Radha Curpen: Can Canada Still Build Big Projects?

Canada says this is the decade of energy security and trade diversification.
But can we actually build the infrastructure to make that happen?

In this episode of Power Struggle, Stewart Muir sits down with Radha Curpen, National Leader of McMillan LLP’s ESG and Sustainability Practice, to unpack what it really takes to deliver major projects in Canada today.

From pipelines and transmission lines to ports, data centres and critical minerals, Curpen explains why modern infrastructure must pass three tests:
 legal legitimacy, social durability, and capital credibility.

The conversation explores:

• The Canada–Alberta Memorandum of Understanding and what it actually means
 • Why a west coast pipeline is possible — but far from inevitable
 • Alberta’s urgency vs. B.C.’s caution
 • Indigenous consultation, equity ownership, and economic reconciliation
 • Why some investors now describe B.C. as “uninvestable”
 • How duplication and regulatory complexity stall projects
 • Why governance — not politics — determines durability

Curpen argues that project success depends on early planning, corridor thinking, relationship-building, and legal clarity. Equity is no longer just about revenue sharing — it’s about operational oversight, environmental accountability, and long-term value for Indigenous communities.

At stake is more than one pipeline.
It’s whether Canada can operate as a first-world economy — attracting capital, reconciling rights, and building nation-scale infrastructure in an era of polarization.

This is a national test case.

The energy conversation is polarizing. But the reality is multidimensional. Get the full story with host Stewart Muir.

Reach out to us with thoughts, questions, or ideas at info@powerstruggle.ca

Linkedin
Instagram
Facebook
Twitter

🎧 For audio versions of our podcast visit powerstruggle.ca and listen on the go in your favourite podcast app!
Video available on Power Struggle’s YouTube! https://www.youtube.com/@PowerStrugglePod

Transcript

Setting The Stakes For Canada

SPEAKER_00 0:11

Welcome to Power Struggle. I'm host Stuart Muir. Canada is at an inflection point. We're being told this is the decade of energy security, trade diversification, and strategic advantage. At the same time, there's a growing sense that building major infrastructure in this country has become extraordinarily difficult. The Canada-Alberta Memorandum of Understanding, MOU, is attempting something ambitious, linking emissions reductions with expanded export capacity. But if that means a new energy corridor to the BC coast, then this is no longer just about engineering. It's about geopolitics, growth versus stagnation, indigenous rights, provincial authority, environmental credibility, and whether projects can survive legal and political scrutiny. This is not simply an Alberta story or a BC story. It's a national test case. So to help us unpack what it actually takes to build major projects in Canada today, we're joined by Radha Kirpin. Welcome, Radha. Thank you, Stuart. Radha is the national leader of Macmillan LLP's ESG and sustainability practice. Based in Vancouver, she's a leading legal strategist in environmental law, indigenous relations, governance, and sustainability. She's advised governments, industry, and indigenous communities for decades now, helping navigate some of the most complex questions and cases around consultation, consent, and land use. It's such a privilege to have Rada here. She's also, in addition to her practice, a prominent commentator on these issues. And you'll see her writings in different places, easy to find, as well as a distinguished community leader in serving many different constituencies, a real Canadian leader, and that makes it such a special privilege to have you here today, Rada. So thanks for making time.

SPEAKER_01 1:59

Well, thank you, Stuart. Uh, it's always a pleasure to talk to you, whether uh in social settings or on panels or here.

unknown 2:08

Yes.

SPEAKER_01 2:08

Which is my first time here, so thank you for having me.

From Compliance To Durability

SPEAKER_00 2:11

Well, I hope it won't be the last time. I mean, there's just so much. I don't think we'll even begin to scrape the surface of the kinds of things that you and I are talking to when that we're talking about when we're in all kinds of different situations. Um you've spent decades now working at the intersection of environmental law, indigenous relations, governance, um, sustainability. What drew you into this field?

SPEAKER_01 2:30

Well, it was um, I was a fourth-year associate doing uh litigation at the time, commercial litigation, and decided that as I was looking at the headlines, environmental law would be neat because I'm doing a lot of constitutional law cases, and I was always interested in the intersection of economy, uh, business uh law, and and trying to find a way to use my litigation background, but also my commercial, because at the very beginning I did some business law as well, uh, where it was doing both business and litigation. I thought environmental law would allow me to be able to do both, to straddle both. And it turns out that's the case because the litigation versus the constitutional and then the governance aspect and corporate law and business deals were all things that I thought would all come together. That's how I started thinking about it.

SPEAKER_00 3:27

So you had a decision point very early in your career. Very early in my career. Is what you wanted to do, and that's what you've done.

SPEAKER_01 3:32

Yes, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 3:33

Yeah. What's changed over the span of the years since then?

SPEAKER_01 3:37

Yes, a lot. Uh so I would say when we started at the very beginning, it was about permitting, it was about compliance, it was about um environmental site assessments and contaminated sites. It's it's still all of that. But in addition, it's about projects, it's about governance, it's about what's legitimate, it's about social license and durability. Durability of business, durability of communities, durability of nations, of a country, uh, of the economy. Those are the kind of things that that I'm finding myself dealing with.

What Counts As A Major Project

SPEAKER_00 4:22

You've taken one word and really uh underlined it, durability. Yes. Um that that seems like a very significant word. What what what is it? I mean, I know uh it's in the dictionary, we can all see it, but what what does it mean to you?

Aligning Law, Capital, And Culture

SPEAKER_01 4:34

It's about being able to withstand the test of of time and also being able to thrive and being able to withstand scrutiny when we see about what's changed in projects, for example, you are looking at projects being scrutinized under three different ways, three different pillars, I guess I would call it. Legal uh legitimacy or legal review, judicial review, social license, social durability, as well as uh capital credibility. Uh so when people allocate capital, they're looking at risk, they're looking at timelight, they're looking at legal certainty. So those are the all three things that we're seeing. And then on top of that, you go from on indigenous issues, for example, you go from engagement to what we now know of consultation under section 35 of the Constitution Act, and then to equity ownership, so that which is great. So so you have economic reconciliation that look at all of this. So you see this, I've seen this progression uh going from what benefits nations to what really benefits them in terms of sharing into ownership and all that. So we can discuss that a little bit later. But those are the kind of things we see. And then you see on top of that, maybe I will add that one more thing. Uh, we have the constitution, then you have layering of UNDRIP and DRIPA and all that, the United Nations Declarations of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and how it's being implemented into law in BC and federally. So all these things that's coming at you. So when I thought at the very beginning of my career that I'm gonna do that and it's good for business, it's good for society, for the economy, I had no idea what I was getting into in a way. But but but I'm very I'm thrilled to be here at the intersection of all of this.

SPEAKER_00 6:49

You really are. Um I mean, just to pause for a moment. We're talking about projects. So it might be someone who's just tuned in, they've never followed power struggle before. Um what kind of projects uh would typically would we be talking about? What what things?

SPEAKER_01 7:03

Yeah. Well, different things. So you could talk about transmission lines, you can talk about pipelines, you can talk about marine terminals, you can talk about infrastructure, road infrastructure, um, hospital, you can talk about uh social infrastructure as as well as um critical minerals, mining, renewable energy, you can talk about data centers. So uh that and I can go on and on. Uh those are all types of projects.

SPEAKER_00 7:35

So big things that are complex, have legal and societal implications.

SPEAKER_01 7:41

Yes, and small things too. Like that you can have like smaller projects, which uh triggers uh regulatory regulations and social issues and all of that. So there's big things, but there's smaller things too.

SPEAKER_00 7:54

Now you advise governments, corporations, indigenous communities, how do you navigate situations where the legal, economic, cultural priorities don't always line up?

SPEAKER_01 8:04

That's a good question because we're constantly there. So you're constantly at the table where jobs become important and people are demanding maybe climate issues, climate imperatives, jobs, benefits, communities, um, territories, you know, all those issues when you come to the table. And then you have a number of things you need to navigate, which is because what you want to do is you want to translate those not into conflicts, but into opportunities to find sort of alignment, right? So, in order to do that, you you have to think about what are you trying to achieve here. So you have to put aside your litigation hat and put on your deal-making hat. And you have to understand the constitution, how it works. You have to understand the league regulatory framework, but you also have to understand the strategies, the strategies of communities who want to build. You want to understand the strategies of business. What is it that business is looking for? They're looking to allocate their capital, but they want to do it in a place where it's stable, where things are certain. They can know what the laws are, they can find their way. It's not about having laws are difficult or having things that are streamlined to the point that it's not responsible. It is about following the rules, but knowing what they are, being able to plan for them, and being able to the timeline. So you have to make sure that, so you have that. And then you have nations, they are gonna want a seat at the table and ownership position. Uh, they want value for their community, they want value that transcend generations that go seven generations or longer. And then you have governments that they're looking to you, they have a duty in the constitution to consult and where appropriate accommodate. They have to infringe or justify infringement. Those are the kind of things that they can do. So they're looking to the proponent to come up with a defensible process to help come up. They are supposed to be coming up with the process. And so those are the kind of things that you're doing. So immediately look to governance. So governance is the place I go to first. Governance will give stability, will give uh hopefully get you in a situation where you build trust uh with nations, because most of the time I'm acting for business. So uh I have sometimes acted for nations uh in the commercial negotiations. I've also acted for nations in um uh indigenous issues, uh internal issues, and also in the commercial um aspirations. Uh, but I act mostly for business. We also want to make sure that government understands that we have a defense, something that we can defend. All of this takes me to governance and it takes me to how do we uh make sure that there are some benefits there, but the benefits for business is that to get certainty. Okay, to get as much certainty as possible. They are more than happy to share in some of the things, some of the good things about ownership. Uh so it's about oversight, looking for ways in operational oversight that nations would want, like, for example, environmental. But those are the kind of things that wrong answer to this question, but I have a lot to say.

Defining The Canada–Alberta MOU

SPEAKER_00 11:53

Well, you do, and um maybe to go from that high level. And uh there's there's other questions, as you say, will come back too. But just to take a case in point that's in the news right now, and I'm talking about the Canada-Alberta MOU. Yes. The the Mark Carney-Danielle Smith MOU, uh as it's variously called, it's an incredibly complicated issue that this MOU is addressing. In your words, just to set the stage, what is the MOU and what does it signify?

SPEAKER_01 12:23

It's important. Uh it signifies uh our Canada um wanting to build a pipeline in order to open market to the Asia Pacific, right, to for export. And at the same time, uh it shows an urgency on the part of governments to get there. Uh and at the same time, it builds into the Building Canada Act, which allows for projects to be um to be uh declared in the national interest. So this may be and will be probably declared in the national interest, which would then streamline a process. So basically it's a the MOU is not an approval. Uh it does not take away the you know uh constitutional duty to consult with uh First Nations and accommodate where appropriate. It doesn't do uh any of that. What it does do, it shows the urgency of the situation and shows that the the political will of Canada and Alberta to come together in order to do this, and it it talks in it about uh uh uh working with British Columbia and we working with the First Nations, both in Alberta and BC. It also speaks of indigenous rights and it speaks of responsible environmental uh considerations as well. So uh, and right now I think the idea is that July 2026 is when, July 1st, I think, is when there is uh going to be a submission to the major project office for it. But it's about transporting uh Bitcoin from Alberta to uh export to BC uh uh and then to export to Asia.

SPEAKER_00 14:24

You've um framed what this is. Um I feel like you are uh putting in a positive light, yet the deal has had various criticisms leveled at it. Uh what is your general read on how this uh MOU has been received in the public conversation?

SPEAKER_01 14:43

Yeah, I think uh sometimes as a misperception, thinking that this is meant to um take away indigenous uh rights and and consultation or anything like that. I think it is meant to do so in a streamlined way. We'll see how it does. I think the test is gonna be what is the process to make sure that uh yes, we can streamline, but the streamlining doesn't mean we are going to uh exclude uh people. So you need to include them. And uh you need to build the legitimacy for durability. So uh this is simply an intention, and this is simply an um a sense of urgency that's been created, and the fact that there is a willingness to look at ways to get this done, which is great. Um, but the outcome is going to depend on how we have a process that is that doesn't create all types of barriers, but allow us to deal with the scoping of the, you know, of the project, allows us to deal with other infrastructure as well. And also, obviously, British Columbia.

SPEAKER_00 16:01

Now, when people uh see the headline and they say, oh, um, this is about a new pipeline to the West Coast of Canada, is there a perception that it's either impossible, there's no way that'll ever happen, or it's inevitable. It's gonna happen no matter what.

SPEAKER_01 16:15

I think it's it's neither. I would say it's possible, uh, it's not impossible. And I say for it to happen, it has to be done right. By that I mean uh it has to be done with proper scoping, early consultation, looking at the corridor, uh, looking at where the impacts are gonna be. And I think there's already, I mean, in the MOU, the discussion of this would be uh co-ownership with indigenous communities, which I think is is an important uh aspect. So you have to get all of that right in order to do that. So we're setting priorities, which is good. This is a priority. Um and uh now it's about making sure that we do the rest. So it can happen.

SPEAKER_00 17:09

It can happen.

SPEAKER_01 17:10

But it's not inevitable because there's a lot of things that has to work. Because I remember those three pillars I talked about earlier, which is uh uh the illegal review uh and social acceptability, and like for capital to come in, we have to be able to show that the MOU is not sufficient.

Alberta’s Urgency Vs BC’s Risk

SPEAKER_00 17:31

Now, with power struggle, the show, our very name suggests one thing that I find wherever I look, which is a struggle for power, whether that's energy in lives in that sense of power, but also political power and legitimacy. And um when we look at the playing field, we're talking about the Canada-Alberta MOU. It it's it's not the Canada BC Alberta MOU. Um yet it is entirely dependent on British Columbia. And on both sides of the Rockies, as we like to say, you you've got this divide between two provinces that are so similar, that have so much in common. I mean, that we have separatism in the mix now is a um, to me, a very disturbing uh thread that's uh arrived. But setting that aside, in in the struggle for coherence and durability and making things line up for this MOU concept, um, what are the divides? I mean, Alberta's urgency, BC's caution. When we put these two things together, how do we line them up?

SPEAKER_01 18:37

Yeah. Good question. I think um for Al Alberta looks at it from uh from a Canadian perspective, in a way that it's it's uh it's um national, it's energy security, it's uh diversification of trade, it's all of that, and getting our natural resources to market, to foreign markets, and all those are good things. BC seems to look at it in a very local way. They look at the risk, they look at the marine risk, they look at uh the local risk. I think they could come together. I want to see that come together because it's actually in the bet to the benefit of Canada as a whole and British Columbia, and to the benefit of economic reconciliation as well, which is BC is uh very much for. So uh I think the way we need to do it, I think we need to do it in terms of uh who are benefiting, who are looking at the risk, and who are bearing the risk, um, who have decision making. I think we have to do all of that. It's not just one party bearing all the risk, one party getting all the benefits. I think that's where we're going. We're going towards shared, um shared benefits, shared um uh I mean the MOU already talk about that. So I think if we go, if we talk about it in that way, in terms of economic reconciliation and opportunity for First Nations and uh Indigenous communities to be part of something that's nation building and playing our strengths, which is, you know, this is part of our strength. Right. And uh I think we could have uh we shouldn't look at it as a win or lose. It is really about making a building something that's durable that will withstand the test of time.

Protest, State Role, And Capital

SPEAKER_00 20:51

The last 10, 12 years in Western Canada, especially British Columbia, and we're here in Vancouver, has been a tumultuous time because major projects, the things that you're involved in, have been a big um uh influence on public discourse, on investment, on employment, and the direction of the economy, but they've also brought almost uh some ruptures in social relations. We've had, you know, a controversy over things that seem not easy, but but possible, but then suddenly seem uh less than possible. In-depth work I've seen that looks into this phase. It's called Mega Pipelines, Mega Resistance by Amy Janswood. The subtitle is Tar Sands, Social Movements and the Politics of Energy Infrastructure. Now, when I see tar sands used as a term, right away that's a flag for me. You're probably looking at someone who's using language in a way to um undermine confidence in the Canadian oil sands. So right away, this is positioned from the UBC press as a polemical style of book.

SPEAKER_01 21:57

Yeah. I have the same reaction.

SPEAKER_00 22:00

When I hear that word, you know, nevertheless, I felt that Amy Jenswood, who's now uh on a ten-year track uh position at McGill University, has done a lot of diligent work to understand processes to look at the underpinnings of these processes. So I it it's not without value, even though I perceive that there is an ideological slant to it. I'm just gonna read a sentence because I thought it was so fascinating here. Here it is on page 174, if anyone's got the softcover edition of it and is following along. Pipeline fights are winnable, but a clear binary outcome is not without trade-offs. And as TMX, that's Transmountain Expansion Project, and other contested pipeline projects demonstrate, the power of states to intervene as owners and financiers has dampened resistance movements. Um let's dwell on that. Sure.

SPEAKER_01 22:53

She's right that resistance has reshaped some of the things that we look at. Like resistance has helped deal with scoping, for example. How do we scope um the environmental impacts, uh, those kind of things? And uh and um resistance has also been part of how people have reshaped and understood um consultation, engagement, um, as well as uh equity, participation, and things like that. So that I I would say with respect to resistance. So and resistance has also shown some of the weaknesses, for example, on scoping. Uh and on state ownership, I would say yes, you can you can do an MOU for state for to show urgency, you can you can um buy a pipeline, all of that. At the end of the day, even after you do that, there's still risk in terms of legal risk and in terms of social durability. I think what she's saying is that it's becoming better when when governments do that. I think what governments have a role, and that is um, especially now, I think, to make capital come back after all this time of dealing with all types of issues on regulatory complexity and non-ending um uh I would call it uh duplication in processes, all of those things. Hopefully we're gonna get someplace where we don't have any of that. But until such time as we do and we show that, and we take action to show it, there will be a need for government to start the process, at least.

SPEAKER_00 24:51

And and what do you think about it?

SPEAKER_01 24:53

And and I think it's good to have government under the circumstances to have the government government start the process. I don't think government should own it. Uh, I think I like the idea of uh indigenous communities together with private capital owning it. And I say that one of the things I say is that the trade-offs like such as blockades blockades are not helpful. I mean, they may protect territory and all of that appears to protect territory, but then what it does, it it uh it uh make capital flee, and it uh creates energy insecurity, which is completely the opposite of what we're trying to do. It also undermines economic reconciliation for First Nation. So those are the those are the comments I have when I hear this. And I really hope that people will talk about the oil sands instead of the tar sands. And that's what I say when you come to the table, there's all kinds of noise that come with it, and you have to be able to cut through the noise. Um, so that th that's sort of my comments on that.

Investability, DRIPA, And Clarity

SPEAKER_00 26:08

We could do a whole episode on just this book. There's so many provocative things to discuss, but uh we've got to move along here because there's so much I want to cover with you today from your work. Okay. And you know, to me, um reading this work is clear evidence that the opposition to getting things built is formidable. I mean, that's pretty obvious, and it's persistent. I think that's uh uncontroversial. Are those Canadians who believe in having a viable country, I mean, staying together, uh no separatism movement in Quebec or Alberta, um are they going to be able to get anything done in the face of this issue of polarization and resistance?

SPEAKER_01 26:50

I'm glad you're not asking me to talk about the separation issue. That will take another thing. But uh no, uh yes, get anything done? I think so. Absolutely, Canada can get things done. And I think we have to be clear as to what we're trying to achieve. And I think the MOU is one step towards that. It's a very good step towards that. It's not enough. Uh, and it certainly doesn't deal with all the other projects that are important that are not in the national interest, right? So we have to get things done if we can also show that we can get some big things done, uh, as opposed to what we've been not been able to show for the number of years before that, uh, that will be important. But in order to show it, I think it needs to set priorities. I need you need to look at corridors uh early and uh look at them from a risk and opportunities point of view, both of them. And then you need to create, you need to develop, build relationships. Uh, you need to show people how this can be done, and you need to also show um, you need to have a obviously for people who are going to do it, you have to have a record of a proper record of consultation, accommodation that is going to withstand judicial scrutiny, that's gonna withstand social scrutiny, the public scrutiny, but also you need to make sure laws are certain, you know what the standards are. Uh so you we have years of jurisprudence on section 35 that tells us what the duty to consult is and where appropriate accommodate. We have uh jurisprudence on justification, on proportionality. We understand that when business look at investments, they're gonna look at stability, they're gonna look at the law, they're gonna look at the legal standard that they have to meet, they're gonna look at all this. But if you add on top of that um layers of uncertainty, and when I talk about that, I do talk about laws like DRIPA, uh the Declaration of the Uh Rights of Indigenous People Act. Um and that brings a layer of uncertainty to the equation. And uh and that is another sort of uh area that we need to make sure that there's constitutional clarity on it so people can move forward and work towards an outcome. So I think it is possible, and I think I I hope I'm right when I am positive, when I'm optimistic about it, because I think there are people who think that way. Uh, but there are others who think they have good intentions about uh UNDRIP and and all that. They have good um so so no one comes to the table with bad intentions. It's about good intentions for for prosperity, for economic reconciliation and all of that. But I think they need to understand that capital will not come if there is no clarity. That is one area that concerns me.

SPEAKER_00 30:22

That implies that there is some issue right now where capital is not coming because of a lack of clarity, is it?

SPEAKER_01 30:29

No, there is.

SPEAKER_00 30:33

I've heard it said privately that Canada is uninvestable. Have you heard this? Yes. What does that mean?

SPEAKER_01 30:41

It means just that, which is the fact that uh for it to be investable, for business uh to want to invest in British Columbia, for example. I've heard that British Columbia is uninvestable uh and recently, uh which pains me uh to say. Uh and that's because of we've got decision like the couching decision that has um impacted property rights. And the property rights is important for the foundation of our economy and a rule of law, like people need to know what law for people to be able to have laws that are knowable, that are predictable, uh, so they can plan. So when you see that, as you're allocating capital as a business, you're allocating capital. I can allocate capital here where there's uncertainty as to what rights, like what standards I have to go through. There are duplication of processes federally, provincially. Uh, and then there are um expectations that have been set under the under Drupal that makes it unrealistic. So when you see all of those things, those are all noise that make people hesitate. So, and I mean I'm not an economist. Uh others can speak to all of the economic aspect of it and the system issues that can um uh derail uh derive from all of this.

SPEAKER_00 32:23

Once lost, confidence to invest in a place is surely difficult to regain.

Reconciliation And Section 35

SPEAKER_01 32:28

Yes. It's like Warren Buffett said, once it it takes 20 years or 25 years to build a reputation and five minutes to to lose it.

SPEAKER_00 32:35

Aaron Powell We've been talking about DRIPA. Um there's the provincial legislation in British Columbia, the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People's Act, Bill 41 from 2019. There's also UNDRIP, which is the federal legislation, Bill C-15 from June of 2020. These are those are very different. We're talking here about DREPA in British Columbia and its impact.

SPEAKER_01 32:54

Yes, absolutely.

SPEAKER_00 32:55

So when we talk about that, um again, if you think of polarizations in an issue here, on the one hand it's veto power. Is DRIPA a veto, or is it this symbolic act of goodwill? And that's where we have the uncertainty. Which is it? Is it both? Is it neither?

SPEAKER_01 33:12

Well, the Court of Appeal just told us it's not just a symbolic act, uh, in the sense that uh uh every law in British Columbia has to be looked at as to consistency with UNDRIP. And that's because that's what DRIPA uh states and what is the Interpretation Act in British Columbia says. So the court basically went with what the government decided to do, which was the choice that it made in adopting DRIPA. So what I want to say is that we have Section 35, Constitutional Rights. It's not perfect, it's evolving, it's uh, but it allows for a framework that's been developed over decades by the Supreme Court. And when I talk about Section 35 jurisprudence, I'm talking about the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, uh, which made it clear about what is consultation, what is the duty to consult, what and and accommodate, what is justification, what is proportionality, what is what is reconciliation in terms of the weighing in the balance of um societal interests with broader societal interests, with uh with indigenous rights. So all of those things what should inform uh what we we're gonna do. So it's not um as to the way it currently reads, it is problematic because it is inconsistent. DRIPA is inconsistent with Section 35.

SPEAKER_00 34:52

And you raise this question uh what is reconciliation? I said to a friend on Vancouver Island, uh a Carver member of uh First Nation, that reconciliation seemed to be coming together. It was a positive step. Uh I felt, I've always felt that. His answer was what are you talking about, reconciliation? That implies there was a relationship. There was never a relationship to repair. There's nothing to reconcile here. Um is reconciliation itself a term that we have to examine.

SPEAKER_01 35:22

I I think that uh will require a lot more than me on this, because I don't think I have the expertise uh to comment on that. But what I would say is that there's a lot of business uh in BC and across Canada who are, and a lot of people, if you ask most people in this country, are you for or against reconciliation, they will tell you they are for. Because reconciliation seems to be you balance the interests of indigenous rights with the rest of society. That's sort of that's how I've understood it. So if that's how it's framed, uh I don't think we should all want a reconciliation. Economic reconciliation, when we if we have it, we'd have it, we could become one of the best countries, best economies in the world with the natural resources that we have where everybody wants, and we have indigenous communities participating in them, that would make our country the the place to be. So we should operate as a first world economy. We're not there. We're not operating as a first world economy right now.

SPEAKER_00 36:39

Aaron Powell I shouldn't be surprised to hear that in a way, but it is uh actually kind of shocking to hear you say that.

SPEAKER_01 36:45

Well, that's that's my opinion. Like that's obviously my opinion.

SPEAKER_00 36:48

Well, no, I think you're saying what a lot of people are thinking.

SPEAKER_01 36:50

Yeah.

Why Projects Stall Or Succeed

SPEAKER_00 36:50

Uh in your experience, what separates the projects that end up in court from the ones that end up successfully with Indigenous equity partners?

SPEAKER_01 36:58

Aaron Powell Yeah. I think um you need to start planning early. Uh by that, you don't make your decision until you start planning early and you start looking at the risk and opportunities presented by the geographic location of your project. And you look at um building relationships with indigenous communities, and you look at their goals, their their objectives, and look at creating value in terms of equity ownership, giving them an ownership interest, uh by giving them, I mean them buying an ownership interest. I don't mean by gifting, uh, buying an ownership interest. And now, you know, with the MOU, for example, you have uh obviously already the loan, uh, Indigenous loan programs federally in Alberta as well that would be involved. So uh it's not about winning and it's not about um crushing the opposition. It is really about making people want to be part of it and then getting the social acceptability and durability, and uh but also more very important to make sure that we can attract capital is make sure we have clarity in the legal standards and uh making sure that we have deadlines that we can meet and make sure that we're striving towards outcome, not just process. I mean, process gets us to outcome, and process deals with duties and all of that. I get that. But we can eliminate duplication of processes, we can harmonize what's happening provincially and federally. So there's a lot of ways to get there.

SPEAKER_00 38:58

Thanks for sharing that. Um it is uh uh profoundly meaningful, I think, to hear from you, a practitioner at the front lines, to come and share your knowledge and experience with everybody. Um when you talk about equity, talk about co-management, what does that actually mean in practice?

SPEAKER_01 39:18

Yeah. I would say it's a menu of things. It's not just one thing. You can't just have equity without um you have value in terms of monetary value, but you also have to have to be able to give a little bit of oversight on things that are important, such as environmental issues, um uh all of those things, so that there can be, so when I talk about co-management, I don't mean um co-governance in terms of government uh you know, sharing uh their responsibilities. I'm talking about co-governance of certain issues, operational issues, environmental issues, all of those things. So that's sort of, you know, you can have equity, but you can you have to have oversight, you have to talk about value, monetary value, but value for generations to come uh is something that's important.

SPEAKER_00 40:15

And how much of this is based on trust?

SPEAKER_01 40:18

It is very much based on trust. That's why I say you have to start early, build a relationship, look at the risk and opportunities ahead. Uh I really think you should do the corridor, look at the corridor, uh, look at the various options, look at the what is the goal, what are the various options, what are the realities on the ground, and how you get there?

SPEAKER_00 40:42

The corridor concept was adopted by the Pierre Poleyev campaign in the last federal election. Yes. I haven't seen it surface in the Mark Carney playbook for the federal liberals, and maybe it's there, but it hasn't come up. So you have a contrast in styles there. What are the pros and cons for each of those political actors in adopting a corridor or no corridor?

SPEAKER_01 41:04

I think it shouldn't be about politics. It shouldn't be about, okay, the the conservatives said that, the liberals said that. I think that there are things that come out of the conservative book that is important. And uh I agree that the corridor is important. It makes sense to me that you need to look at the corridor and look at those risks and opportunities ahead and define which corridor you want. I would do it for so many things, the corridor, not just for energy, but for other things too. So uh that it makes a lot of sense. I don't know. I haven't heard I I also haven't uh gone through the there must there could be something in the Liberal government thing on this. I I don't know. I I don't know enough about it yet.

SPEAKER_00 41:46

Yeah, I haven't really uh seen it, but the the idea of a corridor, it's not just a corridor, it it seems more about strategy. It's it's more about saying here's our high-level goals.

SPEAKER_01 41:55

It's like setting priorities. Just like the MOU does that, set priorities, the corridor does it too.

SPEAKER_00 42:01

It's solution agnostic.

SPEAKER_01 42:02

Exactly. Yeah, yeah. So so it is about setting strategies and going, knowing where you're going and keeping that focus and providing clarity. Clarity because things are ch happening around you. There's so much noise and uh so much politics, so much uh polarization and all of that. But you have to go through your process by being focused.

SPEAKER_00 42:32

I I wonder whether you could call the MOU the Mark Kearney bid for a corridor-like strategy.

Career Lessons And Multidiscipline

SPEAKER_01 42:40

Yeah, it could it could very well be. And uh, I mean it it is uh I know uh Pierre Polyev had talked about that uh for a long time. And uh and it may be some of the things uh that uh uh uh Prime Minister Carney is saying, like, uh okay, that makes sense. And uh and doing that. I mean he has his own views too. I mean, I'm sure he has his thought of it. I don't think uh I I actually believe in both.

SPEAKER_00 43:10

So when major projects stall in Canada, what's usually the real cause in your opinion? Is it poor planning, inadequate consultation, regulatory complexity, or or something else?

SPEAKER_01 43:21

Uh well it's all of the above and plus, I think. So sometimes it is uh not planning early enough and or not planning, not understanding. We all have biases, right? We all, I have biases, you have biases, and we have to know what they are. So it's about maybe making assumptions maybe on uh uncertain things, like you know, if if uh government wants it, we'll get it done, that kind of thing. It it's not that simple. There's a lot of there's layers of complexity that we've just discussed. So uh it could be that, and it could be, I mean, it's easy for us to say, well, it's pool planning and this. And that. But uh, but it there is there has to be uh sort of a a bit of a checklist. I mean, checklist and checklist and checklist. I mean, when I am involved in a project, I start with multidisciplinary approaches and checklists, daily calls, weekly meetings, and all of that to understand where we're going. I would not be in a situation where I'm coordinating something, which a lot of times I am, on legal, but without engineering, without government relations, without communications, without all of those things. All the pieces have to fit together. And uh so so you can plan in silos, and that's not good. And maybe when you do plan in silos, you don't see the gaps. I can see, but also when you scope, sometimes as you're acting, you tendency would want to scope it in a narrow way. And that's okay. I've done it too. I've scoped things in narrow ways, and because it's in the benefit of what we're doing, but you have to understand the implications of doing that when you scope certain things in in narrow ways. So, for example, the marine uh issues when you're talking about uh ports, that's gonna be important that they are scoped properly. So those those kind of things, uh, what else can I say? Um obviously, relationships, relationship building uh is gonna be important. And the value, what is so people need to see what is the value. We talk about economic reconciliation. This is very much about economic reconciliation, and it's not against it. So let's talk about it. Let's let's put it on the table and let's see what actions we can make towards it.

SPEAKER_00 45:53

I I'm watching the Olympics, the winter Olympics um every day, and uh, you know, thinking about what you're doing. A lot of folks might look at the legal profession and think that there's these specializations, you've got uh, you know, the the downhill racer, you've got the uh acrobatics, you've got but you seem more like uh the cathlete. I mean, you've got so many different disciplines, you've got these domains, you're managing all of these, but it's not for just regular doing business. You're talking about multi-billion dollar projects that you're involved in.

SPEAKER_01 46:23

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 46:24

And you're doing all this.

Optimism And What Must Change

SPEAKER_01 46:25

So I've also been involved in projects that haven't gone through, like uh Energy East was was one. So I I do want to I I do want to say that. Uh because um you're learning, you're developing, and you are finding the the holes in your thinking. So one of the things that I do, it's part of my role at my firm as well, is to make sure that the dots are connected. So as head of sustainability and sort of relationship uh partner, uh uh I I I do do that. I don't know uh every area of law, or no one can. And uh I can spot certain issues, but I always want to make sure I have a team that can do all the work that needs to be done. So so but I also want to make sure the legal team are in sync with the other members of the team, other disciplines that need to be there uh for that purpose. So that is what I do. And that is part of the things that I wanted to do from the time when I was a fourth year associate. I just didn't know how much of it was actually going to play out and how much broader than I I never expected, you know, to be involved in sustainability, all of that stuff. But uh it just I didn't see that. I saw it coming afterwards.

SPEAKER_00 47:55

So for someone who's listening to this, they're planning their career because they're at that younger phase, like you were when you started in fourth year. What advice from this remove and all the experience you've now had would you offer to someone like that for them to really succeed?

SPEAKER_01 48:10

I would say for for this kind of area, for example, do not be um, well, first don't be siloed and think, learn and think about all the various disciplines that can teach you to be a better lawyer. Engineers have taught me to be better lawyers. And um business people have taught me to be better lawyers, uh, as well as um so so what I want to say is that be open to that and also don't be siloed in terms of thinking. You can specialize. I specialize in environmental law, I added aboriginal law, I added sustainability, then I added, you know, on top of that, I I was I was doing uh constitutional law before that. So all of those things add to make for better outcomes for clients. And so also look to the literature, look to, you know, people who invest, like the Warren Buffett of the world and all of that. Look at the books, look at what they are saying. Look at Shane Parrish on Clear Thinking and Morgan Housel on on um Same as Ever in another book about what changes, changes will happen around you. It's understanding human behavior is important. So all of that, it's not just one thing. You have to be open to learn as much as you can in many disciplines, is what I would say.

SPEAKER_00 49:43

Are you optimistic about the the future of getting things done in Canada?

SPEAKER_01 49:48

I am optimistic that we can get it done. We have to get away from certain thinking. And I think we have to remove the barriers that we create for ourselves. And uh and we have to believe and be proud of our country and of our province. And uh don't make people feel that they're not welcome.

Closing Reflections And CTA

SPEAKER_00 50:17

Radha Kirpin, it's been an incredible conversation. It feels like it's the preamble to a much bigger one, which will have to continue on power struggle in future.

SPEAKER_01 50:27

Thank you, Stuart. Thank you so much for having me. That was a great, insightful questions.

SPEAKER_00 50:31

Today's conversation with Radha Kirpin shows just how complex and consequential the intersection of Indigenous rights, land, and resource development has become in Canada. These aren't abstract debates. They shape real projects, real communities, and the future of how we build things. Whether they unfold successfully has a lot to do with whether Canada is going to be the country of our dreams. If you found this conversation valuable, make sure to like the episode, subscribe to Power Struggle, share the episode with someone who cares about energy, land, and governance as much as you do. So thanks for listening. Stay curious, stay engaged, and we'll see you next time on Power Struggle.