B.C. faces a rain-soaked election day after a campaign drenched in negativity

OTTAWA – The executive team from the Assembly of First Nations will meet in the coming days to discuss how to proceed with new negotiations for a child welfare reform deal after chiefs voted against the government’s proposed $47.8 billion agreement at a meeting in Calgary Thursday.

AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, who had helped negotiate the deal and pushed for it to be approved, was blunt in her assessment of the outcome in her closing remarks to the special chiefs assembly Friday.

“We also recognize the success of the campaign that defeated this resolution. You spoke with passion, and you convinced the majority to vote against this $47.8-billion national agreement,” she said.

“There is no getting around the fact that this agreement was too much of a threat to the status quo, to the industry that has been built on taking First Nations children from their families.”

Cindy Blackstock, executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society which helped launch a discrimination case against Canada that led to the deal, said “that’s an unfortunate characterization of the chiefs taking a look at the agreement with their own experts and own legal staff and making an informed decision that’s best for them.”

“I respect the National Chief, and I look forward to kind of working with her and everyone to make sure that we get this across the finish line,” Blackstock said.

The defeated deal was struck between Canada, the Chiefs of Ontario, Nishnawbe Aski Nation and the Assembly of First Nations in July after a nearly two-decades-long legal fight over the federal government’s underfunding of on-reserve child welfare services.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal said that was discriminatory because it meant kids living on reserve were given fewer services than those living off reserve.

The tribunal tasked Canada with reaching an agreement with First Nations to reform the system, and also with compensating children who were torn from their families and put in foster care.

The $47.8 billion agreement was to cover 10 years of funding for First Nations to take control over their own child welfare services from the federal government, create a body to deal with complaints and set aside money for prevention, among others.

Before the deal was announced in July, three members of the AFN’s executive team wrote letters to the national chief saying they feared the deal was being negotiated in secret, and asked for a change in course. They also said the AFN was attempting to sideline the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society from negotiations.

Those concerns largely remained when the deal was announced in a closed-door meeting at the AFN’s last gathering, with chiefs questioning how the reforms will work on the ground, and service providers saying their funding levels will be significantly cut which would impact their ability to do their work effectively.

Blackstock found support from 267 out of 414 chiefs who voted against a resolution calling for the deal to be approved.

Squamish Nation chairperson Khelsilem introduced a resolution Friday calling for a new negotiation mandate from chiefs.

“This is a lesson for the Assembly of First Nations, for the staff and legal, for the advisers, for the portfolio holder who has worked on this deal,” he said.

“The way we got here was not the way we should have done this. There’s a better way forward.”

His resolution, and another one from child welfare advocate and proxy chief for Skawahlook First Nation, Judy Wilson, called for the creation of a children’s chiefs’ commission comprised of leadership from all regions in the country to negotiate a new deal and provide oversight, along with a new legal team.

It also calls for chiefs to be given at least 90 days to review an agreement before voting on it, with the document to be made available in both official languages.

Khelsilem said the new negotiation mandate was developed with about 50 leaders from across the country, and hopes it will set a positive path forward in the best interest of kids in care after a fairly testy special chiefs assembly. He also said the new mandate will address “flaws” highlighted by chiefs across the country, and will ensure there is more transparency.

“We didn’t have to be in a situation where we had to vote down a flawed agreement and then create a direction to be able to get this back on track,” he said to chiefs.

“We didn’t have to be here if the process that was used to create the (final settlement agreement) was a meaningful process that meaningfully respected and consulted First Nations, that allowed for meaningful dialogue to improve that agreement.”

In a statement, a spokesperson for the minister of Indigenous Services said Canada worked closely with First Nations on this deal, and as it was being amended.

“The agreement that chiefs in assembly rejected yesterday is the final product of those close negotiations,” Jennifer Kozelj said.

“Canada remains steadfast in its commitment to reform the First Nations child and family services program so that children grow up knowing who they are and where they belong.”

Blackstock said that Indigenous Services Minister Patty Hajdu or Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ought to have been at the gathering in Calgary if they stood by the agreement.

In a statement Friday, the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador said they’re grateful for the work that has been done to date, but that chiefs need to work together to amend the deal so it respects diversity of communities and eliminates systemic discrimination.

“As chiefs, we have a sacred responsibility to protect our children and families for the next seven generations,” said interim regional chief Lance Haymond.

Blackstock says that even though the deal was defeated, it doesn’t mean they’re starting from the bottom.

“We have so much to build on, including the draft final settlement agreement,” she said. “This is a reset to ensure that First Nations kids all succeed.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 18, 2024.

Liam Payne’s voice is the first one heard in the culture-shifting boy band One Direction’s debut single: “What Makes You Beautiful” launches into a bouncy guitar riff, a cheeky and borderline gratuitous cowbell and then, Payne.

“You’re insecure, don’t know what for / You’re turning heads when you walk through the door,” he sings, in a few words assuring a cross-section of generations that he’s got your back, girl, and you should like yourself a little bit more.

Payne, who died Wednesday after falling from a hotel balcony in Buenos Aires, Argentina, at just 31, was also the last solo voice on the band’s final single, “History” — effectively opening and closing the monolithic run of one of the biggest boy bands of all time.

While the exact circumstances of his death remain unclear — Buenos Aires police said in a statement that Payne “had jumped from the balcony of his room,” although they didn’t offer details on how they established that or whether it was intentional — in life, Payne was a critical part of the internet’s first boy band, one that secured an indelible place in the hearts of millennial and Gen Z fans.

How One Direction became the internet’s first boy band

Before One Direction became One Direction, its members auditioned for the U.K.’s “The X Factor” separately. The judges decided to put five promising, but not yet excellent, boys into a group. They were Harry Styles, Niall Horan, Louis Tomlinson, Zayn Malik and Payne, who together finished third in the 2010 competition.

As Rolling Stone contributing editor Rob Sheffield points out, it was an “unprecedented” way for a boy band to get their start.

“They were sort of assigned to be together. And you don’t expect longevity out of that situation. Honestly, you don’t even expect one good pop record to come out of that situation,” he says. And yet, not only did it work, but One Direction essentially created “a new template for pop stardom, really.”

The show allowed Day 1 fans to follow their career before their official 2011 launch with “What Makes You Beautiful.” Nascent fans could use rising social media platforms like Twitter and Tumblr to find community, draw attention to the group and, in the earliest days, speak directly to the members.

“I honestly made a Twitter so that I could keep up with One Direction, and that’s how I made so many different friends,” says Gabrielle Kopera, 28, a fan from California who remembers the band hosting livestreams and chats. “Sometimes they would say something back and it was so much fun. I feel like that fan interaction doesn’t even happen anymore.”

That feeling of accessibility reinforced the group’s personality and relationship with fans, says Maura Johnston, a freelance music writer and Boston College adjunct instructor.

“The fact that they came up on this British TV show and they became this worldwide phenomenon, I don’t think that would have happened as acutely and as quickly and as immersive without social media, without Twitter or without people being able to mobilize around the globe,” she says.

One Direction and their fans

Millennial and Gen Z audiences practically grew up with One Direction, but the band was truly ubiquitous. That, Johnston says, is at least partially attributable to arriving in a very different media environment from today’s.

“It was a lot more focused,” she says of the early 2010s. “Algorithmic sorting of stuff hadn’t really taken hold. So, there was this broader, mass approach. … They were one of the last gasps of that mass phenomenon, that anyone of any age, even if they weren’t a fan, had to take notice to.”

But it takes more than omnipresence to cultivate a loyal fanbase. And there were myriad reasons why listeners were attracted to One Direction.

“They were five very different musical personalities, along with five very different personalities,” says Sheffield.

They broke the rules associated with traditional boy bands, too: “They co-wrote many of their songs. They didn’t do, you know, corny, choreographed steps on stage,” he said.

After the news of Payne’s death, Kopera says she “got so many messages from people I haven’t talked to in years reaching out because I think everyone kind of realized that it does feel like we just lost a family member.”

That sentiment was mirrored in the masses of fans who gathered Wednesday outside Buenos Aires’ Casa Sur Hotel, feeding a burgeoning makeshift memorial of flowers, candles and notes as police stood guard.

“I’ve always loved One Direction since I was little,” said Juana Relh, 18, outside Payne’s hotel. “To see that he died and that there will never be another reunion of the boys is unbelievable, it kills me.”

Liam Payne’s place in the band, and its legacy

Payne was a “brooding” older brother-type in One Direction, says Johnston. He also co-wrote many songs, especially in their later career — like the Fleetwood Mac-channeling “What A Feeling” and “Fireproof.”

“He was this grounding force in the band,” Johnston says.

In an Instagram tribute, Tomlinson called Payne “the most vital part of One Direction.”

“His experience from a young age, his perfect pitch, his stage presence, his gift for writing. The list goes on. Thank you for shaping us Liam,” he wrote.

“I always remember that he was the responsible and the sensible one of the group, and I feel like he wore his heart on his sleeve,” Kopera says.

Payne had recently been vocal about struggling with alcoholism, posting a YouTube video in July 2023 where he said he had been sober for six months after receiving treatment. Buenos Aires police said they found clonazepam — a central nervous system depressant — and other over-the-counter drugs in Payne’s hotel room, along with a whiskey bottle in the courtyard where he was found.

“Looking at what happened to Liam, it just makes you feel even more sad, that it just feels like he needed help,” Kopera says. “And it’s so scary to think about how the entertainment industry can just, like, eat up artists.”

After One Direction disbanded in 2016, Payne’s solo career — a single R&B-pop album in 2019, “LP1,” and a number of singles here and there — never took off the same way as some of his bandmates. He was “the least successful,” Sheffield says. “It’s safe to say that on the terms that he was going for, he didn’t really find what he wanted to do.”

“It’s hard, transitioning from being a boy bander to be a pop star,” Johnston says.

At Payne’s solo shows, Sheffield explains, “He would show a little montage of One Direction performing, which is the kind of thing you don’t do when you’re starting out as a solo artist. But fans took that in the spirit it was offered, which is a very generous statement that he’s like, ‘Yep, you’re here because of this history that we share, and I’m here because of that same history.’”

Despite Payne’s struggles and the tragedy of his death, Kopera is confident “his legacy is going to always point back to One Direction.”

For fans, the same is true.

“When I look back on One Direction, I’m like, that was my girlhood. One Direction was the soundtrack to growing up, and I’m so thankful for it,” she says. “They really were just a group of normal boys.”

____

AP journalist Brooke Lefferts contributed to this report.