# Keep engagement records by nation, not by project A record kept by nation holds the whole relationship across projects, teams and years. Why that matters for the Duty to Consult, and how to set it up. - Author: StakeholderHub - Published: October 16, 2026 - Canonical URL: https://stakeholderhub.ca/blog/engagement-records-by-nation - Topic: Engagement records ## The short version - Most engagement records are filed by project, because that is how budgets, contracts and regulatory submissions are organized. Nations experience one relationship that runs across all of them. - Courts assess consultation decision by decision, but history, cumulative effects and how a nation has asked to be consulted can shape what each decision requires. That context lives across projects. - Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in's lawsuit against Yukon turns on facts that reach back more than a decade, from earlier assessments to an earlier permit backlog. No single project file holds them. - Make the nation the anchor of the record and the project a tag. A nation's record can always be filtered down to one project for a regulator, and the full history stays intact. Most engagement records are filed by project. That's how budgets are set, how consultants are hired and how regulators ask for submissions, so it feels natural. It is not how nations experience the relationship. A nation deals with your organization over decades. It sees the same company, or the same ministry, come back with a new project every few years, often with new staff who don't know what was said last time. Keeping the record by nation keeps the relationship whole, and lets it show what a Duty to Consult record most needs to show: a consistent history of dealing in good faith. ## Treaty relationships span decades This fall's dispute between Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in and the Yukon government shows why. In January, the First Nation sued Yukon over temporary changes to placer, quartz and waters regulations that extended existing mining approvals to clear a permit backlog ([APTN News](https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/yukon-government-asks-court-to-dismiss-lawsuit-launched-by-trondek-hwechin-first-nation/)). In its own statement, Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in says it learned of the changes on the day they were made, May 29, 2025. It says the activities whose approvals were extended had been assessed more than ten years earlier, that conditions have changed since, and that Yukon faced the same surge in permit renewals a decade before ([Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in](https://www.trondek.ca/2026/01/press-release-january-29-2026-trondek-hwechin-challenges-government-of-yukons-misguided-amendements-to-placer-and-quartz-regulations/)). Yukon's statement of defence denies that the changes triggered a duty to consult, because they responded to territory-wide concerns. In the alternative, it says it met any duty and acted honourably, and that its staffing was adequate throughout. None of this has been tested in court. Look at what both sides are arguing about. Assessments from more than a decade ago. A backlog that happened before. A Final Agreement signed in 1998. Whoever ends up proving their case will do it with records that span many years and many files. The time scale is normal for a treaty relationship. In a separate interview about the proposed Dawson regional land use plan, Hähkè Darren Taylor described planning work that began in 2018 and traces back to the 1998 Final Agreement, a treaty promise still being realized more than 25 years later ([RCI](https://www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic/2026/10/15/qa-years-in-the-making-trondek-hwechin-chief-weighs-in-on-proposed-dawson-regional-land-use-plan/)). Project files open and close in two or three years. Relationships carry on far longer. ## What the law and guidance ask of the record The courts look at consultation one decision at a time. In [Chippewas of the Thames](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc41/2017scc41.html), the Supreme Court tied the duty to the specific project in front of it (para. 2). But the same decision says historical context and cumulative effects can shape how much consultation that project requires (para. 42). Both are easiest to assess from a record that spans projects. [Haida Nation](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc73/2004scc73.html) describes consultation as part of an ongoing process of fair dealing and reconciliation that continues after claims are resolved (para. 32). And in [Clyde River](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc40/2017scc40.html), the Court said a regulator should usually address consultation concerns in its reasons (para. 41), which means someone has to be able to find those concerns. Government guidance points the same way: - The federal [Updated Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfill the Duty to Consult](https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100014664/1609421824729) tell departments they may later have to show the process was complete and sound, and to keep records the same way at every step so they are accessible, searchable and reliable. They also treat knowledge of an asserted right held by one department as known to the whole federal Crown. - Alberta's [proponent guide](https://open.alberta.ca/publications/goa-proponent-guide-first-nations-metis-settlements-consultation-procedures) asks for a Record of Consultation log for each First Nation or Métis community consulted, complete and chronological, including unsuccessful contact attempts, and asks for details of previous consultations. - BC's interim [consultation procedures](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/first-nations/legal_obligations_when_consulting_with_first_nations.pdf) say who to involve depends on a nation's history and on what it has told government about how it wants to be consulted. No rule says "file by nation." But every one of these expectations is easier to meet if you do. For a company with several projects, the federal idea of shared knowledge has a practical equivalent: what your team learned on one project, the next team should be able to find. ## What a nation-centric record keeps together Keeping the record by nation brings these together, where the next team can find them: - How the nation has asked to be consulted: who to contact, in what format, through which office. - Commitments made on an earlier project that are still open. - Concerns raised before that will come up again on the next file. - Capacity funding offered, requested and refused. - Who has spoken for the nation, and when leadership changed. - Contact attempts that went unanswered. It also makes staff changes smooth. When a project lead moves on, their replacement picks up the whole relationship, commitments and history included, and the nation doesn't have to start over with someone new. > **Figure: Filed by project versus kept by nation.** Two panels, one above the other. Top panel, 'Filed by project': three separate boxes for Project A (2019 to 2021), Project B (2022 to 2023) and Project C (2025 to now). Each box holds part of the history with two of three nations, so each nation's story is split across boxes, and a dashed line in each marks where the project lead changed. Bottom panel, 'Kept by nation': a timeline from 2019 to 2026 with one continuous line for each of three nations. Coloured dots along each line show engagements from each project, grey dots show meetings that sat outside any project, and the lead changes are marked without breaking the lines. The same eight years of engagement, filed two ways. Only one of them can show a nation's whole relationship with your organization. ## Make the nation the anchor A nation-centric record turns the structure around. Each nation has one profile. Every engagement, commitment, issue, capacity funding item and position statement attaches to that profile and carries a tag for the project it relates to. Meetings that sit outside any project, like an annual relationship meeting, have somewhere to go too. Projects become filters, not folders. When a regulator asks for the record on one project, you filter and export. A nation's record can always be filtered down to one project, and the full history stays intact for the next one. That is how StakeholderHub is built. The nation's profile is the anchor, and each engagement, commitment and issue links both to the nation and to the project it belongs to, so the full history and the project view come from the same records. Whatever you use, even a well-kept spreadsheet, ask it these questions: 1. Can we see every contact with one nation, across every project, in date order, on one screen? 2. If a project lead left tomorrow, could their replacement find every open commitment to each nation? 3. Does the record keep unanswered contact attempts as well as the meetings that happened? 4. Can we export one project's record for a regulator without retyping anything? 5. Are records locked once submitted, with corrections kept as amendments? ## What to do this week 1. Pick your longest relationship with a single nation. Try to list every engagement, across every project, in date order. Note how long it takes and anything that was hard to find. 2. Look for open commitments to that nation on projects your team has already closed. 3. Write down how the nation has asked to be consulted, and put it where the next project team will see it first. 4. Start logging unanswered contact attempts alongside the meetings that happened. ## Frequently asked questions ### Does the law require engagement records to be kept by nation? No law requires one filing structure. Courts assess consultation on the specific decision in front of them. But government guidance asks for consistent, searchable records and for details of previous consultations, and Alberta asks proponents for a chronological log for each nation consulted. Keeping records by nation is the practical way to meet those expectations across several projects. ### What is a Record of Consultation log in Alberta? Alberta's proponent guide asks proponents to keep a Record of Consultation log for each First Nation, Metis Settlement or credibly asserted Métis community consulted on a project. It must be a complete, accurate and chronological account, including unsuccessful attempts to make contact. ### What should a nation-centric engagement record include? Every engagement, commitment, issue, capacity funding item and position statement, each linked to the nation and tagged with the project it relates to. It should also hold how the nation has asked to be consulted, who has spoken for it and when, and failed contact attempts, all in one timeline. ### Why does staff turnover matter for Duty to Consult records? When a project lead leaves, knowledge kept in their inbox and memory leaves too. A record organized around the nation, rather than around a person or a project, lets the next person pick up the relationship with its commitments and history intact. ## Sources 1. [Yukon government asks court to dismiss lawsuit launched by Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in First Nation](https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/yukon-government-asks-court-to-dismiss-lawsuit-launched-by-trondek-hwechin-first-nation/) (APTN News, October 6, 2026) 2. [Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in challenges Government of Yukon’s misguided amendments to placer and quartz regulations](https://www.trondek.ca/2026/01/press-release-january-29-2026-trondek-hwechin-challenges-government-of-yukons-misguided-amendements-to-placer-and-quartz-regulations/) (Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in, January 29, 2026) 3. [Years in the making: Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in chief weighs in on proposed Dawson regional land use plan](https://www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic/2026/10/15/qa-years-in-the-making-trondek-hwechin-chief-weighs-in-on-proposed-dawson-regional-land-use-plan/) (RCI Eye on the Arctic (CBC News), October 15, 2026) 4. [Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation: Updated Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfill the Duty to Consult (March 2011)](https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100014664/1609421824729) (Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada) 5. [The Government of Alberta's proponent guide to First Nations, Metis Settlements and Credibly Asserted Métis Communities consultation procedures](https://open.alberta.ca/publications/goa-proponent-guide-first-nations-metis-settlements-consultation-procedures) (Government of Alberta (August 2024)) 6. [Updated Procedures for Meeting Legal Obligations When Consulting First Nations (Interim)](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/first-nations/legal_obligations_when_consulting_with_first_nations.pdf) (Government of British Columbia, May 7, 2010) 7. [Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc73/2004scc73.html) (Supreme Court of Canada (via CanLII), November 18, 2004) 8. [Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v. Enbridge Pipelines Inc., 2017 SCC 41](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc41/2017scc41.html) (Supreme Court of Canada (via CanLII), July 26, 2017) 9. [Clyde River (Hamlet) v. Petroleum Geo-Services Inc., 2017 SCC 40](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc40/2017scc40.html) (Supreme Court of Canada (via CanLII), July 26, 2017) --- General information, not legal advice. Nations quoted speak for themselves; read their statements in full through the sources above.