Less than a year ago, Mark Carney’s government introduced Bill C-5 to enact the Building Canada Act[1] (the “BCA”). Assented to on June 26, 2025, this legislation is intended to accelerate the approval of major infrastructure and natural resource development projects deemed to be of “national interest” by the federal government, at the expense of the duty to consult and environmental protections. Despite strong opposition to the legislation from several Indigenous nations, the federal government now intends to go even further. On May 8, it announced a new series of legislative and regulatory reforms aimed at further transforming the federal review and approval regime for all major projects. Shortly thereafter, on May 14, 2026, the Carney government unveiled its “National Strategy for an Electrified Canadian Economy,” which seeks to double Canada’s electricity capacity by 2050. This article focuses on the new legislative and regulatory reforms expected imminently, as Canada has released two policy papers open for comment until June 6, 2026.
Two policy papers have just been published by the federal government: Getting Major Projects Built in Canada – Discussion Paper on Proposed Legislative, Regulatory, and Policy Reforms and Discussion paper: Strengthening One Canadian Economy through trade and transportation. These policies arise in the current geopolitical and economic context, marked by the federal government’s clear determination to accelerate economic development and the construction of major projects, including pipelines and natural resource extraction projects, while centralizing review and authorization processes. Indeed, the BCA contains Henry VIII clauses, which allow the government to make decisions notwithstanding existing legislation, for example in relation to environmental approvals, effectively enabling it to override statutes without resorting to the ordinary legislative process. The constitutionality of these provisions remains uncertain.
However, the forthcoming reform goes even further than the BCA and raises significant concerns regarding the preservation of rigorous review mechanisms and Canada’s ability to fully comply with its constitutional and international obligations toward Indigenous peoples.
1. Main Proposed Reforms
1.1 “Getting Major Projects Built in Canada – Discussion Paper on Proposed Legislative, Regulatory, and Policy Reforms”
The first discussion paper proposes a major overhaul of the federal regulatory framework applicable to major projects. In particular, it contemplates reducing review and decision-making timelines for major projects to one year, granting expanded powers allowing for the pre-authorization of projects located in certain federal economic zones, modifying conditions attached to environmental authorizations, and potentially weakening protections relating to fish and species at risk. These significant changes would likely require amendments to the Impact Assessment Act, the Fisheries Act[2], and the Species at Risk Act[3].
The paper is structured around six major reform pillars:
1) Federal review and decision-making within a maximum of one year
The government proposes limiting the entire federal review and authorization process for major projects to twelve months, with impact assessments and permit application reviews conducted simultaneously rather than sequentially.
2) A single Crown-Indigenous consultation process
The proposal contemplates the creation, within the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC), of a centralized Crown-Indigenous Consultation Centre intended to consolidate and coordinate all consultation activities for each project. This approach would not apply in the territories, where the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency would retain its coordination role.
3) A single decision per project
For projects subject to an impact assessment, a single decision document would consolidate all federal authorizations. The unified decision document would be officially issued by the Minister of Environment, Climate Change, and Nature (MECCN). This measure would not apply to the Canada Energy Regulator (CER) or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC).
4) A single project authority
The government proposes removing responsibility for certain types of projects from the IAAC and transferring them to specialized agencies:
- to the CER for international and interprovincial pipelines, electricity transmission lines, and offshore renewable energy projects. Projects under the CER’s jurisdiction would no longer require a separate impact assessment under the Impact Assessment Act. The Governor in Council would determine whether long-distance pipelines are in the public interest, and this decision would be made at the outset of the process;
- to the CNSC for nuclear and uranium-related projects. For ongoing assessments, projects still at the planning stage (where notices have already been issued but full studies have not yet been submitted) would see their decision-making process transferred to the CNSC.
5) Defining economic zones within which projects would be pre-approved
Canada is contemplating the creation of “Federal Economic Zones” encompassing transportation corridors, telecommunications networks, energy infrastructure, and industrial areas.
The Governor in Council would have the authority to determine that certain categories of projects located within these zones are pre-approved without prior assessment. The zones, along with the activities permitted within them, would be clearly defined.
The paper specifies that consultation with Indigenous peoples would constitute a key component of the process in order to identify impacts and development opportunities, and that additional collaboration would help determine the specific conditions for development within these zones.
6) Streamlining the regulatory framework, particularly with respect to environmental protections and fish and species at risk
The proposals are broad and would grant the government expanded decision-making powers, including the ability to modify conditions imposed on proponents and relax certain environmental protections relating to fish, fish habitat, and species at risk.
Proposed measures include:
- restricting activities requiring navigation permits;
- increasing flexibility for permits relating to fish and fish habitat, particularly regarding offsetting measures and disposal at sea;
- transferring certain decision-making powers from the Governor in Council to responsible ministers;
- requiring that project conditions be technically and economically feasible;
- authorizing certain preliminary works before a final impact assessment decision is rendered;
- empowering the MECCN to modify certain impact assessment conditions in exceptional circumstances;
- empowering the Minister of One Canadian Economy to modify environmental conditions applicable to projects of national interest;
- allowing, in limited circumstances and subject to a high threshold, exemptions of specific projects from the application of the jeopardy test for species at risk where it is in the public interest and the proponent has made all reasonable efforts to avoid or minimize impacts on species at risk.
These proposals would not alter environmental approval regimes established under modern treaties.
1.2 Discussion Paper: Strengthening One Canadian Economy through Trade and Transportation
The second paper concerns the modernization of federal transportation and trade policies, with the objective of improving supply chain efficiency, modernizing port governance, and promoting an integrated approach based on national transportation corridors. These measures would require amendments to the Canada Marine Act[4] and the Canada Transportation Act[5].
The principal proposed reforms are as follows:
- adding the concept of “supply chain efficiency” to section 5 of the Canada Transportation Act;
- granting the minister authority to designate certain routes as “National Trade Corridors” and establish performance objectives;
- reforming port authority governance toward a more modern, business-focused model;
- creating advisory mechanisms to ensure ongoing participation by Indigenous communities located near ports;
- amending the Canada Marine Act to expressly recognize Indigenous peoples and their distinct identities;
- revising governance mechanisms for boards of directors of Canadian port authorities;
- mandating the National Corridor Council to consult Indigenous peoples, provinces, territories, municipalities, and other stakeholders and make recommendations to the Minister of Transport;
- implementing measures aimed at providing the government with additional tools to ensure stability and continuity of operations along the St. Lawrence Seaway.
2. Significant Concerns for Indigenous Peoples’ Rights
The proposed reforms go even further than the BCA and raise serious concerns about their impacts on the rights of Indigenous peoples, as they would no longer be limited to projects deemed to be of “national interest.”
The proposed process is extremely accelerated. Indigenous peoples and other stakeholders have fewer than 30 days, until June 6, to submit comments on these proposed reforms, which are likely to fundamentally transform Canada’s environmental assessment and project authorization regime.
These proposals also reflect a broader logic of fast-tracking strategic projects at the expense of the duty to consult. This does not map onto the strengthened interpretation of the duty to consult following the Kebaowek decision[6] and the standard of free, prior, and informed consent protected under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (“UNDRIP”) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act[7](“UNDRIP Act”), adopted by Ottawa in 2021.
Given that Canada often relies on its regulatory review processes for fulfilling the duty to consult, the ongoing erosion of those processes raises concern for how Canada will continue to meet its consultation obligations. This is particularly worrisome for Nations who are located in provinces that do not have strong provincial environmental or regulatory review processes established, such as Alberta, as Canada is often viewed as the backstop.
Moreover, the creation of a centralized consultation process raises significant concerns. While the federal government presents this reform as a way of streamlining consultation, we believe that this centralized approach would instead undermine the diversity of analyses and the independence required for the various assessment processes. Rather than allowing for distinct and complementary assessments by different competent authorities, the centralized model would promote a more uniform but less critical approach. The various competent authorities have distinct mandates and expertise, which makes them better positioned to carry out impact assessment, ensure safety, protect the environment, and promote certain forms of energy development.
Finally, while a majority of judges held in Mikisew Cree First Nation v Canada (Governor General in Council)[8] that the duty to consult does not apply to the legislative process itself, the Supreme Court of Canada nevertheless specified that “the Crown’s honour may well require judicial intervention where legislation may adversely affect — but does not necessarily infringe — Aboriginal or treaty rights.”[9] That question therefore, remains unresolved. In addition, that decision predates the enactment of the 2021 UNDRIP Act and did not concern the adoption of Henry VIII clauses, which allow the executive branch to usurp the role of Parliament rather than merely exercising a degree of control over the ordinary legislative process.
Accordingly, while it will be necessary to await the imminent introduction of the bill before conducting a definitive analysis, it appears to us that the legislation could potentially be challenged even before its adoption. In the broader context of the accelerated reforms proposed by the Carney government, this possibility cannot, at this stage, be ruled out.
——————-
[1] SC 2025, c 2, s 4.
[2] RSC 1985, c F-14.
[3] SC 2002, c 29.
[4] SC 1998, c 10.
[5] SC 1996, c 10.
[6] Kebaowek First Nation v Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, 2025 FC 319 (appealed).
[7] SC 2021, c 14.
[8] [2018] 2 SCR 765.
[9] Ibid para 3.