DeepDives is a bi-weekly essay series exploring key issues related to the economy. The goal of the series is to provide Hub readers with original analysis of the economic trends and ideas that are shaping this high-stakes moment for Canadian productivity, prosperity, and economic well-being. The series features the writing of leading academics, area experts, and policy practitioners. This particular DeepDive is made possible by RBC Thought Leadership and readers like you.
Canada’s ambitions for building up economic resilience—through natural resource development, infrastructure expansion, and trade diversification—are rapidly growing at a time of economic strife with our largest trading partner, concerns about strengthening Arctic security, and an AI boom that is set to drive energy demand. At this moment, where geopolitical instability and sluggish productivity weigh down on our growth prospects, advancing Indigenous partnerships is a prerequisite for prosperity and is our comparative advantage.
As recent RBC analysis demonstrates, more than 70 percent of major capital projects currently planned or underway intersect with Indigenous territories. Whether it’s building pipelines, expanding power grids, or opening new trade corridors, the success of these initiatives depends on meaningful Indigenous participation. This requires a fundamental reorientation of how governments and businesses engage with Indigenous Nations—shifting from transactional, project-based relationships to long-term, trust-based partnerships rooted in equity and shared decision-making.
Canada’s legal, political, and constitutional fabric is woven through and with the Crown’s relationship with Indigenous Nations. From centuries of treaties to Nation-to-Nation agreements and case law, we have affirmed and enshrined Aboriginal rights and title and the duty to consult. More recently, through the integration of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we have integrated free, prior, and informed consent, especially in regards to project development on Indigenous territories. These are important principles to abide by, and they shape how governments and businesses engage with Indigenous Nations.
Three levers are critical: capital, capacity, and consent. Legal and institutional barriers have stymied Indigenous equity partnerships. Access to affordable capital, often through mechanisms like loan guarantees, is essential to ensure Indigenous equity ownership in major projects. Capacity-building must be prioritized not only within Indigenous communities but across corporate and government sectors, which often lack the knowledge and tools to engage effectively. And consent must evolve from legal obligation to competitive advantage—anchored in Indigenous inclusion at every stage of project development.
The cost of the status quo is significant and growing. Realizing the promise of Indigenous economic reconciliation can empower us to build shared prosperity through greater social license, speed to implementation, and investment certainty. Indeed, this may be the only way to truly realize our ambitions of building up Canada.
Capital: Unlocking $98 billion in Indigenous equity
Capital needs for strategic sectors in Canada are large and growing—ranging from an infrastructure capital gap of up to $270 billion to a $30-billion gap in critical minerals. For major projects planned or in construction, RBC estimates the equity opportunity for Indigenous communities across Canada at nearly $98 billion over the next decade, tied to those projects running through Indigenous territories (see Table 1). But a massive capital gap continues to prevent most Nations from accessing these opportunities.
Graphic credit: Janice Nelson.
Capital access remains constrained by institutional barriers, such as the inability to use reserve lands as collateral under the Indian Act. Having said this, many projects are coming online that have strong, stable revenues. Risk assessment frameworks must account for the strategic importance—and legal requirement—of Indigenous participation in projects with territorial overlap. If project economics are sound, Indigenous Nations should have the opportunity to be treated on equal footing to other market participants.
Concessional financing tools, such as loans and loan guarantees, have long been touted as a way to bridge the access to capital gap by crowding in private financing. A few loan guarantee tools, as well as the First Nations Finance Authority, and the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s equity initiative, have been launched recently.. Progress came relatively slowly, then all at once. Last year saw the announcement of three loan guarantee programs, one federally, and one each in the province of B.C. and Manitoba.
But speed to implementation and the financing gap still remain. The $20 billion in announced access to capital tools has the potential to mobilize close to $48 billion in Indigenous equity investments. This still leaves a $50 billion financing gap. And not all of the announced tools are being utilized yet—one-third of the announced concessional capital tools have yet to be mobilized. On the public policy side, governments must prioritize implementation speed, broaden the sectoral scope of these tools, and ensure that they are adaptable, scalable, and responsive to Indigenous needs.
Capacity: The lynchpin
Capital alone is not enough. Major project development is complex and requires capacity development on all sides. For businesses, this is the education and training required for businesses and governments to better understand Indigenous histories, economies, cultures, and priorities. For Indigenous Nations, this can include everything from financial and engineering capacity required for commercial negotiations, to the environmental, historical, and legal support needed to participate in regulatory and rights-based discussions.
Without the internal capacity to evaluate opportunities, negotiate agreements, and engage in regulatory processes, informed consent is not possible. Capacity can be defined not only as technical knowledge and administrative capability, but as a two-way street: Indigenous Nations must be supported to build internal capacity, and governments and corporations must also build their own capacity to engage effectively and respectfully.
The historical context matters. For generations, colonial policies systematically excluded Indigenous peoples from education, governance, and economic systems. The Indian Act barred Nations from hiring legal counsel for fear that they would challenge Crown authority. While many Indigenous communities have built strong internal governance systems and growing own-source revenues, others still face acute barriers. RBC Thought Leadership estimates that capacity gaps could result in up to $84 billion in unrealized major project opportunities.
Indigenous-led organizations, including the First Nations Major Projects Coalition and the Canadian Council for Indigenous Business, exist to help bridge the capacity gap. But more can be done in this space, including secondments, knowledge-sharing, and leader-to-leader forums. For governments, investing between 3-5 percent of the loans, grants, and guarantee funding in capacity-building can help fund external capacity.
Capacity cannot be taken as a given—without bridging the capacity gap, many projects and deals remain unrealized, a direct economic loss to Canada.
Consent: From legal obligation to competitive advantage
Perhaps the most politically and legally complex pillar is consent. Consent is a constitutionally protected and evolving principle that intersects with Section 35 of the Constitution and Canada’s commitment to UNDRIP. The duty to consult and accommodate is well-established in case law. The challenge now is operationalizing it in a way that brings clarity, legitimacy, and speed to project development.
Consent must be rooted in relationship and trust. That means engaging with Indigenous communities before projects are even proposed—not simply showing up when a deal or an environmental assessment is at stake. It also means understanding that the nature and process of consent will differ from Nation to Nation.
Indigenous-led assessments, advanced primarily in B.C., provide a blueprint for success. Projects such as Cedar LNG, Eskay Creek, and Woodfiber LNG have incorporated Indigenous-led review processes that reflect traditional knowledge, community priorities, and environmental stewardship. The result? Some of the fastest permitting timelines in Canada—between five to 15 months faster than comparable models in the U.S. and federally in Canada.
To realize the principle of consent, several key processes must be followed by both governments and businesses. First, prioritize Indigenous inclusion in the regulatory process through mechanisms such as substitution and delegation. Second, invest in building lasting relationships well before consent is needed. Third, create the conditions for informed consent through transparency, shared decision-making, and ongoing communication.
Key takeaways: Three pillars, one future of shared prosperity
Individually, capital, capacity, and consent each represent longstanding gaps in Canada’s approach to Indigenous relations. But taken together, they offer a framework for economic reconciliation that is not only just, but efficient, scalable, and in the national interest.
As trade relationships with the United States grow more volatile, as Canada’s productivity gap widens, and as global competition for investment intensifies, the ability to build timely, trusted, and resilient infrastructure has become a strategic necessity. Yet, the politics of delay and denial continue to undermine national progress.
Economic reconciliation provides a different path—one rooted in partnership, shared prosperity, and long-term resilience. When Indigenous Nations are equity partners, project development and consent are more likely to be achieved. When Indigenous knowledge is embedded in assessments, the permitting process is more streamlined. When capacity is built across the board, relationships deepen and the conditions for success are met.
None of this is theoretical. The numbers tell a clear story: nearly $100 billion in Indigenous equity opportunities are on the table. Loan guarantees and concessional capital can unlock over $40 billion in investments. Permitting timelines can be cut by up to 15 months when Indigenous leadership is prioritized.
What’s required now is urgency and leadership. Governments must treat the implementation of loan guarantee programs as a priority, not a political afterthought. The private sector must recognize that reconciliation is no longer a sideline initiative—it is the competitive edge in getting projects built. And Canadians more broadly must embrace the idea that the country’s economic destiny is inseparable from the sovereignty and self-determination of its First Peoples.
This article is made possible by RBC and readers like you. Donate today.
