From Awareness to Action: How First Nations Are Moving Forward Under C-92
Most First Nations leadership teams we work with don't need C-92 explained to them. Chief and Council, Band Administrators, and Tribal Council staff have been tracking this legislation since before it received Royal Assent in 2019. Many have attended FNLC sessions, sat through federal briefings, and debated the implications at the community level for years.
What they tell us they actually need is something different: a clear picture of what moving forward under C-92 really involves, the capacity gaps, the negotiating dynamics, the resourcing realities, and the governance infrastructure required to make jurisdiction stick long-term.
That's what this post is about.
As an indigenous consulting company in Kamloops, BC, Naroh Enterprises has worked alongside Nations at multiple stages of the C-92 process, from early readiness planning through to coordination agreement negotiations and implementation. Here is what we have seen work, where Nations typically get stuck, and what distinguishes the communities moving forward with confidence from those still in holding patterns.
The gap between understanding C-92 and being ready to exercise jurisdiction
Understanding the legislation is not the same as being ready to exercise jurisdiction under it. This distinction matters because many Nations are treating C-92 readiness as an information problem, if leadership knows enough about the Act, they can begin. In practice, the Nations making the most progress have shifted from information-gathering to infrastructure-building.
The three areas where readiness gaps most commonly appear:
Governance infrastructure. C-92 jurisdiction flows through your Indigenous Governing Body. That means your governance structure, how decisions are made, who holds authority, how accountability works, needs to be clearly defined and functional before you can meaningfully exercise jurisdiction over child and family services. Nations with governance fragility, unclear roles between administration, or unresolved policy gaps find that C-92 negotiations surface those issues quickly. The coordination agreement process is not forgiving of internal governance ambiguity.
Legal and technical capacity. Drafting a body of law governing child and family services is substantive legal work. The law needs to reflect your community's values and governance traditions while meeting the legal requirements of C-92 and interfacing with provincial legislation. Nations that have moved most efficiently through this stage have either built legal capacity within their team or retained indigenous consulting support that carries expertise, rather than treating it as purely a process to be managed.
Financial modelling and sustainability planning. A coordination agreement is also a financial agreement. The funding commitments, service delivery costs, data systems, and staffing requirements of operating your own child and family services program need to be modelled before you negotiate, not after. Nations that arrive at the negotiating table without this work done are at a disadvantage. Federal and provincial counterparts have significant experience in these negotiations; Nations benefit from having done the same level of financial preparation.
What the coordination agreement negotiation actually looks like
The coordination agreement process is where C-92 implementation becomes concrete, and where the complexity increases significantly.
Federal and provincial negotiators are experienced. They have been through multiple rounds of these agreements. They know what they are willing to move on and what they are not. Coming to the table without a clear negotiating position, a well-resourced team, and an understanding of the precedents set in other Nations' agreements puts your community at a disadvantage from the start.
From our experience supporting Nations through this process, a few things consistently make a difference:
Know your non-negotiables before you sit down. Your Nation's laws are the foundation. The coordination agreement governs how those laws interact with the provincial system, it does not override them. Going into negotiations with clarity about what your community will and will not accept in areas like data sharing, dispute resolution, and transition timelines prevents agreements that look good on paper but create operational problems during implementation.
Funding conversations need your own numbers. The federal government will present funding models. Those models are based on their costing assumptions. Nations that have done independent financial modelling, built around their own community size, service complexity, and capacity requirements, negotiate from a fundamentally stronger position than those responding to numbers they haven't pressure-tested.
Precedent matters and you should know it. Other Nations have signed coordination agreements. The terms of those agreements, what was negotiated, where compromises were made, are relevant to your own negotiations. Understanding the landscape of existing agreements, and which Nations have achieved better terms in which areas, is part of preparation that is often overlooked.
Why some Nations are moving faster than others
Speed of C-92 implementation is not simply a function of political will. The Nations moving forward with the most momentum tend to share a few characteristics:
They have invested in governance before C-92 became urgent. Nations with strong, functional governance structures, clear policies, defined roles, accountable administration, are better positioned to absorb the demands of C-92 negotiations because their internal systems can handle it.
They have built or retained the right capacity. Whether that is in-house legal counsel, a dedicated C-92 implementation team, or an indigenous consulting firm that can carry both legal and strategic capacity, the Nations moving quickly have the right people working on this.
They have treated this as a program, not a project. C-92 implementation is not a discrete deliverable with a start and end date. It is an ongoing governance function. Nations that have committed to it as a long-term institutional priority, with dedicated leadership attention, budgeted resources, and sustained community engagement, are outpacing those treating it as one item among many on an already crowded agenda.
Common points where implementation stalls
Even Nations that have made strong progress can hit friction points that slow or stall implementation. The most common ones we see:
Unresolved internal governance issues surfacing during negotiations. A coordination agreement negotiation will expose any ambiguity in your governance structure. If there is uncertainty about who holds decision-making authority, or unresolved conflict between elected leadership and administration, those issues need to be addressed, ideally before negotiations begin.
Underestimating the data and information systems requirement. Exercising jurisdiction over child and family services requires data. Case data, financial data, outcome data. Building or adapting the systems to generate and manage that data is often more complex and costly than anticipated, and it is rarely fully funded through coordination agreement negotiations alone.
Fatigue in the engagement process. Community engagement on C-92 is not a one-time consultation. It needs to be ongoing, and it competes with every other priority your community is managing. Nations that build engagement capacity into their implementation structure, rather than treating it as a periodic add-on, maintain the community legitimacy that makes jurisdiction sustainable.
Transition risk during service handover. The period when jurisdiction formally transfers is high-stakes. Children and families currently receiving provincial services need continuity. Planning the transition carefully, with clear protocols, trained staff, and escalation procedures, is an area where Nations benefit significantly from having implementation support in place.
What Naroh Enterprises provides at each stage
Naroh Enterprises Corp. is an indigenous consulting company based in Kamloops, BC, on Secwépemc territory. We provide C-92 support to First Nations communities and Tribal Councils across British Columbia and Canada.
Our work at each stage of C-92 implementation includes:
Readiness assessment. A structured assessment of your governance infrastructure, legal capacity, financial position, and community engagement, with a clear gap analysis and prioritised recommendations for moving forward.
Governance framework development. Strengthening the governance structures that C-92 jurisdiction will flow through, roles, responsibilities, policies, accountability mechanisms, and decision-making clarity at the Chief and Council and administrative levels.
Drafting support. Working alongside your leadership and legal team to develop a body of law governing child and family services that reflects your community's values and meets C-92 legal requirements.
Financial modelling and funding proposals. Building the financial model for your C-92 program, service delivery costs, staffing, data systems, and developing the funding proposals to support it.
Coordination agreement support. Supporting your negotiating team with preparation, briefing materials, precedent analysis, and strategic advice through the coordination agreement process.
Implementation planning. Developing the transition plan, data systems strategy, and engagement framework for the period between agreement signing and full jurisdiction.
If your Nation is at any stage of C-92 work, or preparing to begin, we welcome a direct conversation.
Book a consultation: naroh.ca/contact-us
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Our Nation has been monitoring C-92 for years but hasn't formally started. What's the first step?
The most useful first step is an honest internal assessment of where your governance and capacity actually sit, not where you'd like them to be. A structured readiness assessment, done with candour, tells you what needs to be in place before you can move forward effectively. Starting with negotiations before that foundation is solid typically creates problems that have to be resolved mid-process.
We're part of a Tribal Council. Should we pursue C-92 collectively or individually?
Both paths are available under C-92, and the right answer depends on your specific context, the strength of your Tribal Council's governance, how aligned member Nations are on child and family services priorities, and whether collective capacity genuinely exceeds what individual Nations could build. We have supported Nations working through this decision and can provide analysis based on your specific situation.
What does a coordination agreement actually commit our Nation to?
A coordination agreement governs how your Nation's laws interact with the provincial system during the transition period. Key commitments typically include data sharing arrangements, service continuity protocols, funding terms, and dispute resolution mechanisms. What it does not do is override your Nation's laws or limit your jurisdiction, it is a framework for coexistence, not a constraint on your authority.
How do we ensure our community's values are reflected in our C-92 laws?
The strongest approaches combine structured community engagement, with Elders, families, and youth with a drafting process that translates those conversations into law. Engagement is not a pre-drafting checkbox; it should be ongoing and iterative throughout the development of your legal framework.
What happens to children currently in provincial care when our Nation exercises jurisdiction?
Transition planning addresses this directly. A coordination agreement will include provisions for how children currently in the provincial system are transitioned to your Nation's jurisdiction. The timelines, protocols, and service continuity requirements for this transition are negotiable and should be a central focus of your coordination agreement work.
How long does it realistically take to get a coordination agreement signed?
Realistic timelines range from few months to several years from the start of serious implementation work. The variables include your starting capacity, the complexity of your community's context, and the responsiveness of your federal and provincial negotiating counterparts. Nations with strong preparation and experienced support consistently move faster.
What is the risk of moving too quickly?
Signing a coordination agreement before your governance infrastructure, financial planning, and community engagement are solid creates implementation risk. An agreement signed under time pressure or with insufficient preparation can result in service gaps, financial shortfalls, or community legitimacy issues during the transition. Moving with purpose and adequate preparation is more important than moving fast.
Can Naroh Enterprises work with our existing team on C-92?
Yes. We regularly work alongside Nations' existing legal counsel, providing strategic consulting, financial modelling, governance support, and project management, while legal drafting remains with counsel.
