"Amongst its many roles, government through the Child, Family and Community Service Act, is a parent to many of British Columbia’s most vulnerable children – the decisions regarding the CORE review must be made from this perspective."
.......Submission from Caring for First Nations Children Society

Sounding the Alarm Over Government Threats
to Aboriginal Children and Families in British Columbia
News and Comment
by Tehaliwaskenhas - Bob Kennedy, Oneida

The joke is that on Halloween the Premier of BC wore a Mike Harris mask. But the government's agenda is no laughing matter for Aboriginal caregivers, families, communities and their political organizations.

"Chainsaw" Mike Harris has resigned as Premier of Ontario, but his right wing legacy will haunt Aboriginal people and the province's less fortunate for years to come. In British Columbia, we are getting a good glimpse early on of Gordon Campbell's reign of 'governance minus care and compassion'.

Stormy skies hover ominously above Campbell and his massive majority government. A key target of community discontent is the government's attack on the Ministry for Children and Family Development. The United Native Nations (UNN) said for example, ". . . recent budget cuts are alarming because they may be signaling the direction your government is taking. In other words, we fear that we may be offered all the authority that we could wish for, but not the funding needed for service delivery."

We know all too well that the government's slashing of social services hits the 'poorest of poor', the hardest as the UNN observed,". . . because of the continuing cutbacks in government spending, we fear that the burden of fiscal restraint will be forced onto the people who can least afford it."

In its detailed submission, Caring for First Nations Children Society wrote, "To date there has been very limited opportunities for First Nations child and family service agencies to have input into the CORE review of MCFD."

Even the ministry's own experienced staff are challenging the government to do the right thing. "In order to look toward the future we must understand the past," wrote Gary McDermott, a Metis man who has years of working with child welfare issues and the BC government. "Government must continue a direct dialogue with Aboriginal communities about the delivery of child and family development services so that when the future arrives it does not ignore the mistakes of the past."

UNN SUBMISSION TO THE CORE REVIEW

This brief to the Core Review speaks to the process of substantive change within the Ministry for Child and Family Development, including some of the issues that must be considered.

We need not repeat, yet again, the fact that the Ministry (MCFD) has not met the needs of Aboriginal children, youth, families and communities, either since changes were made in 1995 or in the period before.

We believe that it is possible to fundamentally restructure the Ministry to better serve our communities. Therefore, we believe that the Core Review process could represent a tremendous opportunity to develop child protection and family support services that are effective, holistic, culture-based, affordable, and under the control of appropriate Aboriginal authorities.

However, recent budget cuts are alarming because they may be signaling the direction your government is taking. Our optimism, therefore, is offset by a concern that cutbacks may undermine the initiative.

In other words, we fear that we may be offered all the authority that we could wish for, but not the funding needed for service delivery.

We are quite willing to engage the BC Government in a process to re-structure the Ministry for Child and Family Development (MCFD) with respect to off-reserve Aboriginal communities. In fact, we welcome the opportunity. We understand that the re-structuring of government programs and Ministries is consistent with Liberal preferences for less government. We are prepared to participate in that process because we recognize the potential benefit for Aboriginal communities. We hope that your government is sincere in your desire to create better, more responsive programs, services, administrative arrangements and governance structures.

While we understand that the Core Review process is intended to result in a “more affordable” array of provincially funded programs, services and administration, we hope that this isn’t the only agenda.

We are familiar with the economic thinking behind the idea of “less government”, and we truly hope, for the sake of all BC citizens – especially Aboriginal Peoples and others who do not benefit equally – that this hoped for economic impact will happen.

However, because of the continuing cutbacks in government spending, we fear that the burden of fiscal restraint will be forced onto the people who can least afford it. Recent cutbacks in services to youth in care of the Ministry, for instance, reflect a longstanding practice of making the poor and working classes pay for economic engineering. Also, such cutbacks to what are clearly “essential services” is yet another indication that “the State is a poor parent”.

Given that Aboriginal children in the care of the Ministry for Child and Family Development account for almost 40% of the children in care in this province, and given that Aboriginal child protection agencies and family support programs and services are not currently funded at adequate levels, it is fairly certain that our children and youth would suffer from any reduction in funding levels.

We hope that your government will design a set of indicators that can effectively measure the impact of fiscal restructuring on at-risk children and youth. We would expect that your government would have the compassion to respond appropriately should those indicators demonstrate that children and youth are being harmed by those fiscal policies.

If your government is committed to the principle that programs and services for at-risk children and youth – and their families – will be provided in ways that ensure “the best interests of the child”, the UNN would be pleased to collaborate on the design of new administrative structures, funding arrangements, and delivery structures for Aboriginal child protection and family support services.

With respect to new funding arrangements, we believe that funding formulas that are population-based would be most appropriate for a new approach. In other words, it stands to reason that as long as funding is based upon the numbers of children and youth in care, the levels of children-in-care will remain high.

The experience of other jurisdictions – such as the province of Manitoba, where the creation of regional agencies following the dismantling of the Children’s Aid Society in the city of Winnipeg – demonstrates what happens when funding formulas are not changed to reflect a more family-centered approach.

Child and Family Service agencies must receive population-based funding to enable them to develop innovative ways of protecting children within the context of their families (including the “extended” family system) instead of bringing them into care. This funding formula is required because as long as the only way an agency can access services for a child / youth is by bringing them into care, high levels of children-in-care will continue.

There are a number of innovative interventions that can be utilized to protect children outside of removal. A restructured system should give these methods an opportunity to prove themselves.

The UNN is committed to the continuing collaboration with MCFD and Aboriginal authorities – including the First Nations Summit, the Metis Provincial Council of BC, the BC Association of Friendship Centres, and the other Aboriginal signatories, to give effect to the spirit and intent of our Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

As you are aware, the purpose of that MOU is to reduce the numbers of Aboriginal children in care, and to return children to their families and communities whenever possible. The UNN has participated in the development of the MCFD Aboriginal Advisory Committee (AAC) that was established via that MOU. We believe very strongly that our collective efforts can result in the development of a child and family service delivery model that can achieve those goals.

We are prepared to continue within that Agreement, or within any new process arising out of the Core Review.

The issues concerning the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Services, the application of the Aboriginal Lens, contract reform, and the Public Sector Accord, must all be addressed within the context of a re-structured child and family service system.

Essentially, Aboriginal agencies and organizations must be involved in the design, delivery and administration of services to Aboriginal children, youth, families and communities because of over-representation within the Ministry for Child and Family Development.

In other words, Aboriginal staff, working from Aboriginal knowledge sets and practices, within our own agencies and organizations must provide services to Aboriginal children, youth, families, and communities. The Ministry has tried – more than once – to re-structure itself without Aboriginal collaboration and has failed. Please do not go down that road yet again.

The labour accord – intended to protect the jobs and the budgets of service delivery agencies – has a negative impact on the full implementation of the Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Services (SPAS) – or any new arrangement arising out of the Core Review process. Through the SPAS, resources within the contract sector - proportionate to the Aboriginal caseload - was to be “re-directed” to Aboriginal agencies providing child, youth and family support programs and services. This labour accord, which was implemented without consultation with Aboriginal agencies and organizations, means that Aboriginal service providers would be required to take both the actual staff persons – and the unions that represent them – along with any “re-directed” resources from the contract sector.

Clearly, this is not an acceptable solution. Your government must revisit this issue and remove any barriers that prevent Aboriginal service providers from being able to develop and deliver effective Aboriginal services and programs.

We believe that the Core Review process should lead to a more integrated, comprehensive, holistic approach to service planning and delivery. The “stove-pipe” model does not work in anyone’s interest. To move towards a holistic model, your government should create effective inter-Ministerial working groups involving all offices significantly involved in the delivery of programs and services to Aboriginal children, youth, families and children. Aboriginal employees in policy positions within the Ministry for Child and Family Development – such as the Aboriginal Relations Branch – could take the lead in the development of those structures. This approach would also be facilitated by the development of a Cabinet Committee of Ministries significantly involved in the delivery of services to Aboriginal children, youth, families and communities.

The UNN believes very strongly that there should be preferential hiring of Aboriginal professionals for Aboriginal policy, planning and management positions within government. There is an adequate number of qualified, competent Aboriginal professionals that could fill such positions. We would be willing to help your Ministry access the human resource wealth within Aboriginal communities to help you achieve your goals. Perhaps those positions could be hired by Aboriginal organizations and then seconded to the Ministry to teach them how to work effectively with Aboriginal communities, thereby facilitating the transition process. This would much more effective and progressive than to continue to second Ministry staff to our organizations.

A new child and family service system should vest responsibility within Aboriginal authorities that are close to the communities being served. In the current MCFD system, many children are taken into care because of fear over potential outcomes. In other words, as you are aware, under the current system, child protection workers - and the Director - are responsible for negative outcomes. Thus, child protection workers tend to err on the side of caution.

A restructured system should be able to vest responsibility for outcomes within Aboriginal structures. There is no reason why someone who is entirely removed from the day-to-day reality of Aboriginal communities should continue to shoulder this responsibility. The devolution of authority for child and family services to appropriately constituted Aboriginal governance structures, based upon models that are determined by and acceptable to the Aboriginal communities to be served, can be the vehicle for vesting responsibility for the outcomes of practice decisions.

The Core Review process must provide for meaningful consultation with Aboriginal authorities. We are quite concerned with the process that is taking place because of the lack of consultation that has occurred. We are aware that the Ministry has submitted proposals to meet the expectations of the Core Review process. We are concerned because these proposals are going forward in a highly secretive manner. We wonder where Ministry officials have found these ideas because there has been no discussions or consultations with any Aboriginal organization that we are aware of.

We hope that the Ministry has drawn upon the countless proposals and discussion papers that Aboriginal agencies and organizations have been tabled with the Ministry over the last few years. We cannot understand how such proposals could be advanced without first securing ideas from Aboriginal agencies that provide services representing almost 40% of the child and family service system, or from organizations such as ours which is currently engaged in a tripartite process – with your government as well as Canada – on the issue of child and family services.

We expect that your government will engage the Aboriginal community in meaningful consultations and negotiations prior to announcing your plans for re-structuring the Ministry.

The United Native Nations (UNN) is receptive to the idea of building a new child and family service system. We believe that it can be done and we want to participate. The UNN wishes to see wellness and prosperity for all BC residents, especially for Aboriginal Peoples and others whom have not benefited equally within the provincial economy. The UNN also wants to see the natural environment preserved for the benefit of future generations.

In fact, we believe that contemporary decision-making should be viewed through what could be called a “generational lens” to try to anticipate the impact that current economic, fiscal, and social policies may have on future generations. In other words, we must have an idea of the legacy that we may be leaving to our children and our children’s children.

We are not submitting any detailed proposals to the Core Review process at this time. There are many issues to be addressed and models to be considered, all of which goes beyond the scope of this brief. We are prepared to collaborate with the Ministry to design a model that can meet your government’s agenda while building a more effective, Aboriginal-controlled child and family service system and we look forward to the beginning of that process. UNN Submission online
This is a .pdf file

Aboriginal Services CORE Review Consultation
Caring for First Nations Children Society
October 31, 2001

Summary:
The Caring for First Nations Children Society provides professional development, research and policy services to the First Nations child and family service agencies in British Columbia. This submission to the MCFD CORE review represents the views and recommendations of the society and is intended to guide the implementation of the CORE review in such a manner that the well being of First Nations Children and Families is ensured.

Legislation
1. Legislation and Related Policies, Procedures and Programs

• Additional training and financial resources are required to ensure the cultural identity of Aboriginal Children is preserved (Sections 2, ,4,70 of the CFCSA). MCFD social workers require additional professional development on Aboriginal CFS in order to support enhancement of service delivery to Aboriginal clients. It is our understanding that MCFD social workers currently receive 1 day of training on Aboriginal CFS whereas Aboriginal care compose 38% of all children in care. The Children’s Commission indicated that in 1999 only 50% of Aboriginal children care plans included provisions for maintenance of cultural identity.

• Concentrated efforts need to be undertaken to ensure compliance with Section 71 of the CFCSA regarding the placement of Aboriginal Children. The 2.5% compliance rate for MCFD identified in the 1988 Children’s Commission report is abysmal and requires immediate redress. Exploring options such as the custom care program, providing additional resources to First Nations agencies to recruit and retain caregivers is required. Issues regarding the higher level of liability exposure of First Nations caregivers living on reserve require urgent resolution.

• MCFD should continue to support the development and delivery of the Aboriginal Social Worker Training Program in order to ensure culturally based effective training. Stable funding should be provided to ensure regularly scheduled training is available to meet agency requirements.

• Training for supervisors and administrators of First Nations child and family service agencies has been cited as a need and should be supported.

The development and delivery of culturally based training for First Nations care givers is urgently needed. The current training program delivered to caregivers is 53 hours in length; only three hours are dedicated to Aboriginal issues and concerns. The following issues are inadequately or not addressed in the current caregiver training:
o Preservation of cultural identity
o Working effectively with First Nations families and
communities o Working with FN CFS agencies
o Support for caregivers in working with extended family and
community members o INAC payment system for caregivers
o Liability issues: an on-reserve perspective
o Working effectively with delegated agencies and MCF
o Suicide prevention

• INAC funding levels need to be coordinated with provincially delegated authority (see National Policy Review 2000.) This is particularly critical in the areas of resource payments; special needs services and least disruptive measures.)

•Adequate funding needs to be provided to First Nations Child and Family Service Agencies to support the delivery of a full range of services comparable to the range of services delivered by the province.

•Training should be provided to Aboriginal communities that do not have a delegated agency regarding responding to notices of hearing, requests for support and information from MCFD.

•MCFD should expedite the appointment of a First Nations Director in accordance with the proposal submitted by the First Nations Directors Forum and Caring for First Nations Children Society. This change would promote culturally appropriate care for children and enhance MCFD ability to form respectful working relationships with the First Nations CFS agencies.

•Serious consideration should be given to appoint a First Nations Child and Youth Advocate in order to support progressive solutions to redress impacts of colonization and promote effective, culturally based, service delivery to First Nations children, families and communities.

•The Risk Assessment model requires evaluation and review in light of current research on the validity of the risk assessment model. CFNCS has submitted a proposal to develop a model for assessing risk in First Nations communities.

•MCFD contracts with contract service providers require review in order to ensure that they are providing culturally appropriate services to the Aboriginal peoples they are serving. This is consistent with the findings of the MCF report on contract reform and is critical in Northern areas of the province where the Aboriginal population can compose the vast majority of a contractor’s client group.

•The non-billable children-in-care issue requires immediate resolution. MCF signed the agreement regarding the payment for these children in care with INAC in 1996. It is unacceptable that five years later MCFD has not developed a consistent policy or payment framework to ensure that adequate funding for child care resources for these children is available.

• The implementation of Secure Care should be stopped until research can be identified that supports this initiative. Research we have reviewed on secure care models indicates that they are not effective and are often contraindicated. The wisdom of proceeding with the costly implementation of secure care in the face of these research findings and the experiences of other jurisdictions is highly questionable.

•Standards, policies and programs to support the implementation of Custom Adoption should be developed in partnership with First Nations Child and Family Services. This is particularly critical given the large numbers of First Nations children in continuing custody.

MCFD Organization, Strategic Plans and Policies
•MCFD must provide services to all Aboriginal peoples However, MCFD approach of distributing resources and engaging in policy consultation with Aboriginal organizations has not reflected the large proportion of First Nations children and families receiving services from MCFD or Aboriginal Agencies. Frameworks for respectful and effective consultation should be developed by MCFD in partnership with Aboriginal child and family service organizations. This should include an evaluation provision in order to measure the efficacy of the consultation framework suggesting possible improvements.

•The General Services Contract and the Continuing Agreement require revision in order to respect Aboriginal rights to indigenous intellectual property. The current templates include wording requiring First Nations to assign the ownership of any works produced according to the contract. This is out of step with BC’s commitments regarding the restoration and preservation of First Nations culture and oral history and with international and national discussions on indigenous intellectual property. Government needs to have an ethical and public policy conversation with First Nations ensuring that government contract templates are drafted in accordance with the recommendations of the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Peoples, the Declaration of Indigenous Peoples and the discussions of the World Intellectual Property Institute.

Aboriginal designated working units require evaluation in order to:
o Clarify mandates and ensure they are consistent with government policy and the documented needs of Aboriginal communities and governments.
o Mandates and work plans should be reviewed in order to ensure consistency and coordination of approach and efforts.
o First Nations CFS agencies should be consulted during the evaluation stage regarding their experiences working with Aboriginal Relations, Aboriginal Services and Aboriginal Services Managers.
o Revision of mandates and/or reallocation of responsibility to other MCFD areas should involve First Nations CFS agencies

There is a need for direct communication between FN child and family service providers and MCFD decision makers regarding legislation, standards, resources, policies and programs impacting Aboriginal children and families. MCFD requires the development of a clear and achievable vision statement along with a comprehensive strategic and operational plan that reflects the needs of its client group. First Nations CFS agencies should be key partners in the development and implementation of the above given the large proportion of First Nations children in care.

Management Information Systems and procedures require improvement in order to ensure accurate data is available regarding the nature and number of Aboriginal children in care, as well as the number of Aboriginal children placed in Aboriginal homes pursuant to the CFCSA. Measures to ensure access to hardware, software and training for First Nations Child and Family Service Agencies need to be undertaken.

•MCFD policy regarding service access by on-reserve residents should be reviewed in order to ensure it is consistent with Section 15.1 of the Charter.

•The Aboriginal Strategic Plan requires a thorough evaluation and the development of an operational plan that includes the following:
o Specific actions designed to achieve goals
o Time frames, budgets and responsibilities for action
o An evaluation framework
o A consultation framework

Relationship Building
•Aboriginal child and family service agencies provide delegated services to Aboriginal children and families throughout British Columbia. It is critical that MCFD acknowledge the important role of delegated agencies by including them in key government initiatives that influence the nature and extent of child and family service delivery in this province. At a time when First Nations Child and Family Service Agencies are the fourth largest child welfare delivery system in the country there is a need for provincial/territorial child welfare ministries to work in legitimate partnership with First Nations child and family service agencies on all provincial/territorial child welfare initiatives that will impact First Nations children and families. The CORE review, for example, would not be properly considered or implemented without including the views and contributions of the Aboriginal Child and Family Service Agencies in British Columbia. To date there has been very limited opportunities for First Nations child and family service agencies to have input into the CORE review of MCFD.

•Clarification of the mandates of the various Aboriginal units of MCFD will assist in improving relationships with FN. Further progress could be made by:

1. Commitment to meaningful consultation with First Nations Agencies regarding CFS matters that impact them including consultation on legislation, standards and the mandates and operations of MCFD units designated to address Aboriginal issues. Examples of possible improvements include the following:
1. Develop a comprehensive communications plan for MCFD that includes effective communications and consultation with FN Agencies. (First Nations CFS Agencies should be involved in plan development)
2. Involvement of FN agencies in MCFD strategic planning to identify policy, program and legislative initiatives that directly impact FNCFS programs.
3. Involvement of FN agencies in evaluations of MCFD strategic plans, programs and services.
4. Coordination of the research, policy and practice continuum.
5. Resource and capacity support that reflects the high proportion of First Nations clients and delegated agencies.
6. Provide financial support for increasing agency policy and standard and research requirements.
7. Revisiting MCFD CFS standards, policies and procedures in light of best practices and research on FN CFS. (I.e.: How can MCFD practice be informed by the successes of First Nations CFS Agencies?)
8. Reduction in the MCFD bureaucracy to expedite processing of FN Agency requests
9. Clearly established and simplified guidelines for the negotiation of Delegation Enabling Agreements that incorporate good faith negotiation principles, compliance with the CFCSA and the Charter, and support best practices in a First Nations CFS context.
10. Continued MCFD support for networking and information sharing amongst First Nations CFS agencies via the Directors Forum and the Best Practices Conference.

Summary
The CORE review should be about ensuring quality programs for children and families that are effective, culturally relevant, and provide a continuum of support. We would encourage that government engage in significant consultation with First Nations child and family service agencies prior to making changes in the legislation, regulations, standards and practices that impact First Nations children, families and communities.

In addition, we would discourage government from reducing funding to child and family services in general, and First Nations child and family services in particular. There is significant evidence to indicate that services, properly designed and delivered, to children and families at risk not only increases their safety and wellbeing but significantly reduces government costs over the long term. The financial environment government is operating in is a difficult one but ensuring the safety and well being of children, particularly those in vulnerable situations, is not a cost free venture from a financial, societal or individual perspective.

Government needs to invest in the long term sustainability of our society’s children and families by supporting preventative programs, least disruptive measures and promoting community capacity building whilst ensuring the needs of children in care are met. Amongst its many roles, government through the Child, Family and Community Service Act, is a parent to many of British Columbia’s most vulnerable children – the decisions regarding the CORE review must be made from this perspective.

FAMILY REUNIFICATION . . . a program of the United Native Nations Society

SUBMISSION TO THE CORE SERVICES REVIEW
1. Purpose
To provide a rationale for the continuation of the Family Reunification program.

2. Background
Family Reunification (FR) was established in 1989 and is funded by the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) since 1994.

FR is an aboriginal post adoption reunion agency that provides culturally competent advocacy service to clients who are searching to be reunited with their birth families and ancestral cultures; and, provides information and assistance with Indian status applications, under the Indian Act, 1985. Unlike the Adoption Reunion Registry, also funded by MCFD through the Family Services of Greater Vancouver, FR does not have access to government records. All searches are conducted on non-identifying information, or information clients are able to access through public means.

Although FR does not formally advertise its program, on average, we respond to 45-55 clients per month. Usually half of these individuals are new clients just beginning a procedure, or process.

FR clients can be anywhere between the ages of early teens to 45-65 and are adult and minor adopted individuals, adult and minor children or grandchildren of adoptees, adult and minor (former) children in-care, birth mothers, birth fathers, birth grandmothers and fathers, birth extended family members and siblings, adoptive parents, adopted family members, band social workers, MCFD social workers, USA social workers, and numerous other community (advocacy) resources at large. The majority of FR clients are adopted in province of British Columbia, but are also adopted, or reside in provinces across Canada and the United States of America.

MCFD provide a budget for 1 employee from 1994 and 1997; 2 employees from 1997 and 2001; and, 3 FR employees for the fiscal year 2001-2002. All employees are advocates that provide direct service to FR clientele.

3. Impact

Social:
Aboriginal families have experienced multigenerational separations from their ancestral families, communities and culture as a result of federal and provincial legislative authorities. Provincial authorities who removed children under protection legislation did not keep records of ethnicity and therefore it is unknown how many of the 50,000.28 children adopted in BC between 1923-1988 are Aboriginal.

Historic trends that estimate that Aboriginal children can represent 60% of children legally adopted and fostered in BC in the 1960's and 40% of those adopted from the 1980-1990's will go a long way to explain why FR does not need to advertise its services; and, further rationalize for additional FR resources once advertisement begins.

In addition to the lack of numbers of Aboriginal children adopted since the 1920's, there is also no data that records what type of homes these children were adopted into. Since its official creation in 1989, FR has met only a handful of Aboriginal adoptees who were adopted by Aboriginal families and therefore suggests that an enormous percent (we say 99%) of these children were adopted to non-Aboriginal homes, families and communities. Subsequently, the majority of adoptees we meet are raised as children, teens, and young adults, with virtually no information on their Aboriginal ancestry.

A search for their Aboriginal ancestry and active participation in their culture is cited to be as equally important to adoptees as their search for meaningful connections to birth family members.

Through provision of culturally relevant pre and post search and reunion services to Aboriginal adopted, fostered, and birth family members, MCFD acknowledges the challenging lifestyles of individuals affected by the legacies of intergenerational adoption and foster care of Aboriginal children. It further provides and promotes the healing of Aboriginal families by providing for Aboriginal advocates who can assist individual family members uncover and heal the stories of past separations; help family members gain some mutual understanding of present circumstances; and, help members develop healing strategies that will assist in development of future supportive family connections with one another.

As we continually strive to help Aboriginal family members reconnect with each other in a meaningful way, the network of family and community cultural resources continues to grow for each family member.

Economic
It is through the provision of therapeutic public programs such as the Residential Historical Abuse program (RHAP) that the provincial government acknowledges the legacies of sexual abuse of (adult) children who were in residential, foster care, or adoption systems provided by BC charitable organizations and government authorities.

In addition to sexual abuse, FR clients often attest to physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual (cultural) abuses linked to foster care and adoption placements in predominantly non-Aboriginal homes, families and communities.

FR provides for advocacy and referral services that link clients not only to mainstream services such as those provided by RHAP but more importantly, FR promotes and supports adopted and fostered individuals who are learning and participating in Aboriginal based healing and cultural initiatives for the first time.

By assisting individuals in researching and participating in important community events that are relevant to their own ancestral culture, we are promoting the philosophical belief that the traditions of our Aboriginal communities and cultures are our most important resource for providing sustaining healing qualities that cannot be replicated in mainstream society. That is, family and active participation, including the active revitalization of our traditional cultural practices, are our most important resources for the provision of healing strategies for members who have experienced traumas through separation from one's ancestral culture.

In the long term, we believe that financial assistance from MCFD since 1994 goes a long way in supporting the FR vision. The need to address the lived experiences of Aboriginal peoples who are adopted or fostered spans many disciplines and through MCFD, the provincial government paves the way for developing a new relationship with Aboriginal peoples in BC in the important areas affecting children and families.

Eventually, it is the hope of FR to evidence this success through the promotion of qualitative and quantitative research projects that not only documents the past, but evaluates that which we are doing in the present, to improve on our provisions of service to adopted and fostered individuals, in the future.

Prepared by,
Lizabeth Hall
UNITED NATIVE NATIONS SOCIETY
Family Reunification
November 1, 2001
UNN Family Reunification Submission
This is a .pdf file

In order to look toward the future we must understand the past. Our Ministry has had a very intrusive and negative iimpact on generations of Aboriginal children, families and communities in British Columbia. Like other institutions in this province and this country the lives of Aboriginal people have been significantly impacted (in many cases negatively) by an institution which is supposed to operate from a philosophy of “helping”.

Whatever the outcomes of the Core review, those outcomes must derive from principles of equality, equity, respect and autonomy. There is no tolerance for replicating a system which imposes the value of one culture onto another culture. We simply can no longer impose legislation, policy, standards and programs (delivered from the center) onto the outlying and remote areas. The review must address these acute issues at the outset.

Aboriginal communities will not accept artificially imposed outcomes contained within mission statements of large contracted agencies or child welfare authorities governed by outsiders mandated to deliver services to Aboriginal communities.

Government must continue a direct dialogue with Aboriginal communities about the delivery of child and family development services so that when the future arrives it does not ignore the mistakes of the past.

Thank You,
Gary McDermott

Another submission from a Ministry employee came from Bruce Leslie, Cree-Metis of the MCFD Aboriginal Relations Branch and one of the principal drafter's of the Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Services.

His submission included a reminder of commitments to create more community-driven services.
" ....... Priorities (from Premier Campbell’s June 25, 2001 letter to Minister Hogg).
Examine opportunities for greater local delivery of family services.
Develop a plan for aboriginal children receiving services in
cooperation with the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women’s Services. Develop a plan to lead an increase in family support services.
......."
Bruce Leslie's Submission

The BC Aboriginal Child Care Society is one of the many partners of First Call that is lobbying the BC Government to heed the concerns of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities about planned provincial cutbacks to children and family services.

Click Here for more on First Call

A Message for MLAs

First Call is a coalition of provincial organizations and community coalitions working to ensure that the needs of children and youth are given priority in legislation, policy, and practice. It has come to our attention that the Provincial Government is planning to announce financial cuts to ministries including those with responsibilities for services to children, youth and families in the order of 35%. We, as members of the coalition and as constituents of your riding, want to express our profound disagreement with this proposal. It is our belief that decreases in levels of funding for programs and services for children, youth and families are unacceptable.

We know that an investment in children, youth and families is fiscally sound: Studies show that every $1 invested in early childhood development produces a return of between $2 and $7 (see Cleveland and Krashinsky 1998, also Schweinhart et al 1993).

We know that cutbacks to ministries such as the Ministry of Children and Families Development, and the Ministry of Human Resources will only result in increased pressure on the "protected" Ministries of Health and Education. As children and families go with less and less support early in their lives, problems will not be addressed until education and medical professionals must assess and intervene later in their lives. The resulting demands on the "protected" Ministries of Health and Education will become increasingly unbearable.

We know that support for families, single parents, children and youth help reduce the number of children currently in government care. Any decrease in even current levels of support for programs and services such as child care, youth services, mental health, job training, alcohol and drug treatment, special needs supports etc will increase the number of children in care. Sixty percent of children currently in care come from single parent families on welfare.

We believe we must be willing to pay now and not be lead by immediate financial pressures to pay more later. We know that investing in children, youth and families now is a bold and morally responsible act which may not provide economic and political payback until well past the next election. However, we believe true leadership means looking at the longer term, the bigger picture, and that it is your responsibility and privilege to do so.

The 60 provincial regional partner organizations, and the 20 mobilizing community partners of First Call represent thousands of your constituents and we ask you to give voice to our concerns and urgently reconsider the government's intention to decrease funding to children, youth and family programs and services.

Click Here for the provincial politician in your area

First Call's Background Information on Aboriginal Children

What We Already Know

Aboriginal families and communities have been devastated by the effects of government assimilation policies and practices. This has resulted in a myriad of social problems that plague succeeding generations of Aboriginal children and youth.

Over 50% of children/youth in temporary or continuing care are Aboriginal, with over 75% of these being totally removed from extended family, community, and culture.

The suicide rate of Aboriginal youth and children is seven times higher than the national average, and Aboriginal children and youth have exceptionally high rates of school drop-out, poverty, crime, substance abuse, and urban street kids; and serious health concerns, such as HIV and mental illness.

While some Reserves have developed their own social service programs and resources, inadequate funding and support for the development of Aboriginal-based resources remains a barrier, as does the inconsistency of service delivery across the country.

Aboriginal people, particularly in urban centres, have often learned to be "invisible," and carry an extreme distrust for governmental systems. As a result, problems can remain "hidden" until they reach crisis proportions.

What Is Needed

Acknowledgment of Aboriginal people as equal partners who are capable and competent; and who are the appropriate source of defining solutions, constructing strategies; and implementing programs that meet the needs of Aboriginal children/youth.

Planning for the transfer of responsibility for the jurisdiction of Aboriginal child and family services to Aboriginal bodies.

Adequate financial resources available for Aboriginal people to develop a network of appropriate social service programs and resources for children and youth with a long term strategy that is supported by all levels of government.

Recognition by government of traditional Aboriginal values, beliefs, and practices as critical components in reviving the cultural values and ethics of Aboriginal children/youth.

Good Answers to Tough Questions

Why do Aboriginal people feel they need their own Child and Family Services system? The current Child and Family Services system is based on Euro-Canadian customs, values, traditions, and laws. Aboriginal values, beliefs, and laws are different. Aboriginal people recognize that the pathway to healing the harmful legacy of traditional government policies and legislation must come from within, with the support and partnership of those around them.

What would be the cost to taxpayers?
Currently tax dollars allotted to the care of Aboriginal children support a huge, non-Aboriginal bureaucracy, and an extensive non-Aboriginal social service resource system, with a very small percentage making its way into Aboriginal hands. Current financial resources can, and should, be restructured in a way that ensures that Aboriginal agencies are acknowledged to be the most appropriate providers of social service programs to Aboriginal children and families.
"...a child belonging to "a minority or who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community... to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess or practice his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language."
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 30

Questions for Politicians

What steps will your party take to ensure that Aboriginal families and their children are provided with services consistent with their needs and culture?

How will your party ensure that Aboriginal people are included in a process of planning and implementing their own social service network?

How will your party engage in the process of transferring jurisdictional responsibility of Aboriginal child and family services to the Aboriginal community, including Non-Status and Metis peoples?

What provisions would your party make regarding Aboriginal children's needs (i.e., culturally specific education, high drop-out rates, AIDS prevention, high suicide rates, etc.)?