Posts Tagged ‘ environment ’

The Long-Awaited List

Today, Prime Minister Carney is scheduled to announce the first tranche of projects to be designated as national interest projects (NIPs) under the new Building Canada Act (BCA).  The list is expected to include (based on reporting by CBC and the Globe & Mail):

  • expansion of LNG Canada in Kitimat, BC;
  • the Darlington New Nuclear Project in Clarington, ON;
  • the Contrecœur container terminal project at the Port of Montreal;
  • the McIlvenna Bay Copper Mine Project in Saskatchewan; and
  • the expansion of the Red Chris Mine in northwestern BC.

Ostensibly, the point of designation under the BCA is to expedite the federal impact assessment (IA) and permitting process for major projects considered to be of national importance.  Viewed in this light, some of the selected projects are a bit puzzling.

The Red Chris Mine expansion, for example, does not actually have any federal legislation triggers according to the proponent’s application to amend its provincial Environmental Assessment Certificate.  It’s therefore unclear how NIP designation under the BCA would facilitate this project.  British Columbia had already announced, back in February, that it will be fast-tracking the provincial environmental assessment and permitting for this project.  (Of note, the expansion will also requires the consent of the Tahltan Central Government pursuant to a decision-making and consent agreement between the Province and that First Nation.)

The McIlvenna Bay mining project is another curious selection.  That project is also not subject to a federal IA.  It falls below the production threshold specified in the Physical Activities Regulation under the Impact Assessment Act and so is not a ‘designated project’ for the purposes of that Act.  Transport Canada has already issued issued an approval under the Canadian Navigable Waters Act for a component of the project.  According to the proponent’s provincial environmental impact statement, a Fisheries Act authorization is not required, and its website describes the project as already “permitted” and under construction, so, again, it’s unclear what advantage NIP designation brings to this project.

The Contrecœur project already completed the federal IA process back in 2021, so its designation as a NIP would appear to have no benefit in that regard.  However, the proponent, the Montréal Port Authority, only just submitted its application for authorization under the Fisheries Act, so the presumptive approval of that application (as well as any that may be required under the federal Species at Risk Act) may be viewed as the main reason underlying the project’s designation in the first tranche.  While the project was deemed not likely to have significant adverse environmental effects (taking mitigation into account) at the IA stage, potential adverse effects on the endangered copper redhorse, a fish species listed in Schedule I of the federal Species at Risk Act, among other fish species of conservation concern, were noted in the assessment report.  As it has taken a further 4 ½ years after the IA stage just to complete the Fisheries Act application, let alone securing the actual authorization, the project certainly seems a reasonable candidate for any expediting that NIP designation might afford.  It will be interesting to see how long it takes to finalize the federal permitting, especially whether it takes the full two years that has been voiced as the target approval completion timeline for NIPs.

That leaves the LNG Canada expansion and the Darlington New Nuclear Project.  

I expect the process for review of the LNG Canada expansion will draw heavily on the outcomes of assessment and permitting already completed for the original project.  The federal Decision Statement (the decision document that follows completion of the federal IA process) for the original project was updated as recently as 2021, so the conditions of that decision would likely serve as a solid foundation for establishing conditions for the expansion.  This should, in theory, facilitate rapid decision-making even absent NIP designation.  With that foundation in place, this will be a true test case to see how quickly the Major Projects Office can get to issuing the deemed authorization decision document under the BCA.  

[Interestingly, two other LNG projects that are already in the federal assessment process, the Tilbury LNG Expansion Project and the Ksi Lisims LNG Project, were not designated as NIPs, perhaps because the assessments for those projects are being carried out by BC through a substituted process.]

The Darlington New Nuclear Project completed federal environmental assessment (EA) and secured the site preparation licence from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) back in 2012.  That licence was renewed in 2021 and site preparation commenced.  The proponent, Ontario Power Generation (OPG), applied to the CNSC for a licence to construct the first small modular reactor (SMR) in 2022.  However, changes in the proposed nuclear technology since the original EA was completed led CNSC to review the validity of the EA before proceeding with the licence application.  The EA was confirmed to be valid in 2024, and the CNSC issued the licence to construct in April 2025.  Three additional SMRs are proposed and subject to further licencing by the CNSC.  NIP designation of this project will presumably expedite this licencing process, though no light has yet been shed on the process the new Major Projects Office (MPO) will follow in this regard. 

[Folks at OPG might be experiencing a bit of déja vu today; through the original Major Projects Management Office (MPMO) initiative, established in 2007 by then PM Harper’s Conservative government, a whole-of-government approach was taken to facilitate the review of the project. A Project Agreement – signed in May 2009 by Natural Resources Canada, CNSC, the then Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the Canadian Transportation Agency, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada, Environment Canada, and (then) Indian and Northern Affairs – set out roles and responsibilities and guidelines for the length of each stage of the federal review process, including the EA, Indigenous consultation, and regulatory decision-making. How will the new MPO compare to the MPMO? We wait to see, with bated breath…]

2025
09/11
CATEGORY
Clean Energy
environment
General
Impact Assessment
Impact Assessment
Regulatory Affairs
TAGS
















Leave a comment

A National Interest Project Review Process in Ten Steps

On May 31, 2025, the federal government introduced the One Canadian Economy Act, Part 2 of which comprises the proposed Building Canada Act (BCA), setting out a process to identify and expedite the approval of major projects of so-called “national interest.”  There is much to unpack in the concepts of national interest projects, regulatory streamlining, and presumptive approvals – topics for further posts, perhaps – but for now we offer some initial thinking on how a review process under the BCA might look, to support collective discourse on its potential merits and shortcomings.

To this end, we provide a preliminary description of a potential review process, in ten steps, for national interest projects pursuant to the proposed BCA, as drafted, and highlight aspects that warrant further clarification or guidance through regulatory or other means in order to achieve the federal government’s stated two-year approval timeline.  The potential process steps are anticipated based on existing legislative regimes and past experience in federal impact assessment and permitting processes in Canada.  In general, in our view, every step of the process should be time-limited through regulation.

This post assumes the reader is already somewhat familiar with the national economic, political, and regulatory context within which the BCA has been proposed, and the typical federal impact assessment and permitting processes to which major projects are subject in Canada.

Step 1: Application for an Order

    A proponent (or another party, such as a federal authority) would presumably submit a request or an application for an Order to add a project to Schedule 1.  The BCA specifies, in section 6, factors that must be considered before making an Order, including the extent to which the project can:

    1. strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience and security;
    2. provide economic or other benefits to Canada;
    3. have a high likelihood of successful execution;
    4. advance the interests of Indigenous peoples; and
    5. contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.

    This list is fairly consistent with the criteria laid out in the First Ministers’ statement on building a strong Canadian economy and advancing major projects issued following the First Ministers meeting in Saskatoon on June 2, 2025. 

    Reasonably then, an application should describe the extent to which the project would support those factors.  The application could also identify the Indigenous groups potentially affected by the project, and perhaps also the anticipated effects on those groups and any outcome of consultation with those groups undertaken prior to an application being made.  An application should also identify all the relevant federal authorizations that are likely to be required, which would – if the project is deemed a national interest project – be included in the consolidated “national interest” authorization document pursuant to section 7(1) of the BCA.  

    It would make sense for regulations to be established under the BCA to specify the Order application information requirements, similar to how certain information requirements are specified in the Information and Management of Time Limits Regulations under the Impact Assessment Act (IAA).

    Step 2: Minister consults on the application for an Order and makes a recommendation to GIC

      The Minister (it is as yet unclear which Minister this would be) would consult federal authorities (FAs), provincial or territorial governments, and potentially affected Indigenous groups regarding the application for an Order and make a recommendation to the Governor in Council (GIC) on whether an Order should be issued.  We anticipate this would be an opportunity for those parties to provide further views on the extent to which the project can (or cannot, as the case may be) support the relevant factors.

      Step 3: GIC Order

      Based on the Minister’s recommendation, we assume for the purposes of this discussion that the GIC would amend Schedule 1 of the BCA, by Order, adding the project as a national interest project.

      Step 4: Requirements specified and coordinated?

      The BCA reinforces that the proponent must “take all measures,” “provide any information,” and “pay fees” required in relation to the various authorizations to be included in the national interest authorization document (see sections 6(2) and 7(2)(a) of the BCA).  In other words, the processes of review that would normally be undertaken in relation to federal permitting would still occur:  proponents would still have to submit the information required to support, say, an application for a Fisheries Act authorization or a Canadian Navigable Waters Act approval.

      For projects that are also designated projects under the IAA, the BCA would eliminate the Planning Phase of a federal impact assessment (IA), but the requirement for the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) to provide the proponent with tailored impact statement (IS) guidelines (TISG), among other things, and for the proponent to provide an IS that meets those guidelines would remain.  

      This is an aspect of the BCA that begs for immediate improvement:  the information requirements for a federal IA and the suite of federal permits that will likely be needed for any major project of national interest are almost certain to overlap.  The BCA should allow for all the relevant information requirements to be consolidated into a single, project-specific “guidelines” document that eliminates duplication, redundancy, and conflict.  The BCA already contemplates (in section 20) a coordinating Office role that could facilitate this task.  

      At the very least, absent this kind of coordinated approach, the existing TISG template currently used by IAAC should be revised to remove information requirements that would otherwise be duplicative with the information requirements of other permitting FAs.

      Step 5: Proponent Submission(s)

      Ideally, as noted above, a single, coordinated submission by the proponent will meet the needs of all FAs, including IAAC, to be consulted by the Minister in establishing conditions: “one project, one review,” being the policy objective, after all.

      Step 6: Conformity Review

      In this single submission approach, the process administrator (i.e., the Coordinating Office (CO)) would presumably coordinate the review of the proponent’s submission for conformity with the information requirements.  The scope of additional information requests (IRs) should be limited by regulation to the matters directly relevant to and necessary for the development of conditions for the project.

      Step 7: Submission(s) deemed complete, technical review(s) proceed

      In an ideal world, the Coordinating Office would coordinate a single review of a single, consolidated submission, engaging all the relevant FAs (i.e., consulting with them) as needed to carry out a technical review of matters within their respective mandates and provide recommendations for necessary conditions.  Any Indigenous and public consultation that would normally occur during the review stage of IA and most permitting processes should also be coordinated.  Again, the scope of IRs should be limited by regulation to the matters directly relevant to and necessary for the development of conditions for the project.  

      Step 8: Draft conditions

      The Coordinating Office would likely compile conditions recommended by the various FAs, including IAAC, taking into account the outcome of consultation during the review phase.

      Step 9: Consultation

      Before issuing the national interest authorization document, the Minister, presumably supported by the Coordinating Office, must consult potentially affected Indigenous groups.  The proponent should also have an opportunity to review the draft conditions to evaluate their technical and economic feasibility and to advance alternative approaches if any condition is determined to be infeasible.  

      Step 10: Final document with conditions

        The final national interest authorization document would be issued (and made available to the public), incorporating all the final and feasible conditions deemed to be required. 

        The simplified diagram below illustrates this potential process.  Blue boxes indicate proponent actions, green indicate process actions led by either the Minister or the Coordinating Office (CO), and the orange box indicates action by the GIC.

        Interestingly, over a year ago, in my last post on this blog, I recommended the establishment of an expedited process for clean transition projects of national importance…

        2025
        06/10
        CATEGORY
        Impact Assessment
        Impact Assessment
        TAGS
































        Leave a comment

        When Environmental Responsibility Gets in the Way of … Environmental Responsibility

        Impact assessment or IA – also known as and including environmental assessment, environmental impact assessment, social impact assessment, health impact assessment, and a host of other discipline-specific variations along those lines – involves the critical evaluation of the consequences of past, present, and future development. Most commonly, IA is applied to specific projects to assist decision-makers and the public to understand potential environmental, social, cultural, health, and economic impacts – both positive and negative – and to inform the development of measures to mitigate adverse effects and enhance beneficial outcomes. The scope of IA has expanded from its original focus on the biophysical environment to encompass a broad range of issues reflective of today’s society, including gender and identity, Indigenous rights and interests, and inter-generational health and well-being, among other considerations. As such, IA, when done properly and well, is recognized as a vital tool in promoting sustainable development, and legislative frameworks have evolved to establish robust procedures for IA in many jurisdictions, including Canada.

        Unfortunately – ironically, even – today’s IA frameworks, born of well-founded intentions to foster sustainability and protect the natural and human environment, often hinder the advancement of projects that are critical to a sustainable future.

        Earlier this week, we saw yet another example of the challenge facing Canada and other jurisdictions trying to advance clean energy transition projects: how do we thread the needle, balancing timely project development with legitimate objectives of environmental and community protection at the local level?

        https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/glencore-may-look-elsewhere-recycling-hub-after-italy-rejects-fast-track-2023-10-01/

        In this example, a regional-level government in Italy chose to require a full impact assessment instead of an available fast-track approval process for a proposed electric car battery recycling facility pilot project at an existing facility, prompting the proponent to consider looking elsewhere for more favourable conditions for its project.  This outcome illustrates how even a well-intentioned IA framework can undermine progress towards climate action goals, while also impacting global competitiveness.

        When an impact assessment process takes many years to complete, like it does here in Canada, it creates a real barrier to getting so-called “green” projects built, delaying the transition to a more sustainable economy and exacerbating the climate crisis we face. In very practical terms, there is a procedural conflict between what needs to be done to address global climate change – including rapid development and deployment of clean energy-related projects – and what needs to be done to protect local ecosystems and communities from the effects of those projects. The latter, too often, is typically accomplished through a complex process that has proven to be unwieldy and time-consuming, undermining the achievement of the former. This conflict is costing us, in economic opportunity, competitiveness, security, and well-being, both now and, through delayed mitigation of the effects of climate change, in the future.

        IA frameworks and other regulatory processes urgently need to be retooled to reconcile these two vital aspects of environmental responsibility. We need to develop and apply more timely and efficient ways to evaluate and implement green projects, drawing on our collective knowledge and experience in assessment – and especially management – of the environmental, social, cultural, health, and economic impacts of development.

        There is a tremendous breadth and depth of practical experience in Canada and elsewhere in this regard. We need to leverage this expertise to develop trusted, efficient, and expedited decision-making processes that respect and achieve both our local and global environmental goals.

        As I was writing this post, I was reminded of Janus, that ancient Roman mythological figure usually depicted with two faces. Janus is known as the god of change and transition, overseeing progress from one time to another, one state or condition to another. Surely there is a metaphor there: these two sides – faces, if you will – of environmental responsibility are part of the whole and both are essential for a successful transition to a clean energy future.

        2023
        10/05
        CATEGORY
        Clean Energy
        Corporate Responsibility
        environment
        General
        Impact Assessment
        Sustainability
        Transition
        TAGS










        1 comment

        Locate the Nearest Exit: Corporate Responsibility Lessons from a Frequent Flyer

        This is the second in our lighthearted series of Corporate Responsibility Lessons from a Frequent Flyer.  For our first post in this series, Don’t Leave Your Baggage Unattended, click here.

        The onboard pre-flight safety demonstration is all about what to do when things go wrong.  It explains the safety features of the aircraft, and how to use them properly.  It describes how to exit the aircraft in case of emergency.  It reviews the rules established to ensure passenger safety.  And it refers to the safety information card available to each passenger.  Finally, passengers are invited to share questions or concerns with the flight attendants.  The briefing includes mandatory elements standardized by the International Civil Aviation Organization, and has changed over time to incorporate new elements shown by experience to be necessary.

        In these respects, the pre-flight safety demonstration is a model for organizational crisis management.  The briefing provides a clear framework for action by the stakeholder – the passenger, in this case – in the event of an emergency.  It engages the stakeholder directly, articulating their role in crisis response.  It identifies reference material and sources of additional information, if required.  And the briefing is customized to reflect specific risks – flights over water, for instance, warrant additional safety measures – and updated to clarify new or revised procedures.

        To the extent passengers are paying attention, the pre-flight safety demonstration can minimize the likelihood of injury and maximize the likelihood of survival in a real emergency.  Similarly, the chances of surviving a corporate crisis, like any other, are greatly increased when the organization understands the risks, has plans and procedures in place to enable efficient and effective action if a crisis occurs, and maintains a state of readiness – through training, exercises, and upkeep – to increase the likelihood of desirable outcomes.

        Effective crisis management is an important element of corporate responsibility because it enables the organization to anticipate and better manage potential impacts of a crisis with the aim of protecting the health and safety of employees and the public, the environment, and property, including public and private property and the assets of the organization.  The better able an organization is to respond to a crisis in a timely and credible manner, consistent with its vision and values and responsive to the needs of its stakeholders, the more resilient it will be through times of trouble.

        On an airplane, the nearest exit is often not the door through which you came in.  Similarly, the way out of a crisis is often not the way you arrived.  Just as the floor-mounted lighting system in an aircraft will guide you to the nearest exit, an effective crisis management plan will guide the organization through turbulence to a safe landing.

         

        For fun, click below to enjoy Air New Zealand’s pre-flight safety video featuring Richard Simmons, ‘Fit to Fly’.

         

        You might also like this rap safety briefing on South West Airlines.

        2013
        06/25
        CATEGORY
        Corporate Responsibility
        TAGS














        1 comment

        Advice for the Shoestring Practitioner: Sustainability Mapping

        Are you a Shoestring Practitioner?  A Shoestring Practitioner is someone with a passion for doing good, for doing the right thing, for doing things better, but who is working on a shoestring:  constrained in his or her efforts by a lack of resources, such as staff, time, money, or organizational support.  This post is intended for the Shoestring Practitioner, especially one who is at or near the beginning of a sustainability journey in their organization, but may also be helpful to others trying to advance a corporate responsibility (CR) strategy.  I prepared this post in response to questions received through my network about how to engage employees in CR planning.

        In an earlier post [Should sustainability have a seat in the C-suite? December 1, 2010], I talked about the need to develop a fulsome understanding of the sustainability landscape in order to guide decisions about corporate responsibility (CR) strategy.  A comprehensive and well-founded CR strategy will be informed by current and future business drivers pertinent to sustainability, including evolving regulatory frameworks, changing stakeholder expectations (including, but by no means limited to customers), emerging standards and best practice, pressing risks and opportunities, and the organization’s own capacities and competitive positioning.  It must also consider, especially in a complex, diverse organization, the range of perspectives and opinions, the differences in awareness and understanding about CR and sustainability issues that may exist among the employees who will eventually be responsible for implementing a CR strategy, as well as among other key stakeholder groups.

        A key component of sustainability mapping is stakeholder engagement, particularly internal employee engagement.  Employees can provide unique insight into current and emerging challenges and opportunities, shed light on existing organizational strengths and weaknesses, and highlight areas where CR and sustainability programming could advance strategic business goals.  Moreover, early employee engagement around CR and sustainability issues increases the relevance of strategies developed in response to their input and the likelihood of later buy-in and support.

        While sustainability mapping can be a significant undertaking, especially in a large organization, employee engagement is something the Shoestring Practitioner often can tackle on their own, with limited resources.  Click here to learn how…

        2011
        01/27
        CATEGORY
        Corporate Responsibility
        Stakeholder Engagement
        Strategy
        Sustainability
        TAGS





















        1 comment

        Good Things

        Follow some of the links recommended below... Some are specifically relevant to Canadians, but many are of general interest. I'll update from time to time.