First Nations Child Welfare in Quebec



Aboriginal Child Welfare in Quebec

In 2006, there were 55, 955 registered First Nations people in Quebec; representing approximately 9% of the total Canadian First Nations population and 1% of the total Quebec population (Statistics Canada, 2006). An additional 52, 470 people in Québec identify as Métis, Inuit or “other Aboriginal identity” (Statistics Canada, 2006).[1] The provincial government assumes responsibility for the funding and provision of child and family services in 24 of the 55 Aboriginal communities in Quebec; services in the remaining 31 communities are funded by the federal government (Santé et Services Sociaux, 2007). Many of these communities have made efforts to re-gain control over social services and child welfare practices related to their children. The results of their efforts are demonstrated by the existence of sixteen First Nations child and family service agencies. These agencies are supported by the First Nations of Québec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission (FNQLHSSC) and the Assembly of First Nations of Québec and Labrador (AFNQL).

Historical Overview of the First Nations Child Welfare System in Quebec

Quebec shares a common national history with other provinces in regards to the development of First Nations child welfare. Residential schools served as the primary mechanism of First Nations child welfare in Canada between 1879 and 1946 (Milloy, 1999). During this period, the Canadian government’s policy regarding First Nations child welfare was to assimilate Aboriginal peoples into Anglo-European culture by separating Aboriginal children from their families. In 1920 an amendment to the Indian Act made attendance at designated state sponsored (day, residential, institutional) schools mandatory for all children “between the ages of seven and fifteen years” who were physically able to attend (An Act to amend the Indian Act, 1920, A10).  It also allowed truant officers to enforce attendance, giving them the right to, “enter any place where he has reason to believe there are Indian children” of school age and to arrest and convey to school truant children. (An Act to amend the Indian Act, 1920, A10). In Quebec there were six residential schools, which operated between1934 and 1980 (Assembly of First Nations, 2010).

In 1951, the introduction of Section 88 to the Indian Act made “all laws of general application from time to time in force in any province applicable to and in respect of Indians in the province” (Indian Act, s. 88, c. 9, s. 151, 1985). Section 88 made it possible to enforce provincial child welfare legislation on-reserve. For the first time provincial child welfare authorities began to apprehend Aboriginal children living on-reserve; this resulted in a sharp increase of First Nations children placed in care (Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996). By 1980, status First Nations children represented 2.4% of all children in out-of-home care in Quebec(Johnston, 1983).

The mid 1970s heralded the signing of two major agreements formalizing the Quebec’s role in the provision of health and social services in northern Inuit, Naskapi and Cree communities. The James Bay Northern Québec Agreement (Government of Quebec,1975) was signed with the Cree and Inuit peoples in 1975 and the Northeastern Québec Agreement ( Government of Canada, 1984) was signed with the Naskapi peoples in 1978. Through these agreements, Quebec assumed responsibility for funding health and social services in 24 northern communities (Santé et Services Sociaux , 2007). The agreements established Inuit and Cree regional health and social services boards, and a Naskapi consultation committee, which work within the structure of the Quebec health and social services system to oversee the development and implementation of programs and services in these communities (Government of Quebec,1975; Government of Canada, 1984).

In contrast, the child welfare systems developed the remaining Aboriginal communities within Quebec were similar to those in other provinces. The federal government provided funds to support one of two models: 1) residents of reserve communities accessed provincial services in surrounding areas, or 2) residents of reserve communities which had assumed control over health and social services accessed specialized programs developed and organized by tribes (Santé et Services Sociaux, 2007).

By the 1980’s, some First Nations communities had begun offering child welfares services on reserve. By 1991, due to a national rise in the number of First Nations child welfare agencies and a perceived lack of funding for such services, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) implemented a national First Nations child welfare program (Office of the Auditor General Report, 2008). The program was comprised of a funding formula, Directive 20-1, and standards, documented in the First Nations Child and Family Services National Program Manual, which required First Nations child welfare agencies to conduct child welfare services based on provincial standards (Office of the Auditor General Report, 2008). Under the terms of Directive 20-1, First Nations child welfare agencies in Quebec received operations budgets, which were determined on the basis of the child population, and funds to cover maintenance expenses for children placed in out of home care. Directive 20-1, was subsequently criticized for failing to fund prevention services, provide funds based on actual community needs, and provide funding which reflected the actual work required of agencies by provincial statutes criticized (Blackstock, Prakash, Loxley, & Wien, 2005; INAC, 2007; MacDonald & Ladd, 2000, Auditor General of Canada 2008).

The Current Structure of First Nations Child Welfare

There are currently sixteen First Nations health and social service agencies that serve on-reserve children and families in Québec. They are supported by the First Nations of Québec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission and the Assembly of First Nations of Québec and Labrador, which work in partnership to promote and monitor social service provision, advocating for the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual well-being of First Nations and Inuit people, families and communities in Québec (FNQLHSSC, 2007). For a list of First Nations health and social service organizations operating in the province, refer to Table 1. Nine health and social service agencies do not currently have arrangements in place to conduct child welfare investigations in their own communities; therefore, investigations involving families in these communities are conducted by the provincial agency in the corresponding territories. The additional eight existing social service agencies currently have arrangements with the provincial government whereby First Nations agency workers are paid as employees of the provincial child welfare agencies for a portion of their work week and are therefore permitted to conduct child welfare investigations under the youth protection act (personal communication with Richard Gray, February 2010). In 2009, Bill 24, an act to amend various legislative provisions concerning health, was modified to allow members of Native communities designated by the Director of Youth Protection to conduct child welfare evaluations without necessarily being an employee of a provincial youth centre (Bolduc, 2009). This change will enable First Nations health and social agencies to more follow the delegated agency model that exists in other provinces.

The legislation that governs the delivery of child welfare services in Québec is the Youth Protection Act (Government of Québec, 2007). Section 2.4(c) of the act lists the “characteristics of Native communities” as one of the factors which should be taken into consideration when determining action to ensure a child’s protection. Section 37.5 of allows for the development of special youth protection programs, designed to address the “realities of Native life,” (Government of Québec, 2007). In addition, Government action in Aboriginal contexts in Québec is informed by the 1983 and 1989 resolutions adopted by the National Assembly and the 15 principles adopted by the Québec Cabinet in 1983. The resolutions and principles explicitly recognize the 11 Aboriginal nations in Québec and their rights to self-government within the province as well as their rights to culture, language and traditions. One of the principles states that “Aboriginal nations have the right to have and control, within the framework of agreements between them and the government, such institutions as may correspond to their needs in matters of culture, education, language, health and social services as well as economic development” (Secrétariat aux affaires autochtones, 1998). Thus, there are provisions in Quebec legislation which provide a framework which could, in theory, support greater, formal independence of First Nations child welfare agencies.

However, ensuring implementation of special provisions within the existing legislation, as well as negioating unintended concequences of new and amended legislation pose important challenges which inhibit the ability of First Nations communities to ensure equitable, culturally sensitive services for First Nations children and families. For example, bill 125 of the Youth Protection Act, passed in 2007, introduced strict limits on the length of time that a child may be in out-of-home care before the Director of Youth Protection is obligated to find a permanent living situation for the child (Government of Québec, 2007). The FNQLHSSC is concerned that Bill 125 may potentially prioritize rapid, permanent placement over cultural connectedness for First Nations children (FNQLHSSC, 2008).

In addition, funding remains a key challenge. In August 2009, INAC announced a tripartite agreement which shifted First Nations child and family service agencies in Quebec from Directive 20-1 funding to the “enhanced prevention focused funding” formula (INAC, 2010). The new formula includes maintenance, operational, and prevention funds. Maintenance funds are meant to cover costs of each child in care, operational funds are intended to cover administrative costs and prevention funding is for child maltreatment prevention programs (Government of Canada 2009, Johnston 2010a). This formula addresses some key criticisms of directive 20-1:  it provides increased funding (Auditor General of Canada 2008, INAC 2010), specifically targets funds for prevention, and allows agencies increased flexibility in using funds (Government of Canada 2009, Johnston 2010a). Indeed, INAC reports that Quebec received $6.1 million dollars for implementation of the new model in 2009-2010 (INAC 2010).

Still, as the Auditor General of Canada (2008) has noted, some of the flaws identified in directive 20-1 (McDonald & Ladd 2000) are reproduced in the new funding model. Operations costs continue to be partially based on an assumed average rate of out of home placements rather than actual agency expenses (House Standing Committee on Public Accounts 2010, Auditor General of Canada 2008) and there does not appear to be a formal mechanism for linking INAC funding levels to the shifting responsibilities mandated by provinces/territories (Government of Canada 2009, Johnston 2010b). In addition, in contrast to directive 20-1, which covered actual maintenance expenses for children in out of home care, the new model designates a block of maintenance funds based on agency maintenance costs during the preceding year (Government of Canada 2009). This block funding does not include a formal mechanism for covering costs associated with the maintenance of children with complex special needs, or for addressing the other factors which INAC identifies as driving a doubling of maintenance costs over the last decade (INAC 2010) Indeed, preliminary results from the evaluation of a pilot program which implemented a similar funding model in four communities in Quebec suggest that, although the new formula theoretically gave communities more control over their funds, the limitations on funding meant that agencies were sometimes unable to cover their basic expenditures, let alone have money left over for prevention programming (FNQLHSSC, 2010). Thus, the full impact of the shift in funding models for First Nations agencies in Quebec is yet to be assessed and understood.

| |Agency* |First Nations Served* |

|Delegated|Gesgapegiag |Micmacs of Gespagegiag |

|to | | |

|Conduct | | |

|Investiga| | |

|tions | | |

| |Kahnawake Shaikotiia’takenhhas |Mohawks of Kahnawake |

| |Community Services | |

| |Kitigan Zibi Health and Social |Algonquins of Kitigan Zibi |

| |Services | |

| |Conseil des Nations d'Atikamekw |Atikamekws |

| |Akwesasne Child and Family |Mohawks of Akwesasne |

| |Services | |

| |Services Sociaux Opticiwan |Atikamekws of Obedjiwan |

| |Services Sociaux Mashteuiatsh |Montagnais de Mashteuiatsh |

| |Listuguj Mi'gmaq FN Council |Micmacs of Listuguj |

|Not |Betsiamites |Betsiamites |

|Delegated| | |

|to | | |

|Conduct | | |

|Investiga| | |

|tions | | |

| |Conseil des Montagnais de |Montagnais Essipit |

| |Essipit | |

| |Conseil des Montagnais de |Montagnais de Shefferville |

| |Shefferville | |

| |Montagnais du Lac Saint-Jean |Montagnais du Lac Saint-Jean |

| |Nation Hurone-Wendat |Nation Huronne-Wendat |

| |Regroupement Mamit Innuat |Mingan Montagnais de la Romaine |

| | |Montagnais |

| |Service Sociaux montagnais du |Montagnais du Nutashkuan |

| |Nutashkuan | |

| |Uashat/Maliotenam |Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam |

References

Assembly of First Nations (n.d.). History of Indian Residential Schools. Retrieved May

4th, 2010 from .

Bolduc, Y. (2009). Bill 24: An Act to amend various legislative provisions concerning

Health. Minister of Health and Social Services. Québec Official Publisher.

Dubois, D. and Ramdatt, J. (2006). Promising Practices in First Nations Child Welfare

Management and Governance. First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. Retrieved June 20th, 2010 from: . on March 31, 2010.

First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission (2007).

Development of front-line social services by and for First Nations: Prevention,

Community Mobilization and Early Intervention.

First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission (2010)

Draft report on findings of Front-Line Social Services Pilot Project.

FNQLHSSC (2008). Retrieved August 21, 2010 from



Government of Québec (1975) James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

Retrieved November 9, 2010 from

Government of Québec (2007). R.S.Q., chapter P-34.1 Youth Protection Act.

Retrieved February 10th, 2010 from

Indian Act, R.S., (1985). c.I-5, S88. Retrieved from:

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (1984) Northeastern Quebec Agreement. Retrieved

November 9, 2010 from

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Department Audit and Evaluation Branch . (2007).

Evaluation of the First Nations Child and Family Services Program. Retrieved from:

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. (2010). First Nations Profile.



Johnston, P. (1983). Native Children and the Child Welfare System. Toronto: The

Canadian Council on Social Development.

MacDonald, R., & Ladd, P. et. Al. (2002). Joint National Policy Review of First Nations

Child and Family Services. Ottawa: Assembly of First Nations.

Milloy, J. (1999). A National Crime: The Canadian Government and the Residential

School System 1879-1986. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.

Office of the Auditor General of Canada. (2008). First Nations child and family

services program – Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. . Retrieved from

April 19, 2010 oag-bvg.gc.ca.

Personal communication with Richard Gray, Director of Social Services, FNQLHSSC,

February 12th and March 4th, 2010.

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. (1996). The report on the Royal Commission

on Aboriginal Peoples. Retrieved from .

Santé et Services Sociaux Québec (2007). Delivery and Funding of health and social

services for aboriginal people. Ottawa: Gouvernement du Québec, 28pp.

Santé et Services Sociaux Québec (2009). Focus on the Québec Health and Social

Service System. Ottawa: Gouvernement du Québec, 54pp.

Secrétariat aux affaires autochtones, 1998. Partnership, Development, Achievement –

Aboriginal Affairs – Québec Government Guidelines.

Statistics Canada (2006). Aboriginal Peoples in Canada in 2006: Inuit, Métis and Fist

Nations, 2006 Census. Retrieved from

-----------------------

[1] There are three groups of Aboriginal peoples in Canada recognized by the Constitution Act (1982): First Nations, Métis, and Inuit.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download