Federal Government Launches Consultation on Accelerated Major Project Approvals and “One Canadian Economy” Reforms

The federal government has launched a 30-day consultation on two discussion papers, Getting Major Projects Built in Canada and Strengthening One Canadian Economy through trade and transportation, proposing significant legislative, regulatory and policy reforms aimed at accelerating approvals for major projects and advancing a more integrated “One Canadian Economy.” The proposals suggest a broader effort to align regulatory processes with economic growth and industrial policy objectives, particularly in areas tied to supply chain resilience, energy security and trade competitiveness.  

At the same time, the proposed reforms raise important legal, and policy questions. Key issues are likely to include the scope of federal authority, the relationship between federal and provincial jurisdiction, the future role of environmental and impact assessment processes, Indigenous consultation obligations, and whether accelerated approvals can be achieved without reducing substantive oversight.

Overview of government proposal

At a high level, the federal discussion papers outline a centralized approval model for projects considered strategically important to Canada’s economy. The discussion paper, Getting Major Projects Built in Canada, contemplates a federal review and decision-making timeline of no more than one year, alongside earlier project screening, stronger federal coordination and a “one project, one review” approach intended to reduce overlap among federal regulators and with provincial processes.

The reforms are framed around a central policy objective: reducing barriers that delay the construction of major projects. The federal government is seeking input on measures that could streamline approval processes, reduce duplication across jurisdictions, improve interdepartmental coordination and create more predictable timelines for project proponents.

In addition to the various streamlining measures, the federal government is proposing legislation to create Federal Economic Zones, which would enable corridors for transportation, telecommunications and energy infrastructure. The intent of the Federal Economic Zones is to remove the need for separate project reviews within the zones, simplifying permitting, and reduce risk for investors.

For proponents, investors, lenders and other market participants, the consultation sends a clear signal that Ottawa intends to position Canada as a more efficient and reliable destination for capital deployment in strategic sectors, including energy, critical minerals, electricity transmission, transportation corridors, ports and other large-scale infrastructure projects.

Five Key Areas to watch Related to the Government Announcement

The tension between speed and meaningful Indigenous consultation

One of the most important issues will be whether accelerated timelines can work in tandem with the Crown’s constitutional duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous Peoples. The federal proposal emphasizes more coordinated consultation by establishing a “Crown Consultation Hub”, and greater Indigenous participation, including potential equity opportunities. Even so, compressed timelines and centralized processes will inevitably create scrutiny as to whether consultation can remain meaningful in practice, particularly for complex or controversial projects.

That tension may become even more pronounced where Ottawa seeks to prioritize projects of national interest or designate preferred economic corridors. It is one thing to promise more efficient consultation; it is another to design a process that Indigenous governments and organizations view as legitimate, responsive and consistent with section 35 rights. How these reforms interact with existing Indigenous-led or Indigenous-partnered projects already underway will also be closely watched.

A more executive-driven model for public interest decisions

A second theme is the apparent shift in how major public interest decisions will be made. The consultation materials suggest a model in which Cabinet and Ministers play a more central role in identifying, prioritizing and advancing nationally significant projects, while regulators focus more narrowly on implementation, operating conditions and technical expertise.

This approach may improve certainty for proponents by moving macro-level policy decisions closer to the front end of the process. Investors typically want to know early whether a project aligns with government priorities, rather than spending years and substantial capital only to face a late-stage political reversal. These have been key criticisms that proponents have faced with projects such as the TMX Expansion, Northern Gateway Pipeline Project and others where federal cabinet decisions taken at the end of the process, have not aligned with recommendations provided by subject-matter expert regulators, such as the Canada Energy Regulator.   At the same time, a more executive-driven approach may generate criticism around politicization, transparency and the reduced role of quasi-judicial regulatory processes in testing broader public interest concerns.

Streamlining may mean narrower environmental review

The proposed reforms emphasize shorter timelines, reduced duplication and a “one project, one review” approach, suggesting a move away from broad, multi-layered environmental review toward more focused evaluations tied to specific federal interests and nationally significant projects. In practice, this could mean limiting the scope of federal impact assessments, relying more heavily on provincial processes and regulators. For example, the proposal includes narrowing the types of activities that require navigation permits, making permits for fish and fish habitat more flexible for offsetting, transferring some decision-making powers from cabinet to specific ministers, and allowing some early construction activities to start before an impact decision is made, if necessary permits are approved.

While the government maintains that environmental protections will remain intact, critics are likely to question whether accelerated reviews and compressed timelines can be reconciled with robust environmental oversight, cumulative effects analysis and meaningful public. We expect proposed timelines will likely cause significant debate regarding the areas, timing, and the degree to which applicants will be expected to conduct project assessments/studies, and a far greater degree of reliance likely to be placed on similar assessed projects, and initiatives surrounding regional environmental assessment approaches.

Implementation risk may create uncertainty before it reduces it

Although the reform of major project approval promises to increase speed of delivery and decision making, the transition itself may create a period of uncertainty. Significant legislative, regulatory and policy amendments would be required across multiple federal statutes and departments, to ensure that the proposed reforms last beyond the current federal government. There will also be practical questions about how the Major Projects Office, the Impact Assessment Agency, and regulators, such as the Canada Energy Regulator, will interact and coordinate efforts with permitting, consultation, and environmental assessment responsibilities in real time.

This matters because process changes can themselves generate risk, and delay. If timelines are aggressive but coordination mechanisms are unclear, stakeholders may challenge how new procedures are applied, especially in ongoing matters or projects already in the system. In other words, the path to a simpler process may initially involve a more complicated one.

The broader objective is economic sovereignty and investment confidence

The most significant takeaway may be the federal government’s attempt to reposition project approvals as an economic strategy. The language of the discussion papers repeatedly points to trade capacity, energy security, critical minerals, transportation resilience, northern development and economic sovereignty. This is about more than permitting reform. It is also about signalling that Canada is prepared to move more decisively on projects tied to exports, supply chains and strategic infrastructure. Implicit in that message is a recognition that many critical projects will require significant private and foreign investment, and that Canada must compete for that capital against other jurisdictions offering faster approvals and greater policy certainty. That message may resonate with proponents and investors concerned about sovereign risk, long development timelines and policy reversals.

The consultation therefore may reflect the federal government’s understanding that attracting foreign capital is not simply about identifying nation-building projects; it is also about reducing perceived sovereign risk by making approval pathways more predictable, front-loading key public interest decisions and demonstrating that strategic projects can move from concept to execution within a commercially reasonable timeframe. But the durability and success of the federal government’s message will depend on whether the eventual framework can withstand election cycles, jurisdictional disputes and legal challenge. If the government wants to attract capital by making expedited decisions, market participants will still ask how those decisions are protected if political or regulatory environment change later in a project’s life cycle.

Next Steps:

The consultation window is short to respond. The major-projects engagement materials set out that submissions are due by June 7, 2026, and the related trade and transportation consultation runs from May 8, 2026 to June 6, 2026. Stakeholders with interests in major infrastructure, energy, mining, ports, transportation corridors, Indigenous partnerships and large capital projects should consider engaging now, while the federal government is still shaping the framework of the new approval regime. Whatever form the final reforms take, the consultation signals a potentially consequential shift in Canada’s project-approval model. The central question is not simply whether Ottawa can move faster, but whether it can do so in a way that remains legally durable, operationally credible and politically sustainable.

The National Energy Group at McCarthy Tétrault is actively monitoring the consultation process and potential changes to major project approvals. Please do not hesitate to reach out to your McCarthy Tétrault advisors for further information.