QUESTION PERIOD — Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
Indigenous Rights
June 9, 2026
Government leader, an advanced procurement notice entitled NORAD Northern Basing Infrastructure, or NNBI, for N.W.T., was posted online. Within the NNBI, it states that the Government of Canada is working to advance reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. It requires successful proponents to develop an Indigenous Benefits Plan, or IBP, as part of the multiple design-build contracts. The IBPs will outline proposed initiatives and opportunities for Indigenous participation, including subcontracting, employment and training activities.
Reconciliation is not synonymous with economic benefits. It is a constitutional imperative grounded in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights. The honour of the Crown imposes a non-delegable obligation on the Crown to meaningfully consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous rights holders when Crown conduct may adversely affect their rights, titles or interests.
How does the government justify characterizing contractor-led employment and procurement initiatives as “reconciliation,” when the constitutional obligations of consultation and accommodation rest with the Crown itself and cannot be delegated to private contractors?
The commitment of the government towards reconciliation is transparent in all of the actions that the government has taken so far. The government is not delegating any of its constitutional duties to private partners.
The government understands. We did that with Bill S-2, and we did that lately regarding the proposition of amendments on bills, and the constitutional duty of consultation is taken very seriously by the government. I mention that as the representative of the government here in the Senate.
There’s nothing that could support the fact that the government is undertaking to delegate or delegating this constitutional duty to any private party.
The N.W.T. Gwich’in and Inuvialuit are parties to constitutionally protected modern treaties. Their rights cannot be reduced to employment, training or subcontracting opportunities offered through an IBP. The Crown has a constitutional obligation to uphold those treaty rights directly, rather than relegating Indigenous participation to a contractor-led procurement exercise.
Will the government uphold the honour of the Crown by working directly with Indigenous rights holders to develop an IBP before selecting a successful proponent to ensure that Indigenous rights holders are partners and decision makers, not merely beneficiaries, on their own traditional lands?
The government is committed to working with all Indigenous communities to make sure that we are going forward as far as reconciliation is concerned. We’re working with Indigenous communities on every issue that concerns those communities. It shows in many actions that have been taken so far by the government, and we intend to continue on that path.
