Regulatory |

By Davis Legree

|October 27, 2026

Ottawa violated its duty to consult Indigenous communities when developing proposed changes to federal cell tower regulations, according to First Nations leaders from across Canada.

Earlier this month, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) published a second round of comments submitted during the government’s consultation on updating tower siting rules. The proposed changes include reducing the window for local land use authorities (LUAs) to issue determinations on a new build, amending the 15-metre exemption that limits consultation requirements on shorter towers, and expanding the exemption to include telecoms operators.

As reported by The Wire Report, the proposed changes were introduced in May — but multiple Indigenous communities said they only recently learned about the consultation.

“The Mohawk Council of Kahnawa:ke is extremely disappointed to see that ISED has, once more, failed to respect its consultation obligations to Indigenous Peoples by failing to even notify us of [this consultation],” read a letter from Brian Audla, the council’s consultation committee coordinator.

“It was only after a member of the public reached out to our consultation committee – after the consultation was closed – that the MCK became aware of this consultation.”

ISED extended the public submission period multiple times in an effort to ensure all parties had an opportunity to participate, but various stakeholders complained Ottawa did little to publicize the consultation.

Several submissions from Indigenous communities and municipalities emphasized that a grassroots awareness campaign from Canadians for Safe Technology (C4ST), a non-profit group concerned with the health impact of wireless technology, is the sole reason the potential cell tower policy changes came to their attention.

C4ST has been a vocal opponent of the proposed update, and called on Ottawa to launch a nationwide inquiry similar to that which produced the Townsend Report in 2004, which provided a large-scale review of the country’s existing tower siting regime. The organization also initiated a petition asking ISED to pause the consultation, which raked in more than 3,000 individual endorsements from across the country.

“[We] remind ISED, once more, that it cannot ignore its obligations to Indigenous Peoples,” wrote Audla, representing the community located in southern Quebec. “As Onkwehonwe (First Peoples), we have rights and responsibilities vis-à-vis our traditional lands and waters: to conserve and protect them, to maintain and strengthen our spiritual connection to them, to govern them.”

“It should have been clear to ISED that the MCK – and undoubtedly other Indigenous governments – must be consulted on such policies.”

Audla added that ISED should be “held to a higher standard,” noting Canada’s action plan for implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, published in 2023, specified the department should “ensure appropriate measures are in place for Indigenous Peoples to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage.”

Other officials warned that failing to notify Indigenous stakeholders of ongoing consultations disadvantages smaller communities, which oftentimes lack the adequate resources and capacity to quickly complete the government’s cumbersome consultation process. 

“It has come to the attention of Kitsumkalum Indian Band that there are current efforts to make changes which may impact consultation with First nations regarding cell phone towers,” read a submission from Quinton Ball from the Kitsumkalum Indian Band near Terrace, B.C. “Kitsumkalum has not received any direct government consultation on this.”

“Kitsumkalum has concerns with a process where consultation may be reduced or eliminated…. [and] changing these rules could be adding more impacts and would potentially proceed with minimal oversight. This could result in impacts to Kitsumkalum title and rights, infringe on treaty agreements, impact traditional values or heritage sites.”

Kitsumkalum asked ISED to “pause” the proposed amendments and undertake a comprehensive public review of the policy that would directly notify every First Nation and provide a “genuine opportunity” for participation. 

ʔaq̓am First Nation Chief Cheryl Casimer made similar requests in a letter to Industry Minister Mélanie Joly (Ahuntsic-Cartierville, Que.). Casimer said she appreciated the government’s cross-departmental efforts to reduce red tape, but noted such changes could transfer regulatory burden from private operators to community officials. 

“It is critical that all First Nations receive direct notice, adequate information and enough time to determine for themselves how proposed infrastructure may serve their people, where it should be located, and what conditions or alternatives should be considered,” wrote Casimer.

ʔaq̓am First Nation, officially part of the Ktunaxa Nation near Cranbrook, B.C., also asked ISED to stop the proposed update from progressing, and ensure that any regulatory changes designed to expedite the tower siting process do not “come at the expense of community knowledge, locally identified sensitive places, environmental and cultural considerations, or meaningful participation.”

Neither ISED nor Joly’s office immediately responded to The Wire Report’s request for comment.

Other comments published by ISED largely reiterated the first round of submissions, released in July, which saw telcos and municipalities sparring over changes to consultation periods and tower siting rules.

BCE Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., and other industry players sought a shortening of the proposed 45-day timeframe for LUAs to decide on a proposed build, while advocating for increasing the consultation exemption threshold from 15 metres to 25 metres.

Meanwhile, municipal and regional officials from different provinces largely fought for longer consultation times and cautioned against expanding exemptions to telecom operators.

“If the 15m exemption is extended to telecommunications providers, the City recommends that minimum separation distances from residential areas, heritage conservation districts and significant parks be established,” wrote the City of Burlington, Ont. 

“The City supports efforts to streamline administrative processes where public engagement and transparency can be maintained, but strongly recommends preserving meaningful municipal review authority, ensuring adequate review timelines, and maintaining public consultation requirements for telecommunications infrastructure that may have significant land use and visual impacts.”

dlegree@thewirereport.ca