DEFENDING OUR SOVEREIGNTY

Friday, April 20, 2012

Gatherings, Budgets & Elections: When Do First Nations Children Become a Priority?

I have been watching and listening with interest over the last few weeks about what issues the media outlets have been featuring, as well as what federal, provincial and First Nation politicians have been speaking about. Despite the fact that some very important court rulings have come out which were in favour of First Nations peoples, they seem to have gone largely unnoticed. Similarly, there have been some pretty significant funding cuts to First Nations communities as well as various First Nations organizations, yet the political world has been all but silent on the issue.

This makes me wonder how far gone our current political system must be if we can't celebrate minor victories or use those victories to start pushing back against the Harper Conservatives' (Cons) assimilatory agenda. The so-called Crown-First Nation Gathering (CFNG) was supposed to result in what the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) Shawn Atleo called "re-setting the relationship". In his words, this meeting, together with the most recent federal budget, amounted to the kind of "momentum" that indicated Harper was hearing the voices of our people. That is a delusion of epic porportions.

CFNG:

The CFNG was nothing more than Harper confirming the Con's position vis-a-vis First Nations: control and assimilation. Harper confirmed that the Indian Act would stay and even confirmed that new legislation would be imposed on our First Nations which would exact even more federal and soon-to-be provincial control over our communities. This legislation will also dump more liability on our communities and no funding. There are no less than 6 pieces of legislation speeding through the House and Senate or will soon be introduced. The only re-setting of the relationship that happened at the CFNG was that the feds took back their paternalistic control of "Indian Affairs" with little resistance from Atleo.

Federal Budget:

The federal budget was no surprise at all for us grassroots community members. A long term conservative told me that Harper's Cons would never give any additional funds to First Nations communities or organizations and that the best they could "hope" for were minor increases in one area off-set by decreases in another - as the ultimate goal was "integration". This is a fancy new word for assimilation, but since Tom Flanagan wore that word out, no one wants to call it what it is anymore.

The prediction given my that conservative MIB has proven to be true as the federal budget offered ZERO for housing, ZERO for post-secondary education and ZERO for child and family services. What little was offered is countered by First Nation population growth, inflation, the cumulative effect of years of chronic underfunding, and increases in federal bureaucrat salaries and training costs. The pittance given for education amounted to 4% of what was actually needed - this is hardly a "re-setting" the relationship, except but backwards.

AFN Election:

Now we have the AFN election to look forward to in July. Campaigning started at the CFNG and Atleo has been on a whirlwind speaking tour all across the country ever since. He has been downplaying the effect of the disastrous federal budget; ignoring the fact that nothing came out of the National Panel on Education; is being silent on the issue of so many pieces of legislation being rushed through the House and Senate; and opting instead, to speak about reconciliation. All the attention now seems to be on the upcoming election as opposed to what is happening all around the AFN.

The Reality:

If we relied exclusively on sound bites from Atleo, we would never know that the First Nation Statistical Institute, National Aboriginal Health Organization, or the National Centre for First Nations Governance were having all their funding cut and must close their doors. I am not saying that these cuts are good or bad, but how are we as grassroots supposed to know? What did these organizations do or not do for First Nations? Why is the AFN and others silent? How come no one is even talking about it?

We also wouldn't know that the Native Women's Association of Canada and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami had 40% of their health funds cut. There was a small press release about AFN's health funding being cut by 40%, but little more than that. What about the individual First Nations who are reporting that their band funding agreements (BFAs) with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) have been reduced by millions of dollars? Or the fact that INAC has been indicating to First Nations that cuts of 5% and 10% will occur over the next two years to their BFAs? Why is no one explaining this to community members?

Forced "Integration":

The Cons are making good on their promise to not increase funding for essential services and to force our integration into "Canadian society" under the guise of equality, reconciliation, jobs and mortgages. We know they are bullies, we know they have no intention of addressing chronic underfunding let alone recognizing and respecting our treaties, Aboriginal title to our traditional territories, or our inherent right to be self-determining. We also know their plan - (1) increase controls over us through legislation, prisons and child welfare; (2) increase access to our lands and resources through legislation and minimizing our rights and (3) speed up our assimilation through legislation and funding incentives for "willing partners". When will the AFN adjust their strategy and share that with communities? We don't all have to agree, but we should at least be able to discuss our concerns.

The Cons are very good at using financial incentives and disincentives to get the "Indians" to do what they want. Play ball and you might get a Senate seat, a Queen's Jubilee Award, a plush job on some panel, board, commission, port authority, or tribunal. Keeping quiet might mean that only part of your organizational funding will be cut - but make no doubt, it will still be cut. Don't play ball and you could lose all your organizational funding, be vilified in the House of Commons and the media, or be monitored not only by CSIS, but also by INAC's new not-so-covert spy group who spend our money spying on Indigenous women advocates. If you don't act as a "willing partner" there will be no photo-ops, dinners at the PM's house, or lucrative corporate gigs. You will not get special mention in PM speeches or have him attend your events.

But none of those carrots have any meaning, none are lasting and they only accrue to individuals. None of those tokens are helpful for our Nation-building priorities. So, while I have said time and again Canada needs to make a policy choice of getting out of the business of trying to assimilate us, similarly our leaders need to decide whether they stand on their sovereignty and protect our lands nad peoples or whether they will take their chances on INAC's integration policies and the few trinkets offered in return.

In all of this political mess, when do the children become a priority? What about the blatant discrimination against our Indigenous women at the Pickton inquiry? Why are we not celebrating the small victories we have and use those to create our own momentum and start pushing back against Cons' politics? What's the worse that can happen? More funding cuts? How bad does it have to get before we stand up? Our people need to hear their leaders act on their behalf, not make political deals behind closed doors. I'll tell you who is standing up - grassroots people and First Nations communities.

Chief Simon v. INAC

Does anyone recall hearing about INAC trying to reduce the social assistance amounts for First Nations in New Brunswick? Chief Jesse Simon on behalf of Elsipogtog First Nation and the Mi'kmaw First Nations in New Brunswick challenged that heavy-handed federal decision. They applied for an interlocutory injunction (an order from the court) to stop INAC from implementing a decision the Minister made to force First Nations to reduce their social assistance levels to provincial levels. The court noted that this decision was being imposed on a community that already confronts "severe poverty" where 85% of residents are on social assistance.

The Chiefs had previously passed a motion stating they would not be part of assisting INAC in implementing cuts to social welfare programs. They refused to give in to INAC pressure and even vowed legal action if necessary. The court noted that the Chiefs were "justifiably annoyed" that no consultations had taken place and that INAC was going to impose this policy regardless of what the Chiefs said and letters from INAC confirmed this. The difference would be approximately $300 per month less for individual recipients if they used provincial levels, whereas some would lose all their income assistance, like those that live off-reserve or who have to live with others on reserve.

The judge held: "In my view, the estimated decline in income assistance rates under the Policy and the potential for ineligibility will cause emotional and psychological stress amounting to irreparable harm for some Recipients. Individuals who are reliant on income assistance are especially vulnerable even to small changes in the resources available to meet their basic needs". Therefore the judge granted the injunction which prevents INAC from reducing social assistance amounts in New Brunswick until a court has a chance to hear the whole case.

Why has there not been much media coverage or AFN commentary on this case? This issue, while not flashy like a national panel or CFNG, impacts the daily quality of life of many grassroots First Nations peoples in New Brunswick. That is not to say that we should all be focused on social assistance as a means of addressing our Nation-building and decolonization efforts, but the disastrous effects of long-term federal control, the theft of our lands and resources, and the genocidal actions committed against our people has led to such extreme poverty, that the issue merits attention - especially when chronically under-funded First Nations are threatened with even further cuts.

First Nations Child and Family Caring Society v. INAC

Or perhaps some of you have heard of this case? It is a decision that came from the federal court on April 18, 2012. It is a case that challenges the chronic and severe underfunding of child welfare services for First Nations children living on reserve. Cindy Blackstock, who heads the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society (FNCFCS) has been championing this issue for years now. She is adamant that First Nations children, the most vulnerable in our society, should not receive less funding simply because they are First Nations peoples. Her tireless efforts, passion and dedication to the children resulted in her filing a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) for discrimination.

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/rss/FNCFCS%20decision%2018-04-2012%20ENG.pdf

Blackstock alleged that Canada funds First Nations child welfare at rates far below those of the provinces and that this is discrimination. The CHRC forwarded the complaint to the Tribunal for consideration, but INAC kept trying to find ways to have the complaint thrown out. One of INAC's arguments convinced the Tribunal to do just that. They successfully argued that since First Nations were the only group which receive child welfare funds from the feds, there was no comparator group and thus no discrimination.

The federal court considered the Tribunal's decision and found that it was "unreasonable" and that it in fact erred in law. In the court's opinion, "the Tribunal applied a rigid and formalaic interpretation of the provision - one that is inconsistent with the search for substantive equality mandated by the Canadian Human Rights Act and Canada's equality jurisprudence." What the court is referring to here is the difference between formal and substantive equality. Formal equality means treating everyone the exact same. Substantive equality means providing people with equal opportunity taking into account their differences, many of which are beyond their control.

First Nations are provided with significantly less funding than non-First Nations children in the range of 22%. Some of the services that would prevent children from being removed in the first place are not funded at all. This means that a "disproportionate number of First Nations children are removed from their homes, thus perpetuating the legacy of the residential school system". This has resulted in upwards of 30-40% of all children in care being Aboriginal, despite only being 4% of the total population.

Canada has refused to act despite being aware of the problem and being presented with studies which prove it. Even INAC's own website noted that the high rate of First Nation children in care reflects a lack of prevention services. Finding the Tribunal decision to be unfair and unreasonable, the federal court ordered the Tribunal to rehear the case with a new set of Tribunal members.

While this is a small, interim victory, it means a great deal to First Nations children in care. Federal, provincial and First Nation leaders should be making this a priority issue to be addressed instead of litigated and should at least be talking about the solutions to chronic underfunding with First Nations communities and in the media. We need to be informing our grassroots, building our collective capacity and at least talking about the issues covered in the Simon and FNSFCS cases.

First Nations include everyone:

First Nations include not just Chief and Council, not just well-known First Nation business men or national leaders, but also include those grassroots citizens who live in poverty on social assistance, those who are over-represented in jails, and those who are over-represented in the child welfare system. We cannot forget about our most vulnerable simply because they are out of sight. How many of our citizens were lost to our Nations by the 60's scoop forced adoptions? How many live homeless on the streets of major cities? How many more hundreds of our Indigenous women need to go murdered and missing? Some of youth are forced to sit on waiting lists that are over 10,000 students long hoping for a chance at post-secondary education. Some of our families live in sheds without running water or heat. Where is the action for them?

We Need an Emergency Plan:

We have a crisis of poverty on our hands which requires an immediate action plan that involves the federal, provincial and First Nations governments. We don't need any more studies, panels or commissions - we need action. No one wants to talk about Kelowna and that is fine, but we need an intervention of that magnitude to just deal with the immediate crisis which affects many (not all) of our First Nations.

If I hear another politician stand up and talk about reconciliation or how mining will be the cure for all our woes, I think I might burst. Destroying our lands to provide short-term jobs will never cure the generations of illness caused by past and current colonization. Landing a consulting job with a timber company won't bring back our languages once they are gone. Owning an acre of land in fee simple and having a house with a mortgage won't revive our traditional laws, governing systems and values.

Canada needs to halt its genocidal, assimilatory laws and policies now and national First Nations leaders need to start acting on their responsibility to stand up for those who can't. If the AFN can't come up with a better strategy, they will start to become less and less relevant to not only regional First Nation organizations but to the rising number of grassroots activists who are not going to take much more inaction.

None of us are a "success" until all of our men, women, children, elderly, and the forgotten ones are back under our jurisdiction, protection and love. We suffer collectively as Nations and prosper collectively as Nations.

If any of our leaders need some help, I know a few hundred thousand grassroots people who have unique skills, ideas and aspirations for the future that are well-grounded in our diverse traditional languages, laws, beliefs, and values. Try reaching out. Decolonization is not easy, but it is easier together.

1 comment:

  1. Cindy Blackstock also joined a group of Canadian children's rights advocates in a recent presentation to the UN working group on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Provincial and Federal leaders are ignoring child poverty and development issues so advocates hope appealing to the UN might have some shaming effect on Canadian politicians. see this article http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/02/06/Child-Care-Advocates-in-Geneva/


    "Canada in a number of United Nations reports in terms of childcare and early childhood has come out last among the most wealthy countries of the world. We spend less than even countries like Mexico, as part of our GDP, on programs for children,"

    So, if that is the reality for all Canadian children, then the reality for indigenous children is much worse. Over 600,000 children live in poverty in Canada — one in every 10 children. Among indigenous children, the rate is one in four.

    That article cites the common case of a single mother unable to find a suitable apartment for her and her son for the welfare housing rate, so her son was taken into care. That cost the system more than if it had simply provided her with sufficient assistance for housing. It also broke up a family.

    The B.C. Premier, Christie Clark, who hired one of Stephen Harper's top aides, says that the province cannot afford to raise welfare rates and the Minister of social development (more like social hinderance) stated that income assistance rates are a "careful balance we always have to find between what we are able to provide from a financial perspective and what taxpayers feel comfortable with."

    But that is just political propaganda. What they don't consider is the actual needs of the poor in that balance, or the evidence that poverty reduction and housing programs save the system money in the long run.

    Harper is even worse. In his drug war prohibition propaganda he claims to be concerned for the welfare of children. But as I wrote elsewhere, "If Prime Minister Harper was truly concerned for the welfare of children he would be proactively doing everything in his power to ensure that no Canadian child lives in poverty. But he is not, even though protecting the most vulnerable citizens should be one of the basic functions of government. As I wrote in a previous post, on his official website Harper shows more concern for stray cats than children living in poverty. Oddly, I could not find a search function on that site. I easily found references to protecting cats, but I could find nothing about protecting children through poverty reduction and housing programs. In one of the richest countries in the world hundreds of thousands of children still live in dire poverty without basic necessities of life, and our Christian Prime Minister never says a word about it. Perhaps he misunderstands the scripture that says "suffer the little children".

    ReplyDelete