This week in Calgary, chiefs from across the country are gathered to decide the fate of a $47.8-billion child welfare agreement a deal meant to finally address decades of systemic discrimination against First Nations children in care. It’s being called “landmark,” and for good reason: after nearly twenty years of legal battles, Canada is finally on the hook not just for compensation, but for reforms that could stop this injustice from happening again.
And yet, the agreement is on shaky ground. Some chiefs and Nations argue it was negotiated behind closed doors, that it doesn’t go far enough, and that Canada and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) have not meaningfully consulted with all communities. The Squamish Nation, for instance, has been vocal about being ignored in the process and is even threatening further action if its concerns aren’t heard. These critiques should not be brushed aside transparency and genuine consent are non-negotiable in any agreement that claims to uphold Indigenous rights.
But here’s the hard reality: the political clock is ticking. AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak is right to point out that the current government’s willingness to sign off on nearly $50 billion for First Nations children is not guaranteed under a different federal government. The Conservative Party, which is leading in the polls, has made it clear it intends to cut spending. History has also shown that when it comes to Indigenous issues, Conservative governments have not been eager to expand commitments or take bold steps. If this deal is struck down now, there is no certainty in fact, little likelihood that a better one will ever materialize.
The criticisms of the deal deserve serious attention, but rejecting it outright could mean sacrificing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to secure compensation and reforms. Perfect justice may not be achievable in this moment, but real, tangible progress is within reach. That progress matters for the thousands of children and families who have already been failed by Canada’s broken child welfare system.
To delay or derail the agreement risks leaving those children in limbo once again. It risks repeating the cycle of promises without delivery. Indigenous leaders should keep pushing for accountability, amendments, and stronger safeguards but they should do it while building on this agreement, not scrapping it altogether.
The choice is not between a flawed deal and an ideal one waiting just around the corner. The choice is between a flawed but historic agreement now, or no agreement at all under a future government less inclined to honour the struggle that First Nations have fought for decades.
In that light, the path forward seems clear: accept the deal, lock it in, and keep fighting to make it stronger.
