Delay, denial and the fight for real change
ONTARIO—As the Carney government tabled its $35.5 billion proposal to reform First Nations Child and Family Services, First Nations leadership made clear that Ottawa is no longer the only author in this story.
On December 22, 2025, the National Children’s Chiefs Commission (NCCC) and the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society submitted their own national plan to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT), outlining a vision for reform rooted in First Nations jurisdiction and regional realities. Assembly of First Nations (AFN) National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak signaled support for the plan in a press release issued the same day.
“Nothing is more important than our children,” National Chief Woodhouse Nepinak said. “And we want the government to place the same priority on First Nations children as we do. Today is the latest step in a long, too long, drawn out process. It’s time to take real action on comprehensive reform to ensure justice, fairness, safety and security for First Nations children.”
The AFN’s First Nations-in-Assembly had previously mandated the NCCC to lead consultations and negotiations on long-term reform of the First Nations Child and Family Services (FNCFS) program. Like the federal proposal, the NCCC–Caring Society plan acknowledges that reform cannot be imposed uniformly, but must account for the distinct needs of individual regions.
Historical Patterns and the Risk of Erasure
For Aundeck Omni Kaning (AOK) Chief Patsy Corbiere, the presence of multiple plans before the Tribunal reflects a deeper tension—one that has surfaced repeatedly in Canada’s dealings with Indigenous peoples. Chief Corbiere said the repeated deferral of child welfare reform echoes a familiar pattern in Canadian history, one where harm is acknowledged in principle but postponed in practice.
As debates over compensation and jurisdiction continue, she noted, the conditions driving children into care persist, shaped by intergenerational trauma, under-resourced services, and systems slow to relinquish control. In that space between recognition and action, the risk is not only stagnation, but erasure—of urgency, of accountability and of the reality that child welfare remains inseparable from the unresolved legacy of residential schools.
“The repeated deferral of child welfare reform is not new,” Chief Corbiere said. “It is a story we have seen again and again. Acknowledgment comes first, action lags behind, and the harm continues where children are still being removed from their families.”
She describes a cycle familiar to communities across the country: tribunals, settlements, and government promises arrive long after families have already felt the consequences. In that gap, children grow up navigating systems that often fail to support them, while social workers, foster agencies, and regional offices struggle under limited resources.
Compensation and the Limits of Redress
The reform debate continues alongside implementation of the $23.34-billion Final Settlement Agreement on Compensation, reached in April 2023 between Canada, the AFN, and the Moushoom and Trout Class Action plaintiffs. The settlement follows CHRT compensation orders issued in 2019 and applies to those harmed by discriminatory underfunding of FNCFS and the narrow application of Jordan’s Principle between April 1, 1991 and March 31, 2022.
Claims are now open for members of the Removed Child and Removed Child Family Classes, with compensation ranging from $20,000 to $40,000 per individual, and additional compensation available in some cases. Claims are administered by Deloitte, with trauma-informed support available through Claims Helpers.
While compensation offers redress for past harms, Chief Corbiere emphasized that it does not alter the conditions placing children into care today. The pressures that place children in care—addictions, mental health crises, housing shortages, and limited community services—continue largely unchanged.
“Child welfare remains tethered to the same historical forces it was meant to replace, with the legacy of residential schools left insufficiently addressed,” Chief Corbiere stated. “Compensation is important, but it is not reform. It is recognition. Reform must go further—it must address the structures that keep families apart.”
Jordan’s Principle and Systemic Gaps
Jordan’s Principle, meant to guarantee First Nations children equitable access to public services, remains a central element of debate. Originally named after Jordan River Anderson, a child from Norway House Cree Nation who died in hospital while governments argued over funding, the principle has been inconsistently applied.
Chief Corbiere explained that the narrow interpretation of Jordan’s Principle contributed directly to children entering care unnecessarily. “The principle was meant to protect our children, but bureaucratic delay and a restrictive reading have meant it often fails the children it was intended to serve,” she said. “This is a moral and legal failing that compounds intergenerational trauma. When services are denied or delayed, children pay the price—sometimes for their entire lives.”
Denialism and the Cost of Delay
Chief Corbiere draws a direct line between residential school denialism and current child welfare debates. Denial, she said, makes it easier for systems to perpetuate harm while silencing the voices of families still affected. When people deny the reality of the past, it erodes accountability, urgency, and the moral imperative to act.
“It is not just historical denial—it shapes the present,” she said. “When denial exists at the same time children are still being removed from their families, the cost is immediate and visible. Trauma continues across generations, communities are destabilized, and families are left apart.”
Denialism also complicates advocacy and public understanding. Chief Corbiere said that even small acts of minimizing systemic failure—whether in media, politics, or policy—allow bureaucracies to postpone reform indefinitely. “It protects those in power and silences the voices of the people who are most affected,” she said.
Regional Action as Response
Frustration with the slow pace of national reform has driven Ontario chiefs to pursue regional child welfare agreements. Chief Corbiere sees these local responses as necessary but imperfect.
“The move by Ontario chiefs toward regional agreements reflects frustration with a national process that has yet to deliver timely reform,” she said. “While negotiations continue at the federal level, communities are responding to immediate pressures with locally designed systems intended to better reflect cultural knowledge and on-the-ground realities.”
For Chief Corbiere, the shift underscores a broader concern: without decisive action, child welfare risks remaining a modern mechanism for managing the unresolved impacts of residential schools rather than a path toward healing. Regional agreements provide relief, but they cannot replace national reform that addresses systemic inequities across every province and territory.
The Stakes of National Reform
Both the Ontario-specific agreement and the national plan advanced by the NCCC and the Caring Society have now been submitted to the CHRT. The Tribunal has ordered Canada to negotiate with the NCCC, the AFN, and the Caring Society, warning that failure to do so could result in an imposed final solution.
For families living with the consequences of delay, the distinction between plans, processes, and jurisdictions is not academic. Compensation may acknowledge harm, but reform determines whether the same patterns will be repeated—or finally broken.
For Chief Corbiere, the repeated deferral of child welfare reform echoes a familiar pattern in Canadian history—one where harm is acknowledged in principle but postponed in practice. As debates over compensation and jurisdiction continue, the conditions driving children into care persist, shaped by intergenerational trauma, under-resourced services and systems slow to relinquish control. In that space between recognition and action, she said, the risk is not only stagnation, but erasure—of urgency, of accountability, and of the reality that child welfare remains inseparable from the unresolved legacy of residential schools.
The prolonged negotiation of child welfare reform reflects a wider pattern in which acknowledgment outpaces action. As settlements are debated and plans cycle through successive bodies, the pressures that place children in care—addictions, mental health crises, housing shortages, and limited community services—continue largely unchanged. In that gap, Chief Corbiere told The Expositor that, child welfare remains tethered to the same historical forces it was meant to replace, with the legacy of residential schools left insufficiently addressed.
She says the move by Ontario chiefs toward regional child welfare agreements reflects frustration with a national process that has yet to deliver timely reform. While negotiations continue at the federal level, communities are responding to immediate pressures with locally designed systems intended to better reflect cultural knowledge and on-the-ground realities. For her, the shift underscores a broader concern: that without decisive action, child welfare risks remaining a modern mechanism for managing the unresolved impacts of residential schools rather than a path toward healing.
