Caring Society’s May 22, 2025, Reply Submission to the Tribunal
Press Release
PART I – PREFACE
1. Since commencing this proceeding, the Caring Society has had one overarching goal: to end the discrimination against First Nations children in Canada’s First Nations Child and Family Services Program (“FNCFS Program”) and in its implementation of Jordan’s Principle, and to prevent its recurrence. The Caring Society has been consistent: achieving long-term reform is to be measured at the level of the child, based on evidence, and cannot be achieved by any dollar figure alone. Rather, the structure of funding and appropriate safeguards will be key to ensuring that the discrimination is resolved and does not recur.
1. There is a clear path forward. The research is now complete, First Nations positions regarding the progress required to move forward are clear, there is a discrete list of outstanding issues, and the parties—other than Canada—are ready to discuss those issues to make swift progress. There is also urgency to move forward in the best interests of First Nations children, for whom time is passing. Indeed, children born in 2016, the year of the Tribunal’s Merits Decision (2016 CHRT 2), will be starting Grade 4 this year and are halfway through their childhood.
1. It has been over three years since the Tribunal’s decision on the consent motion made by the Caring Society, the Assembly of First Nations (“AFN”) and Canada in 2022 CHRT 8, which meant to set the path forward for long-term reform by providing for updated interim relief and research to provide the evidence to inform long-term reform. That part of remedial proceedings culminated in a Draft Final Settlement Agreement (“Draft FSA”) that provided for approval by First Nations leadership prior to seeking approval by this Tribunal. Many but not all First Nations in Ontario accepted the agreement, while, by an overwhelming margin, First Nations outside of Ontario did not. It has now been more than seven months since First Nations leadership exercised the decision-making authority that Canada, the AFN, the Chiefs of Ontario (“COO”) and the Nishnawbe Aski Nation (“NAN”) agreed they should have. Yet Canada has refused to engage with the parties regarding the discrete areas for improvement that First Nations leadership has identified for further discussion or to seek direction from the Tribunal regarding the elements that Canada says exceed the scope of the complaint.
1. Instead, Canada responds to this motion by: misconstruing the relief the Caring Society seeks, pleading that it has discharged all of its obligations (despite long-term reform remaining
ILR5
