Let’s Talk – Proposed Indigenous Ministerial Arrangements Regulations

Share Let’s Talk – Proposed Indigenous Ministerial Arrangements Regulations on Facebook Share Let’s Talk – Proposed Indigenous Ministerial Arrangements Regulations on Twitter Share Let’s Talk – Proposed Indigenous Ministerial Arrangements Regulations on Linkedin Email Let’s Talk – Proposed Indigenous Ministerial Arrangements Regulations link

About this engagement

The Canadian Energy Regulator Act (CERA) provides the possibility, under sections 77 and 78, of negotiating Arrangements between the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and Indigenous governing bodies (IGBs) if enabling regulations come into force. Should an Arrangement be reached, there is the potential for powers, duties and functions with respect to matters regulated under the CERA, as provided in the proposed regulations, to be performed by IGBs. This could include a role for an IGB in relation to the Canada Energy Regulator’s (CER) regulated infrastructure such as pipelines and power lines within federal jurisdiction.

The

About this engagement

The Canadian Energy Regulator Act (CERA) provides the possibility, under sections 77 and 78, of negotiating Arrangements between the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and Indigenous governing bodies (IGBs) if enabling regulations come into force. Should an Arrangement be reached, there is the potential for powers, duties and functions with respect to matters regulated under the CERA, as provided in the proposed regulations, to be performed by IGBs. This could include a role for an IGB in relation to the Canada Energy Regulator’s (CER) regulated infrastructure such as pipelines and power lines within federal jurisdiction.

The proposed regulations aim to advance reconciliation and align with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, specifically Action Plan Measure Shared Priority 34, which calls for enhanced Indigenous participation in federal regulatory processes under the CERA.

Following engagements with Indigenous groups between April 2024 and March 2025, NRCan developed a What We Heard Report outlining key themes that became the focus of a discussion paper (below). The discussion paper aims to open a conversation and to seek feedback to inform the development of the proposed regulations.

Indigenous groups, stakeholders, and interested parties are encouraged to participate in upcoming engagements and/or submit written feedback on the discussion paper until March 31, 2026.

We want to hear from you

The proposed IMARs will be developed in collaboration with Indigenous groups and with input from stakeholders and interested parties.

You are invited to provide feedback on the discussion paper, including by responding to the discussion questions within it. Feedback can be submitted to NRCan through:

  1. E-mail (imar-rama@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca)
  2. Uploading a submission below
  3. Attending an IMARs engagement session (schedule and registration information can be found here)

Feedback can be submitted until March 31, 2026.

The funding application deadline for the IMARs Indigenous Participant Funding Program has passed. If you have any questions, please contact the IMARs team at imar-rama@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca.

Information gathered during Phase 2 will inform the development of the proposed regulations.

At the end of Phase 2, NRCan will compile all the feedback received into a What We Heard Report for 2025-2026 and move to Phase 3 - developing a Regulatory Proposal for the proposed IMARs.

Privacy Notice Statement

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) is subject to the Privacy Act and is committed to protecting the privacy rights of individuals and safeguarding the personal information under its control.  

Share your views

NRCan is seeking feedback on the IMARs Discussion Paper from Indigenous groups, stakeholders, the public, and other levels of government using the Let’s Talk Natural Resources platform. To provide a written submission on IMARs, you will need to provide your name, email address, and phone number. Please note that the submission you provide on the Let’s Talk Natural Resources platform should not contain any sensitive information and please exercise caution when providing comments to protect your privacy and the privacy of others. All comments submitted will be reviewed prior to posting to ensure that any content that identifies a third party or involves the use of inappropriate language/behavior will be removed. No personal information will be posted besides your name and/or the name of organization providing the submission.

NRCan will also be summarizing the collected information in a What We Heard Report that will be posted online in an anonymous and aggregated format. The collection, use, disclosure and retention of personal information by NRCan is authorized under the Natural Resources Act and in accordance with the following personal information banks: Outreach Communications (PSU 938) and Public Communications (PSU 914), which are detailed on Info Source.

Individuals have the right to file a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada regarding the institution’s handling of the individual’s personal information. For more information you can visit their website at www.priv.gc.ca. For inquiries concerning the treatment of personal information in the custody of NRCan, or for access to their personal information pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act and Access to Information Act, individuals may contact NRCan’s Access to Information and Privacy Office at 580 Booth Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0E8 or by email at privacy-protectiondelavieprivee@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca

  • Upload a submission

    **Submissions can be uploaded below the discussion questions**

    Discussion questions

    What is an Indigenous governing body?

    1. What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of each of the options presented above (national, regional or project-based)?
      • How could the options address considerations presented in this section?
      • How could national, regional or project-based arrangements best manage the issue of overlapping rights?

    What could an Indigenous governing body be responsible for under an Arrangement?

    1. In the context of the proposed regulations, what types of regulatory authority would be of interest for an IGB to undertake? 
    2. What types of regulatory authority do you think would be better suited to remain under the CER’s authority and/or could be more successfully implemented under a model of shared execution between the CER and the IGB, why?
    3. There are some PDFs in the CERA that carry higher legal risks and resourcing requirements to exercise. Could a model that proposes shared regulatory oversight between an IGB and the CER help alleviate these aspects of implementing an Arrangement, why or why not?
    4. What guidance or mechanisms could be used to address perceived, potential or actual conflicts of interest for IGBs?
      • Is there anything else that should be consider for addressing a perceived, potential or actual conflict of interest for an IGB?

    How do we build capacity?

    1. In what way should capacity be provided to ensure that an IGB can adequately enter into an Arrangement and carry out the terms of that Arrangement?

    How could an Arrangement work?

    1. How could an IGB’s authority to represent rights holders be verified?
      • Who should be involved in the verification process of an IGB (e.g., representatives from Canada, impacted Indigenous groups, impartial third parties) and what role should they play?
      • What type of documentation could be used in the verification process?
    2. Are there specific terms, such as the terms proposed in the section “Negotiating the contents of the Arrangement,” that should be required for all Arrangements?
      • Specific PDFs under the CERA have set timelines that the CER is bound by. How can the negotiation process balance these requirements while being respectful of Indigenous values, knowledge, and laws?
    3. How could an IGB be supported during implementation in the first few years of an Arrangement or as responsibilities increase?
    4. Some PDFs under the CERA could be exercised on private land; how could an IGB, the CER, proponents, landowners, and other impacted groups work together to maintain respectful access to private land?
    5. How would a 5-year evaluation/review cycle support the long-term implementation of an Arrangement?
    6. What mechanisms could be put in place to enable IGBs, stakeholders, Indigenous groups and interested parties to provide feedback on an Arrangement?

    What are the options for developing regulations?

    1. Would a phased approach to Arrangements be of interest to Indigenous groups and stakeholders?
    2. What types of PDFs are of interest for initial phases of the proposed regulations, if a phased approach was taken?
    UPLOAD A FILE
    Share Upload a submission on Facebook Share Upload a submission on Twitter Share Upload a submission on Linkedin Email Upload a submission link
Page published: 28 Jan 2026, 08:33 AM