{"content":[{"text":"J","bbox":{"left":0.127083,"top":0.043742,"width":0.007626999999999995,"height":0.020212000000000008}},{"text":"July 20, 2021","bbox":{"left":0.804657,"top":0.064107,"width":0.10468900000000003,"height":0.018914}},{"text":"LOOKING FOR CLARITY IN CANADA’S FUNDING POSITIONS ON C-92 \n Part I – The Caring Society’s Position","bbox":{"left":0.080106,"top":0.1362,"width":0.707322,"height":0.04404700000000003}},{"text":"Purpose:","bbox":{"left":0.127083,"top":0.242008,"width":0.0875,"height":0.02177800000000002}},{"text":"Currently, there are over 100 First Nations child family service agencies are funded under Indigenous \n Services Canada (ISC)’s First Nations Child and Family Service Program (FNCFSP). The federal \n government also requires the agencies to operate under provincial laws. There are over 100 First \n Nations child and family service agencies across the country. Canada’s C-92 (An Act respecting First \n Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families) seeks to affirm First Nations jurisdiction in child \n and family services. ISC has said it will not fund these new entities under the FNCFSP, and it is not clear \n what Canada is proposing in the alternative or how the funding arrangements will be enforced if the \n funding levels or structures prove inadequate. Canada is refusing to expand the FNCFSP terms and \n conditions to include First Nations jurisdiction and is signaling that the government may not honour \n the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal orders in funding agreements for agencies operating under First \n Nations jurisdiction. FNCFSP is subject to binding legal orders by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal \n (CHRT or Tribunal), requiring Canada to provide substantively equal funding that responds to children’s \n needs and the distinct circumstances of the communities they live in. Arrangements negotiated outside \n of the FNCFSP have no such backing, which is concerning given Canada’s track record of underfunding \n public services. It is also unclear how excluding First Nations jurisdiction from the FNCFSP will impact \n existing agencies if the Nation(s) they serve choose to assume jurisdiction under C-92. This paper is \n intended to provide a guide to ensuring Nations receive relevant information from Canada before \n entering into a coordination agreement to ensure “free prior and informed consent.”","bbox":{"left":0.125488,"top":0.278588,"width":0.786,"height":0.36797799999999997}},{"text":"Paragraph 413(2) of) CHRT order on funding for First Nations child welfare (2018 CHRT 4) states that \n the CHRT order applies until such time that “Canada reaches an agreement that is Nation specific even \n if the Nation is not providing its own child welfare services and the agreement is more advantageous to \n the Indigenous Nation than the orders in this ruling.” The Caring Society takes the position that the \n CHRT orders are a baseline to funding First Nations jurisdiction; however, we are keenly aware that it \n has often taken litigation to enforce legal principles v. Canada and that such litigation can be costly and \n arduous. The First Nations Child and Family Caring Society et al. v. Attorney General of Canada case \n has been ongoing for over 14 years. First Nations must ensure that funding agreements with Canada \n are rock solid before entering into jurisdiction, given Canada’s long history of under-funding and \n divesting itself of accountability in First Nations child and family services.","bbox":{"left":0.127083,"top":0.659699,"width":0.783946,"height":0.20287699999999997}},{"text":"This paper is not exhaustive, does not represent legal advice and reflects the Caring Society’s \n knowledge as of the date of publication.","bbox":{"left":0.127083,"top":0.875362,"width":0.703114,"height":0.03802799999999995}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}