Joint Evaluation of CanNor’s Northern Projects Management Office

Report outlining the results of the evaluation of the Northern Projects Management Office, which was conducted jointly by the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Transport Canada.

On this page

• Executive summary
• Introduction
• Findings
  • Relevance
  • Effectiveness
  • Cost-effectiveness and efficiency
  • Gender-Based Analysis Plus and official languages observations
• Conclusion and recommendations
  • Recommendations
• Appendix A: Management Response and Action Plan

List of Tables

• Table 1. Review and Regulatory Boards by region
• Table 2. Number of interviews by group
• Table 3. Performance indicator for environmental assessments in the territories
• Table 4. Performance indicator for TC's contributions to NPMO project
• Table 5. Active NPMO projects by year in each territory

List of acronyms and abbreviations

• CanNor: Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency
• CIRNAC: Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
• EIRB: Environmental Impact Review Board
• EISC: Environmental Impact Steering Committee
• GBA Plus: Gender-Based Analysis Plus
• GLWB: Gwich’in Land and Water Board
• IAA: Impact Assessment Act
• IGO: Indigenous government and organization
• IWB: Inuvialuit Water Board
• MVEIRB: Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board
• MVLWB: Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board
• MVRMA: Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act
• NIRB: Nunavut Impact Review Board
• NLCA: Nunavut Land Claims Agreement
• NPMO: Northern Projects Management Office
• NUPPAA: Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act
• NWB: Nunavut Water Board
• PSES: Public Service Employee Survey
• PNR: Prairie and Northern Region
• RDA: Regional Development Agency
• RDAG: Resource Development Advisory Group
• SLWB: Sahtu Land and Water Board
• TC: Transport Canada
• WLWB: Wek’èezhìi Land and Water Board
• YESAA: Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act
• YESAB: Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board
• YWB: Yukon Water Board

Executive summary

The Northern Projects Management Office (NPMO) was established in 2010 as part of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency (CanNor). It is intended to improve the efficiency and predictability of environmental assessment and regulatory review processes for major projects in the North. This is done through three core functions:

• Coordination of federal participation and input in review processes,
• Convening proponents, Indigenous governments and organizations (IGOs), and stakeholders and providing issues management support during review processes, and
• Crown consultation support and record-keeping.

CanNor and Transport Canada (TC) completed a joint evaluation of the NPMO to assess progress towards intended results. This evaluation covered the period 2019-20 to 2023-24 and examined the relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency of the NPMO and TC’s NPMO-related activities (i.e., involvement in environmental assessments and Crown consultations in relation to northern major projects). Findings and recommendations were based on evidence from interviews, a document and literature review, and available quantitative data.

Overview of findings

We found that:

Relevance

1. There is a clear need for the services provided by NPMO. The current focus on critical minerals and regulatory efficiency further emphasizes the need for and relevance of NPMO.
2. NPMO directly contributes to CanNor’s mandate by supporting consistency and clarity in environmental review processes and supporting the Crown in its duty to consult.
3. Given the broad relevance of transportation in the North and in the context of resource extraction, TC’s participation in NPMO and related processes is necessary.

Effectiveness

4. There is general consensus that NPMO has improved over the last five years. This includes greater consistency in NPMO staff, increased internal clarity on responsibilities, and improved working relationships with partners.
5. NPMO’s federal coordination role is effective, ensuring federal input is consistent, board timelines are met, and federal partners discuss key issues in advance. However, some federal partners shared challenges with tight timelines, as well as a desire for more guidance and look-ahead conversations.
6. NPMO’s Crown consultation role is valued by federal partners. The Crown consultation record as documented and maintained by NPMO is particularly important.
7. Interviewees from IGOs indicated a positive relationship with NPMO overall. Most highlighted the need for earlier engagement – before formal project-specific processes begin – and recognition of community-specific needs and rights. Other key challenges mentioned are broader than NPMO’s specific function.
8. Our report notes several areas where external clarity can be improved for each of NPMO’s roles (e.g., guidance on NPMO’s scope and authorities, further transparency and education on Crown consultation). That said, while convening is one of NPMO’s central activities and has positive impacts, there is less clarity among external stakeholders and partners about this function in particular, relative to NPMO’s two other key functions (federal coordination and Crown consultation). Services such as pathfinding or Resource Development Advisory Groups (RDAGs) are not consistently understood or used.
9. NPMO’s engagement activities under the umbrella of convening play a role in external awareness and relationship-building.
10. TC contributes to environmental review processes with NPMO efficiently and effectively.

Cost-effectiveness and efficiency

11. NPMO’s capacity has been a persistent concern, and with an expanding workload, the team will continue to be stretched. NPMO is currently exploring measures to better manage priorities with current resources (e.g., database improvements, staff cross-training).
12. The highest value NPMO activities identified by external interviewees are coordination of federal input, maintaining the Crown consultation record, and coordinating Crown consultation and engagement activities. Convening activities were not mentioned as highest value.

Recommendations

Based on these findings, we made the four recommendations under two key themes:

Improve clarity on NPMO services

Recommendation 1: It is recommended that NPMO reassess how to get full value out of its convening activities to ensure optimal use of available capacity in the organization.

Recommendation 2: It is recommended that NPMO ensure clarity on its services and roles through improved communications products and guidance materials for all partners. In addition, given NPMO’s evolving role, NPMO should collaborate further with territorial governments, review boards, and regulatory boards to ensure a shared understanding of their respective roles and responsibilities.

Strengthening tools and processes

Recommendation 3: It is recommended that NPMO explore options for sharing updates and project forecasts with IGOs and federal partners as early as practical, before formal project-specific processes get underway.

Recommendation 4: It is recommended that NPMO identify and implement database improvements to support more efficient data entry and extraction, while maintaining high quality tracking and reporting.

1.0 Introduction

This evaluation meets a commitment by the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency (CanNor) and Transport Canada (TC) to conduct a joint Evaluation of CanNor’s Northern Projects Management Office (NPMO) by 2024-25.

1.1. Environmental assessment for major projects in the North

Resource development, remediation, and infrastructure projects are significant economic drivers in northern Canada. Major projects must undergo review processes, which include environmental assessments, before proceeding. While environmental assessment in southern Canada is governed by the Impact Assessment Act (IAA), in the three territories review processes are guided by region-specific modern treaties and legislation. Relevant legislation includes:

• In the Yukon, the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act (YESAA);
• In the Northwest Territories, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (MVRMA);
• In Nunavut, the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act (NUPPAA) as well as the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA); and
• In the Inuvialuit settlement region (with land in the Northwest Territories and the North Slope Region of the Yukon), the Inuvialuit Final Agreement and the IAA.

Review processes are undertaken by co-management review boards, which are independent public institutions based on co-management principles. Following an environmental assessment, should a project move ahead, it must obtain the relevant permits and licenses via the region’s regulatory board, in addition to other federal, territorial, and municipal permits that may be required.

Several parties are involved in environmental assessments and regulatory reviews, including: project proponents; federal departments and agencies; territorial governments; Indigenous governments, organizations, and communities; and industry leaders.

While there are nuances in each region and different levels of assessment, the general process is outlined below.

General project review process in the North

• Pre-Assessment/screening
  • Proponents submit a project to the board.
  • The project undergoes screening to determine the level of impact. If significant adverse impacts on the environment or public are identified, the project will be referred for an environmental assessment.
• Assessment
  • The board scopes the process to determine what impacts to consider and focus on.
  • Crown consultation occurs throughout the process. The Crown relies on board processes to assist with meeting the duty to consult. Importantly, consultation occurs regarding the final report in advance of any decision.
  • Public hearings and/or public comment periods take place.
  • The board carries out an analysis and assessment of environmental and socio-economic impacts.
  • The board prepares a final report and makes a recommendation to the responsible minister(s) and decision bodies.
• Final decision
  • Decision-makers (responsible minister(s)/decision bodies) can accept, vary, or reject a board’s recommendation.
  • If approved, the project can move to the next phase, overseen by the relevant regulatory board for licensing and permitting.
• Regulatory/post-assessment
  • The regulatory board processes take place. Other bodies (e.g., federal, territorial, municipal) may require permitting processes as well.
  • The relevant permits, licenses, and authorizations are issued.

1.1.1. The Northern Projects Management Office

NPMO, established in 2010 as part of CanNor, is intended to improve the efficiency and predictability of the environmental assessment and regulatory review processes for major resource and infrastructure projects in the territories. In 2020, NPMO funding was renewed, with $13,200,000 over five years and $2,640,000 ongoing.

CanNor is a Regional Development Agency (RDA). Within Canada’s RDAs, CanNor’s NPMO provides a unique function, acting as the single window federal coordinator in the North by fulfilling three core functions:

• Coordination – NPMO coordinates the activities of federal departments and agencies during environmental assessment and regulatory review processes.
• Convening – NPMO connects project proponents, Indigenous governments and organizations (IGOs), and various stakeholders, supports issues management, and supports the navigation of and participation in environmental assessment and regulatory review processes. In addition, as part of this function, NPMO carries out additional engagement activities with industry, partners, and stakeholders through events and conferences.
• Consultation – NPMO supports and tracks the federal government’s consultation with Indigenous peoples and acts as the Crown Consultation Coordinator for major projects.

In practice, activities for these functions can overlap. For instance, issues management, technically part of NPMO’s convening role, may take place as part of its coordination activities.

A project will become part of NPMO’s portfolio if it meets the following criteria:

• It is a major resource development or infrastructure project in one of the three territories;
• More than one federal department or agency is required to participate in the related review process; and
• There is a need to coordinate Crown consultation with potentially impacted IGOs.

NPMO is involved in major projects. It may also become engaged in exploration projects which are undergoing an environmental assessment with a review board.

In general, NPMO supports the pre-assessment phase of projects by convening a federal working group to assess potentially impacted IGOs and supporting early engagement between these groups and federal and territorial governments. They may also convene a Resource Development Advisory Group (RDAG), should a proponent request it. During the environmental assessment phase, NPMO coordinates federal participation in board processes, coordinates with territorial governments as required, is the primary point of federal contact for northern boards, and coordinates Crown consultation activities, including sending notification letters and follow-up letters to IGOs. When a final decision is made following the report and recommendation of the board, NPMO sends a decision letter to IGOs.

As indicated in the 2024 Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Permitting Efficiency for Clean Growth Projects, NPMO maintains a coordination role for major projects in the North requiring federal regulatory authorizations. While this has been part of the mandate since inception, in practice NPMO has not typically exercised this role. How it will undertake this work is currently being defined.

1.1.2. Northern environmental assessment at Transport Canada

TC is one of several federal partners that works with NPMO to provide input on major northern projects. In 2020, TC was allocated $5,694,415 over five years and $1,138,883 ongoing to support departmental activities related to NPMO.

Given TC’s broad responsibilities (e.g., civil aviation, marine safety, transportation of dangerous goods, navigable waters protection, rail safety), as well as the importance of transportation in northern projects in particular, the department is frequently involved in the review of projects. TC provides expert advice, serves as a decision-maker during the environmental assessment phase, and issues regulatory approvals. In addition, the department directly supports NPMO by:

• Preparing federal submissions in coordination with other NPMO participants;
• Working with other decision-making bodies and federal regulators to prepare for federal decisions; and
• Participating in the development of the Crown Consultation Record and Crown Consultation Assessment Report, managed by NPMO.

TC’s Prairie and Northern (PNR) Region is central to TC’s involvement: TC personnel directly working on environmental assessment processes are based in PNR. TC PNR and TC Headquarters (HQ) work closely together to coordinate departmental input and oversight.

For major projects, TC's involvement begins upon notification of a proposed project by the relevant board or by NPMO. TC PNR then assesses the project information to identify potential areas of interest to the department. As needed, they involve the relevant subject matter expert or authority (i.e., marine safety and security, navigation protection, civil aviation, transportation of dangerous goods, or rail safety and security).

Within TC HQ, portfolio managers are assigned to projects undergoing reviews in the North. They play a strategic role by working in tandem with PNR to ensure that TC senior management are briefed on key project issues and the progress of reviews.

During the review process, TC participates in federal working group meetings organized by NPMO and provides comments, input, and decisions as needed, to be coordinated by NPMO. When a project moves forward to the regulatory phase, TC supports the regulatory board process. The department provides advice and comments on the project and license/permit conditions.

1.2. About the evaluation

1.2.1. Evaluation purpose and scope

The joint evaluation of NPMO meets a commitment made by CanNor and TC to conduct a program evaluation by 2024-25 to assess and report on progress towards NPMO’s intended results. TC’s Evaluation and Advisory Services led the evaluation, with support from CanNor’s Program Policy, Research and Evaluation division.

The evaluation examined the relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency of NPMO and TC's NPMO-related activities (i.e., involvement in environmental assessments and Indigenous consultations in relation to northern projects). Since NPMO was last evaluated in 2019, this evaluation covered the period 2019-20 to 2023-24.

The evaluation addressed the following questions:

Relevance

1. Is there a continued need for NPMO?
2. Is NPMO and related work aligned with key CanNor and government priorities and mandates?
   1. Is NPMO’s mandate aligned with federal government priorities?
   2. Is NPMO’s mandate aligned with CanNor’s mandate?
   3. Is TC’s NPMO-related work aligned with TC’s mandate?

Effectiveness

3. How effective has NPMO been in its role coordinating federal departments?
   1. What progress has been made since the previous evaluation of the initiative?
   2. Is there a clear and consistent federal approach to reviews?
   3. To what extent does NPMO’s coordination support timely and efficient reviews?
4. How effective has NPMO been in its role convening project proponents, stakeholders, and Indigenous rights-holders?
   1. What progress has been made since the previous evaluation of the initiative?
   2. Are clients aware of and using NPMO services?
   3. Do clients have a better understanding of and ability to navigate regulatory and review processes as a result of NPMO's work?
5. How effective has NPMO been in its Crown consultation coordinator role?
   1. What progress has been made since the previous evaluation of the initiative?
   2. To what extent and in what ways has NPMO supported meaningful engagement with Indigenous rights-holders, organizations, and governments?
   3. Is the Crown consultation record adequately documented and maintained?
6. To what extent does TC effectively participate in and inform major northern project impact assessments?

Cost-effectiveness and efficiency

7. Given the evolving resource development landscape of the North, where does NPMO add the most value?
   1. What NPMO activities/roles are most impactful?
   2. What are the internal and external impacts of capacity challenges?

1.2.2. Evaluation approach and methods

Since NPMO provides services and support, qualitative information provides greater insight than the limited quantitative data available. Given that environmental assessments and regulatory review processes involve multiple parties, interviews were crucial in assessing NPMO’s relevance, effectiveness and efficiency to ensure various perspectives were accounted for. We relied on key internal and external documents to complement interview findings.

Interviews

We conducted a total of 45 interviews (12 internal and 33 external) with program staff, other federal departments, territorial governments, review boards and regulatory boards, industry, and IGOs.

Interviews explored topics such as:

• The need for NPMO
• Intended and actual results for each of its three core functions
• Challenges and best practices
• Current context of economic development and Crown consultation in the North
• The expansion of NPMO’s role and increasing demands

Document and literature review

We conducted a thorough review of documents, literature, and media, such as foundational documents; internal reports, presentations and databases (consultation issues trackers, project placemats); guidance and training material; relevant cabinet directives, federal strategies, policies and Acts. This provided evidence related to the need for NPMO in the current economic development context and complements interview findings on NPMO’s effectiveness of its three core functions.

Quantitative data analysis

Limited quantitative data was available or relevant for this evaluation. We used project trackers, performance information (e.g., indicators from Departmental Results Reports and Performance Information Profiles), and the Public Service Employee Survey to provide additional context.

1.3. Gender-Based Analysis Plus and official languages assessment

We assessed potential Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus) and official Languages considerations during the planning phase of the evaluation using TC’s Evaluation and Advisory Services’ internal GBA Plus and Official Languages Checklist. We noted the following considerations:

• GBA Plus
  • NPMO is involved in direct consultation with Indigenous communities in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut, as well as other key stakeholders such as territorial governments and project proponents.
  • The office also impacts specific sectors, namely resource development/extraction and infrastructure, which are typically male-dominated and large employers of Indigenous peoples in the region.
  • Women are frequently employed in secondary and tertiary jobs in this sector.
  • Performance indicators: CanNor tracks labour rate participation for women and Indigenous peoples in the Territories. Internally, NPMO also lists ‘Indigenous communities and women have the opportunity to express their concerns and provide input about the project or the consultation process before federal decisions are made’ as an indicator.
  • During the course of NPMO’s consultation practices, such as community hearings, vulnerable populations have an opportunity to voice their concerns and opinions. This input is captured and rolled up into the consultation record.
• Official languages
  • Of the two federal official languages, English is more prevalent than French in the territories:
    • The Yukon: 94.9% English, 4.8% French
    • Northwest Territories: 96.5% English, 3% French
    • Nunavut: 92.8% English, 1.7% French
  • Nunavut and the Northwest Territories both have additional Indigenous languages as official languages alongside English and French. In Nunavut, the mother tongue is most commonly Inuktut and in the Northwest Territories, there are more residents with an Indigenous language as a mother tongue than the French language.
  • As a federal office, NPMO must still adhere to federal official languages requirements.

To explore these areas, one of our evaluation questions specifically highlights the considerations around engagement with Indigenous rights-holders (Evaluation question 7a). We included a specific prompt in our interview guides to inquire about (i) how, if at all, NPMO considers the needs of women, Indigenous communities, and other groups, and (ii) the effectiveness of engagement practices in the context of Crown consultation, including format, language, etc. These topics were also kept in mind during the document and literature review.

Ultimately, there were no significant findings related to GBA Plus or official languages. Some observations are in Section 2.4: Gender-Based Analysis Plus and official languages observations.

2.0 Findings

The evaluation findings are organized by questions of relevance, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness and efficiency. The findings under the Effectiveness section are further divided by NPMO’s key roles and TC’s support.

The Findings section also includes a brief commentary on GBA Plus and official languages.

2.1 Relevance

Finding 1: There is a clear need for the services provided by NPMO. The current focus on critical minerals and regulatory efficiency further emphasizes the need for and relevance of NPMO.

We heard from interview participants that there is a clear need for NPMO, given its value particularly with federal coordination and Crown consultation services. Interviewees felt that NPMO’s services are useful, and federal departments highlighted their reliance on NPMO to support their role as regulators and decision-makers in environmental assessments and regulatory review processes.

More broadly, NPMO supports a number of federal priorities. The Government of Canada is committed to economic development in the North, as well as regulatory efficiency and clean growth. This is demonstrated by the number of government strategies, directives, initiatives and plans focused on these priorities, such as:

• The Critical Minerals Strategy, which aims to increase the supply and responsible sourcing of critical minerals, and one of its core objectives is to focus on economic growth.
• The Cabinet Directive on Regulatory and Permitting Efficiency for Clean Growth Projects and the Building Canada’s Clean Future Plan, under which NPMO has listed responsibilities. These involve NPMO maintaining a coordinator role for major projects in the North in both environmental assessment and regulatory processes.
• The Northern Regulatory Initiative. Led by Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC), it provides support to ensure that northern regulatory processes respect the unique environmental and resource management contexts of each territory based on modern treaties. NPMO supports this initiative with their Crown consultation coordinator role, in an effort to improve engagement and reduce consultation fatigue for IGOs during environmental assessments and regulatory review processes.

Importantly, there is increasing emphasis on regulatory efficiency and resource extraction in the current economic and political context, which likely has implications for NPMO. The importance of major projects was underscored in the 2025 Government of Canada mandate letter, which includes as a priority building one Canadian economy and expediting nation-building projects. The One Canadian Economy Act, passed in June 2025, aims to fulfil these goals. The Major Projects Office was subsequently launched in August 2025. It aims to support efficient reviews with a two-year maximum timeline on federal decision-making, without compromising environmental assessments or Crown consultation. This will include working with provinces and territories to streamline review processes. With an increased number of major projects anticipated in northern Canada, national and international attention on critical minerals, and the expectation for NPMO to expand their services beyond the environmental assessment phase, there will be an increased need and demand for NPMO.

Finding 2: NPMO directly contributes to CanNor’s mandate by supporting consistency and clarity in environmental review processes and supporting the Crown in its duty to consult.

CanNor’s core responsibility is economic development in the territories. This was emphasized in the 2021 mandate letter, which highlighted the importance of job creation and economic development, working in partnership with Indigenous peoples, and advancing the Arctic and Northern Policy Framework. CanNor’s intended results are:

• People and communities participating in the economy in the territories
• Businesses are developing in the territories
• Efficient and predictable environmental review processes in the territories.

NPMO supports the first and third result. The initiative helps to inform communities of economic opportunities related to major projects by connecting proponents and communities. NPMO directly supports efficient and predictable environmental review processes through the office’s mandate and activities, namely: coordinating federal participation, coordinating Crown consultation, and convening industry, IGOs, and other partners in support of clear and efficient review processes.

CanNor’s core responsibility is further emphasized in its Pan-Territorial Growth Strategy, developed in 2019. One of the priorities for growth includes resource development and supporting timely and effective impact assessment and regulatory processes, directly relating to NPMO’s mandate.

Regarding the appropriateness of NPMO being part of CanNor, some interviewees mentioned a perceived or actual mixed message resulting from the office’s placement at an economic development agency, rather than in an organization with a focus on environmental management or Crown-Indigenous Relations. These interviewees noted the potential for confusion about NPMO’s mandate. However, it was generally more of a concern earlier on in NPMO’s history, and less so in recent years, with greater understanding of NPMO’s roles by external parties. Importantly, the NPMO team has a clear internal understanding of their role within the broader organization.

Finding 3: Given the broad relevance of transportation in the North and in the context of resource extraction, TC’s participation in NPMO and related processes is necessary.

TC’s NPMO-related activities are aligned with the department’s mandate. TC’s three core responsibilities are:

• A safe and secure transportation system;
• A green and innovative transportation system; and
• An efficient transportation system.

In support of these core responsibilities and the department’s role as a regulator, TC must contribute to environmental assessment and regulatory processes where its mandate areas are implicated. This can include marine safety, navigable waters protection, rail safety, civil aviation, and the transportation of dangerous goods. Given that there is limited transportation infrastructure in the North, TC is often involved as a regulator in major northern projects. This is particularly true for projects which require the transportation of extracted resources or those needing access to remote areas with limited transportation infrastructure.

2.2 Effectiveness

Finding 4: There is general consensus that NPMO has improved over the last five years. This includes greater consistency in NPMO staff, increased internal clarity on responsibilities, and improved working relationships with partners.

Previous evaluations of NPMO observed a lack of understanding of NPMO’s services and responsibilities amongst external stakeholders and rights-holders, a need for more consistency in service delivery, and internal challenges with capacity and turnover.

While some challenges persist, interview participants highlighted that NPMO has improved over time. Many said that in comparison to earlier years, current NPMO staff clearly understand and are effective in their roles. In addition, while turnover has been an issue, some interviewees noted more consistency in staff in recent years. Some partners highlighted an improvement in their working relationship with NPMO, and IGOs specifically noted some improvements in engagement and consultation (i.e., more frequent, proactive, and transparent). NPMO staff echoed these changes, highlighting more clearly defined responsibilities, better external understanding of their role and value, and the iterative development of tools.

The overall sense is that NPMO has grown into their role, with more internal clarity around their responsibilities and stronger relationships with federal and external partners.

2.2.1. Federal coordination

NPMO coordinates federal input and participation in northern review processes. This includes organizing federal working group meetings for specific projects, preparing project-specific work plans, collating feedback from federal departments and providing it to the relevant review board within required timeframes, and convening other meetings quarterly or as needed. This work is intended to ensure consistency and efficiency in federal input. In support of this role, NPMO and its federal partners have a Memorandum of Cooperation.

Finding 5: NPMO’s federal coordination role is effective, ensuring federal input is consistent, board timelines are met, and federal partners discuss key issues in advance. However, some federal partners shared challenges with tight timelines, as well as a desire for more guidance and look-ahead conversations.

NPMO is intended to improve the efficiency of federal participation in environmental assessment processes in the territories. NPMO is achieving this goal: the review boards interviewed stated that NPMO is meeting their timelines, and most federal interviewees indicated NPMO supports efficiency. In addition, performance data shows that, for three of the five years included in this evaluation, scheduled timeframes have been met for environmental assessments to which NPMO has contributed. In 2021-22 and 2022-23, the Kudz Ze Kayah decision in the Yukon was delayed due to the pandemic and extended consultations and engagement, which affected the performance indicator for those years.

Most interviewees from federal departments felt that NPMO is effective and highlighted a number of benefits. These include ensuring consistency in the Government of Canada’s input, discussions through federal working groups and meetings, and overall efficiency. Similar views were also highlighted in a recent review of NPMO’s Memorandum of Cooperation with federal partners, which indicated, among another things, that NPMO is performing effectively as a coordinator. Finally, project-specific postmortem surveys include several examples of positive practices, such as clear and efficient communication on expectations and deadlines, effective meeting management, and the summaries prepared by NPMO.

Conversely, challenges for federal partners include tight timelines for review and feedback, and some desire for more guidance and templates as well as look-ahead meetings or conversations. For this latter point, there was some variation by territory in the number or regularity of non-project-specific meetings between federal partners and NPMO: interview evidence suggests that these interactions may be more frequent with partners who work on projects in Yukon.

Industry representatives generally felt that NPMO is helpful: they are a useful point-of-contact and a facilitator of conversations with other departments. IGO representatives also highlighted a positive relationship and experience with NPMO’s coordination, with some indicating that NPMO helps with consistency of federal input. However, when discussing the effectiveness of NPMO as a single window contact for the federal government, both positives and negatives emerged. While most acknowledged benefits (e.g., providing a clear and consistent point-of-contact, enhancing transparency, and providing a federal voice), some expressed frustration with how it works in practice, particularly industry representatives. For instance, several industry and board interviewees stated that there have been challenges with participation of some federal departments. Some interviewees from industry and IGOs also shared their frustration with a lack of decision-making authority on NPMO’s part. However, NPMO is a coordinator, not a decision body. There is an opportunity to clarify and reiterate NPMO’s role as federal coordinator to ensure this nuance is understood by external partners.

2.2.2. Crown consultation

NPMO supports the Government of Canada’s consultation with Indigenous peoples for major projects in the North. To the extent possible, the Crown relies on review board processes to assist the Crown in meeting its duty to consult obligations and to address any potential impacts to Indigenous rights. NPMO, as Crown Consultation Coordinator in this context, is responsible for activities such as:

• Conducting a preliminary identification of IGOs that may be affected by a proposed project
• Coordinating federal participation in the relevant review process, which includes providing logistical support to federal departments in their consultation activities
• Tracking concerns, issues, and accommodations, and maintaining the Crown consultation record

While NPMO plays a key supporting and coordinating role, ultimately federal departments and agencies are the decision-makers and are responsible for meeting consultation obligations. As already stated, NPMO does not have decision-making authority, and it does not conduct consultations or negotiations, or provide funding.

CIRNAC also plays a key role in Crown consultation in the North through its Consultation and Accommodations Unit (CAU) and Northern Affairs Organization (NAO). CAU leads the federal approach to Crown Consultation, provides advice and training to federal departments, co-develops non-project specific consultation arrangements, and generally facilitates relationships and partnerships. NAO acts as federal liaison for Northern Affairs, is responsible for legislation/regulations and implementation, and supports participation in major project review processes through available funding programs. Because both NPMO and CIRNAC are involved in Crown consultation in the North, there has sometimes been confusion among external partners on who is responsible for what. We note that NPMO and CIRNAC have taken steps to enhance external understanding of their distinct roles (e.g., a joint session discussing their responsibilities and services at the 2025 Pan-Territorial Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Board Forum).

Finding 6: NPMO’s Crown consultation role is valued by federal partners. The Crown consultation record as documented and maintained by NPMO is particularly important.

Federal partners indicated that NPMO is doing well in this role. NPMO acts as the primary point-of-contact for IGOs. This improves efficiency and mitigates consultation fatigue, as IGOs do not receive multiple, repetitive requests for input or meetings, and similarly, departments are coordinated in their logistics and not duplicating efforts. In addition, this role provides the opportunity for consistency and relationship-building, because there is a clear point-of-contact for the federal government.

Federal interviewees particularly emphasized the importance of NPMO’s role in issues tracking and developing Crown Consultation Assessment Reports. Many interviewees specifically highlighted that they rely on NPMO’s records. The role of this record-keeping in a recent judicial review was shared as an example of the importance of this work for the Government of Canada.

This record-keeping is done through NPMO’s internal database. NPMO staff manually input detailed records of issues and potential accommodations. While this tracking is clearly important, internal interviewees flagged several limitations and frustrations with the NPMO Database: data entry and information extraction is manual; nuances of the processes in each territory are not adequately captured; and there is limited support capacity. The significant amount of data entry work involved for NPMO staff was also highlighted in Margaret Buist’s Roadmap for Consultation on major projects in the North report. We note that NPMO is considering potential ways to improve Database efficiency, such as integration with board registries to streamline data entry and reporting.

Finding 7: Interviewees from Indigenous governments and organizations indicated a positive relationship with NPMO overall. Most highlighted the need for earlier engagement – before formal project-specific processes begin – and recognition of community-specific needs and rights. Other key challenges mentioned are broader than NPMO’s specific function.

IGO representatives we spoke to generally described a good relationship with NPMO and a positive view of its value. Several specifically highlighted the value of having a clear federal point-of-contact, and two shared examples of how NPMO has played a role in ensuring the right communities and organizations are appropriately included and consulted in the review process.

However, interviews and documentary evidence highlight several areas for improvement:

• Earlier engagement: Most IGO interviewees indicated that engagement and consultation should begin as early as possible, and that NPMO could be more proactive. There is a feeling that NPMO and the Crown consultation process is triggered too late in the process, after an application for a project is formally received. The need for early engagement was mentioned by several boards and territorial government interviewees as well. Earlier engagement could include greater NPMO involvement during the pre-assessment/scoping phase or prior to formal application. Other actions could include non-project-specific look-ahead meetings and discussions.
• Consultation protocols: Most also highlighted that different Nations and communities have different interests and rights, and therefore varying preferences and expectations regarding consultations. In this sense, there is a need to develop specific protocols and processes in partnership with communities. We note that NPMO is currently working with a small number of IGOs to develop project-specific consultation protocols to ensure a shared understanding. The draft protocols currently outline roles and responsibilities for the Indigenous government, NPMO, and federal decision-makers, as well as guiding principles and how these will be applied to a particular project assessment process.
• Education and training: A few federal and internal interviewees noted that federal departments do not have in-depth understanding of Crown consultation and related legislation. Another indicated that there are different interpretations among federal departments. This was echoed by IGO interviewees, particularly in terms of federal departments' understanding of who should be consulted, when, and how. Given NPMO’s role, there may be an opportunity for it to support better understanding among federal partners, alongside the guidance and training provided by CIRNAC’s CAU.

In addition, there are concerns around the Government of Canada’s reliance on board processes to discharge the duty to consult. Some IGOs indicated that these processes and current consultation approaches can fall short and should not be assumed to fully address rights-based issues. This was also flagged by boards, with two noting that there is a lack of clarity on how the federal government determines when the duty to consult has been met and whether these processes are sufficient. Interviews with NPMO and federal departments explained the use of existing processes to facilitate Crown consultation, rather than creating a parallel process. Importantly, it was highlighted that ultimately the Crown (i.e., federal and/or territorial governments) is responsible for its legal duty to consult, not NPMO or the review boards. There is perhaps an opportunity to clearly articulate how the government relies on these processes and increase transparency on the duty to consult.

Some interviewees noted a variety of challenges that extend beyond NPMO’s role or ability to resolve. Nevertheless, these provide important insight into the context in which NPMO operates. Issues include:

• IGO capacity: Different communities and governments have different levels of capacity to respond to and participate in consultation and assessment processes. Concerns related to IGO capacity, funding, and consultation fatigue were raised by many interviewees from all groups. Many IGOs are under-resourced in terms of both funding and staff with appropriate skill sets. There are funding programs available, such as CIRNAC’s Northern Participant Funding Program, but interviewees suggested this is insufficient for effective participation. In addition, with a growing number of projects and evolving expectations of Crown consultation, IGOs receive a high volume of engagement requests which many are unable to manage.
• Legislation and regulatory frameworks: A few IGOs feel that environmental assessment legislation in the territories is inadequate. Comments highlighted that existing legislation is not up-to-date and does not necessarily capture certain nuances in terms of rights and culture.
• Cumulative effects and broad project impacts: Indigenous communities have concerns that are broader than can be captured by an assessment for a given project, but that can nevertheless be affected by projects, such as community policing needs and other socio-economic implications. Similarly, there are concerns that each decision body focuses on their narrow mandates, and there is not a specific authority to consider broader impacts.

2.2.3. Convening

NPMO’s convening function involves bringing together proponents and other parties for project-specific meetings, providing pathfinding services to industry, and broader industry engagement such as outreach at conferences. This role is intended to support a clear and efficient process, build awareness of northern opportunities and regulatory systems, and facilitate issues management and discussion.

Finding 8: While convening is one of NPMO’s central activities and has positive impacts, there is less clarity among external stakeholders and partners about this function in particular, relative to NPMO’s two other key functions (federal coordination and Crown consultation). Services such as pathfinding or RDAGs are not consistently understood or used.

NPMO provides convening services throughout a project review. As indicated earlier in the report, some of these may overlap with the coordination and consultation functions. NPMO staff work with proponents and IGOs as the main point of contact to manage issues with coordination and consultation. These convening services are intended to support issues management and communication.

Other convening activities, such as pathfinding services and RDAGs, are not a requirement for projects: they are provided on request. Ultimately, we found that external interviewees did not make significant use of NPMO’s convening services. This was echoed by some NPMO staff, who indicated that specific services such as RDAGs are not frequently used or well-understood by proponents. Industry and IGO participants highlighted that they generally have direct relationships with other parties, which suggests they have not often seen a need to go through NPMO. Some regulatory boards and territorial governments also expressed a general lack of awareness of or involvement in NPMO’s convening services, such as pathfinding.

At the same time, interviewees expressed a general appreciation for the availability of NPMO’s convening function. Representatives from industry, IGOs, and federal departments highlighted some benefits, such as sharing contact information, facilitating conversations when needed, and ensuring appropriate parties are properly included in meetings and processes. Depending on the project stage and the purpose of the meeting, NPMO facilitates interactions between industry and federal departments in particular.

There is also potential for increased use of NPMO’s convening services. Several external interviewees suggested NPMO’s pathfinding would be useful for new organizations to get oriented to northern processes and legislation. With an increasing number of projects in the North, there may be more demand for this support. In addition, some boards highlighted the usefulness of RDAGs in particular to support front-end planning, efficiency, and a shared understanding of a project. They advocated for greater use of this tool, and NPMO noted there is increasing interest. To support more use of convening services, greater external awareness and understanding of what NPMO offers would be beneficial.

Finding 9: NPMO’s engagement activities under the umbrella of convening play a role in external awareness and relationship-building.

As part of its convening role, NPMO also undertakes engagement activities that are broader than project-specific meetings and pathfinding, such as supporting a pan-territorial board forum and attending a range of industry conferences.

NPMO has hosted the Pan-Territorial Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Board Forum since 2014. This annual forum brings together representatives from review and regulatory boards from the three territories to discuss key issues and share best practices. Several interviewees from boards specifically mentioned the value of this venue, with benefits such as talking about shared challenges and building relationships. NPMO has also used this as an opportunity to clarify their role in Crown consultation for the federal government.

Conferences that NPMO attends include the Association for Mineral Exploration (AME) Roundup, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) annual convention, and annual geosciences fora in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. NPMO makes arrangements for their team’s presence at the events, as well as coordinating meetings between CanNor senior management with industry, territorial and international governments, Indigenous governments, and other parties. Interviewees noted this engagement is useful for relationship-building and raising awareness of NPMO’s services and mandate, as well as acting as representatives of CanNor more broadly. Internal documents echo this, highlighting that attendance provides an opportunity to build relationships with industry and other partners, to answer questions, and to advocate for northern economic development.

We note that participation in these events is valuable to CanNor as a whole, not solely NPMO. Given this, there is an opportunity to reflect on whether NPMO has the capacity to continue taking the lead on these efforts.

2.2.4. Transport Canada

Finding 10: TC contributes to environmental review processes with NPMO efficiently and effectively.

Overall, there was positive feedback on TC and their involvement in NPMO and related processes. Interviewees indicated that they provide consistent advice and meet deadlines. This latter point is confirmed through internal performance information.

One NPMO interviewee shared that TC is “fairly participative”, and another indicated they are “well-organized.”

There are two best practices the evaluation can highlight:

• Effective public communication: Two interviewees noted that, for a public hearing, TC prepared and provided a translated one-pager on a technical topic for community Elders. This was well-received. In addition, one interviewee shared an example of a TC representative who was skilled at presenting information in a non-technical manner.
• Internal guidance: TC’s PNR team has clear internal guidance documents on environmental assessment processes and TC’s role, to support staff in their work.

Overall, evidence suggests that TC has been effective in its NPMO-related work.

2.3 Cost-effectiveness and efficiency

Finding 11: NPMO’s capacity has been a persistent concern, and with an expanding workload, the team will continue to be stretched. NPMO is currently exploring measures to better manage priorities with current resources (e.g., database improvements, staff cross-training).

Past evaluations identified capacity and turnover as challenges for NPMO, and this issue appears to persist. Internal and external interviewees acknowledged that NPMO is a small team with a heavy workload. This workload has increased over the last five years (Table 5) and will likely continue to grow for several reasons:

• The number and complexity of projects is increasing.
• As awareness of NPMO’s role and services expands, more stakeholders and partners request support.
• The Cabinet Directive on Regulatory and Permitting Efficiency for Clean Growth Projects formally extends NPMO’s role to regulatory (i.e., post-assessment) processes, in addition to the environmental assessment phase.

Along with this project workload, internal interviewees indicated there has also been a challenge with scope creep in NPMO’s activities, where NPMO will fill gaps or be asked to do tasks that are not necessarily their specific role.

The consistently high workload has negative impacts in two main ways. Firstly, the heavy workload has led to work-related stress and burnout: “we don’t have ebbs and flows, we just have constant sprinting marathons.” Public Service Employee Survey (PSES) results reflect this issue at the organizational level. Key causes of work-related stress for CanNor staff are typically ‘not enough employees to do the work’ and ‘heavy workload’, at a higher proportion than for staff at micro-organizations or the Public Service overall. Work-related stress at CanNor has increased since 2019, while remaining steady for the Public Service as a whole. One interviewee suggested that while much of CanNor has a heavy workload, it may be strongly felt at NPMO due to the pressure of meeting legislated timelines.

Another impact of NPMO’s workload is a limited ability to prepare and implement improvements to tools and processes. These tasks are typically ‘side of the desk’, rather than something that the team can dedicate sufficient time to. Examples include templates and guidance material, communications products, and additional and more proactive collaboration and relationship-building (e.g., with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, Indigenous communities, territorial governments).

Workload challenges have been exacerbated by staff turnover, which many interviewees highlighted as an issue for NPMO. Turnover has resulted in a loss of corporate memory, knowledge of best practices, and relationships, all of which need to be rebuilt when a new staff member joins. Staff changes have also affected the experience of stakeholders and partners, who then need to adjust to changes in project management styles. While the NPMO team has been stable recently, turnover and staffing will likely remain a challenge, given that capacity and staffing are perennial issues for many organizations operating in the North.

NPMO is currently exploring measures to better manage priorities with current resources. These measures include:

• Continuing to reduce silos between NPMO staff in each territory by additional cross-training and improved communications
• Streamlining issues tracking and improving the NPMO Database by connecting with review boards’ registries
• Reorganizing internally to allow some staff to focus on key improvements such as consultation tools, communications products, and updating standard operating procedures

NPMO is also determining what the expansion to regulatory processes will require of its team, with its current capacity.

Finding 12: The highest value NPMO activities identified by external interviewees are coordination of federal input, maintaining the Crown consultation record, and coordinating Crown consultation and engagement activities. Convening activities were not mentioned as highest value.

During the scoping of the evaluation, it was suggested that we identify the most value-added NPMO activities. We included this line of questioning in our interview process. The answers show that both the coordination of federal input and the Crown consultation responsibilities of NPMO are highly valued by internal and external interviewees, whereas convening activities are slightly less valued.

Many interview participants highlighted the importance of federal coordination. Specific benefits include consistency of federal comments, the use of working groups for discussion and learning amongst federal partners, and an appreciation for NPMO’s project management overall (e.g., scheduling meetings, managing timelines, etc.).

Interviewees flagged NPMO’s Crown consultation role as valuable as well. Specific reasons include the importance of issues tracking and maintaining the Crown consultation record, as well as coordinating engagement activities and acting as the point-of-contact for the federal government.

In contrast, NPMO’s convening function was not mentioned as the highest value. Some positive views of convening were expressed throughout the interview process, and NPMO staff view convening as a key supporting function. That said, interviews also show there is less clarity on the part of external stakeholders on this role, as well as issues around awareness and inconsistent use. It may be that NPMO’s convening activities have less directly observable results for external interviewees when compared to NPMO’s other functions.

Given the results above, there is an opportunity for NPMO to reflect on its roles and activities and identify opportunities for efficiency and awareness-building.

2.4 Gender-Based Analysis Plus and official languages observations

This evaluation has no findings on GBA Plus or official languages. We note the following observations:

• NPMO staff indicated that, in practice, focus is placed on Indigenous peoples, given the office’s role in Crown consultation. As noted above, no specific concerns emerged regarding effectiveness of engagement practices. Several best practices were identified (e.g., TC’s translated one-page summary available to Elders; NPMO ensuring appropriate equipment is available).
• Other considerations in the area of GBA Plus are accounted for if and when they are raised during a particular process: “It’s up to the Indigenous groups or the board to identify within themselves if there’s a women’s group.”
• Issues or concerns raised related to GBA Plus can be tracked in the NPMO Database, though one interviewee noted this practice is relatively new. Data was not available for the evaluation team’s review. Consistent tracking will enable NPMO to report on GBA Plus considerations in the future.
• As a federal organization, NPMO must provide services in both official languages. The evaluation found no specific concerns in this area but notes that any updated guidance materials and communications should be made available in both English and French.

3.0 Conclusion and recommendations

Overall, the evaluation found that NPMO is generally effective in its roles and contributes to key results such as efficiency and consistency. NPMO is valued by its partners and will likely continue to play an important role as Canada focuses on major projects and further development and resource extraction occurs in the North.

Specifically, we found:

• There is a clear need for the services provided by NPMO. The current focus on critical minerals and regulatory efficiency further emphasizes the need for and relevance of NPMO.
• NPMO directly contributes to CanNor’s mandate by supporting consistency and clarity in environmental review processes and supporting the Crown in its duty to consult.
• There is general consensus that NPMO has improved over the last five years. This includes greater consistency in NPMO staff, increased internal clarity on responsibilities, and improved working relationships with partners.
• NPMO’s federal coordination role is effective, ensuring federal input is consistent, board timelines are met, and federal partners discuss key issues in advance. However, some federal partners shared challenges with tight timelines, as well as a desire for more guidance and look-ahead conversations.
• NPMO’s Crown consultation role is valued by federal partners. The Crown consultation record as documented and maintained by NPMO is particularly important.
• Interviewees from Indigenous governments and organizations indicated a positive relationship with NPMO overall. Most highlighted the need for earlier engagement – before formal project-specific processes begin – and recognition of community-specific needs and rights. Other key challenges mentioned are broader than NPMO’s specific function.
• While convening is one of NPMO’s central activities and has positive impacts, there is less clarity among external stakeholders and partners about this function in particular, relative to NPMO’s two other key functions (federal coordination and Crown consultation). Services such as pathfinding or RDAGs are not consistently understood or used.
• NPMO’s engagement activities under the umbrella of convening play a role in external awareness and relationship-building.
• NPMO’s capacity has been a persistent concern, and with an expanding workload, the team will continue to be stretched. NPMO is currently exploring measures to better manage priorities with current resources (e.g., database improvements, staff cross-training).
• The highest value NPMO activities identified by external interviewees are coordination of federal input, maintaining the Crown consultation record, and coordinating Crown consultation and engagement activities. Convening activities were not mentioned as highest value.

For TC and its involvement in NPMO-related processes and projects, we found:

• Given the broad relevance of transportation in the North and in the context of resource extraction, TC’s participation in NPMO and related processes is necessary.
• TC contributes to environmental review processes with NPMO efficiently and effectively.

3.1 Recommendations

While NPMO is making progress, there are challenges and areas for improvement. Based on the evaluation findings and observations, we make the following recommendations under two key themes:

Improving clarity on NPMO services

Recommendation 1:

It is recommended that NPMO reassess how to get full value out of its convening activities to ensure optimal use of available capacity in the organization.

While there is an appreciation of the availability of NPMO’s convening services, there is a lack of clarity and use of the role overall. The convening function was not highlighted by interviewees when asked to identify high-value NPMO activities. Further, while NPMO’s broader engagement with industry and stakeholders at conferences and events does support awareness, it also represents significant time and effort from the team.

In light of its growing role and persistent challenges with capacity, there is an opportunity for NPMO to re-examine its goals and mandate as it relates to convening to determine whether the current resource allocation represents the optimal use of available capacity for the organization.

Recommendation 2:

It is recommended that NPMO ensure clarity on its services and roles through improved communications products and guidance materials for all partners. In addition, given NPMO’s evolving role, NPMO should collaborate further with territorial governments, review boards, and regulatory boards to ensure a shared understanding of their respective roles and responsibilities.

This could include updated explanations of:

• What services NPMO offers, for what types of projects, and what is outside of their scope
• NPMO’s role in Crown consultation, as opposed to CIRNAC and other federal departments
• The Government of Canada’s reliance on board processes to discharge the duty to consult in the territories, and what this means in practice
• What convening services are available

Clear guidance and communications materials targeted to key partners, stakeholders, and rights-holders would help mitigate a variety of concerns highlighted during interviews, by better explaining and advertising the convening function, clarifying NPMO’s authorities and responsibilities, and increasing transparency and understanding of Crown consultation practices and expectations.

This could also include updated guidance materials and templates for federal partners to enhance their participation in environmental assessments, as well as improve knowledge of Crown consultation rights and requirements. It will be important to consider what guidance and education is provided by CIRNAC’s CAU and whether and how NPMO can leverage and complement, rather than duplicate, existing support.

In addition, NPMO, territorial governments, and boards have shared interests and responsibilities. There is potential for more collaboration and clarity to ensure guidance and services provided by each complement each other and do not duplicate or contradict. With NPMO’s workload expanding to include regulatory and permitting processes, there is a greater need for these parties to work together and provide consistency and clarity for proponents, IGOs, and other groups.

Strengthening tools and processes

Recommendation 3:

It is recommended that NPMO explore options for sharing updates and project forecasts with IGOs and federal partners as early as practical, before formal project-specific processes get underway.

Earlier and more efficient engagement in the context of Crown consultation is needed. One potential strategy would be for NPMO to more frequently engage with IGOs outside of specific project processes and provide a sense of upcoming projects and potential timelines. This could support IGOs in planning, prioritizing, and allocating resources. This practice would also support relationship-building between NPMO and Indigenous communities.

Similarly, more consistent meetings or communication with federal partners outside of project-specific requests and processes would support efficiency and set expectations for participation and timelines.

Recommendation 4:

It is recommended that NPMO identify and implement database improvements to support more efficient data entry and extraction, while maintaining high quality tracking and reporting.

The NPMO Database is a key tool, particularly for issues tracking as part of Crown consultation, but there are challenges and limitations: data entry is very manual, there is limited support capacity, and the structure does not recognize the nuances of each territory’s regime. NPMO should continue to explore potential improvements to make the Database easier to work with, while ensuring key details are still captured.

4.0 Appendix A : Management Response and Action Plan

This Management Response and Action Plan (MRAP) addresses the recommendations of the evaluation with proposed actions, forecasted completion dates and the Responsible Manager at CanNor and specifically the NPMO.