In the complex world of major project development, Radha Curpen has spent decades navigating the high-pressure intersection of environmental law, Indigenous relations and constitutional governance. As the national leader of McMillan LLP’s ESG and sustainability practice, she has watched the landscape shift from a simple exercise in permitting to a complex test of national character.
Speaking as a guest on the podcast Power Struggle with host Stewart Muir, Curpen argues that building a pipeline or a transmission line in 2026 is no longer just an engineering feat. It is a pursuit of what she calls “durability”.
“Durability means being able to withstand the test of time and also being able to thrive and being able to withstand scrutiny,” Curpen explains.
The three pillars of scrutiny
In the current Canadian climate, Curpen posits that projects face a gauntlet of three distinct pillars: legal legitimacy through judicial review, social license or social durability, and capital credibility. Without all three, even the most technically sound project risks becoming a casualty of litigation and political noise.
The evolution of Curpen’s field reflects the changing expectations of a modern economy. Early in her career, the focus was firmly on technical compliance, including permitting, environmental site assessments and contaminated sites. Today, the conversation has matured into deeper questions of legitimacy.
When capital is allocated, investors are looking for more than just a regulatory “green light”. They are actively scanning for risk, timelines and legal certainty. During her Power Struggle appearance, Curpen noted that Canada, and British Columbia in particular, has faced criticisms of being “uninvestable” due to a lack of clarity in these areas.
“People need to know what law—for people to be able to have laws that are knowable, that are predictable, so they can plan,” she says. When property rights are impacted by shifting legal interpretations, such as the Cowichan decision, it touches the very foundation of the rule of law and the economy.
To bridge this gap, Curpen advocates for a move away from “process for the sake of process” and toward a focus on outcomes. This requires eliminating the duplication between federal and provincial requirements and harmonizing standards so that proponents have a clear, defensible path forward.
Economic reconciliation as a national advantage
One of the most profound shifts Curpen has witnessed is the progression of Indigenous involvement from simple engagement to Section 35 consultation, and finally to equity ownership. She views this not as a hurdle, but as a path to “economic reconciliation” that could define Canada’s future success.
“Economic reconciliation, if we have it… we could become one of the best countries, best economies of the world,” Curpen asserts.
With vast natural resources and full Indigenous participation, Canada could secure a unique strategic advantage. However, Curpen warns that equity alone is insufficient. True partnership involves “co-management”—giving Indigenous communities oversight on operational and environmental issues that affect their territories for generations to come.
This transition is not without friction. The introduction of legislation like the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) in B.C. has introduced layers of uncertainty regarding how it meshes with decades of established Supreme Court jurisprudence. Curpen suggests that reconciliation should be framed as balancing Indigenous rights with broader societal interests to create a stable framework for everyone.
The strategy of the corridor
The recent Canada-Alberta Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding bitumen export serves as a real-time test case for these theories. The MOU signifies an urgency to open markets to the Asia-Pacific, potentially declaring such projects in the “national interest” under the Building Canada Act to streamline development. While some view such interventions with skepticism, Curpen sees it as a necessary step toward setting national priorities.
Central to this is the “corridor” approach—a strategy that identifies geographic risks and opportunities early in the planning stage.
“It makes sense to me that they need to look at the corridor and look at those risks and opportunities ahead and define which corridor we want,” Curpen says, noting that this strategy should apply to energy, telecommunications and social infrastructure alike.
The success of such ambitious projects depends on moving beyond “siloed” planning. Curpen champions a multidisciplinary approach where legal, engineering, communications and government relations teams operate in daily sync. By building relationships before final decisions are made and treating Indigenous communities as co-owners from the start, projects can transition from being merely “possible” to being “durable”.
A call for national pride
Despite the current polarization, Curpen remains a persistent optimist. She believes that by removing self-created barriers and fostering a welcoming investment climate, Canada can reclaim its status as a leading first-world economy.
“We have to believe and be proud of our country and our province,” she concludes.
For the next generation of leaders entering the field, her advice on Power Struggle was simple: look beyond the law. Study human behavior, listen to engineers and never stop trying to “connect the dots”. In the quest for durability, the most important tool is a mind that refuses to stay in a silo.
Watch the video on Power Struggle
- Power Struggle audio and transcript
- Power Struggle website
- Radha Curpen on LinkedIn
- Stewart Muir on LinkedIn
- Stewart Muir on X
Power Struggle on social media:
- Power Struggle on LinkedIn
- Power Struggle on Instagram
- Power Struggle on Facebook
- Power Struggle on X
Ian Biana is a writer for Resource Works, a non-partisan organization that champions responsible resource development in British Columbia and Canada. Reach Ian at [email protected].
Resource Works News
