Audit of the Negotiation of Treaties, Self-Government Agreements and Other Constructive Arrangements Program

Foundational Governance and Risk Management Framework

CIRNAC had established a solid governance foundation for overseeing negotiations. Governance bodies such as the FSC and senior policy forums provide policy direction, oversight of mandate development, fiscal planning, and risk-informed decision making. Key procedural and fiscal tools, including the MC Toolkit, Internal Directives for Negotiators, Federal Interests Paper, Co-Development Handbook (forthcoming), Financial Mandating Framework, Table Management Framework, the Mandate Inventory and Tracking Record, and customized cost-tracking spreadsheets, supported consistency in negotiation planning and alignment with reconciliation and departmental priorities.

Risk management frameworks such as the Corporate Risk Profile and TMF provided department-wide and table-specific risk analyses aligned with strategic priorities. Risk leads at senior levels oversaw documented mitigation plans, with regular updates to governance bodies. Risk assessments are used to guide resource and policy decisions, and mitigation plans are developed at the senior level. However, the Department does not consistently document whether specific mitigation actions, such as reallocating staff or adjusting funding, lead to improved progress at negotiation tables or support the Program's objectives. There is no centralized system to track how risk management decisions affect outcomes, which makes it harder to assess effectiveness and to capture lessons learned for future negotiations.

Unclear Understanding of Governance Roles and Responsibilities

Despite formal governance structures, interviewees noted variability in the understanding and application of the role of FSC Transactional, particularly at the working level and during staff turnover. In some regions, uncertainty around the roles and responsibilities of governance bodies such as the FSC Transactional led to parallel processes, delays in decision making and inconsistencies in how mandates were escalated, approved and tracked.

Limited Onboarding, Training, and Knowledge Transfer Tools

The TAG Learning Strategy and Learning Portal are recent initiatives aimed at strengthening capacity and knowledge continuity. However, during the audit review period, implementation was still in early stages. Role-specific onboarding packages, learning plans, and modular tools had not been fully developed or standardized, resulting in an overreliance on informal knowledge sharing and regional discretion. This contributed to onboarding inconsistencies and challenges in sustaining corporate knowledge.

Inconsistent Operational Use of Governance and Fiscal Tools

While governance and fiscal tools such as the MC Toolkit, Financial Mandating Framework, the Mandate Inventory and Tracking Record, and Standard Operating Procedures were available, they were not consistently embedded into regional templates, mandate development processes, or negotiation workflows. Additionally, documentation of negotiation readiness and eligibility outcomes was often informal or incomplete. Formal escalation thresholds and early-warning mechanisms to support timely interventions were absent and post-intervention monitoring was ad hoc and dependent on individual staff discretion, potentially prolonging negotiation delays and policy misalignment.

A centralized repository for mandate approvals, escalation histories and lessons learned had not yet been established, hindering auditability and limiting institutional learning and procedural consistency.

Capacity Constraints and Limited Interdepartmental Coordination Mechanisms

Another key interdepartmental coordination structures (FSC policy subcommittees), particularly those led by the Strategic Policy Development Directorate, faced capacity constraints, including staffing shortages, variable attendance by federal departmental representatives, and limited ability to sustain follow-up actions. These observations are based on interviews with participants and reviews of records of decisions. While the FSC's role is to promote interdepartmental coherence, information-sharing, and coordination, these capacity pressures may reduce its effectiveness in ensuring consistent oversight, fiscal coordination, and cross-departmental engagement on Section 35-related policy issues.

Persistent workload pressures can have an impact on both FSC committees, with the FSC transactional committee, with limited automation and short turnaround times for reviews impacting quality assurance of financial data submitted to these bodies. Moreover, the department did not have surge or flexible resourcing models to respond rapidly to shifting negotiation timelines, intensified interdepartmental coordination needs, or emerging partner readiness, which may have led to delays or missed opportunities in complex negotiations. Interviewees from the Fiscal Branch and Strategic Policy Directorate (SPD) cited instances where FSC-Transactional packages were required within 3–5 business days, necessitating manual reconciliation of costing spreadsheets and financial data from multiple systems. In several cases, this led to iterations or short deferrals to address data quality before distribution. Regional officials also noted shifts in partner readiness without a defined surge model, contributing to missed internal package deadlines and verbal brief-ins to maintain timelines.

No Evidence of Standardized Collaboration Framework Across Tables

While the Recognition of Indigenous Rights and Self-Determination (RIRSD) Policy Framework, approved by Cabinet, provides overarching policy direction for reconciliation negotiations, there was no standardized operational collaboration framework guiding CIRNAC's engagement with other departments and Indigenous partners at the negotiation table level. Engagement approaches varied across distinctions-based contexts and in the absence of documented procedural protocols, this led to inconsistencies in relationship-building efforts, coordination expectations, and engagement standards. This variability increased the risk pertaining to the achievement of the Program's objectives and increased reputational risks to the Crown.

CIRNAC has established a comprehensive governance, oversight, and risk assessment framework to support negotiations, underpinned by formal committees, procedural tools, and risk management mechanisms that promote alignment with the Program's objectives. The development of learning initiatives and fiscal oversight frameworks further strengthens the Department's capacity to manage complex negotiation processes.

However, persistent challenges remain, including inconsistent understanding and application of governance roles, uneven onboarding and knowledge transfer, fragmented use of governance tools supporting FSC and related committee pathways, limited processes and coordination structures to escalate and document unresolved issues or conflicting inputs internally, as well as outdated or siloed information systems reducing operational consistency and oversight effectiveness. Additionally, frequent staff turnover in some branches and directorates, combined with the absence of a centralized repository and formalized collaboration frameworks, has created challenges in ensuring continuity during transitions. Reliance on informal knowledge transfer, while helpful in practice, provides limited documentation to demonstrate how governance processes and risk mitigation measures were applied. For example, although negotiators who are leaving their roles often talk informally with the people taking over, the lack of standardized onboarding checklists or clear role-based documentation means that important tools, like standard operating procedures or the Federal Interests Paper may not be applied consistently. Instead, their use often depends on individual preferences rather than a defined organizational process. This may affect t the Department's ability to ensure consistent practices and institutional learning over time.

Addressing these gaps through enhanced standardization, improved integration of risk and fiscal data, strengthened capacity models, and improved collaboration and escalation protocols will be helpful to enable CIRNAC to sustain effective, accountable, and results-driven governance of negotiations.

Established Engagement Channels Support Meaningful Dialogue

CIRNAC implemented multiple structured mechanisms for engaging Indigenous partners, including negotiation tables, national policy forums, co-development working groups, and the Tripartite Negotiators' Sessions in 2021 and 2024. These channels provided important opportunities for Indigenous perspectives to inform negotiation strategies, such as the Recognition and Predictability approach, ratification guidelines and co-development placemats. Also through the well-established Principals process, CIRNAC is working collaboratively with the other Principals and the BCTC on a number of initiatives, including: the development of a joint implementation plan for the Recognition and Reconciliation of Rights Policy; a review of the roles and responsibilities of the BCTC; co-development of communications tools addressing myths about the British Columbia treaty process and with respect to treaties nearing completion or undergoing ratification; and, co-development of an annex to the Recognition and Reconciliation of Rights Policy concerning land-related issues, including forms of ownership, jurisdiction issues and the constitutional status of settlement lands.

No Standardized Feedback Tools and Documentation Practices

While Indigenous interests and perspectives, particularly on negotiation priorities and table-specific concerns is regularly shared through negotiation tables and other forums, the documentation and tracking of these interests and perspectives vary significantly across regions. In the absence of standardized internal tools or guidance, the Department's ability to consistently analyze, respond to, and learn from this feedback is limited.

Testing across 24 negotiation tables showed that only 42% had documented evidence of input from Indigenous partners, with even fewer demonstrating whether follow-up or policy consideration occurred. While respecting the confidential and without-prejudice nature of negotiations, establishing guidance on what types of feedback can be appropriately captured and how this should be done would support more consistent engagement practices.

No Escalation Protocols for Feedback-Related or Co-Development Challenges

There were no clearly defined internal procedures to escalate unresolved or conflicting feedback, either within CIRNAC or between federal departments. Similarly, no formal escalation processes to escalate and document unresolved issues or conflicting inputs internally existed for co-development challenges or capacity limitations. This gap delayed mandate approvals, affected trust by Indigenous partners, and resulted in unclear accountability.

No Consistent Post-Negotiation Reviews and Institutional Learning

While CIRNAC benefits from informal debriefs and knowledge-sharing, there is only a cursory approach for documenting key lessons or (where appropriate) how partner input informed outcomes. Practices vary by region and table, which can limit continuity during staff transitions and make it harder to adapt and implement effective approaches in future negotiations. A proportionate, team-driven method to record and share lessons, used when warranted, would support continuous improvement without significantly increasing the administrative burden and workload of staff.

Centralized Systems Do Not Support Feedback Tracking or Milestone Monitoring

Existing systems such as RBIS and TMF were not designed to, nor do they have the functionality, to capture or monitor Indigenous feedback use as well as real-time negotiation progress. Underutilization and usability issues with RBIS has reduced its effectiveness, leading to reporting delays, reliance on manual data entry and validation, and greater effort to support accountability and internal transparency. It is important to note, however, that Indigenous feedback does inform policy development as well as negotiations, including the development of agreements with partners.

Delays in Finalizing Review Plans with Indigenous Input

The review and monitoring plan for the Recognition and Reconciliation of Rights Policy is identified as a key deliverable in the tripartite implementation plan but was not finalized with Indigenous partners. Participating Indigenous Nations raised concerns about inconsistent policy application, unclear co-development processes and absent feedback mechanisms during implementation. Responsibility for finalizing and approving this plan rests with Canada, British Columbia, and the Participating Indigenous Nations, who are collectively required under Section 63 of the Policy to ensure that these reviews are conducted in a collaborative and timely manner. Strengthening the co-development process and establishing clear feedback mechanisms across all partners (Canada, British Columbia, and Indigenous representatives) would help address Indigenous concerns and ensure the review plan fully reflects shared expectations set out under the Recognition and Reconciliation of Rights Policy.

Inconsistent Readiness Supports for Interested Nations (Pre-Negotiation Phase)

For Indigenous Nations that express interest in entering negotiations, early information-sharing and readiness supports were not applied consistently. While CIRNAC has mechanisms once a table is established, there is no structured, risk-based approach to help assess and respond to readiness needs prior to formal entry (e.g., orientation to processes, funding pathways, or baseline capacity supports). This variability may affect how quickly new tables can be launched and sustained when partners choose to proceed. The Co-Development Handbook for section 35 TAG Negotiations (draft) and the 2023–24 Resource Allocation Framework report both note the importance of clearer pre-table readiness practices and planning linkages.

Outdated Policies, Unclear Legal Coordination, and Limited Practical Guidance

Certain negotiation practices continued to rely on outdated or draft operational guidance (such as the draft Co-Development Handbook) which has limited operational detail on legal integration. Governance tools do not consistently provide practical guidance on when and how to integrate legal perspectives or coordinate interdepartmentally. As a result, legal support at the negotiating table is accessed inconsistently, sometimes later in the process than desirable, leading to varied approaches across tables and contributing to delays and communication challenges for negotiations.

Structural and Resource Constraints Affecting Communication and Participation

Staff turnover, unclear roles, funding and training reductions affected federal negotiators' ability to provide consistent guidance, maintain institutional knowledge, and support Indigenous partners' sustained engagement. These constraints could hinder trust and planning capacity, putting emphasis on resource-related impacts.

CIRNAC has made significant strides in fostering collaborative dialogue and co-development with Indigenous partners across negotiation tables. However, the Department has not yet fully implemented the standardized systems, protocols, guidance, and tools required to systematically document and act upon Indigenous feedback. Addressing gaps, such as the need for formalized feedback mechanisms, standardized processes to escalate and document unresolved issues or conflicting inputs internally, post-negotiation reviews, consistent communication and support mechanisms, and more formalized processes to ensure timely and structured access to legal support for negotiators (e.g., clearly defined points of engagement with the Litigation Management Unit), are essential to enhance internal transparency, responsiveness, and Indigenous partners' trust. Optimizing existing resources and strengthening processes could further support CIRNAC's accountability and its Program's objectives.

Foundational Governance Tools Support Strategic Oversight

CIRNAC implemented foundational tools to support strategic oversight of workload pressures and resource alignment. The RAF, piloted in 2023–24 and evolving into the TMF, provided a structured assessment of negotiation workloads, risks, and capacity needs. These insights were integrated into the Annual Table Review and briefing processes for senior management and the Minister, contributing to planning and priority setting at the national level. Results from these tools were reviewed by TAG Senior Management to inform prioritization of funding, mandate development, and resource planning. Governance bodies, such as the Federal Steering Committee, were briefed on these insights as part of oversight and coordination processes.

Monitoring Could Be Strengthened and Real-Time Capabilities Enhanced

While planning tools are in place, real-time resource monitoring could be further strengthened. Resource tracking currently relies on manual spreadsheets and older systems, such as RBIS, which have limited integration with costing or performance data. The Section 35 Negotiations Tracker is used in some regions, though its adoption and integration vary. Enhancing these tools and their integration could improve CIRNAC's ability to track workload changes dynamically and support more timely resource reallocations.

Limited Internal Transparency on RAF Implementation and Reallocation Outcomes

While the RAF is used to inform table management, summary records linking key reallocation decisions to RAF insights are not maintained consistently across regions. The absence of brief action notes (e.g., decision taken, trigger, responsible lead, check-back date) makes it harder to track when adjustments occurred and to compare outcomes across tables, without requiring documentation of Assistant Deputy Minister and Deputy Minister deliberations. Internally, this reduced the ability to trace decisions over time. Externally, partners were not always informed of funding adjustments, which at times created uncertainty for planning. This does not suggest that all resourcing decisions must be disclosed, but highlights the importance of clear internal records and, where appropriate, timely communication internally and externally to ensure timely decision making by all parties. Formal post-implementation assessments to determine the impact of reallocations at the table level were not consistently conducted. This may reduce opportunities for learning and make it more challenging for the Department to demonstrate how it adapts and responds to emerging negotiation needs.

No Structured Mid-Year Reallocation or Escalation Protocols

While capacity issues are elevated to senior management as needed, mid-year reallocations are handled largely through managerial discretion at the regional and sector level, and ad hoc discussions. In the absence of baseline, common triggers (e.g., significant partner readiness changes, material mandate/timeline shifts, elevated risk ratings) and a brief action record (decision, rationale, lead, check-back date), responses can vary across regions and make it difficult to track over time and can lead to delays, miscommunication and increased negotiation risks.

Onboarding and Knowledge Transfer Mechanisms Remain Informal

Staff turnover, particularly at the negotiator and analyst levels, varied across regions but was noted in several as a recurring challenge affecting continuity which could affect the Department's ability to advance negotiations. While a Co-Development Handbook existed, it was still in draft format, and onboarding practices differed by region. In areas experiencing higher turnover, the absence of structured onboarding and knowledge transfer processes heightened the risk of delays and loss of institutional knowledge during staff transitions. To help mitigate these risks, several directorates developed internal learning and onboarding support to improve staff preparedness and knowledge continuity. The Policy Development and Coordination Branch introduced toolkits and onboarding sessions to support new staff. These resources were shared on the TAG Learning Portal and complemented by learning events such as tripartite planning sessions and negotiation bootcamps. Additionally, the Assessment Coordination Engagement Directorate launched the TAG Learning Strategy, supported by TAG management and internal learning initiatives, focused on core knowledge development, mentorship, and communities of practice. While several onboarding and internal capacity-building initiatives were introduced, including toolkits, learning events, and pilot programs, their effectiveness has not yet been formally measured. Current observations of performance are based on participation, adoption, and informal feedback rather than structured performance indicators. Establishing clear metrics, review methods, and guidance would enable more consistent knowledge transfer, assessment of the impact of these initiatives on staff preparedness, and impact on negotiation outcomes.

Costing and Financial Planning a]re Not Fully Integrated

While CIRNAC applies the Financial Mandating Framework (FMF) and the Collaborative Self-Government Fiscal Policy (CSGFP) to estimate and structure agreement-specific costs (e.g., fiscal offers, expenditure need, and ongoing transfers), there is no standard, department-wide table-level report that reconciles FMF/CSGFP planned amounts to SAP/GCIMS G&C actuals; regions rely on manual reconciliations from RBIS/SAP/SharePoint trackers to produce this view. At the same time, internal resourcing costs such as staffing, travel, and capacity support are tracked separately through dispersed Excel spreadsheets, with limited integration or comparability across regions.

This dual fragmentation, between agreement-specific costing and internal resourcing, reduces the effectiveness of financial planning and resource forecasting. Enhancing integration between fiscal frameworks (FMF, CSGFP) and operational resource management tools would better support informed, strategic decision-making.

Regional Inconsistencies in RAF Uptake and Application

RAF insights were not consistently referenced in regional planning or resource decisions, leading to disparities in how workload and capacity pressures were addressed. This decentralized approach increased the risk of mismatches between workload/priority and assigned resources, and support for negotiation tables of similar complexity or urgency.

No Centralized Dashboards to Support Evidence-Based Planning

CIRNAC does not have a centralized, automated dashboard to monitor workload pressures, milestone progress, and negotiation risks across all tables. While some information can be gathered through existing tools like RBIS, the Section 35 Negotiations Tracker, or directorate-level spreadsheets, these approaches are inconsistent and lack real-time integration. As a result, senior management may have reduced visibility into overall trends, which could affect the timeliness of evidence-informed decisions.

Other Government Department Participation Gaps Affect Capacity Planning

At several tables, limited participation from other federal departments constrained negotiation progress and impacted shared capacity planning. These gaps reduced whole-of-government alignment and increased the burden on CIRNAC staff to fill coordination gaps, heightening delays and mandate-related risks.

CIRNAC has made progress in developing strategic resource allocation tools and internal planning processes to support negotiation oversight. However, to improve internal transparency, coordination, and operational responsiveness, the Department must enhance the implementation of these frameworks and modernize its monitoring and knowledge management practices. Formalizing reallocation protocols, introducing centralized real-time dashboards, tracking the impact of staffing and funding decisions, and developing external capacity-building frameworks and communication protocols will support evidence-based planning, may reduce negotiation delays, strengthen partner readiness, and increase institutional resilience.