Indigenous Governance in Canada: Nation-to-Nation Foundations and the Role of Treaties in Corporate Engagement

Canada’s constitutional and legal foundations are shaped by Nation-to-Nation relationships between Indigenous Peoples and the Crown. These relationships were not incidental to the formation of the Canadian state; they are constitutive of it. Through treaties and other agreements, Indigenous Nations entered into enduring legal and political relationships that continue to structure jurisdiction, rights, and obligations across the country.

Corporations are not parties to these Nation-to-Nation relationships. However, corporate activity in Canada occurs within the constitutional and treaty framework they established. Access to land, resources, and operating certainty is made possible through legal arrangements that predate contemporary industry. For companies seeking to engage Indigenous governments in credible and durable ways, understanding this framework is not optional context; it is a condition of responsible operation.

Treaties as living legal frameworks

Treaties, whether historic or modern, are binding legal agreements that form part of Canada’s constitutional architecture. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 affirms treaty rights and accords them constitutional protection. Courts have consistently recognized treaties as foundational instruments that govern how land, resources, and authority are shared.

While treaties are formally agreements between Indigenous Nations and the Crown, their effects extend to industries and institutions that benefit from the access and certainty those agreements provide. Corporate actors are therefore not external to the treaty framework. They operate within it and derive material benefit from it, even though they are not signatories.

Despite this, treaty literacy within corporate Canada remains limited. Many organizations cannot identify which treaties apply to their operating regions or explain what those treaties represent from the perspective of the Indigenous Nations involved. Treaties are often treated as historical background rather than as living legal frameworks with contemporary relevance.

This gap has practical consequences. Treaty awareness influences how companies assess their role, frame commitments, and signal intent. Where treaty context is poorly understood, engagement efforts may appear disconnected from place, history, and responsibility, shaping how Indigenous governments assess corporate credibility.

Locating operations within the treaty landscape

A foundational step for organizations is to situate their operations within Canada’s treaty and territorial landscape. This involves identifying whether activities occur on lands covered by historic Numbered Treaties, modern land claim agreements, or in territories where treaties were never concluded.

Understanding location alone, however, is insufficient. Treaties are interpreted and lived by Indigenous Nations in ways that extend beyond their written text. What was promised, how those promises have been honoured or breached, and how the Nation understands the treaty today all inform expectations for contemporary conduct. These interpretations vary across Nations and cannot be inferred solely from Crown or corporate summaries.

For corporate leaders, this requires approaching treaties as ongoing relational frameworks rather than as settled historical facts. It also requires recognizing that Indigenous understandings of treaties may diverge from corporate assumptions, particularly where obligations remain disputed or unresolved.

Governance implications for corporate engagement

Nation-to-Nation relationships define the constitutional context within which Indigenous Nations exercise governance. While corporations do not enter into these relationships, they must understand how those relationships shape Indigenous authority and expectations.

Engagement approaches that treat Indigenous governments as program partners or community stakeholders often sit uneasily within this context. Such approaches can obscure the political and legal character of Indigenous governance and misalign corporate engagement with how authority is exercised on the ground.

In regions where treaties were never signed, the governance landscape is more complex still. Large parts of British Columbia and the North remain subject to unresolved assertions of Aboriginal title. In these contexts, the absence of a treaty does not imply the absence of rights. It signals that jurisdictional questions remain active and, in many cases, legally enforceable. Corporate activity in these regions carries heightened legal and relational risk and requires careful attention to Indigenous governance structures and expectations.

Implications for corporate practice

Recognizing the treaty-based foundations of Canada has practical implications for how corporations position themselves and act:

• Map operations against treaties and territories.

  Organizations should identify the treaties, land claims, or unceded territories connected to their operations and understand their legal status.

  
  

• Build treaty literacy at senior levels.

  Executives, board members, and operational leaders should understand relevant treaties as legal and governance frameworks, informed by Indigenous or treaty-specific expertise.

  
  

• Align engagement with Indigenous governance realities.

  Corporate engagement should reflect where authority resides and how Indigenous governments exercise decision-making within their territories.

  
  

• Proceed with heightened care in non-treaty areas.

  In regions without treaties, planning should account for unresolved rights and elevated legal and relational complexity.

Concluding observations

Treaties and Nation-to-Nation relationships are not historical footnotes. They are foundational to Canada’s constitutional order and continue to shape how land, authority, and responsibility are understood.

By situating corporate activity within this treaty and constitutional framework, organizations clarify their own position within the landscape in which they operate. This orientation does not resolve all tensions inherent in corporate activity on Indigenous lands, but it provides a more grounded basis for judgment, legitimacy, and long-term relationship-building.