When people discuss child welfare reform, the conversation often begins with legislation and policy. Those decisions matter. So do the everyday experiences of a child: who listens, which relationships are maintained, and whether adults follow through on what they say they will do.
I support the implementation of the federal legislation commonly known as Bill C-92. Its formal name is An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. It came into force on January 1, 2020. The Act affirms Indigenous jurisdiction in child and family services and establishes national principles that include the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality. Indigenous Services Canada overview
In February 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Act’s constitutionality. Supreme Court summary
For me, support for this framework involves sustained attention to implementation. A service organization should understand its own responsibilities, the limits of its role, and whose direction and knowledge must inform the work.
The Act’s approach to cultural continuity recognizes the importance of language, culture, relationships and community. Its best-interests framework includes the child’s views and the importance of ongoing family and cultural connections. Act, sections 9–10
Those principles prompt practical questions for organizational leaders. When a care plan names an important relationship, who is responsible for supporting it? If transport, scheduling or communication becomes a barrier, who notices and helps resolve it? How does a young person know what is being proposed and have a meaningful opportunity to be heard?
A written commitment is useful only when people understand what to do with it. I would like to see discussions about implementation spend more time on the small operational decisions that determine whether a commitment survives a busy week: reliable handovers, clear responsibility, realistic resources and a way to raise concerns when something is not working.
This also requires humility. First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples have distinct communities, traditions and governance. An organization cannot assume that one activity, policy or approach will fit every child. The people with the relevant relationships, knowledge and authority need a meaningful place in the conversation.
For organizations providing Child and Youth Healing Homes, this creates a responsibility to keep asking how the service fits within a child’s wider life. A placement should not become the whole story of who a young person is. The work should leave room for identity, trusted relationships, participation and future plans.
Accountability should be specific enough to examine. What did the organization commit to do? What happened? Where did it fall short? What needs to change? Answers should protect children’s privacy while giving the people entitled to oversight a meaningful account of the service.
These are the conversations I want to contribute to through my work at Nitanis. Supporting C-92 means continuing to learn from Indigenous leadership, families and those with experience of the system, and taking the daily work of implementation seriously.
This article presents a general advocacy perspective. Decisions about a particular child require attention to applicable law, authorized directions and that child’s circumstances.
Explore Corinne’s current work and advocacy or read more perspectives.