British Columbia’s Provincial Director of Child Welfare said she “was not engaged in or had any meaningful discussion” about the federal Aboriginal Affairs’ decision to no longer be signatory to child welfare delegation agreements in the province.
In a letter dated June 8 to Aboriginal Affairs’ Eric Magnuson, B.C.'s regional director general, Cory Heavener, Assistant Deputy Minister of Children and Family Development, said she was disappointed. “This decision by AANDC does not appear to reflect the spirit of the tripartite partnership that AANDC, Delegated Aboriginal Agencies and the Ministry have had in place for many years.”
Magnuson had written to the delegated agencies on June 3, telling them that delegating child welfare responsibility was not within the department’s scope or authority. AANDC will no longer be part of tripartite agreements, wrote Magnuson, saying delegation authority would now be a matter between the province and the agencies. He wrote, “the Ministry of Children and Family Development has been notified of this decision.”
In her letter to Magnuson, Heavener said she was responding to a May 8th letter regarding AANDC’s decision “for signature in March, 2015.” She also wrote that “there has not been significant discussion with Delegated Aboriginal Agencies in British Columbia regarding this fundamental change in policy by AANDC.” She said it was incumbent upon AANDC to meet with delegated agencies and explain the rationale for the decision, “and the anticipated change in relationship.”
AANDC’s decision has been seen as a response to an imminent human rights tribunal decision. The complaint argues that Aboriginal Affairs discriminates against First Nations children in care on reserve because it provides less funding to First Nations child welfare agencies than the provinces pay for the same service off reserve.
Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council President Debra Foxcroft sat across the table from Magnuson last week and raised another issue of discrimination. Aboriginal Affairs has let lapse $1 billion in funding intended for Indigenous needs over the past five years, but told Foxcroft there is no money to help prevent Aboriginal children in B.C. from being taken into care.
When Foxcroft asked why the province has yet to receive its portion of the Enhanced Prevention Focussed Approach (EPFA) dollars, rolled out in 2007, “No budget” was the RDG’s response.
Hundreds of millions of dollars go each year to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba under EPFA, but funding has yet to be distributed in B.C., New Brunswick, Labrador and Newfoundland and the Yukon. Other provinces fall under other agreements.
Usma, the Nuu-chah-nulth delegated agency, remains under child welfare funding formula 20.1, which was developed in 1989 and not adjusted significantly since. The base operational funding that comes to the tribal council under this directive remains the same as in 1989, but is worth half as much. Usma was the first child and family services delegated agency in the province, and the EPFA would be a slight modification of directive 20.1. But even if Usma received EPFA funding, it would still be underfunded as compared to the provinces for the same service.
The Auditor General of Canada has found all funding formulas by Canada for child welfare services are flawed and inequitable, but directive 20.1 offers the lowest level of funding, and the least flexibility, Foxcroft told Ha-Shilth-Sa. The Joint National Policy Review in 2000, developed by AANDC and the Assembly of First Nations, set the shortfall under directive 20.1 at 22 per cent (internal AANDC calculations have that shortfall as high as 34 per cent), with a particularly egregious shortfall in the area of prevention.
Foxcroft said it was ironic that AANDC’s letter to the delegated agencies was dated just one day after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission released its 94 recommendations stemming from six years of work on the residential school system and its legacy. The TRC drew a direct link from residential schools to over-representation of aboriginal children in the child welfare system today. There are more children in care today than at any time in residential schools.
The first five recommendations in the TRC’s call to action statement concerned aboriginal child welfare. Number one is to commit to reducing the number of Aboriginal children in care. Foxcroft, however, is cynical, given the past performance of this current government, that any of the recommendations of the TRC will move forward in any substantial way, she said. She doesn’t have “faith or trust” that the recommendations will be dealt with in any respectful way.
With Aboriginal Affairs signaling it is getting out of the child welfare delegating business, the fear now is that funding arrangements for delegated agencies may be in for an upheaval. This could be a precursor to downloading child welfare to the province, said Foxcroft, with funds routed through B.C. rather than going directly to the agency, as it does now to Usma.
If the plan is to route child welfare dollars through the current Memorandum of Understanding to the general coffers of B.C., delegated agencies may have to trust that the province would make First Nations child welfare services a priority in its spending.
Another concern is that AANDC’s move may threaten to close smaller agencies within the province, those without full delegated authority, including protection services. Or at least it could put pressure on the smaller agencies to join together under one banner.
NTC’s Usma is one of only a handful of child welfare agencies with full delegated authority, and that authority already comes from the province, so, at least for now, Foxcroft remains optimistic that the 30-year-old delegated agency will not be threatened by this AANDC change.
But if it is the beginning of changes to the funding relationship, which currently has the feds flowing dollars directly to the Usma program and not routing it through the province, then there are grave concerns. It would be seen as an attack on the self-determination and self-government of the Nuu-chah-nulth peoples, said Foxcroft.
For now, however, this is all speculation because there has been no discussion between AANDC and First Nations on the substance of Magnuson’s letter or any plan for funding arrangements beyond that letter.
And any contemplated changes to funding arrangements, no doubt, will further delay any prevention funds being budgeted and flowed to B.C.
Related articles:
http://www.hashilthsa.com/news/2015-04-30/bc-loses-out-dollars-help-first-nations-children
