Front Burner - The 15 year fight to treat Indigenous children as equals

Episode Date: January 7, 2022

For decades, First Nations children on reserves had to live with less child welfare funding than other kids in Canada. And that led to kids being taken from their communities at higher rates, often for problems that could have been solved with better supports. This week, after years of court battles, the federal government made a $40 billion promise to First Nations leaders. $20 billion of that will go to compensate kids who were unnecessarily removed from their homes on reserve or in the Yukon. The other $20 billion will go to long-term reform of the on-reserve child welfare system. Cindy Blackstock, the executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society and a professor at McGill University's School of Social Work, has made it her mission to make sure First Nations kids get care that matches up with care received by other kids in Canada. Today, she talks about the long fight for this agreement, and why she’s still waiting to celebrate.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson. For decades, First Nations children on reserve had to live with less child welfare funding than other kids in Canada. And that led to kids being taken away from their communities at higher rates,

often for problems that could have been solved with better supports. This week, after years of court battles, the federal government made a $40 billion promise to First Nations leaders to compensate kids who are unnecessarily removed from their homes, to put more money into the child welfare system for kids on reserves, and to leave more power in the hands of Indigenous communities. And there's one person who has been basically a thorn in the side of the federal government on this issue for decades. Cindy Blackstock has made it her mission to make sure Indigenous kids don't fall through the cracks of the federal system. She's my guest today to talk about the long fight for this agreement and why

she's still waiting to celebrate. Hi, Cindy. Thank you so much for joining us today. Thank you for having me. I know there's a lot of places that we could start this conversation. We could go all the way back to residential schools or the 60s scoop. But I want to ask you where this started for you personally. Well, for 15 years, I was actually a frontline child welfare worker. And I worked in the provincial system in British Columbia in North Vancouver, and then literally crossed the street to work on reserve with the Squamish Nation's Child and Family Service Program called ISMUNMUN. And it was an absolute privilege to work there. But what I noticed, I was just gobsmacked about how the basic services I took for granted literally across the street

were not funded by the federal government. I remember going to see a young boy, for example, who had cerebral palsy and had grown so much and his standing frame was so old, it was held together with duct tape. And I called the health professional to do an assessment. And then I called Health Canada and I said, look, this child needs a new standing frame. Here's all the documentation. And they said, oh, he can't get that. He just had a wheelchair three years ago. So it'll be another two years before he's eligible for any equipment. I said, what? Are you kidding me? Then things like feeding supplements for children for dietary needs, supports for families were non-existent under this federal funding formula. That's when it really brought into stark relief for me the link between the really what is apartheid public services being funded on reserve

and the over-representation of First Nations children because families were trying to recover from residential schools, but they had far less services to do it. And the government had also done an injustice to the Canadian public because they wove a narrative that they were doing more for First Nations than everybody else, not less. And it was within that that I just thought this is such an injustice and someone needs to do something. The deal comes after a series of long legal fights. Ottawa is moving to settle two class action lawsuits as well as a ruling by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. It ordered the government to pay $40,000 each to First Nations children

who suffered under the on-reserve child welfare system. Cindy Blackstock, head of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, launched that human rights case. But I was absolutely convinced I was not the person. I didn't know enough. There's other people out there who know more. But at some point, you've got to step into it and just, you know, hope that you can make a difference. And I wonder, before we move on, if you might elaborate a little bit more on the funding model, like how it works. You mentioned federal funding, but I think some people might think to themselves that these resources are normally provided by the province.

resources are normally provided by the province. Right. So, and they're right. Public services are generally funded by the province for everyone off reserve. But on reserve, it's the federal government that funds public services and has done so since Confederation. The problem is they give a lot less for public services for First Nations than other people get in the province. And that's why I saw such a big difference between when I worked off reserve in North Vancouver for the province versus when I walked across a line and then all of a sudden was dealing with the federal funding that was completely different and lot less than what other kids got in the same area. It's a very simple, simple concept. It said, meet the needs of the child first and figure out the jurisdictional dispute later. What would happen is if a child came into care, the feds would fund the actual cost of a child coming into care. But the amount

that they gave to a First Nation with a population of a thousand or above to keep families together was $35,000. And in fact, they had downward adjustments for that so that a lot of the First Nations were only getting, say, $17,500 per year for the whole community to recover from mental health challenges related to multi-generational trauma and keep families together. That disparity meant that there were very few resources to keep families together and families who are struggling went into deeper crisis and then the children went into care. And that's how we saw the graphic over-representation of children in care. So you mentioned that you realized, or sometimes you just have to jump in, right? And so how did you do that? What happened? What did you do? Well, I was lucky enough to be invited into a

national committee in about 1997, with people who knew a lot more than I did. And we're working on this long before I arrived. And what we did is we work with the federal government. And I was so naive back then, I thought, we'll work with them, we'll show them how much they're underfunding, and we'll provide economic solutions, and they'll fix it. So what we found is that the government was giving a First Nation child 70 cents on the dollar for child and family services compared to other kids. And where that big 30% gap was, is in services to keep kids safely at their homes. And that meant there were more kids in child welfare care than had been at the height of residential schools. Fixing it would have been hundreds of millions of dollars. The government

agreed that they were underfunding, but they just didn't fix it. And therefore, the trauma got worse for children, and the price tag got bigger. We're now at that $40 billion figure because they didn't do the right thing back then. I want to talk to you a bit later about how those inequities are playing out today, all these years later. But tell me about then this complaint that you put forward in 2006. What did it say generally? put forward in 2006? What did it say generally? It said that Canada was racially discriminating against really 165,000 children by giving them less public services, not only in child welfare, but it also deals with something called Jordan's Principle, which is where the government

discriminates against First Nations children, giving them less funding or denying them services altogether that are available to everybody else because they're First Nations. Just before his fifth birthday, Jordan Anderson died in a Winnipeg hospital hundreds of kilometers from his home and family. They decided that what should happen is that Jordan should remain in hospital while they argued over each single item. Jordan's bill is really pretty simple. Basically, the first agency that deals with the child

pays for their medical bills first and foremost. Then the governments can fight over the tab. We said that was racially discriminatory, that Canada had the solutions, it knew it was doing this, and it knew it was creating harms for children, including contributing to the deaths of children. So we filed the case, and actually I thought, whoa, Canada will come to its senses once the deaths of children. So we filed the case. And actually, I thought, well, Canada will come to its senses once it feels they're serious. But it didn't. It fought

us tooth and nail and often on jurisdictional grounds, nothing to do with the kids. And tell me about this jurisdictional argument that they made. Why did the government make this argument? What was the argument? Well, they made the argument because the facts were against them when it came to children. They were making spurious arguments like, oh, we're just the funder of these services. It's not us actually discriminating. It's actually the folks on the ground who are delivering the services that are discriminating because we give them the money and they choose how to do it.

Well, that's not right, right? Like if you give someone 70 cents on the dollar, they're not going to be able to do it. Well, that's not right, right? Like if you give someone 70 cents on the dollar, they're not going to be able to do as much as someone who's got a dollar across the street. So but those are the types of arguments that they were advancing. I understand that during this time when you were when you were fighting this, the feds, they actually spied on you, right? Yeah. Can you tell me a little bit about that? When the courts were turning back all these legal challenges, they really deployed public officials to follow my online communications,

to follow my movements. They even have notes of a meeting I took in the middle of the desert of Australia. And what we were able to find out through their own records is that they were doing this to try and get the case dismissed because of and it's something I was doing well they never found out they never were able to find out that the government was watching your every move so closely? I was stunned. And I was also worried because at the time, my 17 year old nephew was living with me. And so your thought naturally goes to him, right? Like, oh, my God, what are they doing to him? Right? I kind of signed up for this, because I've kind of been doing this stuff to hold the government accountable. But you know, he's a teenager, he doesn't deserve this. It was was really really disturbing to see Canada do

this must have felt quite violating it did in a way yeah yeah violating and scary in the dragon's den a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years.

I've talked to millions of people, and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo. 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples. I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. So I want to go through the TikTok of what happens next, and let's zoom to 2016. So the tribunal ruled in your favor. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued another ruling this week that found the federal government discriminated against Indigenous children in care. The tribunal ordered Ottawa to pay tens of thousands of dollars to each child. This compensation arises from a 2016 decision that found the government underfunded child welfare services on reserves. And by 2019, the Liberal government is still fighting in court

against the tribunal's decision that they're supposed to pay these kids, saying this should be handled, you know, again, through other means, through class action lawsuits. And why are they still fighting this, do you think? Well, you know, it's a good question. We had the order and government paraded out ministers to accept the order back in 2016. Then they didn't do anything. And of course, their two appeals to federal court were dismissed.

I actually think it gets to this idea of the colonial power, that they don't want to be held accountable. They really want to call the shots. Do you think it was also about not wanting to set a precedent? Yeah, but no one had the leadership to step back and think the precedent we're setting is equality, which is available to all other kids in the country. They'd often say, oh, this is so complex to fix. And I would always say, well, you do it for every other kid in the country. Why is this so complex? I don't really understand where they were going with this at all. It has no moral basis to it, no logical basis to it. What do you think it was

that flipped the switch and got the government starting to negotiate instead of continuing these legal battles? Well, one of the great things is the federal court decision that came the day before the National Day of Truth and Reconciliation, dismissing two of their, again, jurisdictional challenges, right? The tribunal doesn't have a right to make these arguments. That was quite recently, right? That's right, in 2021. And you'll remember during the campaign, they were even saying, well, we're not fighting

First Nations kids in court. But they were fighting First Nations kids in court in real time while they were saying that. And I meant it when I said you can't take a knee one day if you're going to take Indigenous kids to court the next. That's not that's not leadership. Mr. Singh, you love that line about taking Indigenous kids to court. It's actually not true. We have committed to compensating those kids who went through that. The other thing that I think that really changed,

and it's a credit to the spirits of the children in the unmarked graves and the survivors and to youth in care themselves, I think that that really, the discovery of the unmarked graves really awoke the Canadian consciousness. And Canadians began asking questions about what's going on now. Why is the government fighting First Nations kids in court, they would ask. And they would ask that of their member of parliament. I think that that type of public accountability, together with the legal stuff, really created a pressure on the government to change course and to actually try

to do something. Right, right. The idea that they're operating in a different climate. Can you pull back the curtain behind that negotiation process? How did it go? What happened? I'm not sure if you were personally involved in it or not, but... Yeah, I was personally involved in it. And there's, I can't say a lot about it. Other than going into that space, I was really clear that negotiations actually are one of the tools government uses to delay. And keep in mind,

they were legally ordered to end the discrimination. This isn't something where they get to choose the remedy anymore. This is something that they have to do is fulfill these legal orders. So I was very cautious going in there. And I wanted to see if they were really serious about this. I still want to see whether they're serious. We've reached an agreement of principle that provides a pathway for the government to stop its discriminatory conduct in these two areas,

and also to fix itself so it doesn't hurt another generation of kids. But these are just words on paper right now. I wonder if you could tell me a little bit more about what the words on paper are, what they actually say. Well, there's two agreements. One is the one on compensation. There was an order by the tribunal that the government owed $40,000 as a minimum to First Nations children and sometimes their caregivers who were hurt by Canada's discrimination. And keep in mind, these are many cases are still children. We're talking about five, eight and 14 year olds. We're not talking about people who have grown up now, in many cases, although there are some young adults. What the agreement in principle is, is to say that the

government of Canada has allocated $20 billion to compensate those people. What's still unknown is how they're going to distribute it. Are they going to honour that $40,000? The ministers say yes. But I think we need to see it actually in writing yet. Then there's the agreement about how to fix the ongoing discrimination. And what we need to see there is on April 1st, the federal government is to increase prevention funding to $2,500 per person on reserve, 2500 per person on reserve, so that we can begin to get a foothold on recovering from that multi generational trauma and deal with the drivers of kids in care, which are addictions, intimate partner violence, multi generational trauma, poverty and poor housing, and also to provide more supports for young people who are in care or aging out of care. So that all is supposed

to happen as of April 1st. That'll be the first time that we actually see change that would impact kids on the ground. It is an affirmation and understanding of the things that have gone on. Jay Simpson spent 16 years in foster homes, struggling to access basic services. And there was always a fight with who would pay for dental. Simpson says the money ordered by the tribunal wouldn't erase the pain from all those years, but it's a

start. Okay, and like you mentioned, this is all non-binding. Right. Okay. It's all non-binding, but we will be looking to get consent orders from the tribunal so that there is a legal imperative to Canada, because we're mindful that we've heard good words from governments before, but that hasn't translated into non-discrimination for kids. Often it's been a public relations strategy to try and reduce the political pressure so they can continue operating as usual. When we started this conversation, we talked about the disparities that you were seeing 15 years ago. I wonder if you could talk to me now a little bit about what those disparities look like today, all these years later, while you've been fighting this. There's been some improvements in getting funding out there to support families, but more is needed, particularly to deal with that multi-generational trauma and addictions.

Other types of gaps that we need to be seeing is in services, for example, under Jordan's principle. Right now, kids can apply to get services, but what we're finding is in the vast majority of circumstances, can apply to get services. But what we're finding is in the vast majority of circumstances, the services they're, quote, applying for are actually provided to other Canadian children without any application needed. They're just out there. So we need to make sure that it's not just children who apply, but it's all children who are on reserve, who get the benefit of the services

without any need to apply for them. And then when we talk about applications, we're talking about services in health, in education, things like learning assessments, learning supports, and social services things as well. One thing that you have said during this fight that really gave you hope is the role of young people, kids in all of this. Yeah. I wonder before we go today, if there's a moment that you can recall seeing some of these kids push for change that really stood out to you that kept you going? Yeah. Well, when we filed the case in 2007, we had a press conference. And I can still remember

the sound of my heels hitting the parliament floor because there was nobody there. And in 2009, when we were having the first set of hearings on this case, very few people were paying attention. But we created a campaign called I Am A Witness, where we're inviting people to come. And in walks a group of high school students. And this young man says to me, we're from alternative school, which means we get into trouble a lot. And I said, Oh, well, good. So do I. And he says, Yeah, and sometimes we get into trouble for doing stupid stuff. But sometimes we get into trouble. And it's the system that really needs to be held accountable, not us.

And you're trying to hold that system accountable. That's why we're here. They came and then they came to the next set of hearings wearing I Am A Witness t-shirts and brought their parents and their grandparents. And by 2012, there were so many children coming to the hearings that we had to book them in in shifts. That has been an uplifting thing. And even the day this week, when this announcement was been made, I opened up the mail, and there was a beautiful set of drawings and letters from children from York. And they had written in there that every child matters, but that they knew it was more than just words that they needed to put on paper, that they had to take action as children and as young people to

make sure that those kids really do matter. Cindy Boxer, thank you so much for this. Thank you. Hey, thank you. And hopefully you can catch up with me on April 1st and see if the feds actually land some of this stuff. We would love to. Thanks. All right. That is all for this week. Front Burner is brought to you by CBC News and CBC Podcasts. The show is produced this week by Simi Bassey, Imogen Burchard, Allie Janes, Katie Toth, and Derek Vanderwyk. Our sound design was by Mackenzie Cameron and Nooruddin Karane.

Our music is by Joseph Chabison of Boombox Sound. The executive producer of Fremdbrenner is Nick McKay-Blocos, and I'm Jamie Poisson. Thank you so much for listening, and we will talk to you on Monday.