WHO ACTUALLY APPROVES PROJECTS? NAVIGATING GOVERNMENT, REGULATION AND POLITICS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

By Cory Vanthuyne

One of the first questions asked about a proposed Northern project is often fairly simple:

“Who actually approves it?”

In the Northwest Territories, the answer is usually, “It depends.”

That is not an attempt to avoid the question. The answer may depend on where the project is located, who owns the land, how water will be used, which Indigenous rights and agreements apply, what environmental effects may occur, where the funding is coming from and which government or regulatory body has authority over each decision.

A single project may involve an Indigenous government, a community government, one or more territorial departments, federal agencies, a land and water board, an environmental review body and several funding partners.

They are not all considering the same question.

For an engineering team, the project may be about design and constructability. For a community, it may be about jobs, access, cost and long-term benefit. An Indigenous government may be considering rights, land, culture and the future of its citizens. A regulator may be focused on environmental effects and mitigation. A funding government may be looking for affordability, readiness and public value.

It is still one project—but it can look quite different depending on who is sitting across the table.

THE SYSTEM HAS A HISTORY

The Northwest Territories did not simply adopt a smaller version of a provincial regulatory system.

The system developed through land-rights and self-government agreements, modern treaties, Indigenous political leadership, federal legislation and the gradual transfer—devolution—of responsibilities from Ottawa to the territorial government. Co-management boards were established so that decisions about land, water and environmental effects would include Indigenous participation alongside public government.

That history matters because the boards are not an extra layer placed on top of the system. They are part of how the system was built.

The same is true of devolution. In 2014, responsibility for most public land, water and resource management was transferred from Canada to the Government of the Northwest Territories. That brought substantially more decision-making into the territory, but it did not place every part of the regulatory system under territorial legislation.

The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act—commonly referred to as the MVRMA—is an important example.

The MVRMA establishes the integrated system of land-use planning, land and water regulation, environmental assessment and environmental monitoring that operates throughout the Mackenzie Valley. It provides the legislative foundation for the regional land and water boards, the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board and the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board.

Despite devolution, the MVRMA remains federal legislation.

Canada has delegated significant ministerial responsibilities under the Act to the territorial government. As a result, the GNWT now exercises several functions that were previously carried out by a federal minister, including certain responsibilities involving water licences, securities, inspections, cumulative-impact monitoring and environmental-assessment decisions.

But delegated authority is not the same as owning the legislation.

The original Devolution Agreement called for the parties to undertake a review of its MVRMA provisions following the fifth anniversary of devolution. It did not provide for the automatic transfer of the entire Act to the territorial government within five years. The MVRMA remains a federal Act, even though important responsibilities under it are exercised here in the Northwest Territories.

That distinction may appear technical, but it helps explain why Northern decision-making cannot always be placed neatly inside one government department. A project may be reviewed by boards located in the North, involve decisions made by a territorial minister and still operate under federal legislation rooted in modern treaties and negotiated systems of co-management.

The Inuvialuit Settlement Region has its own screening and review system arising from the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. Although the two systems share some broad principles, they are not identical.

This is one reason a regulatory approach used successfully in one part of the Northwest Territories may not transfer neatly to another. Location is not simply a point on a map. It can determine which agreements, institutions, legislation and decision-making processes apply.

POLITICAL SUPPORT AND REGULATORY APPROVAL ARE NOT THE SAME THING

Projects need political support.

Major infrastructure usually requires public funding, policy alignment and leadership from elected officials. Ministers, Members of the Legislative Assembly, Indigenous leaders, Chiefs, Mayors and Councils all play important roles in identifying priorities and building support.

But political support does not replace regulatory review.

A project can be strongly supported by government and still require detailed environmental assessment, land-use permits, water licences and consultation. An elected leader may want the project to move forward but cannot simply direct an independent board to approve it.

The reverse can also be true. A project may be technically capable of receiving permits but still lack funding, political priority or sufficient support to proceed.

This distinction is important.

When organizations speak about having “government support,” it is worth understanding what that actually means. Has the project been identified as a priority? Is it included in a capital plan? Has funding been approved or only requested? Has the appropriate Indigenous government expressed support? Has a regulator made a decision, or has an early meeting simply taken place?

Each of those steps has value, but they are not interchangeable.

The danger comes when early interest is described as though every important decision has already been made. That creates expectations that the actual process may not be ready to support.

RELATIONSHIPS HELP—BUT THEY DO NOT REPLACE THE PROCESS

The Northwest Territories has a small population and a relatively small group of people working across government, regulation, infrastructure and economic development.

You will often see the same people at different tables.

A deputy minister involved in one initiative may appear at a conference discussing another. A regulatory executive may have spent earlier parts of their career in government, industry or an Indigenous organization. Community leaders, technical staff and advisors may be involved in several major files at the same time.

Over the years, people also change roles. Today’s project manager may later become a senior government official. A former elected leader may move into business or advisory work (i.e.: yours truly). Someone working for a proponent may eventually sit across the table representing another organization.

That is part of life in a small territory.

Relationships matter because they help people communicate, understand context and know who should be involved. They can help an organization ask a better question, avoid an unnecessary misunderstanding or speak with the right authority at the appropriate stage.

What they cannot do is replace evidence, consultation or a proper regulatory decision.

Knowing an executive director does not guarantee the decision of an independent board. Knowing a minister does not turn an unfunded concept into an approved project. Knowing an Indigenous leader does not mean a government or community has given its support.

In fact, people in positions of authority are often especially careful about these boundaries. Their credibility depends on being fair, following the process and respecting the responsibilities of their office.

The real value of relationships is not that they provide a way around the system. It is that they help people understand the system well enough to work through it properly.

ONE PROJECT CAN HAVE SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS

A major project is rarely explained only once.

It may be discussed with a Minister as a strategic investment, with a federal department as a funding request, with an Indigenous government as a matter involving rights and community benefit, and with a regulatory board as a proposed development with potential environmental effects.

Each discussion will naturally focus on different information.

The project should still remain recognizable from one room to the next.

Problems arise when the story changes too much depending on the audience. A project cannot be presented to government as urgent, to funders as fully ready, to communities as still open for input and to regulators as already decided, without eventually creating confusion.

The strongest projects have a clear core: What is being proposed? Why is it needed? Who benefits? What is known? What remains uncertain? Which decisions have been made, and which ones have not?

Different audiences may need different detail, but the basic facts and commitments should remain consistent.

In a small jurisdiction, disconnected messages rarely remain disconnected for long. The people involved in one part of the project will often speak with those involved in another.

Consistency builds confidence. Contradictions create unnecessary work for everyone.

INDIGENOUS GOVERNMENTS ARE PART OF THE GOVERNANCE LANDSCAPE

It is difficult to understand Northern decision-making without understanding the role of Indigenous governments.

Indigenous governments are not simply another stakeholder group to be consulted after a project has been developed. Depending on the location and the applicable agreement, they may hold constitutionally protected rights, own land, make laws, nominate members to co-management boards, deliver programs and participate directly in decisions about land and resources.

Their structures also differ.

Some represent regions made up of several communities. Others are community-based governments. Some have settled comprehensive land rights or self-government agreements, while others remain in negotiations. Development corporations may be closely connected to an Indigenous Nation but serve a commercial role that is different from the government’s political and legal responsibilities.

These distinctions affect whom a project should engage and what kind of discussion is taking place.

A meeting with a development corporation about a business opportunity is not necessarily a consultation with the Indigenous government. A commercial agreement does not automatically address rights or community concerns. In the same way, political support from an Indigenous government does not settle every commercial question about how its businesses may participate.

Understanding those roles at the beginning can prevent a project team from placing the right conversation at the wrong table.

THE PUBLIC SERVICE OFTEN CARRIES THE PROJECT BETWEEN POLITICAL DECISIONS

Elected leaders set priorities, approve budgets and provide direction. Much of the work required to turn that direction into an executable project is carried by the public service.

Deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, directors, project teams, policy staff, financial officers and technical specialists help determine what information is needed, which approvals apply and whether an initiative is ready to move to the next stage.

This part of the process receives less public attention, but it often determines the pace of progress.

A political announcement may establish the destination. The public service still has to build the road between that announcement and delivery.

That includes developing the business case, establishing governance, confirming funding, completing technical work, documenting decisions, addressing risks and coordinating with other governments and authorities.

In a small administration, the same people may be supporting several priorities at once. Major projects compete not only for money, but also for the attention and capacity of the officials needed to advance them.

A project can therefore have broad support and still move slowly because the next decision depends on work that has not been completed or capacity that is not yet available.

That is not always a sign that nothing is happening. Sometimes it means the work has reached the less visible part of project development.

THE REGULATORY PROCESS STARTS BEFORE THE APPLICATION

A regulatory process may formally begin when an application is submitted, but the quality of that process is often shaped much earlier.

Early planning determines how well the project understands the land, water, communities and potential effects involved. It also determines whether the proponent has identified the right authorities, gathered useful baseline information and allowed enough time for meaningful engagement.

A rushed application does not necessarily create a faster decision.

If important information is missing, regulators and participating organizations will ask for it. If the project description keeps changing, earlier work may need to be revisited. If communities first hear important details through a formal registry, trust can be damaged before the review is fully underway.

This does not mean every answer must be known at the beginning. Major projects develop over time, and uncertainty is normal.

It does mean a project owner should be honest about what is known, what is still being studied and where input can genuinely affect the outcome.

Regulatory staff can often explain process and information requirements, but they cannot design the project for the proponent or tell a board how to decide. The responsibility for presenting a clear, complete and defensible case remains with the organization advancing the project.

The system is also becoming more accessible.

In May 2026, the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board launched a new Regional Database and Major Project Review Tool, alongside improvements to its website and public registry. The tools bring together publicly available environmental, socio-economic, mapping, monitoring and project information, with an initial focus on supporting major-project planning and review in the Slave Geological Province.

That is a meaningful step toward greater openness and transparency. Proponents, Indigenous governments, communities, regulators and members of the public can more readily examine project records, understand regional conditions and see how environmental, social and cumulative effects have been considered.

Better access to information should help organizations prepare earlier and ask better questions. It does not, however, make the system automatic. A database can show what information exists, what has happened on previous projects and where important gaps may remain. It cannot determine how that information applies to a new proposal, which conversations need to take place or whether the project is genuinely ready to enter the process.

The tools provide a better map. Project owners still need to know how to read it.

READINESS IS MORE THAN HAVING A DESIGN

In Northern project development, “ready” can mean several different things.

A project may be technically ready but not funded. It may have funding but lack completed environmental work. It may have political support but no settled governance structure. It may have permits but still face procurement, logistics or community-capacity challenges.

True readiness comes from bringing these pieces together.

That requires coordination across technical, environmental, financial, political and community work. It also requires someone to keep track of how one decision affects another.

A design change may alter the environmental review. A funding deadline may put pressure on consultation. A new partnership may change the procurement approach. A permitting condition may affect cost and schedule.

These are not separate tracks running beside the project. They are parts of the same project.

The more significant the initiative, the more important it becomes to maintain a clear record of decisions, responsibilities, risks and commitments. Northern projects often take years to develop. Governments change, staff move and organizations restructure.

Good documentation allows the project to retain its memory even when some of the people involved have changed.

A FINAL THOUGHT

So, who actually decides whether a Northern project moves forward?

As you can see, no single person does.

Progress comes through a series of decisions made by governments, Indigenous authorities, regulators, funders, communities and the project owner. Each has a different responsibility, and each needs enough reliable information to carry it out.

The process can be demanding, and it is not perfect, but it reflects what Northerners have worked to build: a way to advance responsible development while respecting the land, cultures, communities and agreements that define this territory.

A credible project understands those layers and moves through them with clarity, preparation and consistency.

In the North, approval allows a project to proceed; understanding what it is becoming part of gives it the foundation to succeed.