Building Together: How Indigenous economic reconciliation can fuel Canada’s resurgence

Canada could be on the verge of a historic investment boom. The trade war with the U.S., an increasingly divided global economy, concerns over Arctic security and an AI revolution that comes with enormous energy requirements—all point to the need for more economic and security infrastructure. But those diverse ambitions, from northern ports to West Coast LNG to critical mineral plants, have a common requirement: Indigenous partnerships.

Canada’s future growth and prosperity depends heavily on getting Indigenous economic reconciliation right. If not, the country’s ability to diversify our resource exports, enjoy independence and resiliency in strategic sectors, and improve productivity, which has lagged that of other countries for years, are all at risk. And that’s not the only thing at stake. As RBC Thought Leadership’s research indicates, 73% of the 504 major resource and energy projects planned or currently underway in Canada run through, or are within a 20-kilometre radius of, Indigenous territories—namely, treaty, title unceded and consultation lands. The value of the Indigenous equity opportunity of those projects alone is $98 billion over the next 10 years.

Canada can’t afford to miss out on the opportunity. Fortunately, examples of Indigenous economic reconciliation in action span the country, including:

• In Kitimat, B.C., the Haisla Nation and Pembina Pipeline are working on the Cedar LNG project, a four-year partnership that will result in a $4-billion facility. Once operational, this majority Indigenous-owned facility is expected to generate $85 million in GDP annually.
• In several Manitoba and Nunavut communities, the Kivalliq Hydro-Fiber Link seeks to provide clean energy through a proposed 1,200-kilometre energy and telecommunications corridor connecting Nunavut with Manitoba’s grid.
• In the small southwestern Ontario town of Jarvis, the Oneida Battery Storage Project will be one of North America’s largest battery-storage facilities when it comes online. Partly owned by Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation, Oneida will provide much-needed capacity to Ontario’s strained electricity grid.

While these projects illustrate progress, more can be done. Centuries of treaties, Nation-to-Nation and business agreements, and case law have underscored the centrality of Indigenous peoples in Canadian decision-making, particularly in building up infrastructure and resource projects. The Constitution Act of 1982, particularly Section 35, recognized and affirmed Aboriginal and treaty rights in the Canadian legal and political fabric. Supreme Court cases, including Calder, Delgamuukw and Tsilhqot’in, further affirmed Aboriginal rights and title—the inherent right to use and jurisdiction over an Indigenous Nation’s traditional territory.

One of the key principles enshrined through the Constitution and case law is maintaining the Honour of the Crown—a legal concept characterizing the fiduciary duty imposed on the Government of Canada toward Indigenous peoples. One of the duties that this principle imparts on the Crown is the duty to consult and accommodate. When the Crown engages in an activity that could have a negative effect on an Aboriginal right or title, it must consult with the relevant Indigenous groups and accommodate these infringements. This duty has been affirmed through case law and is characterized in the Nation-to-Nation relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Government of Canada.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) advanced the concept of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). This is a pro-active means for governments (and businesses) to seek and achieve consent on developments occurring on Indigenous territories. UNDRIP is now law federally, as well as in British Columbia and the Northwest Territories.

Together, the duty to consult and FPIC provide the framework and requirements for the way governments and businesses engage with Indigenous Nations on projects happening on their lands or implicating their interests.

What’s needed now is bold, innovative thinking. And it starts by finding ways of unlocking three critical elements:

• 
  CAPITAL: Indigenous ownership in major projects requires a mix of private and concessional financing tools, including loans, loan guarantees and grants. Without access to capital, a historic challenge for Indigenous Nations, many equity opportunities, and indeed, entire projects, may not get started.
• 
  CAPACITY: Rights-based negotiations, along with commercial and legal discussions around major project development, are complex and requires investing in capacity for everyone at the table—Indigenous Nations, governments and business—to ensure project success.
• 
  CONSENT: The constitutional duty to consult and accommodate, UNDRIP, case law, and decades of legal and political developments have cemented how important free, prior and informed consent is to project development. The downpayment needed to seek and achieve FPIC is long-term, trust-based relationships across all parties, which requires going beyond transactional project discussions.

Advancing all three elements—capital, capacity and consent—in parallel is necessary to bringing Indigenous Nations along as true partners in economic development. Through a collective call for action, led by Indigenous Nations and closely supported by businesses and governments, there is an opportunity to generate shared prosperity—and get Canada building at speed and scale.

Capital

Access to affordable capital is a persistent challenge for members of Indigenous communities, caused in part by institutional barriers set up by Canadian governments. Risk premium for Indigenous borrowers is impacted by rating agencies, and by extension, financial institutions’ risk and liability considerations. This is partly due to First Nations communities being unable to collateralize reserve land under Section 89 of the Indian Act; Metis communities being unable to leverage a land base and access federal funding; and Inuit communities finding it challenging to secure project funding in remote, rural areas. As we outlined in previous reports, loan guarantees and other financing tools can help address access to capital and risk issues.

Historically, the speed of implementation and scaling of these tools has been slow, while capital needs are only growing. This ranges from an infrastructure capital gap of up to $270 billion¹, a $30-billion gap in critical minerals², and a $60-billion gap related to climate-aligned investments in carbon capture, electricity and renewables³. The support of both private and public lenders is needed to meet demand.

The Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) stepped up recently, committing $1 billion to its Indigenous Equity Initiative. CIB’s equity grants, ranging from $5 million to $100 million, have a 15-year repayment target. And in early 2024, the money started to flow. That’s when CIB issued its first Indigenous equity loan, committing up to $18 million to Wskijinu’k Mtmo’taqnuow Agency Ltd. (WMA), a limited partnership owned by 13 Mi’kmaw communities. The financing allowed WMA to take an equity stake in the Nova Scotia Energy Project, Canada’s largest planned battery storage initiative.

Another important source has been the First Nations Finance Authority (FNFA), which has enabled First Nations economic development through a pooled borrowing facility. By issuing debentures on behalf of First Nations (certified by the First Nations Financial Management Board for a clean balance sheet and good financial management practices), the FNFA has borrowed $3 billion for its members toward critical, revenue-generating projects—creating an economic output of $6.3 billion.

These aren’t the only examples of progress when it comes to unlocking capital. Last year, three loan-guarantee programs were announced. One at the Federal level (recently increased from $5 to $10 billion) and two at the provincial level—B.C. ($1 billion) and Manitoba ($500 million).

The various access-to-capital tools currently available amount to about $20 billion. And based on the amount of private investment these concessional financing tools have crowded-in, there is potential to mobilize close to $48 billion in Indigenous equity investments. This leaves a concessional financing gap of $20.7 billion and a private financing gap of $28.7 billion⁴.

While gaps remain, there’s more capital flowing than ever. And it’s leading to action. Between 2022 and 2024, 111 Indigenous communities announced that they had acquired an equity stake in an infrastructure project, according to a report by the Toronto-based law firm Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP last April. More than a quarter (26%) of those were in Alberta, home to the $3-billion Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation Loan Guarantee Program. Wind generation projects resulted in a spike in Nova Scotia (23%). And B.C. rounded out the top 3 with 18%. And that was before the launch of the province’s loan guarantee program noted above⁵.

Capacity

The added complexity of major project development requires capacity building on all sides. This includes education and training required for businesses and governments to better understand Indigenous histories, economies, cultures and priorities. For Indigenous Nations, this can include everything from financial, legal and engineering capacity required for commercial negotiations, to the environmental, historical and legal support needed to participate in regulatory and rights-based discussions. It is important to recognize that Indigenous capacity has always existed, whether through trade networks, economic systems, governance models and traditional knowledge that Indigenous Nations have built up over centuries.

Two (imperfect) measures of fiscal and economic capacity are the ability of Nations to be able to raise own-source revenues (revenues not generated through governmental transfers) and maintain financial and governance controls. We assume two proxies for these measures—own-source revenues greater than 25% of total revenues in a First Nation, and a First Nation receiving the Financial Performance Certification. The FPC is a voluntary, independent assessment by the First Nations Financial Management Board certifying good financial health and ability to borrow from the First Nations Finance Authority.

Our research indicates that capacity gaps put 85% of projects that pass through First Nations territory at risk. That’s an estimated $83.6 billion in project value.

Project Rocket, a partnership between 23 First Nations and Metis communities and Enbridge, resulted in capacity building that benefits all parties. The partnership involved the creation of Athabasca Indigenous Investments, the special-purpose vehicle behind the Indigenous Nations taking on an 12% equity stake—valued at $1.1 billion—in seven pipelines. In addition to the potential economic benefits, the dealmaking process provided technical, legal and commercial capacity for Indigenous Nations, as well as the proponents and financial intermediaries. Agreements that include multiple Nations, like this one, allow better resourced and experienced Nations to share their expertise, ultimately making it more replicable and scalable.

Consent

The nature of consent varies from community to community, and project to project. Getting to a shared understanding of consent is challenging and intersects with constitutional (Section 35 and the duty to consult) and international legal obligations (UNDRIP). However, there are some necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for achieving and maintaining consent, which include engaging early and often, economic partnerships, and inclusion of Indigenous Nations in the regulatory process.

A big part of getting projects built is the permitting and regulatory process. Part of the process is seeking informed Indigenous engagement, and, where required, consent. The Government of Canada has a duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous groups when its actions may impact potential or established Aboriginal or treaty rights—a duty that has been affirmed by the courts and the constitution. As such, expediting permitting timelines, although an important objective to speed up project development, cannot be done in a vacuum without the Crown discharging its duty to consult. Proponents have an important responsibility and role to play in building deep trust-based relationships with Indigenous Nations, and through that process, seek and achieve consent.

The Cedar LNG project illustrates how federal, provincial and Indigenous Nations can expedite the permitting process. The federal government, through a process called substitution, eliminated the duplication of two assessments for a single project. And the B.C. government worked in close partnership with the Haisla Nation to identify and mitigate environmental, social, health and economic impacts—a process that was accelerated in no small part because Haisla Nation is a co-owner in the project—resulting in a shorter and less contentious permitting process (notwithstanding ongoing concerns of the project by other Nations).

While equity ownership by the Haisla Nation on Cedar LNG likely moved things along more quickly, average assessment timelines in B.C. are, generally, some of the shortest in the country. This is partly due to proponents engaging early and often with Indigenous Nations, and provincial regulators increasingly empowering Indigenous Nations to lead assessments. The B.C. Environmental Assessment (EA) process, can integrate Indigenous-led assessments through substitution, delegation or other mechanisms. It yields a process that is 5 to 15 months shorter than the average timelines of two long-standing federal regimes and the U.S. permitting process. Federally permitted projects, particularly those that cross provincial boundaries, are complex, requiring longer permitting times. Still, the B.C. experience suggests a permitting process that incorporates Indigenous views, processes and knowledge can facilitate trust and social license.

The Eskay Creek Consent-Based Decision-Making Agreement, and the Squamish Nation Environmental Assessment Agreement both provide blueprints for how consent can be operationalized through the environmental assessment and permitting process.

The agreement, pertaining to the reopening of the Eskay Creek gold and silver mine in northern B.C., was set up under section 7 of the Declaration Act (B.C.’s legislation aligning its laws to UNDRIP). As part of the deal, the modified EA process seeks consensus through a collaboration team between the Tahltan Nation and B.C., a Tahltan risk assessment, free, prior and informed consent on the final decision, and independent dispute resolution. The agreement provides a unique model for joint decision-making, a shared environmental assessment and sustaining social license.

The Squamish Nation EA process involving the Woodfibre LNG plant and export terminal in B.C., was the first-of-its-kind legally binding, Indigenous-led EA process in Canada. A framework agreement enabled the Squamish Nation to set up a process outside the provincial and federal EA regimes. What enabled success was a parallel process of environmental and socio-economic information collection and analysis, with the final decision-making resting with the Squamish Nation Chief and Council, enabling accountability at both the technical and political levels. Buy-in for the Indigenous-led EA from federal and provincial governments, and the proponent, was crucial. And all three parties could be confident that the review addressed Squamish Nation’s concerns and interests—important for consistency of social license and support.

These approaches are not without challenges—as other Nations may seek to assert jurisdiction over those that are leading the EA process, or substantially support project development. Furthermore, this does not obviate the opposition of other interest groups, such as environmental or social groups. Nonetheless, they provide useful models of operationalizing consent through a collaborative assessment process.

Some key principles for businesses and governments when seeking and maintaining consent:

Moving forward: Considerations for Canada

The geopolitical tensions with our closest ally have exposed the fault lines of Canada’s economic strategy. Trade diversification, massively building up our resource and infrastructure base, resolving internal trade once and for all, and moving up the product value chain have all become economic imperatives. Advancing Indigenous economic reconciliation is a keystone to meeting these goals. Other considerations that will drive the conversation in Canada in the months ahead will include:

• What’s on the fast-track list: Both major political parties in Canada have promised to speed up development, permitting and financing of certain trade, infrastructure and resource projects in the national interest. Virtually all of the projects that will be fast-tracked will impact Indigenous interests and run through Indigenous territories. Fulsome Indigenous engagement and partnerships will determine the federal government’s ability to move at speed and scale.
• The renewal of the continental security agreement: The incoming federal government will likely enter discussions with the U.S. administration on renewing the economic and security framework between the two countries. The investments needed will include surveillance, domain awareness and trade infrastructure to strengthen the North. Beyond trade and security, the social infrastructure, including housing, education and healthcare facilities, need to be built up. These discussions need to happen in close collaboration with territorial governments, Inuit birthright corporations and communities in the Inuit Nunangat.
• The impact of the geopolitical contest between the United States and China: As we have explored previously, critical minerals have emerged as a key element in the new great game between the two superpowers. Canada’s ability to step in as a pinch-hitter on critical minerals mining and processing will depend on our ability to tap into mineral-rich regions such as the Ring of Fire in Ontario and the Golden Triangle in B.C. The Tahltan Nation, whose traditional territories cover 70% of the Golden Triangle, have been supportive of mineral exploration. But Indigenous claims and partnerships are yet to be resolved in the Ring of Fire—a question that will challenge other mining regions in Canada.
• Generational changes in the global trading system: Changes in international trade and investment flows have countries seeking sources of economic resilience. That includes diversifying markets, but also reshoring parts of their value chain. Canada is no less immune. While these changes take effect, it is useful to remind ourselves that Indigenous Nations, as our youngest and fastest-growing population, are a source of strength and comparative advantage.

Our ability to move fast depends on our ability to move collectively. As the late Murray Sinclair, chairman of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, said at the release of the Commission’s final report: “We have described for you a mountain, we have shown you the path to the top. We call upon you to do the climbing.”

Download the Report

Download

Disclaimer