The Indigenous World 2026: Canada

Written on 22 April 2026. Posted in Canada

In Canada, the contemporary Indigenous rights and governance framework is diverse. The Constitution Act of 1982, as well as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, explicitly recognize Aboriginal and Treaty rights and three groups of Aboriginal Peoples (commonly referred to as Indigenous Peoples): Indians (First Nations), Inuit, and Métis. Each group of Indigenous people is equally diverse: First Nations are governed by the 1876 Indian Act, with over 630 “reserves” and more than 60 languages; Inuit live primarily in Inuit Nunangat (Inuit homelands), spread across four regions and land claim agreements: Nunavik (northern Québec), Nunatsiavut (northern Labrador), Nunavut and the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (the Northwest Territories); and Métis, who emerged as a distinct Indigenous people in the historic Northwest and whose homeland now encompasses Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and extends into parts of Ontario, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, and the northern United States. Over half of these populations now reside in urban centers. First Nations, Inuit, and Métis are represented by a number of representative organizations regionally, provincially and nationally, including but not limited to, the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, and the Métis National Council.

Although the Canadian government originally voted against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007, it has gradually changed its approach, becoming one of the first countries in the world to adopt the UNDRIP into federal law. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act was adopted into law in June 2021, acknowledging, in its preamble, that the UNDRIP provides a framework for reconciliation, justice, and peace, and denouncing the doctrines of discovery and terra nullius as “...racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust”. The federal government released its 2023-2028 Action Plan in 2023, which contains a series of measures aimed at ensuring federal laws and policies are consistent with the UNDRIP. A similar Act, two years earlier in 2019, was adopted in the province of British Columbia, with an Action Plan being released in 2022. Despite relatively strong rights protections, First Nations, Inuit, and Métis citizens, governments and organizations continue to wrestle with the historical and structural legacy of colonization, systemic discrimination, and forced assimilation. The re-election of the Liberal Party of Canada under Mark Carney in April 2025 temporarily quieted concerns that the Government of Canada could drastically reverse progress on key programs, laws, and policies related to Indigenous Peoples. The early introduction and passage of federal legislation to hasten the construction of major projects, however, raised concerns about adverse impacts on Indigenous Peoples’ rights and interests.

This article is part of the 40^th edition of The Indigenous World, a yearly overview produced by IWGIA that serves to document and report on the developments Indigenous Peoples have experienced. Find The Indigenous World 2026 in full here

Introduction

2025 was far from boring for those interested in federal Canadian politics. After careful reflection during the holidays, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced in early January that he would step down from office, closing nearly 10 years of his reign as Prime Minister. The resignation, timed closely with increased threats of economic tariffs and annexation by President Donald Trump, launched a Liberal leadership campaign during a reignition of Canadian nationalism. Mark Carney, the former head of the Bank of Canada and Bank of England, tapped into this sentiment to win the leadership campaign, become Prime Minister for a couple weeks (where he ended the consumer carbon price), and call an official election. He carried his “Elbow’s Up” momentum into the election, winning a minority government for the Liberals, and launching a new shade of policy positions, much closer to the blue shade of the Progressive Conservatives (more center-right).

The Carney government also signaled a symbolic, and potentially substantive, shift in its relations with Indigenous Peoples by appointing Mandy Gull-Masty (former Grand Chief of the Grand Council of the Crees) as the first Indigenous person to serve as the Minister of Indigenous Services Canada. Rebecca Chartrand (Pine Creek First Nation) was appointed as Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs and Buckley Belanger (Métis) as Secretary of State for Rural Development. These appointments, however, did not seem to affect the initial policy direction of the Carney government. Early decisions included inviting King Charles to deliver the Speech from the Throne, committing to the fast-tracking of major project development, pursuing new trade partnerships, and reorienting government towards efficiency and competitiveness (requiring 15% cuts across the public service). First Nations, Inuit, and Métis leaders raised concerns with these accelerated timelines and the shift away from implementation of the UNDRIP.

Measuring progress on the UNDRIP and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action

The year also marked the 10-year anniversary of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) into Canada’s Indian Residential Institutions. The milestone, according to the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (the permanent home of the truth of Survivors), “…affirms what Survivors have always known: that Truth and Reconciliation is not a moment in time, but a movement to be carried forward by all who choose to listen, learn, and act.”^[1] The TRC Final Report introduced 94 Calls to Action and documented the reality that First Nations, Inuit, and Métis have known for generations: residential schools as institutions of assimilation and genocide, the systemic discrimination against First Nations, Inuit, and Métis, and the urgent need for Canada to rebuild nation-to-nation relationships.

Call to Action 43 called on all levels of government to fully adopt and implement the UNDRIP as the “framework for reconciliation”. Only two governments—the province of British Columbia (Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act) and the federal government (UN Declaration Act)—have acted on this Call to Action, although others, such as the Government of Northwest Territories, have taken steps in the right direction by formally endorsing the UNDRIP. 2025, unfortunately, tested the sincerity of these commitments as federal and provincial governments introduced new legislation to fast-track major project developments (described further below).

The fourth annual progress report on implementation of the federal UN Declaration Act was released in August 2025, summarizing progress on the 181 measures outlined in the UN Declaration Action Plan. Progress included the incorporation of a non-derogation clause into the federal Interpretation Act, the release of the Indigenous Justice Strategy, and the creation of an independent UN Declaration Act Action Plan Advisory Committee (APAC) responsible for advising the Minister on implementation of shared priority measures. Several assessments of this progress were conducted by Indigenous Peoples, such as the Yellowhead Institute^[2] and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN).^[3] The AFN report, for example, reviewed progress on the 181 measures, concluding that “…while they have made achievements, their progress has at times been slow and uneven.” (p. 4).

Fast-tracking major project development: a new form of Canadian nationalism?

Across the country, Canadian nationalism spurred on the introduction and passing of a series of provincial and federal legislation, broadly aimed at fast-tracking major project developments. The titles capture their objective: Ontario’s Bill 5, Protecting Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, British Columbia’s Bills 14, Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, and Bill 15, Infrastructure Projects Act, and the Canada’s C-5, One Canadian Economy Act (which includes the Building Canada Act). An unbridled commitment to the accelerated development of natural resources, characterized as a response to the repetitive threats by the Trump Administration, directly threaten the rights of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis as well as progress on reconciliation and the stated commitments to implement the UNDRIP.

The introduction of the Building Canada Act came to the shock of many First Nations, Inuit, and Métis governments and organizations. After a pre-consultation period of just one week, the Bill made its way through the House of Commons and the Senate in less than 20 days, achieving Royal Assent on 27 June 2025. The Act proposed a new framework of accelerated project development by creating a new type of project “Projects of National Interest” managed through a new Major Projects Office (MPO) which, once designated, would be given pre-emptive approval before proceeding through the assessment planning and regulatory phase. In essence, this shifted the question of whether a given major project should proceed to how a given major project can be developed. The Prime Minister also committed to the creation of an Indigenous Advisory Committee to the MPO, made up of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis leaders from across the country. Their task was simple: make recommendations to guide the development of major projects in a way that is responsive to the rights, governance, and knowledge systems of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis. There were criticisms, however, of the government’s approach to appointing the representatives, citing an absence of transparency and regional representations.

To date, there have been 11 projects identified for further consideration by the MPO.^[4] The outcomes of this consideration, as well as their future deliberation, raise important questions about the sincerity of this government’s commitment to the UNDRIP.

Bill S-2: an opportunity for justice for First Nations women?

For generations, the Indian Act discriminated against First Nations women by removing their Indian status if they married a non-status man. First Nations men, on the other hand, could marry non-status women and pass on status to their descendants. This gender-based discrimination led to significant harm to First Nations women and their descendants, who were denied access to their legal status as well as programs and services. The Government of Canada amended the Indian Act in 1985 to remove the automatic loss of Indian status for women but did not fully eliminate gender-based discrimination in the legislation.

In response to litigation and persistent advocacy from First Nations women, the Government of Canada introduced Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements), in the Senate of Canada in May 2025. Bill S-2 would restore Indian status to individuals and their descendants who lost it due to gender-based discrimination. In the fall, a Senate committee introduced amendments to Bill S-2 that would end what is called the second-generation cut-off in the Indian Act. The cut-off, which was introduced in 1985, prevents parents from passing on Indian status after two consecutive generations of parents who do not have status. The Bill S-2 amendments replace the cut-off with the one-parent rule, allowing anyone with status under the Indian Act to pass their legal identity and rights on to their children.

The path forward for Bill S-2 appears uncertain. Minister Gull-Masty argued that the amendments to Bill S-2 that passed in the Senate required deeper consultation with First Nations. As a result, Bill S-2 will likely face debate and proposed amendments in the House of Commons, further delaying justice for First Nations women and their descendants.

Budget 2025

In November 2025, the Government of Canada narrowly passed Budget 2025, a federal budget delayed due to the election in the spring. Budget 2025 was criticized by many First Nations, Inuit, and Métis leaders and organizations as a missed opportunity to invest in well-known and quantified priorities. The AFN, for instance, quantified the amount to close the infrastructure gap on reserve: a commitment of CAD $349 billion (approx. EUR 216 billion) over ten years.^[5] This “national building” project would include the housing, clean water, education, and community support that First Nations urgently need. Similar studies have been done by Inuit regional organizations and Métis representative organizations.

The most significant consideration of Budget 2025 was the imposition of significant spending cuts of 15% on all federal departments and agencies. Each department and agency had to conduct a comprehensive expenditure review, with new language for budget reductions and efficiency. Indigenous Services Canada and Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada were spared the bulk of these reviews, both facing cuts of only 2%. However, even these minor cuts could have severe impacts on Indigenous Peoples who depend on essential programs and services.

Indigenous Peoples expressed strong concerns about the fate of sunsetting programs. These programs were funded for limited periods of time and will expire unless explicitly renewed. Several important programs are due to sunset at the end of the fiscal year due to their exclusion from Budget 2025, including important supports for Indigenous children, youth, and families. Funding for First Nations to research and develop specific claims is set to decline rapidly due to a sunsetting program top-up.

Hidden with the Budget 2025 was the new Climate Competitiveness Strategy, the government’s new approach to “…retool and reinvest in building Canada strong and sustainable, working closely with provinces, territories and Indigenous partners by focusing on shared economic and climate goals”. Climate action and economic development are now seen as intertwined, resulting in new requirements for climate mitigation and adaptation action. The greatest example of this is the new Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Canada and the province of Alberta, where, in exchange for a robust industrial carbon price, the federal government is offering Alberta the construction of one or more pipelines to the West Coast, with a combined capacity of 1.4 million barrels/day. Coastal First Nations, with support from the First Nations-in-Assembly of the AFN, quickly denounced this agreement, calling for its immediate withdrawal.^[6]

Update on Long-Term Reform of First Nations Child and Family Services Program

Given the federal election, attention to the Long-Term Reform of the First Nations Child and Family Service Program was subdued after a very charged 2024. In 2024, the First Nations-in-Assembly rejected the initial offer of CAD $47.8 billion (approx. EUR 29.6 billion) and gave clear instructions to a negotiating team to push for more.^[7] Fast forward to the end of 2025 where the Government of Canada and the First Nations Caring Society (in collaboration with the National Children’s Chiefs’ Committee and the AFN) made competing submissions to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The Government of Canada’s plan commits CAD $35.5 billion (approx. EUR 22 billion) to long-term reform up to the end of 2034, as well as an ongoing commitment of CAD $4.4 billion (approx. EUR 2.7 billion) annually thereafter. The shared report, The Loving Justice Plan To End Canada’s Discrimination, outlines the minimum national standards for long-term reform that align with the principle of substantive equality, while preserving space for First Nations to negotiate regional variations (such as the Ontario region, which negotiated a CAD $8.5 billion over nine years plan, or approx. EUR 5.2 billion).^[8] The outcomes of these divergent submissions will be released sometime in 2026.

A review of consequential cases

2025 marked another significant year for Indigenous Peoples in Canada before the courts. Judicial decisions provided important clarification on the Crown’s duty to consult, the application of international legal standards, and the doctrine of Aboriginal title. At the same time, several rulings raised unresolved questions, many of which will be shaped by ongoing and anticipated appeals of key decisions.

In February 2025, the Federal Court issued a decision in Kebaowek First Nation v. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories^[9] addressing the role of the UNDRIP in assessing whether the Crown has fulfilled its constitutional duty to consult. The Court clarified that the UNDRIP must be considered as part of the analysis of the adequacy of consultation. Importantly, the decision affirmed that consultation must be informed by the perspectives, knowledge systems, and laws of the Indigenous Peoples whose rights are potentially affected.

In another significant decision related to the UNDRIP, in Gitxaała v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), the British Columbia Court of Appeal determined that the provincial Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act incorporates the UNDRIP into British Columbia’s positive law. This means that courts can assess the consistency of provincial legislation with the UNDRIP. The provincial government swiftly condemned the decision, arguing that it elevates courts to the role of decision-makers. The provincial government undertook to take steps to amend the legislation in order to clarify the role of the province and courts in assessing compliance with the UNDRIP.

Several significant decisions in 2025 also addressed the law of Aboriginal title. In August 2025, the Supreme Court of British Columbia released its judgment in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada, a case arising from the longest trial in Canadian history, which spanned 513 days. The Cowichan Tribes sought a declaration of Aboriginal title over lands within the City of Richmond, British Columbia. The area claimed includes lands historically occupied as a Cowichan village and which now include fee simple interests held by the Crown, the City of Richmond, and third parties. The Court issued a declaration recognizing that the Cowichan Tribes hold Aboriginal title over a significant portion of the claimed lands, including lands submerged by water. The Court’s decision is significant because it affirms that Aboriginal title can be recognized over lands currently held in fee simple. This decision, which has since been appealed, led to a rash of disinformation by politicians seeking to stoke fear about the impact of Aboriginal title on private property.

In December 2025, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal issued a decision in response to the Wolastoqey Nation’s claim seeking a declaration of Aboriginal title over a significant portion of the province of New Brunswick. The claim included land held by the Crown as well as land held in fee simple by third parties. The Court determined that the claim could proceed against the Crown but that Aboriginal title could not be declared over land held in fee simple by third parties because it would conflict with private property rights. This decision demonstrates a starkly different approach to Aboriginal title to the approach adopted by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Cowichan. Whether Aboriginal title can be declared over land held in fee simple by third parties and whether the two property regimes can co-exist will continue to be a lingering question for courts and policymakers in the coming years.

Path forward

The path forward for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis in Canada will hinge significantly on whether the federal government takes concrete steps to make meaningful progress on reconciliation. While the re-election of the Liberal government in 2025 may have eased immediate concerns of major rollbacks to key laws, programs, and policies, significant concerns have arisen regarding the fast-tracking of major projects across their lands and waters.

The uneven and slow implementation of UNDRIP and the TRC Calls to Action continues to call into question Canada’s stated commitment to reconciliation, a concern deepened by Budget 2025, which demonstrated a reluctance to dedicate the sustained funding required for systemic change. Meaningful progress will require Canada to work directly with Indigenous Peoples to adjust its approach to the development of major projects and continue to reform key programs, policies, and laws. Moreover, Canada will need commit the resources required to meet its obligations and commitments.

Graeme Reed has mixed Anishinaabe (Great Lakes), English, German, and Scottish ancestry. He works at the Assembly of First Nations, leading their involvement in federal and international climate policy, including as former North American Indigenous representative of the Facilitative Working Group of the UNFCCC’s Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform, and former co-Chair of the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Climate Change. He holds a PhD from the University of Guelph.

Jesse Donovan is Red River Métis. He works at the Assembly of First Nations as the Acting Director of the Lands Sector. His work focuses on the restitution of lands, territories and resources to First Nations. He holds a law degree from the University of Saskatchewan.

This article is part of the 40^th edition of The Indigenous World, a yearly overview produced by IWGIA that serves to document and report on the developments Indigenous Peoples have experienced. Find The Indigenous World 2026 in full here

Notes and references

^[1] National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR). “Reconciliation is a movement, not a moment: Ten Years of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation.” 5 December 2025. https://nctr.ca/statements-and-news-releases/reconciliation-is-a-movement-not-a-moment-ten-years-of-the-national-centre-for-truth-and-reconciliation/

^[2] Yellowhead Institute. “Braiding Accountability: A Ten-Year Review of the TRC's Healthcare Calls to Action.” September 2025. https://yellowheadinstitute.org/report/braiding-accountability-a-ten-year-review-of-the-trcs-healthcare-calls-to-action/

^[3] Assembly of First Nations. 2025 Assembly of First Nations Observations on Canada’s Implementation Performance respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. 2025. https://afn.bynder.com/m/4ace0bd6477f9c98/original/UNDA_Progress_Report_ENG.pdf

^[4] The full project map can be found at: Major Projects Office. “Projects and Transformative strategies map.” Government of Canada. 13 November 2025. https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/major-projects-office/projects/map.html

^[5] Assembly of First Nations. “Working to close the infrastructure gap for all First Nations communities.” https://afn.ca/economy-infrastructure/infrastructure/closing-the-infrastructure-gap/

^[6] Assembly of First Nations. “Resolution No. 33/2025, Affirming the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act and Supporting Coastal First Nations Rejection of any Proposed Pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia's Northwest Coast.” 2-3-4 December 2025. https://afn.bynder.com/m/a663afc89fd33b33/original/33-2025-Affirming-the-Oil-Tanker-Moratorium-Act-and-Supporting-Coastal-First-Nations-Rejection-of-any-Proposed-Pipeline.pdf

^[7] Read more in the Canada article in The Indigenous World 2025: Graeme Reed and Jesse Donovan, “Canada," in The Indigenous World 2025, ed. Dwayne Mamo (Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), 2025). https://iwgia.org/en/canada/5760-iw-2025-canada.html

^[8] Caring Society. “The Loving Justice Plan: First nations Child and Family Services (Outside Ontario) Files pursuant to 2025 CHRT 80.” 22 December 2025. https://fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/files/2025-12/2025.12.22%20-%202025%20CHRT%2080%20Loving%20Justice%20National%20Plan.pdf

^[9] For further reference, refer to this commentary: Kate Gunn and Nico McKay. “UNDRIP at the federal court: Case comment on Kebaowek First Nation v. Canaian Nuclear Laboratories.” First Peoples Law, 20 March 2025. https://www.firstpeopleslaw.com/public-education/blog/undrip-at-the-federal-court-case-comment-on-kebaowek-first-nation-v-canadian-nuclear-laboratories

Tags: Global governance