FORT WILLIAM FIRST NATION | Cultural Heritage Building Project

FORT WILLIAM FIRST NATION

Reclaiming Space for Culture, Ceremony, and Community (Cultural Heritage Building Project) Essentials & Advanced Project Management Training, 2024

WHO THEY ARE?

Fort William First Nation (FWFN), situated at the base of Anemki Wajiw
(Mount McKay) on the shore of Lake Superior near Thunder Bay, is an
Anishinaabe (Ojibwe) Nation with deep ancestral roots within the
Robinson-Superior Treaty territory. For generations, land, language, and
spiritual teachings have centred community life—shaping governance,
ceremony, and wellbeing.

FWFN has pursued a path of cultural and economic revitalization—
renewing Anishinaabemowin and customary practice, safeguarding
sacred sites such as Anemki Wajiw, and strengthening community
institutions to heal and thrive. Cultural life is sustained in the places set
aside for language, teachings, and ceremony—spaces that hold identity
in everyday practice.

WHAT THEY NEEDED

Fort William First Nation needed to restore everyday cultural life with a
dedicated place for language, teachings, ceremony, and community
connection. The immediate constraint was program demand had
outgrown available space, even as leadership sought to strengthen
identity, wellness, belonging, and land-based activities. The aim was
simple and profound—create a safe place for cultural instruction that
supports community wellbeing.

To move from intent to delivery, the Nation needed one decision-ready
plan that named what the place must hold, how it would be made real,
who would be involved and informed, and how known risks would be
handled. In practice, that meant clearly defining essential cultural spaces
(including areas for Elders’ presence, teaching and food preparation,
gathering, and an outdoor area with a sacred fire), setting a paced path
from site and services through build and handover with visible oversight
by Chief & Council, and preparing for the specific risks already flagged in
planning—soil conditions, blueprint/permit approvals, and potential
opposition—so momentum could hold.

They also needed alignment across stakeholders, a steady
communications and engagement plan, a path to funding and
sponsorship, and practical ways to embed community employment and
Knowledge Keepers’ guidance—while addressing baseline constraints
noted in planning. Together, these needs defined the shift from vision to
something durable the community could lead and sustain.

WHAT WE DID

circle-check

Delivered a two-tier training program (essentials → advanced) to build a clear, Nation-led planning baseline for the Cultural Heritage Centre.

circle-check

Formalized an Advisory Committee of Knowledge Keepers and embedded community employment into the delivery model.

circle-check

Grounded purpose and scope in FWFN priorities: limited program space, renewing language and identity, strengthening land-based teachings, and centring community wellness.

circle-check

Established simple governance and communications with steady reporting to Chief & Council.

circle-check

Structured a sequenced path from site readiness and services through design, construction, landscaping, and handover.

circle-check

Mapped stakeholders—who needed to be involved, consulted, or informed throughout the process.

circle-check

Defined essential cultural spaces, including an outdoor sacred- fire area.

circle-check

Identified early risks (soil, permits, engagement challenges) and captured them in a risk register.

circle-check

Unified mandate, scope, sequencing, stakeholder path, and risks into one coherent, actionable plan.

RESULTS WE GOT

Delivered an integrated, Nation-led plan mapping the full path from site and services through build and landscaping.

Preserved Nation-led control by embedding Knowledge Keeper guidance and community employment/skills development into the plan.

Created clear governance and coordination: transparent reporting to Chief & Council, defined roles, and predictable engagement touchpoints.

Unified scope, sequencing, governance, stakeholders, and risks to position FWFN for design and funding preparation with priorities anchored in community leadership.

Identified early risks—soil conditions, permit/blueprint approvals, potential opposition—to reduce surprises and pace decisions.

IN NUMBERS

circle-check

1 Cultural Heritage Centre Project Plan Was Established

A Nation-led route from site and services through design, build, and landscape, with sponsor oversight and a clear reporting line to Chief & Council.

circle-check

12 Deliverables Sequenced Into one Delivery Pathway

Integrating site/services, design–build–landscape, cultural guidance and employment, and project management into a coordinated route.

circle-check

4.5-Year Delivery Timeline Set

A Paced pathway from planning and design through implementation to commissioning.