Prime Minister Mark Carney Meets with First Nations Leaders Amid Concerns Over Bill C-5
Prime Minister Mark Carney convened a national summit today with First Nations leaders, chiefs, and Indigenous advocacy organizations to directly address growing concerns over the Liberal government’s newly passed Bill C-5, also known as the One Canadian Economy Act.
At the centre of the discussion: Canada’s constitutional duty to consult Indigenous peoples.
Under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the rights of Indigenous peoples defined as First Nations, Inuit, and Métis, are recognized and affirmed. The Supreme Court of Canada has been clear: when government actions or decisions may adversely affect those rights (asserted or proven), the Crown has a legal duty to consult and, where necessary, accommodate. This principle was firmly established in the landmark 2004 decision, Haida Nation v. British Columbia.
Read that decision here
But consultation, is far from simple. Canada is home to 630 First Nations, each with their own history, governance structures, and legal relationships with the Crown. Some are signatories to historic treaties, others to modern treaties, and some remain non-treaty nations. Many nations operate under self-government agreements, while others are still fighting to assert their title. Leadership structures also vary, with some nations governed by elected chiefs, others by hereditary leadership, and many by both.
Because of this diversity, the duty to consult can differ from nation to nation, and project to project, depending on the severity of potential or actual harm. But as the courts have made clear, consultation must be meaningful: the Crown must listen, consider concerns in good faith, and adjust plans where possible.
Importantly, the Supreme Court ruled in 2018 (Mikisew Cree v. Canada) that the federal government is not constitutionally obligated to consult Indigenous peoples while drafting or debating legislation. However, the Liberal government also passed Bill C-15 in 2021, which incorporates the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). UNDRIP calls for free, prior, and informed consent, including during legislative processes that may affect Indigenous communities.
Read the 2018 Supreme Court ruling here
Read Bill C-15 here
Critics argue that if the government is serious about aligning Canadian laws with UNDRIP, consultation during lawmaking should become standard practice, even if not yet legally required.
As for Bill C-5, the new law creates a framework for fast-tracking national infrastructure and energy projects — but no specific projects have been listed yet. Once the government begins naming projects to proceed under C-5, meaningful consultation will be mandatory, especially with Indigenous nations whose lands, waters, or treaty rights may be affected.
That consultation won’t fall solely on the federal government. In many cases, provinces will lead project proposals, and they too are bound by the Crown’s duty to consult under Canadian law.
Carney has previously stated that only projects with a high likelihood of success, including successful consultation and accommodation, will be added to the list. But ultimately, it will be up to the Prime Minister and his ministers to determine whether the consultation was sufficient.
And if it isn’t?
Then, as history has shown, taxpayers could be on the hook for years of costly legal battles. In multiple past cases, courts have overturned government approvals and cancelled major resource projects due to inadequate consultation.
The message from today’s summit was clear: consultation is not optional — it’s foundational. And in the era of UNDRIP, the political bar may now be even higher than the legal one.
Read bill C-5 here
If you have suggestions for a story or topic you would like me to cover, you can always put them in the paid subscriber group chat.
Thank you Cole, for more clearer defining the origins and legal requirements for indigenous consultation, as the projects are identified. A well placed line in the sand. We hope for sincere intentions and efforts on all sides to put into practice what has only had lip service at best for decades. We will be stronger as a society if we do it well.
Thanks Cole, I think many of us don’t understand the number of nations and the diverse situations regarding the treaties and First Nations. I only saw a little of the feedback from summit, and it wasn’t overly positive, but from your article I see it’s much more complicated than I realized. I truly hope as the government moves into the project identification stage that the consultation process with each group is the first process as it feels Carney intends. I sometimes get the feeling the intention is there with Carneys government but the communication needs to improve so that there is a building of trust (which understandable is not there).
I attended school with children of the 60s scoop, of course as a child I didn’t realize this until truth and reconciliation began, and then my heart broke. I’m not good at expressing myself but to me this is the moment when Canada needs to prove its ability to do the right thing in their interactions with the true owners of Turtle Island, failure to do so will break us all apart. We have this chance to begin a path of meaning and I truly hope we can rise to the occasion.
The disparities between living conditions for First Nations and the rest of Canada has always appalled me and I feel needs to be a priority of Canada Strong. Since Truth and Reconciliation has began I’ve been reading the stories and more recently been watching the documentaries on CBC Gem, and while that has been a painful experience I feel it’s a necessity, this is something we need to be more aware of as Canadians.