British Columbia Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres

Policy News Communique
September 28, 2000
PRIORITY – BY FAX

ISSUE:  The impact of the Secure Care Act on Aboriginal children and families

BACKGROUND:

• The Ministry of Children and Families had political direction to develop this policy
• Passed 3 readings in the Legislature June 26 - July 6, 2000
• No Aboriginal consultation
• Current Aboriginal agreements and process protocols in place have not been honored
• The legislation contravenes Constitution Section 35 on rights

DISCUSSION/NOTES:

• The Secure Care Act policy is to provide for the involuntary secure care of young persons at ‘high risk of serious harm or injury’
• BC is characterising it as a ‘framework’ and its role in  integrating a ‘continuum of care’
• In practice it enables the government  to apprehend and detain children/youth without access to rights, advocacy or remedy
• The 2 entry points into this framework is on an emergency basis with immediate 72 hour detention without a ‘Certificate of Secure Care’ and secondly, through a Secure Care Board which approves a ‘Certificate of Secure Care.
• Supreme Court of Canada is the final construct that determines ‘the best interests’ of  children – this act gives BC extraordinary powers and the ‘Secure Care Board’ questionable power and authority
• There is no evidence or trust for the government’s claims that this will affect only a couple of dozen kids in the province given the attendant infrastructure and reference to ‘facilities’, the most obvious ones would appear to be jail and mental health facilities
• It is insidious that current providers of child and family programs, services and new initiatives may indeed be assisting in identifying the ‘kids at risk’.
• Contravenes the CFCS Act and flies in the face of the goals of the ministry’s Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Services (SPAS)
• Alberta attempted similar legislation this year; it has been struck down in the Supreme Court of Canada as unconstitutional
• Politically motivated policy and legislation is morally corrupt and in this case represents to the Aboriginal peoples of BC an extension of the mechanism of the Aboriginal Residential School policy mentality

OPTIONS:

• Challenge the legislation as unconstitutional through the Supreme Court of Canada
• Advocate for an exemption of Aboriginal Children/Youth
• Lobby BC to withdraw/rescind the legislation
• Demand that Aboriginal communities and policy tables be involved at all levels in further definition of this policy, in development of the regulations and in implementation plans

RECOMMENDATIONS AT THIS TIME:

•  That the Premier BC meet with the BCAAFC, the APC and other First Nations stakeholders

• That BCAAFC and the APC grieve the Premier and challenge  to accountability the Minister  of Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister of Children and Families on their commitments to Aboriginal Policy Tables when these processes are virtually by-passed in policy development

For Further information please visit the following websites:
www.childservices.gov.bc.ca
www.advokids.org.office
www.gov.bc.ca/mcf

OR Call the Senior Policy Analyst, BCAAFC
Pat Ekland - PH: (250)388-5522