The Hidden Costs of Canada’s Proposed Regulatory Fast Lane: 

Comments on the Getting Major Projects Built in Canada Discussion Paper

Earlier this month, the federal government released its Getting Major Projects Built in Canada discussion paper (the Discussion Paper) as the next step in their promised work to “strengthen trade, grow the economy, and compete globally. The proposed changes outlined in the Discussion Paper refer back to promises made during the 2025 Speech from the Throne and expand upon the Building Canada Act also from 2025.[1] The stated overarching goal of these proposals is to make “the decision process more efficient and predictable” and to compete with other countries to “attract investments in large-scale projects.”[2] In other words, the Discussion Paper purports changes for simpler, shorter, cheaper, and more predictable decision-making processes.

Although the Discussion Paper is light on details, it proposes significant and sweeping changes to federal environmental law. The changes reflect a major shift in the purpose of the assessment and approval processes currently in place and sets the stage to potentially undermine species at risk protections and other federal environmentally relevant statutes. The ethos of impact assessment is one of “look before you leap” and is intended to ensure that the rights of project proponents do not irreparably harm the environment or unduly interfere with the rights of everyone else, whether that is landowners, neighbours, or others. These changes replace that caution and balance with an outsized focus on economic considerations, forgetting that environmental regulation serves an important purpose and is not just red tape. These changes also represent a significant reduction in public input. Even this proposal, with a short engagement period and limited details, minimizes public consultation.

Increasing regulatory efficiency isn’t inherently bad, but, as we have pointed out before, haste often makes waste and speed may come at a cost.  Consultation on the Discussion Paper is open until July 22^nd and submissions may be made here. 

The Getting Major Projects Built in Canada Discussion Paper

The federal government’s most recent announcement, the Discussion Paper on Proposed Legislative, Regulatory, and Policy Reforms, seems to build on many of the same themes as the Building Canada Act. The paper does not include the specific legislative details but does set out proposed priorities of the federal government.

Thus far, no specific regulatory provisions have been announced and instead the proposed changes are described in the discussion paper. There is a promise that following the end of the consultation period the “government will be moving quickly to introduce legislation.”[3] Although this fast turnaround for engagement, limited detail, and lack of specificity suggests that these proposed changes are without controversy, the reality is that the Discussion Paper sets out extensive and consequential amendments to both the federal impact assessment process as well as significant changes to permitting and approvals across federal environmental legislation.

Proposal 1: Federal review and decision-making in no more than one year

The first proposal seeks to have federal review and decision-making completed in no more than one year.  Proponents will also have one year from the Notice of Commencement to file the relevant studies and information (although this may be longer if the proponent seeks a delay).  The paper implies that these timelines may be concurring, but it is hard to see how this could be the case. Expedited timelines bring significant increases in risk in relation to the scientific rigour of the assessment and the subsequent decision-making. The efficacy of an assessment of impacts depends on the accuracy and robustness of information going into the processes, whether that relates to biophysical impacts or impacts on communities.  Timelines can be helpful to keep government and proponent processes on track but should not be adhered to at the expense of meaningful community participation and assurances around the quality of assessment information being used (and the related uncertainty).

Proposal 2: One crown consultation process

The next proposal is to create a single Crown Consultation Hub within the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to manage the Indigenous consultation process. This is not necessarily a problem but any changes to the consultation process cannot derogate from the duty to consult requirements as set out in Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests). In Haida Nation, the SCC set out a two-part test to determine if a duty to consult is engaged: (1) any real or constructive knowledge of a section 35 interest; and (2) the Crown contemplating action that might affect that interest. If this test is met, the duty to consult is engaged and the content of this duty (or a determination of whether the duty has been met) varies according to the preliminary assessment of the strength of the section 35 case and the seriousness of potential adverse effects on the section 35 interest. These requirements are not altered by virtue of a proposed streamlining of the consultation process. A real risk is that any attempts to shorten the consultation period may result in inadequate consultation and consequent litigation risk.

Proposal 3: One project decision

This proposal deals with the final decision stage of an approval. Applying to projects included in the Physical Activities Regulations, which falls under the Impact Assessment Act, these changes would mean a single document, with all the federal decisions required for a project included, would be issued. According to the proposed changes, there would still be still opportunities for expert review, permitting, and enforcement by relevant departments as well as the opportunity for the Minister of Environment, Climate Change, and Nature (ECCN) to determine whether any negative federal effects of the proposed project were considered significant. It also suggests that, if necessary, the Minister could make a joint decision with another ministry in the event that a significant negative federal effect fell within that second ministry. 

At this time, we do not know which projects would be included in this program and how often a decision would be removed from a joint decision-making process to exist solely within the realm of the Minister of ECCN. However, looking at the types of projects listed in the regulations, they are as diverse as the construction of pipelines located through national marine conservation areas; the construction of coal, metal, or diamond mines; the expansion of a gravel pit; the construction of fossil-fuel fired power generating facilities; or the construction of a new hydroelectric generating facility. Clearly, these are projects with far-reaching impacts and should be assessed with the best possible information and involving the best possible decision-makers.

Proposal 4: Single project authority

The next proposal is to assign responsibility for certain projects to a single authority, specifically two federal authorities: the Canada Energy Regulator (CER) for “reviews for international and interprovincial pipelines, transmission lines, and offshore renewable energy projects” and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) for reviews for nuclear and uranium projects. The current practice requires a combination of review processes performed by these agencies alongside the impact assessment process falling under the Impact Assessment Act. These changes suggest that any role previously played by the Impact Assessment Agency would now be removed.

A notable mention in this proposal is that it proposes a process whereby the Governor in Council would have the authority to decide whether a lengthy pipeline is considered in the public interest and can do so at the beginning of the decision-making process, before a review of conditions or routing details. This is concerning because it seems to place the cart ahead of the horse – the horse being the process intended to determine whether a project should be approved or not (the cart). One of the purposes of the current Impact Assessment Act regime is “to prevent or mitigate significant adverse effects within federal jurisdiction – and significant direct or incidental adverse effects – that may be caused by carrying out of designated projects”.[4] A clear critique of such an approach is that this early  public interest determination is being made in the absence of understanding of biophysical and community effects.  . Similarly, even if the impact assessment process is relegated entirely to the CER, these types of shortcuts could still impact a fulsome assessment process as set out in the Canadian Energy Regulator Act which states that the purpose of the regulatory framework is to “ensure that pipelines and power lines as well as facilities, equipment or systems related to offshore renewable energy projects, are constructed, operated and abandoned in a manner that is safe, secure and efficient and that protects people, property and the environment.”[5]

Proposal 5: Enable economic zones through regional impact assessments

In this section, the federal government is proposing the creation of ‘Federal Economic Zones’ which would be approved through the existing regional impact assessment. As proposed, these zones would cover “transportation corridors, telecommunications networks, energy production and transmission and industrial regions” and would require a single approval for the entire area. This would enable pre-approvals in these zones; however, it is unclear how exactly this would be developed and where it may apply. We can look to Ontario as an example of a jurisdiction that has already attempted to create this type of economic zone with pre-approved impact assessments. Several First Nations groups responded to the Ontario legislation with litigation and it remains to be seen whether the same will ensue following the announcement of where these federal economic zones will be located.

Presumably, this will be done using the regional assessment process which already exists under the Impact Assessment Act and which according to the government website is intended to “examine the positive and adverse effects (impacts) of past, existing and/or future activities within a specific region.” Thus far the process has only been used eight times.

Proposal 6: Streamlined and efficient regulatory environment

The final section of the discussion paper cites several changes proposed for other federal legislation. We will go through each of these in turn.

1. Narrowing the types of activities that require navigation permits:

This section likely refers to activities governed under the Navigation Protection Program which falls under the Canadian Navigable Waters Act. This program specifies that any project which affects navigation will require the project proponent to apply for an approval. There are exceptions for ‘minor works’ or those projects which meet the criteria set out in the Minor Works Order. Minor works do not require a full approval, although they may still require public notice and deposit information. Projects that fall under the approval process include bridges, causeways, aquaculture facilities and water control structures and minor works that require a public notice (without a full approval) include erosion protection, buried pipelines, dredging, and watercourse crossing. It remains to be seen which types of projects will be removed from these requirements and what will be required instead. However, the primary issue with this change is that there is already a triage system in place to require the approval or notice process necessary for each level of work that is being proposed. These categories were created in recognition of the potential impact of each level of proposed work and deviation from them may result in less public participation, knowledge, and the ability to evaluate the impact of proposed activities.

2. Making permits for fish and fish habitat more flexible for offsetting (replacing or compensating for environmental impacts) and for permits related to Disposal at Sea:

This proposal suggests that changes may be coming to both the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Offsetting for fish and fish habitat suggests reference to sections 34.4(2)(b) and 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act which authorize “harmful impacts and set out conditions under which the impacts can occur”. Although there is an opportunity for otherwise unauthorized impacts to be approved, the offsetting process is narrow and should only be used in limited circumstances. For example, when deciding whether to authorize these impacts, policy dictates that the Minister must consider whether there “are measures and standards to avoid, mitigate or offset death of fish and harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.”[6] The department of Fisheries and Oceans has a detailed offset policy which describes offsetting measures as “actions taken by a proponent to counterbalance the residual effects to fish and fish habitat that are caused by their project.”[7] Notably, the offset policy sets out several guiding principles:[8]

(1) offsetting is last in the mitigation hierarchy (after avoidance and use of mitigation measures);

(2) there are limits to what can be offset;

(3) the benefits from offsetting measures must counterbalance the harmful impacts, including time lags and uncertainties;

(4) Indigenous peoples are engaged in the planning, design, implementation and monitoring of measures to offset;

(5) proposed offsetting measures must be over and above (or in addition to) any other existing requirements, incentives or benefits arising from legislation;

(6) offsetting measures are located to optimize ecological outcomes;

(7) measures to offset generate benefits that last over the long term; and

(8) time lags between the impact and offsetting measures are avoided or minimized.

These principles suggest that offsetting is a last resort and that several factors must be weighed prior to approving an offset option on a project-by-project basis. It is unclear on what basis the proposed flexibility will be applied but it will be crucial that offsetting remains at the bottom of the mitigation hierarchy with avoidance and mitigation coming out ahead.

One likely aspect of such an approach would be to move towards a “mitigation banking” approach where fisheries offset credits could be banked and sold off, leading to increased time and administrative efficiency from a proponent’s perspective.  An “offset bank” however further entrenches the jump to compensation in a mitigation hierarchy and any banking system must have clear accountability and monitoring baked in.

Permits for Disposal at Sea likely refers to permits that are required under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act [CEPA] and the associated Disposal at Sea Permit Application Regulations. Sections 127(1) and 128(2) of the CEPA enable permits to be issued by the Minister authorizing the disposal of waste and the regulations set out the application procedure for disposal at sea. In addition to the requirements set out in the regulation, the approval for a disposal at sea permit must take into consideration Schedule 6 of the CEPA “Assessment of Waste or Other Matter” which begins by stating that “[t]his schedule shall be applied with a view that acceptance of disposal at sea under certain circumstances does not remove the obligation to make further attempts to reduce the necessity for disposal.”[9] Schedule 6 goes on to describe how disposal at sea permits should be assessed and monitored and specifies that “[a]n analysis of each disposal option shall be considered in light of a comparative assessment of the following concerns: human health risks, environmental costs, hazards (including accidents), economics and exclusion of future uses.”[10] Any decision to increase the opportunities for these permits to be issued must not deviate from these core principles.

3. Transferring certain decision powers from the Governor in Council (Cabinet) to the relevant Minister to speed up decision-making:

This proposal could impact several federal acts as each regime may already specify who is responsible to make decisions regarding approvals or permits. Although a move away from a Cabinet decision may depoliticize the decision, it comes with the risk of favouring a minister with a portfolio focused primarily on development rather than protection.  

4. Ensuring project requirements are technically and economically feasible; to avoid inflating construction costs and the time it takes to build a project:

This section may include several changes as it does not specify what types of projects may be included or what ‘technically and economically feasible’ would be defined as. However, it does suggest that there may be an outsize focus on the cost of construction and the length of time to achieve project completion. Although efficiency and cost effectiveness are certainly important considerations, they should not come at the price of fulsome decision making, public participation, and rigorous environmental assessment.  Should environmental outcomes require the best mitigation measures and pollution abatement technologies then those outcomes should be expected, as otherwise the “sustainability” of such a project is clearly in question.

5. Allowing some early construction activities to start before an impact decision is made, if necessary permits are approved:

One of the first issues to flag in this proposal is that it suggests that in these cases, an impact assessment and subsequent approval is a foregone conclusion. The impact assessment process is generally divided into five phases: planning, impact statement, impact assessment, decision, and post decision activities. The decision is not made until phase 4 and at that stage there are several options available: (1) the project is allowed to proceed; (2) the project is allowed to proceed with certain conditions; or (3) the project is not allowed to proceed. If construction activities can begin before a decision is made, it may have a chilling effect on the ability to impose conditions intended to reduce the risk of significant adverse effects or to deny the project if these significant adverse effects cannot be mitigated. These are crucial options and without them the impact assessment process is significantly watered down.

It also guarantees additional litigation should additional conditions or decisions be made that results in extra costs to the proponent.  History shows us that proponents are often happy to seek compensation from the federal government when their projects are rejected for the impacts they may have.  One must assume that litigation would continue to be popular for those who have started projects only to be faced with an “adverse” decision or condition.

6. Authorizing the Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Nature to adjust impact assessment conditions, in exceptional circumstances:

This proposal may refer to several steps in the impact assessment process. Conditions may be imposed for several reasons:

• to enable what would otherwise be a prohibited action due to adverse effects within federal jurisdiction to be done under certain circumstances;[11]
• if the Minister chooses to impose a substitution for the impact assessment process;[12] or
• during the decision-making process where the decision to impose conditions is intended to manage adverse effects within federal jurisdiction or direct or incidental adverse effects.[13]

The latter is the most likely option and may impact the final decision on a project; however, it remains to be seen exactly what this will entail. These options build upon other proposed changes which water down the impact assessment process. If a condition is being imposed to manage adverse effects, it should not be easily removed.

7. Authorizing the Minister of One Canadian Economy to adjust environmental conditions for projects of national interest, when needed:

The Building Canada Act was released in 2025 as part of the omnibus Bill C-5 and this legislation established the initial category of ‘projects of national interest’ which are those projects as set out in Schedule 1 of the Act. When designating a project of national interest, the Act requires the Minister to “issue to the proponent of a national interest project a document that is deemed to be each authorization that is specified in the document in respect of the project” and can set out conditions that apply with respect to each authorization.[14] There is also opportunity for the Minister to amend conditions if necessary.

However, despite the Minister having the authority to amend conditions, they cannot do so without first consulting with the minister responsible and any Indigenous peoples who may have a section 35 rights.[15] This proposal suggests that the Minister of One Canadian Economy would now have the authority to amend environmental conditions attached to an authorization without first consulting with the Minister of the ECCN. It is not clear whether this would also impact consultation requirements for projects that fall under the auspices of the Canadian Energy Regulator or Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and which are set out later in the Act. Regardless, this suggest a further centralization of power and the opportunity for environmental issues to be overridden by other priorities.

8. Giving the GIC limited power, with a high threshold to be met, to exempt specific projects from the application of the jeopardy test for species at risk, but only if it’s in the public interest and if the proponent has made all reasonable efforts to avoid or reduce impacts on at-risk species:

This final proposal is another significant derogation from existing environmental protection, this time from protections afforded by the Species at Risk Act. Specifically, this refers to section 73 of the SARA which enables agreements and permits to be issued that would otherwise not be allowed due to effects on a listed wildlife species, any part of its critical habitat or the residences of its individuals. Prior to an agreement or permit being issued, this section requires that the Minister be of the opinion that “the activity will not jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species.”[16]

These changes would remove the ‘jeopardy test’ if doing so was considered to be “in the public interest” which is undefined and if “the proponent has made all reasonable efforts to avoid or reduce impacts” which is a very broad allowance. The impact of this change could be significant. Permits and agreements are already deviations from the basic protections afforded under the SARA and they already result in impacts on species at risk. Without this most basic guardrail, that a project cannot jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species, the purpose of the SARA seems to be defeated.  It remains to be seen what the ‘high threshold’ refers to. As has been the case with many of these proposed changes, this has the potential to render protections for species at risk and their critical habitat meaningless, while also potentially resulting in ongoing litigation over the breadth of this power. You can read more about section 73, and how decisions on permits can get tied up in litigation, here.

Call to Action and Next Steps

The Discussion Paper, which includes a call for stakeholder engagement, sets out several questions for the broader public to consider during the engagement process:

1. What opportunities do you see emerging from these proposals to improve the assessments and permitting processes related to building major projects?
2. What are your views/general impressions on these proposals to improve regulatory efficiency related to building major projects faster in Canada?
3. What do businesses and Indigenous Peoples require to advance major projects within a shorter timeframe under these proposals?

Note that there are also questions specific to Indigenous communities. The consultation period ends on July 22^nd and you can send your responses to the email address engagement@pco-bcp.gc.ca.

As the federal government considers how to implement these proposals, it is critical that the spirit of the impact assessment process and associated limits on permitting or approvals are maintained. The spirit of these laws is one of balance and protection of individual rights. Landowners and average citizens should be able to rely on these processes to prevent adverse impacts as projects are proposed and potentially approved. Public participation, clear protections for our most critical resources, and a process that does not presume approvals but instead weighs the decision to approve a project against the impact on others to ensure the best projects are the ones getting built.  

• LinkedIn
• X
• Facebook

[1] Government of Canada, “Getting Major Projects Built in Canada – Discussion Paper on Proposed Legislative, Regulatory, and Policy Reforms” (12 May 2026) online: https://www.canada.ca/en/one-canadian-economy/services/simplifying-canada-process/engagement-supporting-timely-decision-making/getting-major-projects-built-canada-discussion-paper-proposed-legislative-regulatory-policy-reforms.html [Discussion Paper].

[2] Discussion Paper.

[3] Discussion Paper.

[4] Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28, s. 1, s 6(1) [IAA].

[5] Canadian Energy Regulator Act, SC 2019, c 28, s. 10, s 6(a).

[6] Fisheries and Oceans Canada, “Policy for Applying Measures to Offset Harmful Impacts to Fish and Fish Habitat”(March 2025) at 3 online: https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/documents/reviews-revues/policies-politiques/offsetting-policy-politiques-mesures-compensation-eng.pdf [Offset Policy].

[7] Offset Policy at 3.

[8] Offset Policy at 4-11.

[9] Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, SC 1999, c 33, Sched 6, s 1 [CEPA].

[10] CEPA, Sched 6, s 14.

[11] IAA, s 7(3).

[12] IAA, s 33(1).

[13] IAA, s 64.

[14] Building Canada Act, SC 2025, c 2, s 4, ss 7(1) & (5) [Building Canada Act].

[15] Building Canada Act, s 8(3).

[16] Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29, s 73(3)(c).

THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT

Your support is vital for stronger environmental legislation. As Alberta’s leading environmental charity, the Environmental Law Centre has served our community for over 40 years, providing objective guidance on crucial legislative changes. Your contribution helps protect our environment for future generations. 

Please support our work: Share, engage and donate to the ELC