Resolutions countering Canadas One Canadian Economy Act fail to pass at AFN assembly

Chiefs taking part in the Assembly of First Nations gathering in Winnipeg voted against two resolutions dealing with Canada’s law that promises to fast-track projects that are deemed in the national interest. The One Canadian Economy Act, also known as Bill C-5, was passed in June after only two weeks of debate and no consultation with any Indigenous leaders other than AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak. Both resolutions failed—not because chiefs supported the Act, but because many felt that any engagement with the law, even bids to delay or amend it, could weaken First Nations’ legal and political stance. The resolutions “manufactured the appearance of First Nations consent to Bill C-5,” said Ivan Harper, councillor for Onion Lake Cree Nation. One resolution called Closing the First Nations Infrastructure Gap as the Nation-Building Project for One Canadian Economy, called on Ottawa to designate a number of infrastructure projects including housing, roads and schools as top-priority national projects under the new law. The resolution referenced an AFN report projecting that a $349.2 billion investment in infrastructure could generate over $308 billion in GDP and $86 billion in public revenues. “ It directs the  AFN to intervene in legal cases on treaties and inherent rights, creating a pan-Indigenous approach that sidelines actual treaty nations,” added Harper. ‘By focusing on delaying implementation, resolutions can be read as engagement with the C-5 framework instead of outright rejection,’ Cold Lake First Nation Chief Kelsey Jacko tells the AFN gathering. Photo: Karyn Pugliese/APTN. A second resolution titled Delay Building Canada Act Implementation Subject to Meaningful Inclusion and Co-Development Directly with First Nations, urged the federal government to pause the Act’s implementation until First Nations are fully involved in shaping the policies, regulations, and project approvals—particularly where projects impact their lands and territories. The resolution also called for legislative changes to ensure free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). But several leaders said even a delay sends the wrong signal. “ I have to oppose this,” said Chief Kelsey Jacko of Cold Lake First Nation. “By focusing on delaying implementation, resolutions can be read as engagement with the C-5 framework instead of outright rejection.” Regina Crowchild of Tsuut’ina First Nation agreed that the resolution contradicted itself. “We cannot object or go against legislation and then ask for an amendment. You’re contradicting yourself,” she said. She warned against giving ground on land and resource rights. “They want our territories and our natural resources, which we object to because our peoples never surrendered it. We have to find ways for our children, our grandchildren, those yet unborn to prosper from the territory that the Creator gave us,” said Crowchild. “The Creator didn’t give us the land to give it to the government of Canada, so we gotta put our points straight and we have the authority to tell Canada no.” Elder Regina Crowchild, seen here at the AFN SCA in Ottawa in 2024, spoke against the resolutions in Winnipeg. Photo: Mark Blackburn/APTN. The debate revealed deep divisions over how best to respond to C-5—whether to engage, resist, or litigate—but consensus seemed to remain on one point: First Nations were not properly consulted, and the law remains unacceptable to First Nation leaders. At least those who got up to speak at the microphones during the debate. The legislation aims to fast-track major infrastructure projects across the country by removing regulatory barriers. Many chiefs argue the law passed without proper consultation, does not require consent and does not properly address Indigenous rights and jurisdiction. The AFN gathering in Winnipeg runs until Friday. Continue Reading