The Canada Centre for Mapping and Earth Observation (CCMEO) at Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), in partnership with the Canadian Council on Geomatics (CCOG)
April 25, 2025
Disclaimer
Neither Natural Resources Canada nor any of its employees makes any express or implied warranty or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of the contents of this report. Reference in the report to any specific commercial product, process, service or organization does not necessarily constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation or favouring by Natural Resources Canada. The views and opinions of round table participants expressed in this report do not necessarily state or reflect those of Natural Resources Canada.
This document was prepared or accomplished by TDV Global in their personal capacity. The opinions expressed in this summary do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Natural Resources Canada.
Table of Contents
Executive summary
Purpose
The Round Table on Governance convened as part of a national engagement effort led by the Canada Centre for Mapping and Earth Observation (CCMEO) and the Canadian Council on Geomatics (CCOG) on modernizing Canada’s Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI). Participants from federal, provincial, municipal, Indigenous, academic, and private sector organizations gathered virtually on February 25, 2025 to share their views on challenges and opportunities aligned with the three governance-focused strategic pathways of the United Nations Integrated Geospatial Information Framework (UN-IGIF): 1) Governance and Institutions, 2) Legal and Policy, and 3) Financial.
This round table was one of eight round tables that also explored topics of technology, people, infrastructure, public safety, and strengthening Indigenous participation.
Key insights
Strategic Pathway 1: Governance and institutions
- Geospatial governance structures are fragmented.
- Geospatial professionals (e.g., GIS technicians) often report to leadership with limited geospatial knowledge.
- Traditional, top-down models are no longer sufficient; a federated, service-oriented governance model is needed.
- The Canadian Council on Geomatics (CCOG) is respected but not well-known outside its core group.
- Successful models such as the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers’ reporting structure offer a model for transparent governance.
Strategic Pathway 2: Legal and policy
- Open data policies lack enforcement and are inconsistently applied across governments.
- Indigenous data sovereignty (OCAP® principles – ownership, control, access and possession) is insufficiently recognized in legal frameworks.
- There is no national legal framework tailored to geospatial data governance.
- Regulatory models like NG911 offer examples for embedding mandatory, standardized geospatial coordination among governments at all levels.
Strategic Pathway 3: Financial
- Canada lacks a sustainable, coordinated funding model for SDI development, maintenance, and innovation.
- Existing return-on-investment studies do not reflect today’s digital infrastructure realities or public value creation.
- Data duplication and siloed investments drive unnecessary costs and inefficiencies across jurisdictions.
- Bundling SDI investments into high-visibility initiatives and leveraging public-private partnerships could build more scalable, sustainable funding streams.
Recommended actions
- Update the Canadian Geomatics Study - Natural Resources Canada (last done in 2015).
- Draft a national geospatial governance strategy.
- Develop a legal certification and trust framework.
- Launch public engagement efforts through platforms such as “Let’s Talk Natural Resources”.
Conclusion
Participants in the Round Table on Governance emphasized the urgency of modernizing Canada’s geospatial governance through inclusive, coordinated, and sustainable frameworks. Strategic collaboration and clear leadership were considered key to unlocking the transformative potential of location-based data for Canadian society.
For continued engagement, visit: Let's Talk Natural Resources .
Acknowledgements
This report would not have been possible without the contributions of individuals and organizations who took the time to participate in the round table. We extend our gratitude to the participants from industry, academia, Indigenous organizations, NGOs, and federal, provincial, and municipal governments for their valuable insights into Canada's geospatial infrastructure.
Introduction
CCMEO and CCOG used the global best practice model of the UN-IGIF to assess the current state of Canada’s geospatial data ecosystem - the Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure (CGDI). The CGDI is the collection of geospatial data, and the standards, policies, applications, and governance that facilitate its access, use, integration, and preservation in Canada.
Phase 1 of this exercise included a stocktake exercise using three data collection methods: 1) individual/small group interviews with provincial/territorial and federal geospatial data producers and users; 2) a written inventory/survey to collect more detailed information from interviewee organizations; 3) a research-based desk study undertaken by a third party.
Phase 2 shifted from assessing the current state of the CGDI to gathering diverse perspectives of SDI partners and stakeholders for the modernization and continued evolution of how Canada manages and uses spatial data. Using a round table approach, key stakeholders and partners provided their perspectives on how to make Canada’s geospatial environment more responsive, innovative, and effective for all Canadians. The results for each round table will be considered by the Canadian Council on Geomatics (CCOG) in the development of a collaborative geospatial strategy.
The Round Table on Governance convened on February 25, 2025. Hosted virtually, the session brought together a spectrum of participants from municipalities, private sector companies, academic institutions, Indigenous organizations, as well as federal and provincial governments.
The round table focused on strategic pathways one, two, and three from the United Nations Integrated Geospatial Information Framework (UN-IGIF):
- Governance and Institutions
- Legal and Policy
- Financial Sustainability
Participants reflected on current strengths, surfaced systemic challenges, and discussed proposals for improving the governance of Canada’s SDI. The discussions emphasized better coordination across governments, improving public trust, digital modernization, and inclusive decision-making.
Results
Strategic Pathway 1: Governance and institutions
Key challenges identified
- Decentralized and fragmented structures: Geospatial professionals within some federal organizations operate under a variety of reporting structures, which are often led by non-geospatial experts. This limits strategic alignment and weakens technical governance and accountability.
- Inactive or defunct coordination mechanisms: Participants noted that previous federal coordination bodies (e.g., Inter-Agency Committee on Geomatics (IACG)) are inactive or no longer exist. Past initiatives like the multi-stakeholder GeoAlliance lacked sustainable funding to persist.
- Low visibility of existing bodies: Although the CCOG is active and respected, its work is not well publicized outside its membership, leading to reduced awareness and missed opportunities for broader collaboration.
- Outdated governance models: Traditional, top-down approaches are no longer suitable. The shift toward federated SDIs demands more flexible, service-oriented governance that recognizes diverse user profiles and government mandates.
Solutions and opportunities
- Develop a national geospatial governance strategy: This strategy should clarify roles and responsibilities across all levels of government, partner, and stakeholder groups, with measurable objectives and built-in review cycles.
- Improve institutional communication: Enhance transparency of existing organizations like CCOG by publishing regular updates, creating public-facing dashboards, or issuing annual reports similar to the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM).
- Reinvigorate and formalize the geomatics accord: Update and relaunch the accord to include stronger mechanisms for collaboration, clear commitments, and a shared vision across provinces and territories.
- Promote awareness and public value: Translate technical geospatial terminology into more accessible language and invest in campaigns that link geospatial data to public priorities like emergency response, housing, and the environment.
- Adopt federated and modular governance models: Move toward adaptive, distributed frameworks that allow for sector-specific profiles and decentralized decision-making modelled on food systems or supply chains.
Participant voices
- Federal government participant: “The GIS analysts are all over the country and all report to people who are not necessarily GIS specialists, so the challenge function isn’t there, and so there is a lack of a solid structure within organizations around GIS.”
- Industry participant: “CCOG is very active and great organization. The problem is that we don’t hear what’s going on in CCOG unless we know someone on the committee.”
- Not-for-profit participant: “The governance models do not keep track with changing expectations. When we look at shared data environments or SDIs – in the past, we had a model where you were required to serve data in a certain way. The new expectation: far more targeted services to certain customers.”
- Industry participant: “The timing is perfect; provinces talking about reducing trade barriers within Canada, consuming local/Canadian, etc.”
- Industry participant: “Right now, SDI is too niche/specialized/‘geeky’. This entire thing needs visibility, success, people.”
- Provincial government participant: “Really analogous to food distribution system. We have to look at how food is produced and distributed, and the onus on the producers themselves and distributors – for a parallel with data governance.”
- Municipal government participant: “Sometimes there are ‘too many cooks in the kitchen’ and the information then has to funnel up and back down. Need a place to know the authority/how to share data/where to access data to assemble it together in one true source.”
Strategic Pathway 2: Legal and policy
Key challenges identified
- Lack of enforceability: While open data policies exist, they are inconsistent and unenforced across jurisdictions. Legal frameworks often do not specifically address geospatial data.
- Weak legal mandates: Canada’s Geomatics Accord is seen as an aspirational agreement without legal weight or enforcement mechanisms, limiting its effectiveness.
- Indigenous data sovereignty overlooked: The existing policy environment does not adequately account for OCAP® principles or respect Indigenous communities' right to govern their data.
- Inflexible licensing agreements: Licensing across jurisdictions varies widely, and few agreements address long-term data stewardship or changes in access needs.
Solutions and opportunities
- National geospatial legal and policy working group: Form a multidisciplinary body to coordinate the development of a harmonized legal framework across jurisdictions, sectors, and user communities.
- Develop a legal framework matrix: A national matrix should map existing policies, identify overlaps and gaps, and propose aligned standards for licensing, privacy, access, and intellectual property.
- Launch certification and trust labeling: Create a federal certification or trust badge program for platforms and service providers that meet rigorous interoperability, authority, and reliability standards.
- Mandate geospatial compliance for key programs: Use the success of NG911 (regulated by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)) as a model for mandatory geospatial compliance across federal initiatives.
- Treat indigenous governments as sovereign authorities: Recognize Indigenous governments as equal stakeholders with control over their geospatial assets and governance mechanisms, supporting federated SDIs that respect sovereignty.
- Enable dynamic access control: Include provisions for revoking or adapting data access, particularly in the face of AI or bot misuse, or evolving data ownership contexts.
Participant voices
- Industry participant: “What could be interesting is a certification both on official/federal level that… shows a list of certified, trustable commercial platforms [and] the authoritative truth and layers.”
- Industry participant: “NG911 is so successful – there is a regulatory mandate by the CRTC, backing agreements with local organizations and governments... 911 is universally recognized, and NG911 doesn’t work without geomatics.”
- Provincial government participant: “We do have a lot of open data policies in Canada, but no legal framework to reinforce. For instance, in NWT, we have collected a lot of LiDAR – but as a private citizen, I don’t have any recourse to get that data and ensure that policy is followed.”
- Not-for-profit participant: “When you think about access to data, you need to think about how to withdraw access. So, whenever you design a policy framework around these aspects, keep in mind the mechanisms to close or remove access if needed, if situations arise – especially with machines as well as human clients.”
- All participants: Emphasized Indigenous leadership and community trust as prerequisites for effective inclusion.
Strategic Pathway 3: Financial sustainability
Key challenges identified
- No centralized funding model: Funding for geospatial initiatives remains siloed across federal, provincial, and municipal agencies, with no overarching coordination.
- ROI is undermined by outdated studies: Current economic impact assessments fail to capture the modern value proposition of geospatial infrastructure.
- Limited public support: Geospatial infrastructure is often overshadowed in funding competitions by more visible or immediate public service areas like health or emergency response.
- Complexity of multi-jurisdictional cost sharing: Financial arrangements between governments and private partners are often difficult to operationalize due to administrative or legal restrictions.
Solutions and opportunities
- Develop a sustainable business model for SDI: Shift from project-based funding to a longer-term business model that supports maintenance, innovation, and service delivery.
- Create a central financial tracking system: Standardize reporting, budget allocation, and ROI analysis across jurisdictions for SDI-related investments.
- Leverage Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs): Identify high-value data services that can be co-developed and financed through shared risk and return models.
- Align funding with public mandates: Bundle SDI funding into initiatives with strong public resonance, such as climate monitoring, emergency services, and wildfire detection.
- Pilot federated SDI in underserved jurisdictions: Build demonstration projects in provinces or regions without existing SDI infrastructure to show benefits and gain traction.
Participant voices
- Federal government participant: “We’ve done the ROI studies to try to solve and show the importance of funding…”
- Industry participant: “Tying it (SDI) to something that is easily understood (e.g., NG911, wildfire satellite programs, etc.) and effective/bundling could definitely be a good strategy.”
- Industry participant: “Money is tough to cohabit with government organizations sometimes.”
- Municipal government participant: “Reducing duplications of data as a soft cost savings approach.”
Cross-cutting themes
Communication and visibility
- Showcasing real-world impact: Communicate the real-world impact of geospatial data in relatable, accessible language.
- Fostering cross-sector collaboration: Encourage more frequent, cross-sector collaboration and learning between jurisdictions and communities.
- Raising public awareness: Elevate public awareness of CCOG and other key geospatial coordination bodies.
Indigenous data governance
- Equal partnership in governance: Indigenous communities must be equal partners in SDI governance.
- Embedding OCAP® principles: Policies must reflect Indigenous ownership, control, access, and possession of data.
- Supporting sovereign data models: Federated data environments are essential to respect sovereignty.
Regulatory mandates as enablers
- NG911 as a model: NG911 was repeatedly cited as an example of a successful, enforceable initiative that elevated geospatial’s profile.
- Clarifying regulatory frameworks: Strong regulation enables innovation, investment, and structured growth for geospatial systems.
Next steps
Suggested actions
- Canadian Geomatics Study – Natural Resources Canada update: Refresh the 2015 environmental scan with current use cases, technologies, and stakeholders’ needs.
- Governance strategy development: Draft a national governance strategy informed by this round table and future engagements.
- Explore certification models: Assess feasibility, criteria, and oversight for platform certification programs.
- Public engagement: Use platforms like "Let’s Talk Natural Resources" to gather more stories and strengthen the case for spatial data modernization.
Open questions raised by round table participants
- Who leads the design and implementation of the governance strategy?
- What entity oversees the certification or compliance framework?
- How should open data rights be balanced with AI/bot access or misuse?
- What frameworks will enable co-development of Indigenous SDI models?
Conclusion
Participants in the Round Table on Governance affirmed a collective vision for a more coherent, inclusive, and sustainable approach to managing Canada’s geospatial information. They called for structural reform, policy modernization, and sustained financial investment. Success will depend on broad collaboration, strong leadership, and a recognition that geospatial data is critical to Canada’s economic, environmental, and societal resilience.
For continued engagement, visit: Let's Talk Natural Resources.