Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 51
Robert Bertrand
View Robert Bertrand Profile
Robert Bertrand
2019-04-30 10:58
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Good morning, committee members, representatives and guests.
I am National Chief Robert Bertrand of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. With me is Mr. Jim Devoe, the CEO of the congress. Before that, he was a worker in the child welfare system for, from what I'm told, about 15 years. That's why he's sitting beside me.
I am pleased to be with you today and wish to acknowledge that we are on the traditional unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin peoples and their descendants.
Thank you for the invitation to appear and present on Bill C-92, an act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. At CAP, we have grave concerns in regard to this legislation as it fails to meet the specific needs of off-reserve and urban indigenous peoples and further marginalizes our constituency.
First of all, I would like to tell you a bit about the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, or as we call it, CAP. We are a national indigenous representative organization. For over 48 years, CAP has been advocating for the rights and needs of the off-reserve status and non-status Indians and Métis peoples across Canada, and the Inuit of Southern Labrador.
Our vision is that all indigenous peoples in Canada should experience the highest quality of life through the rebuilding of nations. All indigenous citizens have the right to be treated with respect, dignity, integrity and equality. We must keep this vision paramount for our indigenous children and youth.
Today, as mentioned on numerous occasions, over 70% of indigenous people in this country live off-reserve in urban, rural and remote areas. We know this is in large part due to the breakdown of indigenous families through residential schools, child welfare interventions, incarceration and other forms of institutionalization.
The impetus for this legislation came in part from first nations communities and the tireless advocacy of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. By expanding the purview of this legislation to include off-reserve first nations, Métis and Inuit, it seeks to address the needs of peoples who are constituents of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.
I would now like to outline CAP’s position on Bill C-92.
Overall, we know the child welfare system in Canada is broken, and this legislation risks replicating some of these failures. We fear the child welfare system, in its current form, will be forced on indigenous communities and expect a different result. We need to rebuild the way in which we deliver child welfare programs and services prior to the downloading of responsibility. This transfer should not be the end of the state's responsibility to our children, families and communities.
We support our people’s ability to govern their own child welfare systems and want to ensure they are supported to address the challenges that come with this. This legislation should not be a way to transfer the burden of intergenerational colonialism back onto indigenous communities. Without proper funding and an awareness of the political, economic and social context, this legislation cannot permit full indigenous control.
Here are CAP’s specific concerns in regard to the proposed legislation:
Subclause 9(1) and clause 10 refer to the concept of the “best interests of the child”. This concept is deeply rooted in the colonial system and reflects a non-indigenous understanding of community, family and the place of an individual in society.
We see an inherent tension between the rights of the child as an individual as defined by the state and the collective rights of indigenous peoples. A child is part of an ancestral lineage, with complex relations, and is the future of the community. We believe that legislation should allow indigenous communities to determine the definition and limits of the best interests of the child.
Clarification is needed of the government's definition of an indigenous governing body. It is currently defined as a council, government or other entity that is authorized to act on behalf of an indigenous group, community or people who hold rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. We request clarification as to whether urban indigenous organizations and service providers are considered governing bodies. Who invests these organizations with authority, and who will provide services for all indigenous people in urban settings?
Under clause 15, the legislation addresses socio-economic considerations. Children are at risk most often because of colonial policies, systemic discrimination, and intergenerational trauma. Every effort must be made by all levels of government to ensure that communities and families are supported in ensuring the well-being of children prior to such interventions as the apprehension of children.
This legislation should not force the consequences of colonialism upon indigenous child welfare providers. The government must be required to redress the root causes of the degradation of indigenous communities and child vulnerability before child welfare services are even considered. Legislation should require the government to provide diversionary services for communities and families.
Subclause 18(1) of the bill establishes the potential for indigenous governing bodies to have an opportunity to work with provinces to take over jurisdiction. It is not clear what the implications are for the non-status, off-reserve people and Métis with origins across Canada. For example, for a Métis child living in the Ottawa area, what are the implications if the child and their family are not registered members of the MNC and belong to an urban indigenous community? Will they be afforded adequate, appropriate and culturally responsive child and family services?
It is also unclear whether jurisdictional challenges will be created between provincial-territorial service providers and indigenous governing bodies for non-affiliated families, and how these will be addressed. Clear procedural requirements for the referral of off-reserve, non-status first nations, Métis and Inuit children and families to appropriate indigenous child welfare agencies should be outlined in this legislation.
Lastly, there are no clear obligations for dedicated funding to meet current gaps for off-reserve, non-status, and Métis populations in the bill. A number of funding concerns must be directly addressed with the legislation, such as commitments for indigenous organizations to develop child welfare legislation, expertise and resources; for kinship care arrangements, including comprehensive support beyond monthly allowances; for off-reserve resources for first nations, Métis and Inuit child and family service providers who are in the process of developing resources within their community; and for first nations, Métis and Inuit child and family service providers to provide continuous care and services to children and families who relocate and to maintain continuity of care through supported arrangements with other child and family service providers.
We cannot underestimate the degree to which the child welfare system has negatively impacted CAP's constituency.
In closing, I would like to inform you that CAP and our 10 affiliates were not included in the co-development process of this bill. CAP's exclusion from this process is a critical oversight, because the legislation appears to seek to address the needs of the people who are our constituents: off-reserve first nations, Métis and Inuit.
I am happy to answer any questions you have at this time.
Meegwetch. Thank you very much.
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Would you see an enabling opportunity under this legislation to allow some work off reserve? Is that potentially a possibility?
Paul Morris
View Paul Morris Profile
Paul Morris
2019-04-30 12:56
I think the long-term goal of the initiative that's going forward in Nova Scotia is for that to be the case, and this would get back to the funding and manpower issue, as we currently have the manpower to deal with it only on reserve.
About half of the Mi'kmaq population, I think, live off reserve. Geographically I don't think it's an issue, because we are all over the province anyway, so it's not that we're relying on the Department of Community Services for the Province of Nova Scotia geographically. The issue would be the number of files and that sort of thing.
We'd have to ensure that we have funding to grow the organization and grow the infrastructure for it to provide those services.
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
Lib. (MB)
Thank you very much for coming today. I very much appreciate it.
I'd like to highlight some testimony we heard from Laurie Sargent from Justice Canada. She did say this was the first time really in Canadian history that the government has made such substantive changes and speaks to such a degree to section 35 in actually starting to fill that out and breathe life into it.
I have very quick questions that I know.... I'm just going to try to go through them very quickly.
For the people who live outside the community, who should have jurisdiction? If people do not live in your community or on your reserves, who should have jurisdiction?
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
Lib. (MB)
Yes, of course. I'm speaking to you as the rights holder for the Mi'kmaw people. You have someone living in Toronto or in Halifax who's not living in a community. Who should be the one providing the service?
Paul J. Prosper
View Paul J. Prosper Profile
Paul J. Prosper
2019-04-30 13:11
We believe, as leadership, that we have jurisdiction not only within the confines of our respective communities but throughout our traditional territory, which would be inclusive of “off-reserve” members. We assume that jurisdiction and control over them.
View Kevin Waugh Profile
CPC (SK)
We've heard some discussions off reserve. How does that affect your people living in communities off reserve, in terms of this bill?
Paul J. Prosper
View Paul J. Prosper Profile
Paul J. Prosper
2019-04-30 13:19
From a leadership and the assembly's perspective, they're our community members regardless of where they live. They don't stop being Mi'kmaq by virtue of leaving the boundaries of the reserve. As mentioned earlier, we would look to work towards providing some jurisdiction with respect to our membership off reserve. Obviously, that will involve discussions with our counterpart, the Province of Nova Scotia, but also from an organizational perspective, with various organizations that serve urban areas and things of that nature.
View Kevin Waugh Profile
CPC (SK)
Do you have the capacity to do that? Some regions in this country can't. They simply don't have the capacity.
Paul J. Prosper
View Paul J. Prosper Profile
Paul J. Prosper
2019-04-30 13:20
There's an intimate link between jurisdiction and funding, subject to what was mentioned before. As we've learned from the provincial experience, it's one thing to have legislation; it's another thing to implement it. The key there is capacity and having the appropriate funds and support and infrastructure to breathe life into the laws that are developed.
That's the caveat I would add to that.
View Marc Serré Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Marc Serré Profile
2018-10-15 16:27
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here and for their work in this area.
My first question is for Ms. Buist and pertains to the work done with indigenous communities.
Ms. Buist, we often hear that there are tremendous needs on reserves. I would like to know what role you play, together with the municipalities, in developing a strategy for indigenous persons and transition houses in urban settings. I would point out that many indigenous persons live in cities, including the 60,000 indigenous persons who live in the Toronto area.
More specifically, what is your role in developing a national strategy for urban settings?
View Marc Serré Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Marc Serré Profile
2018-10-15 16:28
Do you have any data on the number of indigenous women in transition houses in cities, off reserve?
Margaret Buist
View Margaret Buist Profile
Margaret Buist
2018-10-15 16:29
No, that is under provincial jurisdiction. I have figures for places on reserves, but not in the cities.
View Marc Serré Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Marc Serré Profile
2018-10-15 16:30
There does not seem to be a strategy for indigenous women in cities, off reserve. Are there gaps in this area?
Catherine Scott
View Catherine Scott Profile
Catherine Scott
2018-10-15 16:30
The program to fight homelessness provides funding specifically for homelessness among indigenous persons. They can go to any shelter, anywhere in Canada. We also fund programs and initiatives tailored to the needs of indigenous persons, in 37 municipalities across the country.
Results: 1 - 15 of 51 | Page: 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data