Reconciliation in an era of nation-building

September 30, 2025 

By Michael Twigg and Talha Awan 

On National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, we pause to remember and honour. We remember the children who never returned home, honour the survivors whose courage guides us and reflect on the process of truth-telling and healing. But this day asks us to do more than remember; it calls on us to act by engaging in the process of reconciliation.  

At the Smart Prosperity Institute, we see reconciliation as inseparable from economic reconciliation. Building a stronger Canadian economy means looking at how our economy is structured, how decisions are being made and how natural resources are managed between Nations. It means shaping systems to align with imperatives of co-management and shared governance, Nation-to-Nation, where Indigenous leadership and knowledge are respected and embedded at the heart of our institutions.  

As Canada embarks on a new wave of major nation-building projects, we must ask what they mean for the evolution of Nation-to-Nation relationships. These projects are not only about development; they are about redefining how Canada honours its responsibilities and how lasting partnerships can build shared prosperity.   

A new wave of nation-building and a chance to do things differently  

“True nation-building includes Indigenous Nation-building" 

The Building Canada Act (2025) has been positioned as a vehicle for accelerating “nation-building”. But true nation-building must include Indigenous Nation-building. Success will hinge on governments meeting their duty to consult and institutionalize effective co-management and shared governance. In practice, this means embedding Indigenous voices in decision-making and ensuring Indigenous co-ownership opportunities for major projects.   

From clean-energy corridors and critical minerals to major infrastructure and transportation links, Canada’s next generation of projects intersects with Indigenous territories. This is not incidental; it reflects the reality that Indigenous Nations are rights holders across much of the country. These projects present a challenge and an opportunity: a challenge to improve on Canada’s duty-to-consult framework, and an opportunity to advance shared governance and genuine economic reconciliation.  

On paper, the Building Canada Act takes meaningful steps. Indigenous Peoples are promised a say in which projects are selected, how they are built and who owns them. An Indigenous Advisory Council is to be created, backed by $40 million to support participation. Indigenous rights-holders would also help define binding conditions of the selected projects, including environmental mitigation measures and the protection of Indigenous rights. The expansion of the Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program, enabling Indigenous equity ownership, marks another important innovation. 

In practice, experts have noted Indigenous leaders’ concern that Bill C-5, which bundled the Building Canada Act and the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act, was passed without an opportunity for meaningful consultation. This follows a pattern where governments have often fallen short of their standards for consultation, even when projects are not fast-tracked.  

Opportunities exist for meaningful reconciliation by ensuring that Canada’s major projects move beyond procedural consultation. Consultation could begin early, be resourced properly, and honour the principles of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). Indigenous leaders are not asking for veto power; they are asking for a partnership. Canada could respond with processes that embed FPIC as the standard foundation of project governance.  

Beyond consultation: building shared authority 

“Progress is measured not by the number of agreements, but by the depth of collaboration and authority they deliver.” 

Consultation and consent are the first steps on the path to economic reconciliation. To go further, Canada could enable Indigenous equity ownership and co-management in major projects. These models are not theoretical; they exist in provinces, territories and federal agencies, and they provide lessons on how we might build “One Canadian Economy”.  

Parks Canada offers some of the longest-standing co-management agreements with Indigenous Peoples, but their impacts are uneven across Canada.  

Success stories like the Archipelago Management Board in Gwaii Haanas show how co-management can create space for Indigenous law, stewardship principles and employment in park management. Similarly, Ivvavik and the Torngat Mountains show how modern treaties can institutionalize shared authorities.  

Systemic limits in the Parks Canada co-management model could create conditions whereby Indigenous involvement remains token. Among these, an imbalance in final decision-making power under the Canada National Parks Act, a lack of binding mechanisms to recognize Indigenous law in co-management structures, and a lack of Indigenous-defined success indicators represent some of the biggest challenges for achieving institutional reconciliation under these models.  

British Columbia has made important strides to institutionalize co-management through the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Section 7 creates space for the province to enter into consent-based agreements, embedding principles of free, prior and informed consent into provincial law. However, implementation has been uneven across sectors and ministries, leaving a significant gap between commitment and practice.  

In the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, modern treaties and land-claim agreements are moving ahead some of Canada's most advanced co-management institutions. Co-management boards, such as the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Board, the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, are legally entrenched and give Indigenous Nations clear roles in joint decision-making.  

Still, implementation could be improved, as federal sovereignty continues to override local authorities, disputes frequently end up in court and many Nations face resource and capacity constraints in navigating complex regulatory processes.  

Across jurisdictions, progress should be measured not by the number of agreements, but by the depth of collaboration and authority they deliver. Applying these lessons to the Building Canada Act could help follow through on its commitment to enable Indigenous equity ownership in major projects.  

Economic reconciliation is shared prosperity 

Economic reconciliation is about continuing to move beyond consultation toward co-creation and shared visions of prosperity. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 Calls to Action (2015) and the Indigenous Circle of Experts’ We Rise Together (2018) remind us that future economic development in Canada must be grounded in partnership, equity of opportunity, and free, prior and informed consent. 

Canada could learn from these calls to action and advance economic reconciliation by:  

1. Entrenching co-management as the standard for natural resource governance, ensuring every Nation has the opportunity for co-ownership.  
2. Committing to long-term investments to support Indigenous governance capacity, ensuring Nations can effectively and equitably engage in regulatory, financial and technical areas.  
3. Measuring success by shared prosperity, ensuring Indigenous communities benefit from meaningful job creation in areas like environmental stewardship and monitoring, and land-use planning. 

With the Building Canada Act, the federal government has reaffirmed its commitment to consultation and co-ownership, but there is a considerable implementation gap. This is an opportunity to advance reconciliation by carefully designing collaborative processes and re-orienting our institutions so that Indigenous governance is at the centre of a stronger, more resilient Canadian economy.