Our children, Our Nations: Comments on Bill C-92 to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs (INAN) from the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians May 3rd, 2019 Grand Chief Abram, AIAI Grand Chief is Joel Abram, who hails from the Oneida Nation of the Thames settlement, is a member of the wolf clan, and his Oneida name is Tewa:slake, which translates as an ‘axe with two blades’ Leadership at provincial & national levels • Grand Chief Joel Abram holds the social portfolio at the Chiefs of Ontario and chairs the Chiefs Committee on Social. • As the social portfolio holder for the Chiefs of Ontario, Grand Chief Abram takes a leadership role on child welfare among First Nations in Ontario. In this capacity, he participates in various national tables, including representing the Chiefs of Ontario at the CHRT Consultation Committee and the Assembly of First Nations’ Legislative Working Group that was convened on what has become Bill C- 92. About AIAI The Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians (AIAI) is a non-profit organization Our Member Nations: • Batchewana First Nation of Ojibways, near mandated as a provincial territorial organization (PTO) to advocate for the political Sault Ste. Marie, ON. interests of member Nations in Ontario. We represent approximately 20,000 First • Caldwell First Nation, near Leamington, Nations citizens from seven member communities. ON. • Delaware Nation (EELÜNAAPÉEWI LAHKÉEWIIT), near Chatham, ON AIAI is unique among PTOs in Canada, because of the diversity of its members. We • Hiawatha First Nation – Mississaugas of represent Oneida, Mohawk, Delaware, Potawatomi and Ojibway communities Rice Lake, near Peterborough, ON. across Ontario. While our communities may have different languages, cultural • Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, near practices and a wide-spread geography, they are united through AIAI to collectively Belleville, ON. protect their Indigenous and Treaty rights. • Oneida Nation of the Thames, near London, ON. • Wahta Mohawks, near Parry Sound, ON. AIAI is governed by our Chiefs Council, comprised of the elected Chiefs from each member Nation and is led by a Grand Chief and Deputy Grand Chief. Some Of Our Ongoing Initiative On Child Welfare Include: • Family Revitalization Working Group – AIAI convened a technical bilateral table with Ontario’s Ministry of Children and Youth Services and community technicians and leadership from our member Nations. • AIAI Community Engagements – AIAI has conducted engagements with our member communities on child welfare reform and jurisdiction, to help us provide effective advocacy and support. • Technical Table on Child and Family Wellbeing with Canada & Ontario – AIAI participates in this table on First Nations child welfare program reform in Ontario. It includes representatives from Indigenous Services Canada; Ontario’s Ministry of Children and Youth Services; and the Chiefs of Ontario Social Services Coordination Unit. • Ontario Indigenous Children and Youth Strategy table with Govt of Ontario – AIAI participates in a technical table with the other PTOs, Independent First Nations and various Indigenous organizations to discuss Ontario program reform related to Indigenous children, youth and families. Dedicated Work Within Our Member Nations: AIAI’s member Nations are involved in numerous community initiatives to support their children & families, such as: • Providing prevention services and a wide range of community services • Three of our members are part of Mnaasged Child and Family Services (CFS) in the London area, which currently provides prevention services. • Two of our members are part of Dnaagdewenmag Binoojiiyag CFS in the Muskoka area, which currently provides prevention and protection services. • One of our members is a part of Nogdawindamin CFS in the Sault Ste Marie area, which currently provides prevention and protection services. • All of AIAI’s member Nations regularly interact with Children’s Aid Societies (CAS) in all matters related to child welfare from investigations, mediations and child protection services. Many of our Nations have been active in developing protocols with CASs, and in building and expanding their Band Representative programs. AIAI’s Position on Bill C-92 As the bill currently stands, AIAI rejects Bill C-92 on the three following points: 1. It lacks a funding commitment consistent with the standard of substantive equality to ensure compliance with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decisions. 2. It does not respect First Nation jurisdiction and enables federal interference. 3. It was not “co-developed” and this needs to be clearly understood. 1. Funding • In the 2016 Caring Society case, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found that the Government of Canada discriminates against our children by chronically under-funding First Nation child welfare services for decades. • The Tribunal made it crystal clear that Canada needs to raise its funding and update its funding systems consistent with the legal standard of substantive equality. • In every table we’ve participated in with Canada since that decision, people say over and over that the funding must be “predictable, stable, sustainable, needs-based and consistent with the principle of substantive equality”. • The government of Canada says it too. It did not appeal the Tribunal decision. It says it is working to implement it. It put that exact language quoted above into the Preamble of Bill C-92. 1. Funding (Cont.) • So where is the implementation of all that rhetoric? Why is there no funding commitment in the binding provisions of this Bill? • We are simply asking to implement the legal standard already established. Don’t leave it to chance. Take the language on substantive equality out of the Preamble and put it in the law, so it can hold the government accountable. • We spent 12 years at the Tribunal, and we don’t want to be back there again after the next Budget, or after the next election. Leaving it to chance or the ‘good will’ of the government of the day has not worked for decades and it has left our children and families to suffer discrimination. If it hasn’t worked in the past, it will not work in the future. 2. Jurisdiction • Our member Nations have inherent jurisdiction regarding their children and families. This inherent right was never surrendered, and it will never be. • Bill C-92 claims to recognize that jurisdiction. But in the same breath, it imposes all kinds of limits over it: – The so-called “minimum standards” in sections 10-15 of the Bill (imposed under s. 22(1) of the Bill) – some of which would actually take us backwards and reduce our current rights compared with Ontario’s law – Section 23 of the Bill, which invites anyone to challenge our laws based on their own interpretation of “best interests” – The Charter and the Canadian Human Rights Act, which are part of the Canadian Constitution, not part of our own laws (imposed under s. 22(1) and s. 19 of the Bill) • Canada has no power to limit our jurisdiction in this way. We reject the federal government’s interference with our laws in the Bill as it stands. The legislation needs a true recognition of jurisdiction - Not giving with one hand and taking with the other. 3. Not “Co-developed” • The notion that this Bill was “co-developed” is incorrect and insulting. • First Nations’ Child welfare has been in crisis for decades; The Tribunal decision was in January 2016; And Minister Philpott’s “National Emergency Meeting” followed by Canada’s 6-point plan was in January 2018. • Even counting from the “National Emergency Meeting”, there was ample time to co-develop legislation if Canada had decided to be dedicated and efficient to the intention. • Instead, Minister Philpott announced the Canada’s intention to develop legislation on November 30, 2018. Following this announcement First Nation delegates were prepared to provide concrete input in December 2018. AIAI’s Grand Chief Joel Abram was one, as a member of the AFN’s Legislative Working Group (LWG). But there was no collaborative discussions with the Government of Canada on Indigenous Child Welfare Legislation; There was no co-drafting of legislation nor any updates from Canada. 3. Not “Co-developed” (cont.) • It wasn’t until late January 2019, that the LWG was invited to a one-day meeting to review a single draft. As a result, the majority of our comments appear to have been ignored. • This process is not co-development. Real co-development means respect for Nation- to-Nation relationships. It means respectful treatment as equal partners. It means allowing time for internal processes on both sides, not just on one side. Amendments Can Still Fix This Bill • We urge the Committee to make critical amendments by amending the current bill to include: – A funding commitment consistent with the standard of substantive equality to ensure compliance with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decisions within the legislation and not in the preamble. – Respecting and affirming First Nation jurisdiction by minimizing federal interference. • We urge you see the issues of this Bill through our perspective because our children need change and we ask that you make these appropriate amendments to make this Bill fair and workable for the communities who will be required to work with it. Final Thoughts.