2025 Engagement on the Renewal of the Federal Consultation and Accommodation Guidelines - Final What We Learned Report

Content Warning

This Report may contain information that could be upsetting or triggering for some individuals. Supports are available for Indigenous Peoples at Hope for Wellness and for federal government employees at the Employee Assistance Program.

Language Used in this Report

The language in this Report has been anonymized to protect the personal data of participants and their communities. Throughout the Report, "Indigenous communities" is used as a collective term for participants' various affiliations, including Indigenous governments and representative organizations of Indigenous Peoples. In some cases, language used in this Report is reflective of how participants expressed themselves during the sessions.

Note on Provinces and Territories

The conversations focused on the federal guidelines for consultation and accommodation. However, some participants took the opportunity presented through these sessions to share feedback that included reflections on both federal consultation processes and those consultation processes implemented by provincial and territorial governments.

Setting the context

Theme 1 focuses on upholding and respecting section 35 rights through meaningful processes. Feedback heard affirms that respecting and upholding section 35 rights is central to all consultation and accommodation processes, and that there are expectations for the federal government to ensure that the process is meaningful. Participants shared that there is work to be done to ensure that all federal departments understand, respect, and uphold section 35 rights, and to ensure that the elements that make a consultation process meaningful are present.

What we learned

Throughout the engagement, participants reiterated that consultation processes exist to ensure that the federal government upholds and respects Indigenous rights through its activities, and where that is not possible, to implement solutions to accommodate for impacts to section 35 rights. We learned that these guidelines should ensure that all federal department and agencies adhere to an approach that is acceptable to communities while ensuring that the federal government's constitutional and Treaty obligations towards Indigenous communities are respected.

Participants expressed that while the Crown has a responsibility to consult with Indigenous communities on impacts to their section 35 rights, communities experience varying levels of consultation depending on which department or agency is involved, or what federal conduct is being proposed. Participants often emphasized the fact that the guidelines should serve as a standard from which the entirety of the federal government conducts consultation, with the hope that the renewal of the guidelines will clarify to all federal entities that they must adhere to these standards. Additional feedback noted that the guidelines must not only apply to federal departments and agencies but must also apply to all entities of the federal government, including those that have previously claimed these guidelines do not apply – like Crown Corporations or port authorities.

The wide applicability of these guidelines was repeatedly raised throughout the engagement, with emphasis on the Crown's obligation to determine whether a proposed action may impact section 35 rights. Participants emphasized that the guidelines must make this obligation clear to anyone acting on behalf of the Crown, and to avoid creating a possibility where the guidelines can be interpreted in such a way to avoid those responsibilities. Participants reiterated that consultation and accommodation cannot simply be a vehicle for approving federal activities, but an assurance that the federal government will ensure that Indigenous rights are protected. As such, participants in nearly every engagement session highlighted that the language in the guidelines must be strong, using terms like "must", "shall", and "will" in lieu of terms like "should" or "aim to". During the virtual session for the western provinces, one participant encouraged the federal government to use this opportunity to aim high, as the guidelines will serve as the foundation for consultation for years to come.

Participants made it clear that it's not possible for the federal government to uphold and respect rights through consultation if they do not understand the fundamental pieces of consultation – including what are section 35 rights, and who needs to be consulted. Cultural competency was raised as both a significant challenge, and one of the key elements present in cases where consultation was adequate and meaningful. Participants shared examples of consultation processes where federal officials not only failed to adequately understand their responsibilities towards consultation and accommodation, but also to understand the relationship between the government and the communities with whom they were consulting. In the session with Inuit governments and rights-holders, it noted that federal departments rarely understand their obligations towards Inuit that are outlined in land claim agreements. This sentiment was echoed across other sessions, notably in the Northwest Territories and in British Columbia, where Modern Treaties outline specific obligations related to consultation. Further, efficient consultation requires strong cultural competency and understanding of the treaties, critical to developing processes grounded in the realities of each community.

It was emphasized that upholding and respecting section 35 rights necessitates greater awareness across the federal government about what those rights are. Participants shared a variety of examples of how their rights are exercised and impacted by federal activity. Understanding how these rights are exercised through consultation is key to assessing how an activity may impact those rights; and this requires deeper knowledge about the community, their Treaty or other agreements with the Crown, and understanding what is already on the landscape – both physically, but also in terms of other issues communities may be prioritizing.

Participants discussed the importance of ensuring that consultation is done with the appropriate rights-holders. Concerns were expressed that federal departments were consulting with groups that may not be rights-holders or excluding rights-holders from consultation. In several regions, questions around certain groups asserting rights and being consulted instead of groups with established rights arose. In the western provinces, participants shared experiences of communities that had been excluded from consultation due to a lack of understanding about the community. In British Columbia, examples were shared of activities occurring on a shared traditional territory where only one Nation was consulted, which was communicated as inadequate.

Emphasis on the importance of work to understand which Indigenous groups may be impacted by a proposed project must be done by federal officials before any work is undertaken, and before communities are approached for consultation. Participants repeatedly mentioned that this learning comes best from developing a relationship with communities and working with them to understand their rights and to develop consultation processes.

Throughout the sessions, participants indicated that whenever a federal department has doubt about rights that may be impacted by their activity, they must engage proactively with that community to better understand. It was made clear that a foundational understanding is key to developing a meaningful process, as it allows parties to develop a process that is truly reflective of that community.

Participants across the engagement sessions shared what it means for a consultation process to be meaningful, with several important aspects repeated across the engagement sessions. This includes respectful engagement, with adequate time and flexibility to respect community priorities and capacity, and transparency – with information being shared readily between everyone involved in the project and consultation process. Participants also highlighted that meaningful consultation is rooted in the honour of the Crown, and that trust and accountability are key to ensuring that the Crown is operating in good faith.

Participants also discussed at length the importance of rooting consultation processes in the individuality of Indigenous communities, centring Indigenous laws, protocol, ceremony, and languages in consultation; and ensuring that Indigenous knowledge is appropriately captured, incorporated, and protected throughout the decision-making process. Participants in several sessions noted that their Traditional Knowledge is key to understanding the impacts that a project might have on the land or on their rights – but that their knowledge is often seen as lesser than the "expertise" provided by external consultants and academics. In Manitoba, participants emphasized that their knowledge is rooted in centuries of scientific observation, offering a comprehensive outlook on the landscape and watersheds that could be useful in meaningfully identifying risks to rights and to the environment, and solutions to alleviate those impacts. Participants encouraged the renewed guidelines to put additional emphasis on developing a process that meaningfully incorporates Indigenous knowledge, and to do so early in the process.

Across the country, participants suggested that the guidelines should reference other documents that provide direction on consultation that has been developed by, or in collaboration with, Indigenous communities. These include consultation policies or processes developed by consultation offices, but might also include Indigenous-led processes, Treaty or self-government agreements, or other agreements between rights-holders and the Crown. Further, federal officials should refer to these agreements, in addition to the guidelines, to determine their next steps. In Saskatchewan, several mentioned that their Treaty with the Crown serves as the foundation for the Crown-Indigenous relationship, and that any policy directive must be rooted in the Treaties.

Participants emphasized that collaboratively developed consultation processes are ideal, as they allow communities to guide the process, ensure adequate time and capacity to meaningfully respond, and create a strong foundation from which a relationship can continue to develop throughout the lifecycle of the project. However, across several sessions participants expressed that this is only possible if the honour of the Crown is upheld, meaning that federal officials are coming to the table respectfully, transparently, and with a willingness to work with communities to develop or alter projects in a way that respects and upholds section 35 rights. In response, participants insisted that it must be made clear in the renewed guidelines that consultation is a part of upholding reconciliation with Indigenous communities, and that the federal government has an obligation to conduct these processes in a way that upholds the honour of the Crown.

Part of acting honourably, according to participants, is ensuring that communities are coming to the table with all the resources required to meaningfully participate in the consultation process. While there are several resources required to facilitate that process that will be addressed later in this Report – like funding supports – participants emphasized that open dialogue and transparent information sharing is critical for a consultation process to be meaningful. Participants shared several examples of cases where they felt that governments or project proponents were shielding information away from communities to minimize their obligation to accommodate for impacts that were going to occur. Participants identified that transparent processes, access to shared information and expertise, and additional support to gather information are all key pieces of meaningful consultation. It was noted that the lack of transparency in situations raised where a community later discovered information that had not been previously provided to them about potential impacts, which resulted in decrease trust and was counterproductive to building respectful relationships.

Setting the context

Theme 2 focuses on building respectful relationships and seeing consultation and accommodation as an important part of the Crown-Indigenous relationship. Feedback captured focuses on the importance of building a genuine relationship with communities, ensuring that engagement is early and ongoing, and determining what is required to facilitate the meaningful participation of Indigenous groups in consultation processes.

What we learned

Building respectful relationships rooted in trust and mutual understanding was another key theme learned throughout the engagement series. This input focuses on the importance of designing a meaningful process by emphasizing that strong consultation processes are developed through relationships that are respectful, build trust, and are designed with the intention of working together. Participants throughout the sessions explained that the connection between Canada and Indigenous communities should always be seen as a relationship – something that takes time to develop and that is nurtured – instead of simply a one-time partnership.

Participants encouraged federal officials to reflect on consultation and to reach out to Indigenous groups "as early as possible" in the process, and that the proposed used of "early" might not mean the same for everyone. It was noted that this initial outreach can occur informally, outside of the consultation process, to signal to communities that consultations are coming. Participants shared several reasons why early engagement is advantageous for both federal departments and Indigenous groups. Participants across several sessions noted that early engagement allows federal officials to learn more about the community, share more information to help guide the process, and to better understand the cultural protocols, priorities, and values that communities underscore during these discussions – helping to build a solid foundation for a relationship.

Participants shared that early engagement could address some of the challenges experienced during consultations that include multiple communities – where there are shared territories in British Columbia for example, along linear infrastructure projects in Alberta or Saskatchewan, or cases where multiple Indigenous groups live within a northern community, like in the Northwest Territories. Several examples of consultations that included overlapping or neighbouring communities were shared, with few being considered balanced or meaningful by all groups involved. During the sessions in New Brunswick, Québec, British Columbia, Alberta, the Northwest Territories, and Yukon participants raised that communities should be able to self-organize and cooperate amongst themselves, if they decide to do so, and that the federal government should support those efforts – instead of requiring that each community conduct their consultation separately. We learned that this allows communities to share expertise, information, and collaborate on accommodation measures, which can expedite consultation processes and alleviate some of the burden experienced by each community. Participants in Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta expressed that the proximity model – determining who should be involved in consultation based on their distance to the project – often overlooks communities that have a legitimate interest and concern around impacts to their rights, despite being located further. Again, we learned that early engagement allows for many of these questions to be answered in advance, avoiding situations where communities are left out.

Building on early engagement, participants made clear that the relationship needs to be ongoing – collaborating throughout the project lifecycle and coming back to the table if new issues arise. It was noted that early engagement does not matter as much if there is an ongoing, established relationship between communities and federal departments where communities are kept informed of incoming projects and decisions – and plan future consultation processes accordingly. It was noted that when communities are aware of what is coming, they are much better positioned to prepare and to react appropriately. Part of the ongoing relationship that several participants noted was a need to create a mechanism through which parties involved in consultation can come back to the table and discuss new or changing information. Participants indicated that too often do federal departments or project proponents consider consultation finalized once permitting or the project is approved, but participants note that impacts are sometimes identified afterwards through monitoring for which there is no formal mechanism to bring them back to the table for discussion. Participants hoped that the guidelines would emphasize that a relationship should not be temporary only for the time that the consultation is occurring. In Quebec and in Ontario, participants shared examples of proponents that organize regularly-scheduled meetings with communities to provide updates, share information, and gather additional feedback as the project develops – a model that was encouraged in other regions of the country.

Participants acknowledged that these relationships could include project proponents, where there is value to having those responsible for the project at the table, especially related to strategies to mitigate impacts to rights into the project plan. Participants also acknowledged that typically non-government project proponents have an outsized financial interest in the success of the project, and as such not all financial or resource requirements need to be provided by the federal government, and there is a role for these proponents to play in funding meaningful consultation. However, participants across the sessions made it clear that the federal government must be at the table and remain accountable for federal decision making. It was noted that, should project proponents be involved in consultation, that they are also brought into the conversation in the early stages. It was added that more parties at the table requires more time for information sharing, review and validation, and trust-building dialogue.

Participants highlighted capacity as one of the largest barriers to participating meaningfully in consultation processes. Many communities have limited staff who are often responsible for managing multiple files. Conducting detailed assessments on the impacts on section 35 is complex and resource intensive. Many communities lack the support needed to do this work. As a result, communities may provide incomplete information to project proponents that does not fully reflect their community's realities. It was also noted that studies used by the federal government may not capture the true perspectives of Indigenous communities without incorporating Indigenous knowledge, which requires proper support.

Participants representing all three territories and several northern regions in the provinces emphasized the exorbitant travel costs required to either attend consultation or host federal officials in their communities. It was noted that the federal government does not always approve travel to remote and northern regions, due to the costs – but that these same costs are not considered when communities are invited to attend a session in a regional centre. It was also noted that inviting select individuals to attend a meeting in another location is not meaningful consultation, and that there must be resources available to ensure that communities can consult within their membership – something that often requires additional support and time to facilitate.

Participants expressed that the question of funding and adequately resourcing consultation to facilitate meaningful participation is the responsibility of everyone involved in consultation and should be approached collaboratively. To participants, this means working with communities to determine their terms and timelines, the resources that are required, and identifying who is responsible for what component of the consultation. It was expressed that project proponents can have a role in providing some of the resources required to conduct consultation.

In some sessions, including in Manitoba and the Atlantic region, participants expressed that meaningful participation in a consultation process should lead to meaningful participation in the overall project. This might include an ongoing partnership, economic development or employment opportunities within the project, and potentially the partial ownership of the project. It was identified throughout the sessions that meaningful participation requires a willingness to work with communities – to partner with them, to provide timely and accurate information, and to design a consultation process that allows communities the space to have the necessary conversations to provide their consent.

Setting the context

Theme 3 dives deeper into core components of consultation – assessing the impacts on section 35 rights, the development of accommodation measures, where appropriate, and the critical importance of free, prior and informed consent as informed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

What we learned

During this Phase of engagement, participants explored different topics developed from feedback heard during Phase 1, including assessing impacts on rights, the effect of cumulative impacts, and the highlighting the role of free, prior and informed consent in consultation were explored as separate topic areas. It quickly became evident to participants that seeking free, prior and informed consent goes hand in hand with the assessment of impacts to section 35 rights and the ability to identify appropriate strategies to avoid, mitigate, or otherwise accommodate for those impacts. Participants expressed clearly that they cannot consent to a project when the impacts are unknown or when impacts are ignored – it must all be part of the same process.

Participants across several sessions acknowledged that the explicit inclusion of free, prior and informed consent in the renewed guidelines is an important step forward, and that they hope this will encourage federal departments to refine approaches to allow for consensus-building and consent. However, participants urged that the guidelines should use strong language, including that federal departments must obtain consent for their activity to move forward. To obtain consent, participants made it clear that impact assessments and accommodation measures must be adequate. In several sessions, participants suggested that the section speaking to free, prior and informed consent should link directly to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to relevant legislation, and case law, to outline the importance of seeking consent.

In every session, participants clarified that free, prior and informed consent is not a one-time occurrence, it is something that is ongoing and can be revoked at any time. It was noted that some communities were expected to consent to a project in order to begin the consultation, to conduct impact assessments, or before they could develop appropriate accommodation measures to address potential impacts. Consent must be considered throughout the entire process. Some participants expressed that consultations should aim for ongoing consensus; taking the time to hear all concerns, ensure they are addressed, and that everyone involved is comfortable taking the next step. This consensus creates the conditions for a community to give and maintain its consent.

Several participants questioned what considerations would be included in the guidelines for cases where consent is not provided. Many participants iterated that if consent is not provided, the project or decision should not be allowed to move ahead as planned, and that the guidelines should make this clear to all federal departments. In line with the above, participants questioned what might happen if a community withdraws its consent during or after the consultation process because of new developments, like the discovery of new information or accommodation measures that are inadequately implemented. In British Columbia, several participants questioned how the guidelines will approach cases involving multiple communities where one provides consent, but another does not.

At the heart of consultation is upholding and respecting Indigenous rights, which requires that potential impacts to those rights be assessed, and that measures be put in place to avoid, mitigate, or otherwise compensate for those impacts. However, participants shared that they experience very different definitions of "impact", depending how the government or department interprets these impacts. Participants in multiple sessions asked that the federal government define impacts in the guidelines, to provide some direction to federal officials, and to help communities understand what the federal government views as an impact to their rights. Participants reiterated that impacts travel across territories through watersheds and by other means, but that communities find it challenging to have these concerns heard. In Saskatchewan, participants expressed that impacts to animals, to rivers, and to the environment are impacts to their Treaty rights, and expressed that the land, too, has rights that must be respected.

Participants made it clear that collaboration is necessary to ensure that potential impacts are properly identified and mitigated. Collaborating with Indigenous communities early, respectfully, and with the intention to mitigate impacts allows government, project proponents, and communities to identify creative strategies to address impacts. Several participants noted that some impacts can be easily accommodated by a slight change to the project early in the process, whereas accommodating that impact later on without having implemented the change could be much harder. It is expected that a consultation process would first seek to avoid the potential impact all together; if that is not possible, then it would seek to identify strategies to lessen or eliminate that impact, where appropriate. In cases where there are still some residual impacts, participants expressed that only then should the conversation around compensation or other accommodations be explored. Accommodation in the form of compensation must never be seen as the first resort – several participants expressed that this feels like government buying out their rights and cannot be seen as a meaningful process.

Several participants urged that assessments of impacts on rights must be Indigenous-led, with participants in the Northwest Territories expressing that Indigenous-led assessments must take precedence over any other assessment. It was noted that Elders, knowledge keepers, and other community members carry an expertise about their respective territories, the natural systems, and how communities exercise their rights which is critical to a holistic understanding of potential impacts. Participants felt that, often, Indigenous knowledge is seen as lesser-than compared to western scientific approaches, which creates situations where real impacts are overlooked or dismissed entirely. One example shared in the Yukon was a study conducted on leafy plants, the study authors found particulate matter pollution absorbed by the plants was menial. The community was concerned because the plant was used for tea, and when researchers conducted a study on the tea, they found that the plants had absorbed significantly more matter than previously understood. Participants urged that Indigenous-led or collaborative assessment processes enable all parties to share information, do their own reviews and validation, and often come up with new understandings or new solutions that would not have otherwise been identified if everyone worked separately.

Participants across nearly every engagement session expressed that the explicit inclusion of cumulative impacts in the guidelines is a welcome addition. In Phase 1, cumulative impacts were in the top recurring themes identified – as it raises important questions during assessments of impacts on rights, like how this project will further contribute to existing impacts, or how do the existing impacts fall within scope of the consultation. Several participants acknowledged that this statement, in theory, is good, but that it will come down to the implementation to see whether it has any effect.

Several participants questioned how cumulative impacts will be assessed, adding that the technology or datasets required to track and analyze all cumulative impacts in a particular region may not yet exist. It was also noted that it is not clear who would be responsible for capturing, compiling, and analyzing this information. There were concerns expressed if the federal government were to be the only ones responsible for compiling cumulative impact data. Participants expressed that the ability to consider and act on cumulative impacts is only as strong as the information that exists to understand and measure those impacts. Without that information, which may not exist or exists in various formats across several levels of government, this piece of the guidelines may cause more confusion than clarity.

Participants across every session expressed that, in any case, Indigenous communities must be involved in the assessment of cumulative impacts. However, they note that the understanding of cumulative impacts may differ, including questions around what is the baseline from which these impacts are assessed. Participants noted that there are a lot of questions that will need to be answered around the scope of cumulative impacts. The questions related to the geographic scope includes whether impacts are considered as limited only to the activities on their territory or if it also includes impacts to activities outside of the territory. In British Columbia, Manitoba, and Ontario, participants stressed that impacts have the potential to travel, notably through waterways, and that some activities might occur outside of the project area, or even outside of Canada.

Participants indicated that agreements made during consultation, especially accommodation measures that were identified as solution to accommodate for impacted rights, must be maintained throughout the entire lifecycle of the project. Participants shared several examples of cases where accommodations fell through; sometimes projects change ownership and that agreements are lost during this transition, or a company closes before the end of the projects lifecycle and site project conditions are cancelled. Participants expressed that they often experience lack of accountability and leadership between entities involved in consultation, which can sometimes mean that accommodations are forgotten and impacts to rights occur without any consequences. The idea of Indigenous-led monitoring and compliance initiatives was raised repeatedly throughout the engagement series. Communities want to be involved in the oversight and monitoring of projects on their territory, want to collaborate on solutions to new problems that are identified, and view these opportunities as both an economic opportunity and a way to strengthen relationships. While Indigenous-led monitoring is desired, it is only efficient when there is an ability to Report back and adjust if accommodation is insufficiently addressing the impacts on rights, or previously unknown impacts arise.

Setting the context

Theme 4 is the last theme outlined in the Key Themes Report and calls on federal departments and agencies to increase coordination, efficiency, and accountability to strengthen consultation processes and alleviate the pressures experienced by communities during a consultation process. Participants provided considerations around cases where aspects of the consultation process are delegated to a third party, and several suggestions to increase efficiency and accountability in consultation processes.

What we learned

Participants called on the federal government to do more to coordinate consultation efforts, to share information, and to streamline funding programs to increase efficiency and decrease redundancy in consultation processes. Several participants discussed experiencing different consultation processes with various departments for the same project. In some cases, accommodation measures agreed to with one department were not implemented because another department responsible for that portion of the project was not informed. Participants indicated that the federal government should also do more to ensure that information that is held by one government department can be used by others and avoids communities having to have the same conversation with multiple departments, which is especially important given capacity constraints may exist.

However, participants expressed concerns around the use of information collected in the context of one project but being used for another. This raised questions around Indigenous data sovereignty, and the ability for communities to validate and confirm that this information can be used in a different context. Participants across multiple sessions suggested that the guidelines should encourage federal departments to confirm that the information collected during a consultation process is appropriate in the context – especially information that is drawn from another source, like another consultation, from another government, or from the project proponent.

Likewise, participants suggested that the guidelines require that the Indigenous communities are informed of a delegated process – be it provincial governments, regulatory agencies, or project proponents. In Saskatchewan, it was noted that it's odd that the federal government would have the right to delegate portions of the consultation to another entity, but that Indigenous communities do not have the ability to decide by whom they are consulted. Regardless of the use of delegation or the reliance on another process, participants made clear that they expect the federal government to advocate for respect of section 35 rights during all consultation processes, and to assist communities when required to help uphold their respective section 35 rights.

Participants also asked if project proponents, when carrying out procedural aspects of the consultation process, are bound by these guidelines. Several participants relayed that proponents should be held to the same standard. However, there were varying opinions on whether proponents should be responsible for any aspect of consultation. Participants in the Atlantic session questioned why proponents would be involved in a Crown-Indigenous dialogue at all, while those in British Columbia and Alberta acknowledged that having proponents at the table can allow for more collaboration and a more direct line into the many small decisions that go into a project – many of which may have a direct impact on rights.

Participants iterated that communicating clearly with all parties involved around the use of a delegated process, how it will work, and ensuring that all parties agree to that process is key to ensuring that delegated processes are meaningful and successful. It was also added that processes may look different each time, there is no one-size-fits-all consultation approach – each project will be different, the parties at the table will be different, and each community will have its own approaches that need to be respected. It was emphasized that communities need to agree to delegated processes or to rely on information collected through a separate process. In the western provinces, participants were more likely to suggest that communities must give their full consent to the use of a delegated process or the reliance on another process.

While consultation fatigue is a real concern and coordination between federal departments can help alleviate some of the burdens experienced by communities during consultation, participants in the Yukon expressed that the real fatigue stems from input that is shared with government being ignored. Participants liked the idea of streamlining consultation so that various federal departments are working together in tandem but emphasized that the important piece will be to ensure that information is being communicated properly to all parties. This includes providing communities with a clear communication of the decision that was taken and how their input was considered during the decision-making process. It also includes communicating the results of the decision, and associated responsibilities, back to the various federal departments involved in the process. For example, if Transport Canada is responsible for approving an activity, but Fisheries and Oceans Canada was identified as a key partner on an accommodation measure, it is important that Fisheries and Oceans Canada be made aware of these responsibilities and are prepared to ensure that the measure is implemented. It was acknowledged that there is a lot of overlap between various government departments, with different departments coming to communities at different times for the same project. Participants felt that if any effort to ensure that government is operating as one, that information is being shared, and that there are coordinated efforts to ensure accommodation measures are respected will strengthen consultation.

Similarly, participants discussed the value of coordinated consultation processes between Indigenous communities. In Quebec, one participant expressed that if communities want to work together on a consultation process to collectively assess impacts and to defend their rights, the federal government should provide the necessary resources to enable that work. Across the various sessions participants shared several examples of situations where communities would prefer to work in collaboration – like neighbouring communities, those along a shared watershed or along a linear infrastructure project, part of the same Treaty, or in the case of some northern municipalities, where several Indigenous groups share one municipality.

Finally, participants expressed the importance of ensuring that all parties involved in consultation are accountable to the commitments they make through ongoing monitoring and compliance efforts, and to ensure accountability mechanisms are in place in case there are concerns that arise after consultation. Several participants expressed that their communities are interested in participating in monitoring and compliance efforts, and that this can be an opportunity to strengthen partnerships between governments, communities, and project proponents; and can be an economic development opportunity for communities.

It was reiterated throughout the engagement series that accountability is key in building respectful, trustworthy, and mutually beneficial relationships. Participants expressed that, too often, measures that were agreed to during consultation were not implemented properly, leading to increased impacts on Indigenous rights. In these cases, they felt previous guidelines offered little in the way of recourse or a dispute resolution mechanism – leaving communities to defend themselves in the court system. It was suggested in nearly every session that the guidelines should include some direction for when conflicts or disagreements occur, to bring parties back to the table, or to hold parties accountable if they fail to meet their obligations.