Segregation in Ontario

"Prisons and jails have rules about everything. There are rules governing every moment a person spends in custody and every movement that person makes. There are rules about everything staff does as well. In spite of this, and with apologies to Justice Louise Arbour, although rules are everywhere, the rule of law is too often absent." – Howard Sapers, the Independent Review of Ontario Corrections

“This is a glaring example of a broken system.” – ORC Isadore Day, on Adam Capay’s solitary confinement

Background

The correctional system in Ontario, more specifically the use of segregation in prisons, is currently in a state of crisis. In the past twelve months there have been several high-profile events that drew attention to the flawed use of segregation in Ontario, and indeed across Canada. The Ontario Human Rights Commission called for an end to the use of solitary confinement in Ontario. In November 2016, McLean’s published a story on Adam Capay’s case, where a young man from Lac Seul First Nation had served 1,560 days in segregation, using his story to shine a light on the practices of segregation in the province. The resulting public uproar coincided with an internal review of the provincial use of segregation in prisons.

The Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (MCSCS) has in response appointed Howard Sapers to conduct a review of the use of segregation in Ontario prisons as stage one of a three phase reform plan.[1] Sapers has worked in the field of corrections for over 40 years, and has served as the Correctional Investigator at the federal level. He argued that overuse of segregation is symptomatic of wider systematic issues to be addressed in the second report. This report on segregation was done on a quick timeline so that it could quickly respond to these concerns. Sapers had 60 days to complete his report, which was released in March 2017. This was a remarkably fast timeline.

1965 Indian Welfare Agreement

The 1965 Indian Welfare Agreement is a bilateral agreement between the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada. It requires Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada to reimburse Ontario 93 cents for every dollar of services provided in social assistance, child and family services, child care, and homemaking. 

There are several reasons that this is a problematic agreement, first of which being that it was negotiated bi-laterally between the governments of Canada and Ontario with no input from First Nations. It also is outdated, limits innovative programming, and fails to live up to nation-to-nation relationships. In 2016 the AOCC resolved to call for its replacement (Resolution 12/16).

Ontario’s First Culture Strategy, 2016

In 2016, the Ontario Ministry of Culture, Tourism, and Sport (MCTS) released the province's first ever Culture Strategy.

The strategy is broad: it is based on working in partnership with Ministries government-wide, as well as in partnership with Indigenous communities. Particularly related to First Nations peoples, the Culture strategy is informed by the principles articulated in the 2015 Political Accord, and in the commitments included in the as-of-then unreleased provincial response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Calls to Action in The Journey Together. In fact, many of the commitments in The Journey Together are fulfilled through the Culture Strategy.

The Strategy is guided by six guiding principles in order to achieve four key goals. Of those guiding principles, one is "respect for Indigenous peoples." The four key goals are:

1. Promote cultural engagement and inclusion;
2. Strengthen culture in communities;
3. Fuel the creative economy;
4. Promote the value of the arts throughout government.

During consultations in the lead-up to the release of the Strategy, MCTS heard from Indigenous communities that the most important need was for access to culture for Indigenous children and youth, which is reflected in the action plan that follows the report.

Correctional Services Transformation Strategy

One of the five focus areas of The Journey Together is "creating a more cultural responsive and relevant justice system." Reform of correctional facilities are central towards this goal. In 2015, Indigenous peoples made up 25% of the incarcerated population in Canada, well above the population of Indigenous peoples outside prisons.

Chiefs in Assembly Resolution 04/31 (First Nations Peoples and the Criminal Justice System in Ontario) concluded that there is a need to examine the justice system in Ontario and improve relations, policies and procedures, and Resolution 10/13 (Establishment of the Justice and Corrections Leadership Roundtable) called for a justice forum to discuss correctional facilities and services. Finally, Resolution 13/47 (A Strategy to Work Towards the Reconciliation of Overrepresentation of First Nations Peoples in the Justice and Correctional Systems) directly addressed the problems of overrepresentation in prisons, calling for access to justice for First Nations peoples, and declarations of responsibility of First Nation leadership to ensure that justice is provided in a culturally appropriate way. It also designated overrepresentation of First Nations people in prisons as a priority area for the Justice Forum.

Child Care and Early Years On Reserve

Background

Ontario currently provides $30.8 million in total funding for on reserve child care. Of the 133 First Nations in Ontario, only 57 have licensed child care for a total of 3,169 spots (as of March 1 2016). In addition five First Nations deliver their own child and family programs (M’Chigeeng First Nation, Nibinamik First Nation, Six Nations of the Grand River, Walpole Island First Nation, and Wikwemikong Unceded Indian Reserve). The existing child care supply does not meet the need for First Nation communities.

The single largest line-item included in the one-year update to The Journey Together was children and family programs. This included $93.5 million over two years for child care and family programming on and off reserve, with up to $23.5 million over the next two years budgeted for new and enhanced child and family programs delivered by First Nations. This also came with a commitment of up to $12 million in ongoing annual operating funding beginning in 2018-19. Although this is an important investment, there are few publicly available details concerning implementation. The purpose of this blog post is to fill in those gaps on how the money is being allocated for children and family programs on reserve.

Bill 6, Ministry of Community and Social Services Amendment Act (Social Assistance Research Commission), 2016

Status: Order referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy

Purpose: 

Bill 6 was introduced to make amendments to the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act. It proposes that definitions contained in the Act are modified to reflect the wording in the Ontario Works Act, 1997 and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997. The Bill also calls for the creation of a Social Assistance Research Commission to review existing social service programs and make changes to meet the diverse needs of recipients.

The Commission will be responsible for defining all aspects of the Ontario Works (OW) and Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP), from defining the cost of living in different regions of Ontario to recommending the rates of social assistance for each area. Due to this, it is imperative that First Nations perspectives are adequately represented on the Commission, as statistically First Nations individuals have higher rates of poverty than other demographics.

Jordan's Principle

Summary: Jordan's Principle was developed in response to the death of Jordan River Anderson. He died in 2005 at five years old. In his short life, he was eligible for home-care, but the federal and provincial governments could not agree on who was financially responsible, meaning he spent his entire life in hospital.

Jordan's Principle is a child-first approach with the intention of providing First Nations children, both on and off-reserve, the same access to government health and social services that are available to all other non-Indigenous children. It requires that the first level of government that a First Nation citizen contacts is responsible to provide that service.

The goal is to prevent First Nations children from being denied essential public services and to prevent delays in receiving them. By utilizing a child-first approach, jurisdictional disputes involving the care of First Nations children should not affect their access to treatment. The AFN has summarized the key points to Jordan's Principle in the following terms:

Because responsibility for First Nations children’s services is often shared among federal, provincial/ territorial and First Nations governments, accessing certain services can be challenging. Funding disputes between federal and provincial governments, or between federal departments, are not uncommon, and can result in delays that unfairly affect children’s health and well-being. Jordan’s Principle requires the government of first contact to provide the service, and then resolve the funding issue. As such, Jordan’s Principle is a mechanism to help ensure children’s human, constitutional, and treaty rights" (source)