Is the regulatory system in the NWT about to be tweaked?

At the start of a major mining conference in Toronto last week, the NWT and Ottawa signed an agreement on “regulatory coordination” that came with aspirational phrasing but little detail.

NWT business groups have for years called on both levels of government to reduce the regulatory burden and make the territory a more attractive destination for mining and resource investment.

Conversely, environmental advocates worry that any relaxation of the regulatory regime opens the way for another Giant Mine, the $4-billion toxic remediation project on Yellowknife’s doorstep that occurred in part through lack of oversight.

A March 1 news release about the new memorandum of understanding said the territorial government and Canada would work with Indigenous governments – who are not signatories, though the Ottawa and the NWT say they will be central – to strengthen regulatory “clarity and consistency”.

The news release did not state how that would be achieved, so we called federal northern affairs minister Rebecca Chartrand and NWT environment minister Jay Macdonald to ask what the governments have in mind.

Here are extracts from those conversations.

These interviews were recorded separately on March 6, 2026. This condensed transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

Ollie Williams: What’s this agreement about?

Rebecca Chartrand: It’s about removing duplicate regulations, ensuring that we’re doing what we can to move projects forward as quick as we can.

Can you give us an example of a problem this MOU is designed to address?

Rebecca Chartrand: A good example is overlapping or conflicting rules. A mining project might require approvals from federal regulators, territorial regulators, environmental boards, Indigenous governments. From a federal agency lens, we don’t want to stall the process. We want to remove any duplication.

This agreement ensures all three levels of government are at the table and the federal government can understand where it can lean in to support those processes, taking a whole-government approach, and then also where we can support capacity-building to move projects along much quicker.

Jay Macdonald: We have many players at the table where there’s duplication and overlap. Sometimes the direction is not clear on how to proceed.

We were looking for a way to work together. We didn’t want it to be a formal, structured document because we need to speak to everyone. Everyone needs to be at the table in this conversation to ensure we’re finding ways forward that work for everyone.

So who haven’t you spoken to that you need to speak to?

Jay Macdonald: Obviously, we were collaborating with and talking to our Indigenous partners. Between myself and the premier, we reached out to a number of the leaders. We shared the MOU in advance and ensured they were comfortable with the direction we were going in.

Now that we have the MOU in place, we’ll start the conversation about: what are the opportunities here to reduce some of the duplication, to get some of the processes in line?

An example I can think of is a project that might require approvals from a land and water board within the NWT, but also from the Canada Energy Regulator. Are we talking about a future where one or the other of those two regulators takes it on?

Rebecca Chartrand: We want to ensure we’re doing our due diligence with any process, whether that’s land and water boards or permitting and licensing. Ensuring we do a thorough process is also important, so I don’t think it’s going to replace either-or.

What this MOU is about is ensuring you have all three levels of government at the table, determining the best path is forward.

Jay Macdonald: I don’t think I’m thinking at that level. I’m thinking we need to ensure all of our partners and us and Canada are in the conversation about what the potential path could be going forward. That’s why we went with an MOU and a broad mandate, so we can all talk together.

I don’t believe that it’s our position to go and tell the Indigenous governments how we want to see this move forward. I think we need to do that together.

Do you want industry groups in the NWT to see this MOU as a response to their concerns?

Rebecca Chartrand: One hundred percent. Regulatory regimes were born out of modern treaties, so they are processes that are owned by rights holders. We want to ensure that we are also investment-ready in these processes. I think this MOU signals exactly that, because we do have all three levels of government at the table.

As far as I can tell, only two levels of government are signatories to this MOU. What role will Indigenous governments have in deciding what “improved clarity and efficiency” actually looks like?

Rebecca Chartrand: Rights holders are part and parcel of this. When we’re thinking about co-management decisions, many Indigenous governments nominate members to the land and water boards, for example, or the environmental review board. It always includes Indigenous governments.

So just by the inherent fact that the regulatory regimes are owned and managed by Indigenous groups, it automatically makes them a part of these processes, right?

The federal and territorial governments can’t legally move anything without the Indigenous rights holders in the Northwest Territories, because they do manage the regulatory systems. At the MOU signing, you could see how happy the Indigenous governments were as well, because it’s been difficult to move some of these processes forward.

Co-management boards operate with a hefty degree of independence. What tools do you have to achieve the goals you’re talking about?

Jay Macdonald: One of the real challenges we face in the NWT is consultation fatigue. We go and we do a consultation on one process, then we’re back to do a consultation on another process on the same project, but two different streams.

We want to have the ability to have a more frank and upfront conversation with Canada about how they can support Indigenous organizations so they can have meaningful participation, as well as supporting us to ensure we are able to meet all of the demands on our part within this process.

As we talk about sovereignty and Arctic security, I think we’re going to see pressures from these things that Canada is moving forward. How do we pre-position ourselves to ensure we’re able to meaningfully participate at a pace that is acceptable to all of our partners, as well as the Government of Canada, and still ensure we’re taking advantage of the opportunities that we could see in the not-too-distant future?

What’s the timeline for tangible developments on this? And is the key to this making sure that time is not a problem?

Rebecca Chartrand: We are looking to move forward projects of national interest and we are looking at two-year timelines. If we can move regulatory processes forward within that space, I think it’s a huge win. The MOU is determining how and which processes we can move forward.

Jay Macdonald: From my perspective, the most important thing here is that we maintain our land, our water, our wildlife and the integrity of our co-management system.

We’re trying to find some efficiencies, and hopefully those efficiencies will improve time. I don’t think time is the total goal. The certainty of the process, I think, is one of the goals here – to provide that certainty and then make sure our co-management system is properly resourced to be responsive.

I plan to go to Ottawa in April, meet with Minister Chartrand and have a conversation. We’re early on into this and I’m proud of what we were able to accomplish here in a seriously short period of time, in government time. We were able to pull this together in about a month, because there’s that willingness to work together.