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
Objective
The Round Table on Governance, Technology, and People convened on March 20, 2025, as part of a collaborative initiative co-led by the Canada Centre for Mapping and Earth Observation (CCMEO) and the Canadian Council on Geomatics (CCOG) to seek views from partners and stakeholders on how to modernize and strengthen Canada’s Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI). Hosted virtually, the purpose of the round table was to gather diverse perspectives on the challenges, opportunities and innovations associated with the evolution of the Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure (CGDI). Discussions focused on interrelated strategic pathways of the United Nations Integrated Geospatial Information Framework (UN-IGIF): Governance and Institutions, Technology, and People.
Key insights
Round table participants identified the following strengths, areas for improvement, and recommendations:
Strategic pathways 1-3: Governance and institutions, legal and policy, financial
- Data producers, aggregators and users lack clear coordination, leading to inefficiencies in the geospatial ecosystem.
- Despite its strategic importance for data management, geomatics remains undervalued in hierarchical structures.
- A national strategy and formal roles, such as a Chief Geospatial Data Officer, are needed to structure and strengthen governance.
- Better communicating the benefits of data governance and encouraging the pooling of efforts are needed to maximize the collective impact.
Strategic pathways 4-6: Data, innovation, standards
- The lack of consistent open policies limits equitable access and reuse of geospatial data.
- Disparate metadata across jurisdictions hinder interoperability and discoverability of data sets.
- OCAP® principles must be systematically integrated into data governance and sharing practices.
- Common standards, certification mechanisms and more consistent licensing are needed to support technological innovation.
Strategic pathways 7-9: Partnerships, capacity and education, communications and engagement
- The lack of a centralized funding model for the CGDI limits the sustainability of human and technical capacity in geomatics.
- The decline in recognition of the field is detrimental to the attractiveness of careers in geomatics and is holding back the next generation of professionals.
- It is difficult for decision-makers to justify the invisible costs of maintaining digital infrastructure without a clear return on investment model.
- Integrating the geospatial dimension into projects visible to the public and stimulating public-private partnerships is needed to diversify and secure financing.
Proposed actions
- Launch the drafting of a national geospatial governance strategy.
- Assess the feasibility of a pan-Canadian professional certification.
- Develop a national metadata strategy.
- Establish a sustainable funding model for the CGDI.
- Create a clear and coherent legal framework for compliance and licensing.
- Promote equitable Indigenous participation in data governance.
Conclusion
Participants in the Round Table on Governance, Technology and People highlighted the urgent need for coordinated and inclusive reform of geospatial governance in Canada. They stressed the importance of creating legal and strategic structures to anchor the geospatial ecosystem in current and future realities.
For more information, see: 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 are using the United Nations Integrated Geospatial Information Framework (UN-IGIF) global best practices model as a framework for assessing the current state, and for planning the future of, Canada’s geospatial data ecosystem—the Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure (CGDI). The CGDI is the collection of geospatial data, standards, policies, applications and governance mechanisms that facilitate its access, use, integration and preservation in Canada.
Phase 1 entailed a stock-take exercise using three data collection methods: 1) individual/small-group interviews with geospatial data producers and users from provincial, territorial and federal governments; 2) a written inventory/survey to gather more detailed information from the organizations interviewed; 3) a research-based desks study conducted by an independent third party.
Phase 2 shifted from assessing the CGDI to gathering diverse perspectives to help guide the modernization and evolution of spatial data management and use in Canada. Through a round-table approach, partners and stakeholders were given the opportunity to help shape Canada’s geospatial future so that it is more responsive, innovative and effective for all Canadians. The results of the round tables will be reviewed by the CCOG to inform the development of a collaborative geospatial strategy.
This Round Table on Governance, Technology, and People was held virtually on March 20, 2025. The main objective was for participants to explore ways to make Canada’s SDI more collaborative, inclusive and responsive to current realities.
Discussions covered the nine strategic pathways of the UN-IGIF framework, grouped by the themes of: Governance and Institutions, Technology, and People. Participants represented the federal government, provinces/territories (notably Quebec), municipalities, academic institutions and private-sector professionals. The following sections provide details on the challenges, solutions, opportunities, and thoughts of round table participants.
Results
Strategic Pathways 1-3: Governance and institutions, legal and policy, financial
Issues raised
- Dispersed producers: Multiple data producers without resource pooling (e.g., ministère des Ressources naturelles et des forêts du Québec).
- Poorly defined roles: Unclear roles between data producers, aggregators and users.
- Low valuation: Low visibility of the benefits of data governance.
- Organizational fragmentation: Excessive organizational and administrative fragmentation.
- Lack of recognition: Lack of recognition of geomatics in hierarchical structures.
Proposed solutions
- National strategy: Develop a national geospatial governance strategy.
- Formal leadership: Create official roles such as Chief Geospatial Data Officer.
- Horizontal co-management: Focus on horizontal co-management rather than bottom-up structures.
- Simplified communication: Simplify language to better communicate added value to partners.
- Pooling efforts: Encourage efficiency and avoid duplication.
Voice of participants
- Municipal government participant: “We should be promoting something ordinary, rather than waiting to have something perfect.”
Strategic Pathways 4-6: Data, innovation, standards
Issues raised
- Non-standardized access: Open data access policies are poorly standardized and applied.
- Mismatched metadata: Metadata standards vary from one jurisdiction to another.
- Insufficient sovereignty: The principles of Indigenous data sovereignty (OCAP®) are not systematically respected.
- Inconsistent licensing: Licensing systems lack consistency.
Proposed solutions
- Working group: Establish an intergovernmental legal working group.
- Legal matrix: Establish a matrix of provincial and territorial/federal legal frameworks.
- Platform certification: Establish clear enforcement mechanisms and certification of reliable platforms.
- Harmonization of standards: Work on harmonizing standards (e.g., NG911 as a model).
Voice of participants
- Private sector participant: “People are confused about what standards to adopt. National certification would help standardization.”
Strategic pathways 7-9: People
Issues raised
- Lack of centralized funding: No centralized funding model for the CGDI.
- Perceived value down: Decreased perception of value since the adoption of open data.
- Return on investment: Return on investment difficult for decision-makers to demonstrate.
- Invisible costs: Metadata and infrastructure maintenance are costly and invisible to users.
Proposed solutions
- Dedicated digital investment: Allocate a fixed percentage of infrastructure projects to the digital component (e.g., 1% digital).
- Sustainable business model: Develop a sustainable business model for data production and management.
- Visibility of investments: Integrate investments into publicly visible projects (emergency services, climate).
- Public-private partnerships: Encourage public-private partnerships to diversify funding sources.
Voice of participants
- Private sector participant: “It’s like the chicken and the egg: you have to be attractive to get young people to graduate, but you have to have people to be attractive. […] Geomatics doesn’t have anyone.”
Cross-cutting themes
Communication and visibility
- Valuation of benefits: Need to better structure the discourse around the public benefits of geospatial data.
- Single access point: Lack of a single point of contact or central portal for geospatial data.
- Intergenerational dialogue: Difficulty in maintaining intergenerational communication between technical and communications teams.
Education and the next generation
- Declining programs: Closure of college geomatics programs (e.g., Fleming College).
- Foreign student dependency: Heavy reliance on foreign students.
- Professional recognition: Lack of official recognition of professional credentials.
- Proposals for certification: Proposals for certification of GIS managers and aggregators.
Sovereignty and scale
- Redundant structures: Problem with duplication of structures (municipal, provincial/territorial, federal).
- Clarification of responsibilities: Need to clearly define at what scale certain responsibilities are to be managed.
- Challenge of attractiveness: We need to be attractive to train the next generation, but we need the next generation to be attractive.
Next steps
Proposed actions
- Launch the drafting of a national geospatial governance strategy.
- Assess the feasibility of a pan-Canadian professional certification.
- Develop a national metadata strategy.
- Establish a sustainable funding model for the CGDI.
- Create a clear and coherent legal framework for compliance and licensing.
- Promote equitable Indigenous participation in data governance.
Open questions
- Who should be responsible for developing the national strategy?
- Which body should oversee a certification system?
- How can free open data be reconciled with financial sustainability?
- How can intergovernmental and intersectoral responsibilities be harmonized?
Conclusion
Participants in the Round Table on Governance, Technology and People highlighted the urgent need for coordinated and inclusive reform of geospatial governance in Canada. The challenges they identified are not technological, but relate to coordination, professional recognition and financial sustainability. Participants stressed the importance of creating legal and strategic structures to anchor the geospatial ecosystem in current and future realities.
Continued stakeholder engagement through participatory tools such as Let’s Talk Natural Resources will be critical to the success of the next phase of development: Let's Talk Natural Resources.