First Nations leaders leave national summit raising concerns about Bill C-5, citing lack of consultation and control over major project decisions.

Leaders Leave Summit With More Doubts Than Answers

A two-day national summit intended to build trust around Canada’s newly passed major projects legislation has left many First Nations leaders with growing concerns. While the government emphasized economic benefits and stronger consultation processes under Bill C-5, several Indigenous representatives criticized the event’s structure, voicing frustration over top-down messaging and limited input.

Voices of Caution and Skepticism

Among those speaking out was Jesse Stoeppler, deputy chief of Hagwilget Village Council in northern B.C., who said he left the event with “more concerns and more questions.” His sentiment was echoed by other attendees who expressed dissatisfaction with the summit’s format and handling of Indigenous engagement.

Some leaders, including Angela Levasseur of Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation in Manitoba, called the summit a “start,” but noted it fell short of delivering the meaningful dialogue First Nations expected. “There’s still a lot of unfinished business,” she remarked following the final address.

Promises of Prosperity Amid Disagreement

At the summit, held at the Canadian Museum of History in Gatineau, the federal government emphasized that Bill C-5 would place Indigenous economic growth at the centre of national infrastructure development. Citing projects like the Indigenous-owned Cedar LNG in B.C., government officials pointed to opportunities for full equity ownership as a way to create generational wealth.

However, the lack of new amendments to the bill and the pre-submission of questions by chiefs led some to feel sidelined. Several leaders reported feeling “talked at,” rather than listened to, and criticized the event’s rigid structure as a barrier to open, respectful dialogue.

Tensions Rise Over Exclusion and Control

Security restrictions and the removal of media following the opening speech drew further criticism. Delegates were met with limited access to discussion platforms and a pre-set agenda, which many said did not reflect true consultation.

Grand Chief Cody Diabo of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke said he left the summit feeling more uneasy than reassured. “This isn’t anything like what I thought it would be,” he said, referencing scripted discussions and limited space for authentic exchange.

Calls for Consent and Legal Action

At a concurrent press event, the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) expressed disappointment that Bill C-5 passed without the inclusion of “free, prior and informed consent.” AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak underscored that consent is not optional for major projects affecting Indigenous lands and livelihoods.

“The government cannot respect our rights after the fact,” Woodhouse said, adding that meaningful consultation must begin long before legislation is finalized.

In response, nine Ontario First Nations launched a legal challenge against Bill C-5, arguing that both federal and provincial versions of the law violate constitutional rights by failing to guarantee proper consultation with Indigenous communities.

Future of the Law in Question

Although federal officials have defended the bill as a tool for economic transformation and reconciliation, its rollout has ignited broader questions about how Canada engages with First Nations on resource development.

Leaders like Na’Moks of the Wet’suwet’en Nation cautioned that without structural change in how dialogue occurs, trust will remain elusive. “You don’t give people a script when you’re asking for their consent,” he said.

The federal government maintains that it will continue to engage with Indigenous partners, but leaders are calling for more than words — they want legally binding processes that centre First Nations leadership in shaping Canada’s infrastructure future.

For continuous coverage and real-time updates, keep following Maple News Wire.