Pacific Link may offer economic benefits, but Ottawa will weaken the project if its timetable turns Indigenous participation into a procedural formality.
The Canadian
Opinion
October 8, 2026
4 min read
Canada needs a more reliable way to decide which major projects should proceed. Endless uncertainty serves neither investment nor the communities living with the consequences. But the answer cannot be to set an aggressive construction date and ask Indigenous nations to fit their rights into the remaining space.
Pacific Link is being presented as both an economic nation-building project and an opportunity for Indigenous ownership. Those possibilities are real enough to examine. Indigenous communities are not of one view: some leaders see partnership and long-term revenue, while others fear another decision made before their concerns can change the outcome.
“A community’s presence at an announcement is not consent.”
That difference is precisely why consultation must be more than an information session. A community’s presence at an announcement is not consent. Nor can a promise of project-level talks later repair a process if route, timing and designation have already hardened into commitments that governments are politically unwilling to revisit.
Speed and legitimacy are not opposites. Ottawa can publish firm review stages, fund community-led technical analysis, disclose proposed ownership terms and establish deadlines for government responses. What it cannot do is treat the calendar as evidence that the constitutional work has been completed.
A project that survives genuine scrutiny will be stronger in court, in capital markets and on the ground. If Pacific Link is as important as its supporters contend, it can withstand a process in which consultation occurs before the decisive choices—not after them.
The Canadian · October 28, 2026
The Canadian · October 23, 2026
The Canadian · October 17, 2026