NationTalk: SLAW – On August 17, 2014, fifteen-year-old Tina Fontaine was found dead in Winnipeg’s Red River. It had been over two weeks since Tina was reported missing. Among the more disturbing details of Tina’s death was the fact that in the twenty-four hours prior to her disappearance, she had been seen by child welfare workers, healthcare professionals, and police officers. How did a system that is purportedly built to protect Canada’s most vulnerable fail Tina at every step? As a member of Sagkeeng First Nation, Tina’s story is not only part of the humanitarian crisis of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls; it is part of the shameful legacy of systemic discrimination, family separation, and cultural genocide that has defined Indigenous child welfare in Canada.
How the Government Failed Tina
Tina’s great aunt, Thelma Favel, believed that she was doomed before she was born. The granddaughter of a residential school survivor, Tina’s upbringing was defined by a cycle of generational trauma. By the time she was two, Tina had been apprehended by Child Family Services twice. After years of concerns raised by CFS, Tina was finally placed in a private guardianship arrangement with Favel at age five. Despite this arrangement, she remained close to her father until his fatal assault in 2011. Heartbroken by his death, Tina began withdrawing from her family. During this time, Tina was left without any government support, due to a closed file with CFS, a school system that failed to provide adequate care, and an oversight from Victim Services (which was supposed to offer her counselling). Tina’s mother, who struggled with drug addiction, began reaching out to her shortly after the death of Tina’s father. They planned a visit in Winnipeg, where Tina travelled to on June 30, 2014. By July 10, Favel called CFS concerned for Tina’s safety and asked if she could be brought back into her care. Due to her lack of formal legal guardianship, however, this was not an option. On July 17, the Winnipeg Police found Tina after bystanders reported her screaming for help while being dragged down the street by an older man. Since both parties were intoxicated, they issued her a ticket for underage drinking and admitted her to a youth detox center. They did little to inquire about her relationship with this man. Instead, Tina was placed in a motel without any further assessment, planning or support. Running away from several of her placements, a missing persons report on Tina was filed on July 31. On August 1, Tina asked her CFS worker to place her somewhere “where she feels like it’s home.” Since no homes were available, her request was denied.
Tina Fontaine was just fifteen years old at the time of her death. [Image Source].
Tina was last seen on August 8. The evening prior, Tina had gone to a youth shelter. When shelter staff learned Tina’s identity, they contacted CFS and allowed her to leave at 3:30. At 5:30 the police pulled over an intoxicated male driver with Tina in the passenger seat. After impounding the vehicle, the police let Tina go despite the missing persons report. At 10:00, Tina was found unconscious in a back alley and was treated by paramedics, who found amphetamines, cannabinoids, and cocaine in her system. While she was in the hospital, Tina spoke to a CFS worker about how her “friend”, who she referred to as a 62-year-old meth user named Sebastian (aka Raymond Cormier), had promised her a new bike. Inquiring further about this relationship, Tina denied using meth with him, claiming that she liked to “just chill” with him. While Tina was at the hospital, CFS cancelled the missing persons report. Despite sufficient evidence, no follow up to the Winnipeg Police child abuse unit was initiated by the hospital, CFS, or the Winnipeg Police missing persons unit. At 17:00, a CFS worker brought Tina to a hotel, and allowed her to leave to meet up with friends, so long as she was back by 23:00. This was Tina’s last known location. A new missing persons report was filed the next day when she failed to return to the hotel by curfew. The following two weeks was described as a jurisdictional nightmare with numerous agencies attempting to pass off responsibility for Tina’s search and future care onto one another. On August 17, 2014 police recovered Tina’s body. In December 2015, Raymond Cormier was arrested and charged with the second-degree murder of Tina Fontaine. While the Winnipeg Police and CFS confirmed that Cormier knew Tina, evidence against him was largely circumstantial. Cormier was acquitted on February 22, 2018. Just over 6 years later on April 3, 2024, Cormier was found dead in Ottawa.
The Issues with Indigenous Child Welfare in Canada
This is not a story of a child who fell through the cracks. Stories like Tina’s are all too common. Tina’s death shed light on the institutional chasms that frequently lead to the denial of essential services to Indigenous children. The federal and provincial governments of Canada have a long legacy of systemic discrimination against Indigenous children that dates back to the earliest days of colonization. From the beginning, the Canadian government’s policy towards Indigenous people was based on the goal of assimilation. Many of Canada’s most concerted assimilatory policies aimed to forcefully remove children from their families, communities, and cultures. From the residential schools established by the federal government to the Sixties Scoop and Millenium Scoop perpetrated by provincial governments—Canadian policy has consistently used discriminatory and violent child removal policies to isolate Indigenous children from their families.
The consequences of these policies are devastating and have been felt by Indigenous communities for generations. In more recent years, the Canadian government has claimed that it is working towards reconciling their relationship with Indigenous peoples. The Crown defines reconciliation as a remedial principle that aims to reconcile “the pre-existence of Aboriginal peoples with the Crown’s assertion of sovereignty over Canadian territory”, which is necessary due to the special fiduciary relationship between the Crown and Indigenous peoples. To live up to its own constitutional principle in upholding the honour of the Crown then, the government must engage with reconciliation. So, how has the government fared? In 2008, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued Canada’s first formal apology for the history of residential schools, referring to it as a “shameful chapter” of Canada’s history. The next year he claimed that Canada had “no history of colonialism“. This framing fails to recognize the ongoing nature of colonization — relieving Canada of its responsibility to critically examine its past and present and to wholly engage with reconciliation.
Changing Indigenous Child Welfare in Canada
While the governments of Canada have certainly taken steps to address Indigenous child welfare over the years, policy has largely been reactive in nature. It should not take overwhelming public outcry sparked by tragedy to enact thoughtful policy on Indigenous child welfare. After years of protest concerning the mass apprehension of Indigenous children led to an independent inquiry in 1985, for example, the Manitoban government amended the Child and Family Services Act to require considering cultural, linguistic, racial and religious heritage when assessing what is in the best interest of a child. It took the death of five-year-old Jordan Anderson in 2005 for the Canadian government to address the systemic denial of care to Indigenous children. Jordan spent his short life in isolation at an off-reserve hospital while different government institutions argued over who would be financially responsible for his at-home care. Jordan’s death led to public outcry, which led to an independent inquiry, which ultimately led to the adoption of Jordan’s Principle in 2007. While this child-first, needs-based policy aimed to provide First Nations children with equitable access to public services, the government failed to fully implement it and continued to systemically underfund Indigenous child services. Continued interjurisdictional neglect left many First Nations children without sufficient access to essential public services, including Tina Fontaine nearly a decade after Jordan’s Principle was implemented.
The Future of Indigenous Child Welfare
In 2015, the TRC Final Report was released and included ninety-four Calls to Action to redress the harms of colonialism and to work towards reconciliation. Five calls addressed child welfare: (1) the reduction of children in government care, (2) the publication of annual reports, (3) the full implementation of Jordan’s Principle, (4) national standards for the apprehension of Indigenous children and custody cases, and (5) the development of culturally appropriate parenting programs for Indigenous families.
In response to these calls, Canada passed An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families in 2019. The Act directly addresses the TRC’s fourth Call to Action by establishing minimum standards in cases where an Indigenous child is involved in child welfare. It affirms Indigenous people’s jurisdiction over child and family services and sets out key principles including the best interests of the child, cultural continuity, and substantive equality. The Act’s implementation will be secured using funding to facilitate the development of self-governing child welfare systems. It also safeguards Indigenous sovereignty over child welfare by ensuring Indigenous laws prevail over provincial or federal ones in the event of legislative conflict or inconsistency. While Quebec’s government challenged the Act as being ultra vires Parliament’s jurisdiction, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed in 2024 that the Act was constitutionally valid as a whole.
While the passing of the Act represents an important step forward in lowering the number of Indigenous children in government care, there is still much work to be done. Several experts have pointed out that the Act failed to adopt several recommended amendments that would have better served Indigenous children and families. This includes the lack of an impermissible reasoning clause where time out of family care could not be a reason to cut a child’s ties to their family, as well as a weak “active efforts” principle which still gives leniency to care workers to make minimal to no effort toward prevention prior to child apprehension. Overall, the Act requires accountability mechanisms, additional funding, and the full implementation of Jordan’s Principle to address the TRC’s five Calls to Action concerning Indigenous child welfare. Beyond the Act, the government should also commit to building a relationship of trust with Indigenous peoples. In 2015, the TRC called on the government to provide education to public servants on Indigenous history with a focus on intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism. In response, the federal government created an optional program for its employees through the Canada School of Public Service. While this program is a start, it is not sufficient. To ensure that Indigenous people and the government can rebuild a relationship, educational programs must be mandatory and applicable to public workers at all levels of government. While this commitment to education is significant, it is necessary for Canada’s engagement in reconciliation with Indigenous children and families.
The bottom line is that the governments of Canada, both provincial and Canada, must work together and do so proactively. They must listen to Indigenous communities, social workers, and advocates to address the ongoing issues with Indigenous child welfare. Only then can Canada hope to reconcile its relationship with Indigenous peoples and ensure that preventable deaths like Tina’s will not be a part of Canada’s future.