Research publications

Since its founding in 1977, the Crown corporation VIA Rail Canada Inc. has been providing passenger rail service on various routes across Canada. Its busiest corridor is between Québec City and Windsor. VIA Rail has struggled for decades to maintain ridership on its network, and its on-time performance (OTP) is regularly criticized in the media. Since VIA Rail operates most of its trains on tracks shared with freight trains, congestion and delays are frequent, limiting its ability to increase and improve its services. To address these challenges VIA Rail proposed to the Government of Canada a high-frequency rail (HFR) project between Québec City and Toronto that would be built on dedicated tracks. However, on 19 February 2025, the Government of Canada announced its decision to opt instead for high-speed rail (HSR). This HillStudy first discusses VIA Rail’s mandate and analyzes its performance based on selected criteria. It then briefly describes the HSR initiative between Québec City and Toronto based on information available at the time of writing.

First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples in Canada1 have unique rights that are guaranteed under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 35 recognizes and affirms the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of Indigenous peoples. As a way to protect these rights, the doctrine of the duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous groups, was developed by Canadian courts. Furthermore, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, endorsed by Canada in 2010, provides that member states must consult and cooperate with Indigenous peoples on certain matters, such as “legislative or administrative measures that may affect them,” in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent. As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada (Supreme Court), the general purpose of the duty to consult is to foster reconciliation. Thus, the duty to consult doctrine is of fundamental importance to Indigenous communities and Indigenous governments, as well as to federal, provincial and territorial governments, private industry stakeholders and Canadian society as a whole. This paper examines the origins and evolution through the courts of the duty to consult. It first provides background information on the duty to consult. It then discusses, at a more practical level, who is involved in consultations, how and when the duty is engaged, the scope and requirements of consultation and accommodation and the circumstances in which consent is required. It further examines whether the duty to consult applies in the context of legislative processes. It concludes by providing information on guidelines that have been developed and updated by Indigenous communities and organizations and federal/provincial governments in response to emerging case law and that inform the implementation of the duty to consult.