THE PROBLEM WITH INCREMENTAL EQUALITY IS THAT CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE INCREMENTAL CHILDHOODS AND AS SIMS’ REPORT SHOWS US – EQUALITY NEVER COMES ONE DROP AT A TIME. WE MUST ACHIEVE EQUITY FOR FIRST NATIONS CHILDREN ACROSS ALL AREAS IN A LEAP NOT IN A SHUFFLE.
The Tribunal’s decision was a victory for
First Nations children and all Canadians who believe in love and fairness. But imple- mentation of the decision is key and, as the Tribunal noted in its April decision, prog- ress has been slow.
What prompted you to take your case to the Human Rights Commission in the first place?
In Canada, provincial/territorial child wel- fare laws apply both on and off reserves, but the provinces and territories expect the fed- eral government to pay for services on re- serves. When the federal government does not do so, or does so to a lesser standard, the provinces do not typically top it up. This results in a two-tiered child welfare system where First Nations children receive inequi- table services. After a decade of joint work between First
Nations and INAC to document the inequal- ities in child welfare services and to develop solutions to redress them, the federal gov- ernment chose not to fix the problem. The complaint was filed as a last resort to bring the government to account and to make sure that First Nations children and families have access to equitable services compared to the rest of children living in Canada. In 2007, the First Nations Child and
Family Caring Society and the Assembly of First Nations filed a complaint pursuant to the Canadian Human Rights Commis- sion alleging that the federal government, as represented by the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs (INAC), discriminates against 163,000 First Nations children by providing flawed and inequitable child wel- fare services and failing to properly imple- ment Jordan’s Principle.
What do you think the decision will mean for First Nations children?
The CHRT decision is legally binding on the government so it should result in equity in child welfare services that takes full account of the historical disadvantage and unique cultures of First Nations children and families. It is also a watershed decision that should inform redress of inequalities across all areas of children’s experience includ- ing education, health care, early childhood education and basics like water and hous- ing. While the government has made some statements that are encouraging, we must
20 ETFO VOICE | SUMMER 2016
measure change at the level of children, and thus far, nothing has substantially changed for First Nations children and families on the ground. I think it is vitally important that everyone
understands that in this case. And it’s true in education as well; the federal government has known that their funding and policy re- gimes were inequitable and contributed to profound disadvantage for First Nations chil- dren for decades. Repeated solutions to ad- dress the inequalities were developed, often in partnership with the federal government, but never implemented. This is a key area for study. When I survey the literature on the dis- advantage of First Nations children much of it focuses on the children, but I think there needs to be significant study and debate on why Canada has repeatedly failed to do better for First Nations children.
Can you speak specifically about the im- pact this decision will have on education?
The facts in the child welfare case closely mir- ror those in First Nations education, so it sets a strong precedent, and it is critical that peo- ple educate themselves on the inequalities in First Nations education and school funding and leverage the decision as a tool for redress. This means awakening our conscience to see the egregious harms of systemic discrimina- tion and aligning the weight of our efforts with the severity of the problem. Alex Sims reviewed First Nations educa-
tion in a 1967 report prepared for the De- partment of Indian Affairs. Sims noted the inequitable education outcomes for First Nations students and the utter lack of cul- tural content that reflected the First Nations experience. He went on to recommend First Nations control of education and redress of the systemic underfunding of First Nations education by the federal government. That report was written some 49 years ago and little has changed. We have normalized sys- temic racial discrimination against First Na- tions children so deeply that the gravity of this injustice no longer sends shivers up the spine of the Canadian consciousness. One of the key things we need to do to address the inequalities across all areas of First Nations children’s experience is to reject notions of what I call “incremental equality.” Incremen- tal equality is when cross-cutting and deep inequalities are dealt with one topic at a time. Although some measures are taken to
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52