|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 
Report on the presentation of a joint brief by the
|
 |
|
Click here for the Brief by Ad Hoc Coalition on the Rights of Aboriginal Children
(175K)Contents
- Summary of the Coalition’s Brief
- UN Response to the Coalition’s Brief
- UN Review of Canada’s Second Report
- Canada’s Response to Questions from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child
- Concluding Observations
- Co-ordination, monitoring
- National Plan of Action
- Allocation of resources
- Data collection
- Best Interests of the Child (article 3)
- Health and Health Services (article 24)
- Adolescent Health
- Children belonging to a minority or indigenous group
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) reviewed Canada's Second Report on its compliance to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on September 17, 2003 in Geneva.
In anticipation of this review, two national ecumenical coalitions joined with two regional and one national Aboriginal organization to form the Ad Hoc Coalition on the Rights of Aboriginal Children in Canada. The Coalition produced a brief on some of the key rights issues facing Aboriginal children in general, and First Nations’ children in particular. The Coalition’s brief entitled Aboriginal Children and Youth: Urgent Needs and Unmet Obligations, was distributed to members of the UN CRC on Tuesday, September 16.
Coalition members include the Atlantic Policy Congress of First
Nation Chiefs, the Commission on Justice and Peace of the Canadian
Council of Churches, the First Nations Child & Family Caring
Society of Canada, KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives,
and the Southern Chiefs' Organization (Manitoba).
 |
Summary of the Coalition’s Brief |
|
 |
 |
The Coalition’s brief stresses that although Canada has taken some positive steps towards upholding the rights of Aboriginal children, especially since it ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991, there is still much work to be done in terms of implementing the inherent and treaty rights of Aboriginal children. The brief shows Canada’s Aboriginal policy does not uphold the UN Convention’s basic principle that states must “ensure that all children within their jurisdiction enjoy their rights”, and that many Aboriginal peoples are concerned that current federal policies and legislative initiatives will lead to their assimilation.
The brief examines the fundamental issue of how federal legislation threatens the inherent rights of Aboriginal peoples and looks specifically at the federal Comprehensive Land Claims Policy, Bill C-31 and Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act.
Finally, the brief outlines concerns in service funding, child welfare and housing. The Coalition recognizes the work Canada has done and expresses confidence in continued improvement as long as a “nation to nation” approach prevails. By working with First Nations, Canada will be able to address deficiencies in funding practices that are too often geared to specific symptoms, rather than to underlying fundamental causes such as poverty. The brief calls on genuine partnerships with Aboriginal peoples that will lead to culturally sensitive policies and programs that reflect the unique history and traditions of Aboriginal peoples. With regard to housing, the brief stresses Canada must act quickly to ensure all Aboriginal children live in safe homes.
The brief was e-mailed to Senator Landon Pearson, the head of the federal government’s delegation to Geneva, on Friday, September 12 with the understanding that it would be made available to the rest of the Canadian delegation prior to Canada’s appearance before the CRC on September 17.
Top
of page
|
UN Response to the Coalition’s Brief |
|
|
|
The UN CRC’s response to the Ad Hoc Coalition’s brief was extremely positive. UN Committee member Moushira Khattab from Egypt, who led the Committee’s review of Canada, twice referred to it as a “great report” and said she had used it to prepare for the review, especially those sections that referred to the concluding observations of other UN Committees. Committee member Marilia Sardenberg from Brazil highlighted many sections, was thankful for having received it, and said she had used it to frame her questions to the Canada delegation. She said it helped her to understand better the situation facing Aboriginal children in Canada, and Canada’s Aboriginal policy, which she described as “discriminatory”. She said she was “looking forward to Canada’s response.” Rosa Maria Ortiz from Paraguay said the brief provided information that was missing in Canada’s report. Ms. Ortiz later used excerpts from the brief, along with additional information provided that day by the Coalition, to frame a question about Canada’s extinguishment policy, and its resistance to recognizing Aboriginal title.
It was obvious from the committee members’ questions and comments that they relied heavily on the Coalition’s brief to prepare their review. In a few instances, their questions and comments were almost word for word from the report. For example, Ms. Sardenberg said she was grateful for the information from Aboriginal and other NGOs, and asked the Canadian delegation to comment on the concern expressed in one submission that “current federal policy is leading to the assimilation of Aboriginal peoples” and to the proposal for a “nation-to-nation approach to Aboriginal communities.”
The Committee members also appreciated and found helpful the informal discussions with those representatives of the Ad Hoc Coalition who attended the Committee hearings in Geneva, including Grand Chief Margaret Swan and Nahanni Fontaine from the Southern Chiefs Organization, Cindy Blackstock, Executive Director of First Nations Family and Child Caring Society of Canada, and Ed. Bianchi of KAIROS.
The impact of the Coalition’s brief is also evident in the
Committee’s Concluding Observations which reflect many of
the Coalition’s concerns and recommendations. A more comprehensive
listing of these observations is included below.
Top
of page
|
UN Review of Canada’s Second Report |
|
|
|
In her introductory remarks, Ms. Khattab said the Committee’s focus was on “disadvantaged groups”, and that it was looking to see if the principles of the UN Convention were reflected in Canada’s legislation and policy. She highlighted discrimination against Aboriginal children, growing poverty rates, inadequate housing and living conditions, high suicide rates, high rates of disability, relatively poor health, inadequate delivery and design of programs and services, and the ongoing threat to their right to nationality as some of the Committee’s primary concerns. She also said the committee would refer to the concluding observations of other UN bodies. Each of these issues is raised in the Coalition’s parallel brief.
Although Ms. Khattab complimented Canada on the format of its report, she said the committee would have appreciated fewer statistics and charts and more analysis, as well as a separate section on Aboriginal children since it was difficult to understand the situation of Aboriginal and other “vulnerable” children. The deficiencies in Canada’s report were emphasized in the number of times committee members asked the Canadian delegation to clarify certain points or to provide concrete examples or data.
The Committee’s chair, Jacob Egbert Doek from the Netherlands, asked Canada why it had not followed up on the recommendations of the 1996 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP). He wanted to know more about the relationship between First Nations and the federal government, especially in terms of the status of land claims and the issue of self-determination. He acknowledged the work that had been done to enhance the situation facing Aboriginal peoples and children in Canada, but used figures from the Coalition’s brief to emphasize the increase in the number of Aboriginal children requiring care.
|
Canada’s Response to Questions from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child |
|
|
|
Canada was represented by a relatively large delegation of 21 people, which was headed by Senator Landon Pearson and included three representatives from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, three from Health Canada, four from the Department of Justice, two from Human Resources Development Canada, and one each from Citizenship and Immigration, Canadian Heritage and Indian & Northern Affairs. The delegation also included three representatives from Alberta, and one each from Quebec and Newfoundland & Labrador.
After some introductory remarks and some answers to questions regarding Canada’s federal structure, Senator Pearson turned to Joan Atkinson, Assistant Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs, for answers to some of the committee’s questions on Aboriginal children.
Ms. Atkinson began by explaining that in Canada the term “Aboriginal” refers to “people who have identified themselves as Indigenous” and that there are three “types” of Aboriginal peoples - “Indian”, “Metis” and “Inuit”. She talked about Section 91 (24) of the British North America Act, and described the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments as they relate to Aboriginal peoples and lands. With regard to poverty, Ms. Atkinson said Canada was pursuing an holistic approach that involved investment in economic development, improved housing, safe water, education, and legislation to strengthen Aboriginal governments.
In response to a question from Ms. Khattab about the RCAP recommendations pertaining to strategies for dealing with the issues facing the Aboriginal community, Ms. Atkinson said Canada is responding to the First Nations’ desire to establish government-to-government relationships by ensuring that in all self-government agreements (and she mentioned there are nine to date) federal law takes precedence and all programs and policies relating to Aboriginal children must conform to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
With regard to RCAP, Ms. Atkinson referred to the government’s Gathering Strength: Canada’s Aboriginal Action Plan and said it “touched on many of the areas which RCAP pointed to”. She also identified the federal government’s current legislative initiative as a step towards “renewing the partnership” with Aboriginal peoples, and said it was designed to strengthen Aboriginal governance (Bill C-7), affirm the treaty relationship and negotiate fair solutions to grievances (Bill C-6), and develop new fiscal relationships to enable the creation of independent Aboriginal financial institutions and stronger economies (Bill C-19).
In response to the Committee’s question about adequate data collection, which is an issue that is raised in the Coalition’s brief, Ms. Atkinson agreed it is a challenge, but said Canada continues “to work with Aboriginal communities and provincial governments.” She said that the legislation before Parliament would establish the First Nations Statistical Institute “which would be the equivalent of Statistics Canada” (C-19).
Senator Pearson then introduced the Honourable Iris Evans, Minister of Children’s Services for Alberta. Ms. Evans mentioned the Siksika First Nation and its child welfare delivery programs, which deliver services to Aboriginal peoples living off-reserve. She said Alberta is taking a number of approaches to strengthen the shared relationship with Aboriginal communities.
In response to a question from Committee Chair Jacob Doek regarding figures which show that Aboriginal children living on-reserve are worse off than those living off-reserve, Dawn Walker, Special Advisor to Health Canada, confirmed the gap is real and that Canada is aware of it. She explained that health care is provided by the provinces, and that Canada “sees this as a priority”.
Ms. Khattab asked the Canadian delegation how it plans to deal with the fear Aboriginal peoples’ have that federal programs and policies will lead to their assimilation, an issue which is highlighted in the Coalition’s brief.
Ms. Atkinson responded by saying Canada tries to ensure Aboriginal peoples on-reserve have access to programs and services that are comparable in quality to provincial social, educational and health programs. She said Canada knows how important it is that First Nations control the design and delivery of these services, and that they are culturally sensitive, and then pointed to the First Nations Child and Family Caring agencies that are operated by and for First Nations people. Aboriginal control of services was identified as important, and First Nation control over First Nations schools as a key to ensuring curriculum is culturally sensitive and relevant was given as an example.
Committee member Rosa Maria Ortiz said the Indigenous communities in her country, Paraguay, also have high suicide rates. She said an essential step towards addressing this problem involves recognizing Aboriginal title to their lands. “Title”, she said, “allows them to be communities and to be themselves”.
Housing and homelessness is another issue raised in the Coalition’s brief. Canada acknowledged that “Aboriginal homes have poorer standards than others, especially on-reserve”. It listed its objectives as giving more control over housing to communities, implementing more community-based planning, building capacity in First Nations communities, and sharing responsibility between Aboriginal communities and the federal government. It also said the legal status of reserve land, specifically the fact it is federal land, creates problems, but did not elaborate.
The Committee chair, Jacob Doek, pointed out that in its previous report Canada said it planned to address the Aboriginal housing problem by building 38,000 new homes. He asked how many of these had been built. Canada said a total of 14,800 new homes were built between March 1996 and March 2002 (23,200 short of the goal), bringing the total of on-reserve homes to 90,000.
In a question that flowed from a recommendation in the Coalition’s brief, Ms. Ortiz asked how Canada’s “creative initiatives to help Aboriginal peoples build houses” could succeed as long as the title issue was outstanding. She referred to previous recommendations by other UN Committees regarding Canada’s extinguishment policy and the lack of implementation of RCAP recommendations, as well as RCAP’s conclusion that the current federal aboriginal policy is wrong and must change.
Ms. Atkinson responded by saying she wasn’t able to “answer specifically”, but she explained that Canada’s federal policy divides “claims” into specific and comprehensive. She described comprehensive claims as being based on the acknowledgement of the existing title, and the comprehensive claims policy as allowing for the negotiation of land claims where the issue of title is not addressed by treaty. Ms. Atkinson added that the federal government’s 1996 Inherent Rights policy allows for the simultaneous negotiation of self-government arrangements. She said recently concluded agreements include both land claims and self-government.
Senator Pearson said it was “very complex, but I think we’re moving in the right direction.”
With regard to family violence against Aboriginal children, another issue raised in the Coalition’s brief, Canada said it provides money for shelters on-reserve, as well as money for those people who are not able to remain on the reserve. Canada said its policy stresses prevention and noted it funded 335 family violence protection projects, including programs designed to prevent the incidence of violence and abuse by providing services and support for parents.
Committee chair Jacob Doek then asked: “By what percentage have you reduced child abuse since 1998 when 138,000 cases of abuse were registered?” Mr. Doek noted that the number of programs is impressive but said “at the end of the day you have to ask if we are protecting children better.” He asked if information was available to determine if all the programs were effective in protecting children.
Canada acknowledged that between 1997 and 2000 there was an increase in reported incidences of abuse, but added it was difficult to say if this represented an increase in abuse, or an increase in reporting due to better education. Canada also said it has expanded the definition of abuse to include neglect, and this also could be a factor in the increase in reported cases.
In response to questions from the committee on the issue of child welfare, which was covered in depth in the Coalition’s brief, Ms. Atkinson agreed Canada faces challenges in terms of child welfare in First Nations communities, and children who are in the care of the state. She mentioned the 2000 Joint National Policy Review and its 17 recommendations, and said Canada is working with the Assembly of First Nations and First Nations Child and Family Caring Societies to implement the recommendations. Ms. Atkinson said there is a need for a tri-partite process involving the federal and provincial governments and First Nations, to ensure consistent, coherent and competent programs. She said more flexible funding is a goal, and admitted there is too much emphasis on removing the child and not enough on prevention and on keeping the family together.
Drawing from those parts of the Coalition’s brief that underlined increases in the number of Aboriginal children who are in the care of the state, the Committee chair asked if more flexible funding formulas would enable Canada put children in foster care homes situated on-reserve, or with First Nation families off the reserve.
Ms. Atkinson responded positively and said Canada’s objective is to provide more capacity for alternatives to removal to institutions.
Picking up on another point raised in the Coalition’s brief, Ms. Khattab observed that funding for initiatives and programs fluctuates and appears to respond to specific events rather than being consistent and part of an overall process.
Canada responded by admitting that in the past “funding movement” may have been due to a number of issues. However, the new policy will allow First Nations to do more work on prevention, and in terms of keeping a family together.
Committee member Yanghee Lee from the Republic of Korea asked a series of questions that flowed from information in the Coalition’s brief. She began by mentioning Bill C-31 and asked the Canadian delegation about education funding for status Indians who live off-reserve. She also asked why rates of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome are two times higher for Aboriginal children, and asked for Canada’s reaction to the fact that Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) is the leading cause of infant mortality among First Nations. Ms. Lee commended Canada on what it has done for children with disabilities, but pointed out that First Nations children still have the highest rates of disabilities. Finally, Ms. Lee commented on the lack of diversity represented in the large Canadian delegation, and how it did little to provide role models for non-Caucasian Canadians.
Committee member Lothar Krappmann from Germany asked why Aboriginal children on the reserve face such big problems with regard to education. He also admitted he did not understand the distinction between status and non-status Indians.
Senator Pearson responded to Ms. Lee’s comment about diversity in the public service by saying “many measures have been taken to augment persons in the public service who represent different groups.”
Health Canada’s Kelly Stone answered Ms. Lee’s question about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome by saying Canada’s focus is on education, especially with youth in the schools.
Ms. Lee’s question about Bill C-31 and Indian status was answered by a representative of the Canadian delegation who gave a brief history of the legislation, but did not address the inter-generational impact on First Nations status other than to say “it is a complicated piece of legislation in terms of different types of status.”
Ms. Lee’s and Mr. Krappmann’s questions about education were answered by a representative of the Canadian delegation who pointed out that in the last decade Canada has increased its expenditure on First Nations education from $703 million to $1 billion, and the number of First Nations children in First Nations schools has risen from 96,000 to 100,000. The Canadian representative also said that of the 502 First Nations schools all but 8 are under the management of First Nations, but admitted there was still much work to do in terms of support services and providing instruction in Aboriginal languages.
With regard to the Committee’s questions about disabilities, Canada admitted it did not have good statistics. Canada said it had committed $250 million to special education programs for First Nations children on-reserve in First Nations schools, and referred to a facility in the north for Aboriginal children with special needs and disabilities.
When Ms. Lee asked if any research had been done into why SIDS is the leading cause of infant mortality among First Nations children, Ms. Atkinson responded by saying that although the non-Aboriginal community has adopted measures and practices to reduce risk factors, “these have not been adopted by the Aboriginal community, yet.” She admitted the SIDS rate was “too high”.
In her closing remarks, Ms. Khattab said “it will be a challenge for the committee to cover its conversation with Canada in its Concluding Observations.”
Senator Pearson ended the session by saying “most children (in Canada) are doing well and we are proud of them, and we will continue our commitment to making sure all children are doing well.”
|
Concluding Observations |
|
|
|
The Committee on the Rights of the Child released its Concluding Observations on Canada on October 3. The 14-page document includes recommendations that address many of the concerns raised in the Coalitions’ report, including (in order of their listing by the CRC):
|
Co-ordination, monitoring |
|
|
|
The Committee encourages the State party strengthen effective coordination
and
monitoring, in particular between the Federal, provincial and territorial
authorities in the implementation of policies for the promotion
and protection of the child, as it previously recommended (CRC/C/15/Add.37
para. 20), with a view to decreasing and eliminating any possibility
of disparity or discrimination in the implementation of the Convention.
|
National Plan of Action |
|
|
|
The Committee encourages the State party to ensure a coherent and comprehensive rights based National Plan of Action; targeting all children especially the most vulnerable groups including aboriginal, migrant and refugee children; with a division of responsibilities, clear priorities, time-table and preliminary allocation of necessary resources in conformity with the Convention at the Federal, provincial, territorial and local levels in cooperation with civil society. It also urges the Government to designate a systematic monitoring mechanism for the implementation of the National Plan of Action.
|
Allocation of resources |
|
|
|
The Committee recommends that the State party pay particular attention to the full implementation of article 4 of the Convention by prioritizing budgetary allocations to ensure implementation of the economic, social and cultural rights of children, in particular those belonging to marginalized and economically disadvantaged groups, “to the maximum extent of… available resources”.
|
Data collection |
|
|
|
The Committee recommends that the State party strengthen and centralize its mechanism to integrate and analyze systematically disaggregated data on all children under 18 for all areas covered by the Convention, with special emphasis on the most vulnerable groups (i.e. aboriginal children; children with disabilities; abused and neglected children; street children; children within the justice system; refugee and asylum seeking children). The Committee urges the State party to use these indicators and data effectively for the formulation and evaluation of legislation, policies and programmes for the implementation, resource allocation and monitoring of the Convention.
|
Best Interests of the Child (article 3) |
|
|
|
The Committee recommends that the principle of “best interests of the child” of article 3 be appropriately analyzed and objectively implemented with regard to various situations of the child, groups of children (e.g. Aboriginal or other status) and integrated in all revisions of legislation concerning children, legal procedures in courts, as well as in judicial and administrative decisions and in projects, programs and services which have an impact on children. The Committee encourages the State party to ensure that research and educational programs for professionals dealing with children be reinforced and that article 3 of the Convention is fully understood and that this principle is effectively implemented.
|
Health and Health Services (article 24) |
|
|
|
The Committee is encouraged by the commitment of the Government to strengthen health care for Canadians by, i.a., increasing the budget and focusing on Aboriginal Health Programs. However, the Committee is concerned at the fact acknowledged by the State party that the relatively high standard of health is not shared equally by all Canadians and notes that provincial and territorial equal compliance is a matter of concern, in particular as regards universality and accessibility in rural and northern communities and for children in Aboriginal Communities. The Committee is particularly concerned at the disproportionately high prevalence of the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and fetal alcohol syndrome disorder (FASD) among Aboriginal children.
The Committee recommends that the State Party undertake measures to ensure equal enjoyment of all children with the same quality of health services, with special attention to indigenous children and children in rural and remote areas.
|
Adolescent Health |
|
|
|
Committee is encouraged by the average declining trend of infant mortality rates in the State party, but is deeply concerned at the high mortality rate among the Aboriginal population and the high rate of suicides and substance abuse among youth belonging to this group.
The Committee suggests that the State party continue to give priority to studying possible causes of youth suicide and the characteristics of those who appear to be most at risk and take steps as soon as practicable to put in place additional support and prevention and intervention programs, be it in the field of mental health, education, employment or another field, which could reduce this tragic phenomenon.
|
Children belonging to a minority or indigenous group |
|
|
|
The Committee is concerned that Aboriginal children continue to experience many problems, including discrimination in several areas, with much greater frequency and severity than their non-Aboriginal peers.
The Committee urges the Government to pursue its efforts to address the gap in life chances between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children. In this regard it reiterates in particular the observations and recommendations with respect to land and resource allocation made by United Nations human rights treaty bodies, such as the Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/79/Add.105 para. 8), the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (A/57/18, para. 330), the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (E/C.12/1/Add.31 para.18). The Committee equally notes the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and encourages the State party to ensure appropriate follow-up.
|
|