The Standing Committee on the Status of Women (hereafter the
Committee) began its study of violence against Aboriginal women in April 2009
with the stated intention to gather information about the extent of such
violence, programs in place to address it, the root causes, and what steps
could be taken to break the cycle. In March 2011, the Committee tabled an
interim report in the House of Commons, capturing what the Committee heard in
hearings in Ottawa and in 14 communities across Canada, from more than 150
witnesses.
For this final report, the Committee has chosen to shift its focus
from the aftermath of the violence to empowering young Aboriginal girls and
women, supporting their desire to strive for a better life of independence,
confidence, influence and power, with the goal of reducing the victimization,
poverty, prostitution and abuse experienced by Aboriginal women and girls.
As articulated by one witness:
So far, we are seeing responses that only react
and only put resources in the hands of authority. We must do better. We must support
family and work together to build stronger solutions. We must start from the
infants and work our way up. We need to raise healthy children so we can have
strong, educated women and we can be providers to our families, and so we're
not stuck in the cycle of poverty again.[1]
This focus in this report echoes a shift in the terms of reference
in 2006 of the Women’s Program, when Status of Women Canada funded the Women’s
Community Fund and the Women’s Partnership Fund. According to published
guidelines for these programs, its 2009-2010 priorities were ending violence
against women and girls; improving women’s and girls’ economic security and
prosperity; and encouraging women and girls in leadership and decision-making
roles.[2]
The testimony provided by many witnesses, particularly service
providers and Aboriginal women and organizations, focussed on the historical
underpinnings of the violence Aboriginal women experience at the hands of both
family and community members and of strangers. While this report will be more
forward-looking, an overview of the past and current situations is included for
each of the following topics: Aboriginal poverty, property and economic growth;
missing and murdered Aboriginal women, community safety for Aboriginal women
with a particular focus on policing; and family violence prevention and healing.
An effort has been made to provide information about the federal
government’s recent programs, current initiatives, and anticipated changes, including
the funding levels and arrangements. Where possible, based on both testimony
and information about government programs from other sources, recommendations
will seek to redress past issues, and to reduce present and future violence
against Aboriginal women by addressing the root causes of the violence and by
proposing approaches intended to result in a better future.
The Committee focused in its hearing not only on the results of the
violence experienced by Aboriginal women, but also on what steps could be taken
by government and other parties to enhance the economic opportunities for
Aboriginal people, and women in particular. The following sections — on
poverty, property and economic growth — will summarize what the Committee heard
and what initiatives are currently in place. In addition, the Committee’s recommendations
include a focus on increasing the economic security of Aboriginal women.
Throughout the Committee’s hearings, witnesses identified poverty
as cause, effect, or both of virtually all aspects of violence against
Aboriginal women. Housing, prostitution, low self-esteem, lack of educational
opportunities, addiction — all are linked to poverty, according to witnesses
from every region and every walk of life.
The Committee heard extensive testimony about the economic poverty
disproportionately affecting Aboriginal people on and off reserve. One witness
put the poverty rate among Aboriginal women at 40%.[3] The Committee also heard
how this poverty limited options available to women seeking to escape violence
in their homes and families:
Women return to or cannot leave abusive
relationships because they are unable to adequately provide for themselves and
their children on welfare. A crucial measure to prevent the vulnerability of
women to men's violence is in providing economic security to [A]boriginal
women….[4]
The Committee heard about the inadequacy of social assistance
benefits, both on reserve and off reserve, constraining the potential to invest
in developing the potential of both women and children. Other witnesses
focussed on poverty as the root cause of the disproportionately high number of
Aboriginal women working as prostitutes in Canadian cities, and one proposed
that moving women into employment, even part-time, could assist in reducing the
numbers.[5]
The Committee heard from officials at Aboriginal Affairs and
Northern Development Canada (AANDC)[6] that on reserve assistance is shifting to go beyond income provision to more
active measures:
The [D]epartment is moving its income assistance
program on reserve to go from solely meeting basic needs towards implementing
an active measures approach that will help individuals participate in job
readiness and training so they can find employment. As we make progress, this
will enable individuals on reserve to become more self-sufficient, and it will
ultimately reduce the impact of poverty.[7]
The Committee was advised that this poverty created its own cycle,
making access to education virtually impossible, which prevented women from
qualifying for well-paid jobs, which could also reduce the opportunities for
education and economic security for their children.[8] The Committee heard explicitly
about the role of education in breaking the violence cycle:
Without the opportunity to achieve a higher
education, to secure well-paid employment, and to receive appropriate health
care we will continue to allow [A]boriginal women to remain mired in poverty, which not only chains these women
to a life laced with stress and subsistence, but which all too often leads to
violence.[9]
At the same time, witnesses identified education as a key factor in
Aboriginal peoples achieving success,[10] and cited the positive results achieved in programs that help Aboriginal women
to get access to funding for education, especially post-secondary education and
training.[11]
AANDC told the Committee that funding under the National Child
Benefit is supporting on reserve First Nations by funding home-to-work
transition activities.[12] In addition, the Post-Secondary Student Support Program (PSSSP), administered
jointly by AANDC, band councils and Inuit organizations, offers grants for
Inuit students and First Nations students registered under the Indian Act.[13] The grants cover
registration fees, tuition and the cost of books and course supplies. A travel
fund is also available to students who have to leave their place of permanent
residence to study. The PSSSP can also include a living allowance to help cover
the cost of food, housing, transportation and childcare, if needed.
Non-registered First Nations people and Métis are not eligible for this
funding, but may qualify for assistance available more generally to all
post-secondary students.
The Speech from the Throne in 2010 committed the federal government
to partnering with Aboriginal communities and provincial governments to improve
education for Aboriginal people.[14] Budget 2010 repeated this commitment, saying that the government would
implement a
... new approach to providing support to First
Nations and Inuit post-secondary students to ensure that students receive
the support they need to attend post-secondary education. The
new approach will be effective and accountable, and will be coordinated
with other federal student support programs.[15]
A review process is underway.
Therefore, the Committee recommends that
the review of federal Post-Secondary Student Support Program consider and
address the particular situation of Aboriginal women escaping violence.
The Committee heard from witnesses and site visits of the
importance of increasing visibility of women in leadership roles in Aboriginal
communities; these women, the Committee heard, can serve as role models for
younger women, opening up the possibilities they might consider for their own
futures.[16] In particular, the Committee heard from female chiefs that they make every
effort in their communities to encourage younger women to develop their own
leadership capacities.[17]
The Committee also heard from the Minister for the Status of Women
that program funding is supporting Aboriginal service providers as they provide
leadership training to encourage younger women to become strong leaders in
their communities.[18]
Access to property is an avenue to economic security enjoyed by
many Canadian women, but property rights on reserve are not protected under
current legislation. Matrimonial Real Property (MRP), according to AANDC, “refers
mainly to the family home where both spouses or common-law partners live during
a marriage or common-law relationship.”[19]
For most Canadians, “provincial and territorial laws protect the
matrimonial real property rights and interests of both spouses during a
relationship, or in the event of separation, divorce or death.”[20] However, courts cannot
apply provincial or territorial family law on reserves in order to deal with cases
involving MRP and the Indian Act is silent regarding MRP.[21]
According to AANDC, without on reserve MRP laws, the real property
rights and interests of spouses or common-law partners living on reserves will
not be fully protected in the event of separation, divorce or death.[22]
Bill S-2, An Act respecting family homes situated on First
Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and
lands situated on those reserves (short title: Family Homes on Reserves
and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act) was introduced in the Senate on
September 28, 2011 by the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, the
Honourable Claude Carignan.[23] The Bill is intended to ensure that individuals living on reserve have similar
protection to those living off reserve.
When married couples divorce, the division of matrimonial property,
both real (e.g., land and houses) and personal is determined in accordance with
provincial laws, as a result of subsection 92(13) of the Constitution
Act, 1867. However, as a result of subsection 91(24) of
that Act, which specifies that the Parliament of Canada has exclusive
legislative authority with respect to “Indians and Lands reserved for the
Indians,” provincial laws do not apply to the division of real property on
reserve lands. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that
courts cannot rely on provincial law to order the division of matrimonial real
property on reserves. [24]
The historical absence of provisions in the federal Indian Act or elsewhere
governing the division of matrimonial real property on reserves has resulted in
what is often referred to as a legislative gap. Consequently, people residing
on reserves have not been able to use the Canadian legal system to resolve matters concerning the
division of real property after the breakdown of conjugal relationships.[25]
Domestic and international reports have referred to the matter,
including reports from the United Nations,[26] recommending that Canada
take steps to resolve the issue.
Starting in 2003, parliamentary committees have studied this topic,
including an extensive study by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women,
reported to Parliament in June 2006.[27] Of particular interest for this study, AANDC has indicated that in cases of
domestic violence and physical abuse, a court cannot order the spouse to leave
a family home situated on reserve, even on a temporary basis.[28]
On June 20, 2006, the Honourable Jim Prentice, then Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and
Non-Status Indians, announced that nation-wide consultations would be held on
the issue of matrimonial real property (MRP) on reserves, and appointed a
ministerial representative to assist with the consultation process.[29]
In her report, the ministerial representative noted that while
there had not been sufficient time to reach consensus, “progress was made
towards shaping a consensus through substantive discussions of many important
policy issues and concerns.” [30]
Bill S-2 allows First Nations to develop laws concerning
matrimonial real property interests and rights, and provides provisional
federal rules that address matrimonial real property rights in the event of
separation, divorce or death, and also provide for emergency protection orders
and exclusive occupation orders. On November 21, 2011 the Standing Senate
Committee on Human Rights held its first meeting on Bill S-2, and on November 30,
2011 the fourth report of the Committee concerning Bill S-2 was adopted.
AANDC has committed to supporting this legislation with a Centre
for Excellence, training and education for police officers and material
distributed to appropriate judges, and a public education and awareness
campaign directed to First Nations people most directly affected by the change
in the law.[31] The Assembly of First Nations has stated that the overriding and principal
concerns of First Nations were with regard to respect for First Nation
jurisdiction and authority in this matter as well as capacity requirements to
actually improve access to justice for peoples affected.[32]
Witnesses before the Committee identified the potential benefits
from the legislation in terms of giving women more options when facing
violence,[33] while others expressed some reservations about its impact.[34]
Although the Committee did not seek or receive testimony focused
specifically on economic growth and its relationship to addressing violence
against Aboriginal women, some witnesses did address this as an important
element of reducing that violence.
The Committee heard that, historically, Aboriginal people living on
some reserves were unable to engage in economic activity in nearby communities.
One witness told the Committee:
We have been excluded over the years from
participation in the economic industry or whatever of Canada, and until I was
14 years old, legally I was not able to leave the reserve without a pass. So we
were confined, we were excluded legally.[35]
Witnesses before the Committee also described the current constraints
in economic development on reserves, focusing especially on restricted access
to the economic benefits of the resources on reserve land. Aboriginal members
of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) working in Aboriginal communities
flagged the limited economic opportunities on most reserves.[36]
One witness suggested the Committee look to the barriers to reaping
the benefits of the resources on reserve:
Poverty is a major issue with everything. Part of
it is why are people so impoverished? Whenever we talk about poverty we need to
go back and look at when Canada was first colonized. We have no rights to our
resources and our minerals.[37]
Some witnesses described economic development as the key to
providing non-traditional jobs to those who wanted them; further, such
development could provide the resources to meet other social needs, like more
affordable housing, which in turn would reduce the overcrowding that can lead
to family violence.[38]
Other witnesses described the barriers to economic development,
particularly on reserve.[39]
The Minister of Justice, in his presentation to the Committee,
noted the Federal Framework for Aboriginal Economic Development as a step the
federal government has taken to address the underlying causes of violence
against Aboriginal women.[40] The Framework vision statement refers to “new and changing conditions,
leveraging partnerships and focusing on results;” its goal is “to ensure that
Aboriginal Canadians enjoy the same opportunities for employment, income and
wealth creation as other Canadians.”[41]
The Framework is intended to address key barriers to Aboriginal
economic development, as identified by Aboriginal organizations, including
issues raised before the Committee: the legal and regulatory environment,
access to lands and resources, limited financing options, the need for skilled
labour, and the need for investments in infrastructure and capacity within
Aboriginal communities. The Framework will serve as a tool for decision making,
assessment and communication,[42] and will focus on three strategic priorities: strengthening Aboriginal
entrepreneurship, developing Aboriginal human capital, enhancing the value of
Aboriginal assets, and forging new and effective partnerships.[43]
The Framework may provide the context for a recommendation made by
the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres,[44] and amended here by the
Committee:
The Committee recommends that the federal
government work towards removing barriers to economic growth for on reserve
Aboriginal peoples, with a particular focus on barriers to the full economic
participation of Aboriginal women.
Across Canada, the disproportionately high number of missing and
murdered Aboriginal women is a distinct phenomenon that highlights Aboriginal
women’s vulnerability. The Committee heard extensive testimony about police and
policy responses to these cases and about the impact on
both families and communities who faced the loss of these women. In addition, some witnesses framed their testimony in the context of their direct
personal experience, with the loss of a family member or close friend.[45]
Significant attention was drawn to the number of missing and
murdered Aboriginal women through the Native Women’s Association of Canada’s
(NWAC) Sisters in Spirit Initiative. In March 2010, as part of this initiative,
NWAC had documented 582 cases of missing and murdered Aboriginal women.[46] NWAC received project funding of $5 million from Status of Women Canada (SWC) between 2005 and 2010 for Sisters in Spirit, with the goal of identifying root causes,
trends and circumstances of violence that have led to disappearance and death
of Aboriginal women and girls.
As part of this work, NWAC has extensively documented these cases
in a database;[47] supported families and communities; worked with service
providers, the police and justice systems; and collaborated with Aboriginal
organizations, human rights organizations, and the federal government to raise
awareness about and address violence.
Although this initiative ended on March 31, 2010, Budget 2010
committed an investment of “$10 million over two years to address the
disturbingly high number of missing and murdered Aboriginal women”[48] and SWC
funded NWAC to shift its work from research to action,[49] described in greater
detail below.
SWC provided $500,000 in funding to NWAC for a six-month project
entitled From Evidence to Action I. According to a backgrounder to a government
news release:
This initiative will strengthen the ability of
Aboriginal women and girls across Canada to recognize and respond to issues of
gender-based violence within their families and communities, as well as
strengthen the ability of communities to break the cycle of violence.[50]
This project was followed by Evidence to Action II, for
which NWAC received $1,890,844 over three years from Status of Women Canada’s
Community Fund.[51] The project is scheduled to run from February 2011 to April 2014, with the goal
to “strengthen the ability of communities, governments, educators (including
the Canadian Police College, post-secondary institutions as well as elementary
and high schools) and service providers to address the root causes of violence
against Aboriginal women and girls.”[52]
As noted above, on October 29, 2010, the Minister of Public Works
and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, the Honourable Rona
Ambrose, “announced concrete steps the Government of Canada is taking to
address the disturbingly high number of missing and murdered Aboriginal women
and to make our communities safer.”[53] The $10 million was to be allocated to the Department of Justice Canda to be
spent over two years. According to Justice Canada, the aim is to “improve
community safety and to ensure that the justice system and law enforcement
agencies can better respond to cases of missing and murdered Aboriginal women.”[54]
The news release also said that the measures to be funded would include:
- federal
funding for culturally appropriate victims services through provinces and
territories, as well as funding for Aboriginal groups to help the families of
missing and murdered Aboriginal women;
- new
awareness materials, pilot projects and new school- and community-based pilot
projects targeted to young Aboriginal women; and
- new
community safety plans to be developed to enhance the safety of women living in
Aboriginal communities.[55]
The Department highlighted seven concrete steps of the initiative,
which spelled out in greater detail the allocation of the $10 million.[56] The first six are:
- $4
million for a National Police Support Centre for Missing Persons, enhancements
to the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC), and a national website to
encourage the public to provide tips and information on missing persons cases
and unidentified human remains;
- $1
million to support the development of school- and community-based pilot
projects to help heal, move forward and provide alternatives to high-risk
behaviour for young Aboriginal women, including young offenders;
- $2.15
million over two years to the Department of Justice’s Victims Fund to help the
western provinces develop or adapt victim services for Aboriginal people and
specific culturally sensitive victim services for families of missing and
murdered Aboriginal women, and for Aboriginal community groups to respond to
the unique issues faced by the families of missing or murdered Aboriginal women
at the community level;
- $1.5
million over two years to develop community safety plans to improve the safety
of Aboriginal women within Aboriginal communities;
- $850,000
in 2010–2011 to Aboriginal organizations and Public Legal Education groups
working with Aboriginal groups to develop materials for the public on the
importance of breaking intergenerational cycles of violence and abuse that
threaten Aboriginal communities across Canada; and
- almost
$500,000 for the development of a national compendium of promising practices in
the area of law enforcement and the justice system to help Aboriginal
communities and groups improve the safety of Aboriginal women across the
country.
As its last concrete step, the Department of Justice will introduce
amendments to the Criminal Code to strengthen investigations and
streamline court processes. This includes streamlining the application process
when specific court orders or warrants need to be issued in relation to an
investigation for which a judge has given a wiretap authorization. As well,
other amendments will be proposed to section 184.4 of the Criminal Code,
which provides authority for wiretapping without a warrant in emergencies, such
as cases of murder or kidnapping investigations relating to missing and
murdered Aboriginal women.[57]
The Committee heard of the critical importance of maintaining and
expanding a database of cases of missing and murdered Aboriginal women across
Canada, developed by the NWAC’s Sisters in Spirit initiative.[58] Witnesses stated that
prior to this initiative, there was no comprehensive source of data on missing
and murdered Aboriginal women and girls.[59]
The Committee was informed by several witnesses that police data do
not consistently identify Aboriginal status for victims of violence. [60] Witnesses stated that there is even more limited information relating to
specific Aboriginal identity, whether Métis, First Nations, or Inuit, for
victims of crime.[61]
The Committee was told that police have concerns about collecting
such data, specifically regarding Aboriginal identity. NWAC addressed these
concerns in a recent collaborative effort the organization initiated:
About two years ago we conducted community
engagement workshops on justice within 10 different communities to talk about the
issue of collection of data on justice issues, and the specific question of
collecting information by [A]boriginal identity, including [F]irst [N]ations, Métis, and Inuit. What came
out was a very cautious, yes, this information should be collected, but it must
be done in a culturally appropriate way.[62]
The Committee heard that not all data regarding missing and
murdered Aboriginal women can successfully be collected by the police,[63] and as such recognizes the important role of grass-roots Aboriginal organizations in helping to uncover and track cases in communities and on the streets.
Central to the development and maintenance of such a database is
collaboration. NWAC described how the Sisters in Spirit initiative had
established successful working relationships with various provincial police
organizations to verify police data[64] or to guarantee the
accuracy of their own information in the building of their organization’s
database.[65] As an example,
Sisters in Spirit began establishing memoranda of understanding for information
sharing with the Ontario Provincial Police, with the Manitoba Action Group on
Exploited and Vulnerable Women, and with the national RCMP database.[66] The Committee heard concerns about the lack of funding to maintain this
database, and the lost value as it becomes outdated, making it “more difficult
for NWAC to assess whether actions taken to reduce violence have actually
resulted in fewer cases of missing or murdered aboriginal women and girls.”[67]
The RCMP told the Committee that it is hopeful that the information
gathered by the NWAC will contribute to the development of its databases[68] Similarly, NWAC told the Committee that the organization was
open to working with the RCMP during the enhancement of Canadian Police
Information Centre database. [69]
Based on the testimony suggesting that collaboration between the
RCMP and NWAC could benefit future initiatives with respect to missing and
murdered women,
The Committee recommends that the
federal government collaborate with the Native Women's Association of Canada to
explore the feasibility of i) sharing some or all of the information in the
data base with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Support Centre for Missing
Persons; and ii) deciding what, if any information, can ethically be made
available more broadly beyond police and justice system officials.
The Committee also heard from witnesses that families of the
missing and murdered Aboriginal women required initial and ongoing support. For
example, during a site visit to Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg in Quebec, the
Committee heard from Ms. Laurie Odjick, whose 16-year-old daughter went missing
in 2008. Ms Odjick spoke of how little guidance she received when her daughter
went missing, how she was unsure of how to deal with the police, and how she needed
both financial and healing support as she continued the search for her child. The
Committee heard about specific financial and other supports needed, and
concerns that current programs do not provide funding for their continued
delivery.[70]
The Committee was told of some Health Canada programs designed for
the Aboriginal communities at large that could be used by families of missing
and murdered Aboriginal women, such as the over $200 million invested annually in
the Inuit and First Nations Health Branch, which offers mental health counselling
and addiction treatment centres.[71]
The Committee recommends that the
federal government, through Health Canada and in collaboration with Aboriginal,
provincial and territorial organizations, should consider support services in
the Inuit and First Nations Health Branch geared towards families of missing
and murdered Aboriginal women.
The legal support services requested by the families of missing and
murdered Aboriginal women will be addressed later in the report.
As well, the Committee heard of the work of the
Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group on Missing Women, which was
established in early 2006 by federal-provincial-territorial deputy ministers to
examine the issue of missing women in Canada. Co-chaired by British Columbia
and Alberta, this group focused on “the effective identification,
investigation, and prosecution of cases involving serial killers who target
persons living a high-risk lifestyle, including those in the sex trade,” as
well as an “examination of best practices to enable earlier detection of
potential serial murderers as well as strategies to protect potential victims.”[72]
Witnesses told the Committee that the Working Group would “look at
how all points in the criminal justice system deal with reports of all missing
persons, from the time a person, the family, or a loved one contacts police,
victims' services, or another social service.”[73]
According to the British Columbia Ministry of Attorney General, a
condensed version of the final report of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working
Group on missing and murdered women was prepared for October 2010 and a final
version will be released in 2011.[74] The condensed report is entitled “Issues Related to the High Number of Murdered
and Missing Women in Canada,” by the Coordinating Committee of Senior Officials
Missing Women Working Group. The group’s condensed report provides
52 recommendations and urges adoption of these recommendations because “while
the number of serial predators in Canada may not be large, the number of their
victims is significant and the impact of these cases is widespread.”[75]
There was also testimony for the establishment of an independent
national inquiry or task force into the missing and murdered Aboriginal women.[76]
Disturbing and consistent testimony heard by the Committee came
from women and service organizations who described the dangers for women
experiencing violence, not only in their homes, but also in gaining access to
services expected to support them. These include police services and emergency
shelter and alternate affordable housing. These deficiencies were especially
severe on reserve and in remote communities. An underlying issue for women
calling on either law enforcement or emergency shelters or transition houses
was the risk they faced of having their children removed from their families as
a result of informing people of the dangers they face and the inadequate options
available to protect children in families facing violence. More on child
welfare is included in the context of family violence prevention later in the
report.
The importance of the criminal justice system cannot be ignored. As
one witness told the Committee:
Flaws in the criminal justice system are probably
the most insidious of the systemic factors that subvert [A]boriginal women's
safety, because [A]boriginal
women are often encouraged to access police and the courts to help them. The
stories of the women reveal how the criminal justice system plays a role in
their continuing victimization.[77]
However, the Committee heard testimony about successful
relationships, as well as the need for reforms. The Committee recognizes that
many of these issues are in the provincial or territorial jurisdiction in an off
reserve context.
Testimony across the country with respect to policing services,
their responsiveness, and the impact of involving them in family violence
situations varied considerably. As described above, individuals and organizations
reporting the disappearance or murder of family members described varying
experiences. Local initiatives in some communities, regions and provinces were
reported to have built trust and mutual understanding between police and
Aboriginal women and their communities. In other cases, women had reported
apparent indifference or discrimination from police when making such reports.
These experiences contributed to the willingness or reticence of Aboriginal
women and the agencies that serve them to contact police in situations of
violence in their own homes and communities.
In addition, in some communities, Aboriginal women and the agencies
that serve them reported that police were explicitly racist and/or had no
understanding of the history and culture of Aboriginal peoples in Canada.[78] Where witnesses described
positive relationships with police forces serving them, they also often
described the specific training that had been offered and provided to those
forces. In addition, several witnesses described the need to expand this work,
and for police officers at all levels to take training that will allow them to
request information about Aboriginal identity needed to collect better data,
and to assess situations of domestic violence into which they are called; these
witnesses including both police witnesses and Aboriginal women.[79] As noted above, the Native
Women’s Association Research to Action program with respect to missing and
murdered Aboriginal women includes a component to work with police partners to
develop and deliver such training.
The Committee heard testimony that specific training with respect
to Aboriginal history, culture and practice helped to build trust between
police and Aboriginal women and their communities and to address violence against
Aboriginal women in those communities. Therefore,
The Committee recommends that the
federal government, under the aegis of the Family Violence Initiative, work
with the Canadian Police College, Aboriginal women’s organizations, and the
Department of Department of Public Safety Canada to develop and disseminate
training materials with respect to the cultural and historical context in which
violence against Aboriginal women occurs.
One witness described the link between policing and protection from
violence in terms of Aboriginal peoples being “over-policed and
under-protected.”[80] A complex set of factors interact to challenge a better linkage between
policing and protection.
For example, both victims of violence and police services who are
called in to intervene are challenged by the impact of possible results on the
individual, her family and the community at large. This is particularly evident
in on-reserve communities and in other small and remote communities. As
described by one witness,
The issue is that the woman is experiencing
violence against her and she wants that to stop. The reason that a lot of women
may be apprehensive about even calling the police is because they don't want to
uproot their family unit. They don't want to lose all that — the community
sense, for one, their family sense. All their family are in the community, and
it might cause community uproar because of the husband's family. It really
impacts the whole community, not just the family.[81]
When women do want police action, the Committee heard from police
that in small and remote communities, it may not be possible to remove the
perpetrator or find alternative care for children.[82] Others in urban
communities told the Committee that police are not quick enough to lay charges,
and build cases that can be taken to court in search of convictions.[83] The more promising
practices described by Aboriginal women and organizations and police themselves
were based on collaboration among police forces, Aboriginal organizations, and
providers of programs intended to provide emergency and longer-term support to
Aboriginal women experiencing violence.[84]
The Minister responsible for the Status of Women, the Honourable
Rona Ambrose, spoke to the Committee on this issue in a larger context:
“[T]here are root causes of violence in the [A]boriginal communities that include things
like poverty and racism, and this is why it's incredibly important for us to
work with organizations, aboriginal organizations, across the country, and to
partner with people like the RCMP and Justice Canada, because this has to be a
multi-pronged approach. We need prosecution, we need prevention strategies, and
we need community organizations to be involved in a culturally sensitive way.”[85]
Based on this testimony, the Committee
recommends that the federal government, under the aegis of the Family Violence
Initiative, work with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Aboriginal
women’s organizations, Status of Women Canada, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Canada, and the Department of Public Safety Canada to pilot and disseminate
results of collaborative approaches at the community level to violence against
Aboriginal women.
The Committee heard that, in some cases, when women seek legal
recourse against their perpetrator, they face major barriers including the
attitude of both police and courts and a dearth of legal aid available.[86]
Several witnesses flagged that only a small proportion of reports
of abuse ever result in charges being laid.[87] With respect to the court system itself, the Committee heard testimony of the
impact of the courts’ failure to act,[88] and the importance of legal representation for Aboriginal women who do choose
to lay charges and seek convictions.[89] As noted above, the Committee heard of a particular gap that is emerging for
family members seeking legal redress with respect to missing and murdered
women.
There are wide differences in access to courts, and in their
operations with respect to violence against Aboriginal women. In some
communities, because only circuit courts are available, there are fewer
opportunities to take cases forward.[90] In Edmonton, the Committee learned of the development of a domestic violence
court, which holds daily hearings. In some jurisdictions, the police and social
workers can interview all the affected parties and their counsel, assess risks,
make recommendations to the court, and work with agencies to propose family
reconciliation plans.
Several federal investment programs, described in greater detail
below, are intended to improve access to the criminal justice system for
Aboriginal women. However, none of are intended to provide assistance to help
victims or their family members access the legal representation they may need.
Therefore,
The Committee recommends that the
federal government continue to work with its provincial and territorial
partners and stakeholders to determine what more can be done within existing
service models to better address the needs of Aboriginal victims of violence.
Among the federal programs intended to improve access to justice
more generally, the federal government has funded an Aboriginal Courtwork
Program, with a started objective of “providing
Aboriginal persons charged with an offence with timely and accurate information
at the earliest possible stage of the criminal justice process.”[91] This program
was initiated by communities in the 1960s, and has received federal funding
beginning in 1968, becoming an ongoing contribution program in 1978. The
Minister of Justice, the Honourable Rob Nicholson, told the Committee that the
program was “to make sure that people who get involved with the criminal
justice system are aware of their rights and aware of the help they may be able
to get.”[92]
The Federal Aboriginal Justice Strategy is also led by the Department
of Justice, and cost-shared with provinces and territories. The Committee was
told that the strategy
… uses traditional dispute resolution methods to
address crime and victimization and currently supports more than 120
community-based justice programs in approximately 400 [A]boriginal communities across Canada. Through this holistic process,
offenders are held accountable and attempts are made to repair the harm
suffered by the victim while at the same time restoring relationships between
victims, offenders, and communities.[93]
According to the Department of Justice Canada’s website, this
strategy “enables Aboriginal communities to have increased involvement in the
local administration of justice and, as such, provides timely and effective
alternatives to mainstream justice processes in appropriate circumstances.”[94]
Created in 1991, the Aboriginal Justice Strategy was part of an
overall federal Aboriginal crime strategy and has been renewed three times. In
2007, the funding was enhanced to $14.5 million over two years (from 2007-2008
to 2008-2009).[95] In August 2008, the Minister
of Justice confirmed the strategy’s renewal for five years until 2012, with
funding of $40 million over that period.[96] The enhanced
funding was to allow expansion “into areas of high need, such as urban,
northern, and off reserve Aboriginal communities, in addition to focusing on
Aboriginal youth.”[97]
While the current commitment is until 2012, the Department’s Report
on Plans and Priorities for 2011-2012 includes its plan to “…. in
collaboration with federal, provincial, territorial, Aboriginal and community
justice partners, design and implement Aboriginal Justice Strategy renewal
beyond 2012.[98]
Finally, the National Crime Prevention Strategy has as its mission to “provide national
leadership on effective and cost-efficient ways to both prevent and reduce
crime by addressing known risk factors in high-risk populations and places”.[99] It is administered by the National Crime Prevention Centre, within the
Department of Public Safety Canada.[100]
The Committee heard that
the National Crime Prevention Centre “has been an active and
supportive partner in many [A]boriginal communities across the country by
investing over $46 million to fund 40 crime prevention projects aimed at [A]boriginal
communities, most of which are currently active for the next couple of years.”[101]
The Committee heard that the National Crime Prevention Strategy is
oriented towards long-term results and aims to improve the futures of today’s
youth. Staff of the National Crime Prevention Centre at the Department of
Public Safety told the Committee:
We feel that
well-thought-out and properly implemented prevention measures are the best way
to reduce the number of victims. At the same time, we are obviously aware that
this is a long-term process, and the effects will only be felt several years
later, after the projects have been carried out, especially since our targeted
groups are youth aged 6 to 24.[102]
Among its three funding
mechanisms[103] is the Northern and Aboriginal Crime
Prevention Fund, created in 2008. This fund was allocated $8 million for
2010-2011. According to the Department of Public Safety’s website, the fund
… [a]ssists communities experiencing multiple risk factors and other
challenges that affect their ability to respond to
crime issues, such as remote geographical location and limited capacity. It
achieves this by providing time-limited funding to support culturally sensitive
initiatives that foster the development and implementation of crime prevention
approaches in Aboriginal communities, both on-and off reserve and in the North.[104]
The Committee heard extensively about the shortage of affordable
housing, on reserve and in non-reserve communities, and its impact on women’s
capacity to leave abusive home situations. Although also related to the poverty
of Aboriginal women, one witness summed up the particular significance of
affordable housing with respect to Aboriginal women and violence:
Without a safe place to call home, Aboriginal
women are at extreme risk of violence. For mothers living in poverty, finding
adequate housing is a major barrier to keeping themselves and their children
safe.[105]
The Committee has heard that the widespread shortage of housing on
reserve can exacerbate the risk women face with respect to violence. An
extensive study of the issue concluded: “A common issue on reserves is the lack
of housing. This is especially acute for Aboriginal women fleeing a violent
situation. They may stay with relatives, but this is temporary at best and
cannot be considered a long-term solution.”[106] The
same study suggested that a shortage of such housing in nearby towns was also a
deterrent to women leaving violent situations.[107]
Similarly, NWAC, in a 2004 document on Aboriginal women’s health, reported
that “Chronic housing shortages on reserve, and a lack of affordable housing off
reserve, leave Aboriginal women at increased risk of violence due to a lack of
practical options.”[108]
The particular challenges facing Inuit women in isolated
communities have been identified by Pauktuutit: “The extreme housing crisis
across the Arctic often means that for women living with violence in the home
there may be no other safe housing options, and the cost of air travel to seek
safety in another community can be prohibitively expensive.”[109]
Other research has described the links between housing and violence
as well. For example, a 2008 Public Health Agency of Canada report on
Aboriginal women and violence flagged how women could avoid reporting violence
or abuse for fear of losing their housing, and related consequences.[110] It also suggested that the assurance of housing would encourage the reporting
of incidences of violence.[111]
Finally, the Committee also heard that a lack of housing was a
possible trigger for removal of children from families,[112] addressed in
greater detail elsewhere in this report.
Officials from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) told
the Committee that
[a] key part of CMHC's mandate is to work with our
provincial, territorial, and non-governmental partners, as well as the private sector,
to help Canadians from all walks of life access quality affordable homes.
CMHC's assisted housing initiatives are designed to help some of the most vulnerable
in society, including women who are victims of domestic violence.[113]
Starting in 2001, the federal government established a framework
for cost-sharing new affordable housing construction, with a funding commitment
of $680 million. In 2003, a federal commitment of $320 million was dedicated to
additional funding for housing targeted to low-income households in communities
with a particular need for affordable housing. In this phase, the rent of the
housing units has to be at levels affordable for low-income households.[114]
In Budget 2006, the federal government announced $300 million in a
one-time transfer through the Northern Housing Trust “to help meet short-term
pressures with regard to the supply of affordable housing in the North.”[115] This funding was
allocated to the three Northern territories from 2006-2007 to 2008-2009.[116]
The Committee heard that this investment in housing in Nunavut
alone resulted in the construction of 725 “new public housing
rent-geared-to-income units.”[117]
In 2008, the federal government announced $1.9 billion over five
years, for housing and homelessness programs for low-income Canadians, which
included a three-year commitment for an extension of the Affordable Housing
Initiative (AHI).
In July 2011, federal-provincial-territorial governments announced “a
$1.4 billion combined investment toward reducing the number of Canadians in
housing need under a new Affordable Housing Framework 2011–2014.”[118] Under the new Framework,
provinces and territories are responsible for the design and delivery of
affordable housing programs, which allows them to address their specific
housing needs and priorities.[119]
A further one-time investment was made through Canada’s Economic
Action Plan,[120] which distributed $1.525 billion in funding through amendments to AHI’s
cost-sharing and delivery arrangements with the provinces and territories. This
arrangement enabled the federal government to offer the one-time investment in
housing stimulus measures to construct new, and renovate existing, social
housing.[121]
Two other components of the Economic Action Plan addressed housing
needs for Aboriginal peoples. The first, called Addressing First Nations’
Housing Needs Initiative, invested $400 million over two years in First
Nations’ housing needs on reserve.[122] The second allocated $200 million over two years to fund the construction and
renovation of social housing in the three territories. More details of this
initiative are provided below.
Of the $400 million allocated to Addressing First Nations’ Housing
Needs Initiative, CMHC was to deliver $250 million over two years to create new
on reserve housing and to repair and renovate existing federally assisted on
reserve social housing.[123] Data to January 2011 indicate that $123 million was spent in 2009–2010 and $127
million was committed for 2010–2011.[124]
The remaining $150 million (of the total $400 million), AANDC
allocated for first nations over the two years ($75 million for 2009-2010 and
$75 million for 2010-2011).[125] According to testimony, in 2009- 2010 183 new housing units were built,[126] almost 2,000 units were
renovated, nearly 600 lots were serviced (prepared for future construction), and
nearly 825 jobs were created.[127] In 2010-2011, AANDC allocated funding for 58 serviced lots, 1,935 renovations, 191 new housing units.[128]
As noted above, the 2009 budget also allocated $200 million over
two years to fund the construction and renovation of social housing in the
three territories. Data as of January 2011 indicate that $100 million was
provided in 2009–2010 and $100 million was to be provided in 2010–2011. Funding
was delivered through CMHC, through amendments to existing bilateral agreements
between the federal government and territories under the Affordable Housing
Initiative.
The funds were to be allocated based on greatest need, with Yukon
and the Northwest Territories each receiving $50 million and Nunavut receiving
$100 million.[129] The Committee heard that the $100 million investment in Nunavut has led to the
construction of 285 new public housing units.[130]
The funding aimed to assist households who were on, or qualified to
be on, a social housing waiting list. Territorial governments were responsible
for program delivery and for approval of funding applications for new
construction, as submitted by municipalities, not-for-profit organizations and
private sector developers. Only existing federally assisted social housing
qualified for repair and retrofit funding.[131]
The Committee also heard of the importance of accessible emergency
shelters for women who do flee violence, and a range of opinion on whether
these supports should be in rural, isolated and/or on reserve communities, or
whether they should be at some distance from the communities to provide greater
protection and safety for women leaving violent situations. The Committee was
disturbed to learn of waiting lists for shelters and safe spaces for women
facing violence.
The federal government has funded programming, including the
approval by SWC of more than $1 billion “to end violence against Aboriginal
women,” in 2009–2010;[132] and an expenditure of $29.6
million each year in “family violence prevention programs and services on
reserve.”[133] In addition, federal
funding targeted to increasing the number of shelter beds for people who were
homeless included funding used to build, operate and renovate shelters for
Aboriginal women. More details on both programs are provided below.
The Family Violence Prevention Program (FVPP) “supports a network
of 35 shelters serving approximately 265 First Nations communities.”[134] According to testimony, the network is now comprised
of 41 shelters.[135]
The total budget of the FVPP is $18.5 million per year, $11.5
million of which goes to operational funding and $7 million is used for
approximately 350 community-driven prevention projects in First Nation and
northern communities.[136] The community prevention projects include “public awareness campaigns,
conferences, workshops, stress and anger management seminars, support groups,
and community needs assessments.”[137]
In June 2007, almost $56 million in funding was allocated to on
reserve shelters through a five-year investment (ending in 2012) in AANDC’s
Family Violence Prevention Program and CMHC’s Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP)
on reserve.[138]
Of this funding, around $53.45 million will go to the Family
Violence Prevention Program for “operational costs of existing shelters to
provide protection and prevention services that meet the needs of women,
children and families ordinarily resident on reserve.” [139]
The remaining funding was allocated to the Shelter Enhancement
Program, as discussed below, which received the $2.2 million for the
construction of up to five additional shelters on reserve.[140]
The Shelter Enhancement Program, under CMHC aims to provide
“financial assistance to repair, rehabilitate and improve existing shelters,
both on- and off reserve, for women, children and youth who are victims of
family violence. The program also assists in the acquisition or construction of
new shelters and second stage housing.”[141]
Through the federal government’s Family Violence Initiative, the
Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP) receives $1.9 million of on-going annual
funding.[142]
Of the nearly $56 million in funding allocated to on reserve
shelters in 2007, SEP received $2.2 million for the construction of five
shelters.[143] The new shelters will be built in First Nations communities in five provinces:
Quebec, Northern Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia.[144] According to testimony,
as of April 2010, three of those shelters had already been built, and two were
scheduled to be completed in May 2010.[145]
The Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS) is a community-based
program that has the goal of preventing and reducing homelessness throughout
Canada by investing in transitional and supportive housing through a
housing-first approach.[146] The HPS relies on communities to evaluate
their own housing and shelter needs and to propose appropriate projects to
respond to homelessness.[147] This approach is supported by collaboration among the federal, provincial and
territorial governments and communities. The strategy supports 61 designated
communities and some small, rural, northern, and Aboriginal communities to
develop community-based measures to assist homeless individuals and families.[148]
Established in April 2007, the HPS initially had annual funding of
$134.8 million for two years, and replaced the National Homeless Initiative,
which ran from 1999 to 2007. As part of the government’s 2008 commitment of
$1.9 billion to housing and homelessness, there was a two-year renewal of the
HPS and a commitment to maintain annual funding for housing and homelessness
until March 2014. Since April 2011, the government has renewed HPS, with a
funding level of $134.8 million annually, and committed to its funding until
March 2014.[149]
The HPS has seven funding components, the most relevant of which is
the Aboriginal Homelessness component. This funding is intended to respond to
the needs of homeless Aboriginal population, through an integrated service
delivery system that is culturally appropriate and community-driven. By working
in partnership with Aboriginal groups, the program intends to meet the unique
needs of “off reserve” Aboriginal people in cities and rural areas. While
matching contributions are not required, community contributions are
encouraged.[150]
The Director General, Homelessness Partnering Secretariat of the
Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, spoke to the results to
date of the HPS:
Since 2007, 57 projects valued at just over $27
million, and funded through the three regionally delivered streams previously
mentioned, have targeted Aboriginal women exclusively, and a number of these
address the needs of Aboriginal women who are homeless due to violence. As
well, through national program spending, we have seen the needs of Aboriginal
women who are homeless or at risk of being homeless being addressed through the
transfer of federal properties for projects that support victims of domestic
violence, through the funding of research projects related to Aboriginal women
and/or violence, and through working with other federal departments and
agencies to explore new ways to address homelessness.[151]
The Committee learned that funding by AANDC for emergency shelters
is currently available only to Aboriginal people on reserves, which excludes
almost all communities in the Territories. As suggested by the Northwest
Territories Coalition Against Family Violence,
The Committee recommends that the
federal government, in collaboration with national and/or regional Aboriginal
groups and territorial governments, review Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development Canada’s policies within its Family Violence Prevention Program
with a view to making Northern communities eligible for funding.
Further, as suggested by the Ending Violence Association of British
Columbia,
The Committee recommends, should new
funding for anti-violence work with Aboriginal women become available, that it include
a component for training Aboriginal women so that they can be employed in
delivering the service.[152]
Aboriginal witnesses from across Canada told the Committee that preventing
violence will require widespread healing, not just of victims, but also the
perpetrators of violence and the families and wider community within which the
violence takes place. As described in the Committee’s interim report, witnesses
described colonization practices of the past, including the residential school
system, and its aftermath, as well as present practices with respect to child
welfare policies and practices. These are dealt with in greater detail below.
Witnesses described the residential school system as a root cause
of so much current violence in communities. Many Aboriginal people spent much
of their youth in the residential school system, described in more detail
below, where, as described by one witness, they “were stripped of their
identity, their culture, and their language.”[153] Another witness said that
residential schools were:
a root cause of the cycle of violence that
continues to this day. There are all types of violence — physical, emotional,
mental, spiritual, sexual, racialized and sexualized — of which [A]boriginal
women are direct targets….[154]
Another witness described it as follows:
Residential schools have had such a negative
impact on our people that two or three generations later the effects are still
clearly evident. Violence against [F]irst [N]ations women and children is
rampant in our communities, born from the cycle of abuse created from residential
schools.[155]
Between the late 1800s and the early 1990s, the federal government,
together with several Christian churches, operated a system of residential
schools for Aboriginal children across the country. According to the formal
apology issued by The Right Honourable Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2008,
the Indian Residential Schools (IRS) educational system saw more than 150,000
Aboriginal children taken to boarding schools, often miles away from their
families,
to remove and isolate children from the influence
of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to assimilate them into
the dominant culture. These objectives were based on the assumption Aboriginal
cultures and spiritual beliefs were inferior and unequal. Indeed, some sought,
as it was infamously said, “to kill the Indian in the child”. Today, we
recognize that this policy of assimilation was wrong, has caused great harm,
and has no place in our country.[156]
While the schools mainly took in First Nation and Inuit children,
there were also Métis students. Though the system formally ended in 1969,
several government-run schools remained open and the last such institution
operated with federal support until 1996. Approximately 80,000 First Nations,
Inuit and Métis former IRS students are alive today.
Initial revelations of physical and sexual abuses at the schools
released a flood of further revelations and a broader focus on other damages
wrought by the system.[157] Broadly, four harms came to
light:
- the poor quality of education received by Aboriginal students;
- the damage done to family structures through the removal of
children from their homes;
- the negative impacts on Aboriginal culture and language, both
through the removal of children from their communities and the repression of
Aboriginal traditions and languages in schools; and
- the physical, mental, spiritual and emotional damage to students.
In January 1998, the federal government formally responded to the
1995 report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The government’s
policy response, known as Gathering Strength — Canada’s Aboriginal Action
Plan, outlined a strategy to begin a process of reconciliation and renewal
with Aboriginal peoples. At that time, a Statement of Reconciliation by the
Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs on behalf of all Canadians acknowledged
the contribution of Aboriginal peoples to Canadian society and formally
expressed to all Aboriginal people in Canada “profound regret for past actions
of the federal government which have contributed to these difficult pages in
history of our relationship together.” The Statement singled out
the residential school system as one aspect of the relationship that required
particular attention, and offered this apology:
The Government of Canada acknowledges the role it
played in the development and administration of these schools. Particularly to
those individuals who experienced the tragedy of sexual and physical abuse at
residential schools, and who have carried this burden believing that in some
way they must be responsible, we wish to emphasize that what you experienced
was not your fault and should never have happened. To those of you who suffered
this tragedy at residential schools, we are deeply sorry.[158]
The Statement of Reconciliation was accompanied by the announcement
of a
$350 million healing fund to aid victims of abuse. An arms-length,
not-for-profit, Aboriginal Healing Foundation (AHF) was formally established in
May 1998, with an 11-year mandate.
The Foundation received the $350 million (plus interest generated)
as a one-time grant from the federal government of to provide project funding
and to cover its expenses for up to 11 years. In 2005, the federal budget
committed an additional $40 million which assisted in extending
88 existing projects to March 31, 2007. Although the funds from the
Foundation will be distributed over the life of the organization, all of the
funds were committed in full by October 5, 2003. Since its establishment,
the Foundation has provided 1,345 grants in Canada for healing
initiatives.[159]
In 2007, the AHF received an additional $125 million under the
Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement thereby extending its initial
mandate to 2012. This funding has been fully committed to existing AHF-funding
grants. Specifically, 134 funded projects were extended until March 31, 2010
and 11 healing centres to March 31, 2012.
With a mission to support community-based healing initiatives for
those affected by the legacy of physical and sexual abuse in residential
schools, including intergenerational impacts, the Foundation has provided
resources for healing initiatives, promotes awareness of the history of
residential schools and of the healing issues, and encourages a supportive
public environment. Through its work, the Foundation’s ultimate vision was to
create communities where those affected by the legacy of physical and sexual
abuse experienced in residential schools have addressed the effects of
unresolved trauma in meaningful terms, have broken the cycle of abuse,
and have enhanced their capacity as individuals, families, communities and
nations to sustain their well being and that of future generations.[160]
The Committee has heard testimony across Canada of the important
work done by the Foundation, and the importance of on-going healing not only of
individuals, but also of families and entire communities. One witness said
Part of the healing foundation was to address the
cycle of violence as a result of residential schools.... It was a really good
process, because it was at the community level where those resources were being
used. It provided those counselling services and elder services. It even
provided language programs, self-esteem, whatever kinds of things went along
with it.[161]
In 2006, a negotiated legal settlement — the Indian Residential
Schools Settlement Agreement — was reached between the federal government,
representatives of former students at residential schools, the Assembly of
First Nations, Inuit representatives and several church organizations. It was
endorsed by the provincial courts that had been hearing the IRS survivors’
claims against the government and church organizations.[162] The Agreement, which was implemented in 2007, is final and binding on all
defendants and on those residential school survivors who have opted in to this
settlement.
Under this agreement, individuals who had been in residential
schools and their families were eligible to apply for Common Experience
Payments (until September 2011), and to be assessed for eligibility for
Individual assessment processes which could result in additional compensation
(until September 2012).[163]
The government initially allocated $94.5 million for the Indian
Residential Schools Resolution Health Support Program, to provide former IRS
students and their families with access to emotional health and wellness
support services.[164] Budget 2010 committed an
additional $199 million over two years for mental health and emotional support
services for former students and their families and “to ensure that payments to
former students are made in a timely and effective manner.”[165] Approximately
$65.9 million of that funding will be directed to mental health and
emotional support services over two years.[166]
The Department of Health had been allocated funds to support former
residents and their families in these processes and in response to new needs
identified through the hearings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.[167] The Committee also heard that Health Canada has made efforts to build on
capacity and expertise built in the Foundation’s projects to deliver these
services, but did not have a mandate to go beyond support to individuals.[168]
The Committee has heard extensively about the high levels of
addiction and mental health problems experienced by Aboriginal peoples and
Aboriginal communities as an on-going effect of the residential school
experience. One Aboriginal service described their clients:
These women have an internalized shame about their
identity and culture that leads them to live lives filled with violence,
addiction, and mental illness. They have been lost, disconnected from their spirit,
culture, language, family, and community.[169]
As described above, the Department of Health’s Inuit and First
Nations health programs are intended to address these issues. Several witnesses
described the need for these programs, and called for an expansion of these
programs, as an important step to preventing violence.[170]
Statistics show that First Nations children are overrepresented in
the child welfare system. At the end of March 2007, there were about 8,300 on
reserve children in care, a little over 5% of all children living on reserves.
This proportion is almost eight times that of children in care living off
reserve.[171]
Although the child welfare system has evolved over the years,
outlined in more detail below, many witnesses told the Committee that fear of
having children removed from their family homes is a major deterrent to women
reporting violence in their families or seeking support services. Several
witnesses described the child welfare system, both on reserve and off reserve,
as a continuation of the residential school practice of removing Aboriginal
children from their families and most often from their communities.[172] One witness noted that
the child protection system can often re-victimize a victim of violence, by
removing her children if and when she reports the violence.[173]
Other witnesses drew the link between the child welfare system and
the poverty Aboriginal women face. One witness highlighted that in the context
of the child welfare system, “[P]overty seems to be a crime.”[174] She emphasized that the
dilemma facing Aboriginal women in trying to provide their children: “[I]t's
not a lack of love; it's a lack of resources.”
As noted above, there have been some significant improvements to
this system. Before the 1950s, federal officials intervened in extreme
cases if a child living on reserve was abused or neglected; however,
their intervention was not based in law. From the 1950s on, provinces began to
deliver child welfare services on reserves. In the 1970s, First Nations began
to express dissatisfaction with the way provinces delivered child welfare
services: many First Nations children were adopted out of their communities,
some even outside Canada, severing the children’s ties to their communities and
culture.[175] This phenomenon is often
referred to as the “sixties scoop.”
In 1990, a First Nations child welfare policy was approved
by the federal government. Today, most provinces provide delegated
authority for child welfare services on reserves to local First Nations
agencies.[176] Since 2007, the federal
government has been negotiating Tripartite Frameworks on a province-by-province
basis to introduce a new funding formula which has a greater prevention focus.
In 2009, the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and the First Nations
Child and Family Caring Society of Canada brought a complaint before the
Canadian Human Rights Commission, alleging that inequities between the funding
of child welfare services on reserve and off reserve constituted discrimination
based on race and were in contravention of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission issued an order referring the matter to
the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Several interlocutory decisions have been
released in this case; however the matter currently remains before the
Tribunal.
The First Nations Child and Family Services (FNCFS) Program is one
of the social programs provided by AANDC for First Nations. While AANDC does
not deliver child and family services, the department funds or reimburses First
Nations service providers and provinces for administrative and protection
services (operating costs) and for the direct costs of placing children in
temporary or permanent care of foster parents (maintenance costs). Over the
past 20 years, provincial child welfare authorities have delegated program
delivery on reserve to a growing number of First Nations Child and Family
Services agencies. Prior to the introduction of Tripartite Frameworks, AANDC
reimbursed FNCFS agencies through a funding formula known as Directive 20-1.
That funding formula now applies in some provinces only.
A 2007 internal evaluation of the FNCFS Program suggested that the
Directive 20-1 funding formula used by AANDC may have been partially
responsible for the increase in child apprehensions. Under Directive 20-1, the
department covers the costs of children in care regardless of the amount, but it
will provide minimal funding for supports for children to be cared for safely
in their own family. The 2007 evaluation noted that this funding formula “has
had the effect of steering agencies towards in-care options — foster care,
group homes and institutional care because only these agency costs are fully
reimbursed.”[177]
The costs of providing child and family services to First Nations
people have increased dramatically. According to AANDC, “funding to these
service providers has more than doubled over the past decade, from $238 million
in 1998-99 to approximately $550 million in 2008-09.”[178] Yet witnesses emphasized
that if the funding available to foster families were available to the families
of the children being removed, there would be a reduced need for such removal.[179]
In its efforts to make the apprehension of children the last
option, Community and Family Services in the Child Protection Program of the
Yellowknife Health and Social Services Authority allocates funding directly to
low-income families. The manager of the program explains:
As hard as it may be for people to believe, apprehending a
child from a woman who has left an abusive relationship is the last option we
want. We put out a significant amount of money to assist families that are on a
very limited income, and sometimes income support just doesn’t pay enough. It’s
not uncommon for us to give out gift cards on a regular basis.[180]
In 2007, the federal government started to roll out its new
Enhanced Prevention Focused Approach on a province-by-province basis — these
Tripartite Frameworks are described below. As these are negotiated individually
with the various provinces, there is currently a wide diversity in how AANDC
funds First Nations Child and Family Services:
- Tripartite Frameworks have been signed with six provinces,
Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Manitoba;[181]
- Funding of the FNCFS Program through what is known as “Directive
20-1” continues to be applied in British Columbia and New Brunswick;
- The 1965 Indian Welfare Agreement continues to be applied
in Ontario.
Over the last decade, provinces began to shift to a greater
emphasis on enhanced prevention in their own approaches to child and family
services. As noted above, in 2007 AANDC also started to roll out its new
Enhanced Prevention Focused Approach on a province-by-province basis.
In a 2008 report on First Nations Child and Family Services (see
more detail below) the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) recommended that,
when negotiating agreements with each province, AANDC should, in consultation
with First Nations, seek assurance that provincial legislation is being
met; the department should also analyze the information obtained and follow-up
when necessary. In response, AANDC committed to developing Tripartite Enhanced
Prevention Frameworks with provinces and First Nations. According to the
department, the frameworks provide a “wider set of tools for Child and Family
Services agencies, strong governance and better accountability at Child and
Family Services Agencies.”[182] Also, AANDC believes that
the enhanced prevention approach ensures that:
- Families get the support and services they need before they reach
a crisis;
- Community-based services and the child welfare system work
together so families receive more appropriate services in a timely manner;
- First Nations children in care benefit from permanent homes
(placements) sooner, such as helping families to plan alternative care options;
and
- Services and supports are coordinated in a way that best helps
the family.
In 2007, the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) conducted an audit
examining the First Nations Child and Family Services Program (FNCFSP),
reporting on this in
May 2008.[183] Among its areas of focus,
the OAG included whether the Department was fulfilling its responsibilities
under the policy to support child welfare services to on reserve children and
families that are culturally appropriate and reasonably comparable with
provincial services available off reserves in similar circumstances.
The OAG found that, compared to Directive 20-1, the new funding
formula under the New Enhanced Prevention Focused Approach would provide more
funds for the operations of First Nations agencies and also offered them more
flexibility to allocate resources to different types of child welfare services.
For example, it found that on average, funding to Alberta First Nations
agencies for the operation and prevention components should have increased by
74% when the new formula was fully implemented in 2010, which should
consequently have led to better services for First Nations children.
The OAG also expressed concerns with the new funding formula, as it
was based on the assumption that each First Nations agency has 6% of on reserve
children placed in care, when the audit found that the actual percentage of
children in care can range from 0% to 28%. In a presentation to the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts (PAC), the Auditor General noted that
the new formula does not address the inequities of
the existing formula. It still assumes that a fixed percentage of [F]irst [N]ations
children and families need child welfare services. Agencies with more than 6%
of their children in care will continue to be hard-pressed to provide
protection services while developing family enhancement services. In our view,
the funding formula should be more than a means of distributing the program’s
budget; it should take into account the varying needs of [F]irst [N]ations
children and communities.[184]
Subsequently, PAC reviewed the audit and issued a report which
echoed the OAG observations and recommendations.[185]
It should be noted that the Committee heard[186] and witnessed[187] that not all AANDC officials are knowledgeable about, or even aware of, these
reports and their recommendations; it was recommended that training was needed
to provide this information as a necessary step to implementing outstanding
recommendations.[188]
However, in a report on the federal role as a funder in First
Nations family and child services updated as of July 2010, the Department
indicated that more than $100 million would be dedicated to the new prevention approach by 2012-2013,
and that its goal was to have agreements with all provinces within this
prevention focus by the same year.[189]
According to testimony, when fully implemented, this funding will
provide over $100 million annually in additional funding for the new approach under the six
framework agreements with Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward
Island, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia.[190] Budget 2010 provided $53 million over two years to continue the process of
implementing this approach.[191]
An evaluation of the new enhanced prevention approach implemented
in Alberta reveals promising results. Departmental officials told the Committee:
We have invested $91.8 million over five years in
Alberta. Overall, there are now more culturally appropriate placements, more
permanency supports for children, and increased use by families of prevention
programming, as well as increased use of less costly placements. In 2007-08, for
instance, in Alberta there were 329 in institutional care; in 2009-10 there
were 68. There has been a substantial reduction demonstrated by an increased
use of more cultural and fewer institutional placements of children unable to
be in care by their families. In terms of kinship care, we had no one in that
kind of arrangement in 2007-08; in 2009-10 we had 375. There has been a
dramatic increase, demonstrating that there's a support for that type of
culturally appropriate placement within the Alberta context. In terms of
post-adoptive subsidies, we've gone from none in 2007-08 to 130 in 2009-10.[192]
In its submission, the Department told the Committee:
With this new approach, First Nations Child and
Family Services agencies will be able to ensure that more First Nations
children and parents get the help they need to prevent the types of crises that
lead to intervention and family breakdown. This may include services such as
in-home supports, respite care, and mentoring. The new approach will also
strengthen partnerships with other community services to better meet the needs
to First Nations children and their families.[193]