THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 27, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 6:47 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on matters relating to the duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous peoples, which flows from the honour of the Crown derived from section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Senator Michèle Audette (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good evening. Thank you very much for your patience. [Innu-aimun spoken] on Anishinaabe territory. Of course, you’ve heard this message at every meeting: We need to take care of the people who interpret for us. I ask everyone around this large table to place translation and interpretation devices in the designated spot on the table or to avoid leaning in too close to the microphone with this technology, or with our cellphones or tablets. Thank you for your consideration; the people behind the scenes are invaluable.
As I said in Innu-aimun, I would like to acknowledge the people of this territory who have welcomed us for millennia, for hundreds of years, or for some time now — depending on where we come from. For some First Nations, it’s been millennia; for others, it’s been several generations. It’s just as important, no matter when we first set foot here in our moccasins. I acknowledge the Anishinaabe People every day. We do this collectively, and we salute all those who have made this their home: First Nations, Métis and Inuit, and, of course, Canadian society.
We’ll go around the table.
[English]
Senator Prosper: Thank you, Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario, specifically from Cornwall, on the Mohawk territory of Akwesasne.
[English]
Senator Pate: Welcome. Kim Pate. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe.
Senator Osler: Hello. Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler, Manitoba, Winnipeg specifically, Treaty 1 territory, home and original land Anishinaabe, Cree, Oji-Cree and Dene Peoples and homelands of the Red River Métis Nation.
Senator McPhedran: Senator Marilou McPhedran, independent senator from Manitoba. And like she said.
Senator Francis: Welcome, Senator Brian Francis, Epekwitk, Prince Edward Island. Nice to have you here.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Banff National Park, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator Greenwood: Welcome, everyone. My name is Margo Greenwood. I am originally from Treaty 6 territory, but I come from beautiful British Columbia.
Senator Karetak-Lindell: Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Nunavut.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much. I would like to welcome this impressive delegation from the Government of Canada. I must admit, a little while ago, I said, “I hope we’ll have a quorum,” and then my colleagues arrived. I welcome you here this evening, along with all the senators’ staff members and, of course, all of you here before us. Thank you for being with us.
I also welcome those who are taking the time to watch these important debates on ParlVu. This is a significant meeting. We will hear you and then discuss the issues relating to the duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous Peoples, which flows from the honour of the Crown derived from section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Ms. Gideon, we always take great pride in knowing that we have a First Nations woman on the inside to influence and mobilize; I thank you for your work as Deputy Minister at Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. We’re pleased to welcome you here this evening, as well as your colleague Kirsten Miller, Director of the Consultation and Accommodation Unit.
[English]
Also from Indigenous Services Canada, Christopher Cornish, Director General, Economic and Business Opportunities, Lands and Economic Development.
[Translation]
From Environment and Climate Change Canada, we welcome Alison McDermott, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy and International Affairs Branch; Tara Shannon, Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Wildlife Service; and Jacinthe David, Director General, Industrial Sectors and Chemicals Directorate.
Finally, by video conference, from the Impacts Assessment Agency of Canada, we have Regina Wright, Director General, Regional Operations West.
[English]
Thank you all for being with us this evening. We are now ready to hear your opening remarks, which will be followed by questions from senators.
Valerie Gideon, Deputy Minister, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: [Indigenous language spoken]
Hello.
[Translation]
Thank you for the opportunity to appear again before my favourite committee. I want to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of Algonquin Park. I acknowledge that I’m a member of the Mi’kmaq Nation of Gesgapegiag, Quebec.
[English]
I’m very happy to be here today. As noted, I’m here with Kirsten Miller. I hope she is the next generation. I’m hoping to groom Ms. Miller to take over as another important Indigenous woman in this role.
As you all know, the Crown has a legal duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous groups when making decisions that could affect their rights. This is a responsibility that applies equally to provinces and territories.
The duty to consult obligation is rooted in common law and stems from section 35 of the Constitution Act, as the senator has already noted, which recognizes and affirms Aboriginal and treaty rights. Modern treaty agreements also contain specific requirements for Crown consultation, articulating how the duty to consult works for these partners.
[Translation]
My department supports Indigenous participation in consultation processes by co-developing tools and agreements to facilitate their meaningful involvement in predictable, respectful and efficient consultation.
One important tool is the Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information System, or ATRIS, which provides information about Indigenous collectives and their potential or established Aboriginal or treaty rights. The system is used as a starting point for knowledge sharing and understanding.
[English]
The Alto High-Speed Rail Project, which has been in the news, is a example where we have used the Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information System, or ATRIS, to support identifying potentially impacted Indigenous groups. In the context of that project, our department also participated in an Indigenous working group, related governance structures, and provided advice on the importance of early engagement.
To further support Indigenous participation in consultation processes more broadly, Budget 2025 provided $10.1 million over three years to continue the Federal Initiative on Consultation, which provides funding for the co-development of consultation protocols and resource centres. These tools ensure that Indigenous rights holders are well supported to participate in consultation processes and have greater capacity to meet consultation demands.
[Translation]
Consultation protocols set out how Indigenous groups want to be engaged, creating clear, mutually agreed processes that make consultations more efficient and respectful.
Resource centres, based within Indigenous organizations, provide support, research and knowledge to help communities participate meaningfully in consultation processes.
To date, we have co-developed 13 consultation protocols with Indigenous communities, as well as eight resource centres. This includes three new resource centres recently put in place with funding from Budget 2025. Together, these tools are supporting more than 400 Indigenous communities in meeting consultation demands.
[English]
In addition to supporting Indigenous partners, our department also supports all federal departments and agencies in fulfilling the duty to consult. We provide advice and guidance, identify potentially impacted communities, as noted earlier, and advise on consultation approaches and best practices. We also provide training and learning opportunities for federal officials on fulfilling their legal duty to consult, which regularly includes Indigenous speakers talking about their lived experiences.
To be clear, our department itself is not responsible for carrying out consultation processes on behalf of the Federal Crown. This is a collective responsibility, which is why you have a lot of federal representatives here today. It is an issue of critical importance across the federal government. Also with respect to each province and territory. We are all responsible for meeting our own consultation obligations.
[Translation]
However, to help federal departments and officials meet these obligations, CIRNAC provides guidance about the Government of Canada’s approach to consultation and accommodation.
We are in the process of updating the guidelines for federal officials to fulfill the duty to consult based on feedback from national and Indigenous-led engagement, and we will be publishing them later this year.
When conducted properly, consultation can be both meaningful and effective. This means respecting the processes and objectives of the Indigenous communities being consulted; it means working collaboratively to shape the process and to assess potential impacts on Section 35 rights; and it means developing solutions together.
[English]
When consultation is transparent, coordinated and rooted in respect, we can successfully uphold our legal obligations while advancing reconciliation.
Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marsee. Wela’lioq. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. The next speaker is Mr. Christopher Cornish, Director General, Economic and Business Opportunities, Lands and Economic Development with Indigenous Services Canada.
Christopher Cornish, Director General, Economic and Business Opportunities, Lands and Economic Development, Indigenous Services Canada: Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to appear today to discuss the duty to consult and the role of Indigenous Services Canada in supporting meaningful engagement with First Nations, Inuit and Métis partners.
[Translation]
At Indigenous Services Canada, consultation and engagement are central to how we advance our mandate and support self-determination for Indigenous Peoples.
While all federal departments and agencies are responsible for fulfilling the Crown’s legal obligation to consult when proposed decisions may have adverse effects on established Aboriginal and treaty rights, Indigenous Services Canada plays an important supporting role through program design and delivery, legislative initiatives, capacity-building measures and partnership-based service transformation initiatives.
[English]
At Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, the duty to consult represents the floor, not the ceiling. While Canada must fulfill these legal obligations, we also recognize that consultation is intended to fully understand how rights may be affected and to work toward mutually beneficial solutions that advance reconciliation.
Our approach is increasingly grounded in co-development, collaboration and long-term relationship building. Across a range of initiatives — including Bill S-2, additions to reserve major project engagement, Indigenous procurement modernization, health transformation, housing and infrastructure, and water legislation, to name a few — ISC is working with Indigenous partners to identify practical, community-informed solutions that improve services and strengthen Indigenous participation in decision making.
A key focus of our work is ensuring Indigenous communities have the capacity to participate meaningfully in consultation processes. Through initiatives such as the Strategic Partnerships Initiative, ISC supports Indigenous participation in major project reviews and broader legislative and policy reform discussions.
Most recently, funding support is being made available to over 700 Indigenous rights holders and organizations to participate in engagement on proposed major project legislative and regulatory reforms.
[Translation]
Indigenous Services Canada also supports the improvement of consultation processes in areas such as reserve additions, where complex issues related to overlapping claims and shared territories require collaborative approaches and practical tools.
Since 2022, the department has expanded its specialized capacity, established a unit dedicated to the duty to consult for complex cases, and worked collaboratively with Indigenous partners and the Department of Justice to develop new guidelines, tools and best practices for consultation.
[English]
Our work is also informed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Indigenous Services Canada remains committed to consultation and cooperation with Indigenous Peoples and recognizes that participation in decision making is central to advancing reconciliation and improving outcomes for communities.
Ultimately, meaningful consultation is not simply about meeting legal obligations. It is about building trust, supporting better decisions, strengthening Indigenous governance and capacity, and advancing shared priorities in a way that reflects indigenous rights, perspectives and aspirations.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
Regina Wright, Director General, Regional Operations (West), Impact Assessment Agency of Canada: Thank you, chair. I am the Director General Regional Operations West at the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, which I will call IAAC or the agency for the rest of my remarks.
My responsibilities include conducting agency-led assessments and undertaking public and Indigenous consultation for designated projects in Western Canada, including IAAC’s Pacific and Yukon region, and the Prairie and northern regions.
I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking to you today from Vancouver, on the shared territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations, who have stewarded these lands since time immemorial.
As my colleague at CIRNAC has explained in their opening remarks, it is the responsibility of all departments and agencies to consult on their contemplated Crown conduct that may adversely impact established or asserted Aboriginal and treaty rights.
[Translation]
IAAC integrates the Government of Canada’s Crown consultation responsibilities into the impact assessment process to the greatest extent possible. It leads federal consultation activities throughout all phases of an assessment and serves as a “one window” point of contact for Indigenous groups involved in an assessment.
Indigenous consultation during the impact assessment process serves to meet the Crown’s common-law duty to consult by ensuring respect and protection of the rights of the Indigenous Peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and to meet statutory obligations under the Impact Assessment Act.
Because Indigenous participation leads to quality assessments that help us ensure responsible, sustainable development in Canada, IAAC’s approach goes beyond the duty to consult, to working in a spirit of partnership with Indigenous groups.
Our approach is built on respectful relationships, co-operation and partnership with Indigenous peoples from the start of an assessment.
It ensures that impact assessments take into account Indigenous knowledge, cultural considerations and customs along with scientific information and other evidence.
[English]
The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada adapts its consultation approach based on the nature and scope of consultation activities required for each project and how they may affect Indigenous groups and their rights. We ensure that Indigenous groups whose rights may be adversely affected by the proposed project are identified and provided information.
We offer funding for them to meaningfully participate in the impact assessment and consultation activities.
Throughout the impact assessment process, we encourage ongoing collaboration and partnership with Indigenous groups in order to incorporate their feedback before decisions are made and develop solutions to address issues raised during the impact assessment and consultations.
Our commitment to upholding our relationships with Indigenous Peoples and ensuring respect for their rights and the protection of the environment remains central to IAAC’s work amidst efforts to streamline our processes and find efficiencies.
The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada also recognizes the need for reconciliation and has published a Reconciliation Framework, which aligns with the objectives and spirit of the UN declaration.
This framework, translated into nine Indigenous languages, is and will remain foundational to IAAC’s approach to advancing reconciliation, both within the workplace and in our relationships with Indigenous Peoples in all the work we do.
Beyond assessments, IAAC also engages broadly on its legislative, regulatory and policy initiatives, such as recently established cooperation agreements with provinces.
Finally, I would like to conclude by acknowledging that the Government of Canada released Getting Major Projects Built in Canada — Discussion Paper on Proposed Legislative, Regulatory, and Policy Reforms on May 8. It includes a proposal for a Crown consultation hub within IAAC to work with federal departments and agencies to ensure Indigenous groups affected by major projects go through one clear and coordinated consultation process.
Pending the outcome of engagement on that discussion paper and any resulting reform proposals, the Major Projects Office, or MPO, is the lead on this matter, and I understand my colleagues from this office will be on the second panel later this evening.
Thank you, and I look forward to responding to any questions you may have.
Alison McDermott, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy and International Affairs Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Good evening everyone. It’s a pleasure to be here and to take part in this discussion on consultation and the evolving relationship between the Crown and Indigenous Peoples.
The duty to consult and the constitutional framework it falls under form a critical foundation for the Government of Canada’s relationship with Indigenous Peoples. Consultation is not only a legal requirement; it is fundamentally about relationships grounded in respect, transparency and meaningful participation in decisions that affect Indigenous rights, interests and ways of life.
[Translation]
Within this context, Environment and Climate Change Canada has an important role to play.
Much of the department’s engagement with Indigenous Peoples is rooted in shared priorities such as conservation, biodiversity, environmental protection and climate action.
Indigenous leadership, knowledge systems, stewardship practices and rights are essential to achieving strong and lasting outcomes in these areas.
[English]
As we advance our mandate, we’re committed to doing so in ways that respect Indigenous rights and support reconciliation. That means moving beyond transactional consultation processes and toward more collaborative, distinctions-based approaches developed in partnership with First Nations, Inuit and Métis.
[Translation]
There are strong examples within ECCC that reflect this approach.
In conservation and species at risk, initiatives such as the Indigenous Guardians program and Indigenous Partnerships for Species at Risk highlight Indigenous leadership and demonstrate the value of shared stewardship.
[English]
In regulatory and permitting processes, ECCC has also adopted more flexible and responsive approaches. For example, Indigenous groups are engaged throughout the species at risk cycle, supporting continuity, trust, and stronger relationships over time.
Programs like Disposal at Sea have incorporated regional flexibility, allowing consultation approaches to reflect local realities and governance structures. In some northern regions, integration with co-management boards provides a strong model, while in other areas increased departmental involvement has helped improve consistency and oversight.
[Translation]
At the same time, we recognize that challenges remain.
Coordination gaps within ECCC and across the federal system can lead to fragmented engagement and consultation fatigue among Indigenous communities. Strengthening alignment across departments and agencies, and with Indigenous partners is essential.
[English]
Consultation practices must also continue to evolve. Broad or untargeted outreach can limit effectiveness, while rigid processes can constrain the meaningful inclusion of Indigenous perspectives.
Environment and Climate Change Canada is working to improve coordination and strengthen consultation practices across the department, including creating opportunities for earlier and more proactive engagement. This remains particularly critical in the current context. Acting with urgency to respond to a changing global economy cannot come at the expense of the government’s duty to consult obligations.
We also know effective consultation depends on sustained capacity. Funding limitations continue to pose challenges, as inconsistent or short-term support can undermine participation, continuity and trust.
Meaningful engagement requires that Indigenous communities and organizations have the resources to participate fully and consistently.
[Translation]
Indigenous partners have also emphasized the need for clearer feedback on how their input informs federal decisions.
Strengthening systems to track, coordinate and respond to what we hear through consultation is key to improving transparency, reducing duplication and building stronger relationships.
[English]
As we move forward, ECCC remains committed to respecting Indigenous rights, addressing gaps, and ensuring Indigenous Peoples are meaningfully involved in environmental governance and decision making.
[Translation]
Strengthening these processes and relationships is essential not only to meeting legal obligations, but to achieving more effective, collaborative and lasting environmental outcomes for all.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Since this is a group with many witnesses, we will have four minutes of discussion per senator and representative.
[English]
Senator Greenwood: Thank you again, all of you, for being here. It’s interesting to listen to you.
I noted similarities across some of the activities you are each undertaking. Some of you talked about guidelines; some of you talked about protocols. There are similarities that can be shared across government, as you each are developing tools, is what I understood.
Here is my question: In the consultation process you are developing your protocols and your guidelines. I am assuming — and please correct me if I’m wrong — you undertook and created these in partnership with First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples. I would ask you this question: How was it developed?
How will you measure the quality of the consultation? What will be your indicators of good consultation?
The final question I would have would be: When do you know you’ve consulted enough? When do you know the communities have said, “We’re happy with this, let’s move forward”? When does that happen, or does it?
Maybe, Deputy Minister Gideon, you could start, and then I would like to hear from all of you, if you would, please, if we have time; I know it’s four minutes.
Ms. Gideon: I’ll go really briefly. Regarding engagement on the guidelines, which was an update from the 2008 guidelines, we had funding over three years — from Budget 2023 — to support engagement. Over 500 participants, 42 sessions, across the two fiscal years, all of that occurred. We also have an advisory committee that is now in the process of reviewing the guidelines.
There was a lot of engagement, and it concluded in December 2025. Right now we’re in the review phase, and then we will be able to share them broadly.
I will stop there just to see if my colleagues want to add anything. Ms. Wright, just from the perspective of IAAC, how does IAAC get to that point?
Ms. Wright: Yes, I’m happy to speak to that.
IAAC also works in partnership with nations, with Métis, with Inuit and First Nations across the country in developing our guidelines.
We have a standing Indigenous affairs advisory committee with representatives from across the country. We also work in partnership with other departments, because we don’t need to be duplicating work, and we want to ensure when nations have told the Crown something once, they don’t need to repeat that to all departments over and over again.
We are working very closely with our partners across the Government of Canada and with individual nations. Where nations are looking for more particular, formalized relationships with us, we’re also very open to that.
We work broadly and deeply with modern treaty nations as well, recognizing that particularly important nation-to-nation relationship.
You asked what are the indicators of good consultation? Good consultation is good relationships, and relationships don’t always mean we have the exact same views as each other, but it means we’re listening. We’re really trying to address the concerns that are there, and people feel heard and respected in that consultation process.
Those are some of our key markers we’re delivering an effective consultation process.
When do we know that it’s enough? Again, I would say on major projects we define that in the relationship with the nations we’re consulting. We want them to be telling us what they are seeking from this process, and we describe what the obligations of the Crown are.
We are looking for a place where it’s not just a single process, but this is really about the relationship of the Crown through the whole history of this project, right from when it is proposed to if it is indeed approved; when it’s being constructed; when it’s operating; straight through to if the project is ever discontinued or dismantled.
That really is a lifetime of relationships with nations, which is the key for us in the successes we’ve had in effective consultation.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you to each of you for being with us this evening. I have one short question at this point. My ears perked up at the reference to the Species at Risk Act, because, as we know, thanks to Bill C-12, we have no Species at Risk Act. Could you help us understand whether you’re making adjustments around that? Are you still consulting as though there was a requirement to consult on that?
I would be very interested in knowing.
Tara Shannon, Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment and Climate Change Canada: I’ll speak to the Species at Risk Act, which is my day‑to-day. I can assure you the Species at Risk Act is very much still alive and in place. It is a core of the work of the Canadian Wildlife Service. I am not familiar with Bill C-12 exactly, but I assume you may be discussing some legislation that is currently under consideration and consultation.
There has been, from my perspective, no erosion of the obligations that I have on the day, and my team has on the day‑to-day under that act. From the perspective of consultation, maybe some examples.
We have some very robust examples across the country. Some of the most robust situations of consultation occur in the North in the context of the co-management boards in the North.
I would also point to some of the practices that we undertake on the day-to-day. We are required under the Species at Risk Act to develop recovery strategies when a species has been listed.
We develop those recovery strategies in consultation with Indigenous communities located in and around areas of critical habitat.
As you can hear, I’m always happy to share a lot more about the Species at Risk Act. Suffice to say, from my perspective, the obligations and the commitment to the protections of the species at risk remain. I’ve gone back, actually, to the preamble of the act itself a lot recently, as the Government of Canada has proceeded with the nature strategy because at the core of the preamble it talks a lot about partnership and collaboration. That’s a really interesting context as we think about how we continue to proceed with the implementation of our obligations there.
Senator Pate: Thank you for appearing. I want to follow up on the question with some particularity about the question Senator Greenwood raised, and I want to know when you decide it’s appropriate to have a consultation and when you don’t, because we know there have been bills very recently that there has been no consultation on and others where there have been.
I would like that from each of the departments. Following that I’ll have another question. How do you decide when you need to consult and when you don’t?
Ms. Gideon: From a practical perspective, if we have a question with respect to that, we do also rely on advice from our colleagues in the Department of Justice around when the legal duty to consult is triggered.
As we have all stated, that’s the floor. Just based on the mandates of my department, for example, that I’m responsible for, we will absolutely ensure that we have discussions on the foundation of our relationship with Indigenous partners and that we are representing Canada and the Crown in those conversations and the way that maintains the integrity of that relationship.
Senator Pate: Supplementary, and thank you, Ms. Gideon.
I would like you to go a step further. When politically the decision is made not to consult, you can’t comment on the political decision, but you can comment on — and please, all of you — what that does to your relationship with the Indigenous organizations and communities with whom you work when you suddenly are told not to consult or there’s no opportunity to consult.
Ms. Gideon: We will usually continue to discuss with those nations — whatever that initiative is — how it will be implemented, and to ensure that we can include, engage and involve them or even consult them in the implementation of the initiative.
An example of that was last summer, where with the Prime Minister, our department supported the Privy Council Office and other departments in terms of hosting a national summit where all First Nations rights-holders were invited to be able to talk about the Build Canada Act and how that act would be applied.
We had very strong participation of First Nations in that particular meeting and then supported the Major Projects Office — which Ms. Anderson will talk about later on in the second panel — to host regional engagement sessions virtually with all nations who wanted to participate to also talk to them about how the act would be implemented and how it would be applied.
There are still opportunities for us in the public service to work on the execution of those decisions to ensure that we are really managing them well so that will contribute to more positive relationships with nations as best we can.
Senator McPhedran: Madam Chair, may I just correct the record? My apologies to you, Ms. Shannon. I was referring to Bill C-5. That was my mistake in naming it as Bill C-12, which, of course, the question makes much more sense that way, so I just wanted to correct the record.
Senator Pate: Germane to the question I’ve asked.
Mr. Cornish: I don’t have any examples in my head where we were told not to. The issue comes down to how we do it, and often there have been examples where we’re providing advice to other ministries or the Privy Council Office. They might be proposing to move forward in a certain way, and we will say, “Here’s some context that you need to consider.” For example, it’s forest fire season. This might not be the right time to go out to those particular communities that are fighting emergencies. Or the amount of time that you give communities to respond when they are juggling multiple priorities.
It’s about really trying to provide the context and advice around best practices, but as a matter of business, we consult beyond the legal duty to do so.
Senator Pate: I want to be really clear, Bill C-5, there was no consultation ahead of time, and you were expected to go out and do that work. If you want to tell this committee that that had no impact on your relationship, I’d be surprised, but maybe you could be a little clearer about that. I would suspect that put all of you in a very difficult spot.
If I’m wrong, then please correct the record.
Ms. Gideon: I would just say I was not involved in the development of the legislation or the introduction of the legislation, so I can’t confirm what actions were taken in that space of time.
I was involved in terms of supporting the Privy Council Office and the Major Projects Office to talk about how that legislation would be implemented and the approach that the government would take.
That contribution was appreciated by Nations, and I would say that I have, from my perspective, very productive relationships overall with Nations. We still have a lot of historical legacy issues that we need to address, a lot of negotiations and a lot of historic claims, but the meetings are very productive and open about providing advice around how to move forward, particularly with respect to economic interests or other interests that Nations would have.
Senator Osler: Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.
I want to use my time to ask the witnesses from Indigenous Services Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada to give you time to answer Senator Greenwood’s question so she doesn’t have to wait for second round. In particular, I would be interested to hear the answer to her question about how do you assess the quality of the consultation and how do you know when there has been enough consultation.
Senator Greenwood, you don’t have to wait until second round.
Ms. McDermott: I will start and then turn it over to my colleague, Ms. Shannon, to add specific examples. I will say that ECCC does benefit from some of the guidance and guidelines that CIRNAC provides and the support that they give us.
As a general principle, in addition to those kinds of guidelines, we think that anything that meaningfully improves our relationship with Indigenous communities are the kinds of things that we should be doing in terms of best practices.
Ongoing, early and sustained engagement is one of the tools that is very important. We have talked about the challenges at times when there are government processes that don’t allow for as much consultation as would be desirable. I’m thinking of budget processes where there is, sometimes, an element of secrecy that makes it difficult to have the consultation that would be desirable. The fact that we have regular engagement with communities means that we have a good sense of the priorities and dispositions of some of these communities. And it makes for better relationships and ability to then consult more when it comes to implementation, for example.
Other things we have learned from CIRNAC are a distinction-based approach, and best practice capacity support, as has been noted by others, can sometimes be a challenge for us. But it does make for better consultation. Respect for Indigenous Knowledge is another area that we have done a fair bit of at ECCC in incorporating and, as I noted in my introductory remarks, transparency in decision making — some further feedback in terms of how the decisions were actually made. As we have noted, the idea of coordination to make sure we try to minimize fatigue by coordinating among ourselves.
I couldn’t beat Ms. Wright’s suggestion that if you want to measure how well you are doing, it is about the quality of relationships. I think just asking our partners how they felt and getting that ongoing feedback is an important piece.
Ms. Shannon: The Species at Risk Act came into force in 2003, and that was before there was a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the duty to consult. It is interesting that, over the course of the implementation of the act, it has required us to think about what it means vis-à-vis the obligation on duty to consult. That’s required us to change our practices, how we implement, and the fact that we negotiate on recovery strategies. It’s boring stuff, like quality management and policies on how a biologist is going to do their job on the ground.
I think on the duty to consult vis-à-vis, an act like the Species at Risk Act, we’re talking about what I understand to be the core of a lot of relationships of the treaty. It’s about wildlife and wildlife management and the relationship to land at the core of the treaty. I’m reminded of that every day by colleagues who lead on the guardians initiatives.
It is incumbent upon us to think about our practices and evolve practices over time. We are helped with that by audits and by the OAG. We are helped through that by feedback —
[Translation]
The Chair: I’ll give you another 30 seconds, Ms. Shannon.
[English]
Ms. Shannon: Yes. That’s all.
[Translation]
The Chair: Perfect. We have a great group of people from various departments here, so we want to make the most of your presence.
[English]
Senator Prosper: Thank you to all of our witnesses here. Some of your testimony talked about reconciliation and the duty to consult, stemming from the honour of the Crown. I’m thinking, Mr. Cornish, and Ms. Gideon, maybe you specifically, with your departments, UNDRIP and UNDRIPA, which speaks to aligning Canadian laws and federal laws with the principles within the declaration. There is an action plan that seeks to ensure that, and it is Canadian federal law. There is also the common law. There are various cases involving the duty to consult on asserted rights. Are those viewed one and the same under your approach to consultation? Are those obligations viewed separately? Maybe Mr. Cornish first and then Ms. Gideon.
Mr. Cornish: Thank you, senator. I can speak for ISC, and Ms. Gideon can corroborate this because she used to be with us not too long ago.
There is nothing we don’t start or do without starting off that we are having a consultation or engagement process to figure out our path forward and how the issues will be addressed. Some are more complex and take longer than others. But it is not a floor. It is a must-do for us from a policy perspective. And specifically from an UNDA perspective. In shared decision-making, a lot of it is about how we make sure they have the capacity to engage with us? That’s an ongoing issue, especially because there are multiple engagement processes going on at any given time. For us, it is about focusing on the relationship, meaningful participation, supporting the capacity to participate and getting to a place where there is shared decision making. That includes collaborative issue resolution. Sometimes we are not going to land in the same place. But we do our best not to move something forward until we are ready to collectively do so.
Ms. Gideon: I will just say that the UNDA is fundamental now, since it has been passed and it is giving more precision to what is required. It is still built on the foundation of section 35, but it gives even more precision. What the action plan does is it identifies, from a distinctions-based perspective along with the chapter specific to modern treaty self-government, what are the core priorities for the federal government in terms of the implementation of the act. These are still extremely relevant. When we are advancing with major initiatives, we absolutely use it as a standard.
Senator Prosper: I guess I want to reconcile that approach. There have been discussions earlier about two different approaches. Ms. Gideon, you mentioned you tend to rely on the Department of Justice Canada. It so happens when First Nations litigate; they often litigate against the Department of Justice Canada. So one can just think of the level of trust in that regard. I’m getting back to the approach to legislation, just within the context of this committee. For example, Bill C-5 was mentioned. The approach taken with respect to consultation, or the lack of consultation, in that regard and the position of government. Not long ago but later, Bill S-2 comes about and all of a sudden there is this huge need for the government to consult on Bill S-2, recognizing that there is a need to consult even given the fact it is a discriminatory piece of legislation that still remains.
How do you get consistency in light of UNDRIP? In light of those guidelines, you are talking about key pieces of legislation: water, for example, a codeveloped piece of legislation? However, now not much consultation is going on, it may be tabled soon. Different approaches taken by government. They seem to use consultation for the purpose that is most convenient to them at that particular time rather than the honour that they owe to First Nations People. Maybe Ms. Gideon and then Mr. Cornish.
Ms. Gideon: With the Building Canada Act, there is a consultation requirement prior to a project being designated. There is a consultation requirement with respect to projects. So there is a threshold of consultation built into the act itself. I just wanted to note that. I won’t comment on Bill S-2 — well, I could, but I’m not going to do that.
I understand the question. Various pieces of legislation have various purposes. What will motivate a government to advance a piece of legislation will also have different reasons behind it. Sometimes, legislation is introduced as a result of litigation and as a result of a commitment that the Government of Canada will make to address litigation. That has happened.
There is a standard, as you said, with respect to the United Nations. The Department of Justice, by the way, is the lead on the United Nations Declaration Act and was the lead on the United Nations Declaration Act Action Plan. Consulting with the Department of Justice then on duty to consult is not inconsistent with who is leading, from a Government of Canada perspective, that legislation and that action plan. A lot of people think it is CIRNAC, so I just want to be sure to remind folks that it was the Minister of Justice who led that effort.
Mr. Cornish: All I would add is that it is context-specific, as the deputy mentioned, on the range of complexities and the issues that need to be discussed and resolved. Certainly, from the ISC side, our position is that it has to be meaningful. The positions of Indigenous communities and organizations must be reflected in what we’re trying to do. The motto of “Nothing about us without us” drives decision making and thinking and planning at ISC.
Senator Clement: Senator Prosper’s questions really highlight the good timing of this — Bill C-5, Bill S-2, the Alberta referendum. It’s a good time for us to be talking about this here now. Thank you for being here, and thank you for your careers.
Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada has spent some time developing guidelines for federal officials when it comes to consultation. I’m curious about how consistent departments are across the government in terms of effectively consulting? How much do they collaborate with each other in sharing success stories and best practices?
Our Library of Parliament document, which is very good, refers to a Ministerial Special Representative appointed in 2024 to consult about consultations. They said, in general, Canada’s approach has not been good — this is from 2016 — but they also found that Parks Canada was really good. They said no department’s engaging in meaningful consultation other than those, so there were consistent compliments.
What do they do right? What do you know about that? How do federal departments follow your guidelines? Don’t they check up on that?
The second question is to your comment, deputy minister, about the $10.1 million that has been budgeted for assisting communities to participate in consultation. Is that enough? What does that do, that $10.1 million? Those are my questions.
Ms. Gideon: I’m going to turn it over to Ms. Miller so that she came here for a reason.
Go ahead, Ms. Miller.
Kirsten Miller, Director, Consultation and Accommodation Unit, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you for the question. There are guidelines in terms of sharing consistency and best practices. The challenge in the guidelines is that they are at a high enough level so that all federal officials can use them and can adapt their processes, their consultations, to them. Part of what our unit does in CIRNAC is to assist federal officials in doing that.
My colleagues here have mentioned they rely on CIRNAC for that. Once we have the new set of guidelines out — and we’ve done this, to date, on the 2011 version — we roll up our sleeves and work directly with departments to operationalize those guidelines in their contexts.
We also do a lot of information sharing and best practices through various interdepartmental working groups, here in the National Capital Region and across Canada, with all federal departments and agencies who want to join. We share a lot of information there.
In terms of the $10.1 million, this was a renewal in Budget 2025 of the federal initiative on consultation. There are two prongs to that program, one being consultation protocols. Those outline a process that Canada can use to consult with the signatory Indigenous groups. The other prong is resource centres, so funding for an existing entity to develop training, webinars and tools for their member Indigenous groups, First Nations and the various entities and to support them to be equipped to participate meaningfully in consultations.
Senator Clement: Was that an increase in the budget?
Ms. Miller: It’s a slight increase. It’s a very small program. It allows us to fund three additional resource centres for the three years of the renewal.
[Translation]
The Chair: Are there any centres in the Quebec region offering services in French?
[English]
Ms. Miller: Yes. We have one resource centre that serves all of Quebec. They have indicated to us that translation is an issue for them, but they are provided with that funding for the resource centre. They’ve identified that as a challenge.
The Chair: Perfect. A huge thank you. You will hear me until 75 years of age asking the same thing.
Senator Francis: In the interests of time — and being a former chair, I know how critical it is to keep everyone on time — a written answer would be okay from anyone on these couple of questions.
The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada mandates a consideration of Indigenous Knowledge as a mandatory factor alongside Western science under the Impact Assessment Act. The May 2026 proposal on major projects, which shifts certain impact reviews to regulators, like the Canada Energy Regulator and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
My first question is, what frameworks are being put in place to ensure regulatory bodies apply the same standards for evaluating the Indigenous Knowledge that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada has spent years developing?
The second question is, are there any internal frameworks on how to conduct or assess affected Aboriginal and treaty rights, similar to analysis conducted for GBA Plus or Charter statements?
Ms. Wright: Thank you for the question, senator. I would state that we have worked very hard at the Impact Assessment Agency, as you recognized, on that incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge into our process. That was made a required factor in the development and implementation of the Impact Assessment Act. There is a proposed paper that the government is consulting on through the Major Projects Office right now that speaks to some potential changes where the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada may not be the lead on the assessment of particular types of projects.
That consultation paper is still out for discussion. The government will have to receive that feedback that they’ve been gathering, including from Indigenous participants, and decide what changes may or may not be warranted from that feedback.
In terms of ensuring that we share the knowledge, best practices, how we collect and protect Indigenous Knowledge, and how we treat that in assessments — that’s information that we as an agency are always prepared to use to support our colleagues and other departments in the implementation of their duties and to ensure they have the same tools in front of them that we have. To the degree that we can share and collaborate on any of that information, we will.
On your second question, I apologize; I was taking notes here.
Senator Francis: Are there any internal frameworks on how to conduct or assess Aboriginal treaty rights, similar to analysis conducted for GBA Plus or Charter statements?
Ms. Wright: Yes. I will defer as well to my colleagues in CIRNAC, but certainly, as decisions go forward, we are expected to advise our minister or Governor-in-Council, should it be their decision at the end of the impact assessment on a project as to whether or not we met the requirements that are set out in a treaty. We also provide advice to our minister on the summary of the consultations undertaken and whether we feel we met — we call it that floor of just the bare legal duty, but, additionally, what other concerns were there.
I will also note that if cabinet or the Governor-in-Council is considering a decision, there is a consideration as well, in particular, for an assessment on impacts from modern treaty.
It is similar to how cabinet looks at Gender-based Analysis Plus, where we are expected to put forward information on how we have approached and met the requirements of a treaty. We work on that in partnership with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and with our modern treaty partners as well. It is not just us speaking; it is the nations themselves putting that before decision makers.
Senator Francis: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I would invite the witnesses to answer in writing, as the senator rightly mentioned, so that we can wrap up with Senator Greenwood, because her questions were truly outstanding.
In French as well, I’m going to ask you a series of questions and I expect you to send the committee responses to them. I’m very visual. I want to understand if you’re able to propose things to your departments, to elected officials — or, at any rate, to cabinet — or if you would wait to be told that you need to consult here. I want that to be clear.
Next, someone mentioned the lack of coordination or the gaps in terms of . . . . I believe the recommendations will be valuable. If you have any tools or information to share with us that could be included in the recommendations section of our reports, and if you could mention in that part that you will be coming back to see us . . . . That was too short, in my opinion.
The other question is, Senator Prosper gave examples of bills on which there was clearly no consultation. I was saying that it doesn’t matter where we come from; listening to you, one senses that there is a will, a desire, but the departments all work in silos. I would like you to explain to us more clearly that, in fact, there were processes or a willingness to consult, but that your power to make recommendations stops at a certain level. This is not to oppose the government in power, but I’m trying to understand. It’s a tool that allows us to make sure . . . . The senators asked us this in the House as well: Why can we do it for that one and why didn’t we do it for that one?
Before wrapping up with our colleague, I’d like to understand something: When you talk about good relationships, we know that some deputy ministers have changed departments. Therefore, you no longer have the same relationships and you have different responsibilities. The chiefs have told us on several occasions, either formally or informally, from a different perspective, “Things change often in Ottawa. You have to start from scratch.” During the national inquiry, it was also said that you need good relationships if you want to build trust. What are your mechanisms when you know that people are changing positions and that we have to rebuild that trust? Do you have tools that help speed things up so we don’t need to start from scratch? We were told that we were starting from scratch in another situation.
I asked you my questions in a somewhat jumbled manner, but since you’ve managed several governments in power, I’m sure you’ll be able to understand all of my and Senator Greenwood’s questions. You may answer me in writing.
[English]
Senator Greenwood: I want to invite you to send written responses. I will go back to my original questions. I know you answered it by saying that it depends on the relationship. Maybe you could give me some examples of it. So my question was: When do you know when you have consulted enough? Does the community tell you that, or do you determine that? How is that determined? Just give me some examples from your experience.
I would also like to know what happens when you come to an impasse. What is the process if you cannot come to an agreement? I know you spoke of having conversations and negotiations. Can you just give me some examples of that? That would be really helpful.
I know with all of these major projects coming that the volume of consultation will probably increase, and you have a short turnaround time. It is hard sometimes to build the kinds of relationships that you need to negotiate some of these massive changes in projects that will happen.
Can you tell me a bit about how you will manage that? You will be on a tight time frame. How will you manage that?
Can you respond to that in writing? I would love to listen to you now, but I know we are out of time.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Senator Pate, you were on the list too. Would you like a written response?
Senator Pate: We have heard from a lot of Indigenous organizations that since the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples passed the consultation process and engagement principles have been adopted and adapted in different ways. For each of you, can you please clarify what concrete changes you made in your specific department to the approaches for consultation as a result of the UN declaration, and in particular, of course, free, prior and informed consent? Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you on behalf of my colleagues. We could have had another hour with you and why I said we may need to invite you again, knowing this might be a long Parliament.
[Translation]
This is a government that will remain in office a little longer than usual.
[English]
It will be an important study.
I’m sure the invitation for you to return will be extended.
[Translation]
Thank you very much. See you soon.
I know we’re competing with a Canadiens game, but we’re here and we’re working. Thank you for being here.
For our next panel, from the Canada Energy Regulator, we welcome Genevieve Carr, Executive Vice President, Transparency and Strategic Engagement; and Carly Milne, Vice President, Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. From Natural Resources Canada, we have Kimberly Lavoie, Assistant Deputy Minister, Nòkwewashk. Finally, by video conference, from the Major Projects Office, we have Candace Anderson, Director, Indigenous Relations.
You have five minutes for your opening remarks.
Genevieve Carr, Executive Vice President, Transparency and Strategic Engagement, Canada Energy Regulator: Good evening, honourable senators. [Indigenous language spoken]
Thank you for inviting the Canada Energy Regulator to appear as the committee begins its study on the duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous Peoples.
My name is Genevieve Carr, and I am the Executive Vice President, Transparency and Strategic Engagement. I am joined by Carly Milne, Vice President, Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.
[English]
I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are on the unceded, ancestral and traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation, who have lived on and cared for the land now known as Ottawa since time immemorial.
I am going to speak to the mandate of the Canada Energy Regulator, or CER. The CER regulates interprovincial and international pipelines, international power lines and offshore renewable energy projects across the country from project review and impact assessment through construction, operation and eventual abandonment. The CER also regulates oil and gas production in certain offshore, frontier and certain northern areas.
Our mission is to regulate energy infrastructure in a way that prevents harm and ensures the safe, reliable, competitive and environmentally sustainable delivery of energy to Canada and the world.
Reconciliation and implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are a strategic priority of the CER. These efforts are grounded in the recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership by working together with First Nations, Métis and Inuit.
[Translation]
The CER’s approach to consultation is shaped by its unique role as an expert tribunal that regulates linear infrastructure with numerous potentially affected Indigenous communities.
The Commission of the CER is the body within the CER that makes independent decisions and recommendations on project applications.
The commission conducts environmental and socio-economic impact assessments considering factors such as how project effects could result in changes to the environment, health, social or economic conditions, including cumulative effects, as well as the effects on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. The impact assessments also consider the integration of Indigenous knowledge.
The commission has the necessary procedural and remedial powers so that its process can be relied on to fulfill the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate, in whole or in part.
In 2019, the Canada Energy Regulator Act designated the CER as an agent of the Crown and the CER took on the additional role as Crown consultation coordinator.
[English]
Where the commission is responsible for making recommendations and decisions, its project assessments and hearing processes are the primary forum for Crown consultation. Indigenous communities that may be potentially affected by a project application are notified and encouraged to make their concerns known to the commission and participate in any process held by the commission.
When hearings are held, Indigenous communities may participate in various ways, such as by filing written evidence, sharing oral Indigenous Knowledge, commenting on conditions, asking information requests, conducting cross-examination and providing final arguments.
For certain projects, particularly where recommendations are made to the Governor-in-Council, the CER undertakes additional consultation activities in its role as Crown Consultation Coordinator. The Crown Consultation Coordinator facilitates iterative, two-way dialogue with potentially impacted Indigenous communities, including those who choose not to participate directly in the commission’s hearing process. It also coordinates Crown consultation with federal departments, provincial and territorial counterparts.
The commission determines whether the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate is met for the purposes of the commission’s recommendation or decision by considering the proponent’s engagement activities, the commission’s regulatory process and — where applicable — the Crown Consultation Coordinator’s supplemental consultation activities.
The CER also provides participant funding to further enable meaningful participation in both commission processes and supplemental Crown consultation. Our approach to consultation aims to better understand potential impacts, explore mitigation measures and identify accommodation options.
[Translation]
Crown consultation is only one part of the CER’s broader efforts to advance reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.
As a lifecycle regulator, we continue to engage with Indigenous communities in support of monitoring, compliance and relationship building.
The CER is also working to deliver on Strategic Priority 34 of the United Nations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action Plan to enhance the role of Indigenous communities in the oversight of major energy projects currently regulated by the CER.
We strive to build meaningful, long-term relationships with Indigenous communities across Canada who may be affected by the infrastructure we regulate.
In conclusion, we appreciate the opportunity to support the committee’s study. We would be pleased to answer your questions. Thank you.
[English]
Kimberly Lavoie, Assistant Deputy Minister, Nòkwewashk, Natural Resources Canada: Madam chair, committee members and fellow federal colleagues, thank you for the opportunity to be here this evening on behalf of Natural Resources Canada, commonly referred to as NRCan.
[Translation]
Before I continue, I would like to acknowledge, as others have done, that we are meeting on traditional Algonquin Anishinaabe territory.
[English]
Natural Resources Canada understands that we cannot achieve our goals without the support of Indigenous Peoples. As such, we remain committed to meaningful engagement and consultation with Indigenous groups on natural resource projects that could potentially impact Indigenous rights and title.
Nòkwewashk, the sector I’m responsible for, includes a centre of expertise on meaningful Indigenous participation in sustainable natural resource development and Crown consultation. We provide advice across the department in collaboration with other federal departments and regulators, and, in some cases, lead consultation to ensure NRCan’s consultation obligations are met.
[Translation]
Nòkwewashk actively identifies opportunities to strengthen Indigenous inclusion in resource development while maintaining respectful, trust-based relationships.
[English]
Relationship building and early engagement are critical to support meaningful consultation when it is required with Indigenous groups. Early engagement fosters sound decision making and offers Indigenous groups the opportunity to discuss potential impacts to the rights during the design and development phases of a project.
[Translation]
It also supports Canada’s commitments to reconciliation and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
[English]
Natural resource projects are stronger, and timelines are more reliable when Indigenous participation is real, sustained and grounded in long-term opportunity and relationship building.
Natural Resources Canada leverages its expertise in project delivery; regulatory matters; federal, provincial and territorial relationships; Indigenous engagement; and funding mechanisms to support the advancement of the Government of Canada’s major projects agenda while ensuring that Indigenous rights are upheld.
[Translation]
We work closely with MPO and federal departments to understand the unique priorities of Indigenous groups. Coordinating across departments and mandates enables us to better respond to concerns using a holistic, whole-of-government approach.
Nòkwewashk has identified several best practices related to Crown consultation. Our experiences reiterate the importance of a consultation process that fosters meaningful two-way dialogue, where Indigenous concerns are heard and met with substantive and appropriate responses. A one-size-fits-all approach often does not work and we must be responsive to specific situations and the issues raised.
[English]
We’ve learned that capacity is a barrier to effective engagement and that Indigenous groups must be well resourced to meaningfully participate in consultation and engagement processes, and, ultimately, to become active participants in natural resource projects. Beyond consultation or engagement specific funding, Nòkwewashk’s Indigenous Natural Resource Partnerships Program supports Indigenous capacity to participate in the natural resources sector. This program was recently renewed until 2031, as highlighted in the Spring Economic Update 2026.
Consultation leads should ensure appropriate coordination and responsiveness across departments and mandates to respond to interests and concerns as they arise. This may include pathfinding or proposing alternate solutions that go beyond the legal requirements for Crown consultations.
Finally, Crown consultation must be conducted in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, with the goal to further reconciliation efforts. The principle of free, prior and informed consent should inform the process by emphasizing mutual respect, partnership and effective participation.
[Translation]
I’d like to reiterate that Natural Resources Canada is committed to honouring its constitutional obligations to Indigenous peoples, including the duty to consult, and recognizes that meaningful participation of Indigenous groups in natural resource projects is essential and mutually beneficial.
[English]
Thank you once again for the opportunity to participate. I am happy to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you.
Now we have, via video conference, Ms. Anderson.
Candace Anderson, Director, Indigenous Relations, Major Projects Office: Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I am a Senior Director at the Major Projects Office in the Indigenous Relations Sector. I am pleased to join you in support of your study and to have the opportunity to highlight the work the Major Projects Office is doing on engagement and consultations with Indigenous Nations and governments as part of our objective to advance nation-building projects across the country.
I’m joining you this evening from Saskatoon in Treaty 6 Territory. Saskatoon is located on the traditional lands of the Cree, Saulteaux, Nakota, Dakota, Lakota and Dene Peoples, and is the homeland of the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan. I do, however, work and live on the ancestral territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg in Ottawa. I am in Saskatoon preparing for a presentation to the Saskatchewan First Nations Centre of Excellence tomorrow and, apologetically, cannot be with you today in person.
It is fitting to be joining you while I am on the road discussing consultation and accommodation directly with Indigenous Nations, governments and organizations. Across the country, Indigenous Peoples are increasingly leading and shaping conversations about economic development, stewardship and major projects occurring on their lands and territories. That reality is also reflected in the work of the Major Projects Office and in what we have heard over the last nine months from Indigenous rights holders.
[Translation]
The Major Projects Office was established last August to help advance nation-building projects in Canada. The 15 projects and seven transformative strategies currently referred to the Major Projects Office represent more than 60,000 jobs and $126 billion in new investment across Canada.
[English]
Importantly, Indigenous Nations and governments are not only participants in this work; they are increasingly proponents, partners and leaders of major projects themselves. For example, the Iqaluit Nukkiksautiit Hydroelectric Project in Nunavut, which was referred to the office in November, is led by a wholly Inuit-owned developer, and the Nisga’a Nation in British Columbia has partnered with Western LNG and Rockies LNG to advance the Ksi Lisims LNG project, another project that was referred to our office in November.
Both of these projects demonstrate the start of many more major projects to come that are either Indigenous-owned or have strong economic participation opportunities with Indigenous communities.
This evolving landscape reinforces why meaningful consultation and relationship building must occur early and continuously throughout project development.
[Translation]
At the Major Projects Office, we expect all project proponents to clearly show how they are actively engaging with Indigenous communities to develop their projects.
[English]
At the same time, consultation, as required constitutionally, is a duty of the Crown. Outside of the work of our proponents, the Major Projects Office and my team, in particular, work in partnership with First Nations, Inuit, Métis and modern treaty and self-governing Peoples whose rights and interests could be potentially impacted by a proposed project of national interest. We ensure that these consultation processes respect our constitutional requirements.
Through that work, we are seeking to build relationships grounded in transparency, respect and early engagement while helping to inform how projects can move forward in a manner that reflects opportunities and the protection of Indigenous rights.
Ensuring that advancing the interests of Indigenous Peoples is a vital consideration of whether to designate a project under the Building Canada Act. Meaningful consultation with impacted Indigenous communities is an underlying principle in the legislation. It is a requirement of any project designated by the Governor-in-Council as being in the national interest is informed by that consultation process.
[Translation]
However, even now, before consultation may be required on a project-specific basis, the Major Projects Office has been engaging with First Nations, Inuit, Métis and Indigenous Modern Treaty and Self-Governing partners in a variety of ways to seek input, hear concerns and ideas, and work in partnership moving forward.
[English]
Myself and our vice president at the Major Projects Office, Rob Van Walleghem, have had the pleasure of visiting many Indigenous communities already in Canada in the last nine months.
One of the most consistent messages we have heard from Indigenous communities is that meaningful participation requires adequate capacity supports, particularly given the ambitious timelines proposed for advancing major projects.
We have also heard clearly that consultation processes need to improve decision making and access to decision making and reduce duplication to avoid consultation fatigue.
In response, the government is currently engaging on proposed regulatory reform measures and seeking feedback from Indigenous rights-holders across the country on this legislative proposal package aimed at improving the efficiency of consultation and decision making for major projects.
The Major Projects Office was created to help bring greater coordination to how major projects are reviewed and advanced in Canada.
But for us, success isn’t measured only in efficiency. It’s also measured in the strength of the relationships we build along the way, especially with respect to First Nations, Inuit, modern treaty and self-governing nations, and Métis Peoples.
That commitment to partnership and relationship building is foundational to our approach every day at work. We are proud to be working in partnership with Indigenous Peoples and ensure their perspectives, knowledge and priorities are meaningfully factored into these project proposals. This is how the Major Projects Office is committed to advancing reconciliation and upholding rights.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the committee. I look forward to your questions.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you to our three witnesses for their presentations. I will turn to our deputy chair, Senator Greenwood.
[English]
Senator Greenwood: I believe this question is for the energy regulator and Natural Resources Canada. Please, if others want to chime in, that would be great too.
In 2020, an Indigenous Advisory Committee was established in accordance with provisions of the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, and I quote, it was “To increase the involvement of Indigenous peoples in regulated pipelines, power lines and offshore renewable energy projects, along with abandoned pipelines. Reporting to the CER board of directors, the committee provides strategic advice on the integration of Indigenous Knowledge in the regulatory life cycle. According to the terms of reference, the committee has no decision-making powers to oversee or review specific projects.”
There are two questions to this. The first is: What is the role of the Indigenous Advisory Committee and monitoring committee?
And how does the Canada Energy Regulator’s board of directors take into account the advice and recommendations from this council, particularly on governance and on the projects themselves, because they are advising on that? How are you handling that?
Then the second question: Please describe the different ways in which the Canada Energy Regulator works with Indigenous Peoples in consultation, accommodation, mitigation and monitoring of potential and established projects?
Ms. Carr: Thank you for the question, senator. There’s a lot in that question. On the second question, I think a lot of my remarks covered, in general, how we work with Indigenous Peoples, but I’m happy to clarify.
You touched on, and I want to clarify, because you touched on our Indigenous Advisory Committee. But then I also heard you mention the Indigenous Advisory and Monitoring Committee, and there’s an important difference to that.
The Indigenous Advisory Committee is the committee that was established pursuant to our act and was stood up, I believe, in 2020. Is it fair that’s the one you’re interested in speaking to?
Senator Greenwood: That’s the first one. Let’s talk about that first, and then we can go to the other.
Ms. Carr: Okay. Thank you for that clarification, senator.
The question that you asked, the way you described the Indigenous Advisory Committee, is accurate. It is a committee that is established with representatives from across the country, and it is established pursuant to our legislation.
Its terms of reference do have it reporting to our board of directors. Our board of directors is a new governance structure that was established when our legislation came into force in 2019. There’s a lot of new governance, although it’s not so new anymore. In 2019 and 2020, it was very new.
You asked what the role of the Indigenous Advisory Committee is in our governance, and then how it informs projects. If you’ll permit me, I’ll answer that second question first because, in some ways, it’s a little bit shorter.
It’s critically important to our governance that the Indigenous Advisory Committee isn’t there to inform the projects themselves because the decisions on projects and recommendations on projects are managed by the commission, the independent tribunal.
We have members of our Indigenous Advisory Committee in their role as rights holding bodies that may wish to intervene in a hearing process that is being led by the commission.
The Indigenous Advisory Committee itself advises, through the board of directors, the organization on how we can advance our strategic objective of advancing reconciliation and implementing the UN declaration. I can give you some examples of the types of advice that they have provided and some of the influence that they have had on the organization.
We have had long and valuable conversations with the Indigenous Advisory Committee on how to build the Indigenous — cultural integrity is the language that we’re using now. We started with cultural competence of the organization, and then moved to cultural intelligence of the organization and are leaning toward cultural integrity of the organization.
The staff of the CER — we’re an organization of about 600 employees — have the cultural knowledge and understanding to engage and participate with Indigenous Peoples in a meaningful way.
We have an Indigenous recruitment and retention strategy — I better stop. Okay.
The Chair: Six hundred?
Ms. Carr: Yes. We have a cultural competency strategy. We are seeking to build the competency of the entire organization to engage. We actively seek to recruit Indigenous employees and develop strategies to retain and advance.
The Indigenous Advisory Committee met two days ago to talk about some regulatory proposal work that we’re working on, part of our broader regulatory framework.
We were seeking advice from that committee on how to ensure some of the commitments that we have made under the work that we have done, and the action plan for the UN declaration act are responsive to the commitments around. For example, developing a regulatory framework that’s called our onshore pipeline regulations in a manner that incorporates Indigenous Knowledge — there are some other words to our commitment — into the regulation itself. Those are instructions to the industry on how they operate.
Those are a couple of examples.
Senator Greenwood: I have one question. I don’t work in your world. I wish to understand clearly.
We have an advisory committee who advises the board of directors who make the decisions. The advisory committee doesn’t make those decisions. They are providing advice to this group of people.
I asked about Indigenous Knowledge. I am assuming that when you were talking about cultural integrity, you were taking that advice around Indigenous Knowledge to ensure that these projects were —
So what if they are not? I know the committee isn’t directly involved in this, and I understand that. But what if a project kind of goes — how do they hear about how their advice is implemented and whether they are happy with that?
I’m trying to get this picture clear in my mind of this process.
We can save the other question until the second round. I want to hear you talk about this.
Ms. Carr: We report regularly. We engage regularly with the Indigenous Advisory Committee and through the board of directors. We report on the impact that the committee and the Indigenous Advisory Committee have had in terms of the work that we’re doing and in terms of the innovations that we are bringing as an entire organization.
As an organization, we support the commission as well that undertakes its own independent adjudicative processes. The expectation is that there is a flow through. So the advice comes from the advisory committee, it comes into the organization, and then that advice — because we have an entire organization that is building its competency, its intelligence and integrity — the organization is better able to support the commission in its work. And then we tell the committee about it.
But we really work hard to respect the adjudicative independence of the commission and also respect the ability of the Indigenous Advisory Committee to provide its honest advice to us without fear of any impact on the project decision.
Senator Greenwood: I’m very interested in protection of Indigenous Knowledge. If I have a group who is giving me some very powerful advice around Indigenous Knowledge, I want to make sure it is used in the way it was intended and that somebody is accountable if it is not. That is where I’m going with that. But you can respond in writing to that, because I’m over time. I’ll pass it back to you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Ms. Carr, thank you for waiting for me to give you the microphone. In the Innu style, we are senators, but I also take an approach where I let the dialogue flow between people. We’ll try to reach each other under two different protocols.
[English]
Senator Prosper: Thank you to all of our witnesses here. I have a question for Ms. Anderson. Some of your earlier testimony was quite helpful in terms of the approach taken through the Major Projects Office. You are travelling, so you are in the process of meeting with First Nations groups in Saskatchewan.
You referenced engagement and consultation. I’m curious about those terms. Are they one and the same, or are they quite distinct? Are there specific meanings attributed to each of them?
Something that really grabbed my attention was your reference to consultations and engagement occurring early and throughout project developments, and the Major Projects Office is looking toward transparency, respect and, again, early engagement. This is one of the things I’m curious about in terms of how your office approaches proponents that maybe try to run roughshod over Indigenous rights holders. Maybe they employ certain means by which — perspectives they have in terms of engagement and those negotiations with First Nations rights holders.
You mentioned, in relation to that, Ms. Anderson, that it is a component on how those proponents approach those discussions with rights holders that, in fact, determines whether there is a designation of a major project under the Building Canada Act. There seemed to be a requirement for proponents to take at least an approach that is appropriate. I’m curious about how that operates. And related to that, proponents are having to show how they, in fact, engage with First Nations as well.
Could you walk me through how, through your office, those proponents have to fulfill those requirements before they get some kind of stamp of approval or make it through your process?
Ms. Anderson: Okay. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and senator, for the question. I would like to first address your question around the distinction between engagement and consultation.
The engagement aspect of the work we do is applicable to all of the projects that have been referred to the Major Projects Office. We are very actively engaging with all rights holders that are involved in those projects. That conversation is very much in line with ensuring that there is good information available on what the project is and that those conversations are happening with the various federal and provincial entities in addition to the proponent.
The distinction with that work versus what we undertake to do with consultation is very specific when we have a project that may be designated under the Building Canada Act. The Building Canada Act, as Deputy Gideon mentioned earlier, does have consultation-specific requirements built into that act that reflect our Crown duty to consult.
Those consultation decision points are taken when government is even contemplating whether or not a project would be potentially designated. If there is potential for a project, we are out there talking to rights holders and assessing whether they believe that the project is in the national interest.
The weighting for that decision includes a number of factors outlined in the Building Canada Act. It does look at things like the contribution of the project to Canada’s economy, but, importantly, it also includes how the project advances Indigenous interests. So there is feedback that we are seeking to get before a project can access that legislative framework.
The other consultation point in that Building Canada Act is consultations on the conditions that would see the project proceed. So knowing that when we talk about major projects, there is the potential for projects to impact on rights in a number of ways, we seek, through that regulatory process, to evaluate what those impacts look like and utilize those conditions to see where we can possibly mitigate or avoid those impacts on rights.
So that’s the distinction between consultation and engagement.
To your second question around the consultation processes and the various principles associated with that and how we provide advice or work with proponents to that effect, we do provide a lot of advice to proponents on how they can proceed in having those engagements. But I would say that, knowing that projects and the way they are evaluated coming into our Major Projects Office, they need to already demonstrate they are actively working toward advancing those Indigenous interests. That is a key component in even understanding whether or not a project should be referred to our office.
If that doesn’t exist, then it makes the project probably more unlikely to be with our office. The projects that we see coming in have demonstrated, hopefully to a great degree, that the projects can advance Indigenous interests and that there are solid relationships already in place, that there is good collaboration and that even potentially there are equity or royalty-sharing opportunities involved. That economic participation piece is one which we certainly try to promote when we are talking to proponents.
To your additional question — I want to make sure I have covered it off — we do also ensure that, where with proponents we might be seeing some challenges, we are having conversations directly with those rights holders as well. Part of the function of our office is to have those conversations. If it is not going well, we have that conversation with the proponent, and we can provide that kind of clarification and a bit more certainty for all partners on how this needs to move forward.
Senator Prosper: I really appreciate your response. Thank you. Sometimes at the table, and positions go back and forth, it is not a question of whether an accommodation exists. It is what that accommodation is.
You mentioned things that advance Indigenous interests. You mentioned equity. You mentioned revenue sharing. These are really good words, because at times, through my previous experience, people tend to view accommodations as maybe scholarships, maybe a couple of positions here, really nothing too substantive.
How do you approach accommodation in a way that respects, obviously, the negotiation process but, more importantly, the real accommodation of rights that has a lasting impact for First Nations people to help bring them out of poverty, for example?
Ms. Anderson: Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator Prosper. Accommodation is certainly a very important consideration in the work that we are doing. Accommodation can happen in a number of ways. It can be through mitigation and condition development, but it can also be part of a conversation with a proponent around some of those economic participation aspects, in addition to where we might be able to address some of those concerns and do so in a way that really is supportive from the federal government specifically. I’m thinking of where there are potentially a number of cumulative effects, where one proponent may not be capable of addressing in its entirety all of those impacts.
We do have mechanisms federally that we can bring to the table to address some of those accommodation concerns. The Major Projects Office, based on its convening powers and ability to coordinate, does play a role on a project-specific basis to do that.
One of the things that we have heard through a lot of our discussions with rights holders on these projects have been concerns around things such as infrastructure gaps and concerns around not having adequate capacity in house to be able to even support some of the work ahead on the economic development front. There are resources within the federal government that can also assist with that. It is bringing a lot of the right federal departments from the same leadership that you have heard from this evening from the federal government to help address those and make sure, through a two-way dialogue directly with the rights holders, that we are satisfactorily addressing those concerns.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you to all the witnesses. As you were talking about some of the large projects, I’m very aware that the number of times I have been approached, particularly by matriarchs in communities and Elders in situations where communities may be being induced to participate in certain projects and, not always but often the women who recognize that, historically, the burden and costs of protecting the environment in ways that benefit all Canadians have often fallen to Indigenous Peoples. When consultation advocacy and litigation are happening, we often see consultation not necessarily at the forefront to prevent those sorts of things.
I’m particularly concerned about situations where we have seen land and water protectors being criminalized for opposing resource extraction processes on their lands. We have seen, certainly since the MMIWG inquiry, concerns about the protection of women and children, particularly in those contexts.
We are on the eve of potentially passing Bill C-14 in the Senate. It will include harsher sentences for interference with essential infrastructure. At the Legal Committee — a number of us are on that committee as well — we heard about how this is likely to disproportionately impact Indigenous Peoples, including those who are already protesting things like pipelines and other kinds of developments.
I’m curious what concrete steps each of your departments is taking to ensure that Indigenous land and water protectors in particular are not criminalized, especially in the event where there has been no or inadequate consultation from the perspectives of the communities and what else you are doing to proactively try to avoid this situation.
Ms. Lavoie: I will start.
Senator Pate: You know this issue well from your previous work.
Ms. Lavoie: The right to peacefully protest is a guaranteed right in Canada. The objective and the goal is to develop relationships and to have engagement at the front end so that we can resolve issues before we get to a point where people feel that there is a need for protest and that they have no alternative but to go to the public and speak publicly about their concerns. That, to me, is a failure of the system. The idea is that we don’t get there and actually resolve things before that point. That is why relationships are so important and those long-term investments in understanding and finding paths forward that everyone can live with and can feel comfortable with.
It is about sustainable development — not development at all costs. There is a very real difference between those two. My colleagues from Environment were here previously. We always say that Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada are two sides of the same coin, and you really need to have a balance between the two in order to have the best possible projects informed by Indigenous Knowledge and that are respectful of Indigenous rights and land.
You mentioned Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. In that context, in particular with respect to resource development, there have been issues that have been brought forward both in the national inquiry and other places. We are working very closely with Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, Women and Gender Equality Canada and Public Safety Canada, as well as many Indigenous groups, to look at how can we ensure that the safety of women and girls and 2S+ people is fundamental and paramount before we go in and do resource development, recognizing that those projects can bring wealth into a community but also bring a host of other ills. How can we proactively figure out a path where people are protected, in particular our most vulnerable?
I would say the best example is the Woodfibre LNG project, where they have the workers on a floatel so they actually do not come into the community, that every single worker has to undergo cultural competency training, and they have culture monitors on site every single day to ensure that this happens.
Senator Pate: That particular project was one of the ones I was thinking of, because I met with women who were extremely concerned. They were seeing small boats going off from Squamish out to that floatel with young women on the boats, and huge concerns about that issue.
If women choose to protest in that community, I could see them being criminalized as a result. What would the efforts be from your respective departments to try to prevent that happening?
Ms. Lavoie: I would say we would work closely with Squamish Council. Squamish Council has put in conditions for that project that the proponent has to adhere to.
I know people who were originally against the project who are now for it. If there are things that are happening that should not be happening, we have an open line of communication with Squamish Council to really look at how we can ensure that safety and security is paramount. That is, first and foremost, one of the primary responsibilities not only of the council but of all levels and orders of government.
Senator Pate: Sorry, I didn’t want to go off on land and water protection. If we are out of time, Madam Chair, we can get written responses from the other groups.
[Translation]
The Chair: Great. We’ll wait for your answers in writing.
[English]
Senator Clement: Hello to the witnesses, and thank you for being here.
I’m worried. We are in what we are told and what we sense to be an existential economic crisis. It feels like the people who certainly I represent, the most vulnerable folks, the folks who have been working hard with advocates to try to move the dial forward in terms of reconciliation and consultation, it feels they are going to have to wait, or other things need to take priority. I’m just saying that because I have this worry.
This is the question I have in the context of that worry. This is probably a question for Ms. Anderson.
On May 8 of this year, the federal government launched a 30‑day consultation on the major project reform discussion papers, specifically Getting Major Projects Built in Canada and Strengthening One Canadian Economy through trade and transportation. The proposal introduces a centralized Crown consultation hub to streamline overlapping departmental reviews into a single coordinated process meant to address consultation fatigue, but it’s 30 days. It was launched on May 8, and they want answers by June 7.
Given the scale of those proposals, why is there only a 30-day consultation window? How will 30 days be sufficient to hear from the necessary parties? What will you hear in 30 days?
Ms. Anderson: Thank you for the question, senator.
On May 8 we did launch a consultation process. It’s a Government of Canada process. While the Major Projects Office is coordinating that effort on behalf of the government, the proposals in that regulatory reform package are representative of a number of different government departments, agencies and legislation in terms of changes.
The notion of a Crown consultation hub, I will note, has been one that was raised as a recommendation from a former working group called the Ministerial Working Group on Regulatory Efficiency for Clean Growth Projects in a public report of 2023-24. Since that time, Crown-Indigenous Relations has undertaken to do a fairly extensive consultation process with rights holders to examine what that hub should look like and how it should function. Generally, there is support from a lot of Indigenous communities, with, as you note, consultation fatigue being a pretty important one.
The 30 days is certainly a short time frame. I would note that we are participating in engagement sessions across Canada simultaneous to that consultation period, hearing from a lot of different communities through that avenue as well. Once that consultation period closes, the intention is to prepare a what-we-heard report. That report will help inform these initiatives as they go forward, not only the legislation itself but the implementation of that legislation.
We see this as a dialogue that is commencing with that 30 days, but we expect to be having much further dialogue on all of the various initiatives that are being proposed to better understand Indigenous perspectives on the implementation of them.
Senator Clement: I guess that goes back to what you were saying to Senator Prosper, the difference between engagement and consultation. It feels complicated to me. I’m just speaking for myself, to understand all of this.
I’m glad to hear that it is the beginning of a dialogue because that is important, but I think Canadians, First Nations and Indigenous people need to hear more about how this is actually going to work. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you.
I have a question for you, Ms. Anderson.
I’m not sure I heard that in your presentation. I may have missed it. This isn’t a criticism, but it’s a lot of information at once. It concerns the Indigenous Advisory Council that has been appointed and that gives you advice. Will all types of work, such as the 30-day consultations that Senator Clement talked about, be validated by the committee? I’m trying to understand. We have champions and experts, but the organization is still moving forward.
Next, and you can answer me in writing, does the Major Projects Office, given its proximity to the Prime Minister’s Office, also check whether the policies of the departments that testified earlier are consistent with the speed implied in your mandate?
Here is an example. There is a procurement policy at Indigenous Services Canada. Community members want to develop projects, but because the costs exceed $1 million, they cannot create jobs in the community and are forced to call for tenders outside the community. Naturally, non-Indigenous businesses are the ones that will benefit.
Do you have a space to ensure that the members of those communities will also be able to benefit from all these great projects? Can we adjust policies between departments to be consistent when it comes to economic reconciliation?
I’m not asking you to give me an answer now, but we see inconsistencies in this big government. It may not want to do harm, but these are consultations that were held recently, so it’s the same government, and it doesn’t necessarily align with what you want to do with major projects.
Please confirm for us that there is a space where you are making efforts to be consistent with the First Peoples, their needs and the major projects moving at breakneck speed. Thank you.
[English]
Ms. Anderson: In terms of the first question, the Indigenous Advisory Committee that was appointed by the Prime Minister when the office was established, has a mandate to provide advice to the Major Projects Office on policy and operation matters. They recently approved their terms of reference, and that is publicly available online.
A lot of the work they have been doing has been around that space of the considerations of operations and not specific projects themselves. They do not represent rights holders, so they do not have decision-making capacity around projects themselves.
The Chair: What I meant is how you may want to do consultation or engagement. For me, 30 days is not about speaking on behalf of but how you plan to work with the communities. Did you get involved with them to find out if 30 days is too short or enough time? I wanted to see what the link or the relationship was between you and the expertise.
Ms. Anderson: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will respond to you in writing for both of the questions you have asked.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you. Thank you for coming and thank you for having transparency on your websites in terms of consultations, what has been done or what could be improved.
It seems to me, based on everything we’ve heard, that everyone wants a good relationship and wants to make sure that the legal decisions and the needs of the communities are respected.
However, you know that you are going to hear testimony from people who live in the communities and feel the impact of major projects or projects in which they have had no say. From there, we have to find solutions, in my opinion, with people like you who want real action, so that it really resonates in our policies.
If you have any other ideas for recommendations, you know where to reach us. Thank you again.
(The committee adjourned.)