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 Infrastructure convened virtually on March 12, 2025, as part of a collaborative initiative led by the Canada Centre for Mapping and Earth Observation (CCMEO) and the Canadian Council on Geomatics (CCOG) to modernize Canada’s Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) in collaboration with partners. Using the United Nations Integrated Geospatial Information Framework (UN-IGIF) as a guiding lens, the session aimed to bring together municipal, provincial, federal, Indigenous, academic, and private sector voices to examine barriers and opportunities to strengthen SDI in support of infrastructure planning, risk reduction, and community resilience.
Participants focused on two areas: Communities and Critical Infrastructure.
This round table was one of eight round tables that also explored topics of governance, technology, people, public safety, and strengthening Indigenous participation.
Key insights
Round table participants identified the following strengths, areas for improvement, and recommendations:
1. Communities
- Communities use geospatial data to guide planning decisions around climate resilience, green infrastructure, and energy modelling.
- Significant barriers remain in capacity, access, and trust—particularly for Indigenous and northern communities.
- Opportunities exist to support local innovation and ensure Indigenous data governance through OCAP® (Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession)-aligned approaches.
2. Critical infrastructure
- Critical infrastructure definitions vary across jurisdictions, creating coordination challenges.
- New tools and datasets (e.g., Geospatial Building Information Modeling (BIM), Flood Hazard Identification and Mapping Program (FHIMP), Bridge Condition Index (BCI)) offer potential but require better integration.
- Climate adaptation requires national-level hazard mapping and real-time infrastructure monitoring.
Recommended actions
- Promote national geospatial standards across jurisdictions and systems (e.g., Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and BIM, etc.) to reduce duplication and improve infrastructure planning and management.
- Strengthen respectful data sharing with Indigenous communities by embedding Indigenous data principles (e.g., OCAP®) and protocols in infrastructure co-initiatives.
- Provide tools, training, and licensing support to small, rural, and northern communities to enable full participation in geospatial infrastructure initiatives.
- Invest in geospatial tools and data models to assess vulnerabilities (e.g., flood, wildfire, etc.) and inform resilient infrastructure design and emergency preparedness.
- Conduct targeted follow-up engagements to explore topics raised in this round table, such as digital twin integration, Indigenous-led geomatics capacity, and coordinated national hazard mapping.
Conclusion
Participants in the Round Table on Infrastructure highlighted the critical role of geospatial data in building resilient, inclusive communities. They recognized ongoing technical and institutional challenges but emphasized the need for collaboration, Indigenous leadership, standardized data practices, and modernized digital infrastructure to drive meaningful progress across Canada.
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 are using the global best practice model of the UN-IGIF as a framework for assessing 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 entailed a stock-take 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 CGDI to gathering diverse perspectives to help shape the modernization and evolution of how Canada manages and uses spatial data. Using a round table approach, key stakeholders and partners were invited to share their perspectives to help guide Canada’s geospatial future to make it 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 Infrastructure convened on March 21, 2025. Hosted virtually, this round table invited stakeholders and partners to provide their perspectives on challenges and opportunities surrounding the use of geospatial data as it pertains to infrastructure. The goal was to support collaborative governance and strategic alignment across government levels, Indigenous organizations, industry, and academia.
Participants represented a wide range of expertise in public safety, municipal and Indigenous planning, academic research, and geospatial industry.
The round table focused on two major topics:
- Communities: Exploring how geospatial tools can support sustainable and equitable local development, from housing and green infrastructure to emergency response and climate adaptation.
- Critical infrastructure: Investigating how geospatial data can improve infrastructure risk assessment, monitoring, and decision-making for assets essential to Canadian wellbeing and safety.
Participants identified systemic challenges and highlighted tangible opportunities for enhancing the role of geospatial data in infrastructure development, resilience planning, and collaborative decision-making. The following sections provide details on the challenges, solutions, opportunities, and thoughts of round table participants on each of these.
Results
Topic 1: Communities
Key challenges identified
- Data access: Limited access to high-quality geospatial data and advanced analytical tools in many small and Indigenous communities restricts their ability to participate in evidence-based infrastructure planning.
- Trust issues: Mistrust around data sharing is common, especially among Indigenous organizations, due to concerns about how data will be used, shared, or commercialized.
- Usability gap: Translating technical geospatial datasets into insights that are understandable and actionable at the local decision-making level remains a barrier to widespread adoption.
Solutions and opportunities
- Secure platforms: The use of secure platforms like ArcGIS GeoBIM enables 3D mapping both above and below ground while enforcing selective sharing protocols. This supports transparent decision-making without compromising sensitive information.
- Municipal models: Municipal projects, such as those in Moncton and Kelowna, demonstrate how GIS is used for floodplain mapping, optimizing recreational planning, and energy modelling. These examples serve as potential models for replication.
- Data sovereignty: By applying OCAP® principles—ownership, control, access, and possession—Indigenous communities can implement data governance protocols that foster trust and empower local use of geospatial tools.
- Peer collaboration: Peer partnerships between Indigenous communities and municipalities present an opportunity for mutual learning, capacity development, and co-design of solutions.
Participant voices
- Municipal government participant: “At (the) City of Moncton, we were looking at floodplain analysis to put restrictions on building houses… trying to reduce the amount of non-permeable surfaces in neighbourhoods. Lots of things to do.”
- Municipal government participant: “We built an energy model on an R&D basis… we’ve done some validation testing to assess accuracy. Turns out the model isn’t accurate – so now we’re looking at how to leverage data for the models. We are also using a bottom-up engineering geospatial approach… to improve the geospatial resolution and granularity on type.”
- Indigenous community participant: “There seems to be reluctance sometimes for departments to share. And from an Indigenous perspective, there is distrust in what people do with information. So, we had to implement protocols to make sure data are safe and that OCAP® principles are followed. One platform is the GeoB IM app offered through Esri – we can ensure that the data is shared only for decision-making purposes.”
- Federal government participant: “I work a lot with Indigenous communities, especially in the North. I find they sometimes don’t have the technology or capacity to create mapping. We supplement with information… some have their own geomatics systems and even ask for more in-depth analysis – like cumulative effects.”
Topic 2: Critical infrastructure
Key challenges identified
- Critical infrastructure definitions: A lack of consensus on what constitutes critical infrastructure creates inconsistencies in how infrastructure is prioritized, protected, and funded across different jurisdictions.
- Vulnerability assessment gaps: Infrastructure vulnerability assessments, particularly for assets like bridges, are often fragmented and lack integration into national hazard planning frameworks.
- Data accessibility issues: Many datasets relevant to infrastructure resilience (e.g., topographic, flood, risk maps, etc.) are siloed, inconsistently licensed, or inaccessible, hampering timely and comprehensive analysis.
Solutions and opportunities
- Foundational risk data: Datasets like the Flood Hazard Identification and Mapping Program (FHIMP) and the Federally Identified Flood Risk Areas (FIFRA) provide foundational data for climate risk mapping.
- Predictive maintenance tools: Emerging tools, such as the Bridge Condition Index (BCI) and remote sensing technologies, enable condition assessments of critical infrastructure, supporting predictive maintenance and investment prioritization.
- Sovereign data protection: Sovereign data infrastructure, including domestic cloud environments and AI partnerships (e.g., TELUS-NVIDIA Sovereign AI Factory), are emerging as essential to protect sensitive data and ensure national resilience.
- Funding alignment opportunity: Aligning public funding programs with geospatial standards could help scale hazard-resilient projects across diverse geographies.
Participant voices
- Federal government participant: “Canada’s critical infrastructure is defined as the systems, facilities, technologies, services, etc., essential to the well-being of Canadians and the Government of Canada. We may not even have the same concept – the word ‘critical’ is hard to define; it depends on the context.”
- Not-for-profit participant: “Our data infrastructure is so key now. More than ever. Sovereign data infrastructure refers to the comprehensive system of data centres, cloud services, networks, and frameworks that allow a country to maintain control over all its data. Establishing Canadian data sovereignty will require a comprehensive, coordinated approach involving both public and private sectors.”
- Federal government participant: “The recipients – municipalities, First Nations, etc. – they use [geospatial data] to design their projects to support sustainable and resilient communities. We sometimes need to report, but we don’t use it in our day-to-day activities. But it’s there, in the background.”
- Federal government participant: “With Northern communities – particularly in Yukon – the program standard coordinate system (CSRS-UTM-20N-Lat/Long) is insufficient. They prefer to use GCS-WGS-1984. The reality in the North is quite different from other provinces. They don’t use the same coordinate system.”
- Industry participant: “Infrastructure data, when in construction – it’s often on paper or in Computer-Aided Design (CAD). Neither of those have coordinates. Contractors should be forced to provide digital drawings. Then you have to do mapping. Within BIM, there are five levels of detail – and it’s hard to jump from one to the other.”
Cross-cutting themes
Standardization and interoperability
- Data fragmentation challenge: Fragmentation of data schemas, terminology, and coordinate systems are one of the most significant obstacles to integrated geospatial infrastructure planning.
- BIM-GIS interoperability gap: The interoperability between BIM and GIS is underdeveloped, limiting opportunities for digital twin applications.
- Provincial alignment role: Provincial governments have a key role to play in aligning local schemas with broader national standards.
Indigenous data sovereignty
- Governance prerequisite: Indigenous data governance is a prerequisite for meaningful engagement. Implementation of OCAP® principles and providing communities with control over how their data is used are necessary.
- Selective sharing platforms: Platforms that allow selective data sharing based on consent and purpose (e.g., decision-making only) are key enablers.
- Recognition of sovereignty: Indigenous communities must be recognized as sovereign authorities in the development of any federated SDI.
Access and licensing
- Licensing barriers: There are difficulties accessing or integrating data due to restrictive licensing terms, non-standard formats, and decentralized data repositories.
- Federated framework potential: A federated national infrastructure or data-sharing framework, based on shared licensing models, is a potential solution.
- Flexible licensing needed: Licensing frameworks should be flexible enough to accommodate diverse user needs, including municipalities, Indigenous, researchers, and private sector partners.
Next steps
Suggested actions
- Promote national standards: Promote national geospatial standards across jurisdictions and systems (e.g., GIS-BIM, etc.) to reduce duplication and improve infrastructure planning and management.
- Respect Indigenous data: Strengthen respectful data sharing with Indigenous communities by embedding Indigenous data principles (e.g., OCAP®) and protocols in infrastructure co-initiatives.
- Support small communities: Provide tools, training, and licensing support to small, rural, and northern communities to enable full participation in geospatial infrastructure initiatives.
- Invest in resilience tools: Invest in geospatial tools and data models to assess vulnerabilities (e.g., flood, wildfire, etc.) and inform resilient infrastructure design and emergency preparedness.
- Engage on key topics: Conduct targeted follow-up engagements to explore topics raised in this Round Table, such as digital twin integration, Indigenous-led geomatics capacity, and coordinated national hazard mapping.
Open questions raised by round table participants
- How can Canada develop and implement a unified definition of critical infrastructure that works across federal, municipal, and Indigenous contexts?
- What governance and funding models are best suited to supporting Indigenous geomatics capacity in remote and northern regions?
- Who is best positioned to lead and coordinate the national standardization of GIS-BIM workflows, including schema harmonization and platform interoperability?
Conclusion
Participants in the Round Table on Infrastructure showcased the broad potential of geospatial data in supporting resilient, inclusive communities across Canada. They acknowledged significant technical and institutional challenges but expressed a clear commitment to collaboration, capacity-building, and shared innovation. As Canada develops its next-generation geospatial data strategy, the perspectives from this session emphasized the importance of embedding Indigenous leadership, advancing data standardization, and modernizing digital infrastructure to better serve all communities.
For continued engagement, visit: Let's Talk Natural Resources.