Three ways to make Canada’s project approval process great—on Day One

 
The holdups on major projects start by a “more is better” regulatory ethos that, by many accounts, results in a tremendous amount of unnecessary work, confusion and delay. Although the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) is relatively new and touted as an improvement, no project has successfully completed the full IAA process. Some projects have been subject to the IAA pipeline for four or more years and are still years from any decision. The Cedar LNG project, which was approved under the IAA, relied on British Columbia’s environmental assessment regime being substituted for much of the IAA process.

While the federal government has previously acknowledged that there is a timing issue, its recent efforts to achieve a three-year “target” for the IAA process don’t do enough to fix the problem.

Fortunately, Canada has some project approval models that have been shown to be effective. For example, Ontario’s large renewable energy projects used to take too long to permit, until a 24-month timeline and other process improvements were put in place—with the result that good projects got approval in a commercially reasonable timeframe. In addition to shortening timelines, this type of regulatory innovation has a way of focusing all project participants on the evaluation at hand, while generating more transparent and user-friendly engagement and reports.

Three actions to improve impact assessments

What can Canada do on day one of the next federal government’s mandate to immediately expedite and improve impact assessments for its critical projects? Here are three transformative, straightforward-to-implement actions that could be taken on board by the next federal government, without amending or replacing the IAA.

1. Scope necessary assessments. In determining whether an assessment is required under the IAA, the federal regulator is not required to consider the consequences and uncertainty of a lengthy assessment process. However, the regulator can and should do so.
   
   If the regulator determines that an assessment is required, the issues resulting in such determination should be the focus of the assessment. While this may seem obvious, currently, project proponents that are subject to an IAA assessment process often must address what is essentially a “to do” list that runs to 100 pages or more.
   
   Most of the “to dos” are driven by the “more is better” approach and are unnecessary to determine the appropriate outcome of the assessment. This duplication of effort with future permitting processes and over-broad focus could be addressed by a careful streamlining of assessment requirements.
2. Maximize and front-load participants’ contributions. The approval process can be streamlined by more effectively leveraging the early participation of Indigenous peoples, members of the public, governments and other participants to focus the scope of the process. Participants’ core interests—ultimate benefits, concerns, desires and needs—would become the building blocks for a better assessment.
   
   Involving participants early on and in this way can help define the assessment’s scope, identify core interests, reduce the burden on participants and regulators throughout the process, and, importantly, improve assessment outcomes and expedite subsequent permitting processes.
   
   During the assessment, this approach would enable participants to voice their issues in “real time” with a greater potential to improve decisions.
   
   This approach would result in a more transparent and user-friendly assessment. It would also lay a better foundation for developing Indigenous partnerships as well as satisfying, expediating, and improving the results from the government’s duty to consult and, if appropriate, accommodate Indigenous peoples potentially affected by a project (known as the duty to consult and accommodate, or DTCA).
3. Implement overall time limits. Time matters. An absolute time limit (with very little room for deviation) should be imposed on the entire assessment process.
   
   The IAA’s current time limits only apply to certain parts of the assessment process—and the regulatory clock can be stopped in numerous common situations.
   
   To satisfy Canada’s DTCA prior to issuing IAA decisions (which is a constitutional obligation), the federal government has an opportunity to use the interest-based regulatory process described above to assist in that regard. In addition to improving and expediting the DTCA, this approach can increase and strengthen Indigenous partnerships, in my experience.

These three actions could be set in motion to great effect early in the new federal government’s mandate. These actions could tremendously accelerate the permitting of Canada’s critical projects, while improving the quality of assessments, advancing reconciliation and Indigenous partnerships, and making Canada economically stronger.

While these actions should be enshrined in the IAA (and any future federal assessment regime) at the first opportunity, the federal government could realize the benefits of these actions through agreements with project proponents and their investors, if needed, to provide the level of certainty to attract new capital to Canada in the meantime. Thus, these three actions could improve the assessment of projects immediately, while also supporting and enhancing future legislative changes, including with respect to national priority projects and trade corridors or zones.

These three improvements could positively and profoundly affect Canada’s future early in the next federal government’s mandate, creating more great opportunities for Canada and demonstrating our ability to realize and deliver great benefits to our partners.