Media.Knet.Ca

As AFN Grand Chief Phil Fontaine filed a Human Rights complaint against the Federal Government along with the report, "The $9 Billion Myth Exposed: Why First Nations Poverty Endures", INAC Minister Prentice claims the government is already spending a lot on First Nations (see the Globe and Mail story below). 

AFN report ... The $9 Billion Myth Exposed: Why First Nations Poverty Endures

Click here to read the report (PDF)

Where is the $9.1 billion being spent?

Only $5.4 Billion of all federal “Aboriginal” spending actually ever reaches First Nations.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Department officials have confirmed that only about 82% of policy and program funds actually reach First Nations in the form of grants and contributions. Treasury Board estimates that 11% or $600 million per year is spent on INAC departmental overhead.

It is estimated that only about 53% of “aboriginal issues” funding from other federal departments actually reaches First Nations. This issue requires further study.

INAC’s budget represents only approximately 0.004% of Canada’s Gross Domestic Product. Affordability to address First Nations’ urgent needs is not under question. In the last Budget, the federal government applied the $13.2 billion surplus to the debt, and this surplus continues to grow. Meanwhile, it invested $17 billion in military spending ...

Why are First Nations still living in poverty?

The federal system of fiscal transfers to First Nations communities is broken. Quite simply, funding caps on First Nation programs and services over the last decade have made impoverished conditions much worse. First Nations communities have to provide more programs and services, to more people, with less money every year. The result is that the poverty gap has been widening further every year. ...

INAC has found that expenditures per First Nations resident on reserve is less than those in the Territories despite similar demographics, scale of operations and geographic challenges. Under the Territorial Formula Financing Agreement for 2005–06, the per capita grants to the territories were $26,633 for Nunavut, $16,604 for the Northwest Territories, and $15,709 for the Yukon.

+++++++++

From Globe and Mail ...

Minister issues warning ahead of native human-rights complaint
BILL CURRY - POSTED ON 23/02/07

OTTAWA -- Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice said Ottawa already spends "an awful lot of money" on natives, delivering a sharp rebuke to the mounting calls for more aboriginal spending in next month's budget.

The minister made the comments yesterday, on the eve of today's full-court press from aboriginal leaders calling for action on native poverty. Their measures will include the formal filing of a human-rights complaint against the federal government for underfunding child and welfare programs on reserves.

Phil Fontaine, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, will announce the complaint today.

Yesterday, he spoke to the Economic Club of Toronto, where he painted a grim picture of the status quo. Describing native poverty levels as "horrific," he said federal polices are to blame for the hopelessness that leads eight-year-old girls into "survival sex" prostitution and teenage boys to die fighting in gang wars over drug money.

"This is Canada that I am talking about, Canada which has billions of dollars in surplus," Mr. Fontaine said. "I am telling you honestly and most sincerely that our communities right now are reaching a breaking point. The anger and frustration are palpable. . . . Unless that anger and frustration are addressed, I fear the consequences."

Specifically, Mr. Fontaine wants Ottawa to follow the advice of a recent Senate committee report calling for $250-million a year to be set aside for land-claim settlements so that native communities have more power to enter into business arrangements with off-reserve groups.

In response, the Indian Affairs Minister noted yesterday that the first Conservative budget boosted native funding significantly. He said more money is not necessarily the answer.

"The government of Canada spends approximately $15,100 on our first nation citizens [on reserve] if you go right across the government . . . now that's an awful lot of money. It is significantly more than the government of Canada and all other levels of government together spend on non-aboriginal Canadians, if you will. Now the question which first nation citizens and other Canadians are asking is, 'Are we getting value for the dollars?'" Mr. Prentice told reporters.

Roy Fiddler, Muskrat Dam Education Director, and Doug Beardy, IFNA Education Coordinator, are in the middle of a two day, 90 kilometre walk on the winter road from Bearskin Lake to Muskrat Dam.

They are raising funds for the 18th Annual Gospel Jamboree to be held in Muskrat Dam on March 2, 3 and 4, 2007.

They started walking yesterday morning at 9 am. They walked for 10 hours covering a total of 50 km before breaking for the day. They started again this morning to complete their walk. Roy's wife, Shirley is providing transportation support for the walkers.

This afternoon, the students at Samson Beardy Memorial School will join Roy and Doug to complete their walk as they come into Muskrat Dam.

Roy and Doug raised over $1,000 before leaving Muskrat Dam on Wednesday evening from local supporters before even the start of their walk.

Anyone interested in donating to this event can do so by calling the school at 807-471-2524 or either radio stations in Bearskin Lake and Muskrat Dam.

AFN press release ...

Canadian Human Rights Complaint on First Nations Child Welfare Filed Today by Assembly of First Nations and First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada

OTTAWA, Feb. 23 - Today, the Assembly of First Nations and the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada formally filed a complaint today with the Canadian Human Rights Commission regarding lack of funding for First Nations child welfare.

"There are more than 27,000 First Nations children in state care. This is a national disgrace that requires the immediate and serious attention of all governments to resolve," said National Chief Phil Fontaine. "Rational appeals to successive federal governments have been ignored. After years of research that confirm the growing numbers of our children in care, as well as the potential solutions to this crisis, we have no choice but to appeal to the Canadian Human Rights Commission."

"I have said all along that I would rather negotiate than litigate," added the National Chief. "But we have the right to determine what is best for the future of our children. Our children must have an equal opportunity to grow-up with their families, in their communities, and in their culture. No First Nation child should have to forgo this opportunity as a result of poverty or an inability to access basic services."

"First Nations leadership have been forced into the position of launching this formal complaint against the federal government", said Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations Chief Lawrence Joseph. "It has become clear to our leadership that governments do not respond to demonstrated, real and growing needs in First Nations child welfare."

"We are not interested in conflict, we are seeking a just, equitable, and proactive resolution on behalf of our First Nations children and families," added Chief Joseph.

"According to the Department of Indian Affairs own website, 'fundamental change in the funding approach of First Nations Child and Family Services Agencies to child welfare is required in order to reverse the growth rate of children coming into care, and in order for the agencies to meet their mandated responsibilities'," noted Cindy Blackstock, executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. "We could not agree more. We have worked diligently with the AFN, First Nations child and family service agencies, and Indian Affairs to develop a detailed, evidence based solution to the problem."

"The federal government still has not acted on the recommendations," added Ms. Blackstock. "We can no longer stand still as the safety and well being of First Nations children depends on implementing this solution so we are proud to stand with the Assembly of First Nations in filing this human rights complaint."

The Assembly of First Nations is the national organization representing First Nations citizens in Canada.

For further information: Bryan Hendry, A/Director of Communications, (613) 241-6789 ext. 229, cell, (613) 293-6106, bhendry@afn.ca;. Nancy Pine, Communications Advisor - Office of the National Chief, (613) 241-6789 ext 243, (613) 298-6382, npine@afn.ca.

++++++++

Click here to read Speaking Notes for Cindy Blackstock, Executive Director First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada

In preparation for today's filing of a Canadian Human Rights Complaint on Discriminatory Treatment Against First Nations Child Welfare Agencies by the Assembly of First Nations National Chief, and First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, a set of commonly asked questions and answers are being made available to clarify the reality of the challenges and opportunities facing Canadian society today.

The INAC funded research is now in place in the form of the 2005 Wen:de reports that are available on line at www.fncaringsociety.com ... THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW!

Click here for a copy of the LEADERSHIP ACTION PLAN ON FIRST NATIONS CHILD WELFARE

First Nations Child and Family Services - Questions and Answers 
 
February 2007

1. What is the First Nation child welfare issue all about?

Child welfare is about working with First Nation families to ensure the safety and well being of their children. In an ideal scenario, concerns about a child’s welfare are resolved by providing services to help the family, but in some cases these services are not enough to ensure the child’s safety and the child is removed and placed with extended family or in foster care.

One of the challenges for First Nations children on reserve is that the federal government does not fund First Nations child and family service agencies to provide prevention or support services to families to enable them to keep their children safely in the family home. The absence of these services is a major reason why so many First Nation children are in care.

Another significant factor is that First Nation Child Welfare agencies receive approximately 22% less funding than provincial agencies.

2. What is meant by an “over representation” of First Nation Children in care?

The unfortunate reality is that 1 out of 10 First Nations children are placed in care compared to 1 out of every 200 non-First Nation children in Canada.

3. What does it mean when 1 out of every 10 First Nation children are in care?

It means that too many First Nation children are in care. It is estimated that there are as many as 27,000 First Nation children in care today. This figure includes children in First Nation agencies and provincial agencies both on and off-reserve. This number is three times the number of children that were in Residential Schools at the height of their operation.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Minister Jim Prentice, alleges that there are only 9,000 First Nations children in care. This figure of 9,000 refers to First Nations children in the care of First Nations agencies only, and not First Nation children in care throughout provincial agencies. Further, the Minister recognizes there has been a 65% increase of First Nation children in care since 1996.

The AFN believes that all First Nations children should be safe and well cared for, and in some cases that means placement in foster care. However, the gap in funding to service First Nation agencies is a critical issue. It is common for foster families funded through First Nation agencies to be subsidized at a much lower rate than their provincial counterparts, making the overall shortage of qualified foster families an even bigger challenge.

4. Why are so many children coming into care?

The Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS): Final Report (2005) reports that the primary reason why First Nations children come into care is “neglect”. The root causes of neglect are directly linked with abject degrees of poverty, poor housing conditions and high instances of alcohol and substance abuse. Without considerable family supports and community program investments, parents do not have the supports they need to address family challenges and to prevent their children from being placed in care.

The AFN agrees that systemic reform must occur, and that means addressing inequality in First Nations child welfare funding while also focusing on the needs and strengths of First Nation children and their families, as opposed to focusing solely on assessing risks.

5. What is the Alberta Response model?

The Alberta response model is also referred to as a “differential model”. This model utilizes a range of community partners (all levels of government, the voluntary sector, businesses and non-profit organizations) which are mobilized to support children and their families. Children require less urgent, less disruptive interventions, and protection placements are shifted into an alternative track where they access a well coordinated short and long term range of services tailored to meet their specific needs. One challenge is that in order to be successful, families must have access to family support services and as we described earlier this is just the type of service that the federal government under funds for First Nations children.

6. Does the AFN support Alberta First Nations in their efforts to secure investments in child welfare for Alberta?

Yes, the AFN supports INAC’s approach of recognizing the Alberta Response model in this region. However, the AFN would be seeking national authorities to refocus the First Nation child welfare program from intervention to protection and emphasize the importance of providing incentives in other provinces to build the required conditions for prevention services to be successfully implemented.

7. Is there a way to ensure that children do not come into care due to jurisdictional disputes?

Yes, a “child first” principle to resolving jurisdictional disputes has been proposed called Jordan’s Principle, in memory of a child who stayed in hospital unnecessarily for over two years while governments tried to resolve a jurisdictional dispute regarding the services he needed for home care. What this means is that when a jurisdictional dispute arises between two levels of government regarding who will pay for the services provided to a Status Indian child, and those services are otherwise available to other Canadian children, the government of first contact must pay for the service and then resolve the jurisdictional dispute later. This means that children come first and the jurisdictional dispute can still be sorted out.

This child first principle would cost government nothing and yet has still NOT been implemented.

8. What is the difference in funding levels between First Nation agencies and provincial agencies?

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Child and Family Services Program provides 22% less funding per child to First Nation agencies than is received by provincial agencies. This fiscal imbalance and discriminatory treatment of First Nations child welfare agencies is a critical issue. The AFN agrees resources in child welfare alone are NOT enough. Resources for overall community development to address poverty and neglect – the root causes of children being taken into care – are needed.

9. Is there an evidence based solution to redress the funding situation that demonstrates to the federal government where the money will be spent and why?

Yes, the 2005 Wen:de series of reports are based on national research that was funded by INAC and was generated by third party AND joint INAC-AFN collaborative studies. The reports not only identify some of the challenges in the current federal child welfare funding formula, but they also present solutions that are supported by over 600 pages of evidence compiled by leading researchers in Canada.

10. How much would it cost for the federal government to fully implement the Wen:de recommendations for child welfare funding?

The Wen:de recommendations conservatively estimate $109 million is needed immediately to bring the First Nation agencies to the same level as provincial agencies. INAC has estimated $125 million but this figure includes the need for increased capacity within INAC itself.

11. Are there any benefits for the rest of Canadians if the Wen:de solution was implemented?

Yes, as the World Health Organization has found for every dollar government invests in prevention services it saves $5-7 dollars in costs in future services. Investing in children is one of the best investments society can make because it positions them to grow up to be healthy, content and contributing members of society.

12. It has been reported that this situation has existed for years, why has the AFN decided to consider a Human Rights Complaint now?

The AFN and First Nations have been working in partnership for about ten years to develop the evidentiary base to support these issues. Further, the federal government has been seeking this research prior to supporting any investments in this area. That work has now been completed and comes in the form of the 2005 Wen:de reports (available on line at www.fncaringsociety.com). Unfortunately, the federal government still has not acted on this report and the recommendations.

The reality is the funding inequality is directly linked to First Nations children being unnecessarily placed in foster care and First Nations can wait no longer to act. Therefore, the AFN Chiefs-In-Assembly by way of Resolution 7/2006 approved the submission of a joint complaint by the AFN and the First Nations Child Family Caring Society to the Canadian Human Rights Commission in July 2006 with the goal of forcing the government to do the right and just thing for the current and future generations of First Nations children.

13. Will the AFN get any financial benefit if the Wen:de recommendations are implemented?

No. There is no funding in the Wen:de recommendations targeted for the Assembly of First Nations – it is all targeted for First Nations child and family service agencies so that they can better serve First Nations children and families.

14. Didn’t the federal government announce a $25 million dollar/year increase in First Nations child welfare funding a couple of years ago?

Yes, however, INAC held back $16 million per year to off set their increasing maintenance budget costs and to address other internal cost pressures associated with a program audit and evaluation related to the child welfare program. The end result is that only $8 million was provided to First Nations child and family service agencies nationally and this fell far short of what is needed.

15. INAC Minister Prentice has stated that INAC is providing an 11% increase in funding for the First Nation child welfare program, how is this not enough?

Each First Nation child welfare agency has a budget which is comprised of two portions: maintenance and operations. The 11% increase that Minister Prentice refers to is the growth rate of the maintenance portion of the budget. The maintenance budget reflects the cost of children in care, the higher the cost, the more children there are in care. Interestingly, INAC will cover the costs of children in care regardless of the amount but they will provide minimal funding for children to be cared for safely in their own families.

Added to this is the fact that these resources have been taken from within existing INAC funding by reallocating funding from other essential INAC funded programs such as capital, housing and income assistance. For example, we have heard that some child welfare resources are being re-allocated and applied to emergency water measures in some regions.

The INAC operations portion of the budget directly impacts an agency’s ability to assess and protect children, and this has been capped at 2% for the past decade. There have been NO cost of living or population based increases beyond a 2% cap for the program overall since 1996. Program funding has decreased overall per child in the system. More importantly, this is also the portion of the budget that would allow for prevention services.

16. How many people are working nationally in the federal government on First Nations child welfare given the crisis facing First Nations children?

INAC has only two staff people overseeing the First Nations child welfare program. The AFN and the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society provide First Nations child and family service agencies with policy support. Together these two organizations have five people working on First Nations child welfare with only one position funded with any support from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. In comparison, it would not be unusual for a provincial child welfare agency with similar numbers of First Nations children in care to routinely have up to 60-80 people working in similar positions.

17. Are there other child welfare experts and organizations that have independently commented on the inequality in First Nations child welfare?

Yes, the inequity in child welfare funding for First Nations children on reserve has been documented in several provincial government reviews such as the Baby Andy Inquest in Saskatchewan, the British Columbia Children’s Commissioner, the Children’s Advocate in Saskatchewan, the National Children’s Alliance, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child and over 200 supporters of Jordan’s Principle (view list at www.fncaringsociety.com). The Government of Manitoba has issued a press release in partnership with the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs supporting the AFN human rights action.

18. If provided with more funding what could First Nations agencies do that they can’t do now?

Prevention services for families and children. The most critical missing component is prevention, or the ability of the agencies to link families with support services that will ensure child safety and enable the family unit to remain intact whenever possible. It should be noted that investments in prevention will not realize its full potential if not accompanied by investing in core services such as information management and professional development.

Information Management. With many agencies still using pen and paper record keeping, increased resources would allow for computerization of information management to help with planning and evaluating services to ensure the programs offered to children and their families are effective.

Professional Development. Increased training and wage parity are two important issues. The low level of funding for staff in the current funding formula makes it more difficult for First Nations child and family service agencies to recruit and retain qualified personnel.

Research and Standards. First Nations child and family service agencies are committed to ensuring that the children and families receive the best services possible and this means being able to base service access on culturally based research and standards.

19. Are all First Nations child and family service agencies ready to move into providing prevention services?

Yes, all regions have determined how they would utilize additional prevention services funding in a way that families and children could get the most benefit. Years of under funding of First Nations child and family service agencies has had an impact on their services, but with additional funds they would be able to move more quickly to establish the infrastructure for a holistic and culturally based continuum of child and family services.

Monitoring tools for observing the northern polar regions is now available online at http://www.polarview.org (at the top select one of the SERVICES available)

Federal government press release ...

Unique Canadian Satellite Project Contributes to International Polar Year

OTTAWA, Feb. 20 - As International Polar Year (IPY) kicks off on March 1, 2007, a new Canadian project will make a significant contribution to the IPY objective of better understanding polar regions. Polar View, funded in part by the Canadian Space Agency, offers a unique satellite-based service designed to help Canadians identify the impacts of environmental/ human pressures and guide appropriate responses.

Using remote sensing technology, data about ice and snow conditions is gathered and analyzed by an experienced network of experts. Detailed information is then delivered, around-the-clock, to a diverse group of over 40 international users. These include government agencies, research institutes, commercial interests and northern residents.

Polar View's ice information service is being particularly well received in communities such as Pond Inlet on Baffin Island. Inuit hunters and travelers are able to go into the local Parks Canada office and view the latest ice and snow conditions. They can easily locate the changing ice edge and thin ice.

The mayor of Pond Inlet, David Qamaniq, says that that the Polar View information is critical for making travel plans in the north. "Polar View information is very important to us. The elders tell us that it's much harder to predict the ice conditions as well as the weather," said Qamaniq. "There have been a couple of accidents, a couple of hunters went through the ice because they didn't know where the thin ice was."

Polar View services are currently offered free of charge. Most are available in near-real time and easily accessible via the Internet.

"Having this sort of monitoring system is essential if we are going to be able to make the right decisions about environment, security and climate in the future," said Thomas Puestow, Polar View's manager.

Earth observation technologies have long been used to monitor the earth's weather conditions. But this is the first time services have been offered comprehensively by a network of the world's leading cryospheric remote-sensing experts. Polar View service providers are located in nine countries with a management team in each significant polar region - North America, Antarctic, Euro-Arctic and the Baltic. Services can be customized to meet user's needs.

Polar View's contribution to IPY is in collaboration with the world's national ice services. The project, called Polar View: Polar Information Centre (IPY Activity ID 372) will build on the Polar View network and infrastructure. A dedicated web portal will be developed in conjunction with the International Ice Charting Working Group to distribute sea ice information to IPY investigators. Polar View will also offer its integrated monitoring and forecasting services to support scientific expeditions and national science programs operating in the Arctic and Antarctic regions.

Detailed information, a full list of team members, high-resolution photos and video clips are available for download at www.polarview.org

For further information: Thomas Puestow, Project Manager, St. John's, NFLD, (709) 737-2586, Thomas.Puestow@polarview.org;. International Organization Enquiries: David Arthurs, Ottawa, ON, (613) 237-2220 ext 331, David.Arthurs@polarview.org;. General Enquiries: Christine Havey, Ottawa,ON, (613) 237-2220 ext 321, info@polarview.org.

A workshop, hosted by the Sioux Lookout Ministry of Northern Development and Mines team on February 21 brought together funding program representatives from across the region. Presentations about each of their programs that described their priorities and requirements gave Sioux Lookout organizations the information they required to determine how to access these resources. Informal networking between the organizations and the funding program representatives was an important component of the workshop.

A proposal writing presentation was given on Tuesday evening before the funding program presentations on Wednesday.

Economic Development Program Funders' Forum Presentations included:

• Florence Bailey (Sioux Lookout), Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, Regional Economic Development Branch / Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation
• Mike Dunlop (Thunder Bay), Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, Northern Communities Investment Readiness
• Bob Sandgren (Sioux Lookout), Service Ontario - Government Information Services
• Maureen Brophy (Thunder Bay), Trillum Foundation
• John Gillon (Dryden), Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, Employment Ontario
• Diane Martin (Sioux Lookout), Sioux-Hudson Employment Services
• Laurie Moyer (Sioux Lookout), Regional Services Branch, Ministries of Citizenship & Immigration, Culture, Sports and Recreation
• Kathryn Marino (Thunder Bay), FedNor
• Doug Pronger (Dryden), Patricia Area Community Endeavours (PACE), Community Development Programs
• Shannon McKee (Dryden), PACE, Business Development Coordinator
• Jim Dayman (Dryden), PACE, Self Employment Benefits (PACE)
• Abby McKenzie (Sioux Lookout), Indian and Northern Affairs Canada

From the Toronto Star - http://www.thestar.com/article/184016

Poor called key to filling jobs - New labour pools urged in Canada to fill tomorrow's jobs, and support boomers: Report - Feb 21, 2007 - Louise Brown, Education Reporter

They are the Canadians most often forgotten – aboriginal youth, the poor, the uneducated – yet a new report says they hold the key to this country's economic future and could even provide a surprise labour pool to support baby boomers in their old age.

From carpenters to climate experts, Canada needs more educated workers to fuel our economy and compete in the world, concludes the report by The Canada Millenium Scholarship Foundation, to be released today. But given a falling birth rate, sweeping retirements and the fact two-thirds of middle-income kids already flock to college and university, Canada must tap a new source of educated workers from among those least likely to pursue higher learning: low-income students, aboriginal teens and youth whose parents never went beyond high school, said the report by the federally funded research body.

For the complex jobs of the future, these groups hold the key – despite the often staggering roadblocks they face to learning, said policy analyst Joseph Berger, co-author of the study, called "Why Access Matters."

"Nearly 70 per cent of all new jobs will require some level of post-secondary education. But only 53 per cent of Canadians graduate from college or university, so we've got a gap that needs to be addressed," said Berger.

That's exactly the problem Canada's business gurus tackled yesterday as Microsoft chair Bill Gates addressed the annual Can?Win conference in Ottawa on the topic, "Competing to Win in the Global Economy – Creating a Skilled Workforce to drive Economic Prosperity."

"This is the whole theme everyone's facing – how to move from an economy which didn't have enough jobs for everyone, to one in which we will not have enough people to do all the jobs," said David Stewart-Patterson, executive vice-president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. The council represents the heads of Canada's 150 largest firms.

"We know access to education is a huge part of the answer, not only for the economy, but for social equity. We can't afford to waste a single mind we have in this country."

The report noted that more workers will be needed to support those on pension as Canada's working-age population shrinks and the ranks of seniors grow.

Yet while Canada has led most developed nations for years with our level of post-secondary education, today's report cautions this growth rate has stalled at about 4 per cent per year over the past decade. Other nations are catching up, including Australia (which has grown by 28 per cent), Korea (up 59 per cent), Great Britain (24 per cent) and even tiny Iceland, where post-secondary enrolment has almost doubled.

"Canada needs to grow more people with higher education to remain competitive. But in order to do this, we have to encourage more of those people who are under-represented – and they're the hardest ones to encourage because of the barriers they face," said Berger in an interview.

The report echoes business leaders' growing alarm about Canada's looming shortage of qualified workers, from auditors to auto mechanics – a shortage acknowledged by federal finance minister Jim Flaherty in his last financial statement.

Canada is a leader in overall post-secondary education. But this is driven largely by our robust college systems and not by university achievement, where we stand sixth among developed countries.

Moreover, as Canada's young aboriginal population grows faster than any other group in the country, there is growing pressure to reduce their dropout rate and encourage post-secondary learning, said the report.

Provinces such as Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, with their booming ranks of aboriginal children, must improve levels of native education, not only for the students' benefit, but also for the good of the provincial economies and ultimately, Canada's prosperity.

Only about 28 per cent of Canada's aboriginal youth enrol in college or university by age 20, compared to 60 per cent of non-aboriginal youth, said the report. By age 24, about 40 per cent have enrolled in some form of higher education, compared to 68 per cent of non-aboriginal adults at the same age.

But before boosting the number of First Nations students going to college and university, you must help more of them graduate from high school by tackling the estimated 58 per cent dropout rate on First Nations reserves – a dropout rate twice that of the population at large.

Similarly, a recent Statistics Canada study released earlier this month showed low-income students are less likely to go to university partly because they do worse on their high school report cards and literacy tests. This suggests it's a longer-term problem to resolve.

Chiefs of Ontario press release ...

First Nations in Ontario not participating in the federal government consultation process on Matrimonial Real Property on reserves

    TORONTO, Feb. 19 /CNW/ - "There is no doubt that Matrimonial Real
Property on reserves is an important issue that needs to be addressed," stated
Ontario Regional Chief Angus Toulouse. He further acknowledged there is a
legislative gap that exists creating unfair situations that must be remedied.

    Regional Chief Toulouse stated that "we have made it clear to the federal
government that First Nations in Ontario have not, and will not, participate
in the current consultation process being imposed by the federal government as
it is too rushed and is not reflective of the time required to address the
complex issues related to MRP on reserves, nor is it proper consultation
according to the law." In November 2006, the Chiefs in Ontario passed a
resolution indicating their opposition to the current consultation process.
This resolution also called for the process to be "stopped and restructured."

    "First Nations have expressed their concerns that the issue of MRP on
reserves is complex and will impact on First Nations collective rights,
including land rights. This is not an issue that can be addressed without a
thorough examination of the many issues, including a review of the potential
implications of each option," stated Grand Chief Denise Stonefish, who is
chairing a working group for the First Nations in Ontario with regards to MRP.

    "I want to be as clear as I possibly can on this matter - First Nations
leaders in Ontario support addressing this issue but are seeking to enter into
discussions with Minister Prentice, on behalf of the government of Canada, to
develop a fair and meaningful consultation process." The Regional Chief
indicated that to date, the Minister has refused to meet with First Nations
leadership in Ontario with regard to MRP.

    The Regional Chief pointed out that there are First Nations in Ontario
that have developed their own MRP by-laws but that these are not recognized by
the federal government. "First Nations must have the autonomy and jurisdiction
to develop their own laws. This is a principle tenet of the right of
self-government," said Regional Chief Toulouse.

    By opposing the current consultation process, "First Nations leadership
are being unfairly characterized as opposing human rights for their citizens,
when what they are trying to do, and in fact mandated to do, is protect
against the further erosion of First Nation collective rights," said the
Regional Chief. He added that First Nations in Ontario will continue to seek a
meeting with Minister Prentice in an effort to establish a process that is
reflective of the concerns and priorities of First Nations, while at the same
time ensuring that the mechanisms are in place to enhance the protection of
human rights for every First Nation citizen.

For further information: Kathleen Pilcher, Chiefs of Ontario Political
Office, (807) 626-9339

The Canadian government is responding to the United Nations (UN) Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) concerning their treatment of First Nation land claims and other discrimination issues affecting Aboriginal people across the country. Several First Nation groups are also involved in these hearings.

First Nations Leadership Council press release ...

Canada Violating International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

First Nations Leadership Council Joins Other Indigenous Peoples in Accusing Canada of Violating the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination - February 20, 2007

Coast Salish Traditional Territory/Vancouver, BC – The First Nations Leadership Council has sent a submission in response to Canada’s report to the United Nations (UN) Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). Canada’s report will be heard by CERD in Geneva, Switzerland on February 20-21, 2007.

Indigenous Peoples' submissions will be considered along with the Canadian Government's report when CERD begins its review of Canada on Tuesday February 20th, 2007.

The First Nations Leadership Council submission takes exception with Canada’s assertions that it is a champion of human rights in Canada and elsewhere in the world.

“Indigenous peoples in Canada know the true story. Canada has a long history of denial of Aboriginal Title and Rights in this country”, said Grand Chief Edward John, a member of the First Nations Summit Political Executive and the First Nations Leadership Council.

“We have clearly illustrated in our submission to CERD that Canada has a longstanding policy of denying the existence of Aboriginal Title and Rights which has continually forced Aboriginal people in this country to resort to judicial processes to have the recognition and implementation of their rights legally affirmed”, added Chief John.

“Despite the fact that Section 35 of Canada's Constitution Act (1982) recognizes and affirms aboriginal and treaty rights, Canada as a matter of policy, systematically and continuously denies and rejects the very existence of Indigenous peoples and Indigenous rights to lands, territories and resources as well as Indigenous rights and authorities to self government,” stated Shawn Atleo, Regional Chief for the BC Assembly of First Nations and a member of the First Nations Leadership Council.

“We are utterly astounded at Canada's shameless hypocrisy as its officials appear before CERD. We fail to see how they can present Canada as a true defender of human rights whether here or elsewhere in the world given the federal government’s recent and shameful denial of Indigenous rights. It is truly disgraceful that Canada was one of only two countries on the UN Human Rights Council to vote against the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in June 2006”, stated Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs and a member of the First Nations Leadership Council.

The Joint Unity Protocol Initiative of Chief Negotiators from BC First Nations also made its own submission to CERD. Robert Morales, the Chair of the Chief Negotiators forum stated “Canada has not significantly changed its approach on extinguishment and refusal to recognize aboriginal rights and title. Canada refuses to negotiate treaties based on recognition of aboriginal rights and title. Instead it brings a long list of fixed bottom line positions to the table. We ask how that can be considered negotiating”.

The reports submitted by these organizations as well as the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), the Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC), and the International Indian Treaty Council (IITC) and the Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations (CT6FN) address a range of policies and practices violating Indigenous Peoples' human rights both in and outside of Canada.

-30-

The First Nations Leadership Council is comprised of the political executives of the First Nations Summit, Union of BC Indian Chiefs and the BC Assembly of First Nations. The Council works together to politically represent the interests of First Nations in British Columbia and develop strategies and actions to bring about significant and substantive changes to government policy that will benefit all First Nations in British Columbia.

Background information on the submissions from the First Nations Leadership Council and the Joint Initiative of Chief Negotiators from BC First Nations is attached.

For more information:
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, UBCIC, (250) 490-5314
Colin Braker, First Nations Summit, (604) 926-9903
Heather Gillies, BC Assembly of First Nations, (604) 922-7733

=======================================

Background Information

British Columbia First Nations Leadership Council’s Issues List
Summary Points from February 14, 2007 Letter to CERD

• The British Columbia First Nations Leadership Council takes exception to the manner, tone and content of paragraphs 27 - 42 and 306 - 311 in CERD/C/CAN/18 (5 April 2006), Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 9 of the Convention.
• Canada purports to champion human rights elsewhere in the world and condemns those who violate international human rights standards, but Indigenous peoples have had to resort to the judicial processes in Canada for the recognition and implementation of their rights. Canada was also one of only two countries on the Human Rights Council to vote against the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on June 29, 2006.
• Despite the fact that section 35 of Canada's Constitution Act (1982) recognizes and affirms aboriginal and treaty rights Canada as a matter of policy, systematically and continuously denies and rejects the very existence of Indigenous peoples and Indigenous rights to lands, territories and resources as well as Indigenous rights and authorities to self government. Current case law in Canada further defines and supports these section 35 rights but Canada continues to maintain policies consistent with the denial of those rights.
• Despite the many positive decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada in favour of Indigenous peoples and rights, Canada falls back to its historic position, advocating "terra nullius" arguments and that there is "considerable uncertainty about the existence, content and scope of specific aboriginal rights of ownership and use of lands and resources, as well as uncertainty about who are the specific holders of such rights." In other words, Canada argues, it does not know if there are Indigenous peoples or the rights they may have unless these matters are dealt with through expensive and often inaccessible legal processes through Canada's judicial system.
• Crown denials of Aboriginal title and rights are evidenced in litigation with First Nations in British Columbia as well as in land and governance treaty negotiations mandates. This information is provided in greater detail in the First Nations Summit’s document entitled Implementation of National Legislation and Jurisprudence concerning Indigenous Peoples' Rights: Experiences from the Americas which have been provided to CERD on a CD and by email.
• In 2005 there were approximately 15 cases before the courts in British Columbia that involved Aboriginal peoples and the federal Crown, provincial Crown, or both and involved Aboriginal rights and title. In 14 of those 15 cases involving Aboriginal rights and title, the federal and provincial Crown advanced various defences that denied the existence of the Aboriginal title in question, asserted that such title remains unproved, or alleged that the Aboriginal title in question was extinguished.
• In 2007 those types of denial arguments are still raised by the federal and provincial Crown.

=======================================

Submission to CERD by
First Nations in the British Columbia Treaty Process
Joint Unity Protocol Chief Negotiators Initiative

Re: Canada’s Approach to Treaty Negotiations with First Nations in B.C.

1. Canada has not significantly changed its approach on extinguishment and refusal to recognize aboriginal rights and title.

a) Canada refuses to negotiate Treaties based on recognition of aboriginal rights and title. Instead it brings a long list of fixed bottom line positions to the Table. If First Nations want a Treaty, they have to agree. Canada refuses to allow First Nations to hold Treaty lands as aboriginal title lands. The lands must be held as private fee simple lands under provincial government jurisdiction. There is no room to negotiate.
b) The recent report from the federal Auditor General states that Treaty negotiations are one of the “most controlled and inflexible processes in the federal government” and that federal Treaty negotiators act “as if the main risk faced by the federal government in treaty negotiations is that of deviating from existing mandates, rather than that of not signing treaties”.

2. Canada refuses to commit in Treaties to improve vast gap between the high level of employment, education, health, and social conditions enjoyed by non-aboriginal Canadians and the crushing poverty, unemployment and poor health and living conditions suffered by aboriginal Canadians.

a) In fact, Canada potentially makes the situation worse by forcing First Nations to hand over 50% of revenues they generate post Treaty (including property tax revenues from former Reserve lands) to the federal government and by imposing discriminatory double taxation of First Nation corporations that pass on a portion of their profits to the First Nation government.

Ogemawahj Tribal Council press release ...

Decline of the Status Indian Motivates Ogemawahj Tribal Council to Host National First Nation Citizenship and Status Conference

Rama, ON, Feb. 21 - Enfranchisement and the intermarriage of Indian women with non-Indian men allowed Status Indians to acquire full Canadian citizenship by relinquishing their ties to the community, giving up the culture and traditions and giving up any rights they had as Indians. Indian women who married non-Indian men also lost their “Status” as Indians and the rights that accompanied that status.

The plan to assimilate Indians into society, however, has not worked, and the “temporary” nature of the Indian Act has led to many problems with the governance and lives of Indian people. It has also led to many constitutional challenges within Canada’s court system. This era of change and the need for a solution to the declining number of status Indians within their member First Nations have motivated the member communities of the Ogemawahj Tribal Council to coordinate and host a national information exchange on the topic.

The Ogemawahj Tribal Council invites you to participate in their First Nation Citizenship and Status Conference: “E-DBENDAAGZIJIG: Those Who Belong” on April 16th and 17th, 2007. This two day conference will examine the issues and cause for concern over First Nation citizenship, and in particular, the declining number of status Indians across the country. Why is it important, how will it affect you, and what are the options for the future? Join us to listen to the professionals and those who have already been seriously affected by this issue.

The event will take place at the Toronto Downtown Marriott Eaton Centre in the heart of Ontario’s Capital. Registration is limited to the first 400 paid participants. For additional information or to register for this event, please go to the website:

www.firstnationstatusconference.ca

or contact the following:

Media Contact: Marc Manatch
Ogemawahj Tribal Council
P.O. Box 46,
7410 Benson Side Road
Mnjikaning First Nation, Ontario
L0K 1T0
Phone: (705) 329-2511
Fax: (705) 329-2509
admin@ogemawahj.on.ca