Prime Minister Mark Carney, centre, delivers opening remarks ahead of the Métis Major Projects Summit. Ottawa is looking at ways to diversify Canada’s global trade in the wake of U.S. tariffs.Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press
Much has been said about the extent to which Indigenous peoples might possess a legal or, in its absence, a practical veto over development proposals that affect the traditional territories they claim.
Courts have been clear that no such legal veto exists, and this space has written that if negotiations to accommodate Indigenous concerns fail, the national interest remains paramount.
But Ottawa’s starting point, as it examines proposals to diversify Canada’s global trade in the wake of President Donald Trump’s tariffs and annexationist threats, should be to prevent that choice from ever having to be made – to ensure that First Nations, Métis and Inuit are enthusiastic participants in those proposals.
In an early encouraging sign, Prime Minister Mark Carney has already had substantive meetings with all three groups. Such a starting point would mark a deliberate break with the bad old days when Indigenous consultation was seen as an add-on meant to placate communities and the courts. Consultation with every First Nation, Métis and Inuit community affected by a proposal must be integral to developing a project from Day One.
Any proposed Indigenous partnerships must be real and meaningful. Those affected must share in the ownership of the project, the revenues flowing from it and the jobs created.
Not every single member of every single community must embrace any given proposal. But there must be sufficient buy-in that both governments and private interests can honestly declare that a proposal has secured substantial Indigenous participation and consent.
Both sides must show good faith in any negotiations (courts have made clear that both the federal government and Indigenous groups have that obligation). Just as proponents of a new proposal must embrace Indigenous partnerships from the start, First Nations and other communities must not simply seek to delay or derail a new project. They must show what is wrong with a proposal, and what could be done to make it right.
Consider one idea being actively, even enthusiastically, considered by the federal government: some combination of road, rail and pipe that could send natural gas, canola, potash and other commodities to the deep-water port at Churchill, Man., on the western shore of Hudson’s Bay.
That port is icebound for about two-thirds of the year. But icebreakers could extend the shipping season by keeping a lane open to the Atlantic. At least one proposal would include a four-season road extending from southern Manitoba to the port on Hudson’s Bay.
Such a development would have major environmental consequences, both on land and in Hudson’s Bay. Many First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities could be affected. It would be easy to imagine such a large infrastructure proposal enduring years-long rounds of consultations, squabbling and court challenges. But it doesn’t have to be that way.
Opinion: How Indigenous peoples and the private sector can work together to get major projects done
The federal government is obviously intrigued by the proposal. All three Prairie provincial governments support development of a northern deep-water port. The Port of Churchill and the existing railway line serving it are owned by the Arctic Gateway Group, which in turn is owned in part by 41 Indigenous communities, including 29 First Nations.
It is possible to envision the relatively swift and harmonious approval of the massive project. All that is required is good faith and active consultation on all sides.
Some people consider Indigenous concerns over resource and other development an obstacle to be overcome. This is 180 degrees the opposite of how we should be thinking. The concerns of Indigenous communities are rooted in their deep understanding of the lands on which they live. Proposed developers must embrace those concerns.
That embrace could deliver practical benefits. Let’s say a proposal involves building a bridge across a particular river. The local Indigenous community might point out that the bridge would disturb spawning grounds, but that moving it to a nearby location would have less environmental impact. That would represent Indigenous consultation in action.
It is no small irony that Donald Trump’s threats have united Canadians as never before. It would be splendid indeed if true reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples became part of that new unity.