indigenous – My Climate Change Website

Tribal nations in Alaska press for role in Canadian resources talks

This article was written by Nathan Vanderklippe and was published in the Globe & Mail on November 20, 2025.

**The Red Chris mine expansion in northwestern British Columbia is among the projects designated by Prime Minister Mark Carney for fast-track approval.**

A group of Alaska tribal nations has gone to the B.C. Supreme Court to demand a seat at the table in Canadian resource development – including a mine expansion that is among the nationbuilding projects Ottawa has selected as pivotal to economic development.

The Alaska groups argue that their historical use of what is now northwestern B.C. makes them Aboriginal peoples of Canada under the Constitution Act, saying that status should guarantee them the same rights to consultation as Canadian Indigenous groups.

The petition for judicial review, filed Wednesday, adds a potential new complication to Canadian plans to bolster a domestic economy buffeted by U.S. tariffs. Now, a different set of U.S. interests is seeking the ability to constrain those plans.

The Alaska legal challenge is part of an escalating effort by U.S. tribal groups to assert rights in Canada in the wake of the 2021 Desautel decision, in which Canada’s Supreme Court found that the Lakes Tribe in eastern Washington state should be considered Aboriginal peoples of Canada, given their historical use of land that is now B.C.

In the years since, several U.S. groups have used the decision to assert themselves in Canadian affairs.

The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, which includes the Lakes Tribe, has demanded the right to shape how its history is taught in B.C. schools. In northwestern Washington, the Lummi Nation says it should have a say in major infrastructure construction in the Vancouver area, including a port expansion and highway improvements.

Those claims have created conflict with Canadian Indigenous groups. Earlier this year, Osoyoos Indian Band Chief Clarence Louie warned that Canadian leaders must “wake up” to a creeping erosion of sovereignty as U.S. groups seek to advance claims.

In June, the province of British Columbia declared, in an order-in-council, that Alaska tribal groups cannot be a “participating Indigenous nation” in the review of six mining projects.

But “that itself is illegal” under the provincial Environmental Assessment Act, argues John Gailus, a B.C.-based lawyer acting for the Alaska tribes. The petition filed in B.C. seeks to have that order quashed, and asks the court to either find that several Alaskan tribes are participating Indigenous nations in a mining review − or force the province to make such a decision.

Those tribes have a legitimate expectation to consultation, Mr. Gailus said, because they fit the definition of Aboriginal peoples of Canada as defined by the Desautel decision.

But the Province of B.C. has not included them in formal consultation processes. Instead, it has provided notification of developments in the permitting process.

“We’re getting these notices but there’s nothing we can do about it. We are powerless,” said Esther Reese, president of the Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission, or SEITC, which counts 14 member tribes.

Ms. Reese is Tlingit, and her clan traces its lineage to the Stikine River, in whose watershed the Red Chris mine is partly situated. That gold and copper mine began production in 2015, yielding concentrate that is shipped to Asia for smelting. The mine is seeking to transition to underground mining, a change that could allow it to boost Canada’s copper output by 15 per cent according to Newmont Corp., its majority owner.

The Stikine flows from a region of Northern B.C. dubbed the Sacred Headwaters before crossing into Alaska, reaching saltwater not far from Wrangell, where Ms. Reese is tribal administrator.

In September, Red Chris was among the projects designated by Prime Minister Mark Carney for fast-track approval as part of a bid to bolster a Canadian economy battered by U.S. tariffs. Mr. Carney noted the participation of the Dease Lake, B.C.-based Tahltan Nation as a partner in Red Chris, calling the project “an important step in reconciliation and further developing the potential of Northern B.C.”

Canada’s prioritizing of the mine has made it a greater priority for groups in Alaska, Ms. Reese said.

“The fact they’re fast-tracking that mine and we don’t have a say makes this even more of an emergency for us,” she said. A catastrophic mine failure, she said, would jeopardize “our whole way of life. We’re salmon people.”

Earlier this year, Skeena-Wild Conservation Trust, an environmental advocacy group, found that mine tailings are seeping into the environment at a higher rate than predicted, raising risks to fish and to the dam’s structural stability.

Newmont, in response, said it had installed new seepage interception systems and was updating its dam safety review. The company declined to comment

Mining companies in B.C. have already reached out to tribal groups in Alaska through the SEITC, providing “ample opportunity to provide input into the assessment process” for several current projects, said Michael Goehring, president of the Mining Association of B.C. He accused SEITC of receiving funding for its legal action from “Earthjustice, a large pro-bono law firm based in the U.S. that is more interested in stopping BC mining than advancing an appropriate level of consultation for the Tribes.”

Earthjustice has worked closely with SEITC on other legal challenges, but Mr. Gailus said the group is not funding the current court application.

In a statement, the B.C. government said its environmental assessment office “will continue to fulfill its constitutional obligations by consulting with U.S. Tribes when there is a credible assertion of Aboriginal rights under the Canadian Constitution and a potential for these rights to be impacted by a proposed project.”

It’s not clear, however, who has the authority to declare that a U.S.-based group meets that criteria.

“Government has to make that decision,” Mr. Gailus said.

But, he added, the Alaska tribes under the SEITC are Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian, each of which is also an Indigenous group based in Canada.

“All three of those are Aboriginal peoples of Canada,” Mr. Gailus said. So do the Alaska groups “have a right to be consulted because they are Aboriginal peoples of Canada? We say yes.”

The truth about Ontario’s Ring of Fire advertisements

This article was written by Riley Yesno and was published in the Toronto Star on November 2, 2025.

If you drive a car, or have been watching TV, or walking down a busy Toronto street these days, you’ve likely seen Ontario’s ads promoting development in the socalled Ring of Fire region.

The area in northern Ontario is rich in critical minerals, such as chromite, nickel and platinum.

These minerals are key ingredients in making devices such as batteries for electric cars and cellphones and medical equipment.

Developing the Ring of Fire is being billed as the surest pathway to a prosperous economic future for Ontario. According to the ads, Ontario believes it can create around 70,000 jobs if it were to begin massive mining operations.

So why hasn’t this project started already?

The biggest problem: The province doesn’t have the right to the land.

The Ring of Fire — which is actually called Mammamattawa, which means “many rivers coming together” or Bakitanaamowin Aki, meaning “the Breathing Lands” — is home to several remote First Nations within Treaty 9 territory.

The name Ring of Fire was a nickname introduced in the early 2000s by the CEO of Noront Resource Development at the time, Richard Nemis, who gave the territory this name because his favourite artist was Johnny Cash.

Within the territory, nine First Nations are most closely located to the mineral deposits. These First Nations are a part of a regional governmental body called the Matawa Tribal Council, which includes my own, Eabametoong First Nation.

As of 2022, three of the nine Matawa Nations have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Ontario government to pursue some form of collaboration relating to the Ring of Fire, often starting by connecting these remote communities to the south via road access.

At the same time, others on the tribal council, such as Neskantega First Nation, have issued statements opposing attempts to accelerate development in the region, restating that they do not give their consent and find it harmful that the government can mobilize so quickly to pursue these interests when they are experiencing multiple states of emergency without sufficient provincial aid or intervention. Many feel that development at the speed and scale Ford proposes is impossible without undercutting Indigenous rights and appropriate environmental considerations.

Other First Nations outside the Tribal Council, such as Attiwapiskat First Nation, have also joined the opposition, setting up occupation camps alongside the proposed development sites.

As per Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, which speaks to Indigenous rights, the United Nations Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which Canada passed in 2021, and other critical legal declarations, Indigenous nations have a right to discretion when it comes to actions that could adversely affect their treaty territories — such as major mining operations.

For decades now, the Ontario government and interested mining corporations have tried various tactics to convince these remote First Nations, such as mine, that partnership can be beneficial and that they should say yes to their proposed resource extraction projects.

Over the years, companies like Cliffs Natural Resources and then Noront, which bought the rights to the chromite assets from Cliffs in 2015, and most recently, Ring of Fire Metals (a subsidiary of WylooMetals based in Australia), which bought Noront in 2022, have brought in goods, promised jobs and supplied vital services to these systemically neglected communities.

On the other end of things, successive Ontario governments, wanting to be the ones to get credit for greenlighting this major economic project, have also tried threats. For example, in 2018, Doug Ford infamously proclaimed that he would “hop on the bulldozer myself” to make mining in Mammamattawa happen.

Still, several rights holding nations have held out on giving that golden “yes” Ford and the mining execs have long yearned for. To an outsider, the reasons why these nations refuse to give the green light might not be clear, so let me explain:

First, even those communities that have said “no” to partnership thus far have maintained that they are not inherently against resource development projects. However, that does not mean they are prepared to sign off on any offer that comes their way.

These First Nations love the land, and they know how special it is — not just to them, but for the whole country and even the world.

Studies suggest that Mamma-mattawa, which covers the world’s second largest intact peatlands, absorbs almost one third of Ontario’s annual carbon emissions and already holds the equivalent of 39 billion vehicles’ worth of emissions. It’s for this reason that locals have called it the Breathing Lands.

So there are the very local concerns about the irrevocable harm that mining could cause to the way of life for those in the region. At the same time, Ontario promises to mine this region for new tech and to support green energy initiatives like making more electric cars — but are we sure that the attempts at electrification they propose are worth the cost of destroying one of the world’s lungs?

I, like many Indigenous people in the region, don’t seem to be convinced.

For Ontarians being bombarded with these ads, they should ask: Why is the government promoting a plan for economic growth that they don’t yet have the legal standing to pursue? And should they be more transparent about the real cost of mining in the North?

How many years will it actually take to see any financial gains, given that you still have to create hundreds of kilometres of road and transmission lines to even access the region? Will this mining actually lead us to a better environmental future, or are we being exposed to yet another instance of greenwashing?

First Nations are already asking these questions. I, for one, believe we should trust that those who have lived on the land for generations know what path is best; no matter what the province’s advertising budget says.

Abandoned in the ashes

This opinion was written by Brendan Moore, the National chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and was published in the Globe & Mail on October 20, 2025.

Those living in Leaf Rapids, Man., have faced the threat of fire, followed by the devastation of being ignored

As wildfires raged across northern Manitoba this summer, communities were forced to flee their homes under harrowing conditions. For many non-status and off-reserve Indigenous people in places like Leaf Rapids, the trauma didn’t end with the evacuation. It deepened upon their return.

Families were sent back to their community in the middle of the night. They stepped off those buses not to safety and relief, but to destruction and silence. There were no government reception centres waiting. No emergency teams to meet them. No supports to help them pick up the pieces.

With no electricity for days, fridges and deep freezers had become hazardous, filled with rotting meat and toxic mould. Some returned to find their houses infested by animals that had moved in during the evacuation, adding another layer of concern for health and safety. Parents carried their children into houses that were unsafe and unsanitary. Elders were left vulnerable. There were no clear lines of communication, no coordinated response, and no culturally appropriate supports. In effect, people were simply dropped back into a crisis, abandoned by the systems that are supposed to protect them.

This is not just a logistical failure. It is a systemic one.

Time and again, governments and emergency services at every level fail to adequately plan for, and respond to, the needs of non-status and off-reserve Indigenous peoples during emergencies. Unlike First Nations communities with reserve lands, non-status and off-reserve populations fall through jurisdictional cracks. Federal programs often exclude them. Provincial emergency plans rarely include them. Municipalities are underresourced and unequipped to address their specific needs.

Over and over again, non-status and off-reserve Indigenous people are treated as less-thanimportant in emergency responses, as though there is a hierarchy of who deserves protection: first Canadians, then First Nations on-reserve, and finally non-status and off-reserve peoples left at the back of the line, where help rarely reaches them.

This leaves thousands of Indigenous people – who are every bit as connected to their lands, cultures and communities – without a safety net when disaster strikes. And it’s not a new problem.

The 2016 wildfires in Fort McMurray, Alta., the COVID-19 pandemic, Hurricane Fiona (which affected the East Coast in 2023), and repeated floods and fires have all revealed the same glaring gap. Yet governments have been slow to act, even as the climate crisis intensifies, and disasters grow more frequent.

In the face of government inaction, it has been local, Indigenous-led groups like the Indigenous Peoples Alliance of Manitoba (IPAM), along with private donors, who have stepped up to fill the void. With no dedicated funding or formal emergency support, volunteers have worked tirelessly to help people return home, providing transportation, basic supplies, and direct assistance where governments have failed to act. This grassroots response underscores both the strength of Indigenous communities and the glaring absence of public support. Quite simply, there has been no co-ordinated federal or provincial help to support these evacuees returning home.

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) has long raised the alarm about this dangerous oversight. Non-status and off-reserve Indigenous people make up the majority of the Indigenous population in Canada. In Manitoba alone, tens of thousands live in communities like Leaf Rapids. They deserve the same level of protection, planning, and respect as anyone else.

Emergency management cannot continue to treat these communities as afterthoughts. Governments must work with Indigenous organizations that represent non-status and off-reserve peoples to develop inclusive emergency-response frameworks. This includes ensuring equitable access to evacuation supports, clear communication channels, post-disaster resources, and security for evacuated homes.

The people in communities like Leaf Rapids have endured enough – first the fear of fire, then the shock of returning home to devastation, and now the frustration of being ignored. Their experience should be a wake-up call for governments to close the gaps that have been left open for far too long.

Climate disasters do not discriminate. Emergency responses shouldn’t either.

Set the rules for Canada’s title bout

This editorial was written and published by the Globe & Mail on September 22, 2025.

The Supreme Court of Canada has defined Aboriginal title as the right to exclusive use and occupation of the land. This has been established for decades now, but just what it means remains surprisingly vague.

What has been clear – until recently – is that the rights of private landowners in Canada are protected through fee simple title, which has long been considered the strongest interest in property ownership, promising the title holder exclusive ownership.

The courts have just started to grapple with how to reconcile those two rights of possession. And don’t look in the books of Canadian statutes to answer the question – they don’t exist.

The B.C. Supreme Court has exposed the need for clarity, following an exhaustive trial that spanned 513 days.

In an Aug. 7 decision, Justice Barbara Young upheld the Cowichan Tribes’ claim to a portion of land in Metro Vancouver. In doing so, she found that Aboriginal title is a “prior and senior right to land.”

Just what that means in practical terms is as clear as mud for private landowners in the Richmond area where Cowichan title has been declared. Those owners may be left in agonizing legal limbo for years to come.

“A precedent that will follow from this case is that provincial Crown grants of fee simple interest do not extinguish nor permanently displace Aboriginal title,” the decision reads. It found the authority of the B.C. Land Act, under which fee simple title is registered, does not apply on Aboriginal title lands.

But in the same judgment, Justice Young says the two types of ownership can co-exist: “The question is not whether Aboriginal title can exist over fee simple lands, but whether fee simple interests can exist on Aboriginal title lands. In my view, the law has evolved and the answer to that question is ‘yes’.”

Her decision rests in part on previous cases that have chipped away at the question of which form of title takes precedence. In 2023, the Saugeen First Nation in Ontario persuaded the courts that its unceded reserve lands displaced the fee simple rights and interests of private landowners in Sauble Beach. In 2024, a court in New Brunswick ruled that if the Wolastoqey Nations can prove Aboriginal title, that title would apply over all lands within the claim area, including private lands. Their land claims cover more than 50 per cent of the province.

All parties to the Cowichan decision – including rival First Nations – are asking the B.C. Court of Appeal for the right to challenge Justice Young’s decision.

And all three land claims cases are expected to end up on the doorstep of the Supreme Court of Canada – eventually. A final ruling is unlikely to be delivered before the end of this decade.

B.C. Premier David Eby has expressed alarm about these rulings as they stand today, but he dismissed calls for a reference case to hasten a final ruling. Instead, he is asking that the courts expedite their decision-making, “so that we can get back to a place where we understand what our obligations are and how we meet them.”

Increasingly, Aboriginal title is being affirmed by the courts. The Tsilhqot’in, the Nuchatlaht, the Haida and the Cowichan now have constitutionally protected rights to lands within their traditional territories. Governments have shied away from providing a legislative framework to lay out what that means. Can environmental protections, for example, override what a Nation chooses to do on its lands?

Justice Young has instructed the parties to go back to the table and negotiate a settlement with the Cowichan. Negotiation might resolve the issues for specific property owners in Richmond, but greater certainty is needed for all Canadians about the scope of Aboriginal title.

The federal government acknowledges there are “potential significant nationwide implications” where clarity is needed on the complex issues involved in the Cowichan case, especially on private property rights. The Supreme Court is the correct place to resolve the questions that have been created by the lower courts.

In the meantime, however, federal and provincial legislators should not be waiting on the sidelines. They can and should craft legislation to establish where Aboriginal title fits in the pantheon of Canadian land laws.

Indigenous council member supportive of approval process

This article was written by Emily Haws and was published in the Globe & Mail on September 13, 2025.

Says he believes treaty, environmental concerns on major projects will be addressed

A member of the new Indigenous Advisory Council created to advise Ottawa on accelerating major projects says he believes concerns around the legislation, including treaty rights and environmental protections, will be addressed as proposals move though the approval process.

Lorne Pelletier, a senior economic adviser for the Manitoba Métis Federation, said the expertise and perspectives of the council members will bring strength to the process and improve it.

The federal government has said the council will provide policy recommendations to the Major Projects Office, but the office itself will be in charge of consulting directly with rights holders affected by potential projects. The council will not play a role in determining, finalizing or selecting the projects – the first five of which were unveiled on Thursday for consideration.

The council will shape how the Major Projects Office works with Indigenous peoples, including providing advice on economic participation in major projects, and how to integrate the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples throughout the process, according to the office’s website.

Mr. Pelletier said he is confident in the direction Mr. Carney and his ministers have taken around major projects.

“There’s a serious openness and willingness around receiving that advice,” he said.

Prime Minister Mark Carney announced the 11 members of the council on Wednesday. They include Treaty 8 Grand Chief Trevor Mercredi, who has been critical of the government’s major-projects legislation; former Haisla Nation chief Crystal Smith; Whitecap Dakota First Nation Chief Darcy Bear; and others with extensive economic-development experience.

A part of Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act allows the federal government to designate certain projects as in the national interest and then exempt them from various laws in order to speed up approvals.

Some Indigenous communities have voiced concerns about the law, including that their treaty rights could be violated and environmental protections overridden. In July, nine Ontario First Nations launched a constitutional challenge of the federal legislation and a similar Ontario law.

Mr. Pelletier said he expects concerns around the legislation, including treaty rights and the environment, will be worked out as proposed projects go through the approval process, including regulatory reviews and duty-to-consult obligations.

“I think at the project level, you’re going to see those things be addressed,” he said. “I’m fairly confident in that regard, that those requirements and those obligations are going to be adhered to.”

His expectation and hope is that concerns are addressed over time through tangible actions informed by the Indigenous Advisory Council, he said.

Manitoba Métis Federation president David Chartrand said in June that he supports Bill C-5, but wanted details around consultation worked out.

Obligations around the duty to consult and accommodate are very specific, and upheld in a series of Supreme Court decisions. They stem from Section 35 of the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms Aboriginal and treaty rights.

Métis Nation of Saskatchewan chief operating officer Matt Vermette said he “has every reason to believe” that the obligations “will be fulfilled for Indigenous people.” The council can hopefully “provide the insights that we’ve gathered over our careers and over our lifetimes to make that process a lot smoother,” he said.

Three members told The Globe and Mail that the part-time role is expected to include an honorarium. Mr. Vermette said they have not yet set a date for a first meeting, but he expects it to happen after paperwork and other due diligence are completed.

Chief Terrance Paul, of Membertou First Nation in Nova Scotia, said he expects the Major Projects Office to genuinely listen to the council’s opinions – a sentiment Mr. Pelletier and Mr. Vermette echoed.

“We expect to have our thoughts carefully considered,” Mr. Paul said, adding he feels “that the advisory council is very close to the inner circle of government.”

When asked why he thought that, he pointed to being asked to join it by Mr. Carney himself. He thinks Mr. Carney’s intentions are genuine and that the Prime Minister wants to respect Indigenous people, he said.

Indigenous people need to be a part of the economy, Mr. Paul said, and it is critical that their knowledge systems, governance and jurisdiction are integrated from the very beginning of any major project.

“We’re at a pivotal time of development in the Atlantic, in the country,” he said. “We don’t want to continue to be left at the wharf when the ship sails.”

Ottawa urged to listen to First Nations on major projects

This article was written by Emilie Bergeron and was published in the Globe & Mail on August 19, 2025.

Past Indigenous leaders share lessons learned from Trans Mountain pipeline expansion

Two former Indigenous leaders on both sides of the debate over the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion say the federal government can’t ignore First Nations on future infrastructure projects it seeks to approve.

Their comments come as Prime Minister Mark Carney aims to fast-track major projects, such as pipelines and mines, through his government’s newly adopted “Building Canada Act.”

Following years of delays and legal challenges, the expanded Trans Mountain pipeline, known as TMX, began operating last year. The project took more than 10 years to complete, after a court cited inadequate consultation with Indigenous groups in its decision to quash the federal government’s initial approval of the expansion.

The Canadian Press spoke with two former Indigenous leaders – one who supported TMX and one who opposed it – about what lessons have been learned from Trans Mountain, and whether they expect anything different from Carney’s plans to accelerate more major projects.

Leah George-Wilson, former chief of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, doesn’t believe Ottawa has learned any lessons. “I think we will see more First Nations turning to the courts over this piece of legislation,” she said of the Building Canada Act.

George-Wilson’s B.C.-based First Nation fought in court against the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline, which ends in Burrard Inlet, part of her people’s ancestral territory.

They initially succeeded in reversing the Trudeau government’s approval of the project in 2018 over a lack of consultation. However, after the government reapproved the project in 2019, First Nations such as Tsleil-Waututh were unable to stop it.

It was during this legal battle that the federal government purchased the Trans Mountain project from Kinder Morgan, which had been preparing to withdraw.

The TMX saga has left George-Wilson feeling pessimistic about the government’s approach to other projects. “Even today … the government has not responded to the significant impacts that Trans Mountain has had and continues to have on our community,” she said.

She says she is not reassured by Mr. Carney’s promise to respect section 35 of the Constitution Act – which guarantees the ancestral rights of Indigenous peoples – nor by the meetings he held over the summer with Indigenous leaders on his government’s plans to quickly approve infrastructure projects.

Some Indigenous communities have said they were not consulted during the drafting of the new legislation and fear it will infringe on their rights. Nine First Nations in Ontario have already filed a legal challenge against the Building Canada Act.

With the law, Mr. Carney wants to speed up projects that Ottawa considers to be in the national interest, with the goal of limiting approval times to two years.

“I don’t think this piece of legislation is going to speed up the projects at all because they’re going to end up in court,” she said.

However, Joe Dion a former grand chief in Alberta, says he thinks the Carney government will respect Section 35 and honour the principle of free, full and informed consent of First Nations.

“For the government to revoke this section or to go against it would be a national shame. So I don’t think it’s going to happen,” said Mr. Dion, who is the CEO and director of the Western Indigenous Pipeline Group.

The group includes dozens of Indigenous communities that, in partnership with Pembina Pipeline Corporation, want to acquire TMX. Ottawa has signalled its intention to divest itself of the pipeline ever since it purchased it from Kinder Morgan, though it has not yet done so.

Mr. Dion believes that things have changed significantly since the Trans Mountain saga began, and believes the Carney government intends to fully involve Indigenous communities in future projects labelled as in the national interest.

“The government is now saying that the First Nations and the Indigenous groups will have equity, will have ownership in these projects,” he said in an interview. “When TMX started, there was no promise of that at all. … We had to fight for it, we have to fight for it.”

Mr. Dion acknowledges that the Building Canada Act has drawn criticism from many Indigenous communities, but he said, “You will never have unanimity, whether it’s First Nations or non-First Nations.”

In his view, projects that would “severely affect” Indigenous communities will simply not go ahead, and won’t be selected as being in the national interest.

Ottawa must keep in mind the success of Indigenous clean energy projects

This opinion was written by James Jenkins, Executive director at Indigenous Clean Energy and was published in the Globe & Mail on August 8, 2025.

Investing in infrastructure has emerged as a cornerstone of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s economic strategy, as the federal government is looking for “nation-building” projects that can be expedited. As part of this vision, Ottawa must keep in mind the booming clean energy sector that has been bolstered by hundreds of successful Indigenous partnerships.

Indigenous ownership or coownership is now common for new renewable generation, transmission and energy storage projects in every region of Canada. Indigenous communities and businesses have led clean energy initiatives across the country over the past 15 years, but other levels of government also deserve credit.

Provinces and territories, as well as utilities, are making major strides to address electricity supply demands and affordability concerns. The federal government, for its part, has played a role in supporting Indigenous capacity-building and community readiness, as well as writing down the risks of project development.

Is there a model of Indigenous participation that can ensure the support of impacted communities? Perhaps, but most Indigenous communities in Canada have complicated histories when it comes to resource extraction. Prior to the 1982 Constitution Act, Indigenous and treaty rights had limited legal protection, and were routinely disregarded by federal and provincial agencies.

Over the past four decades, a series of Supreme Court decisions upholding these rights has changed the landscape. There is now an opportunity to start rebuilding the trust required to develop meaningful partnerships with Indigenous nations. However, the current urgency to get mega-projects off the ground may clash with the time needed to rebuild that trust.

Clean energy is one area where Indigenous communities have willingly partnered with resource development with outstanding results. There are now more than 600 electricity generation projects that are owned or co-owned by an Indigenous community or organization, including hundreds of large projects. Collectively, these projects provide hundreds of millions of dollars in net revenue that is further reinvested by Indigenous communities.

The impact of Indigenous-led clean energy is enormous across the country. Most provinces have built community-led clean energy projects into their procurement strategy to address the rapidly growing demand for electricity across Canada. The Atlantic provinces and Manitoba are anticipating projects that will bring billions of dollars in capital to support these initiatives.

For the provinces with large metropolitan centres that have adopted this strategy – British Columbia and Quebec – the amount of capital associated with Indigenous clean energy projects under development may be in the tens of billions. These renewable “nation-building” projects are already bringing investment, jobs and supporting industries to their respective regions.

How do we ensure that these sometimes-overlooked nationbuilding projects are successful in these economically uncertain times? First and foremost, we should acknowledge, support and invest in the programs that have made the growth of Indigenous-led clean energy possible.

The market for large renewable energy projects is straightforward, and once built, attracting capital or investors is easier than many other large ventures. However, navigating the planning, permit approval and other preconstruction stages can be difficult, especially in regions with limited capacity to support this process.

The federal government has played a key role in providing grant programs that have allowed renewable projects to move forward with Indigenous partners. These programs are located across half a dozen federal departments. Together, they provide a framework that has helped to move projects along, especially in regions farther from major urban centres and in off-grid communities.

These programs transcend party lines and have their roots in the Harper government with major programs such as the Clean Energy Fund. They were renewed and expanded under the Trudeau government’s Clean Energy Plan. Today, grant programs in conjunction with strategic investments from the Canada Infrastructure Bank have provided the stability needed for many provinces to put renewable energy at the forefront of their electricity procurement strategies.

There is always a need to review and improve government programs, but the federal role in the rise of Indigenous ownership in Canada’s electricity generation infrastructure deserves attention. Electricity demand is predicted to double or triple over the next 20 years, making these projects more crucial than ever.

Mr. Carney has rebranded the federal Liberals practically overnight, and we now hear the word “austerity” entering the conversation. While any federal government must react to changes in the global economy, the desire for nation-building initiatives should not obscure the success of federal investment in Indigenous renewable energy projects, which have already reaped dividends, with potentially many more to come.

Ford tries to talk his way out of trouble

This opinion was written by Martin Regg Cohn and was published in the Toronto Star on July 22, 2025.

First Nations and first ministers tend to follow a familiar playbook at highstakes summits.

Call it the Canadian tradition of blending confrontation with consultation and stagnation. Time for an update.

Meeting in Muskoka on Monday, Indigenous chiefs and premiers sat down without the usual standoff. Possibly it was the bucolic setting at a scenic lakeside resort, but Ontario’s Doug Ford could be seen chatting and chuckling amiably with Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak when they emerged.

The week before in Ottawa, by contrast, when Prime Minister Mark Carney met Indigenous leaders to defend his development plans, the reaction was far more tense. Why the change in atmosphere?

Perhaps it is in the nature of the political beast — on both sides — to raise the temperature and then cool things down. Elected first ministers and elected chiefs are politicians, after all, beholden to their constituencies but mindful of the changing political climate.

Compromise doesn’t come easy. But confrontation may not go down easy anymore, either.

The tension has been with us since time immemorial, not least since settlers started colonizing Canada long ago. But times are changing for Canada’s traditional political ritual.

Today, while First Nations leaders complain of past Canadian colonization, the public is focused on the American colonizer at the door. Is the colonizer about to be colonized?

The ground is shifting — not just on traditional Indigenous lands but across the land and beyond the border.

For all the historic allegations of exploitation, an existential crisis is facing the entire country in real time — if not quite conquest, then economic colonization. If Canada’s manufacturing base is sidelined and the government’s fiscal capacity undermined, that will surely undercut Ottawa’s future ability to funnel billions of dollars to First Nations reserves.

Against that backdrop, Ottawa, the provinces and territories have come together to kickstart economic development while streamlining the approval process. Given our unique demography, geography and geology, it is hardly surprising that our political leaders are pulling every lever, cutting every corner and clenching every cliché to get goods to market quickly and competitively.

But after pushing the envelope, first ministers of every political stripe have faced pushback for moving too far, too fast. Not just Carney’s Liberal government in Ottawa and Ford’s Progressive Conservative government at Queen’s Park, but also NDP governments in B.C. and Manitoba have been rebuked.

Yet none has faced as much fury as Ford. Ontario’s premier is front and centre because he has legislated the most aggressive process, pushing “special economic zones” that give him added powers, notably in the Ring of Fire on Indigenous territory in the Far North.

It’s not just Ford’s future ambitions but his past track record that have raised hackles. His transgressions on the Greenbelt’s protected lands ringing Toronto suggest he might also trample on protected treaty lands ringing the province.

After rushing through legislation without consultation last month, the premier was in a hurry to calm the waters at the heavily guarded Deerhurst Resort in Huntsville. Perhaps mindful of threatened protests for the long hot summer of 2025 — which have not materialized in Muskoka — Ford tried to talk his way out of trouble.

“It’s all about building relationships,” he mused after the meeting, but then quickly asserted that most of the Indigenous chiefs he talks to are tired of talking: “The number one thing I heard is start moving — stop talking and start moving.”

Yet the premier stressed he won’t trigger any fast moving projects “without a green light from First Nations communities.”

For their part, Indigenous leaders insist they are not antidevelopment, merely antidiktat. They want consultation and collaboration, not unilateral legislation that ignores the government’s duty to consult — and they want it at their own pace.

“Our First Nations are not here to block roads but to build bridges,” said Linda Debassige, grand council chief of the Anishinabek Nation.

The AFN’s Woodhouse Nepinak said different First Nations have diverse views, but there is common ground about America’s overreach.

“For sure I think that we are all united against Trump’s illegal tariffs,” she told reporters. “We want prosperity, but not at the expense of our rights.”

Canada’s first ministers counter that there will be consultation in due course, even if their lightningquick legislation preempted the discussion. Clearly, provincial and federal governments feel a new urgency, driven by renewed anxiety among voters.

But in their hurry, they skipped a step. Now, amid the pushback, they have to backtrack.

Which means that the latest divide between First Nations and first ministers is as much about process as substance. Indigenous leaders say they need more time to get it right, respecting both their rights and rhythms, but time is short.

When all is said and done, both sides still need to talk it out, striking a balance between consultations and decisions. The last thing that First Nations and the entire country need is more confrontation and litigation amid the spectre of economic colonization.

After rushing through legislation without consultation last month, Premier Doug Ford was in a hurry to calm the waters at the heavily guarded Deerhurst Resort in Huntsville

Why First Nations clash with Ontario, Ottawa over bills aimed at expediting projects

This article was written by Jeff Gray and was published in the Globe & Mail on July 19, 2025.

**Keisha Paulmartin of Okiniwak Youth Led Movement is overcome with emotion during a protest at the Canadian Museum of History in Gatineau on Thursday.**

First Nations leaders have opposed both the federal government’s Bill C-5 and Ontario’s Bill 5, pieces of legislation that would allow the two governments extraordinary powers to ignore existing laws – including environmental regulations – to fast-track megaprojects such as mines or pipelines.

They say the two bills run roughshod over the constitutional requirement that governments consult First Nations about development on their traditional territories.

A group of nine First Nations in Ontario launched a constitutional challenge this week of both Ontario’s and Canada’s pieces of legislation.

Both Prime Minister Mark Carney – who met with First Nations leaders in Gatineau on Thursday – and Ontario Premier Doug Ford have pledged to consult Indigenous people as they implement their two bills.

They say the legislation is needed to quickly boost the Canadian economy in the face of U.S. tariffs, and speed up what are often overlapping, red-tape-laden approval processes that can hamstring projects with years of delay.

WHAT WOULD BILL 5 ALLOW THE ONTARIO GOVERNMENT TO DO?

Ontario’s Bill 5, formally known as the Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act and passed in June, allows the Ontario government to designate “special economic zones” where it could suspend any provincial law – including environmental or labour rules and municipal bylaws – for companies or entities it labels “trusted proponents.”

Detailed regulations laying out how it will work, or precisely which laws could be blotted out, have not been released to the public. The Ontario government pledged to hold consultations on those, and even allow for what it calls “Indigenous-led” special economic zones, over the summer.

The Premier has said he aims to designate the remote northern Ring of Fire region, where he claims reserves of critical minerals are key to Ontario’s economy, as the first special economic zone “as soon as possible” – after consulting First Nations.

While three First Nations in and near the region support plans for all-season roads to the area, others have opposed the push to mine there, and none have spoken out in favour of Bill 5.

WHAT IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S BILL C-5?

The focus of First Nations opposition to the federal government’s Bill C-5, which also passed last month, is legislation included in the bill called the Building Canada Act, which grants sweeping authority to disregard existing laws in order to speed up projects the government deems to be in the national interest.

Once a megaproject is designated as a project of national interest, it would be deemed approved from the start. It would then fall under the authority of a single central major projects office, which will include an Indigenous advisory council.

As Mr. Carney stressed in remarks on Thursday to First Nations leaders, the legislation mandates consultation with Indigenous peoples during the process of determining which projects are in the national interest – and in a new process of developing one set of conditions proponents would have to meet.

WHAT IS THE ’DUTY TO CONSULT’ FIRST NATIONS?

Properly called the “duty to consult and accommodate” First Nations, the concept has been recognized in court rulings dating back to the 1980s and affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997.

It obligates the Crown – meaning governments – to consult First Nations about activities that impact their treaty rights, which were embedded in Section 35 of the Constitution in 1982. Landmark Supreme Court of Canada rulings in the past 20 years have fleshed out and strengthened this obligation.

In essence, if governments want to allow the construction of a mine or another project in a First Nation’s traditional territory, they must engage in meaningful consultations and accommodate Indigenous concerns about its potential effects on treaty rights, such as the preservation of hunting or fishing grounds.

The duty to consult has seen many First Nations sign “impact benefit agreements” with mining companies or others operating on their traditional territories, which usually involve revenue for Indigenous governments.

WAS THERE A ‘DUTY TO CONSULT’ FIRST NATIONS BEFORE PASSAGE OF THESE BILLS?

During his province’s Bill 5 debate, Ontario Indigenous Affairs Minister Greg Rickford repeatedly asserted that Ontario did not, referencing a 2018 Supreme Court ruling. In that case, the Mikisew Cree First Nation argued the then-Conservative federal government had a duty to consult before bringing in contentious 2012 legislation that sparked the “Idle No More” protest movement.

In a split decision, the top court ruled against the First Nation, concluding that parliamentary privilege means governments do not trip over their constitutional obligation if they draft legislation without consulting first. But lawyers say the Mikisew ruling does not preclude governments from choosing to consult First Nations before tabling a bill. Governments routinely consult industry or other interest groups while drafting legislation.

WHY DO SOME FIRST NATIONS LEADERS SAY THEY ARE ENTITLED TO ‘FREE, PRIOR AND INFORMED CONSENT?’

That phrase, routinely invoked by First Nations, comes from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Canada at first avoided endorsing but fully signed onto in 2016.

Federal legislation in 2021 began the gradual implementation of this new standard. But lawyers say the meaning of “free, prior and informed consent”, with regard to different projects that impact First Nations rights in different ways across Canada, remains legally contested ground.

Canadian courts have held that it does not amount to an absolute veto. UNDRIP itself states that it does not authorize “any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States.”

In a recent decision, the Federal Court held that free, prior and informed consent did not amount to a First Nations veto but rather the right to a “robust process.”

Ontario has not signed onto UNDRIP, or adopted it in its law, and the province has said it will abide by its duty to consult First Nations.

WHAT DOES THE ‘HONOUR OF THE CROWN’ MEAN?

This legal concept, affirmed in Supreme Court of Canada rulings, requires the Crown to act honourably in dealings with First Nations, and it is at the heart of a legal application filed in July challenging both Bill 5 and Bill C-5.

The court application by nine First Nations in Ontario accuses both governments of failing to act honourably toward Indigenous people by passing legislation that would eliminate many existing opportunities for input on large projects in their traditional territories.

Citing the 2018 Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Mikisew, the bands’ lawyers say that ruling held that the governments’ obligation to act honourably still applies to the making and passing of legislation.

But it was left to future cases to work out what this means in practice.

Indigenous leaders leave summit split on PM’s major projects push

This article was written by Emily Haws and Stephanie Levitz, and was pubished in the Globe & Mail on July 18, 2025.

Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks during the First Nations summit in Gatineau on Thursday. The meeting was convened after Mr. Carney faced pushback over how Bill C-5 was introduced and sped through Parliament.

■ Some First Nations cautiously optimistic, say Carney listened thoughtfully ■ Others criticize legislation as centralizing power in Ottawa, ignoring treaty rights

A landmark meeting between Mark Carney and First Nations leaders ended the way it began Thursday, with a divergence of views on display that signalled a long road ahead for the Prime Minister’s plan to fast-track major projects.

Some leaders emerged with a sense that Mr. Carney had listened thoughtfully to their points of view.

Others said the meeting was too disorganized and last minute to be considered meaningful dialogue in response to the central concern: whether First Nations rights will be respected and protected alongside the implementation of Bill C-5.

Part of the law, the Building Canada Act, allows the federal cabinet to deem projects to be of national interest and then exempt them from various laws in order to speed up approvals and construction.

The Carney government says doing so is crucial to strengthening the economy in the face of the collapsing relationship with the United States.

The law requires consultation with Indigenous peoples to determine which projects would be deemed in the national interest, and to develop the conditions under which chosen projects could proceed.

Chief Vernon Watchmaker from Kehewin Cree Nation in Alberta said he does not see it that way.

“Bill C-5 centralizes power in Ottawa, lets cabinet override environmental laws, ignores treaty and inherent rights,” he told a news conference late Thursday.

“That is not modernization, it is colonization in 2025.”

Chief Derek Nepinak of the Pine Creek First Nation in Manitoba said the meeting was a good opportunity to engage, and his sense was that chiefs are “cautiously optimistic.”

British Columbia Assembly of First Nations Regional Chief Terry Teegee said that’s also what he is feeling.

“It really comes down to what the Prime Minister is going to commit to over the next year,” he said.

Mr. Teegee said he would have liked to know whether Mr. Carney will live up to the free, prior and informed consent provisions under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which came into force in Canada in 2021.

“I think the answer would have been yes, I hope,” he said. “But I think a lot of First Nations still have a lot of trust issues.”

Those invited Thursday included many First Nations “rights holders,” the term for Indigenous peoples, including Inuit and Métis, who are covered by Section 35 of the Constitution.

It recognizes and affirms their existing Aboriginal and treaty rights, and it’s where the duty to consult stems from. Indigenous peoples and parts of Canada also have Aboriginal title.

Thursday’s meeting, however, was not the formal consultation required under the bill.

It was convened after Mr. Carney faced significant pushback on how the bill was introduced and, in turn, sped through Parliament in a matter of days over the objections of many, including Indigenous leadership, who said that meant it did not receive appropriate scrutiny.

Many chiefs said the agenda and timeline for the meeting only came together at the last minute, and there was confusion ahead of time over how much engagement they would have with the Prime Minister.

While Mr. Carney’s remarks were open to the media, the rest was not, over the objections of the Assembly of First Nations, who had pushed for the meeting to be public.

In his opening speech, Mr. Carney highlighted that the economic value of the projects and all sides working together means a new chapter will be written in the relationship between the federal government and First Nations, he said.

“This isn’t an aspiration. This is the law. This is the law as it is written. The plan is embedded in the law itself,” he said.

“In many respects, this is the first federal legislation to put Indigenous economic growth at its core. We now have the opportunity to realize it.”

Kahnawà:ke Grand Chief Cody Diabo left early, before a question-and-answer session with Mr. Carney, telling the floor that the meeting was inadequate.

“I’ve had better engagements at training sessions,” he told chiefs. “I feel like I’m back in high school. Sit down, listen and don’t talk.”

The Globe and Mail obtained a link to the virtual meeting from a participant.

Mr. Carney remained at the meeting until the end of the day, and took numerous questions.

“It’s time to build big projects that will transform and connect our economy. Central to this mission is shared leadership with Indigenous Peoples,” Mr. Carney said in a statement after the meeting.

“Working in partnership, we can seize this opportunity and build lasting prosperity for generations.”

Mr. Diabo and other chiefs did not rule out the potential for future protests. Chief Joey Pete of Sunchild First Nation in Alberta told a news conference treaties must be honoured.

“We will stand tall. We’ll gather together if we have to, to stop this,” he said.

Mr. Pete said the fact that First Nations may economically benefit under the legislation is cold comfort.

“Yes, it’s good to revenue share, but what do we share revenue from, resources that were stolen? That were taken from us illegally when these resources were all ours to begin with?”

Next steps for the legislation include setting up a major projects office, which Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Rebecca Alty told reporters will be in place by Labour Day.

The office will be in charge of pulling together a list of projects for consideration. Indigenous Services Minister Mandy GullMasty said she thinks there will be “a long wait” before that list could be shared with First Nations.

Earlier this week, nine Ontario First Nations filed a lawsuit seeking to have Bill C-5 and Ontario’s Bill 5 struck down, calling for an injunction. Bill 5 allows for the creation of “special economic zones” where any provincial law could be suspended.

Next week, Mr. Carney is expected to hold a similar meeting with the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee and then Métis leadership soon after.

He also said there will be a regional dialogue and consultation process to provide opportunity for input and feedback.

First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities will be able to access $40-million in funding to support their participation in the implementation of C-5, and also to apply to a $10-billion Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program to help them acquire an ownership stake in whatever is developed.