they do not yet exist, commissions on indigenous affairs and on human rights, and those already in existence should be made responsible for ensuring that legislative proposals respond effectively to the needs and requirements of indigenous people in consultation with those peoples. Likewise they should carefully monitor the use of the budgets allocated to the areas of protection and promotion of the rights of indigenous peoples and communities. The Special Rapporteur calls for a prompt adoption of the necessary statutory and organic laws for the effective implementation of the standards established in laws on the human rights of the indigenous peoples. In cases of inconsistency between laws, priority and precedence should be given to those that protect the human rights of the indigenous peoples, and conflicts that may arise from such inconsistencies should be resolved in good faith and by common agreement.
Moreover, the Special Rapporteur recommends the establishment of independent mechanisms, such as the human rights observatories, for determining the appropriate criteria and indicators for systematic monitoring of enforcement of laws concerning the rights of the indigenous peoples. The Special Rapporteur also calls for the respect and full application of international human rights standards relevant to indigenous peoples.
First Nations have a special relationship with the Crown based on the Royal Proclamation, the treaties, and the Constitution of Canada. Canada has a fiduciary obligation to First Nations. We look to the federal government to protect our rights and to fulfil its obligations under the convention. We look to the federal government to support the delivery of services by First Nations agencies and institutions according to First Nations standards, cultures, belief system and values.
We are still waiting for the recommendations of the joint national policy review of 2000 to be fully implemented. Subsequent research, conducted during 2005 by the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society on behalf of the federal government and First Nations child and family services agencies across Canada, provides further documentation and recommendations to guide the implementation of the national policy review recommendations. Real progress has been delayed for another year due to changes in government.
Although we are a patient people, the care of our children is our most pressing obligation. We are here to make practical and reasonable suggestions that can be used to help our children and families.
All our children and families ask is to benefit equally from the resources of this great land. Promises that First Nations children and families would benefit equally under the laws are made in the Constitution. Many laws that have an unequal effect on First Nations children and families have been maintained long after they have proved to be detrimental to First Nations people.
First Nations children and families have a right to opportunities that are comparable to those afforded other children and families in Canada. They have a right to have access to a comparable range and level of services that recognize, protect and accommodate First Nations values and cultures.
First Nations must be provided the resources that are required to develop and provide the supports and services based on First Nations culture, value and community traditions that will afford their children a level of safety and well- being at least comparable to what other children in Canada enjoy.
Disputes between governments and departments over jurisdiction, financial responsibility and mandate have resulted in a complicated, fragmented mix of programs and services. Policies that do not adequately consider the implications and impacts on First Nations communities generally ignore the realities of such things as the cost of goods and services in northern communities and the lack of on-reserve family supports and services available in urban centres. The lack of a long-term vision supported by appropriate policies and authorities resulted in fragmented and crisis-oriented responses to meeting the needs of vulnerable children and their families.
The effective participation of First Nations in the policy making process may prevent disputes that widen the gap between the safety and well-being of First Nations children and other children in Canada. We recommend the establishment of intergovernmental forums where the resolution of disputes is guided by the principle of comparability and a 10-year plan of action to close the gap and achieve comparability of well-being.
The field of social work recognizes that prevention and support measures are the preferred method of protecting children. All too often, especially within First Nations child and family services agencies in Saskatchewan, federal policies have led to the practice of being predominantly oriented to protecting children by placing children away from their families. There are next to no resources for family support services to help the family regain the capacity to have their children returned. The joint national policy review and the subsequent research by the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society emphasized the need for First Nations agencies to be funded to develop and deliver prevention and family support services.
We recommend that the recommendations of the national policy review and subsequent research recommendations be implemented as soon as possible.
We recommend that a national centre of responsibility be established to ensure that the work of all parties responsible for the protection of the rights of First Nations children is coordinated and accountable, and that a plan is in place to close the comparability gaps within a reasonable amount of time.
We recommend that the federal and provincial government support the establishment of a First Nations children's commissioner to ensure that the rights of all First Nations children in Saskatchewan are protected and that legislation, policy and program development are in keeping with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
I wish to thank you for providing me an opportunity to present here today. I hope that some of the information I presented will be useful in strengthening the human rights of all children in Canada.
The Chairman: Mr. Kinequon, this is the first time I have heard that there was a report of 17 recommendations. It has been lost in the morass somewhere. We have heard from Aboriginal groups, bureaucrats and NGOs and none of them has referenced this June 2000 report which seems very important to you and apparently deals with the kinds of issues that we are interested in. Can you comment on that? Is the report active within the Aboriginal communities?
Mr. Kinequon: The national policy review was undertaken between child welfare agencies in Canada and INAC. The final report was presented and, as I understand from INAC, some of the recommendations have been implemented. We are waiting for some of the other articles that refer directly to the ability to fund preventative services. Currently, the national advisory committee, which is comprised of representatives from INAC as well as child welfare agencies from across Canada, is currently working on coming to some consensus on the remainder of the 17 recommendations. We have been waiting for six years.
The Chairman: I take it that you do not have the same resources that others in Saskatchewan would have, most notably in preventative services, because you are tied to the federal government as opposed to the provincial government. Do you also have the problem of families moving from on reserve to off reserve and back again, and does that increase the problem of trying to track which level of government is responsible?
Mr. Kinequon: In relation to your first question, this was part of the issue that directed the research regarding the national policy on funding from the federal government. The funding agreement stipulates that we must provide services on reserve comparable to those being provided off reserve. The provincial government has the opportunity to use all sections of the Child and Family Services Act. However, in our funding agreement, the preventative service sections are not recognized, so we are not funded for prevention on reserve. Therein lies the issue of non-comparability.
In terms of the band members moving on and off reserve, it does happen. My community is literally divided by a road; you can live in a house on one side and be on reserve and then move right across the street and be off reserve. That does create some challenges. We have been working with the province's Department of Community Resources in developing an on- and off-reserve agreement, and we currently work with the department using a tracking system through the automated client index system, which is a client registration database. We are getting better at being able to track clients as they move on and off reserve.
The Chairman: Comparability is always a concern of mine in Saskatchewan; getting those resources for children always meant getting them to Regina, Saskatoon, maybe Moose Jaw and Prince Albert, because every child needed something specialized and we had only so many paediatricians, so many speech therapists, et cetera.
What preventative or specialized services do you desperately need now on the reserves that you do not have and that you think others in the province also need?
Mr. Kinequon: The burning issue is the ability to work with children in their homes as opposed to removing them. We need in-home supports that we can call on to work with families and children, rather than having the clients travel to other centres that have those supports.
I come from a community in La Ronge of 5,000 people to 6,000 people. We do not have a psychologist or any mental health services. The band can provide mental health services only for adults. In order for our clients to access services they must travel 250 kilometres south to Prince Albert.
We would like to expand our ability to provide in-home supports. We have often sent our youth to high-cost therapeutic placements in the south and they do very well; however, within a few weeks of returning to their community, where there are no supports, they are back to where they were before they entered the therapeutic program. If nothing has been done to make changes in the home, it is difficult to bring about changes for the child.
Senator Carstairs: Mr. Kinequon, I come from Manitoba and I am very familiar with child and family services agencies, particularly the Aboriginal agencies there. Can you tell me if your child and family services agencies work on the same basis or do you have less authority in Saskatchewan?
Mr. Kinequon: I understand that child and family services in Manitoba are more advanced. They have a different level of agreements with their provincial government. I believe they have been in operation longer. Our agency was one of the first to be established and we have been in operation only 12 years. In that respect we are a bit behind Manitoba.
Senator Carstairs: I think that the mandating of services to the community is very important. However, the communities in Manitoba are still experiencing many of the same problems that you are experiencing. My understanding is that even in Manitoba, with perhaps more advanced agreements, they cannot get support for keeping a child within the home, although they can get all kinds of support for taking the child outside the home. My view is that the longer you can keep a child within the home or the community environment, the better chance that child has, particularly if you can get those supports in place early enough.
If your community had an option, clearly you would choose to keep the child in the community. Would that option be available if you had more funding, or are there not sufficient placements in your community?
Mr. Kinequon: It is a little bit of both. There may be only 300 people living in some of the remote communities. The home from which the child was apprehended could be across the street or down the block from the foster home. That proximity can create anxiety and prevent people from becoming foster parents.
Because we have six communities, we have been able to develop resources on reserve, so that a child may leave his or her home community but still be in a community of Lac La Ronge Indian Band. Some of our communities are as close to each other as 35 kilometres and some are as far apart as 210 kilometres. We have been trying to develop more resources in all of the communities so that even if children are not their community of residence, they can still be within the same band structure and the same culture.
Senator Carstairs: Keeping children busy and active is important. What kind of funding do you receive to provide recreational activities on weekends and after school, such as dancing, cultural pursuits or other activities for children? I know you receive base funding for the operation of the schools, but my concern is that many schools I have visited in Aboriginal communities are no different than urban schools: they are locked up by about four o'clock in the afternoon even though many of them have facilities that could be used to keep children occupied in the after-school hours. What has been your experience?
Mr. Kinequon: Some of the more remote communities are making progress in developing extracurricular activities such as drop-in centres for youth. Unfortunately, often the reality is that political leadership will pay lip service to the idea of youth being our future. They will talk about how we need to take care of them, but in the total budget, the youth recreation budget will get very little, pretty much just what is left over. Often then we get together to look for inexpensive initiatives that can be developed for our youth. We have the same problem with youth roaming around with nothing productive to do and so they get into trouble.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Once an Aboriginal child is adopted outside of a community by non-Aboriginal adoptive parents, is that child able to come back into the community as a status member?
Mr. Kinequon: Yes.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Do residential school survivors have easy access to apply for their compensation here on this side of the country?
Mr. Kinequon: There is some confusion about that. The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, FSIN, has taken a leadership role in trying to ensure that all of the communities in Saskatchewan have information on the process. However, as recently as last week I was in the office and people were asking what the process is and what is happening. There is not much information. Many community members do not have computers and access to websites, so they depend on the band, and sometimes the responsibility is given to Education or Health or another program, and they are told to hand out information to everyone on the reserve. Unfortunately, they do not acquire the information very readily.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Is it a matter of needing funding to make information about the compensation accessible?
Mr. Kinequon: I cannot speak for FSIN, but for the leadership of the First Nations in Saskatchewan I would think that it is a funding issue. They would be leading the initiatives to ensure that all First Nations in Saskatchewan that have members eligible for residential school compensation receive the information. I cannot talk about any shortcomings from our side. We do not have funding for that.
Senator Munson: In your opening statement you said that the Saskatchewan Children's Advocate reported in 2000 that three out of four First Nations children in care are placed in non-First Nations resources; is that still the case?
Mr. Kinequon: I am not exactly sure of the current statistics but it is very disproportionate in terms of First Nations children that are currently in care in Saskatchewan.
Senator Munson: You also say that this is a gross violation of Articles 20 and 30 of the convention. If Canada were not just to ratify the convention but also to implement it, how would that change? Would there be penalties if we did not abide by the convention? I suppose it could go before the courts. How does that all work?
Mr. Kinequon: I am not sure how that would work, but I think that if we are looking for something out of this particular statement it would be that the services that are provided to First Nations children by agencies need to be strengthened by the federal government. If that were to occur, the agencies' abilities to keep those children on reserve would probably improve and more First Nations children would be in secure, safe environments on reserve.
Senator Munson: From your personal experiences, can you describe for me what is happening in Saskatchewan today in regard to Aboriginal children and fetal alcohol syndrome and babies dying? We heard some very troubling and conflicting testimony this morning. We heard that the situation is not as bleak as it was; we heard there is systemic racism; we heard stories from the streets of Saskatoon. It is very distressing to hear these statistics from Saskatchewan. This committee does not want to deliver yet another report: we want to recommend what action should be taken.
Mr. Kinequon: One matter I think is very important is the lack of vision within the federal government regarding First Nations people. That applies not only to the government of the day, but also to past governments. There is a problem within First Nations communities and the federal government simply does not know what to do about it. Policies are put in place to deal with the problem, and every time a policy does not work, it is simply replaced. There is no overall vision of how to resolve the systemic issues.
Earlier I spoke about a centre of responsibility. It may not have been the case 15 years ago, but today there are enough educated First Nations people that think tanks could be developed across Canada to consider how we can resolve some of the issues in our communities. First Nations people now have an adequate level of education and sophistication to be able to do that. Much has changed in the time that I have been in child welfare. I meet many very intelligent, credible, experienced First Nations people.
The federal government needs a different approach, a different philosophy of openness. Currently the guiding principle for everything is money and how to spend the least amount possible to resolve the situation. As a frontline agency delivering child welfare services, that is my impression. Many times the funding given to us has conditions attached to control the amount of money that we are able to provide to our services.
With respect to the situation in Saskatchewan, First Nations have to take responsibility for First Nations children. Protecting the rights of children sometimes includes circumstances where First Nations children have to be protected from First Nations.
There needs to be development in the area of certification, accreditation and standards of practice. Those are things that First Nations people have to do. It is inappropriate to have those imposed upon us, and we are at a point now where we have the ability to do that work and to ensure the safety and security of our children.
You have heard the stories of children dying while in the care of a First Nations child and family services agency. I can tell you that children are dying in the care of the provincial government in Saskatchewan and in other provinces.
The whole area of child welfare needs to be reviewed.
Steven McArthur, Representative, Yorkton Tribal Council, Child and Family Services: I concur with what Mr. Kinequon has said. Our agency serves 13 First Nations communities in Southern Saskatchewan. How funding is related to risk and liability has always been an issue for us. We question whether the funding is adequate to deliver the standard of services necessary. I think it is very important for the national policy review to be used as a vehicle to address many of the concerns that have been identified, such as how the lack of funding is affecting the quality of services for First Nations children.
The paramount consideration for the agencies has always been the best interests of the children. The national policy review's main consideration was whether adequate capacity exists in terms of funding and other resources. Between 2000 and 2006 that review has been under consideration. How much longer must we wait? It is a national funding policy for all First Nations child and family services agencies in Saskatchewan. We need to consider the risk that is attached to that delay and whether the risk factors are escalating as time goes by. There needs to be a more careful analysis of whether those risks may be associated with the funding regime. We need to relate the resources and the capacity to provide the services to the best interests of First Nations children and their families.
The Chairman: Mr. Kinequon, you spoke of establishing a Saskatchewan First Nations family and community institute. I believe you said there are unique cultural and historical aspects of delivering services for First Nations children as well as on- and off-reserve issues. Would this institute consider best practices and common problems? As you said, now you have the sophistication and education to know what the problems are, and you also have the professional qualifications to start working on them.
Do you see this as a Canadian institute as opposed to a Saskatchewan institute? It would have academic qualities and would undertake research, but I understand it would also be able to recommend best practices. For instance, on a reserve that is 20 miles from specialized services, how do you deliver the practical, day-to-day things that case workers need to learn in order to do their jobs? If the institute were to address all of those questions, would it not be of benefit across the country? It is an exciting concept that I think could have a practical application.
Mr. Kinequon: I hope that it would become a national research organization able to share information and develop social policies with child welfare services.
I do not blame INAC for everything; we have some differences but at the same time this institute was a joint venture with child welfare agencies under FSIN, jointly funded by the Department of Community Resources and INAC in the consultation component. They do not provide operational funding. I believe that has to be part of the investment in the future of child welfare in Saskatchewan as well as nationally.
Currently we have some disparities with the regional INAC office and the national office. We have a very good working relationship with the regional office; there are good people there who are genuinely trying to support the agencies. However, Ottawa is a whole different, unknown realm. The national office does not have the ability to follow through to the extent we would wish, such as this type of venture. Hopefully the institute could be of benefit nationally. The consultation process is underway and we will move forward from there.
Senator Carstairs: We have had a great deal of success with a family environment research unit called RESOLVE, which functions at the Universities of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Calgary and Alberta. It would appear that the problems you are having in Saskatchewan with the delivery of adequate services to children and families are similar to those in Manitoba and Alberta. Perhaps a prairie research foundation might be a good way to go. The problems are somewhat different in Atlantic Canada and Quebec and Ontario. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Kinequon: Yes. There are many similarities in the operations of the agencies. We are quite involved with the Centres of Excellence in Manitoba in looking at policy development and strategizing future initiatives. My hope is that some day the Saskatchewan First Nations institute would be able to work in conjunction with those provinces as we do have a collective interest to work together for future development.
Senator Carstairs: A great many non-Aboriginal people think that Aboriginal people do not want to be accredited and qualified and do not want the same standards. However, my experience has been that Aboriginal people want to serve their communities every bit as well as non-Aboriginal people. They want training and expertise specifically dealing with their people and their cultural experience. I believe it is important that you put that on the record, that it is not a lack of desire for standards or accreditation, it is the appropriateness of them.
Mr. Kinequon: I agree completely. There are various opinions on how the process of accreditation should occur. That is where we need help from an organization such as a First Nations institute to guide that process. There are even differences within the 18 agencies in Saskatchewan. We have to consider also the uniqueness of the North. I do support accreditation and developing standards of practice and the policies that extend from those, but they have to be appropriate.
Senator Merchant: Government has a complex structure. Sometimes I have found that they spend a lot of money fighting the delivery of services. You have to justify funding very clearly. What are the major obstacles you have to overcome when dealing with government?
How much time does it take for an idea actually to come to fruition at ground level? Is it many years before you can convince people? Governments are made up of politicians and it is the nature of the beast to have to be accountable to the electorate. This morning there was a presentation that spoke of racism towards First Nations people.
Mr. Kinequon: As a director of a child welfare agency, I can tell you that I struggle with the inequity that exists for a First Nations organization dealing with the bureaucracy of government. Often there is no reciprocity; it is all one-way. When I am dealing with government I often feel I am being treated like a child, being told, "This is how you will do this and here is the way you must do that and if you do not do it then you will not get funding or benefits.''
We attempt to maintain as much communication as we can in terms of input, but the agreements are presented to us as a done deal, and if we have a problem with an agreement we are told that that is just the way it is for this year and next year we can try again. We really have no recourse; it feels as if we have no ability to be an equal at the table. That is one of our challenges.
With respect to accountability, I feel that I am not trusted to make good decisions about the delivery of child welfare services. We regularly have to meet conditions. Regionally we try to meet with the department to make sure that we can overcome some of those obstacles, but it still feels like Dad in Ottawa telling us how it is. How do we respond to that? We say, "Okay.''
Senator Merchant: Government can always find money to fight for their ideas. How do you compete with your very limited resources? It is almost impossible for you to present your case on an equal footing.
Mr. Kinequon: The real significance of the national policy review lies in the collective investment that First Nations across Canada have made together. This report was not developed by only a few agencies in Saskatchewan; rather, it reflects the views of many First Nations. As I mentioned in my presentations, there have been a number of events that we hoped would bring about change. We have had a national policy review and still nothing has happened. Now where do we go? We go to forums such as this or the United Nations and hope that somehow we can motivate the government to move on some of our issues.
The Chairman: Thank you for your helpful written submission, which identifies your specific needs and focuses us on the report. We need to look at that report, which you believe will be of assistance. Thank you for travelling such a long distance to meet with us. We will be continuing our meetings and we hope that our recommendations will support children on your reserve and elsewhere in Canada.
Geoff Pawson, Founder, Ranch Ehrlo Society: Madam Chair, it is an honour to be here. It has been a long time since I appeared before you.
I will begin by talking about the Ranch Ehrlo Society and Ehrlo Community Services, which are two distinct corporations. The Ranch Ehrlo Society is involved in rehabilitation in a residential treatment setting. We work with children and youth suffering from conduct disorders, psychiatric and psychological difficulties, and addictions from inhalants to crystal meth. We work with young people who are not necessarily charged as sexual offenders but who have intrusive sexual behaviours that if not contained will create difficulties for them. As well, we work with those who have the pervasive developmental delays often caused by fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.
Our work is to provide safety for these young people, to provide treatment services through a problem-solving process, recreation, education, and work training.
Our second incorporation, Ehrlo Community Services, is the prevention side of our program. We provide community recreation through the outdoor hockey league, Monday night football, basketball and soccer, and in the course of a year we deal with several thousand young people coming out of poorer parts of Regina. We operate low- income housing. We provide counselling for families and children. We also have a consultation service.
This year is the 40th anniversary of the Ranch Ehrlo Society. We started on June 1, 1966. Over our 40-year journey we have learned many lessons, but our commitment to youth has never flagged. Hopefully some of those lessons can be shared today.
Deborah Parker-Loewen, Vice-President of Programs North, Ranch Ehrlo Society: I will give you a brief overview of some of our key points. The Ranch Ehrlo Society reviewed the interim report that you presented in November 2005. We want to commend you for the work that you did at that time and to support a couple of specific recommendations.
The first recommendation we support is that Canada's country reports, the UN committee's concluding observations and the government's follow-up report should be tabled in Parliament and should be referred to a parliamentary committee for examination. It is very important that those reports and remarks be put on the public record so that there is an opportunity for all Canadian citizens, particularly young people, to appreciate what is being done on their behalf and what we still need to do.
You also recommended that Canada create a children's commissioner to monitor the implementation of the convention and protection of children's rights in Canada. We strongly support that recommendation.
When a children's commission is established there needs to be an appropriate way to include young people so that they have an opportunity to have their views and perspectives heard. Adequate funding must be made available for the implementation in Canada of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
In our written submission we raise four key issues. The first is Canada's compliance with Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states:
...the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards...
As Dr. Pawson mentioned, we provide residential treatment services for youth. We know the challenges faced by facilities, institutions and services that provide services to youth. We know that there are continuing challenges in doing a good job and providing quality and excellent services. We work very hard in our agency to maintain highly trained, professional staff. We are committed to a set of positive principles and values and we try to reflect those every day with every child involved with our organization.
We are one of very few fully accredited residential programs for children in Saskatchewan. As Mr. Kinequon mentioned earlier, there is a real need for us to set appropriate standards and to ensure that those standards are met. Standards of care for children living in out-of-home placements must be clearly articulated through various accrediting bodies. We believe that children's rights will be best protected in organizations that provide the kinds of residential services that Ranch Ehrlo provides.
There are many accrediting systems and we are not recommending any one in particular. Currently only Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia have mandated that child and family services agencies all be accredited. The Child Welfare League of Canada, of which Dr. Pawson was a founding member, a past president and is still on the board of directors, has also endorsed the need for accredited programs for children as a method of protecting their basic rights.
I am sure you heard this morning from the Saskatchewan Children's Advocate about the issues of the Oyate safe house in Regina and about the need for standards of care for vulnerable children. It is Ranch Ehrlo's position that if we were required to meet the standards of a mandated accredited program, it might prevent significant and complex problems encountered by programs such as that.
We are aware that there are problems with accreditation being culturally appropriate; however, most accrediting bodies are very sensitive to that and welcome various methods of interpreting standards to meet the cultural, linguistic or religious needs of organizations.
There are costs involved with accreditation but we believe that the children involved with the services are worth those costs.
Our second key point is that children have a right to the highest attainable standard of health, with particular emphasis on mental health. The UN committee in its concluding observations regarding Canada in October 2003 made particular reference to concerns about the mental health needs of children in Canada, particularly Aboriginal children, and the high rates of suicide and substance abuse, among other things.
The document A Canada Fit for Children also recognized a need for particular emphasis to be put on improving mental health services for children.
In April 2004, when I was the Children's Advocate in Saskatchewan, we reported at that time that only about 10 per cent of the children in Saskatchewan estimated to have a mental disorder were receiving provincially-funded mental health services. The remaining 90 per cent of children in Saskatchewan with mental health problems in 2004 were not receiving services from the provincial government and it is unknown whether they were receiving any services.
As Mr. Kinequon mentioned earlier, receiving services in remote or rural areas in Saskatchewan is particularly difficult. He mentioned that in his community of La Ronge, mental health services for children do not exist.
We were pleased to note that the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology released their report, Out of the Shadows At Last. That is a very important report. Some of their recommendations ought to be considered by this committee. The right of children to adequate mental health services is a priority and is of particular concern to us.
The third point is the continued need to support research. In 2000, the federal government announced the Centres of Excellence for Children's Well-Being. Five of them were established, one being the Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare. It is hosted by the Child Welfare League of Canada and the University of Toronto and involves a number of different research activities, including a First Nations research site at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg.
The initial five years of funding ended last year and it is our opinion that funding should be continued. That centre has now established a good network of researchers; they have a strong reputation for solid research in the area of child welfare in Canada. Much work has been done to develop that centre. Its achievements speak for themselves and the work of the centre should be continued.
My final point is the need for protection for First Nations and other Aboriginal children. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child noted with concern that Aboriginal children in Canada continue to experience many problems. I will not list them all as we have discussed them in our report.
I find it interesting that when Mr. Kinequon mentioned the joint national policy review it was the first time you had heard about it. It is confusing for many of us who work in child welfare that the recommendations of what we refer to as the NPR have not been implemented although they have been under review for six years.
There have been some very solid follow-up reports completed by the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada under executive director Cindy Blackstock. We have cited those reports in our document, along with some of the data coming out of the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect, which was funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada and which also points out the various disparities between Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal children and how they are served in the child welfare system. That report documents in great detail the disparities between on- and off-reserve children.
In the area of protecting Aboriginal children, we also want to point out the need to move forward as was recognized at a recent reconciliation conference both Dr. Pawson and I were privileged to attend in Niagara Falls. There is a need for respectful collaboration between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people so that we can move forward together and the rights of all children in Canada can be protected. We believe that all children, regardless of culture, race or religion, have a right to be protected.
In summary, we understand that there are many priority issues that need attention. It is our sincere belief that establishing a commissioner for Canada's children will give us an avenue for the work that needs to be done to move forward towards realizing children's rights in Canada.
Jessica McFarlane, Provincial Outreach Coordinator, Saskatchewan Youth in Care and Custody Network: Senators, I have been with the Saskatchewan Youth in Care and Custody Network for several years. We do not have a formal presentation but we wanted to be here in support of the different groups who have appeared here today bringing forward issues, especially those concerning children involved with child welfare and youth justice.
Our organization works with young people in and from both foster care and custody. We work with youth age 14 to 24 years. To the best of our abilities we provide support, education and advocacy to young people. We support the children's commissioner and the other organizations that have come forward with child welfare issues. We especially support the implementation in Canada of the convention. Article 12 is the one that is of most concern to us; it talks about the voice of children and their right to express freely their views, to the best of their ability. Research from several sources, including the National Youth in Care Network, indicates that the problem of having their voices heard is an issue that young people face today.
The Chairman: Are you an informal organization of young people or are you an NGO? How are you structured? Are you broadly based? From where do you receive funding? It would be good to have those things on the record.
Ms. McFarlane: We are an incorporated, community-based NGO. Our funding comes from the province's Department of Community Resources. They are our main funders although we do get some grants from other sources. We have a provincial office with two staff, including myself and our director. We have local networks in many areas of the province; young people from foster homes, custody facilities and group homes get together once or twice a month to do activities or have guest speakers. We have adult support persons who pretty much all come either from the Department of Community Resources or from Corrections and Public Safety.
We have had a couple of provincial conferences. We are still a very young organization; we were incorporated in 1998. Unfortunately, we have very little staff, and as Saskatchewan is a large province there are many people outside our area of operation.
There is also a National Youth in Care Network based in Ottawa. It is our parent organization and has been in existence for about 20 years. It does much more research throughout Canada and presents recommendations to government.
The Chairman: Dr. Pawson, I can certainly vouch for the credibility and success of Ranch Ehrlo, not just because you have had your fortieth anniversary but because I worked in the system and I know that yours was an organization we could rely on. It was not without its problems but we always knew that its objectives and the people working within it were dedicated to youth in Saskatchewan.
You and I go back 40 years. The problems that youth are having in Saskatchewan appear still to be rooted in family breakdowns; young people growing need positive influences in their lives instead of negative ones.
Is the approach to dealing with children the same or has it changed? The problem may once have been glue sniffing and now it is crystal meth. It may be that we are more strongly aware of the Aboriginal community's self-image. You may want to talk about how the problems are different, but is your approach still the same? In other words, do kids still need the same support systems and therefore the same professional skills, knowledge and training from the service providers?
Mr. Pawson: That is an excellent question and one that often comes up: Have the children changed from 1966 to the year 2006? I think the children Ranch Ehrlo Society deals with certainly have changed. In 1966 we were basically worried about conduct disorders and juvenile delinquency, and there was a much clearer focus on those people's being a major concern to society. The Young Offenders Act changed things as we started to look at juvenile justice and different ways of handling difficulties. There was still overlap but it was much more clearly defined.
At that point there began to emerge a more direct need to look at children with mental health issues and we very clearly moved into that area. Later there was the emerging need of young people using drugs; that probably began to arise in the early 1960s but it was not until the 1970s and 1980s that people began to get very concerned because there was a movement away from the soft drugs into some of the harder drugs, and that was causing all kinds of other problems.
Throughout those years we learned also about post-traumatic stress syndrome and its affect on children, particularly those in foster care. Children ripped away from their families are very likely to have post-traumatic stress syndrome. We saw that children who were moved from foster home to foster home were having attachment disorders, another emerging clinical problem. Young people coming into the Ranch Ehrlo Society at 12 years of age had already had 15 or 20 foster home placements; of course there will be an attachment disorder. Why would any child want to attach to anybody given that frequency of change?
We began to be aware of the area of fetal alcohol and its impact on children. There were not only the children who were clearly physically disabled as well as with some mental disability, but there were also young people coming into the system who were really very handsome children, often with great artistic ability, but who had great difficulty considering or anticipating potential difficulties they could get into. There is a whole range of problems associated with fetal alcohol.
As a result, children were becoming more fragile and far more complex, their difficulties often more intense. I think we were learning how to better identify their problems. Unlike the medical profession, our treatment programs are all soft; we do not have clinical programs where you can test a drug and either it does its job or it does not. We have to work at it.
Our major area of control is staff and staff training. Those issues emerged with time. It became very clear to us that our success with the children would be based on the quality of staff and the maintenance of staff and building a culture that we could begin to work in to help those young people.
Senator Carstairs: Ms. McFarlane, you have obviously spent a lot of time speaking with young people in care. If you had to categorize their problems, their concerns, what would be the top three concerns that you think young people in care experience?
Ms. McFarlane: There are many issues and they vary through the different provinces or even just from north to south in Saskatchewan. The National Youth in Care Network did a research project in 2003 called Primer, which pointed out the five main issues facing young people in child welfare in Canada. Based on that research and on what young people in Saskatchewan told us, voice would be a big issue. A second issue is what we call placement bouncing, which is the constant moving to new homes. There are not enough homes and young people are put into temporary emergency placements with no long-term care. After-care or extended maintenance — what happens when youth turn 16 or 18 years old — is a third issue. It is different in every province and there are no national standards on what age young people are asked to leave the system and what supports there are for them when they leave. Many of our young people end up on social assistance programs when they leave care.
I would say those three are probably the most prominent concerns in Saskatchewan.
Senator Carstairs: It is interesting that you mentioned extended maintenance. In my province, although children can be in care until they are 18 years old, if they choose to leave care at 16 or 17 years of age there is very little follow-up. People are quite happy to have them out of the system. I happen to think a 16-year-old is still a child. Do you have a similar problem in Saskatchewan?
Ms. McFarlane: Yes. We have what is called a section 10 for 16 or 17 year olds who are not permanent or long-term wards. There is nothing for them after they turn 18 years old, except for social assistance.
For young people who are long-term and permanent wards, a section 56 will provide them with some support until the age of 21 if they are pursuing education or training, but once they are 21 there is nothing more.
There are issues around whether youth who leave when they are 16 years old can come back and around what happens if they want to leave when they are 15 years old.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: This question is for anyone to answer. I have heard people talking about creating a children's commissioner. Do you believe there is a need for an Aboriginal commissioner to be involved with Aboriginal communities?
Ms. Parker-Loewen: First, I think all Canadian children need a commissioner, including Aboriginal children, of course. Because of the particular relationship between First Nations children on reserve and the federal government, there may be a need for a special mechanism for those young people to have a different access point. First Nations, Metis, Inuit, non-status Indian children are all over-represented in most of our human services, child serving systems, child welfare, mental health services, public health systems, poor school achievement. There is a huge range of problems that recent research has shown are linked to systemic issues such as poverty, housing, parenting issues, adult substance abuse. These need to be addressed on a broader level. We have had many opportunities in Canada to give support to First Nations people and for some reason that is not working.
To go back to your question of whether there is a need for a First Nations children's commissioner, I think there may need to be a special mechanism to ensure that First Nations voices are heard. I am not personally convinced that there need to be two commissioners but I think there may need to be special recognition of the particular challenges faced by Aboriginal communities.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: From my experience, Aboriginal children will talk more freely to an Aboriginal health care worker. I wonder if an Aboriginal commissioner for First Nations children all across Canada would help them to be more open.
Ms. Parker-Loewen: I absolutely agree with you. I think children connect with people that they recognize and understand and who speak their language or are similar in appearance.
Mr. Pawson: I do not think the commissioner's nationality would matter. That person will have been selected for the job because of certain qualifications and abilities. The environment within that office will be a key factor in whether or not children who go in there will feel comfortable. Certainly, there must be a high proportion of First Nations people working there, because so many Indian children are in care, so First Nations people have to be involved. In the Eastern provinces there would have to be Black people working in that office too, because Black children are heavily represented in those child welfare systems.
I see the need for people of colour to be involved; however, I do not think the colour of the person at the top matters. The people that work within the system should be representative of the people they work with.
Senator Munson: As a former reporter, I have to know where the name Ranch Ehrlo comes from.
Mr. Pawson: When we were setting it up in 1966 we were looking for property and at the same time kind of cogitating about a name for the place. I eventually bought a place on February 22, 1966, by putting $1,000 down after a very difficult negotiation, because I had no money to negotiate with. The person who owned the property was Cliff Ehrle, a local businessman. He gave the property the name Ranch Ehrlo because he thought it sounded very Spanish. It was perfect for our purposes — the name meant nothing. We took the property, added "Society'' to the name and we had the beginning of our program.
Senator Munson: Today we have heard some interesting testimony, in particular from Mr. Thibodeau of the Saskatoon Downtown Youth Centre. I note in some of your information pamphlets that about 20 per cent of your residents are over 18 years of age. I think in dealing with young people Mr. Thibodeau works within the confines of provincial money, and there is a sort of threat at the age of 17 — "You had better behave yourself and do very well because you will be an adult at 18 years old and you will be on your own.'' Implicit in that threat is that you may not make it.
I am wondering about the whole concept of age limits. When youth reach the age of 18 years, we automatically tell them they are on their own, but some may be physically ready but not emotionally or mentally prepared. There is this arbitrary age to vote and to be in the military, and so on. Do you think that within government and private organizations there could be a system that would give a bit more time to people who reach that age before they have to go out on their own?
Mr. Pawson: From my perspective it is absolutely imperative that we begin to take a look at those children who have not been in the system before age 16 and who between 16 and 18 years old are running into a variety of difficulties. We also have to consider that some of those who are 18 years old and above are often very vulnerable. The 18 year olds and older are at one end of the bell curve. They are young adults. Many of them are mentally challenged and are being cared for mostly by Community Living, which is a division of Saskatchewan Community Resources, and by social services. Often they have psychiatric problems and sometimes intrusive sexual behaviour. Those young people need long-term care. At present, no other programs will take them.
We became involved by default. As those children were approaching the age of 18 years, we were looking around for places they could move. There were none available. People were not willing to consider them. They fell between the cracks. The mental health services said very clearly that this was a Community Living problem. Community Living said yes, they are challenged, but they are a mental health problem. Some of those children who came into our program have stayed with us for a number of years.
Senator Munson: Do you think it is the responsibility of government to fill those cracks? In the City of Ottawa and in our streets across Canada we are seeing more and more people who should be in various places of care receiving help, and yet they are on the street. In the last 10 years I have been amazed at what I see in the City of Ottawa and other centres, not only the large cities like Vancouver and Toronto.
Mr. Pawson: Eventually we will be caring for them. Some of them will go into the penal system, others into the mental health system. Some will commit suicide, some will die dreadful deaths. They have become extremely expensive human beings. It would be cheaper if we dealt with their problems.
For a person who is mentally challenged and who is operating at a certain level, if that level drops it is very hard to get that person back up to the old level. Sometimes you cannot ever get them back up. We need something, even if it is just a maintenance program, to keep mentally challenged people at the very top of their game. If they fall off and have time on the streets, it has been our experience that it is almost impossible to get them back operating at their former level.
I think we will be paying for it one way or the other and to me the community is safer when these people are being looked after and I think that expense can be justified.
Senator Merchant: Ms. McFarlane, one of the top priorities you identified was to give young people a voice. We often speak of not being able to engage young people in issues. What vehicles do you think would give young people an opportunity to have their voices heard? Who is listening to them?
Ms. McFarlane: It is helpful that our present and prior staff members have had experience in either the youth justice system or child welfare. As was mentioned earlier in discussion of the children's commissioner, young people identify with people like them. That assists us in encouraging young people to speak, because they are speaking to people who have lived through the same experiences.
Senator Merchant: You have only two staff members: that is not enough ears. Who else is involved?
Ms. McFarlane: We work with social workers and with staff from Saskatchewan Corrections and Public Safety and from the young offenders program. We call them our adult support people and they assist in running the local groups. We are very fortunate in that we tend to get wonderful workers who are very good at relating to young people and identifying with them. Some of the workers are fairly young themselves, while some are older. They all have the basic attitude not to put themselves above the young people but to put themselves on the same level, which is extremely important in working with young people. We do not seem to have many problems in getting young people to talk; they develop relationships with the adult support persons and with other young people, and that helps them to open up.
A local Youth in Care Network meeting is a whole bunch of kids in care who all know that they all have social workers and they have experienced different homes. There is a connection among the young people in the system that is difficult to explain. They understand each other and it definitely helps them to talk. You get a group of young people together and they start to talk and someone will say, "I was in a placement like that,'' and they just start to open up.
Senator Merchant: You do feel that young people have an opportunity to be heard. Are you able to involve many young people?
Ms. McFarlane: In our organization, yes, for young people who have local Youth in Care Networks to go to. Unfortunately, there are only seven in the province and there is not much in the North. Our organization can make reports and recommendations but we are such a small organization with only two staff that we cannot ourselves bring that voice to government and policy makers. Although we are there for young people, along with similar organizations, it is not enough. We are far too small to be able to do much with what they tell us. We understand their issues and we can write a report; but then what happens? We are not large enough to take it to the level to which it needs to go.
The Chairman: We are at the end of our time. I want to thank of all our presenters for appearing here and for the work you do in the community and for sharing your perspectives and identifying some recommendations that we can make to the Government of Canada. We hope that our work will be a little successful in comparison to the work that you are doing in the community, which I believe has a very lasting effect. That I can vouch for in this community.
The committee adjourned.