CANADA'S FUTURE IS UNBUILT.

Now 2050

The federal government has set ambitious emissions reduction targets with a goal to be net zero by 2050.

But to meet those targets, Canada will require a massive infrastructure buildout and transformation at a speed
and scale never before seen in Canadian history.
Design Note: Maps to be viewed from an angled perspective, with projects to be "popping up" from map, similar to that of this City of Surrey design.
A design note that the "CO2" icon is representing carbon capture utilization and storage, and should demonstrate CO2 going into the ground and not
being released as emissions as the current icon might suggest.

Canada’s electrical grid, as just one example,

would need to increase two to three-and-a-
half times its current capacity.

That means doubling or tripling the output of

an electricity system that took more than
100 years to build, in one quarter of the time,
while building necessary storage and
distribution infrastructure, all while
Design Note: Underlined words to be emphasized (by colour, font weight, etc.). eliminating emissions.
Visual of electrical lines multiplied, or fading into the distance to demonstrate scale.

And with Canada’s regulatory systems as they are today, doing so would be impossible.

One of the biggest problems standing in the way of that effort is that Canada has a growing reputation as a
place where major projects can't get built. Review and permitting processes are slow, expensive, fraught with
uncertainty, and worsening with time.

Unless significant improvements are made to the way we operate, it will be virtually impossible to approve—let
alone build—the projects needed to meet our 2030 & 2050 environmental targets.

We cannot accept this as the status quo.

Design Note: I love the look of the "Economic Impact of the Great Lakes" design, would love to see something like that for this infographic.
Emphasis placed on the bolded phrases above.

MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF CANADA'S PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS

Canadians believe in strong and robust review and permitting processes. These processes protect public health and the environment; ensure
Indigenous voices are incorporated into decision making; and enhance public trust in the review, construction, and operation of major projects.
Project proponents embrace working with governments, communities, citizens, and Indigenous Peoples to ensure proposals pass stringent
processes and align with social values and the common good.

However, efficient, predictable, and robust reviews can and must become part of Canada's competitive advantage. Here's how.

CANADA'S PROJECT REVIEW PROCESSES

If Canada wants to attract the investment needed to meet its emissions reduction targets, advance Indigenous
partnership, and generate economic prosperity for Canadians, broad, systemic changes to Canada’s regulatory
and permitting processes will be required.
Design Note: Visual around financial capital, dollar signs may even be a natural representation.

A world-class regulatory review system needs to include the following elements:

An Early Signal Indigenous Partnerships

Independent Reviews Strong Leadership
Clear Requirements Championed Outcomes
Prioritized Focus

That means addressing challenges throughout the process that will improve the efficiency and predictability of
existing regulatory systems.
Design Note: I want the design of this section to reflect a flow through process. Arrows are not needed to do that, but I want to
communicate the flow from start to finish.

One challenge in describing the project review system is that no two projects traverse the same path through
Canada's review processes. Regulating agencies at the provincial, territorial, and federal levels have different
project review and permitting processes, and any one project may fall under the oversight of multiple agencies.

While not unanimous, proponents generally proceed through Canada's project review processes having
touched each of the following nine stages.

Canada's Project Review and Permitting Processes

Conditions
Impact Regulator Decision
Pre-Planning Screening Scoping & Permitting Construction
Studies Review Making
Monitoring

Design Note: This is the most central component of the infographic. I have it represented here by blocks just to show there's 9 in a row,
design however you want, but this should be the centrepiece.

Across these review processes, Regulating Government

Proponents
a number of major players serve Agencies Ministries
a role in advancing through each
stage. Major players include, but Indigenous Members of Political
are not limited to: Groups the Public Decision-Makers

Design Note: I would like each "player" to have it's own representative icon that would be displayed next to the name.

As projects proceed, major players are engaged across the review processes, with
responsibility shifting back and forth between the proponent and regulating agencies
depending on the stage.

While this may all seem straightforward, Canada's new Impact Assessment process, for
example, has only had one project make it to the decision-making phase—but it did so by
substituting the federal process for British Columbia's process. Of all the projects
requiring an Impact Assessment, not one has made it past the Impact Studies stage. This
alone is cause for concern.
Design Note: Might be a good opportunity for a call out box here.

Design Note: Some sort of visual to suggest a halting in the process, like a barrier.

WORKING WITHIN THE SYSTEM

Canadian businesses are generally dissatisfied with major project review and permitting processes. Past experience has
shown that project proponents can spend years and considerable amounts of capital trying to clear regulatory hurdles, with
little confidence in how long it will take—or how much it will likely cost—to get through to approval.

Moreover, the rigour, complexity, and timeline uncertainty of those processes are expanding with time, and the deadline for
our emissions reduction targets are rapidly approaching. Proponents report encountering inefficiencies, a lack of
transparency, and unpredictability when it comes to Canada's project review processes, none of which inspire confidence.

And while the intent of regulatory excellence is to enable projects to get built with the best possible designs, poorly
designed and administered processes can just as easily deter investment as they can enable it.
Design Note: I'd like to see a visual here around the proponent. Perhaps a worker experiencing some of the frustrations detailed here at differing points in a project.

For example, in Canada's Impact Assessment Act (IAA) process, proponents move through five phases:

Impact Impact Decision Post

Planning
Statement Assessment Making Decision

Timeline: Up to 180 days Up to 3 years Up to 300/600 Up to 30/90

days days

300 600
Decision
Decision
Cabinet
Minister

IAAC Review

332 Days Panel

spent on average in Phase 1 of

the IAA process
In the first phase alone, proponents have spent
As the Canada West Foundation's "Federal
Impact Assessment Act Under Review" anywhere from 127 days to 693 days in a stage that was
report states, the Impact Assessment mandated to take 180 or less.
Agency of Canada (IAAC) has consistently
met it's 180-day legislated limit. But this

does not factor in the time projects have
spent suspended or extended, adding
hundreds of days to one of the shortest
phases in the review process.
As the process currently stands, the planning phase is
not operating as intended, and is leading to delayed
timelines, missed construction windows, and lost capital
as a result.

Design Note: I really like the magnification in the

Economic impact of the Great Lakes design.

Defining Success

If we want to achieve regulatory excellence, we must first create a model regulatory system that
enables us to meet our environmental targets and becomes part of our competitive advantage.
Design Note: This is the goal of this project, so making this standout would be fantastic.

For Canada to be successful, we must develop a long-term vision for regulatory excellence.
Design Note: Unironically lean into Canadian imagery here, I'm thinking Canadian flag/maple leaf sort of imagery

We need a system that reflects the values of Canadians’—mitigating project risk, while simultaneously seizing the benefits of job
creation and economic development.

Canadians want processes that safeguard key health, economic, cultural, and environmental policy objectives. Therefore, we need
a regulatory system that is:

Impartial —with clear, expert-driven, evidenced-based decision making, free from political influence
Comprehensive —with world class reviews, that identify and mitigate important risks, and reflect Indigenous and community concerns
Trusted—by all, including the public, Indigenous rights-holders, and project proponents
Efficient —to the greatest extent possible in both cost and time; and
Predictable —in length, with simple, understandable processes that follow predictable timelines

Only by making pragmatic and thoughtful changes that result in more predictable, timely, and transparent project review and permitting
processes can we meet our environmental ambitions, and sustainably expand the economy.

A Review of the System

Across Canada's project review and permitting processes, proponents note nine broad challenge areas they continue to encounter
when putting forward major projects, split between three major themes of participation, process, and predictability.

Participation challenges address Indigenous and community engagement—and the roles, responsibilities, and requirements for each.

Process challenges note friction points in existing project review frameworks.

Predictability challenges address issues to do with timelines and project certainty.

Addressing challenges in these nine areas will not only improve investor confidence in the short term, but will help create the conditions
needed to attract capital to Canada to address our emissions reductions and economic prosperity goals in the long-term. If we want to
improve our regulatory systems, we must first look to address the challenges that exist within them.

Impacted Phases in the Project Review Process

Impact Regulator Decision Conditions &

Challenges Pre-Planning Screening Scoping Permitting Construction
Studies Review Making Monitoring

Indigenous Engagement

Third-Party Intervenors

Cumulative Issues

Government Coordination

Expanding Requirements

Interjurisdictional Tensions

Length of Review Timelines

Political Uncertainty

Construction Windows

Understanding the Challenges

1 Indigenous Engagement Expectations around Indigenous engagement are unclear, and capacity improvements are needed

2 Third-Party Intervenors Third-party interventions can be repetitive or not pertinent

3 Cumulative Issues Governments and regulators have difficulty seeing how small issues add up to affect overall processes

4 Government Coordination Federal internal coordination is inefficient

5 Expanding Requirements Review and compliance requirements are expanding and not always in scope

6 Interjurisdictional Tensions Interjurisdictional tensions and overlapping processes are impeding project reviews and construction

7 Length of Review Timelines Project review timelines are long, expanding, and not proportional to project risk

8 Political Uncertainty Political and policy preferences are creating uncertain processes

9 Construction Windows Construction windows are too easily disrupted

Time is of the essence if we are to build the projects needed in time to meet Canada’s environmental targets. That is why, in the short-
term, Canada should focus on addressing the following four areas to make an immediate impact:
IAA DESIGNATION CRITERA SHORTEN AND SCALE REVIEW TIMELINES
Publish the criteria used by Ministers to Shorten existing review timelines and scale them
designate projects under the IAA according to project complexity

BODY TO MANAGE PERMITTING FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR

INDIGENOUS PARTICIPATION
Create a government oversight body to
manage and coordinate federal permitting Expand financial supports for Indigenous
participation in project development

But at the same time, short-term solutions within existing project review frameworks need to be in service of a broader goal—creating a
model regulatory system in Canada that becomes part of our competitive advantage.

The time is now. For Canada.

With thanks to the Business Council of British Columbia, the Canada West Foundation, and members of the Task Force on
Major Project Development and Regulatory Excellence for their many contributions.