Directors Forum

DIRECTORS FORUM

POSITION PAPER IN REGARDS TO ISSUES ARISING FROM THE REGIONALIZATION PROCESS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGE

Presented to Deputy Minister Leslie du Toit, September 19, 2007

PREAMBLE:

The intent of this position paper is to re-iterate the First Nations Child and Family Service Agency Directors Forum’s (the Forum) opposition to the Regionalization process and to re-state the Forum’s positionto give First Nations child and family services in British Columbiaback to the First Nations communities.

BACKGROUND:

The Forum is comprised of the Executive Directors of the 21 delegated First Nations child and family services agencies providing service to 156 out of the 198 Bands in British Columbia, plus the Nisga’a Lisims Government communities. MCFD and the mainstream community continues to view First Nations agencies as contractors, service providers, and subservient to MCFD. Seldom, if ever, are the agencies recognized as being on par with MCFD. The reality is that agencies are the result of years of grass roots advocacy and an expression of all First Nations communities’ inherent right to care for their own children. Created by Band Council resolution, agencies continue to be first and foremost accountable to the communities they serve. The agencies accomplishments are well documented, and in partnership with MCFD, agencies have created the Aboriginal Operational and Practice Standards and Indicators (AOPSI) manual that exceed the standards that are in place for MCFD practice. They have also developed statutory training that incorporates rather than alienates First Nations culture, and work with First Nations communities in the provision of child and family services. In short, the Forum have developed sophisticated mechanisms and expertise for the delivery of child and family services that are culturally congruent with their communities.

Rather than recognize this expertise and professionalism, MCFD continues to plan for agencies, develop new models, and create new governance structures while ignoring, misrepresenting or denying the voice of the Forum. Despite the Deputy Minister’s commitment that,“Whatever is on the table before can be revisited.” No one is revisiting the Regionalization agenda. This agenda, including Authorities Enabling Legislation Drafting Instructions, rolls on despite the Forum’s seven year history of proposing an alternative First Nations model and despite the Forum’s history of identifying ongoing and unresolved Regionalization issues in regards to process and jurisdiction. The Forum has and continues to advocate for a Nation’s inherent right to care for the membership wherever they reside.

CONCERNS:

The Forum would like to see services and the accompanying resources devolved to the First Nations communities. The Forum is cautious about devolution through Regionalization. Since the inception of Regionalization, the Forum has identified concerns and asked for assessments and evaluations of the process prior to coming to their position in opposition. The principle concern is the manner in which a Regional Aboriginal Authority (RAA) may impede a First Nations community’s ability to exercise their inherent right to care for their children. Throughout most of this Regionalization process, MCFD and the Planning Committees have insisted that the RAAs will be different and they will be a step forward for community ownership. As a consequence of a conflicted history, the Forum naturally looks at MCFD driven governance changes with healthy suspicion. Rather than seeing Regionalization as a step forward, it is perceived by the Forum as a step backwards with the re-creation of a Crown Agent – this one dressed in Aboriginal clothes – standing in between a First Nations right to engage in government to government negotiations.

Even the representatives on the Planning Committees have conceded that the RAAs are not looking like the governance structures they had hoped they would. Noting the drafting instructions for the Aboriginal Authorities Act, the Aboriginal Representatives desired more flexibility and fewer indicia of government than is usual for crown agencies. As RAAs would also fall under the authority of the Financial Administration Act and the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, and rely on advisement from the Crown Agency Secretariat, the status quo for crown agencies is maintained. The same inflexibility and indicia of government ensure that government will control First Nations communities’ desires for authority and jurisdiction over their own children through the RAAs.

The Forum has asked for clarification about Regionalization since 2002. MCFD continues to be vague in its answers to long standing issues fundamental to the Forum. The outstanding issues are:

What will the relationship between the RAA and First Nations delegated agency look like?
Will RAAs be direct service providers?
Will RAAs delegate agencies and staff?
If an agency, with the support of its Board and Council does not want to fall under the auspices of an RAA, what will be the result?

The answers arrived with the release of the Drafting Instructions for the Aboriginal Authorities Act and accompanying information sheets. The Information Sheet – Permanent Authority Legislation Overviewviews the relationships between agencies and RAAs as one that will evolve but it is undetermined if the RAAs will be involved in the development of policy such as AOPSI. The Information Sheet – An Act to Establish Aboriginal Authorities to Provide Child and Family Services, however, makes it very clear that RAAs will be able to make policy and set standards and procedures to inform how services are delivered. Plus, this document states that, “Service delivery by regional authorities will occur under existing provincial statutory regimes.” The issue of delegation of agencies and staff remains unanswered - perhaps this too will ‘evolve’. Finally, the drafting instructions make it clear that an agencies choice to opt out is not an option as, “A provision would provide for the transfer of a service delivery contract from the government to an authority without the consent of the other party in the contract.” In sum, First Nations agencies do not have a choice to opt out and RAAs will have the legal authority to impose themselves as child and family service providers,and policy and standards developers for First Nations communities.

The Forums second concern is in regards to the Regionalization process. The Information Sheet – Delegated Aboriginal Child and Family Service Agencies and Aboriginal Authorities states, “Issues arising from the transfer of ministry services have also been discussed with delegated agencies over that time [since 2002].” The Directors Forum and Regionalization: A Chronology clearly demonstrates that these ‘discussions’, in terms of actions, have beenone directional – despite ongoing opposition from the Forum, MCFD moves forward with its agenda.

On September 19, 2007, fourteen First Nations agency representatives requested that the Regionalization process to date be evaluated through a public process. This strong request is a consequence to the ongoing procedural miscarriages by MCFD, Planning Committees, and Interim Authorities. The following are a few but not an exhaustive list of examples:

The Legislation Drafting Group identifies Warner Adam as “representing Aboriginal delegated agencies.” Yet, due to the constraints of a MCFD timeline, commitments to running a First Nations - not Aboriginal – agency, and the under resourcing of agencies, he was unable to attend any meetings. He did write one critique of a draft of the drafting instructions – of which, none of his comments were ever represented in any subsequent documents from the Drafting Group.
VIATT has moved from a Planning Committee to an Interim Authority as a result of demonstrating ‘community support’. Three First Nations agencies on Vancouver Islandand Cowichan Tribes, however, have been in opposition to the regionalization agenda.
VIATT, rather than engaging in the spirit of true community consultation, receives support for their efforts through resolution from the BCAFN.
It appears that the APFA process is being dominated by members of the Okanagan Nation while excluding others who are either opposed or indifferent to the process.
VCAPC asks communities members how they would like to be involved and then tells them what VACAPC is going to do for their communities.
NAAFF’s own web site material documents a lack of support as they continue to receive funds to pursue an unpopular agenda.
The politics of personality is dominating the agenda whereby Planning Committees and Interim Authority negotiate support for their agenda by playing on and exasperating the fractions within First Nations communities - such as the division between hereditary and elected leadership - or soliciting letters from a single individual Chief or Council member as proof of an entire Nation’s support.
MCFD, VIATT, FRAPC, VACAPC, APFA, and NAAFF are all complicit in pushing a single agenda while denying the existence of alternates that would better meet the needs of First Nations communities.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The Forum’s recommendations are in keeping with the inherent rights of First Nations and with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peopleswhich recognizes, “…the right of indigenous families and communities to retain shared responsibility for the upbringing, training, education and well-being of their children, consistent with the rights of the child.” These recommendations are consistent with the Forum’s historic position and have the potential to elevate British Columbia to a position of being the world leader in the area of Indigenous child welfare. The Forum recommends:

The creation of a First Nations Director and provincial wide Directorship for First Nations child and family services;
First Nations Director representation on the MCFD Leadership Team; and
The creation of a First Nations Child, Family and Community Services Act.

In the spirit of the vision of TheNew Relationship, the principles of the Good Practices Action Plan, andMCFD’s own, “…commitment to consider an alternate model, should such a model be identified at a later time…” the Forum strongly recommends that First Nations agencies not fall under the jurisdiction of RAAs and that the Forum’s recommendations, founded on the inherent right of First Nations, be that alternate model for First Nations communities in British Columbia.

This document was prepared by the Caring for First Nations Children Society for the Directors Forum. It is not a position paper of CFNCS nor does it fully represent the opinion of the CFNCS Executive on the subject.