Canada stands at a critical juncture. The Building Canada Act (Bill C-5), passed in June 2025, aims to fast-track vital infrastructure projects—mines, pipelines, and energy corridors—to secure our economic future against global pressures, including U.S. tariffs under a second Trump administration. Yet, this ambition has collided with the Crown’s constitutional obligations to Indigenous nations. On July 15, 2025, a coalition of northern and southern Ontario First Nations filed a constitutional challenge in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Bill C-5 and Ontario’s Bill 5, seeking to strike down the laws as unconstitutional and secure an injunction against their provisions allowing “national interest” designations and “special economic zones.” Days later, First Nations leaders gathered in Ottawa and Gatineau on July 16-17, 2025, describing the consultation process as rushed and superficial, failing to honor their status as sovereign nations.

The stakes are profound. Infrastructure projects like the Ring of Fire, a culturally sacred region and vital carbon sink, are essential for economic resilience and the global energy transition, but they risk disrupting Indigenous lands, harvesting grounds, and traditional ways of life. Without meaningful nation-to-nation engagement, Canada faces litigation, project delays, and fractured trust—threatening both our economy and our commitment to reconciliation. At Rise Up Strategies, we propose a principled framework to deliver infrastructure while upholding Indigenous rights, ensuring Canada can achieve great things together.

The Problem: A Failure of Nation-to-Nation Partnership

Canada’s infrastructure goals are urgent. Projects in regions like the Ring of Fire are key to securing critical minerals and countering economic threats, such as the 10% U.S. tariffs announced by President Donald Trump. Bill C-5 seeks to halve project approval timelines from five years to two. However, this rush has undermined the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous nations under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as reinforced by Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (2018), which underscores that legislation impacting Indigenous rights requires honorable engagement.

The legal challenge by nine First Nations—Alderville, Apitipi Anicinapek, Aroland, Attawapiskat, Fort Albany, Ginoogaming, Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and Wabauskang—targets provisions in Bill C-5 and Bill 5 that bypass consultation through “national interest” designations or “special economic zones.” “These laws authorize reckless decision-making behind closed doors with little accountability,” said Chief Taynar Simpson of Alderville First Nation. The claimants argue these measures violate Section 35 and the principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The Ottawa/Gatineau meetings amplified these concerns. Leaders like Chief Gwii Lok’im Gibuu called the summit “political theatre,” while National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak warned that superficial consultation risks further litigation, as seen in Yahey v. British Columbia (2021), where cumulative development infringed treaty rights.

The core issue is a flawed process. Governments often delegate consultation to project proponents, who lack the authority or cultural fluency to navigate complex Indigenous rights. Rushed engagements, like the one-day Ottawa summit, fail to treat First Nations as sovereign partners, reducing nation-to-nation relationships to transactional checklists. This erodes trust and invites legal challenges, threatening Canada’s economic and social cohesion.

The Solution: A Constitutionally Grounded, Nation-to-Nation Framework

Rise Up Strategies offers a seven-point framework to reconcile infrastructure ambition with Indigenous rights, drawing on decades of expertise in Aboriginal law, governance, and nation-to-nation partnerships. Our approach integrates cross-cultural dialogue, realistic legal strategies, and respect for Indigenous sovereignty to withstand scrutiny and build legitimacy.

1. Re-center Section 35 as the Legal Standard: Section 35 is the constitutional foundation for Indigenous rights. Governments should apply it progressively, using UNDRIP and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action as interpretive guides, ensuring legal clarity and respect for Indigenous nationhood.
2. Lead with Crown Authority: The Crown must lead consultations, conducting strength-of-claim assessments and engaging directly with Indigenous nations. This honors their sovereignty, reducing litigation risks as affirmed in Haida Nation v. British Columbia (2004).
3. Foster Cross-Cultural Dialogue: Effective consultation requires mutual understanding across legal systems and worldviews. Early, culturally competent engagement—identifying sacred sites and harvesting areas—aligns projects with community priorities and builds trust.
4. Establish Co-Governed Dispute Resolution: Joint panels of Indigenous and legal experts, including mediators and arbitrators, can resolve disputes over rights or impacts. Overseen by respected figures like retired judges, these panels offer a fair, efficient alternative to courts, maintaining project momentum.
5. Integrate Economic Reconciliation: Equity ownership and revenue sharing must complement, not replace, Section 35 duties. Embedding economic benefits in consent-building respects Indigenous self-determination and strengthens nation-to-nation partnerships.
6. Streamline Assessments with Indigenous Input: Duplication between federal and provincial assessments, as under the Impact Assessment Act, slows projects. A “one project, one assessment” approach, with Indigenous-led reviews, accelerates timelines while honoring Section 35 triggers.
7. Navigate Complex Title and Support: Aboriginal title is context-specific, requiring careful legal analysis. Governments must balance substantial Indigenous support with the reality that unanimity may not be achievable, ensuring decisions respect sovereignty and withstand scrutiny, as in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia (2014).

Implementation: Building a Nation-to-Nation Future

To operationalize this framework, governments should:

• Issue directives affirming Section 35 as the legal baseline for consultation.
• Train officials on nation-to-nation protocols that respect Indigenous sovereignty.
• Fund and establish co-governed dispute resolution panels to address conflicts efficiently.
• Co-create legislation with Indigenous nations using the UNDRIP Action Plan to align laws with rights.
• Clarify federal-provincial roles to eliminate duplication in assessments.
• Modernize treaty implementation to prioritize shared governance and environmental stewardship.
• Allow permit denials in extreme cases where accommodation is impossible, respecting Indigenous rights to say no.

This approach mitigates legal risks, as seen in the Ontario lawsuit, and rebuilds trust by treating Indigenous nations as equal partners. With the Major Projects Office, anticipated in 2025 to centralize infrastructure approvals, adopting this framework ensures projects advance with constitutional integrity and Indigenous support, avoiding the pitfalls of rushed or performative consultation.

The Moment for Leadership

Canada’s infrastructure push is necessary, but without a new approach, it risks failure. The legal challenge and rushed Ottawa meetings signal a breaking point. Precedents like Tsilhqot’in Nation (2014) and Mikisew Cree (2018) demand clarity and courage from leaders to uphold Section 35. By embracing a nation-to-nation framework, Canada can build infrastructure that powers our economy while honoring Indigenous rights and protecting sacred lands.

Rise Up Strategies: Your Partner in Nation-Building

At Rise Up Strategies, we bridge ambition and obligation. Our expertise—honed through projects like the 2017 Nation-to-Nation conference with the Institute on Governance, and partnerships with leading Section 35 experts, equips us to guide governments, Indigenous nations, and industry. We specialize in:

• Designing pre-engagement protocols tailored to cultural and legal realities.
• Building “best chance” strategies to withstand legal scrutiny and earn legitimacy.
• Facilitating cross-cultural dialogue to prevent consultation breakdowns.
• Advising on sovereignty-sensitive project design, including navigating partial Indigenous support.
• Supporting institutions like the Major Projects Office to prioritize legitimacy and partnership.