Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 160, Number 2: Extra

February 20, 2026

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

CANADIAN ENERGY REGULATOR ACT

Order — Certificate authorizing the construction and operation of the Taylor to Gordondale Pipeline Project

P.C. 2026-104 February 5, 2026

Whereas, on April 23, 2024, Pouce Coupé Pipe Line Ltd. (“Pouce Coupé”) applied to the Canadian Energy Regulator (“Regulator”), in accordance with Part 3 of the Canadian Energy Regulator Act (“Act”), for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity authorizing the construction and operation of the Taylor to Gordondale Pipeline Project (“Project”), which consists of an interprovincial pipeline that is approximately 89 km in length from the Montney region in northeastern British Columbia to Gordondale, Alberta, and related ancillary infrastructure;

Whereas, on December 12, 2023, in accordance with Canada’s commitment to reconciliation under the Act, Treaty 8 and obligations regarding the duty to consult and accommodate recognized by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the Regulator’s Crown Consultation Coordinator initiated a Crown consultation process, which was complementary to the Commission of the Regulator’s (“Commission”) hearing process and both were designed to ensure the participation of potentially impacted Indigenous groups in decision making, reflect the principle of free, prior and informed consent and allow them to raise their concerns with Pouce Coupé or with the Crown Consultation Coordinator;

Whereas, on November 7, 2025, having held a public hearing to review Pouce Coupé’s application and conducted an environmental assessment of the Project, the Commission submitted to the Minister of Natural Resources under section 183 of the Act its report on the Project entitled Commission of the Canada Energy Regulator Report – Pouce Coupé Pipe Line Ltd. OH-001-2024 (“Report”), which included its recommended conditions set out in Appendix 2 to that Report;

Whereas the Governor in Council, having taken into account the concerns and interests of the Indigenous groups raised in the Crown Consultation and Accommodation Report – Regarding the Proposed Taylor to Gordondale Project of December 22, 2025 and other evidence on the hearing record and considered relevant articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples set out in the Report as interpretive context, is satisfied that the consultation process upholds the honour of the Crown and that the concerns and interests will be reasonably accommodated by the conditions set out in Appendix 2 to the Report;

Whereas the Governor in Council, in its decision, has taken into account subsection 56(1) and all the considerations referred to in subsection 183(2) of the Act and is of the opinion that those considerations set out in the Report are those that appeared to be relevant and directly related to the Project;

Whereas the Governor in Council accepts the Commission’s recommendation that a certificate of public convenience and necessity be issued given that the Project, if implemented in accordance with the conditions set out in Appendix 2 to the Report, is and will be required by the present and future public convenience and necessity, and will provide significant economic benefits;

And whereas the Governor in Council considers that the Project would increase and improve transportation options for existing and future energy products, reduce import dependence, strengthen Canada’s economic and energy independence, reinforce Canada’s energy supply chains, fill current and projected future demand for condensates, support the demand for propane and butane and generate strong economic growth and employment;

Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Natural Resources, under subsection 186(1) of the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, directs the Commission of the Canadian Energy Regulator to issue Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity OC-068 to Pouce Coupé Pipe Line Ltd. in respect of the proposed construction and operation of the Taylor to Gordondale Pipeline Project, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 2 to the Commission of the Canadian Energy Regulator’s report of November 7, 2025 entitled Commission of the Canada Energy Regulator Report – Pouce Coupé Pipe Line Ltd. OH-001-2024.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Order.)

Proposal

This Order in Council, pursuant to subparagraph 186(1)(a)(ii) of the Canadian Energy Regulator Act (CER Act), Directs the Commission of the Canada Energy Regulator (the Commission) to issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Pouce Coupé Pipe Line Ltd. (‘the proponent’ or ‘Pouce Coupé’) for the Taylor to Gordondale Pipeline Project (the Project) subject to 40 conditions.

Summary

Pursuant to subsections 186(1) and 186(3) of the CER Act, the Governor in Council (GiC) has 90 days from the submission of the Recommendation Report (until February 6, 2026) to make a decision: approve, reject, refer the recommendation or any of the conditions back to the Commission for reconsideration, or extend the timeline for a decision, upon recommendation of the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

The Project consists of building a new interprovincial pipeline approximately 89 kilometres long extending from Taylor, British Columbia to the Gordondale area of Alberta, as well as other related facilities. It would primarily transport condensates, natural gas liquids (NGL), and crude oil from the Montney region (Montney) for processing, storage, and export.

The Commission found that this Project is needed and economically beneficial. It would fulfil sizeable and growing domestic market demand and reinforce Canada’s energy independence. Both supply and demand are projected to be sufficient to support the Project over its economic life. The Project is economically feasible and is estimated to provide significant economic benefits, contributing approximately $112 million to British Columbia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), $70 million to Alberta’s GDP, and $30 million to the rest of Canada, along with employment, business, and other economic opportunities for Indigenous Peoples and Canadians and Canadian businesses.

As a result, the Project is required by the present and future convenience and necessity, subject to 40 binding conditions

Background

Pouce Coupé is owned by Pembina Pipeline Corporation (‘Pembina’) and the general partner of Pembina North Limited Partnership. Pembina would operate the Project, while Pouce Coupé serves as the applicant and license holder, and ownership of the assets would be held by Pembina North Limited Partnership.

On April 23, 2024, Pouce Coupé filed an application with the Canada Energy Regulator (CER) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Project under section 182 of the CER Act. Section 183 requires the Commission to make a recommendation to the GiC on whether to issue such a Certificate.

The Project

The Project consists of a roughly 89-kilometre-long pipeline that would extend from Taylor, British Columbia, to the Gordondale area located about 19 kilometres from the British Columbia/Alberta border. The pipeline would transport condensate, natural gas liquids (NGL), and crude oil from the Montney region of northeastern British Columbia to Gordondale, Alberta for processing, storage and export. From Gordondale, the products would travel through other pipelines to processing plants near Fort Saskatchewan, refineries and storage sites near Edmonton, and the oil sands plants. The Project also includes a new pump station constructed within the proponent’s existing Taylor Tank Farm facility, which is also located in Taylor, British Columbia, and other related facilities. The pipeline route parallels existing and approved pipeline right-of-way for approximately 94% of its length, with approximately 86% on private land and 14% on Crown land.

The Project has a capital cost of approximately $341 million (2024 dollars). It has the capacity to transport 118,000 barrels per day of condensate, and would free up space on the existing Pouce Coupé pipeline system so it can carry more NGLs. If approved, construction is expected to start in Q2 2026 and finish in mid-2027 and operate for approximately 40 years.

Commission’s Recommendation Report

Following a written and oral hearing process, on November 7, 2025, the Commission submitted its Recommendation Report on the Project entitled Commission of the Canada Energy Regulator Report OH-001-2024 - Pouce Coupé Pipe Line Ltd. to the Minister of Natural Resources, which included the recommendation that the GiC, by order, direct the Commission to issue a Certificate under section 186 of the CER Act authorizing the construction and operation of the Project, subject to 40 conditions. The conditions cover, among other things, construction activities, safety measures and standards, environmental monitoring, and matters related to Indigenous groups and rights protected by Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The CER Act, in subsection 183(2), lays out factors that the Commission must consider when making a public convenience and necessity determination. These factors include, but are not limited to, the environmental effects, including any cumulative environmental effects, the interests and concerns of Indigenous groups, as well as the effects on the rights recognized and affirmed under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the existence of actual or potential markets, and the economic feasibility of the pipeline and any public interest the Commission considers relevant.

Implications

The Commission is required to consider and weigh all relevant and material evidence on the record and must take into account all considerations that appear to it to be relevant and directly related to the pipeline. The Commission assessed the overall public interest the Project may create and its potential adverse aspects and also weighed its various impacts. The Commission was cognizant that the public interest is both regionally and nationally based and is, therefore, understood to be inclusive of all Canadians. It is through this holistic and contextual lens that the Commission carried out its Project assessment, including making the findings in the Report and the determination that the Project is in the Canadian public interest.

Legal Framework

The Commission assessed the Project in accordance with the CER Act and relevant provisions of the Species at Risk Act (SARA). The Impact Assessment Act (IAA) did not apply to this Project.

The Commission also recognized the importance of the context of the Yahey v. British Columbia 2021 BCSC 1287 (Yahey) decision to this Project, given that it is partially located within the Blueberry River First Nations’ (BRFN) traditional territory, which was the subject of that decision, in which the Supreme Court of British Columbia found that the cumulative effects of industrial development had significantly impacted the BRFN’s meaningful exercise of Treaty 8 rights. While the Yahey decision only binds the provincial government, the Commission nonetheless determined that this was a relevant contextual factor and that cumulative effects must be considered in assessing potential impacts on Indigenous rights posed by the Project.

Furthermore, in light of the Federal Court’s decision in Kebaowek First Nation v Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (“Kebaowek”), which held that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN Declaration) is a contextual factor that gives rise to an enhanced duty to consult given its adoption into Canadian law and that administrative tribunals must consider the UN Declaration as an interpretive lens when assessing consultation adequacy, the Commission applied the UN Declaration’s principles as an interpretive framework in evaluating the adequacy of consultation and of accommodation measures for the Project.

Resource Availability, Economic Feasibility, and Financial Matters

The Project is expected to benefit Canada’s economy by increasing the capacity to export condensate, NGLs, and crude oil from the Montney region to primary markets in Alberta and export markets, filling domestic demand that is currently heavily reliant on imports from other countries including the United States. Existing pipeline infrastructure in the region is insufficient, with only one pipeline in the area – the existing Pouce Coupé pipeline system – able to carry NGLs and condensate to market in Alberta. Alternatives to the Project, such as trucking and rail, are not sufficient in capacity or efficiency to fully meet the transportation needs for volumes of condensate and NGLs that would be moved by this Project; they are not operationally reliable or economically viable enough, and existing assets cannot accommodate the product types and volumes supported by the Project. Pipelines are more efficient, impose lower transportation costs for producers, enable higher producer revenues, lesser road congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, and result in greater royalties paid to provincial governments.

The Commission found that both the supply and market demand for condensate and NGLs are sufficient to support the Project over its economic life. Canadian condensate production has doubled since 2014, averaging around 500,000 barrels per day in 2024, and it is reasonably projected to reach 900,000 barrels per day by 2050. Forecasts determined by the Commission to be reasonable indicate that there will be enough supply of NGLs to support the project. Demand for condensate in western Canada as a diluent for heavy crude oil and bitumen already exceeds supply, with 37% of demand in the past two years met through imports from the United States; furthermore, without this Project this imbalance is projected to not only persist but widen over time due to newly constructed crude oil egress from projects like the Trans Mountain Expansion Project and increased global demand for Canadian heavy crude oil. Regarding NGLs, demand is growing for products derived from them such as propane, butane, and liquid petroleum gas, and there are opportunities to grow exports from 295,000 barrels per day (b/d) in 2023 to 442,000 b/d by 2050. With exports to Asia already growing from 0 to 90,000 b/d between 2018 and 2024, increased production and export capacity provides a key opportunity to help Canada sell to a wider range of markets. By transporting condensate that would otherwise be carried by existing infrastructure, the Project could facilitate increased transport of liquids like propane and butane to fill this demand. The Commission was further satisfied that the proponent has adequately considered risks to supply and demand posed by potential future climate policy in assessing the economic feasibility of the Project,

There is also sufficient supporting downstream and upstream infrastructure to move condensate and NGLs from the Project to market, as delivery of condensate serves as critical infrastructure for the oil sands industry, has substantial capacity to handle increased transportation, and is well-established.

The Project is expected to provide strong economic benefits, with a total approximate (construction and operation) economic impact to GDP (direct, indirect, and induced) in British Columbia of $112 million, $70 million in Alberta, and $30 million in the rest of Canada. During construction alone it is estimated to directly generate $67.5 million to the economy in British Columbia and $36.5 million in Alberta. The Project would also create jobs, support local businesses, and provide economic opportunities for Indigenous Peoples and other Canadians and Canadian businesses. In total, employment estimates for the construction total 1,872 person-years of work across Canada, which includes 330 direct construction jobs. The Commission found that the socio-economic benefits related to the construction phase would benefit Indigenous groups, given commitments made throughout the hearing by the proponent to hire and train qualified Indigenous people and procure from Indigenous-owned businesses where possible.

Additionally, the Commission evaluated the financial resources, financial responsibility and financial structure of the applicant, the methods of financing the pipeline, and the extent to which Canadians will have an opportunity to participate in the financing, engineering, and construction of the pipeline, as required by the CER Act. The Commission was persuaded that the proponent’s strong financial position and access to capital markets and liquidity through its parent company Pembina, give it the ability to finance the project as well as any unexpected construction or operational costs associated with it. Pembina would use a mix of company cash, loans and investments to finance the project, and to set funds aside for safely shutting down the pipeline in the future.

The GiC accepts the Commission’s recommendation that the Project is required by the present and future convenience and necessity.

Environmental Effects and Cumulative Effects

Environmental Effects

The Commission assessed environmental effects of the Project, and considered the proponent’s commitments to mitigation and monitoring. The Commission recognized the importance of the proponent’s Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) during both the construction and operational phases of the Project.

The Commission assessed the effects on soil and soil productivity, vegetation and wetlands, fish and fish habitat, water quality and quantity, wildlife and wildlife habitat, air quality, and atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG). It also assessed potential effects in the event of an accident, including the release of drilling fluid or release of product from the pipeline. It found that residual effects from the Project would contribute to already high levels of cumulative effects but concluded that these can be addressed by the implementation of mitigation measures, commitments made by the proponent, and the 40 binding conditions recommended by the Commission.

The Commission considered section 77 of the SARA, and it concluded that there are no occurrences of plant species at risk listed in Schedule 1 of the Act and no known occurrences of critical habitat for listed aquatic species. The local assessment area overlaps with critical habitat for the little brown myotis and northern myotis and, after consulting with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Commission came to the view that impacts to this habitat are unlikely in light of avoidance via routing and surveys required by the EPP (Condition 11), and that mitigation measures proposed by Pouce Coupé and conditions recommended by the Commission, any impacts would be minimized.

The Commission determined that residual adverse effects on soil and soil productivity would be short and negligible and would be acceptably mitigated by the proponent’s proposed measures. It determined that residual adverse effects on vegetation on wetlands would be short- to long-term and of low to medium magnitude, and that mitigation measures such as paralleling existing linear disturbances would appropriately limit impacts. The proponent has also agreed to reclamation projects to restore the Project footprint and including monitoring of natural recovery as part of post-construction monitoring; in addition, the Commission has recommended the imposition of a reclamation and restoration plan (Condition 6) which would require the proponent to file a plan explaining how it would reinitiate or accelerate vegetative processes. Regarding fish, fish habitat, water quality, and water quantity, the Commission expected that due to the proponent’s proposed mitigation measures and the conditions it would impose, including contingency watercourse crossings (Condition 26), the significance of residual adverse effects is expected to be low. The Commission also found that the Project would likely result in overall residual effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat of medium significance, considering existing cumulative context and Project-specific contributions. It concluded that there was no expectation that these effects would cause or further contribute to the exceedance of a conservation-based threshold or threaten the viability of a species at risk or of management concern, and that the Project design, Pouce Coupé’s proposed mitigation measures, and the Commission’s recommended conditions would further reduce effects.

Based on its consideration of the evidence, the Commission recommended several conditions to address potential adverse environmental effects. The Commission also would impose a condition requiring the proponent to file an updated EPP incorporating mitigation that may result from further field surveys and through ongoing engagement with Indigenous groups, as well as a further condition requiring the filing of further post-construction environmental monitoring reports.

Under the CER Act, the Commission must evaluate the extent to which the effects of the pipeline hinder or contribute to the Government of Canada’s ability to meet its environmental obligations and its commitments respecting climate change. The Commission also assessed direct and upstream GHG emissions from construction and operation of the Project. In the application, the proponent estimated that total GHG emissions from construction would total approximately 69.3 kt CO2eq (i.e., CO2 equivalent), mainly from land clearing and vegetation burning and decay. The Commission found that the proponent’s avoidance and mitigation measures are appropriate, and that further mitigation measures beyond the requirement for a timber salvage plan in the EPP (Condition 11) and quantification of construction related GHG emissions (Condition 34) are not needed. Regarding emissions during operations, the Commission would impose a requirement for the proponent to develop a net-zero GHG emissions plan (Condition 38) given projections that the Project will contribute approximately 0.04 kt CO2e per year to the atmosphere (or less than 0.001% of Canada’s annual GHG emissions total). Upstream GHG emissions from products that may be transported by the Project are approximately 902 kt CO2e per year for NGLs and condensate and 2,093 kt CO2e per year for crude oil, but the Commission determined that these would likely occur regardless of the Project.

Having considered the Commission’s analysis in its Recommendation Report, the evidence presented by the proponent, as well as the concerns raised by Indigenous groups, the GiC is of the view that with the proponent’s mitigations and commitments and the Commission’s recommended conditions, the Project remains in the public interest.

Cumulative Effects

The Commission has concluded that existing cumulative effects in the Project area are high (adverse), including on vegetation and wetlands, fish and fish habitat, water quality and quantity, and wildlife and wildlife habitat. The Supreme Court of British Columbia’s decision in Yahey established that cumulative industrial development in the British Columbia portion of the Project area has already significantly diminished Treaty 8 First Nations’ ability to exercise their treaty rights, and this was acknowledged by the proponent. Evidence provided by Indigenous participants in the hearing also demonstrated that the same is true of the Alberta portion of the Project area. Indigenous groups reported during the hearing process and supplementary consultation that additional development such as this Project would further contribute to substantial challenges in maintaining their ways of life, transmitting cultural knowledge, and exercising their constitutionally protected rights.

The proponent has committed to several mitigation measures to limit or avoid the Project’s contributions to these cumulative effects. The proponent routed the Project parallel to existing linear disturbance and sited it to cross private agricultural land, reducing the disturbance footprint and avoiding fragmenting previously undisturbed lands. The proponent also committed to adhere to the requirements of the British Columbia Cumulative Effects Management Regime, established in the BC-Blueberry River First Nations Implementation Agreement as a set of enforceable regulatory and legislative mechanisms to be developed to assess cumulative impacts of industrial development on Blueberry River First Nation’s treaty rights, and to additionally work with groups not party to discussions with the province who hold or assert rights in the Project area to identify and address outstanding issues.

The Commission found that the existing cumulative effects on the rights of Indigenous Peoples in the Project area are high, and that the residual effects of the Project will contribute to high (adverse) impacts. The Commission also found that the Project’s potential effects on the rights of Indigenous Peoples would be of high (adverse) severity. Given this finding, the Commission would impose two additional conditions to accommodate these impacts to rights, an Offset Measures Plan (Condition 39) and an Indigenous Project Committee (Condition 17), elaborated upon in the section “Interests and Concerns of Indigenous groups and Effects on the Rights Recognized by Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982”.

Project Safety during Construction and Operation

Under paragraph 183(2)(b) of the CER Act, the Commission is required to consider the safety and security of persons and the protection of property and the environment.

The Commission found that the design of the pipeline and facilities, the construction methods and oversight for the Project, and the plans and programs for the operation of the Project all meet applicable safety requirements, including the Canadian Energy Regulator Onshore Pipeline Regulations, the standard CSA Z662:23 Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, the Filing Manual, and Pembina’s applicable technical specifications. The Commission did impose a number of conditions related to assessments and reporting, including a filed safety manual (Condition 9), report on valve locations and spacing (Condition 14), a risk assessment regarding high vapor pressure products (Condition 15), a filed joining program (Condition 16), filed construction progress reports (Condition 24) and high-potential near miss reports (Condition 25).

The GiC is of the opinion that the regulatory and oversight functions of the CER throughout the lifecycle of the Project are capable of protecting the safety and security of the persons and the protection of property and the environment. The GiC is also satisfied that the Commission has adequately considered the safety and security of persons and the protection of property and the environment in its assessment of the Project application.

Health and Socio-Economic Effects

As set out in paragraph 183(2)(c) of the CER Act, the Commission considered the Project’s health, social, and economic effects including with respect to the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors. The Commission found that residual impacts on human health would be of low adverse significance once the proponent’s proposed mitigation measures and the EPP are applied, that the social effects would be of low adverse significance, and that the economic effects would be of low positive significance.

The GiC is satisfied that the Commission has adequately considered the health and socio-economic effects of the Project in its assessment and that the conditions it would impose would appropriately address adverse impacts.

Interests and Concerns of Indigenous groups and Effects on the Rights Recognized by Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982

The Commission’s evaluation included an examination of the potential impacts on the rights of Indigenous groups, recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as the interests and concerns of Indigenous groups, including concerns regarding their current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, as required by paragraphs 183(2)(d) and 183(2)(e) of the CER Act.

Crown consultation is required to inform GiC decisions on the Commission’s recommendations. The Commission’s hearing process was the primary forum for considering the concerns and interests of potentially impacted Indigenous groups and the potential impacts on their constitutionally protected rights. Since the CER Act came into place, the CER, as an agent of the Crown, has served the function of Crown Consultation Coordinator (CCC) and also consulted with Indigenous groups in a concurrent and complementary way to the Commission’s process, as well as subsequent to the release of the Commission’s Recommendation Report, in order to understand and address any outstanding Project-specific impacts and concerns that had not been fully addressed during the hearing process.

The Commission applied a methodology for assessing Project effects on the rights of Indigenous Peoples based on guidance provided in the Filing Manual but also informed by the views of Indigenous participants who provided evidence on their views, processes, methodologies, and protocols regarding rights assessment. This included describing the Indigenous and treaty rights of affected Indigenous groups and how the rights are exercised or practiced in the Project area, determining existing cumulative effects on rights in the Project area, assessing the Project’s potential effect on the exercise of those rights without mitigation measures in place, determining appropriate mitigation measures to be implemented by the proponent to avoid, reduce, or eliminate adverse effects, assessing residual Project effects (including contribution to existing cumulative effects) after the proponent has implemented proposed mitigation measures and conditions, and determining the severity of the Project’s effects on Indigenous rights. More details on the Consultation requirements can be found below in the “Consultation” section.

The Project area is located within Treaty 8 territory and partially within the Blueberry Claim Area at issue in the Yahey decision, while also intersecting with the traditional territories and areas of interest of 36 Indigenous groups for whom the Crown had a duty to consult on the Project, including Treaty 8 Nations, Treaty 6 Nations, Métis communities, and other groups with recognized or asserted section 35 rights.

By way of the two processes, the GiC was made aware of the concerns of Indigenous groups related to potential impacts to Indigenous and Treaty rights.

As discussed above, some Indigenous groups expressed concerns regarding the severity of existing cumulative effects and the adverse impacts to the exercise of Indigenous and Treaty rights posed by them. Pouce Coupé committed to several mitigation measures that will limit adverse effects on the exercise of Indigenous and treaty rights in the Project area, and the Commission would impose conditions to further mitigate these effects. The EPP submitted by the proponent includes several mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to rights prior to construction, prior to land clearing and site preparation, during construction, and after construction; these can be found in Section 5.4.2 of the Recommendation Report. Furthermore, in response to concerns raised by Indigenous participants during the hearing, the proponent updated the Project design and proposed additional mitigation measures in the EPP.

As these measures include working with Indigenous groups who have expressed an interest in harvesting plants along the Project right-of-way before construction, the Commission would impose a requirement that the proponent submit a pre-construction harvesting report (Condition 20) to confirm that it has facilitated access for harvesting.

The Commission found that the existing cumulative effects on the rights of Indigenous Peoples in the Project area are high, and that the Project’s residual effects would contribute to already high (adverse) impacts. As a result, the Commission found that the Project’s potential effects on the rights of Indigenous Peoples would be of high (adverse) severity. Given this finding, the Commission recommended two additional conditions to accommodate these impacts to rights, an offset measures plan (Condition 39) and an Indigenous Project Committee (Condition 17). The offset measures plan would address Project impacts to rights and territories, with a set of requirements elaborated upon in Chapter 5 of the Recommendation Report. The Indigenous Project Committee would provide oversight and participation in Project activities and would be developed through mutual agreement between the proponent and participants, with functions and responsibilities potentially including oversight for culturally sensitive areas, reviewing Indigenous monitoring updates, and providing advice on offset methodologies and implementation.

The Commission did not receive any evidence that any specific sites of cultural importance would be permanently altered or destroyed by the Project.

Consultation

Canada has a common law duty to consult and, if appropriate, accommodate, when it contemplates conduct that might adversely impact Indigenous and Treaty rights, such as the approval of the Project. As established in the CER Act, the CER is an agent of the Crown, and Crown consultation is required when the Commission makes decisions and recommendations under the Act. Crown consultations were carried out both through the Commission’s hearing process and by the CER’s CCC through supplementary consultation with Indigenous groups.

As mentioned above, the CER’s evaluation of the fulfilment of the duty to consult during the hearing process and supplementary consultation was informed by a consideration of the Yahey and Kebaowek decisions. The Commission thoroughly assessed cumulative effects in relation to the Project and tailored the hearing process, the supplementary consultation, and the Report to be responsive to concerns raised by Indigenous groups regarding cumulative effects. The hearing process also allowed for deep consultation with Indigenous groups that reflected a number of key objectives of the UN Declaration including ensuring participation in decision-making; tailoring hearing steps in consideration of Indigenous Peoples’ laws, knowledge and practice; and consulting and cooperating in good faith to work towards finding mutual agreement.

CER Hearing Process

The hearing process was the primary venue through which consultation with Indigenous groups was undertaken. The Commission issued Hearing Order OH-001-2024 on November 21, 2024. The participants included Pouce Coupé, 25 Indigenous groups registered as intervenors (with one group participating as a commenter), two commercial parties, and the CER’s CCC. Indigenous participants could file written evidence, provide oral Indigenous knowledge, file motions and provide comments on motions, participate in a workshop about conditions and file comments on potential conditions, file written arguments, and provide oral summary argument. Non-participants in the hearing could also file letters of comment. Prior to the hearing, participants were also given structured opportunities to influence how the assessment would proceed.

The Commission concluded that the hearing process met the requirements of procedural fairness and that the duty to consult and accommodate was met.

Crown Consultations with Indigenous Peoples

Crown consultation activities by the CER’s CCC were concurrent and complementary to the CER Hearing process, taking place from the initial notification on December 12, 2023, until December 22, 2025. The CER’s CCC informed Indigenous groups that it was relying upon the Commission’s process with respect to the assessment of the Project’s potential effects, including the assessment of the Project’s potential impacts on Indigenous and treaty rights and for the assessment of environmental and socio-economic effects, including cumulative effects.

Outside of the hearing process, the CER’s CCC consulted with 36 Indigenous groups on the Crown list through virtual and in-person meetings and workshops. This process was designed to reflect Article 32 of the UN Declaration, including the principle of free, prior, and informed consent. Key concerns raised by Indigenous groups during the supplementary consultations included economic benefits, Indigenous monitoring, reclamation and restorations, and matters relating to the Commission’s additional accommodation measures, Conditions 17 and 39, concerning cumulative effects and offsets and engagement with the proponent. The CER’s CCC filed summary reports of its consultations, which it developed collaboratively with Indigenous groups.

The CER’s CCC, as an agent of the Crown, was satisfied that the Crown consultation process sufficiently discharged the duty to consult and accommodate.

Involvement of Indigenous Peoples through Project Lifecycle

The GiC has considered the concerns raised by Indigenous groups through consultation with the CCC and in independent submissions to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources on matters relating to impacts to Indigenous and treaty rights and the Commission’s additional accommodation measures Conditions 17 and 39.

Continued consultation with Indigenous Groups

The GiC notes that the CCC has stated that it will continue to consult with Indigenous groups subsequent to the GiC decision and will offer consultation funding to all Indigenous groups who wish to be involved in this further Crown consultation.

Two Additional Conditions as Accommodations for Impacts to Rights

Condition 17 requires Pouce Coupé to establish an Indigenous Project Committee to provide oversight and participation in Project activities and responds to Indigenous groups’ requests for meaningful involvement in the Project. The purpose of the Committee is to provide a forum to facilitate collaboration between Pouce Coupé and Indigenous groups to further mitigate and accommodate the effects of the Project.

The GiC notes that Condition 39, development of an Offset Measures Plan, requires the approval of the Commission. The Commission found that restoration-based offsets would be necessary given the Project’s contribution to cumulative effects in an area where there are already high adverse cumulative impacts on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. As well, the Commission noted that multiple Indigenous groups requested offsets to address Project impacts on their rights and territories. Condition 39 would require Pouce Coupé, as part of the Offset Measures Plan, to: develop a plan for monitoring and reporting, and engagement with Indigenous groups; to incorporate Indigenous Knowledge; and, to implement alternative offset measures, which may include financial contributions, where restoration offset measures were not possible. Pouce Coupé would also need to demonstrate how the goals and measurable objectives were influenced by engagement with Indigenous Peoples, including the Indigenous Project Committee (Condition 17), and would need to provide interested Indigenous groups and the Indigenous Project Committee an opportunity to review and comment on the plan prior to filing it with the CER.

Involvement of Indigenous Groups through Condition Compliance

In addition to Conditions 17 and 39, Indigenous groups have the following other opportunities with respect to the lifecycle regulation of the Project:

Proponent Inclusion of Indigenous Monitors during Construction

With respect to monitoring, Pouce Coupé committed to include Indigenous construction monitors in flagging, staking, and fencing prior to clearing.

Continued Adjudicative Function and Lifecycle Regulator Role

The Commission continues to exercise its adjudicative functions after a certificate is issued. Upon reviewing a condition filing, the Commission may issue information requests to the proponent to gather necessary information, and may refuse approval, or issue directions and orders. Indigenous groups may provide comments on Pouce Coupé’s condition filings by submitting letters directly to the Commission who may then determine whether compliance or enforcement action is necessary. The CER, as a lifecycle regulator, monitors and enforces a company’s compliance with all conditions imposed and other regulatory requirements, throughout the Project’s lifecycle, regardless of whether compliance with a condition is subject to Commission approval. It may take compliance and enforcement action when a failure to comply with a condition or other contravention under the Act occurs. Measures may include, for example, inspections, audits, compliance measures, manual or report reviews, and emergency response exercise evaluations to ensure requirements are met. They may also include Alternative Dispute Resolution processes on consent of the parties.

Contact

For more information, please contact Jim Delaney, Director General, Regulatory Coordination, Consultation and Economic Inclusion, Nòkwewashk, Natural Resources Canada, at 343‑543‑7832 or jim.delaney@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca.