I think there is something to be said for rethinking how child welfare is delivered. Personally, I'd like to see the definition of neglect thought out a bit more so that it doesn't codify structural discrimination as a parental deficit and it holds families accountable for what they can change, but not for what they can't change.
That said, what the tribunal found is that Canada's inequitable funding actually is the incentive for the removal of kids, because there is inadequate provision of child and family services. They find that in the ruling.
Another important thing is that we have seen examples—for example, at Mi'kmaw Family and Child Services—where funding levels have gone up about 300% due to their strong advocacy and the tribunal ruling. They have reduced the number of children in care in that province by about 40% over a period of two years. The agencies know that they can do better, but they need the resources there to be able to do that job. Inequitable funding in any recipe of children's services does not enable success.