Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 19th, 2006

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Thank you, Ms. Blackstock, for coming before us.

There are a couple of things I wanted to talk to you about.

I didn't bring both reports, but in “We are Coming to the Light of Day” there was an impact statement in the report that talked about the cost of doing nothing. It says:

The analyst has estimated the intergenerational effects of child abuse on the criminal justice system and other social services at roughly $511,500 per child.

If I understand this, the cost of not providing adequate support to children and their families means that in the longer run it's going to cost the educational system, the criminal justice system, the social services system, and probably the health care system over half a million dollars. Do I understand that correctly?

[Cindy Blackstock]

You understand it correctly.

There was actually a great study done by Bowlus and McKenna on the costs of child maltreatment to the Canadian taxpayer, which suggests the immediate costs of the child maltreatment, as well as the costs due to things like over-involvement in justice and poor educational outcomes, etc., is $16 billion per year.

The World Health Organization suggests that if you invest $1 for child welfare services now, it will pay off $7 in savings to the taxpayer over the term of that child's life. It really does make good economic and moral sense to invest now in these kids.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

We tend to resort to measuring everything in dollars and cents. Is the actual economic spinoff of having a child grow up into an economically productive person included in this? I don't know if that's factored in.

[Cindy Blackstock]

No, we weren't able to get into those things in this study.

I think the savings would be astronomical if we really looked at it in those terms, especially when we know that aboriginal young people are the fastest-growing segment of the population. If we were to collectively as a society really prioritize to ensure they grow up with the optimal kinds of conditions that other Canadian children enjoy, then we would have a generation of young adults and leaders of tomorrow. They will be well positioned to make economic and social gains for all Canadians.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I want to touch briefly on the Hughes report from British Columbia. I'm sure you're familiar with it. For committee members, the Hughes report was in response to a young aboriginal child who was killed.

I think Mr. Hughes' recommendations are in sync with many of the things you're talking about in terms of consultation, cultural appropriateness, the ongoing engagement of communities, and providing adequate support to children and their families, ongoing support to the foster parents, and ongoing support to social workers who are dealing with that.

Are there things about the Hughes report that are different from what you're recommending?

[Cindy Blackstock]

No. There is a lot of cohesiveness in that report.

One of the things that's important to understand though is that the Province of British Columbia, in that particular instance, said they're going to make an investment in aboriginal children in the child welfare system, which is something that's very welcome, of course.

But it would not have made a difference to Sherry Charlie, because she was one of those children who were on reserve. Without adopting Jordan's principle, and without saying that her needs come first and we'll work out who pays later on, she would not have benefited from those services.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

The jurisdictional issue still needs to be sorted out.

[Cindy Blackstock]

Exactly.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

You're probably well aware that Grand Chief Edward John has worked long and hard on the devolution of children and family services to first nations communities, but also recognizing that the supports have not always been in place to support that devolution.

I want to come back to funding for a second. Many of the communities that could benefit are rural and remote, whether they're on or off reserve. My understanding is that in many cases funding is allocated on a per capita basis, which does not take into account the circumstances in more remote communities.

Although I live on the east coast of Vancouver Island, many of the communities there do not have access to transportation and other mechanisms that allow them to take advantage of services. So they need additional funding beyond the per capita. I wonder if you could comment on that.

[Cindy Blackstock]

Yes, it's an important point. There is a remoteness adjustment in the current formula, but we're recommending that be changed somewhat. The part that is population-sensitive is the operations portion, which funds prevention services.

So if you happen to be in a small community, your envelope for prevention services is almost nil. It's on the basis of exceeding population thresholds of 251 status Indian children, then 501, 801, and 1,001. In our research we wanted to find out what was the logic, the evidence base supporting these different population thresholds. We were unable to identify any documents that provided the evidence base for those thresholds.

What we had recommended with our economic team, and after consulting with first nations agencies, was let's pick thresholds of 25 children. That was more in line with the Child Welfare League of America's recommended caseload, and it would round out this edge. So instead of being like this in terms of levels of prevention funding, there would be more of a curve, and it would augment the capacity of small communities to provide levels of support.

In addition, we set up what's called an extraordinary circumstances fund, because remote communities with less access to services, in particular, will find themselves in extraordinary circumstances that the current funding envelope does not provide for. We're allowing them to appeal to this extraordinary circumstances fund to get the cost relief to make sure that those children in remote communities don't get less because things cost more or are less available.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

We move to the government side. Who would like to ask a question?

Mr. Albrecht.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for appearing here today.

I noticed on page 4 of the report we received today, The Struggle for Equal Rights for First Nations Children in Child Welfare, that you have a strong section there about the Indian Act. I think all of us are certainly aware that this act has been around for a long time and needs major change, or to be completely removed.

For my purposes of learning, I would be interested in how you would proceed in eliminating some of these discriminatory principles that certainly apply here. So I'd like some input from you on that. How you would proceed with it?

[Cindy Blackstock]

With regard to Indian status, I think there has been a reluctance to move on that, because the question has been: if Canada lets go of its criteria for who's an Indian and who's not, will that mean there will be an erosion of aboriginal rights and title? Will that mean a lot of non-aboriginal people will suddenly be lining up to be Indians?

Those same types of circumstances were before the people's governments of Australia and New Zealand. Many years ago, they found a solution that works quite well, which is that they respect self-identification as one of the criteria for classifying whether you're indigenous or not.

The criteria are twofold: do you consider yourself as being indigenous, and does your community recognize you as being one of the community members? It's that simple. It has not eroded aboriginal rights and title in those jurisdictions. It has also provided people with the elemental dignity of being able to define their own culture and race.

To me, it is just one of the fundamental freedoms that children should have. Government needs to move away from feeling the need to hand out these status cards, or to say to some children, you know what? From our point of view, you're a non-status Indian child.

It's not the type of messaging we should be putting out in 2006.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I'm wondering, Mr. Chair, has any type of survey or read been done in part of the aboriginal community to get their input on those kinds of changes? I'd be interested to hear that.

[Cindy Blackstock]

That would be a better question to ask groups like the Assembly of First Nations. I know that there has been a study on what if you hold onto the status quo. So what if we don't change anything? I'm a status Indian. I have sufficient blood quantum to be status. That's the reality: you need to be able to prove that you have blood quantum. My sister is also status, but she married a non-aboriginal man, so her sons are non-status Indians. The Native Women's Association has said that if Canada persists with this definition, there will be no status Indians left over a period of time. To me, that is really one of the big repercussions we have ahead of us. We really need to move to something different if we're really going to respect aboriginal rights and title. In the very first instance, that means self-identification.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

On page 6 as well, you mention that there is a 22% lack of funding as it relates to most provinces spend this much and all of Canada spends 22% less than that. Am I understanding that correctly?

[Cindy Blackstock]

That's correct in terms of the average province, and the more specific figure is really the $109 million shortfall. That's dated as of 2005, and it's fully supported by all economic evidence, as well as research evidence, for each one of the figures. That's contained in the Wen:de report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Mr. Blaney.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you for meeting with us. You have come well prepared and you express you views quite eloquently. You've made it very clear that in your view, too many aboriginal youth turn to social welfare services. Was the study to which you alluded commissioned by your organization or was it done in conjunction with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada?

[Cindy Blackstock]

Thank you for the question.

We were commissioned by a joint committee known as the national policy review advisory committee, which is co-chaired by the Department of Indian and Affairs and the Assembly of First Nations. Participating as well on that committee are representatives of first nations child and family service agencies from across the country. We were commissioned to coordinate the study. We engaged about 25 independent researchers, some of the best academic researchers in the country. There were people like Dr. Nico Trocmé, who is the Philip Fisher chair and the principal investigator of the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect; Dr. John Loxley, who is a member of the Royal Society of Canada and a former dean of economics at the University of Manitoba; and Dr. Fred Wein, who is a former dean of social work at Dalhousie University.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

The study focused on communities. It found that needs existed both on and off reserves. Have you observed any differences between the youths on reserves and those living off reserve, for example, in terms of placement rates?

[Cindy Blackstock]

This specific study was targeted by the Department of Indian Affairs to be on reserve only, but we do have data through the Canadian incidence study that does a comparative analysis on and off reserve. What we find is that the removal rates are still very high off reserve. This gets to the point made by the honourable member Keeper earlier, that we would like to look at the issue of access for culturally based services to aboriginal people off reserve because they are far less likely to have access to those services.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Now to the Liberal side for questions.

Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

First of all, thank you to our witness. Thank you for appearing today.

I note that just about a year ago, a year ago tomorrow, you were in my home province of Nova Scotia at my alma mater, St. Francis Xavier University, for a conference. The conference website, you'll be interested to know, is still up and it indicates that you are one of Canada's leading and most eloquent spokespersons for the promotion and strengthening of first nations cultures and knowledge. You reinforced that image today, I must tell you.

You talked about some of the challenges on reserve in terms of family poverty, poor housing, and family substance abuse, and I want to focus for a moment on housing. You talked about, obviously, the optimal conditions that are the norm outside of reserves. Can you talk some more about the situation in terms of housing standards on reserves, and the difficulty first nations have in meeting those challenges, and what measures ought to be taken to deal with that?

Do you feel that the measures proposed in the Kelowna accord were adequate, or not adequate? What's your view on that?

Then could you go from there perhaps and tell us more about your sense...? Help me understand more and give me some examples of the way you would think a better system would work where first nations would have their own laws that are culturally sensitive on reserve and perhaps elsewhere.

[Cindy Blackstock]

With housing, substance misuse, and poverty being key drivers for aboriginal children being overrepresented in child welfare, it really suggests that investments need to be made at two levels. One is investments in the core housing budgets of first nations communities.

In The Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect, we found aboriginal families way overrepresented in terms of overcrowding and unsafe housing--that was the perception of social workers, that they'd walk into the house and the house was not safe for children--for reliance on benefits, and substance misuse services. But we also know, for example, that we need to be cautious about just saying to ourselves, “Well, we don't need to invest in child welfare; we'll just strictly invest in the housing issue.”

I'm going to provide an example. We're very honoured right now to be working closely with the Innu Nation of Labrador. As you know, in their relocation from Davis Inlet, housing was one of the key issues that needed to be resolved. But along with it, the community was very clear that there needed to be a concordant investment in children's programs, including addiction services.

The housing investment happened and the community was relocated to much better housing, but the concordant investment in children in addictions programs did not happen. So the situation now is that we have people relocated in a community and they're still really suffering. It needs to be a “ yes and“ investment proposal.

In terms of the Kelowna accord, I can say, just as kind of an educated bystander, that I feel that it went in the right direction. We had aboriginal communities around the table feeling that this was a good first step in trying to relieve some of the housing deficits on reserve. I certainly was very encouraged to see government taking that type of progressive action, and it's really essentially required across the community. Whether it's enough or not enough, that piece I'm not too sure about.

The other thing about the laws is that we know from first nations communities, and native American communities as well, that the definitions of child maltreatment, culturally based, are very similar to those you'd find in any child maltreatment area today. Where there is a lot of difference is around neglect. Nobody disputes that a child shouldn't be physically abused or sexually abused, but neglect can be an outcome of poverty.

As I said, in many aboriginal communities, children should not be removed because they're poor. That's in keeping with the United Nations, which said that the state party's first obligation is to relieve the poverty, not to remove the child.

In terms of first nations acting under their own laws, the first example of that will be Kahnawake First Nation, where it has developed in consultation with its community its own legislation, which is about to be enacted in that community. It goes far beyond, in my experience, what is provided in provincial law, in that as a community member, under normal child welfare law, as a child protection worker I'd arrive at your door and we'd do an assessment of any risks posed to the children, and then I might suggest services to you to resolve that.

Under the Kahnawake system--and I'm very humble in describing this, because I know it's going to be an oversimplification--in their community, we'd undergo that same process: I would arrive at your door, we'd do the assessment together as a family and I might recommend some services, but before the tribal court.

The tribal court actually has the power to say to another citizen, “You know what? You have a particular gift that you can give to this family.” You might have a great garden and this family needs fresh vegetables. So you are required by the tribal court to provide that service as a citizen. If you fail to do that, you and your family will be held accountable for explaining why you were unable or unwilling to do that.

That does two things. It engages all of us in the question of child maltreatment, and we need to in this country. Sadly, today the most unsafe place for Canadian children is still in their family homes. Child protection workers can't do it alone. We have to engage Canadians in responding to child maltreatment, and Kahnawake is one example of where that's going, in that direction.