(Ottawa) The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) has postponed a special assembly where chiefs were to vote on a historic child welfare reform agreement with Canada, after chiefs and advocates raised concerns about the process and a late translation of the document into French.
The ratification assembly for the historic $47.8 billion deal was scheduled to take place in Winnipeg in September, but it won’t happen until October or November, the AFN finally announced Tuesday.
“Although many chiefs have told me they are eager to support the draft agreement next month, the AFN Executive Committee has agreed to provide additional time for other chiefs to review the draft agreement,” National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak wrote in a letter.
“In the meantime, I look forward to meeting with other leaders in the coming weeks to discuss the agreement, listen to your views and answer your questions.”
After decades of litigation, Ottawa, the Assembly of First Nations, Ontario chiefs and the Nishnawbe Aski Nation reached an agreement in July on how to reform the child welfare system. The courts had ultimately found that Canada discriminated against children on reserves.
The agreement in principle for the long-term reform of the First Nations Child and Family Services Program and Jordan’s Principle was reached on July 11.
In recent weeks, First Nations chiefs and advocates have publicly expressed concerns about sections of the agreement-in-principle, and the fact that a French version of the document was made available a few weeks later. The text was distributed in English the day after the agreement was reached, but a French version was not released until a month later, on August 12.
Savanna McGregor, grand chief of the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council, said earlier Tuesday she was hopeful that due to the translation delay, the ratification meeting would be postponed to give chiefs more time to review the agreement.
“All of our communities must have a fair chance to conduct a detailed analysis of the final agreement, and that takes time. The subject in question is too sensitive,” Mr.me McGregor.
Ghislain Picard, AFN regional chief for Quebec and Labrador, stressed last week that the federal government had a legal obligation to ensure that the agreement was available in both official languages. “There is an Official Languages Act that must be respected,” he said.
But in a written statement, Indigenous Services Canada spokesperson Anispiragas Piragasanathar explained that all documents published by the federal government relating to this agreement were available in both official languages and that the final agreement had been published by the AFN.
In the spirit of reconciliation, Canada should not and will not tell First Nations organizations how to consult their own members. […] We will respect their process of self-determination.
Anispiragas Piragasanathar, spokesperson for Indigenous Services Canada
In an interview on Tuesday, Mr.me Woodhouse Nepinak said it was “unfair” for Canada to blame the AFN.
“These are their languages,” she said. “I hope this document will be translated into all our languages, that’s also important.”
A complex and criticized agreement
The AFN represents some 630 First Nations chiefs across Canada. Largely funded by Ottawa, it contributes to federal consultation efforts on laws that could affect First Nations and advocates on behalf of chiefs based on resolutions passed at their meetings.
Although the ministry maintains that the ratification process was in the hands of the APN, Mr.me McGregor said chiefs from Quebec and Labrador held an emergency meeting last Saturday with Indigenous Services Minister Patty Hajdu and National Chief Woodhouse Nepinak. The chiefs then pushed for the ratification vote to be postponed until October.
The proposed deal is worth more than double what was originally promised for long-term reform in a settlement agreement resulting from a human rights complaint over underfunding of child welfare services.
The federal government is responsible for child welfare on reserves, and provincial governments are responsible for child welfare programs elsewhere.
But Ottawa’s funding matched that of the provinces only for foster care, because it had to pay provincial agencies to provide the service at provincial rates. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that Canada had discriminated against children on reserves.
Cindy Blackstock, who heads the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society and helped bring the original complaint to court, raised concerns about some of the clauses in the agreement, including one that calls on the parties to publicly promote and defend it, which she said falls short of consultation.
She said that while she was somewhat relieved that the vote had been postponed, she wanted to see substantial changes in the way consultations are conducted and in some parts of the structure of the agreement.
“If the vote is simply delayed and the secrecy and incomplete narrative about the content of the agreement continues, and there are no substantial amendments, these problems will not be resolved,” she suggested.
Mme Blackstock also said the AFN must disavow the clause that requires it to promote the agreement to get approval from First Nations leaders, and must be able to provide leaders with “clear information.”
When asked if she would, Ms.me Woodhouse Nepinak responded “absolutely,” adding that it was important for her to listen to the leaders and what they want.
Mme Blackstock also calls for a process for leaders to propose amendments and a protocol for negotiating them. “This should not be left to the [gouvernement du] Canada,” she pleaded.
Mme Woodhouse Nepinak said she is open to the suggestion and is considering inviting Ms.me Blackstock to address the assembly.
Jennifer Kozelj, a spokeswoman for Minister Hajdu, said in a statement that the decision to move the vote was solely up to the APN.
“The Government of Canada will continue to support the parties in their efforts to engage partners on the historic $47 billion agreement to reform child and family services.”
“Concerns still very much present”
The agreement to reform First Nations child welfare has been the subject of lengthy and sometimes tense discussions between chiefs and advocates.
The agreement to reform the First Nations child welfare system has been the subject of lengthy and sometimes tense discussions between chiefs and advocates.
In June, three regional chiefs representing nearly half of First Nations accused the AFN in a letter of overstepping its mandate by making decisions that will directly affect children and families without their consent and saying it was not transparent in those negotiations.
In a reply letter, Mr.me Woodhouse Nepinak called a number of the allegations inaccurate and said that while leaders may disagree with how negotiations are going, attacking employees and legal advisers “is not helpful.”
Two months after signing the letter criticizing the process, Chief Picard said “these concerns are still very much present.”
Mme Woodhouse Nepinak said the assembly is working to ensure chiefs are comfortable signing on the dotted line and is “looking forward” to hearing from Picard.
“I’m going to Quebec this week,” she announced. “And I hope we can work together in a positive way.”