The passage of Canada’s Bill C-15, more formally known as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, marked a significant shift in how natural resource firms must navigate supply chain operations. After its Royal Assent in June 2020, the legislative framework began reshaping expectations for corporate conduct in regions intersecting with Indigenous lands. For many in the natural resources sector, the adjustment has not been entirely straightforward. Some firms hesitated, unsure of the practical steps needed to demonstrate compliance and respect for Indigenous rights, while others moved swiftly, albeit cautiously, to align procurement and sourcing policies.
A starting point, for those still refining their strategies, is leveraging Crown-Indigenous Relations open data resources. These datasets, which are now far more comprehensive than even five years ago, provide mapped boundaries of Indigenous territories, including treaty lands, reserves, and traditional use areas. The precision of these datasets varies, admittedly, depending on the region and the historical clarity of land agreements. Companies sourcing timber, minerals, or fisheries must map each extraction or collection point against this data. Ideally, this should happen well before any contractual obligations are established with suppliers or subcontractors. Waiting until a later stage introduces unnecessary risk—both reputational and operational.
It’s worth mentioning that while Crown-Indigenous Relations data is a key tool, it is not without limitations. The data may not always reflect overlapping claims, or the nuanced layers of customary use that exist beyond official boundary lines. This creates an inherent ambiguity that companies need to address through direct consultation. It might seem redundant to overlay official data with community consultation, but in practice, this dual approach reduces the likelihood of missteps.
Direct engagement with First Nations communities, though, is not just a regulatory expectation; it is increasingly recognized as a strategic imperative. Consultation before sourcing timber, minerals, or fisheries is no longer a box-ticking exercise but part of broader risk management. The process should begin with identifying the appropriate contact points within the community. This is not always straightforward, as governance structures differ between communities. Some have formal consultation offices, while others may expect initial contact through elected councils or hereditary leadership. The key is approaching each consultation with a mindset of partnership rather than compliance. Companies often underestimate how visible their intentions are to these communities. A rushed or perfunctory consultation can undermine trust in ways that are difficult to repair.
Once consultation processes are in place, documenting the outcomes becomes essential. Here, natural resource companies should consider adopting a standardized reporting format that allows for transparency without disclosing sensitive details. An annual Indigenous supply chain engagement report can serve this function effectively. The report should outline which communities were consulted, the general nature of the discussions, any agreements or memorandums of understanding reached, and steps taken to address community concerns. What should be avoided is a boilerplate report that simply lists engagements without any reflection on outcomes or challenges. Decision-makers, whether in government or within the community, are likely to view such reports as hollow if they fail to convey substance.
In setting up these reports, there’s value in creating templates that prompt internal teams to consider both quantitative and qualitative elements. For instance, tracking the number of consultations held or agreements signed is useful, but not sufficient. Teams should also be encouraged to capture lessons learned—what worked well, what could be improved, and where gaps remain. Interestingly, some firms have found that these reports, initially drafted as internal compliance tools, have evolved into valuable public-facing documents that enhance corporate credibility.
It is also worth reflecting on the internal dynamics within companies that can either support or hinder effective Indigenous engagement. Too often, responsibility for compliance with Bill C-15 principles is delegated to legal teams or external consultants. While their involvement is crucial, operational managers, procurement officers, and even field supervisors must be part of the process. Indigenous rights considerations should not be seen as a legal hurdle but as an integrated component of supply chain governance. This shift in mindset does not happen overnight, of course. It requires sustained effort, training, and—perhaps most critically—leadership commitment.
Some natural resource companies have begun experimenting with digital tools to support these efforts. For example, integrating Indigenous land rights mapping data directly into supply chain management software allows for real-time alerts if planned activities overlap with protected or sensitive areas. These systems are still in their early stages, and they are not foolproof. But their development signals a growing recognition that Indigenous rights considerations must be embedded into operational systems, not tacked on as an afterthought.
One recurring theme in discussions with industry practitioners is the tension between certainty and flexibility. Bill C-15 sets out broad principles, but it leaves room—some would say requires—interpretation at the operational level. This can be uncomfortable territory for companies accustomed to clear rules and procedures. But it is also an opportunity. Companies that engage with Indigenous communities proactively, that listen as much as they inform, and that document their efforts honestly are more likely to navigate this evolving landscape successfully.