Directive on the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation

1. Effective date

1.1 This directive takes effect on October 1, 2024.
1.2 The transitional considerations outlined in section 4.2 of the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation apply to this directive.

2. Application

2.1 This directive applies to applicants self-identifying as Indigenous people to awards, programs or opportunities under the scope of the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation.

The federal research funding agencies recognize the diversity of Indigenous Peoples, including global Indigenous Peoples. The fact that an Indigenous person does not fall within the scope of this Policy does not mean that they are not Indigenous, nor does it prevent them from self-identifying as Indigenous according to their respective Indigenous traditions, cultures and protocols. For the purposes of interpretation, however, “Indigenous people”, “Indigenous persons” or “Indigenous applicants” within the Tri-Agency Policy and Directive on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation refers to First Nations, Inuit, or Métis people; Indigenous people enrolled as members or citizens within federally or state-recognized tribe in the United States, or Native Hawaiians within the United States.

3. Content

3.1 This directive is to be read and interpreted in conjunction with the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation and the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research.
3.2 The directive supports the objectives of the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation by providing specific information related to requirements of applicants for opportunities that have been deemed to be in scope of the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation.
3.3 The directive provides for the tailoring of certain general requirements to reflect relationships with specific categories of applicants who may wish to submit their affirmation of citizenship or membership as First Nations, Inuit, Métis people, or as members of Indigenous collectives within the United States, in different ways. In particular, the requirements relating to accepted official documentation are designed to support a variety of ways to affirm Indigenous citizenship or membership, considering the needs of those who are in various stages of reconnecting or who may have different relationships to their home communities, territories or governments.
3.4 The requirements of the directive provide for accountability and transparency in the management of the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation. The requirements also provide flexibility to adapt the administrative requirements on applicants and recipients to the risks involved. The directive allows the agencies—SSHRC, NSERC and CIHR—to develop a measured response to risk throughout the management cycle of grants and awards funding and appointment opportunities, reflected in variety of ways in which applicants may affirm their Indigenous citizenship and membership, as outlined within the context and interpretation of this Directive and its associated Policy.

4. Glossary

Administering institution

Organization that receives and administers grant funds on behalf of the agency and the grant recipient.

Agency

one of CIHR, NSERC or SSHRC.

Allegation

A declaration, statement or assertion communicated in writing to an institution or agency to the effect that there has been, or continues to be, a breach of one or more agency policies, the validity of which has not been established.

Breach

A breach of the Tri-Agency Policy and/or Directive on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation is the failure to comply with the requirements of the policy within the life cycle of a research project—from application for funding, to the conduct of the research and the dissemination of research results—or the failure to comply with the requirements of the policy within the term of an appointment or special opportunity.

Citizenship

Refers to the political status of those who belong to a political entity and who are qualified to participate in the government and political life of the community or Nation. In Indigenous context, citizenship codes may vary by community and may include both obligations and responsibilities of citizens that are related to their traditional or contemporary roles.

Consent

An indication of agreement by an individual or their authorized third party to become a participant in a research project. Throughout this Policy and Directive, the term "consent" means free (or voluntary), informed and ongoing consent.

Enrollment

Enrollment refers to criteria set forth in tribal constitutions, articles of incorporation or ordinances. The criterion varies from tribe to tribe, contributing to varying membership requirements for different groups. Enrollment may include proof of lineal descendance from someone on the tribe’s base roll or a relationship to a tribal member who descended from someone names on the base roll. Other conditions may also be part of enrollment, including but not limited to tribal blood quantum, tribal residency or continued contact with the tribe.

Indigenous Knowledge

There is no single definition of Indigenous Knowledge. For our purposes, we understand "Indigenous Knowledge" as a term that refers to a set of complex knowledge systems based on the worldviews of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Knowledge reflects the unique cultures, languages, values, histories, governance and legal systems of Indigenous Peoples. It is place-based, cumulative and dynamic. Indigenous Knowledge systems involve living well with, and being in relationship with, the natural world. Indigenous Knowledge systems build on the experiences of earlier generations, inform the practice of current generations, and evolve in the context of contemporary society. Different First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities, as well as global communities, each have distinct ways of describing their knowledge. Knowledge Holders are the only people who can truly define Indigenous Knowledge for their communities.

Indigenous collective

An “Indigenous collective” within the context of the Tri-Agency Directive on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation, refers to:

In Canada, First Nations operating under the Indian Act;
In Canada, Inuit rights-bearing collectives as referenced under the Inuit Nunangat Policy;
In Canada, Métis Representative Organizations;
In Canada, Indigenous collectives in the process of negotiation through Recognition of Rights and Self-Determination instruments, including through Treaties, Legislation, Contracts and Memoranda of Understanding, and/or through Framework Agreements, Agreements-in-Principle, and Memorandum of Understanding which represent the three steps of agreements related to Comprehensive Land Claims and Self-Government agreements;
In Canada, Indigenous Peoples with Consultation Protocols relating to projects on their lands and territories, as well as those included in the Manitoba Métis Federation’s Resolution 8 (PDF document, 58.5 KB);
In Canada, an Indigenous collective with an existing Treaty relationship with the Government of Canada or with the Crown;
In Canada, an Indigenous collective with an existing Comprehensive Land Claim;
In Canada, an Indigenous collective with an existing Self-Government Agreement;
In Canada, Indigenous collectives who are beneficiaries of Specific Claims;
In Canada, an Indigenous collective bearing a standing legal decision by a court or by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that a group has met the Powley test;
In the United States, a federally recognized tribe;
In the United States, a state-recognized tribe; and,
In the United States, Indigenous Hawaiians (Kānaka Maoli/Native Hawaiians). Return to first reference

Inquiry

The process of reviewing an allegation to determine whether the allegation is responsible, the particular policy or policies that may have been breached, and whether an investigation is warranted based on the information provided in the allegation.

Investigation

A systematic process, conducted by an institution’s investigation committee, of examining an allegation, collecting and examining the evidence related to the allegation, and making a decision as to whether a breach of the policy or directive has occurred.

Membership

Refers to the state or status of being a member. In First Nations context, band membership entitles band members to live on reserve, vote in band elections and referendums, and share in band assets. Under section 10 of the Indian Act, bands may have their own membership codes if a majority of band electors consent to these codes, and if these membership codes do not deprive membership to those who acquired membership under previous rules.

Misrepresentation

Refers to falsifying information, or presenting information improperly, or to providing incomplete, inaccurate or false information in a grant or award application or related document.

Respondent

An individual who is identified in an allegation as having possibly breached the Tri-Agency Policy and/or Directive on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation.

Responsible allegation

Under the Tri-Agency Policy and/or Directive on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation, an allegation:

that is based on facts that have not been the subject of a previous investigation;
that falls within the scope of programs in scope of the Tri-Agency Policy and/or Directive on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation; and,
which would, if proven, have constituted a breach at the time the alleged breach occurred.

5. Directive statement

5.1 Objective

The objective of this directive is to elaborate on the requirements under the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation to establish a process focused on the affirmation of Indigenous citizenship or membership that will provide reasonable assurance that programs, funding opportunities and/or appointments intended for Indigenous people are held by Indigenous people.

5.2 Expected Results

The expected results of this directive are that:

Programs, funding opportunities and/or appointments intended for Indigenous people are held by Indigenous people;
Harmonization of requirements and processes for programs, funding opportunities and/or appointments throughout the funding agencies is facilitated to the extent possible;
Administrative processes and procedures for the affirmation of Indigenous citizenship or membership are consistent among programs, funding opportunities and/or appointments; and,
The diversity and the needs of First Nations, Inuit, Métis or Indigenous people from Indigenous rights-bearing collectives outlined in this Directive and associated Policy are considered through the provision of multiple ways to attest to Indigenous citizenship and membership that consider the history and legacy of colonization and its related effects.

6. Requirements for Applicants

Applicants to opportunities designated for Indigenous people within the context of the scope of the associated Policy wishing to hold grants, awards, other funding opportunities, or other opportunities considered to be in scope of the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation will:

First, be asked to self-identify within the initial application process and, as part of that initial self-identification, asked to acknowledge that, should they be successful in their application, additional supporting documentation for their claim of membership or citizenship will be required before funds are transferred from the agencies to their institution, or from the agencies to applicants, as well as before the start of any appointment;
Subsequently, in a second stage—the notification of results phase—applicants deemed meritorious for the award, grant or opportunity in question will be invited to submit an affirmation form with supporting documentation.

The affirmation form includes:

Basic information related to the supporting documentation to be submitted;
An acknowledgement of responsibility for the affirmation, noting that providing false, fraudulent or misleading information about one’s citizenship or membership is considered misrepresentation within the context of the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research (2021) Section 3.1.2: Misrepresentation in an Agency Application or Related Document. If a breach of policy is confirmed, corrective actions may be implemented, including but not limited to the revocation of award or appointment; and,
A statement on consent for the use of information that outlines how the information will be used in the context of the administration of awards or opportunities.

The affirmation must be submitted with supporting documentation according to one of the options outlined in sections 6.1, 6.2 or 6.3, confirming the applicant’s citizenship or membership in an Indigenous collective in Canada or the right to be enrolled as such, or as relevant for Indigenous applicants who are members of Indigenous rights-bearing collectives in the United States, per the notification of results and terms of conditional award.

Applicants have the right to choose which affirmation option within this section they would like to use, noting that institutions may choose not to offer option 6.3, “Institutional Attestation”, as outlined in this Directive, depending on their own policies and internal resources. In these cases, applicants may affirm under options 6.1 or 6.2, as outlined in this Directive.

To support a wide range of affirmations, supporting documents must fall under one of the following options:

6.1: Official Documents

Copy of Status card/Secure Certificate of Indian Status issued by Indigenous Services Canada (given that “Status” does not expire, expired federally issued Status cards will be accepted);
Citizenship identification issued by a First Nation that falls under one of the elements elaborated under the definition of an “Indigenous rights-bearing collective”, within the context of this policy;
Proof of enrollment within an Inuit Treaty Organization (Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, Makivvik, Nunatsiavut Government), evidenced by: membership or enrollment card issued by an Inuit Treaty Organization or signed and dated written confirmation of enrollment issued by enrollment coordinator of an Inuit Treaty Organization;
Copy of a valid citizenship or membership card from a Governing Member organization of the Métis National Council or signed and dated; written confirmation of citizenship or membership from the associated registry office;
Valid Manitoba Métis Federation Citizenship card, or signed and dated written confirmation of citizenship, from the Manitoba Métis Federation’s MMF’s Central Registry Office.

6.2: Personal Declaration with Supporting Reference

To support individuals who have been removed from their communities and Nations due to colonial policies in affirming their claims of Indigenous citizenship/membership, and those experiencing intersecting forms of discrimination and inequality, such as those who have lost connection or who have been rejected from their communities on discriminatory grounds, and to recognize those still in the process of reconnecting, a candidate not in possession of official documentation listed in the Directive on the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation (Section 6.1) may submit a statement, with supporting documentation and reference as outlined in this section under a), b), and c), about their existing lived experiences and/or ongoing relationship to an Indigenous rights-bearing collective.

To be considered a complete affirmation under Option 6.2, applicants must include all components: Declaration, Supporting Documentation and Letter of Reference.

Statement:

The applicant’s statement must include specific information about their individual case and corroborating documentation about the rights-bearing First Nation, Inuit or Métis community such as their treaty, scrip, land claim, and territory or region, along with their declaration on lived experience and/or ongoing relationship with that community. The agencies reserve the right to ask for clarification should the submitted Declaration not meet these criteria.
Supporting Documentation:

Further, the personal declaration must be supported by one of the following:
- Documentation for a First Nation person born after 1985 affected by the Indian Act second-generation cut-off rule;
- Documentation providing clear evidence of direct and lineal family ties to an Indigenous rights-bearing collective, as defined in the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation;
- Evidence of membership or citizenship in a group that can demonstrate legitimate forms of recognition, including through the courts or through legislation, as a section 35 rights-holding group;
- Signed and dated written confirmation of full enrollment from a US federally or state-recognized band/tribal authority, according to the documents issued by that authority; or,
- Signed and dated written confirmation of full membership, citizenship or enrollment issued by an Indigenous rights-bearing collective, as outlined in the context of this directive (see, “Glossary”) and its associated policy.
Letter of Reference:

The declaration and documentation required must be supported by a reference letter from an Indigenous organization or government able to confirm the applicant’s connection to, or relationship with, an Indigenous rights-bearing collective as defined in the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation), including affiliation and contact information related to the referee.

6.3: Institutional Attestation

Depending on institutional availability, applicants may choose to submit their supporting documentation in the form of an attestation from an institution through which they have already completed a verification or affirmation process. Institutions eligible to administer tri-agency funds with an existing policy on Indigenous citizenship or membership that aligns with this one may issue a statement to the effect that the individual applying for funding has met its own verification or affirmation standards, in lieu of the submission of documents by the individual applicant.

To ensure policy alignment, institutional attestations must first assert that their policy or process:

Requires applicants to affirm their citizenship or membership, within an Indigenous rights-bearing collective, Nation or community; and
Requires supporting documentation that is issued by an Indigenous rights-bearing collective or government, or provincial or federal government that asserts the citizenship or membership of the applicant in a recognized Indigenous rights-bearing collective, or the right to be enrolled as such.

Such an attestation, once the institution has affirmed alignment, should further attest to the confirmed First Nations, Métis or Inuit citizenship or membership of the applicant, and must include complete contact information for the signer.

Should the institution’s policy not meet such criteria, the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation will apply, and applicants will be invited to submit supporting documentation under Options 6.1 or 6.2 of this Directive.

As outlined in the Agreement on the Administration of Agency Grants and Awards by Research Institutions, the institution will comply with their responsibilities in accordance with all relevant tri-agency policies, as amended or introduced within the duration of the funding.

Should the funded researcher change institutions during the tenure of their award and have submitted their affirmation under 6.3: Institutional Attestation, the agencies reserve the right to request a new institutional affirmation from the new affiliation and/or invite applicants to submit other supporting documentation under Options 6.1 or 6.2.

Further, should the funded researcher be subject to a responsible allegation, the agencies reserve the right to request a copy of the supporting documentation directly from the applicant.

7. Requirements for Agency Personnel

Program and funding opportunity managers, as well as those who manage in-scope elements of the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation, are responsible for:

7.1 Funding Opportunity or Appointment Literature

Ensuring that applicants have ready access to publicly available information about the applicability of the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation to the program or opportunity.

7.2 Notices of Award or Appointment

Ensuring that applicants have met all the eligibility requirements as outlined in the funding opportunity and the notification of results (decision documents), as well as continue to meet these requirements throughout the duration of the award in the context of any allegation under section 8.2.

7.3 Renewal of Award or Appointment

Ensuring that applicants have met all the eligibility requirements as outlined in the funding opportunity if triggered by the renewal of the award or appointment, as identified as in scope of the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation.

7.4 Reporting and Monitoring

Monitoring and reporting on the number of affirmed applicants to the program or opportunity under the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation, as well as those who choose only to self-identify as First Nations, Inuit, Métis or Indigenous people from Indigenous rights-bearing collectives outside Canada without full affirmation.

8. Allegations and Breaches of the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation

Providing false or misleading information about one’s citizenship or membership is considered misrepresentation; if a breach of policy is confirmed, corrective actions may be implemented, as detailed under 8.4 Recourse.

8.1 Breaches of the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation

In the context of applications submitted to Tri-Agency funding opportunities, a breach of the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation falls under the RCR Framework’s definition of Misrepresentation in an agency application or related document, notably provision 3.1.2a:

Providing incomplete, inaccurate or false information in a grant or award application or related document, such as a letter of support or a progress report.

In addition, although not within the scope of the RCR Framework, consequences for misrepresentation also apply in cases of special appointments, advisory committees, or in the context of merit review committee members, as defined by the Policy.

8.2 Allegations of Misrepresentation

There are two types of allegations that can be considered under the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation:

Allegations related to applications for agency grants or awards (Section 6.1 (a) of the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation), which are reported to the designated point of contact for RCR matters (for details on this process, see Section 9 of this Directive); and,
Allegations related to others in scope elements, including special appointments and/or advisory committees, and as applicable in the context of merit review committee membership (Section 6.1 (b) of the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation), which are reported to the agency responsible for the appointment (For details on this process, see Section 10 of this Directive).

Should an applicant to a program or award not be affiliated with an institution, the applicable compliance process will be under 6.1(b).

8.3 Roles of Individuals

Individuals are expected to report in good faith and confidentially any information pertaining to alleged misrepresentation under the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation to the institution where the researcher involved is currently employed, enrolled as a student or has a formal association in the case of 6.1(a) or to the agency lead in the case of 6.1.(b).

8.4 Recourse

Following the processes outlines in sections 9 and 10 of this Directive, if the agency determines that there has been a breach of the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation, it will exercise the recourse it considers appropriate, commensurate with the severity of the breach. When making its decision, the agency will take into consideration the COC’s recommendations if applicable, the institution’s findings if applicable, the severity of the breach and any actions taken by the institution and researcher involved to remedy the breach.
Such recourse can include, but is not limited to:
- advising the institution, which may take further action;
- issuing a letter of concern to the researcher;
- advising the researcher that the agency will not accept applications for future funding from them for a defined time period or indefinitely;
- terminating remaining instalments of the grant or award;
- seeking a refund within a defined time frame of all or part of the funds already paid;
- advising the researcher that the agency will not consider them to serve on agency committees (e.g. peer review, advisory boards); and/or
- such other recourse available by law.

In exercising the appropriate recourse, the agency will consider the damages incurred by affected research personnel, including students, postdoctoral fellows and research support staff.

8.5 Accountability and Reporting

The agency will inform the respondent of the decision, and their institution if they are affiliated, of the agency’s decision, where applicable. The content of this communication will be subject to any applicable laws, including privacy laws.

8.6 Appeals

Respondents may submit an appeal related to a decision rendered under Sections 6.1(a) and 6.1(b) directly to the agencies through the designated agency lead under the program, opportunity or appointment. Appeals are allowed on a limited basis and accepted only in reference to the process itself. These appeals will be examined for completeness, applicability and, as necessary, shared with the COC for a recommendation.

9. Allegations under Section 6.1(a) of the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation: Allegation of misrepresentation related to applications for agency grants or awards

9.1 Roles of Institutions

Institutional responsibilities under this policy fall primarily under Section 6.1(a) of the Tri‐Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation: Allegation of misrepresentation related to applications for agency grants or awards. Under this stream, institutions are responsible for:

Receiving allegations within the scope of the Tri‐Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation and conducting an inquiry to determine if the allegation is responsible, as defined in the RCR Framework, and if an investigation is warranted, within two (2) months of receipt of the allegation.
Per Article 4.3.4. of the RCR Framework, the purpose of an initial inquiry process is “to establish whether an allegation is responsible and if an investigation is required. An inquiry may be conducted by one or more individuals. This could include the institution’s designated RCR contact and/or other individuals qualified to assess whether the allegation is responsible. The individual(s) conducting an inquiry should be without conflict of interest, whether real, potential or perceived.”
If the inquiry determines that an investigation is warranted, the institution has an additional five (5) months following the end of the inquiry to investigate and submit an investigation report to the SRCR. The institution therefore has a total of seven (7) months from the date of receipt of an allegation that results in an investigation to report to the SRCR. These timelines may be extended in consultation with the SRCR if circumstances warrant, and with periodic updates provided to the SRCR until the investigation is complete. The frequency of the periodic updates will be determined jointly by the SRCR and the institution.
Per Article 4.3.4. of the RCR Framework, the purpose of an investigation process is a process for “determining the validity of an allegation that provides the complainant and respondent with an opportunity to be heard as part of an investigation, and that allows for the respondent to appeal if a breach of policy is confirmed.” An investigation is conducted by “an investigation committee, appointed with the authority to decide whether a breach occurred. The investigation committee will include members who have the necessary expertise and who are without conflict of interest, whether real of apparent, and at least one external member who has no current affiliation with the institution.”
Subject to any applicable laws, including privacy laws, reports on investigations conducted under Section 6.1(a) will include the following information:
1. the specific allegation(s), a summary of the finding(s) and reasons for the finding(s);
2. the process and timelines followed for the investigation;
3. the researcher’s response to the allegation, investigation and findings, and any measures the researcher has taken to rectify the breach; and
4. the institutional investigation committee’s decisions and recommendations and actions taken by the institution.
The institution’s report should not include:
1. information that is not related specifically to agency funding and policies; or
2. personal information about the researcher, or any other person, that is not material to the institution's findings and its report to the SRCR.

9.2 Roles of Agencies

The agencies, through the SRCR, program staff and the Compliance Oversight Committee (COC), play important roles in addressing allegations of misrepresentation under the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation and in ensuring that such allegations are addressed appropriately and in a timely manner.

If the SRCR receives an allegation directly from a complainant where a respondent researcher is currently employed, enrolled as a student or has a formal association, and has applied under that institution, they will ask the complainant to provide the information in writing to the institution where the researcher involved is currently employed, enrolled as a student or has a formal association, with a copy to the SRCR.

9.3 Review of Institutional Reports

Following receipt of the report, the SRCR will review the institution’s report and may follow-up with the institution for clarification, as required. SRCR will forward the report and any additional clarification received from the institution to COC for their consideration.
The COC will review the report and recommend recourse, if appropriate, consistent with the Tri-Agency Policy and Directive on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation.

9.4 Summary of process under 6.1(a)

Description of image

Allegation of misrepresentation related to applications for agency grants or awards (Section 6.1(a) of the Tri‐Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation)
- The Complainant sends an allegation to the Institution where the Respondent is currently employed, enrolled as a student or has a formal association, with a copy to SRCR. (Please note: should an applicant not be affiliated with an Insititution, the applicable compliance process will be under 6.1(b).
- The institution receives the allegation and conducts an inquiry to determine if the allegation is responsible and if an investigation is warranted.
  - Allegation is not responsible, or allegation is responsible and a clear determination can be made without an investigation.
    - The Institution submits an inquiry report to SRCR. As necessary, an inquiry report may be routed to the COC for further review.
  - Inquiry determines that an investigation is warranted. Institution informs the Secretariat of its intention to proceed to an investigation within 2 months from receipt of allegation.
    - The Institution conducts an investigation and submits a report to SRCR within 5 months of completion of its inquiry.
    - SRCR reviews the Institution's report and seeks clarification, if appropriate, before routing file to Compliance Oversight Committee (COC).
    - COC recommendations are presented to Agency President, who makes the final decision on recourse.
    - Final decision communicated to respondent and/or Institution, as appropriate to terms of the program or opportunity. File closed.

10. Allegations under Section 6.1 (b) of the Tri‐Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation: Allegation of misrepresentation related to others in scope elements, including special appointments and/or advisory committees, and as applicable in the context of merit review committee members

The agencies, working with Indigenous partners, through program staff and the Compliance Oversight Committee (COC), play important roles in addressing allegations of misrepresentation under the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation and in ensuring that such allegations are addressed appropriately and in a timely manner.

Following receipt of an allegation, if the matter involves an alleged breach of the Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation within the context of an in-scope opportunity, program staff will follow-up as needed with the complainant, the institution and other parties as applicable, subject to applicable laws, including the Privacy Act.

10.1 Review of Allegations

Program staff will review the allegation to confirm whether there has been a breach of the Tri‐Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation within the context of the terms of the special appointment, advisory committee or, as applicable, in the context of merit review committee members.
Program staff may follow-up with the complainant as needed to obtain clarification on the allegation.
As needed, relevant agency leads will prepare the file for the review of the COC, which will recommend recourse, if appropriate, consistent with the RCR Framework concerning misrepresentation.
The COC will recommend recourse, if appropriate, consistent with the RCR Framework concerning misrepresentation.

10.2 Summary of process under 6.1(b)