First Nations child welfare reform draft agreement includes $47.8-billion in federal spending

The federal government is on the cusp of reaching a major agreement with First Nations organizations that could see Ottawa spend more than double what it planned two years ago, with a projected $47.8-billion earmarked for First Nations child-welfare reforms.

The figure, if finalized, would represent a significant increase from a 2022 agreement in principle in which the federal government pledged to spend $20-billion on long-term reform to the First Nations Child and Family Services Program.

A new draft agreement that contains the $47.8-billion figure is the result of discussions between the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), the Chiefs of Ontario, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation (NAN) and federal representatives. A formal announcement has been in the works for several days but details have not been released yet.

The spending plan for reforms is the latest development in a continuing tussle with the federal government over First Nations child welfare that has involved legal battles and negotiations. In November, 2021, the government tapped former Truth and Reconciliation commissioner Murray Sinclair to help facilitate high-stakes talks on the issue.

Recently, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced in a letter to AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak that he will issue an apology for the harms caused by the First Nations child-welfare system. He also tasked Indigenous Services Minister Patty Hajdu and Justice Minister Arif Virani with leading discussions ahead of the apology.

Aside from the leaders who have participated in negotiations, First Nations chiefs from across Canada who have gathered for the AFN general assembly in Montreal this week have yet to see a copy of the draft agreement and are expected to vote on its contents.

First Nations child advocate Cindy Blackstock, the executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, which did not participate in discussions on the draft agreement, said the $47.8-billion figure is currently “just a number in the air.” She called for the government to release the agreement and ensure chiefs and experts can see the fine print and compare the figure against research that has been completed.

“We measure success at the level of the child and their family,” she said.

The $47.8-billion in the draft agreement was confirmed to The Globe and Mail on Wednesday by a source with direct knowledge of its contents. The Globe is not naming the source because they are not authorized to publicly speak about the deal at this time.

Separately, a $23-billion final settlement agreement on compensation for First Nations children and families was approved by the Federal Court of Canada in October, bringing the total government spending plan to more than $70-billion.

Anispiragas Piragasanathar, a spokesperson for Indigenous Services Canada, said negotiations toward an agreement with First Nations parties are continuing. He said should an agreement be reached, First Nations parties will engage with members across the country and that it would represent a milestone.

Ms. Woodhouse Nepinak said this week that a special chiefs’ assembly will be held in Winnipeg from Sept. 17 to Sept. 19 on child welfare and solutions for children and families.

The national chief also said in a recent interview that First Nations organizations have worked to get commitments on the table, and it will be up to communities to determine next steps.

In 2007, the AFN and the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society brought a complaint about discriminatory child-welfare funding to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT).

In 2019, the tribunal found Ottawa had willfully and recklessly discriminated against Indigenous children who live on reserve by failing to provide funding for child and family services. It ordered the government to provide up to $40,000 to each First Nations child unnecessarily taken into care on or after Jan. 1, 2006. Its orders also covered parents or grandparents and children who were denied essential services. Ottawa filed for a judicial review of the tribunal decision.

In October, 2021, the federal government said it would appeal a Federal Court decision that upheld the CHRT finding. In the same announcement, the government said it had agreed to put a pause on litigation while it negotiated outside of court.

Talks were then held between the federal government and class-action lawsuit parties, as well as the AFN, NAN, the Chiefs of Ontario and the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society. In January, 2022, two agreements in principle were announced: $20-billion in compensation and approximately $20-billion over five years for long-term reform.

The Caring Society has not been taking part in the recent discussions on reform. Prof. Blackstock, who teaches at McGill University’s School of Social Work, said in a recent interview that her organization wanted to work with the other parties but terms could not be agreed upon and it could not be part of a process when Canada was breaching agreements to end its discriminatory conduct.

In December, 2023, her organization filed a non-compliance motion to the CHRT over the government’s approach to processing claims for Jordan’s Principle, a policy designed to ensure that First Nations children can access medical care and supports free from jurisdictional battles over who should pay for them.

Jordan’s Principle is named after Jordan River Anderson, a five-year-old boy who had complex medical needs and died in hospital in 2005 after a lengthy battle between the federal and Manitoba governments over home-care costs.

On Wednesday, the source with direct knowledge of the draft agreement said Jordan’s Principle matters will be negotiated separately from reforms on child welfare.

This week, Ms. Woodhouse Nepinak and Jennifer Kozelj, a press secretary for Ms. Hajdu, both called on Prof. Blackstock to come back to the table on child-welfare reform.

Prof. Blackstock said the Caring Society wants to be at the table but the agreement in principle includes a clause that stops parties from going to the CHRT, which she sees as an important mechanism to hold the government accountable.