By Karine Millaire

November 3, 2026

On October 26th, leaders from First Nations, Canada, and the provinces convened for the first official meeting on Indigenous issues in more than 20 years and the first dedicated solely to First Nations in 119 years.

National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak initiated this historic gathering, and Prime Minister Mark Carney hosted it. As mixed reactions have been shared about immediate outcomes, it is worth reflecting on what might be an important step toward a tripartite federation.

The agenda was ambitious: economic reconciliation, self-governance, healthcare, policing, emergency preparedness, treaty rights. Bills C-5 and C-39 (“Building Canada Strong” Policy), and Bill S-2 on status inequities in the Indian Act also highly influenced the context in which discussions took place — and with good reason. Carney’s commitment to expedite major development projects across the country in response to the U.S. tariff war raised serious concerns about how such an approach can be compatible with respect for First Nations’ rights and consent. Membership rules also strike at the core of identity and self-determination of nations.

Funding announcements were made. Canada will invest $260 million over four years in a new Partnerships for Indigenous Workforce Readiness Fund connected with the controversial policy accelerating land and natural resources projects. To better equip First Nations communities following disasters, more than $2.5 billion over five years will be spent on emergency preparedness. More than $630 million over four years will also be invested in First Nations and Inuit policing, as filling gaps with non-Indigenous police are critical.

Reframing revenue sharing among three levels of governments

All these pressing issues raised by First Nations are ultimately connected to revenue sharing and natural resources. The parties at the table agreed on developing new mechanisms, including a potential First Nations Sovereign Wealth Fund. But fully acknowledging First Nations’ right to self-governance and implementing it requires shifting the Canadian fiscal framework from two to three levels of government.

In recent years, Parliament has acknowledged that section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 not only protects treaty and Aboriginal land rights, but also the constitutional rights of First Nations to self-govern and adopt their own laws in matters of family, youth protection, and Indigenous languages. Canada committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) five years ago, which broadly supports self-governance in multiple areas and efforts to revitalize cultural traditions. First Nations are taking over powers and responsibilities in health, education, justice, and social services.

Ad hoc funding agreements are negotiated with Ottawa and the provinces, but we may have reached a point where exercising legitimate government powers and responsibilities cannot be done through a framework in which fiscal revenues are essentially split between only two levels of government. As the Superior Court of Quebec stated in the landmark Montour case, “[w]ithout independent financial leverage, most collective rights are just empty shells”. Justice Bourque then acknowledged a constitutional right to economic development for Indigenous peoples. Confirmation of this challenged judgment by the Court of Appeal could boost the creation of the new First Nations Sovereign Wealth Fund and force the reframing of revenue-sharing mechanisms.

Quebec, Alberta and BC’s empty chairs

At the conference, three premiers adopted the empty-chair policy and put their bilateral recriminations against Ottawa first. They said skipping this historical event was justified because Prime Minister Carney was hosting it and they prefer direct meetings with First Nations. This justification hardly stands, as First Nations themselves requested a tripartite cooperative table, and it appears to fall back on the old “passing the buck” approach.

The empty-chair policy of the newly elected Quebec premier and leader of the Parti Québécois, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, became even clearer when he also boycotted the Canada-European Union (EU) meeting since Prime Minister Carney refused to grant him a special speaking role. Being invited to the official table was not enough.

Combined with previous declarations and current agendas, the Quebec premier’s approach doesn’t bode well for First Nations and Inuit in the province. On Truth and Reconciliation Day, the Parti Québécois leader declared that while he will consult Indigenous peoples regarding the third Quebec secession referendum he has committed to hold, he will not respect their consent. This ignores the clear rights of the nations concerned. The Quebec government also committed to abolishing the monarchy in the province and started ignoring constitutional conventions regarding the role of the lieutenant-governor, currently held by the Mi’kmaq Manon Jeannotte – without any consideration for the legal relationships between the Crown and Indigenous peoples.

Alberta and British Columbia Conservative governments similarly have agendas setting aside Indigenous rights. In BC, Premier-designate Doerkson announced as his top priority to repeal the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act implementing UNDRIP in the province.

Premier Smith’s referendum on immigration and constitutional issues showed that Albertans chose to stay in the Canadian federation. However, the whole process has been conducted while ignoring the several Indigenous nations having constitutional and treaty rights on the disputed territories. Last May, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench quashed Elections Alberta’s approval of a citizen-led separation petition, forcing the government to shift to a non-binding question on secession.

 Abolishing the Indian Act?

Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew stole the spotlight when he called for the abolition of the Indian Act. “It made for good headlines”, as Robert Falcon Ouellette pointed out, but many responded that it was not the time or place to raise such a question. Perhaps more importantly, “abolishing” the Indian Act rather than reforming it is a dangerous endeavour, rejected along with the 1960s White Papers.

That being said, the process of moving away from the Indian Act and replacing it with self-governance structures has started and should be further supported by the federation. This requires taking the legal conclusions of courts seriously, according to which Indigenous peoples form a third order of government that predated Canada and has never been extinguished. We must repurpose our constitutional framework to fully account for these three orders of government and reform revenue-sharing accordingly.

As the rapidly shifting international order commands rethinking our alliances, and as Indigenous peoples’ political influence and rights can no longer be ignored, the stars might now be aligned to move toward tripartite federalism.

Karine Millaire is a lawyer and a professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Montreal. She is a member of the Wendat Nation.