Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler of NAN told The Globe that NAN chiefs supported the rejected agreement in part because it considers the costs of delivering child-welfare services to its 49 remote First Nations in Northern Ontario.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Canada has called it quits for now on trying to hammer out another national agreement to improve First Nations child welfare across the country, but will continue to negotiate a deal with Ontario First Nations, according to correspondence between the Department of Justice and the Assembly of First Nations.
In a letter dated Jan. 6 and obtained by The Globe and Mail, Justice lawyer Paul Vickery wrote that the federal government isn’t mandated to negotiate further on a long-term deal on “a national basis.”
“At this time, Canada’s mandate does not permit further negotiations on reform of the First Nations Child and Family Services Program on a national basis,” said the letter.
“Canada is not currently in a position to engage in any negotiations beyond those with COO and NAN,” it said, referring to the Chiefs of Ontario and the Nishnawbe Aski Nation.
The letter states that negotiations with those two groups will begin shortly, after a request from chiefs from those groups.
Those chiefs had supported a landmark $47.8-billion draft settlement presented to the AFN chiefs in July by National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, who encouraging the chiefs from across the country to take the deal.
But while the deal was supported by Ontario chiefs in separate assemblies held by the COO and NAN, other chiefs opposed it and the settlement package was voted down in favour of more talks.
The AFN, First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, COO and NAN are litigants in a historic court case against Canada for its discrimination toward First Nations children and families on-reserve. It was prompted by a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal case launched by Cindy Blackstock of the Caring Society in 2006.
Last year, the parties successfully negotiated a $23-billion compensation package for 300,000 First Nations children and adults that will begin to roll out in March.
The $47.8-billion draft settlement that was rejected last fall was a separate deal intended to fund long-term improvements of First Nations child-welfare services. The agreement was expected to end Canada’s discrimination against First Nations children and families by giving control and jurisdiction to the First Nations.
Chiefs who opposed the draft deal voiced concerns over issues such as a lack of long-term funding commitments and the governance around implementation of the agreement. They maintained a better deal could be negotiated under amended terms and with the support of Ms. Blackstock, who had earlier pulled out of the negotiations.
Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) announced on Tuesday that the government will continue to negotiate with the COO and NAN under the terms of the rejected agreement, which included funding specific to Ontario First Nations.
“We are working with the litigants that are willing to work with us on the original deal,” said Jennifer Kozelj, ISC spokeswoman.
In an interview, Ms. Blackstock questioned the decision for talks to go forward only with Ontario groups.
“It’s important that there’s an agreement or a resolution that covers the entire country,” she said. “Canada has an obligation to stop the discrimination for all children in Canada and has to discharge that duty for everyone.”
Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler of NAN told The Globe on Wednesday that NAN chiefs supported the rejected agreement in part because it considers the costs of delivering child-welfare services to its 49 remote First Nations in Northern Ontario. Mr. Fiddler said NAN worked hard in the earlier negotiations to ensure that the compensation package had measures to address remoteness and that work will be used for the final agreement with the Ontario First Nations.
“The agreement that we’re seeking is one that will finally end Canada’s discrimination against our children and brings finality to the litigation process,” said Mr. Fiddler.
Ms. Blackstock challenged why Ontario is the only region to get consideration for its remoteness.
“They can’t be treating people differentially, just arbitrarily. They have to link it to the actual needs of children,” she said.
Ms. Woodhouse Nepinak expressed disappointment in the failed deal, believing that it was the best chiefs were going to get, particularly with a federal election on the horizon. She called Canada’s decision to confine its talks on a child-welfare settlement to Ontario this week an unfortunate development.
She said the AFN will continue its discussions on how to best support First Nations children and families.
“We support the chiefs in these discussions, which have the potential to bring meaningful changes for children and families in Ontario. We lift up the dedication of the Ontario Chiefs in advancing this critical work.”