Evaluation of Consultation and Accommodation

Acronyms

ATRIS: Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information System
CIRNAC: Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
FTE: Full-Time Equivalent
GBA: Plus Gender-Based Analysis Plus
UNDA: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act
UNDRIP: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Executive Summary

The purpose of this evaluation was to examine the relevance and performance of the Consultation and Accommodation Program between April 2015 and March 2023, in accordance with the Five-Year Evaluation Plan 2022-2023 to 2026-2027 for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, and in compliance with the Treasury Board Policy on Results.

Background

Section 35 of the Constitution Act recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal and Treaty rights. The Supreme Court of Canada maintains that the Crown has a legal duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate, when it contemplates conduct that may adversely impact potential or established Aboriginal or Treaty rights. A genuine effort to understand Indigenous concerns and address them is crucial in discharging the legal duty to consult and in working towards Reconciliation.

Government of Canada departments and agencies are responsible for understanding how and when their activities could impact Aboriginal or Treaty rights. Crown–Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada coordinates and advises federal officials on the duty to consult by providing policy direction on consultation practices, sharing information, developing partnerships with Indigenous communities and organizations, supporting coordination with other levels of government and delivering training, guidelines and tools on the duty to consult.

Evaluation scope and methodology

In accordance with the Department's commitment to collaborate with Indigenous Peoples, the evaluation team elected to engage with partnering Indigenous organizations through a participatory approach that is inclusive of their knowledge systems, experiences, and aspirations. To that effect, the evaluation team facilitated four (4) reflective sessions with an Evaluation Working Group composed of eight (8) representatives from Indigenous organizations devoted to consultation and two (2) program officials. The working group was actively engaged from the methodology development through to reviewing the final draft report and providing feedback.

Evaluation findings were triangulated across multiple lines of evidence, including: a review of relevant literature; a review of program documents and performance data; 33 interviews with Indigenous interviewees, Federal Officials and academics; three (3) site visits; and two (2) surveys.

Key Findings

Relevance

The evaluation found that the Program occupies an important and relevant function within the whole-of-government consultation and accommodation apparatus. Its activities are designed in a way that mostly align with federal and departmental priorities. The focus on training, on the development and maintaining of consultations tools, and on supporting the other federal entities in their consultation endeavours answers a pressing need, as attested by the long waiting lists for their services, by the increasing number of support requests received by the Program, and by a frequently expressed need for more guidance on consultation and accommodation.

However, some aspects of the Program design could be modified to align further with Indigenous priorities and self-determination. Consultation Protocols and Resource Centres both positively enhance Indigenous capacity to meaningfully consult with the federal government, even though their scale isn't proportionate with the depth of the challenges faced by most Indigenous organizations. Indigenous interviewees described the annual reporting requirements and the uncertainty of the funding as two main hindrances in the long-term enhancement of their consultation capacity. The Program's inability to meet the demand for both of those Indigenous consultation tools indicates how pressing of a need it is trying to meet, but also highlights how far it is from actually fulfilling it.

The difficulties in navigating the ongoing complexity of consultation processes involving multiple federal entities and other orders of government was also commonly identified as a challenge by Indigenous interviewees. They described, along with many federal officials interviewed, how the non-binding nature of the Consultation Protocols led to low compliance by federal departments throughout the evaluation period. Finally, Indigenous interviewees strongly noted that the lack of coordination between the different orders of government creates capacity issues that the department neither addresses, nor has the mandate to address.

Performance

Indigenous consultation capacity challenges were a universal theme amongst all interviewees. They widely praised Consultation Resource Centres for their effectiveness in enhancing such capacity. Often housed within multilayered organizations, the Resource Centres allow for synergies that help create relevant expertise for their members to draw upon and apply to project specific consultations. Resource Centres are also able to position staff and leadership to direct their energy where it will have the most impact, thus reinforcing self-determination among the First Nations and Métis communities that access the Centres' services^{Footnote 1}. However, they are still pilot, no new Resource Centres were implemented in the timeframe between 2019 and 2023, and funding has not kept pace with inflation and natural organizational growth.

Conversely, the effectiveness of Consultation Protocols is more difficult to assess. As attested by a consistent waitlist, there is a strong appetite for such Protocols among First Nations, Inuit, and Métis. However, many Indigenous and federal interviewees expressed concerns about the Protocols' ability to meaningfully enhance Indigenous consultation capacity. For many communities, the funding provided through the Protocol is not sufficient to hire a single full-time equivalent. More critically, most incoming federal consultation requests do not adhere to the processes agreed upon in the consultation Protocols, as interviewees recognized that other federal departments are ill-informed about Protocols or prefer to go along with their own organization consultation processes. While it is recognized that the Protocols are non-binding, it was consistently made clear by Indigenous Protocol holders that it is their expectation that departments respect and adhere to the Protocols.

Internally, the Program has a positive reputation among federal consultation professionals. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information System (ATRIS) is generally seen as a useful starting point to identify who to consult with. Some lingering issues persist regarding the quality of the information available on ATRIS, which mostly reflects the government perspective. Training activities for federal employees are also widely praised and seen as useful for public servants new to consultation processes. The Program also excels in leveraging multiple tools and networks in responding to ad hoc requests directed its way by other federal entities. However, many federal officials wished it was more successful, timely, and clear when offering official guidance about emerging consultation issues, such as self-identifying and out-of-country Indigenous collectives. The absence of accommodation guidelines was described as a critical gap by both Indigenous and federal interviewees. While the Single Window could benefit from being better known among public servants, it has demonstrated its utility for existing users and from a corporate knowledge retention perspective.

For most of the evaluation period, the collection and use of performance data to assess progress towards objectives and inform decision-making seems to have been an afterthought. A review of the performance data shared reveals that, for most of the evaluation period, the Program only collected and reported on the number of public servants trained. When pressed on the use of performance data, federal officials interviewed pointed to the ongoing waitlist for Consultation Protocols and Resource Centres as a sign of effectiveness. Few performance data was collected on internal-focused activities, and data collected about the Consultation Protocols and Resource Centres came mostly from Indigenous partners. From an ethical perspective, relying on funding recipients to produce the data used to measure their satisfaction should be reconsidered.

Conclusions

The evaluation found that the program's resources fall short of what is necessary to strengthens the core capacity needs of Indigenous partners, thus limiting their ability to meaningfully engage in Crown consultation and engagement. The evidence strongly indicates that the funding for the Consultation Resource Centres and Consultation Protocol Agreements are critical to support and facilitate Indigenous consultation capacity, but it has not kept pace with inflation and natural organizational growth. The funding offered through Consultation Protocols is not commensurate to the breadth and depth of the core consultation capacity needs faced by Indigenous communities. For both Consultation Protocols and Consultation Resource Centres, the demand has outpaced access. Only a small segment of the Indigenous population form coast to coast to coast have access to these tools. Despite being widely seen as best practice, the Resource Centres are still characterized, almost a decade into existence, as pilots. Compounding these challenges is an inconsistent compliance with Protocols from federal entities and a continued scarcity of awareness, knowledge and use of Indigenous consultation tools and of the ways in which consultation and accommodation link to reconciliation.

In conclusion, the Program provides core capacity funding that constitutes a starting point for participation into specific consultation and engagement undertaken for big and small projects by over 200 federal government departments and agencies. One working group member described that core capacity as a tree, and project level consultation capacity as and the fruits of the tree. You cannot have one with out the other.

Turning to the internal results of the program to strengthen federal consultation capacity, the program has made substantial progress in offering whole-of-government support and guidance for consultation and engagement. The evaluation found the program to be particularly engaged in training public servants, in responding timely and responsively to an ever growing amount of ad hoc consultation requests from federal entities, and in leading discussions about consultation and accommodation in various internal federal networks. However, the evaluation found that the data collection by the program was not undertaken in a systematic manner to transparently inform decision-making, to track if and how program activities concretely contribute to progress to measure impact and in some instances created a reporting burden on Indigenous partner. Most significantly, however, the evaluation found that the program does not collect data or report from the perspective of Indigenous partners, including listening to what is occurring at the community level.

Recommendations

The recommendations set out below are built on the findings and conclusions of the evaluation and co-created and validated by the evaluation working group. It is recommended that:

In conjunction with Indigenous partners, the Program should develop a sustainability plan that enables the Resource Centres and Protocol Agreements holders to have long-term funding. The plan should reduce the administrative burden on Indigenous organizations and ensure flexible terms and conditions that meet their needs.
The Program should strengthen and expand the inclusion and engagement of Indigenous partners in the Program's full suite of training for federal public servants.
The program should work with Indigenous and federal partners to increase the coordination and streamlining of consultation and engagement activities, in order to reduce the burden on Indigenous partners and to facilitate meaningful consultations. This should include, but not be limited to:
1. tracking and monitoring consultation and engagement related activities across the federal government;
2. identifying duplications of outgoing consultation requests on same projects/issues and notifying federal partners of such overlap; and
3. developing tools to share data on ongoing federal consultation requests with Indigenous partners.
The Program should work with Indigenous partners to revise the Program's performance measurement indicators to better reflect the communities' on-the-ground realities related to consultation and engagement activities.

Management Response / Action Plan

Project Title: Evaluation of Consultation and Accommodation

Management Response

The Consultation and Accommodation Unit welcomes the findings and recommendations of this evaluation, including that CIRNAC's Consultation and Accommodation Program occupies an important and relevant function within the whole-of-government consultation and accommodation apparatus.
With shifting priorities, evolving case law, and growing conversations about Indigenous rights and identity, fulfilling the legal duty to consult in a meaningful way can be challenging for federal officials. This results in a high volume of requests for the Program which in turn endeavours to provide timely guidance on a variety of emerging consultation issues, including how Indigenous partners want to be consulted.
Consultation protocols and resource centres, which help Indigenous partners navigate federal consultation requests, offer exceptional value relative to their cost and impact.

Given their importance, the Program continues to seek increased, stable, and long-term funding to meet the needs of Indigenous partners, taking into account financial realities and inflation, and aiming to meaningfully strengthen Indigenous consultation capacity.
Consultation capacity will be increasingly important as government shifts towards having to make increasingly time sensitive decisions to stimulate and expedite economic developments, there will be direct intersects with the legal duty to consult. The Program continues to promote that meaningful consultation is an enabler to economic initiatives and Indigenous communities are partners who need to be included in processes early through to project completion. This is particularly import for major projects as they are an economic driver and streamlined approvals are essential for energy transformation and market diversification in Canada.
The Major Projects Team was integrated into the Program in 2021, providing a crucial link between the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and partners in the Impact Assessment Process by coordinating responses to requests for information relative to the legal duty to consult and Canada's relationship with Indigenous people during the review of major infrastructure and resource development projects.
Further, the Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information System (ATRIS) continues to be a useful starting point for federal officials, industry and others to identify potentially impacted asserted or established rights holders. In support of Indigenous data sovereignty, the Program continues to engage with Indigenous communities to co-develop ATRIS content.
An ATRIS Governance Committee has been established with the Chief Data Officer to improve data governance and management at CIRNAC. This forum will be leveraged to combine collective knowledge and seek consensus on data inclusion approaches in ATRIS to address challenges in ensuring timely data updates to ATRIS (e.g. non-resident groups, and self-identified Indigenous collectives) in support of the legal duty to consult.
Currently engagement activities with Indigenous peoples are also informing the development of new federal guidelines for federal officials to fulfil the Crown's duty to consult Indigenous peoples and accommodate impacts on their rights. This will support the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and provide more clarity on how the government will proceed to ensure an effective and efficient whole-of-government approach to consultation and accommodation. This includes enhanced guidance to federal officials on how to work with other levels of government and proponents and will include best practices on collaborative processes to promote better coordination with provinces and territories.
Based on ongoing feedback received from Indigenous groups, the Program continues to promote (e.g. through training, networks, advice and guidance, etc.) the need to coordinate consultations, including for projects requiring regulatory authorizations or permits.

Current work related to scoping out the work of the crown consultation coordinator function would support coordination long-term however is not expected to be led by the program.
Moving forward ongoing reductions in resourcing and the need to expedite project approvals will place growing pressure on an already lean program and impact the program's ability to best support crown consultations in a timely and effective manner. The need to manage multiple responsibilities will make strategic prioritization essential, with the delivery of updated consultation guidelines playing a key role in reducing pressure on the program by providing greater clarity and consistency in approach.
The Program will also continue to enhance the collection and use of performance data to assess progress towards objectives and inform decision-making.
While short-term limitations may constrain the scope of what can be achieved, the program remains committed and adaptable with a focus on sustaining progress where it is most impactful and aligned with its core responsibilities and the government's commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples.

Action Plan

Recommendations	Actions	Responsible Manager	Planned Start and Completion Dates
1. In conjunction with Indigenous partners, the Program should develop a sustainability plan that enables the Resource Centres and Protocol Agreements holders to have long-term funding. The plan should reduce the administrative burden on Indigenous organizations and ensure flexible terms and conditions that meet their needs.	Prior to the funding for the Federal Initiative on Consultation expiring on March 31, 2024, the Strategic Policy & Partnerships team worked: toward a plan to pursue a sustainable, transparent, national funding approach to foundational capacity for consultation. As such, Budget 2025 provided for "…$10.1 million over three years, starting in 2025-2026, to Crown Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, to continue leading the Federal Initiative on Consultation to support the meaningful participation of Indigenous rights holders in consultation processes throughout the review cycle of national interest projects listed under the Building Canada Act, including through Indigenous-led resource centres and consultation protocols." This funding provides for an additional three years of status quo funding to existing partners and the establishment of three new resource centres. As part of on-going implementation of the Federal Initiative on Consultation, the team will: Work with Indigenous partners to review program reporting requirements in the Terms and Conditions of the Federal Initiative on Consultation, to understand if reporting requirements and funding proposals/application process could improve to be less burdensome. Work with Indigenous partners to develop a sustainability plan to enable long term funding beyond the three year funding identified in Budget 2025.	Director, Strategic Policy and Partnerships	Start Date: April 1, 2024 Completion: March 31, 2027
2. The Program must strengthen and expand the inclusion and engagement of Indigenous partners in the programs' full suite of learning and training of federal public servants.	Indigenous voices are central to CIRNAC delivered training as well as learning events for federal officials on Indigenous consultations. This also includes co-developed and co-delivered learning events with Indigenous peoples. The Training Team, since 2022, has expanded the voices of Indigenous people in the 12hr Duty to Consult training course delivered to federal officials who are consultation practitioners. Included in the modernized training is the introduction of the history of the Crown and Indigenous Relationship presented by various Indigenous experts and knowledge keepers. As part of the best practices section, the monthly training includes a representative from Indigenous communities to provide their perspectives on DTC, expectations of federal consultation practitioners and preferred consultation approaches. In the fall of 2025, an updated course will be delivered, grounded in feedback received from Indigenous participants in focus groups. Further, annual consultation learning events are being co-delivered, and in some cases co-developed, with Indigenous peoples to ensure Indigenous knowledge and perspectives are understood. Pending continued resources, this will continue for any learning event organized in 2025/2026.	Director, Consultation Information	Start Date: June 2022 Pending continued resource. Completion: April, 2026
3. The program should work with Indigenous and federal partners to increase the coordination and streamlining of consultation and engagement activities, in order to reduce the burden on Indigenous partners and to facilitate meaningful consultations. This should include, but not be limited to: tracking and monitoring consultation and engagement related activities across the federal government; identifying duplications of outgoing consultation requests on same projects/issues and notifying federal partners of such overlap; and, developing tools to share data on ongoing federal consultation requests with Indigenous partners.	In light of the 2025 Speech From The Throne and the recent mandate letter of the Prime Minister to all Ministers, the CIRNAC Programs are likely to experience some transformation with the establishment of a Federal Major Projects Office within the Privy Council Office. As well, without funding for these Programs, CIRNAC is not in a position to expand its capacity to increase the coordination and streamline consultation and engagement activities outside of its direct responsibilities. That said, CIRNAC will seek to leverage opportunities (e.g. advice and guidance, training, regional and national networks, etc.) wherever possible to promote the coordination and streamlining of consultation and engagement activities, in order to reduce the burden on Indigenous partners and to facilitate meaningful consultations. This also involves coordination within CIRNAC between the various sectors in which section 35 negotiation and implementation of agreements and claims are underway.	Director, Consultation Information Director, Strategic Policy and Partnerships	Start Date: April 2024 Within CIRNAC coordination and streamlining. Completion: April 2026
4. The Program should work with Indigenous partners to revise the Program's performance measurement indicators to better reflect the communities' on-the-ground realities related to consultation and engagement activities.	Strategic Policy and Partnerships Directorate will work with Indigenous partners to review the quantitative and qualitative data requirement, as part of the program reporting requirements in the Terms and Conditions of Federal Initiative on Consultation, to understand if reporting requirements are achievable, identify any barriers and identify what is missing from their perspective to better reflect the communities on the ground realities to consultation and engagement activities.	Director, Strategic Policy and Partnerships	Start Date: October 9, 2025 Completion: September 30 2026

1. Introduction

The purpose of this evaluation is to examine the program activities of the Consultation and Accommodation program, in accordance with the Five-Year Evaluation Plan 2022-2023 to 2026-2027 for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, and in compliance with the Treasury Board Policy on Results and section 42.1 of the Financial Administration Act.

2. Background

Indigenous Peoples hold rights that are protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Many Supreme Court of Canada decisions (such as the Haida, Taku River, and Mikisew Cree decisions of 2004-2005^{Footnote 2}) have established that the Crown has a legal duty to consult Indigenous Peoples when it contemplates conduct that might impact potential or established Aboriginal^{Footnote 3} or Treaty rights. The Supreme Court has stated that the threshold for triggering the Crown's duty to consult is very low, and that Indigenous Peoples must be given opportunities for meaningful participation in consultations when decisions may impact their rights or interests.

The 4 incremental steps to reconciliation — **Figure 1. From Duty to Consult to Reconciliation**

Figure 1 illustrates how, when properly executed, consultation in the context of the legal duty to consult can support reconciliation through relationship-building with Indigenous peoples. Carrying out meaningful consultation with Indigenous peoples is a critical cornerstone of many larger objectives and initiatives of the Government of Canada.

2.1 Program Overview

In 2007, the Government of Canada launched a plan to address federal departments' and agencies' legal duty to consult with Indigenous peoples. The plan set the foundation for a whole-of-government approach to consultation, with the Department taking on a leadership role to provide tools, training, and guidance to federal officials while providing contribution funding to some Indigenous organizations along with Consultation Protocols.

Since 2008, the Consultation and Accommodation Unit has been managing the Consultation and Accommodation Program, which provides support to federal departments and agencies as they work to fulfill the Crown's legal duty to consult and to build consultation capacity among Indigenous groups. As per GC Infobase, the Program aims to support the departmental result of Indigenous peoples determining their political, economic, social, and cultural development. The Program has four main responsibilities^{Footnote 4}:

Leading the whole-of-government approach to consultation and accommodation;
Providing guidance, advice, information, and tools (including web-based information);
Leading policy work on emerging issues associated with consultation and accommodation; and
Building consultation capacity among Indigenous groups by negotiating and providing funding for consultation tools (Consultation Protocols and Resource Centres).

2.1.1 Program activities and expected outcomes

Figure 2 outlines the relationship between the activities and expected outcomes (refer to Appendix A for the Program logic model).

Linkages between the Program activities and the outcomes they are expected to achieve — **Figure 2. Program activities and their expected outcomes**

The program has two co-equal immediate results: 1) to enhance federal officials' consultation and engagement capacity, and 2) to enhance Indigenous peoples' consultation and engagement capacity. Both are expected to meaningfully reinforce Indigenous peoples' participation in federal Crown consultation and engagement activities, thus contributing to the renewal of nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown, and government-to-government relationships between Canada and Indigenous peoples. Activities geared towards the enhancement of federal officials' consultation capacity are shown in the upper left part of Figure 2. The key tools used are:

The Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information System (ATRIS) is a web-based, geographic information system that helps to locate Indigenous nations, organizations, communities, and groups, and displays information pertaining to their potential or established Aboriginal or Treaty rights. The ATRIS provides access to documents, maps and other information (e.g. links to Indigenous websites, mailing address to community, etc.) that are used to help governments, industrial entities, and others determine their consultation obligations and conduct their consultation research.
The Single Window, implemented in 2021, offers a unique entry point (i.e. an email address) for federal officials to direct their consultation inquiries. These inquiries are responded to by the Program's officials through information stored in the Knowledge Center or by guiding requestors toward subject matter experts. All inquires and responses are tracked in the Knowledge Centre for future reference. The Knowledge Centre is managed as an internal-facing information management system.
The Updated Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfill the Duty to Consult, published in 2011, provides official advice and guidance to federal departments and agencies in determining when the duty to consult may arise and how it may be fulfilled. Budget 2023 proposed $11.4 million over three years, starting in 2023-24, for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) to engage with Indigenous peoples and update the federal guidelines. The Department launched the engagement process in Fall 2023.

Activities geared towards the enhancement of Indigenous peoples' consultation capacity are shown in the upper right part of Figure 2. The two key tools used to that effect, which are funded through funding authorities described in section 2.1.3, are:

Consultation Protocols establish a negotiated framework for how the Crown will seek Indigenous participation in federal consultation processes. The Protocols map out the process by which the federal government will engage, generally by identifying which organization/person to contact, information-sharing protocols, and timelines to be respected.
Consultation Resource Centres are teams (within existing Indigenous organizations that support capacity building for consultation) that provide centralized leadership, support, training, research and activities/services aimed at increasing Indigenous organizations' and nations' ability to effectively and efficiently participate in federal consultation processes. Resource centres have been put in place as a means of flowing capacity support funding to Indigenous groups wanting to provide tools and supports for the communities they represent.

2.1.2 Program Structure

At the start of the evaluation period (2015-16), the Program was under the responsibility of the Treaties and Aboriginal Government Sector. Between 2017 and 2019, there was a series of organizational changes and the Program was moved to the newly created Modern Treaties, Consultation, and Intergovernmental Relations Sector. The Program management remained under the responsibility of Consultation and Accommodation Unit. The current Program structure is illustrated in Figure 3.

Hierarchy of the program organizational structure — **Figure 3. Program organizational structure**

2.1.3 Program Resources

As shown in Table 1, the Program annual expenditures have remained fairly constant over the second half of the evaluation period, at approximately nine (9) million dollars. Fiscal year 2022-23 saw a significant increase to $31 million, in part due to a reprofiled funding to support the implementation of United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples (UNDRIP) ($18.5M). Planned funding is expected to fall back into the $9 million range in 2024-25.

Table 1. Program Expenditures by Fiscal Year
Expenditures (in millions of dollars)
		2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23
Vote 1	Salaries	$3.26	$4.09	$3.41	$3.50	$4.01
Vote 1	O&M	$0.73	$0.50	$0.32	$0.34	$0.32
Vote 10	Grants & Contributions	$5.29	$3.36	$4.45	$5.17	$26.8
Vote 10	Others	$0.03	$0.21	$0.07	$0.10	$-0,08
Total		$9.31	$8.16	$8.26	$9.11	$31.05
Note: Figure as per GC Infobase. Financial details from earlier years were not included to ensure consistency and reliability.

Program funding mostly goes towards Consultation Protocols and Resource Centres and FTEs salary. The contribution funding for the Protocols and Resource Centres is B-based and must be renewed periodically. Between 2017-18 and 2021-22, there were about 30 full-time equivalents employed by the Program. As per the Program page on GC Infobase, the number of full-time-equivalents was increased to 52 in 2023-24 and is expected to stay stable until 2026-27.

The Program has two funding authorities that are shared with other departmental programs^{Footnote 5}. Table 2 provides a breakdown of funding expenditures by fiscal year for each funding authority.

Table 2. Funding Authorities Expenditures by Fiscal Year
Expenditures (in millions of dollars)
	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23
Contribution for the Purpose of Consultation and Policy Development	$4.33	$3.16	$4.45	$5.17	$26.8
Federal Interlocutor's Contribution Program	$0.96	$0.20	$0	$0	$0
Total	$5.29	$3.36	$4.45	$5.17	$26.8

2.1.4 Contextual Considerations

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC)

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was formed in June 2008 to address the legacy of the Residential School system. There are 94 Calls to Action, addressing legacy (child welfare, language and culture, health) and reconciliation (church apologies, missing children and burial information). Call to Action 43 called upon all governments (municipal, provincial, territorial, and federal) in Canada to adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (PDF) (UNDRIP) as a framework for reconciliation, while Call to Action 44 called upon the Government of Canada to develop a national action plan to achieve UNDRIP's goals. Key to this evaluation, Call to Action 57 calls on the governments of Canada to provide education to public servants on the history of Indigenous Peoples, including the history and legacy of residential schools, UNDRIP, Treaties and Indigenous rights, Indigenous law, and Indigenous-Crown relations.

UNDRIP Implementation

The United Nations General Assembly adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007. The declaration contains 46 articles and was developed to recognize and make amends for the injustices suffered by Indigenous peoples around the world throughout history. The Government of Canada endorsed UNDRIP and committed to its implementation in 2016. By June 2021, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act(UNDA) had received Royal Assent. Six months later, Justice Canada launched a consultation process with Indigenous peoples to advance the implementation of UNDA. This process resulted in the 2023-2028 Action Plan (PDF), which outlines a whole-of-government roadmap for advancing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. The action plan is not intended to be a comprehensive or restrictive set of actions, but an evergreen document that can respond to changing priorities over time.

Importance of Land for Indigenous Peoples

For many Indigenous Nations, land is culture. It is critically important for Indigenous Peoples to make decisions for, and have access to, their lands. Indigenous-led movements like Idle No More highlight the continued need for renewed Nation-to-Nation relationships between Indigenous nations and Canada, while movements such as Land Back advocate for the return of Indigenous lands to Indigenous hands. These movements are tied to Supreme Court of Canada's decisions such as Haida, Taku River, and Mikisew Cree, Section 35 rights, the Duty to Consult, and Treaties between Indigenous Nations and Canada, and may provide some insight into the ways Indigenous Peoples are mobilizing to obtain more control over their lands.

Whole-of-Government Approach to Consultation

The 2021 Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations Mandate Letter stresses the importance of continuing "to support Indigenous-led processes for rebuilding and reconstituting their nations and advancing self-determination, and work in partnership on the implementation of the spirit and intent of Treaties, and land claim and self-government agreements with appropriate oversight mechanisms to hold the federal government accountable". CIRNAC collaborates with federal departments and agencies to build, maintain, and strengthen relationships with Indigenous Peoples, provinces, territories, industry and the public. To support an effective and efficient whole-of-government approach to consultation and accommodation, CIRNAC is committed to developing relationships with Indigenous Peoples. The Program is not responsible for leading project-specific consultations or for providing project-specific funding, but it aims to provide guidance and support to the federal entities who do lead consultations with Indigenous partners.

3. Evaluation Methodology

The evaluation focussed on assessing the relevance and performance of the Program activities conducted from April 2015 to March 2023, with particular emphasis on the last five (5) years.

3.1 Data Collection

The evaluation used a mixed-method approach. Figure 4 summarizes the lines of evidence from which the findings/conclusions have been developed, and that inform the recommendations.

6 lines of evidence collected and analyzed by the evaluation team — **Figure 4. Lines of evidence**

Key informant interviews were conducted with 14 Federal Officials (including six departmental officials), with two (2) academics, and with 17 representatives from Indigenous organizations. The two online surveys were targeted, respectively, towards federal officials (91 respondents; response rate of 15.4%) having received duty to consult training in the previous five years, and toward representatives of Indigenous consultation organizations (10; invitations sent to an open list).

3.2 Limitations

Table 3 describes some of the key limitations encountered as part of this evaluation, along with the mitigation strategies.

Table 3. Evaluation Limitations and Mitigation Strategies
Limitations	Mitigation Strategy
Some Indigenous groups were less likely to participate in interviews	The evaluation team extended the conduct period and worked to develop relationships to increase participation rates. Additionally, the evaluation team reached out to various diverse Indigenous groups to interview.
Low awareness of departmental consultation tools among Indigenous interviewees	The evaluation team provided information and resources explaining department tools.
Limited availability of program performance data	The Evaluation Team sought alternative sources of performance data, including the creation of two online surveys targeted at key stakeholders.

The mitigation strategies were important to ensure there was valid and reliable evidence across all lines of evidence to produce grounded findings. The evaluation team is confident that the limitations met were adequately addressed.

3.3 Participatory Approach

In accordance with the Department's commitment to collaborate with Indigenous peoples, and with protocols for ethical research with First Nations, Métis and Inuit, the evaluation team elected to engage with partnering Indigenous organizations through a participatory approach that is inclusive of their knowledge systems, experiences, and aspirations. Indigenous groups have flagged the need to be active participants in the evaluation process, given the potential that relying on the government's perspective might not reflect the operational realities on the ground.

An Evaluation Working Group composed of Indigenous partners representing the Consultation Resource Centres and Consultation Protocol organizations (refer to Appendix B for a list of all organizations invited to take part) was formed to seek input on key phases of the Evaluation. The final Evaluation Working Group included eight (8) representatives from First Nations and Métis organizations, one (1) representative of the Consultation and Accommodation Unit, and as well as one (1) of the Chief Finances, Results and Delivery Officer.

The evaluation team facilitated four (4) reflective sessions with members of the working group to validate the findings and develop recommendations. The working group were actively engaged from the methodology development through to reviewing the final draft report and providing feedback.

4. Evaluation Findings

4.1 Relevance

Finding 1: The Program is aligned with federal consultation and accommodation objectives, but could improve in addressing Indigenous priorities and self-determination.

The Program's objective to enhance meaningful consultation with Indigenous peoples is aligned with broader federal policies and with the government legal obligations. In its Haida decision, the Supreme Court of Canada affirms that the general purpose of the duty to consult is to foster reconciliation (see, for example, p.73, para 32). Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples indicates that "States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with Indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent […]". Measure 68 of the UNDA Action Plan (PDF) states the need to "Strengthen Indigenous peoples' participation in decision-making through an improved whole-of-government approach to consultation and accommodation […] by, [among other things], co-developing consultation arrangements […] that establishes agreed-upon duty to consult and engagement processes [and] by co-developing information on information on Aboriginal and Treaty rights through a system newly co-managed with Indigenous partners […]". In the latest Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations Mandate Letter, the Prime Minister signals his willingness to "Continue to support Indigenous-led processes for […] advancing self-determination, and work in partnership on the implementation of the spirit and intent of treaties, and land claim and self-government agreements with appropriate oversight mechanisms to hold the federal government accountable".

With Consultation Protocols being negotiated with Indigenous groups, many federal officials interviewees observed that the Protocols contribute to self-determination. They insisted that the Protocols, which establish how Indigenous groups wish to be consulted, have the potential to enhance the consultation capacity of Indigenous groups and to contribute to reconciliation. However, Indigenous interviewees expressed reservations, contrasting the conceptual alignment of Protocols with an on-the-ground reality anchored in federal government departments routinely not respecting or acknowledging the existence of the processes outlined in the Protocols or the Protocols themselves, which is not aligned with reconciliation.

These Consultation Protocols don't even hold anyone accountable. We had to push tooth and nail to get a protocol that includes a saying: "you don't really have to listen to this".

(Indigenous interviewee)

There was more agreement about the Consultation Resource Centres, which were perceived as aligned with Indigenous priorities by providing essential support and resources, by facilitating a space for consultation and relationship-building, and by enhancing effective engagement from the government. The ongoing need for the Protocols and Resource Centres has been confirmed by all Indigenous interviewees and is evidenced by a waitlist of 39 Indigenous organizations interested in obtaining Protocols and Resource Centres (see Figure 7).

As shown in Figure 5, Indigenous interviewees and some Federal Officials believe there are many opportunities to improve on the alignment of the Program activities. Most interviewees described the Program funding structure as not meeting community-based Indigenous capacity needs, and not supporting Indigenous self-determination. None of the Indigenous interviewees' organizations were capable of meeting the volume of consultation requests received. All Indigenous interviewees detailed ongoing issues and difficulties in recruiting, training, and retaining staff for consultation purposes. A review of Indigenous partners' annual reports confirm that funding for consultation capacity does not meet the real-life complexities, even when considering out-of-scope project-based funding.

Program design aligned with reconciliation and self-determination and the opportunities to improve alignment — **Figure 5. Program alignment with Reconciliation and Self-Determination**

Indigenous interviewees unanimously agreed they had to seek funding through alternative sources, such as partnership research, to be able to develop the skills, knowledge, and expertise to participate effectively in consultations. They described the constant search for funding and the ongoing uncertainty of the funding under the Contribution for the Purpose of Consultation and Policy Development and the Federal Interlocutor's Contribution Program as exhausting. Furthermore, many stated that program application and reporting requirements place a significant burden on their capacity and are not aligned with self-determination.

Finally, many of the Protocol-holders interviewed saw the non-binding nature of Consultation Protocols, which are negotiated on behalf of the Crown, as problematic and misaligned with reconciliation. They stated that, in general, federal agencies and departments either disregarded or were unaware of the processes agreed upon in the Protocols, an interpretation confirmed by a couple of federal officials interviewed.

Federal Capacity

Through key informant interviews, as well as the review of program documents and data, the evaluation team confirmed there is significant interest and need for the internal consultation training and tools offered by the Program. Between 2015 and 2022, 1,691 federal officials were trained on the duty to consult, and a yearly average of 400 individuals undertook Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information System (ATRIS) training between 2017-18 and 2021-22. Program officials also stated that the waitlist for these two types of training are consistently full, and this is interpreted as a sign of success. Interviewees from other federal entities were more nuanced and described the training as most valuable for junior consultation practitioners.

Many federal officials praised the Program willingness to more thoroughly include Indigenous speakers into the duty to consult training. An review of training material given to the evaluation team supports this statement. The practice was often cited as the most valuable aspect of the training in regards with the alignment with reconciliation. The continued attendance to the Program's many consultation networks similarly confirms a need for a whole-of-government guidance on Consultation and Accommodation, as do the increasing amount of requests for help directed to the Single Window.

Throughout the interviews, many key informants discussed what they considered to be missed opportunities to enhance the relevance of the Program and its alignment with broader federal objectives. The Federal Guidelines have not been updated in more than a decade, leaving many federal officials wanting for clear official guidance on emerging consultation issues such as self-identifying and non-resident Indigenous collectives, UNDA, and accommodation. A three-year process to update the Guidelines was launched in 2023. According to program officials, the duty to consult is a legal obligation and so it is important that federal officials understand the legal nature of the requirement and act in accordance with it. Indigenous interviewees felt that the Program often prioritizes legal compliance over genuine reconciliation and respect for Indigenous governance. Consequently, some feel that the federal government's focus on, and guidance by, legal definitions results in an implementation of consultation and accommodation that favours its own positions, and fosters a power imbalance with Indigenous Peoples. Internal documents indicate the Program recognized that the 2011 Federal Guidelines represent a top-down approach that is not extending beyond the legal obligation to include a relationship-based approach.

"There's oftentimes we're only approached as checkmark".

(Indigenous interviewee)

While recent training materials and internal documents express a willingness to move towards more meaningful engagement, there are concerns about the implementation. Indigenous interviewees raised issues regarding the government's approach to reconciliation, and with the Crown's seemingly little consideration for the sheer volume of consultation requests from the government, noting that each nation's Treaty organizations and governments are working relentlessly to deal with and meet the Crown's requirements. Significant concerns have been raised that consultation processes often serve the interests of the government, rather than those of Indigenous groups. Evidence suggests that lasting colonial impacts are hindering progress towards reconciliation, self-determination, and renewed nation-to-nation relationships.

4.2 Coherence

4.2.1 Internal Coherence

Finding 2: Program activities complement other federal consultation processes, however Indigenous partners continue to experience barriers due to the lack of a strong coordinated approach and respect for consultation capacity.

Through the document review and interviews with federal officials, it was indicated that the Program occupies an important place in the federal system to support the whole-of-government approach to consultation through the provision of guidance, training, and other systems and tools for federal officials. The Program complements other consultation processes in the federal government – such as Self-Governing and Modern Treaty Nations – by providing capacity support for Indigenous and Métis partners who do not already have Consultation Protocols specified.

Over the evaluation period, the Program sought to increase the clarity of the roles and responsibilities of different federal government departments by leading discussions through the Regional and Interdepartmental Networks on Indigenous Consultation and Engagement. However, many interviewees indicated there is limited knowledge and use of the Consultation Protocols and Consultation Resource Centres across the federal government. A majority of Indigenous interviewees felt that the responsibility for educating federal public servants on Consultation Protocols, and on the federal responsibilities under the agreements, often falls to them. They explained how this creates a strain on their limited capacity, which is further aggravated by constant turnover in federal staff and by the ensuing need to educate the new federal public servants. Some Indigenous interviewees also explained how a reliance on personal relations – rather than on the processes agreed upon in their Consultation Protocol – created issues with natural turnover and key contact changes, such as emails going unanswered because they were sent to a former employee's email address.

Despite the fact that Consultation Protocols are being negotiated on behalf of the Crown, few federal officials stated that the Protocols were useful for setting a foundation for their own agreements or establishing a process for consultation for their Department.

"The [Indigenous] Consultation team has spent considerable time educating government regulators, industry proponents, policy makers, Indigenous stakeholder relations, crown corporations and other government officials about the role of [our organization] and the process to consult in a meaningful manner".

(Indigenous interviewee)

There was agreement, among Indigenous and federal official interviewees, about the negative impacts of departmental siloes on the ability to conduct meaningful consultation. The Program, which never leads consultation processes itself, was not directly faulted, but the lack of coordination between departments often resulted in Indigenous organizations being notified multiple times for the same project, further burdening their already limited capacity. A narrow focus on departmental mandates was also described by Indigenous interviewees as a means for federal officials to avoid taking responsibility for finding collaborative solutions to their consultation concerns. As acknowledged in Program policy documents, and in the 2016 Gray's Report on Consultation and Accommodation, a coordinated horizontal approach to consultation would help to alleviate these issues and would contribute to the enhancement of Indigenous consultation capacity.

The Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information Service (ATRIS) was identified by a few federal officials as one way to break down departmental siloes by collecting and overlaying information from multiple departments in one place. Some interviewees expressed concern with the low inclusion of Indigenous perspectives in the ATRIS data, and several Indigenous interviewees did not appreciate the lack of opportunity to represent their nation's history and rights. Access to the ATRIS database is granted on a tiered-system based on individuals holding the appropriate level of security clearance for each tier of the database. This effectively means that Indigenous governments and organizations do not have access to the same data as most federal officials in relation to the data about their individual communities. Furthermore, the Program estimates that 95% of the information on the ATRIS is publicly available and was not able to provide how information is determined to be not accessible by the public^{Footnote 6}. Some Indigenous interviewees described a lack of transparency which undermines the relationship with the government. Program officials have already expressed interest in co-developing information with Indigenous partners in an effort to diversify the sources of the information on which ATRIS relies. The Program is also making incremental efforts to address these concerns, such as creating memorandums of understanding with federal partners for data sharing to support consultation research, and building relationships with Indigenous communities to ensure accurate information is included within the ATRIS system.

Program officials expressed that the Regional and Interdepartmental Networks on Indigenous Consultation and Engagement meet quarterly to raise emerging issues, respond to requests for guidance, provide regionally-tailored guidance, and share best practices among participating departments. Similarly, Senior Consultation Advisors have been recognized by many federal interviewees as playing a key role in regional support for consultation, connecting communities with other Departments and coordinating various networks to discuss about consultation issues. During interviews, most federal officials spoke positively of the Networks as forums to exchange developing information related to consultation and accommodation and generate discussions related to consultation and engagement practices. However, many federal and Indigenous interviewees stated that guidance on accommodation was lacking. The renewal of the Federal Guidelines, which started in 2023-24, is expected to include new accommodation guidance.

4.2.2 External Coherence

Finding 3: Indigenous partners face challenges with navigating relationships between the federal, provincial, and territorial governments.

Another issue, while out-of-scope of the Program's current mandate, was commonly described by most Indigenous interviewees as a major hindrance to their capacity to meaningfully consult with the Crown: the ongoing complexity of navigating consultation processes involving multiple (municipal, provincial, and territorial) orders of government. The challenge was already acknowledged in Gray's Report on Consultation and Accommodation and has been confirmed by numerous interviewees. The stated concerns ranged from a lack of clarity around roles and responsibilities between the different orders of government, to the compartmentalization of issues, to the overlap of consultation requests, and the reluctance of some federal entities to appropriately consult and engage with Indigenous groups whose rights may be impacted by government conduct.

Some Indigenous interviewees shared positive relationship-building practices with municipal, provincial, and territorial officials, such as a willingness to work in partnership and a commitment to maintain ongoing communication when issues related to consultation and engagement arise. However, most Indigenous interviewees acknowledged that they face several challenges with provincial, territorial, or municipal officials. In all cases, Key Informants expressed a desire for greater federal support in navigating relationships with other orders of government. There are currently two tools employed by the Program that can respond to these challenges.

First, five (5) of the Consultation Protocols are Tripartite Agreements^{Footnote 7} that includes a Provincial partner. The evaluation team was not provided with evidence that such Tripartite Agreements have reduced barriers for Indigenous partners navigating relationships with other orders of government. Additionally, the existing agreements were signed 10 years ago without follow-up, suggesting that their effectiveness is limited. Key informants knowledgeable about Tripartite Agreements did not share evidence of improvements in relationships across signatories.

Second, policy documents indicate that the Program works at strengthening relationships with provinces and territories through regular meetings of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group on Indigenous Consultation and Accommodation, as well as through ongoing discussions with provincial consultation practitioners and Senior Consultation Advisors in regional offices. However, the evaluation team was provided with little information or data about the relevance or performance of those collaborative tools.

4.3 Effectiveness

4.3.1 Indigenous Consultation Capacity

Finding 4: Indigenous consultation tools help enhance Indigenous consultation capacity, but significant challenges persist and leave most Indigenous partners insufficiently resourced to engage in meaningful consultation and engagement.

The funding of Indigenous consultation-related activities has been described as a challenge by all Indigenous and federal Key Informants. Consultation Protocols and Resource Centres are seen by many as a relevant part of the solution. Figure 6 illustrates established and requested Consultation Protocols and Resource Centres at the start of 2024.

For Consultation Protocol holders and Consultation Resource Centres, Program funding to support capacity is insufficient to meet demand. Program documents indicate that funding for Consultation Protocols ranged from $60,000 to $200,000 and funding for Resource Centres ranged from $250,000 to $300,000 during the evaluation period. The renewal of the funding requires Indigenous partners to submit detailed annual financial and activity reports.

Successes of Consultation Protocols and Resource Centres

Some Indigenous interviewees noted that Consultation Protocols and Resources Centres are helpful in enabling Indigenous organizations to build relationships with federal officials, creating a physical space and/or process for coordinating consultation activities, setting out a territorial scope for consultation, and establishing a community of practice. Interviewees from smaller communities also explained how funding from Consultation Protocols was (or would be) useful for covering basic operations and contributing to staff payroll.

Indigenous interviewees from communities served by a Consultation Resource Centre were mostly positive about the centre's impact on consultation capacity, especially regarding higher-level issues that would have gone ignored otherwise. Consultation Resource Centres, often integrated within bigger organizations having more capacity and resources, allowed for synergies that helped to produce scientific expertise relevant for Indigenous communities to better understand and situate issues at stake and, therefore, to enhance their capacity for meaningful consultation. Consultation Resource Centres excelled at producing informational content outside of a project-based consultation logic. However, some Indigenous interviewees pointed out that Consultation Resource Centres could not completely substitute their own community's consultation capacity, as their pan-community nature implied that local issues were not always a part of the Resource Centres' scope.

Opportunities of Consultation Protocols and Resource Centres

The successful implementation of Consultation Protocols, in terms of meaningfully enhancing Indigenous capacity, is premised on two elements: 1) appropriate capacity levels are being created and maintained in the Indigenous community, and 2) the consultation processes agreed upon are respected when federal consultation unfolds. Most Indigenous interviewees, and many federal officials, agreed that more could be done in both cases.

Intrsecting cercles showing the diference consultation protocols compliance make to enhance consultation capacity — **Figure 7. Effect of compliance with Consultation Protocols**

For creating and maintaining appropriate capacity funding, most Indigenous interviewees and federal officials recognized that the funding provided through the Program activities was a fraction of what Indigenous groups need to enable meaningful consultation. Two interviewees with Consultation Resource Centres indicated that the Program funding represents less than half of their total operating costs. Indigenous interviewees explained that insufficient foundational funding left them no choice but to search for additional short-term consultation funding through other mechanisms, such as project-specific agreements and funding from other federal entities and/or orders of government. They discussed the challenges associated with having to organize their operations without stable and predictable funding, as well as the strain on resources created by having to request and justify funding on a per-project basis. Most Indigenous partners surveyed revealed that their organization did not have enough time and resources to respond to all consultation/engagement requests received from federal officials. The majority of Indigenous interviewees interviewed concurred.

Many Indigenous interviewees from organizations holding Consultation Protocols also expressed disappointment in the fact that such agreements are not binding to all Crown entities. They explained that other federal Departments' and Agencies' compliance with Consultation Protocols was fairly low. The process laid out in the Protocols tends not to be followed by federal organizations sending consultation requests, resulting in challenges such as the duplication of requests received on a given project, unrealistic timelines, and inappropriate formatting of information transmitted. As illustrated in Figure 7, the capacity enhancement potential of Consultation Protocols hinges on the participation of the federal entities doing the consultation.

"I thought the Consultation Protocols were supposed to be a whole-of-government approach to consultation. […]. From our perspective, […] this is an agreement with the government of Canada, not Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) or Indigenous Services Canada (ISC)".

(Indigenous Knowledge Holder)

In 2023, there were only five (5) Consultation Resources Centres and 12 Consultation Protocols in the country. According to internal Program documents, 26 Consultation Protocols and 11 Resource Centres are currently being co-developed or waiting to be ratified, representing 156 communities. With about 630 First Nations, 53 Inuit communities^{Footnote 8}, and more than 625,000 Métis in Canada, there is a clear opportunity to greatly expand the reach of those consultation tools. Figure 8 illustrates the current geographical repartition of external consultation tools.

Existing Consultation Protocols and Consultation Resource Centres on a map of Canada — **Figure 8. Geographic distribution of Indigenous consultation tools**

4.3.2 Federal Consultation Capacity

Finding 5: The reach of Program activities is commensurate with its whole-of-government mandate and is seen in a favorable light, but a lack of adequate performance data make their effectiveness hard to assess.

Due to the decentralized nature of consultation activities in the Government of Canada, there is a need to enhance a shared understanding of Section 35 of the Constitution Act and, more specifically, around the Crown's legal duty to consult. The Program has been addressing that need through a host of activities that are generally well-received by most federal officials interviewed. Successes and opportunities of these activities are summarized in Figure 11.

Training

Training has been described by most federal interviewees as a cornerstone of the Program's activities. It was presented as an area needing improvements in the Gray's Report on Consultation and Accommodation. The Program offers two main types of training.

The first focuses on the legal underpinnings of consultation, as well as best practices in meeting the duty to consult. Between 2015 and 2022, 1,691 individuals from 37 federal Departments and Agencies were trained, according to data shared by the Program. Senior federal officials interviewed described the training as helpful for junior consultation practitioners, but less so for those already familiar with consultation. Several federal officials had an interest in advanced practitioner-level training going beyond what was described as basic consultation information. The Training Team has recently expanded its learning series to include Fireside Chats for executives, Policy Forums co-presented with Indigenous representatives, and two-hour tailored sessions for advanced practitioners, thus increasing the number of learners to over 3,000 in the FY2023-24. Ninety-four percent (94%) of federal officials surveyed stated they acquired relevant knowledge from the training they received, although many commented that more complex consultation issues were often ignored. Sixty-five percent (65%) agreed they felt well-prepared for their consultation responsibilities because of the training received. An analysis of consultation training material demonstrates an evolution towards an increased inclusion of Indigenous presenters and a reaffirming of the role of consultation in the journey to reconciliation (see Figure 1).

The second type of training is devoted to the Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information System (ATRIS), with about 400 federal officials trained annually since 2017-18. The Program has also overseen many tailored training sessions throughout the evaluation period, as well as short one-on-one ad hoc sessions with users to tackle a specific issue, tool, or topic.

Aside from trainee satisfaction indicated in the evaluation team's survey, few performance data is available to convincingly assess the effectiveness of consultation and ATRIS training. Program officials provided the evaluation team with some pre/post-training data on the duty to consult that was collected during the evaluation period. Upon analysis, the evaluation team determined that the training data was not collected methodically, often with significant gaps where no data was available for training sessions. Additionally, there were no indications that the data had been analyzed or used to inform decision-making on the training during the evaluation period. Internally, the Program interprets the constantly full waitlist to participate in training as a sign of success. However, considering that the public servant departure rate was calculated between 3.6% and 5.3% during the evaluation period, new demands for training might not necessarily translate into increased internal capacity. In any case, a more thorough data collection strategy may help to improve on the strength of training practices and to better identify gaps and opportunities.

Consultation Tools

Federal Guidelines

The Updated Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfill the Duty to Consult were published in 2011. The document review and many Key Informants interviewed recognize that the current version of the Guidelinesoffers a top-down approach that is geared towards fulfilling the duty to consult, rather than moving towards reconciliation. The need for the Guidelines renewal was flagged in the previous evaluation and in Gray's Report on Consultation and Accommodation. In 2023, the Program launched an engagement process related to the renewal of the Guidelines, which is scheduled to take place over three (3) years. There was acknowledgement from Indigenous interviewees and federal officials that policy work from the Program should be co-developed through collaborative mechanisms built on relationships.

The Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information System

Data indicates that the ATRIS landing page has been viewed about 15,000 times annually since 2020-21. There are 913 active ATRIS accounts as of March 2024, with 799 belonging to federal officials. The average time spent on the landing page is three minutes. A majority of federal officials who were interviewed or surveyed were familiar with the ATRIS. Many praised its usefulness as a starting point to gather basic information related to Indigenous groups for a given project. Conversely, there was limited knowledge about the ATRIS amongst Indigenous representatives.

The main successes and opportunities of the Program activities targeted at enhancing the federal government consultation capacity — **Figure 9. Successes and opportunities of internal facing activities**

Two main issues were frequently discussed. First, many federal officials expressed challenges with the tool's ease-of-use. In 2023, the ATRIS underwent a complete interface redesign to implement advanced meta search capabilities. The success of the endeavour will need to be assessed over the coming years. Second, Indigenous interviewees, federal officials, and internal documents agreed that there were persistent accuracy issues with the content of the database. Most also believed the information currently shared through the ATRIS expresses the federal government perspective, which is due to the fact that the database is consolidating more than thirty databases from various federal provenance and that the ATRIS was initially developed to be a federal tool capturing the Crown's consultation knowledge.

If we want Indigenous perspectives [included in the ATRIS], we need to have open government data, so Indigenous experts can look at our existing data and offer their perspective on it. Why do we have no Indigenous perspective on anything? We never created space for it.

(Federal Official)

The Program has indicated, in internal documents and interviews, a willingness to collaborate with Indigenous groups to update the content shared in the ATRIS. However, challenges have been flagged by interviewees in that regard. Some Indigenous interviewees experienced difficulties when trying to have disputed content about their community changed on the ATRIS. Others expressed an openness to contribute to the ATRIS, but wondered how diverging views would be resolved. Ensuring the accuracy and representativeness of the information is of paramount importance to enhancing the federal government consultation capacity.

Single Window and Knowledge Center

The Single Window and Knowledge Centre have been implemented in 2021. Since then, it has seen a steady growth in the volume of inquiries received. The number of inquiries flagged as urgent by the Program has been increasing yearly, from four (4) in 2020-21 to 41 in 2023-24. The service standard set by the program is a five-day turnaround. Data on actual turnaround time or on the most frequent inquiries directed towards the Single Window were not made available to the evaluation team.

Both tools would benefit from being better known across government. The majority of Federal Officials interviewed or surveyed were unfamiliar with them. Those familiar said it was useful to have a designated mechanism to send questions about consultation, and that the responses were usually timely. Program officials described the Knowledge Center as an internal-facing tool, and some Indigenous interviewees and Federal Officials were uncertain about the transparency and/or added value of the tool, other than to address the issue of corporate knowledge retention. Other Indigenous interviewees shared concerns with the prospect of federal officials relying on community-level information being held in the system instead of communicating with them directly.

Support for whole-of-government consultation

The Program has been striving to use its resources strategically in order to offer timely and agile guidance for whole-of-government consultation. Often, inquiries from other federal departments and agencies are presented as urgent and need multifaceted support from the Program's team. As each case is characterized by different contingencies, a one-size-fits-all approach cannot be implemented. Support options range from organizing meetings with relevant officials (and sometimes with officials from other orders of government), providing tailored support documents and training, reviewing consultation processes already engaged by the department/agency, and sometimes facilitating collaboration and engagement with Indigenous partners. As mentioned earlier, a majority of interviewees recognized that federal agencies and departments tended to work in siloes, thus often duplicating the demands placed on limited Indigenous consultation capacity. While not currently within the Program scope, many Federal Officials and Indigenous interviewees stated that the department has the opportunity to take up a "whip" function to coordinate and convene the whole-of-government effort on consultation and engagement.

The Program has three regional partnerships teams located across the country (North, West, and East). They are tasked with leading a whole-of-government approach to consultation and accommodation in their respective regions. Knowledgeable Federal Officials generally praised these networks, but there was few evidence to objectively assess their contribution towards the enhancement of federal consultation capacity.

Finally, some Federal Officials expressed concern about program staff turnover, which was presented as a threat to consultation timelines and corporate knowledge retention. Turnover is a challenge across all of government and the recent addition of the Single Window and the Knowledge Center could lessen the impact to consultation timelines and corporate knowledge.

4.4 Gender-Based Analysis Plus

Finding 6: There is opportunity to better integrate gender-based analysis plus into Program planning, operations, and governance without adding to the reporting burden on Indigenous organizations and communities.

The Updated Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfil the Duty to Consult suggest that horizontal policy objectives such as those related to Gender Equity need to be considered during any interaction between Canada and Indigenous Peoples. The evaluation did not find substantive integration of gender-based analysis plus (GBA Plus) in program planning, operation, and governance. For example, the importance of including Indigenous Elder and youth voices in consultation processes are not explicitly integrated in core training offered by the Program. There is opportunity to integrate GBA Plus in training to encourage federal officials to seek input from rights-holders disproportionately impacted by colonialism and to seek understanding of diverse perspectives, worldviews, and ways of knowing.

In policy documents, the Program acknowledges how colonial governance structures disproportionately impact the participation of Indigenous women, girls, and gender-diverse people in consultation processes. The Program states that the benefits of Consultation Protocols and Consultation Resource Centres are broadly gender-balanced, as they cover regions, nations, and communities as a whole. It suggests a plan of building more structured reporting requirements which include questions to allow space to report how diverse community members are engaged in consultation processes.

Although the Program acknowledges the reporting burden on Indigenous organizations and communities, the plan to collect disaggregated gender-based data may perpetuate the burden without offering explicit benefits that could improve program effectiveness. There is opportunity to shift the focus to how whole-of-government supports moving towards meaningful consultation, which includes measurement of federal GBA Plus contributions to consultation and engagement activities.

4.5 Efficiency and Economy

Finding 7: Funding for Consultation Protocols and Resource Centres is not sustainable and does not meet capacity needs based on the volume and demands. As a result, Indigenous groups are burdened with navigating funding applications and reporting requirement from other sources.

As per Figure 1, consultation is a step in the journey towards the renewal of Nation-to-Nation relationship to have a meaningful relationship. As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Little Salmon/Carmacks decision, the "grand purpose" of section 35 is the "reconciliation of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians in a mutually respectful long-term relationship". In other words, the Program's objective to enable meaningful consultation with Indigenous people can't be a short-term effort. According to most interviewees, the program funding devoted to the meaningful enhancement of Indigenous consultation capacity is unsustainable in three ways. First, because it is not aligned with the depth and breadth of the challenges faced by Indigenous organizations trying to protect their rights. Second, because it does not meet the demand for Indigenous consultation tools. Finally, because it might sunset in the coming years, leaving established Indigenous partners at risk.

[CIRNAC is] forcing nations to negotiate funding directly with proponents. In our view, it is the Crown's duty to consult and it is their responsibility for capacity funding or facilitating the means for engagement.

(Indigenous Knowledge Holder)

As detailed earlier, there is a strong shared sense among Indigenous interviewees that the current Program funding arrangements are insufficient to meet their needs. The foundational funding received through the Program tools (the Consultation Protocols and Resource Centres) are currently covering a small part of Indigenous organizations' needs. They all have to seek more funding through a patchwork of grants, contributions, and project-specific fundings that are at odds with the predictability needed to plan efficiently for the future. While arriving at more wholesome funding practices is not the sole responsibility of the Program, Indigenous interviewees have repeated, time and time again, that their current funding levels were insufficient to meet the voluminous numbers of consultation requests received each year. These capacity issues are compounded by reporting requirements that divest much needed resources into activities that are not directly enhancing the organization's capacity. Worse, Indigenous partners reported that funding application processes often contribute to consultation fatigue. Constant vigilance is required to apply for participation funding, and Indigenous organizations often must apply to multiple programs (within and outside of government) for funding to keep up with consultation demand.

Indigenous science lead for Indigenous Service Canada – where is my [nations'] Indigenous science money? Where is my capacity? How come someone isn't speaking into the process for me? […] Why are nations not being funded for a representative to match these government positions? Disparity in resources provided to government vs nations. […] Moving forward, CIRNAC needs to find a way to fill a bigger envelope.

(Indigenous interviewees)

A review of documents, along with interviews with Indigenous interviewees, demonstrate that the funding provided by the Program is generally seen as not having kept pace with demand, inflation, and natural organizational growth. The waitlist of Indigenous communities and/or group of communities waiting for their own Consultation Protocol and Resource Centre (see Figure 6) also attest that the funding has not kept pace with the demand. As can be seen in Figure 10, from 2015 to 2019, six (6) Consultation Protocols and five (5) Resources Centres were implemented. Since then, only two Consultation Protocols have been ratified (in 2023), while 26 Protocols and 11 Resource Centres have been requested and seven (7) more under negotiation.

Additions to the pool of Consultation Protocols and Consultation Resource Centres between 2015 and 2023 — **Figure 10. Timeline of additions to Consultation Protocols and Resource Centre**

4.5.1 Performance measurement process

Finding 8: There is an opportunity to improve the collection of performance data to better tell the on-the-ground enhancement of Indigenous communities' consultation capacity as well as the story of positive impact of the Program's key activities.

Most federal officials interviewed praised the internal-facing activities as effective. However, few performance data was made available to corroborate these statements. Besides the number of trainees, the Program had no data to provide on ATRIS and to support the extent to which is was helping to enhance the federal consultation capacity. Some pre/post-training data on the duty to consult was shared, but the evaluation team analysis determined that such data was not collected methodically and that there were no indications that it had been analyzed or used to inform decision-making on the training during the evaluation period. One interviewee wondered why the inquiries coming through the Single Window were not leveraged to identify and target some of the most common consultation challenges faced by federal officials. A review of the Program Performance Information Profile supports the interpretation of a lack of consideration given to the collection and use of performance data during the evaluation period. Out of the 12 indicators tracking the outputs and outcomes in 2021-22, ten were flagged as new, and the data for the other two was marked as "unavailable".

Why do we have […] a 10 year gap [in performance data] about [the Program] impact on government operations?

(Federal Official)

There was more ambivalence among interviewees about the impacts of Indigenous consultation tools on Indigenous consultation capacity, especially regarding the Consultation Protocols. Despite the wealth of information submitted by the Indigenous funding recipients through their required annual reports — amount of consultation requests received, their source (provincial, federal, specific Departments, etc.); amount of requests acted on; key activities undertook; key uses of the funding received; budgets, etc. — the evaluation team has seen few evidence to indicate it was leverage by the Program in order to better understand on-the-ground impacts and unfulfilled needs of Indigenous partner organizations.

However, in 2022-23, the Indigenous partners' satisfaction was computed by reviewing annual reports for indications of dissatisfaction. Out of the four (4) public indicators currently tracked by the Program, two are dependent upon these annual reports. The evaluation team noted that the performance indicator regime places significant burden on Indigenous partners to provide disaggregated data rather than seeking data from other federal government entities. Measuring satisfaction of a funding recipient should also be reconsidered from the ethical lens of taking the inequal power dynamics of the funder-recipient relationship into consideration, as well as the historical systemic power structures between the Crown and Indigenous Peoples. As mentioned earlier, the practice also seems not optimally aligned with broader objectives like reconciliation and self-determination.

A suggestion commonly offered by both types of interviewees in regard with performance data was to implement a centralized databased aimed at tracking all consultations happening at the federal level. Many Indigenous interviewees stated such a database would help them to plan better and that it would reduce the amount of overlapping consultation requests received by their organizations. Federal interviewees believed it would help to better coordinate with other Departments. By tracking the amount of consultation requests send by federal entities to a given community and the amount of responses received in return, one could track progression from year-to-year and better inform successes and failures. Data collection processes, if set up to rely on internal partners, would also place the burden of performance tracking upon government shoulders rather than on those of Indigenous partners. Program officials, however, indicated that building such a database was out-of-their scope, and that it was unrealistic.

5. Conclusions

The evaluation team found that the program's resources fall short of what is necessary to address strengthening the core capacity needs of Indigenous partners, limiting Indigenous peoples' ability to meaningfully engage in Crown consultation and engagement. Across the lines of evidence, it was strongly indicated that the funding for the Consultation Resource Centres and Consultation Protocol Agreements are critical to support and facilitate Indigenous consultation capacity. Having said that, it needs to be acknowledged that currently only a small segment of the Indigenous population form coast to coast to coast have access to these tools. Furthermore, Resource Centres are widely seen as a best practice but are still characterized as departmental pilot projects more than 10 years after being created.

The demand for Consultation Protocols has outpaced access. The funding for the Centres and under the Protocol Agreements has not kept pace with inflation and natural organizational growth. Even for larger groups of Indigenous communities, the funding offered through Consultation Protocols is not commensurate to the breadth and depth of the core consultation capacity needs faced by Indigenous communities. Finally, compounding the funding challenges, there is a continued lack and inconsistent compliance from federal entities on the awareness, knowledge and use of the Protocol Agreements and existence of Resource Centres and how consultation and accommodation link to reconciliation.

In conclusion, program provides core capacity funding which provides a starting point to participation in project (big and small) specific consultation and engagement undertaken by over 200 federal government departments and agencies. The core capacity, can be seen as the tree, as one evaluation working group member explained, and the fruits of the tree are project level consultation capacity. The challenge is that you cannot have one without the other and you cannot have capacity if it has not been developed.

Finally, the evaluation found that the data collection by the program was not undertaken in a systematic manner to transparently inform decision-making, to track if and how program activities concretely contribute to progress to measure impact and in some instances created a reporting burden on Indigenous partner. Most significantly, however, the evaluation found that the program does not collect data or report from the perspective of Indigenous partners, including listening to what is occurring at the community level.

6. Recommendations

The recommendations set out below are built on the findings and conclusions of the evaluation and co-created and validated by the evaluation working group. It is recommended that:

In conjunction with Indigenous partners, the Program should develop a sustainability plan that enables the Resource Centres and Protocol Agreements holders to have long-term funding. The plan should reduce the administrative burden on Indigenous organizations and ensure flexible terms and conditions that meet their needs.
The Program should strengthen and expand the inclusion and engagement of Indigenous partners in the Program's full suite of training for federal public servants.
The program should work with Indigenous and federal partners to increase the coordination and streamlining of consultation and engagement activities, in order to reduce the burden on Indigenous partners and to facilitate meaningful consultations. This should include, but not be limited to:
1. tracking and monitoring consultation and engagement related activities across the federal government;
2. identifying duplications of outgoing consultation requests on same projects/issues and notifying federal partners of such overlap; and
3. developing tools to share data on ongoing federal consultation requests with Indigenous partners.
The Program should work with Indigenous partners to revise the Program's performance measurement indicators to better reflect the communities' on-the-ground realities related to consultation and engagement activities.

Appendix A – Consultation and Accommodation Program Logic Model

Logic Model of activities, outputs and outcomes of the Consultation and Accommodation Program

Appendix B – Organizations invited to participate in the Evaluation Working Group

Representatives from the following organizations were invited to take part to the Evaluation Working Group:

Consultation Protocol holders

Mi'kmaq Consultation Unit
The Ndakinna Office
The Nionwentsïo Office
Algonquin Consultation Office
The Métis Nation of Ontario Lands, Resources, and Consultation Branch
The Department of Consultation and Accommodation of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nations
The Métis Nation of Alberta (which also have a Consultation Resource Centre)
The Stó:lō First Nations

Consultation Resource Centres holders

Institut de développement durable des Premières Nations du Québec et du Labrador
Métis Nation of Saskatchewan
File Hills Qu'Appelle Tribal Council
Métis Settlements General Council
Métis Nation of Alberta (which also have a Consultation Protocol)

Footnotes

Footnote 1

As of October 2024, Inuit did not hold a Consultation Resource Centre, even though they requested one.

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2

See The Duty to Consult Indigenous Peoples for a more complete discussion on the origins and evolution through the courts of the duty to consult.

Return to footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3

The term "Aboriginal" is taken from the section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which recognizes and affirm the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of Indigenous peoples. The evaluation team recognize it can be considered offensive.

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Footnote 4

The Major Projects Management Office (MPMPO) was transferred to the accountability of the Senior Director of Consultation and Accommodation in September 2021. Due to the timing of the transfer MPMO it was not included in the evaluation scope.

Return to footnote 4 referrer

Footnote 5

In the course of this evaluation, only the funding associated with the Program is considered.

Return to footnote 5 referrer

Footnote 6

There may be situations in which Indigenous government or organization have requested certain information to not be made public but the program is not able to report on how many requests they have received that fit this rationale.

Return to footnote 6 referrer

Footnote 7

The Mi'kmaq - Prince Edward Island - Canada Consultation Agreement; the Interim Tripartite Agreement on Mi'gmaq Consultation and Accommodation; the Consultation Process Interim Measures Agreement; the Mi'gmag Wolastoqiyik / New Brunswick / Canada Umbrella Agreement; and the Mi'kmaq-Nova Scotia-Canada Consultation Process.

Return to footnote 7 referrer

Footnote 8

As per the Indigenous Peoples Atlas of Canada.

Return to footnote 8 referrer

Did you find what you were looking for?

What was wrong?

I can't find the information

The information is hard to understand

There was an error or something didn't work

Other reason

Please provide more details

You will not receive a reply. Don't include personal information (telephone, email, SIN, financial, medical, or work details).
Maximum 300 characters

Date modified:: 2026-09-18