In-depth Q&A: Cindy Blackstock on reparations, reconciliation, and why Canada’s philanthropic community shies away from her cause
Why It Matters
The social purpose sector in Canada often says it prioritizes reconciliation and justice for Indigenous communities. Cindy Blackstock says that commitment requires political advocacy for the rights of First Nations families.
Cindy Blackstock has spent 15 years fighting the Canadian government on behalf of First Nations children and families.
The executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society filed a complaint pursuant to the Canadian Human Rights Act in 2007 highlighting that the federal government had consistently given less funding to on-reserve First Nations child and family services than non-First Nations services. First Nations families were separated and children didn’t receive the care they needed as a result.
Earlier this year, the government announced it had reached a $40 billion agreement in principle to compensate the children harmed by this systemic underfunding.
Future of Good editor Kylie Adair sat down with Blackstock to learn more about her work fighting for the rights of First Nations communities, and what role non-First Nations-led social purpose organizations can play in this pursuit of justice.
This conversation was edited for length and clarity.
Kylie Adair: What did the federal government’s announcement earlier this year — the agreement in principle — feel like to you? Was this a clear victory?
Cindy Blackstock: Well, that announcement comes on the heels of 15 years of litigation and over 30 losses in the court by the government, so they were forced to do this. But I also want to pay homage to the children in unmarked graves. The affirmation of survivors’ truth, including 54 children who were just found [in February] in a First Nation in Saskatchewan, they captured the Canadian consciousness in a way that had not been done before. And they made Canadians curious: ‘Okay, we did this in the past, but why are we in court against First Nations kids again? Why are the courts repeatedly saying our government’s racially discriminating against kids? Why is this still going on?’ So, that led to the government announcing the money, but all they did was announce it, and I have long ago decided that I measure success at the level of children and families themselves. These are just words on paper. The government hasn’t changed anything for kids. Until they change things for kids and stop their discrimination, I’m not going to be in any press conference. I won’t be cutting any ribbons. There isn’t going to be any photo-ops. And I’m not going to stop working for them.
Kylie: If the government follows through on the words on paper, will that be sufficient?
Cindy: No. It will be an important step, but the reality is that even if we implement all the legal orders in this particular case, it still leaves other inequalities. Things like water, things like education. There are still a lot of schools that are in really poor condition, things like black mold contamination. Only 35 percent of First Nations homes have broadband access. What we need to see is an end to these apartheid public services, for the federal government to implement the solutions that are already on the books, often fully costed out by groups like the Parliamentary Budget Officer or the Auditor General of Canada, and make sure this is the last generation of kids who are treated this way.
Kylie: I’ve heard you say in another interview that the most important next step is that the government reform itself so that it does not do this to another generation of children. What might that reform look like? What should the government work on this year perhaps?
Cindy: One of the things we want them to do is develop an expert committee of people who can take an independent evaluation of [the federal] government. This is the same government that pushed those children into residential schools, that followed that up by the mass removals of children in what’s called the Sixties Scoop, where they were adopted into primarily non-Indigenous homes. And now has been out of compliance with 20 legal and procedural orders to stop it from discriminating. That non-compliance has been linked to the deaths of at least three children and the unnecessary family separations of many others. Why does this repeat offender keep messing up? That’s what that evaluation should answer. And then, we need to get at that way of thinking, that way of working, and then shift it towards actually not discriminating again, and monitor them closely to make sure they don’t.
Kylie: Why do you think these repeat offenders, as you say, keep messing up?
Cindy: One of the things I’ve noticed, in all the records I’ve seen, and even going back to residential schools, is that when people come forward with credible critiques, saying, ‘Your behaviour, Canada, is harming First Nations children, and here’s a solution to deal with it,’ the first response from the government is to defend itself. It doesn’t appraise the merits of that critique. It’s just like, ‘We’ve got to bury this. We have to dismiss this. We’re going to talk all about us: We’re making good first steps. We’ve done more than the previous government has. You just need to be patient. These changes take time.’ All that narrative is about excusing them, instead of really looking at what’s happening for the children and saying, ‘Oh my gosh, we’re hurting them, let’s fix it.’
Kylie: Something that comes up often in our coverage is reparations, especially in the world of philanthropy, with so many philanthropic organizations having amassed wealth based on the exploitation of Indigenous land. Do reparations come up often in your work, and what role do you see reparations playing in the future of reconciliation in Canada?
Cindy: When we were working with First Nations leaders and the Assembly of First Nations to file this case in 2007, we were pretty clear that the federal government was going to come for us — and they did. Within 30 days, they cut all of our funding. We were the first organization to ever survive that 100 percent funding cut. When we filed that human rights complaint, there were a lot of philanthropic organizations that said, ‘I can see the merits of this, but this sounds really political.’ So they didn’t step forward. They said, ‘If you guys want to fund a trail or a camp for kids, we’ll fund that. But we’re not here to stand in the winds of discrimination with you.’ And my message to foundations is that that’s when you can make the most difference. It’s not when we win that we need you. It’s when we’re there, standing in the winds of systemic discrimination, which by then was very well-documented with credible sources, that’s when the philanthropic community can make the biggest difference. I’m really hoping that’s where they will centre more of their expertise.
Kylie: Have you felt the support of other civil society organizations — those who do policy advocacy, or provide social services, for instance? Have they been in this fight with you?
Cindy: It was really interesting, because before we filed the case, there were a bunch of allies who we would have expected would have supported us, but they were very frightened because of the charitable tax regulations — they were also giving us this ‘you’re being too political’ narrative. They really didn’t show up for us, to be honest. They chose to bury themselves in the sand, to try to protect themselves. But other groups did. That was a key learning for me — not to spend a lot of time on the people you think should be your allies, and hoping that they’ll join in, but actually to frame it in a way that other groups can join that circle.
Kylie: I want to also ask about some of the work that’s happening inside First Nations child and family services. Can you tell us a bit about some of the work those organizations do and why it’s important for it to be better resourced and supported?
Cindy: There are over 105 First Nations child and family agencies. There are also Metis and urban agencies. These organizations actually work with children and young people who are at risk. They’re at the centre of our litigation, because up until very recently, they had not had an increase in their prevention funding to keep families together in about 30 years. Can you imagine? They were operating off roughly $30,000 per organization to deliver prevention services in the wake of residential schools. But what these organizations have been able to do with enhanced prevention funding is truly remarkable. In fact, children are less likely to be removed on-reserve than off-reserve by mainstream agencies — and that’s owing to their own practice. I was just in Prince George and I visited with Carrier Sekani Youth Services. They have a youth centre for street-involved young people. In that centre, you walk in, it’s like a home environment where a young person can do laundry, have a shower, eat a meal. There are cultural activities. There are counselors. There’s a place to just hang out and watch TV and just be a normal teenager for a while. There are lots of wonderful, pragmatic supports.
To gain access to to the full video conversation — including Cindy’s thoughts on how the public can hold the government accountable, the role reparations plays in the future of reconciliation, and how non-First Nations-led social services can make their work culturally appropriate and inclusive — become a Future of Good member today.
Tell us this made you smarter | Contact us | Report error
