Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act, tabled to accelerate project reviews and attract investment

On September 21, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act (Bill C-39)¹, in the House of Commons, which aims to bring greater speed, certainty, and predictability to federal project reviews. It does so in part by incorporating several of the efficiencies first introduced in 2025 for projects of national interest under the Building Canada Act regime. Those include a consolidation of federal decision-making, operationalizing the promised two-year approvals process timeline, and centralizing the administration of federal approvals—as well as Indigenous consultation—into one responsible authority per project. Bill C-39 also introduces a mechanism for designating “Regions of National Interest”, in which certain project-types within a defined region will be eligible for the accelerated pathway applicable to scheduled projects of national interest.

At the same time, the Government of Canada issued a complementary Cabinet Directive on Getting Projects Built in Canada (the Cabinet Directive)², providing direction to the public service on the new timeline for federal project decisions and clarifying roles and responsibilities across relevant federal entities. Taken together, Bill C-39 and the Cabinet Directive take meaningful steps to accelerate and centralize project approvals without materially overhauling the nuts and bolts of the established and complex regulatory processes in place.

Bill C-39 has been highly anticipated since the federal government published a discussion paper in early May³, undertook public engagement that was extended until late July, and finalized amendments to the Physical Activities Regulations before the House of Commons returned. The bill is expected to move swiftly through the legislative process and, subject to changes made in Parliament, is poised to become law in the near term.

What you need to know

• The Canada Energy Regulator (CER) would handle reviews for pipelines, transmission lines, and certain offshore renewable energy projects, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) would handle reviews for nuclear and uranium projects, rather than through integrated review panels with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC).
• IAAC would handle reviews for the remaining categories of projects listed in the Physical Activities Regulations, which includes mines, hydroelectric facilities, roads, railways, and bridges. For projects reviewed by IAAC, Bill C-39 proposes a new mechanism whereby the Minister of Environment can issue a single approval document on behalf of other ministers and departments for both the assessment under the Impact Assessment Act and permits required by other legislation.
• The Government of Canada has issued a Cabinet Directive providing direction to the public service and establishing a one-year timeline for the federal decision-making portion of the approvals process, which would commence one year after the proponent has formally commenced the application process (for a total of two years). Bill C-39 operationalizes this presumptive timeline in legislation for certain federal processes:
  • For projects reviewed by IAAC, Bill C-39 would reduce the current presumptive timelines from 600 to 300 days for the information evaluation stage; and from 120 to 65 days for the Minister and/or Cabinet to deliberate and render a decision. The timeline for a proponent to complete the studies and reporting necessary to trigger that process has been reduced from up to 3 years to 365 days.  
  • Bill C-39 would reduce timelines for pipeline certifications by the CER from 450 to 300 days, and would limit the time for the CNSC to complete its report to 300 days. A variety of opportunities for suspension or exceptions from those timelines exist in the legislation, which could materially extend the timelines.
  As set out in the Cabinet Directive, but not in Bill C-39 itself, the other federal permits required for a project are expected to be completed concurrently with IAAC, CNSC or CER processes within that same timeline.
• Bill C-39 proposes to grant the Minister of Environment a broad new power to authorize so called “early works”—before the main project has been approved—where it is “in the public interest” to do so. Like any ministerial decision, such discretion could be subject to judicial review or other potential court challenge.
• Bill C-39 also proposes to allow for the designation of geographically specific “Regions of National Interest” under the Building Canada Act. The designation would identify the region as well as the eligible project types, and the criteria each must meet to take advantage of an accelerated pathway similar to the one applicable for a project of national interest. One important precondition is that a region cannot be designated until it has been the subject of a regional assessment under the Impact Assessment Act, which could be a lengthy process.
• The duty to consult Indigenous Peoples is a constitutional obligation that cannot be overridden or extinguished by Bill C-39, which is in part why the proposed amendments provide for extensions to the timeline where required for Indigenous consultation. The Cabinet Directive aims to reduce the consultation burden on Indigenous groups by establishing a new Crown Consultation Hub at IAAC, and clarifying the roles of other federal departments and agencies on Indigenous consultation for projects. Project proponents should continue to engage early with Indigenous communities in the context of these expedited timelines.
• Bill C-39 would also modernize ancillary regulatory requirements to accelerate projects, including increasing flexibility and shifting decision-making authorities under the Species at Risk Act, Fisheries Act, Canadian Navigable Waters Act, and Canada Transportation Act.

Consolidating federal decision-making

As federal project assessment and permitting regimes have become more complex in recent decades, the Government of Canada has faced mounting criticism of inefficiencies, duplication, and lack of coordination across the now 14 federal entities that play a role in regulating energy, mining, and infrastructure projects⁴.

Following the lead of the Building Canada Act, Bill C-39 proposes to consolidate federal decision-making by reducing the number of departments and agencies involved in project decisions, and by establishing mechanisms for decisions from multiple departments and agencies to be included in a single decision document.

• For projects subject to the Impact Assessment Act, including mines, hydroelectric facilities, roads, railways, bridges, and other categories of projects listed in the Physical Activities Regulations, the Minister of Environment (as the minister responsible for IAAC) will be empowered to issue a single approval document on behalf of other ministers and departments for both the assessment decision under the Impact Assessment Act as well as permits required by other federal legislation. For projects with potentially significant adverse federal impacts, impact assessment decisions would be made jointly with the minister responsible for the relevant sector, with the option to refer decisions to Cabinet⁵.
• For pipelines, transmission lines, and certain offshore renewable energy projects, the CER would conduct the assessment under the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, rather than through an integrated review panel with IAAC⁶. For nuclear and uranium projects, the CNSC would conduct impact assessments under the Impact Assessment Act, replacing the current approach of an integrated panel with IAAC⁷. The CNSC would continue to regulate projects under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act⁸. For both CER and CNSC-regulated projects, permits required under other federal legislation would be coordinated with other departments to ensure proponents receive all federal decisions in a coordinated manner; however, no single approval document that includes all federal permits would be issued.
• For projects or regions of national interest designated under the Building Canada Act, the Minister of One Canadian Economy is empowered to issue a single approval document⁹. To streamline potential court challenges to these decisions, Bill C-39 proposes that judicial reviews would be heard first by the Federal Court of Appeal rather than starting with the Federal Court¹⁰.
• For transportation projects not otherwise covered by IAAC, CER, CSNC, or designated under the Building Canada Act, a new Transportation Projects Office will be established at Transport Canada to assist with removing duplication and administrative barriers, coordinating on consultations, and obtaining permits¹¹.
• For projects in the territories, federal decisions will continue to be coordinated through the Northern Projects Management Office at the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency. Bill C-39 does not alter northern impact assessment and permitting co-management regimes, which are derived from modern treaties.

Although conditions rooted in several statues will in many cases be consolidated into a single document, enforcement would continue to be carried out by each federal department responsible under existing legislation. For example, if a mining project obtained a single decision document containing approval conditions rooted in the Impact Assessment Act as well as conditions developed to meet the requirements of the Explosives Act, an enforcement action related to the former would be carried out by IAAC while an action related to the latter would be managed by Natural Resources Canada.

Alongside these reforms, the Government of Canada has been working to further consolidate federal decisions by reducing the instances when a project is designated for a federal assessment in the first place¹², or seeking to rely on provincial environmental assessment processes to undertake all or part of the assessment. The Canada-British Columbia Agreement has been in place since 2019, allowing British Columbia-led assessments to substitute federal assessments. Now, Canada has final cooperation agreements with the remaining provinces—except Québec, which is still in draft, and Saskatchewan, which is being negotiated. Each vary in their scope, but broadly allow for all or part of an environmental assessment to be led provincially for certain categories of projects.

Accelerated timeline for federal project decisions

The Government of Canada set a clear policy objective that federal regulatory decisions for projects should be issued no more than one year after the proponent provides a comprehensive application and the required information and studies, which itself has now been reduced to a one-year period. In parallel with Bill C-39, the government published the Cabinet Directive replacing a similar directive from 2024 and making the more ambitious timeline of a one-year evaluation and decision-making process for federal approvals explicit across the over 14 federal entities that are involved in project regulation¹³. Bill C-39 operationalizes this objective by adjusting the presumptive legislated timelines for projects regulated by IAAC, CER, and CNSC.

Timeline under the IAAC process

For the IAAC process, the one-year government review and decision-making period would begin at the “notice of commencement” stage, which falls one year after the proponent has submitted its required information and studies, for a total of two years of process time. Bill C-39 would reduce IAAC’s evaluation timelines from 600 to 300 days for the report stage and from 120 to 65 days for the Minister and/or Cabinet to deliberate on and render its decision, for a total of 365 days. The bill does, however, contain several extension provisions:

• The Minister can extend the report stage and/or decision stage for up to 90 days (and by Cabinet for any period) to cooperate with another jurisdiction.
• IAAC can suspend the report stage and/or decision stage indefinitely until certain activities prescribed by regulations are completed¹⁴.

A new section is also proposed stating that if the Minister does not issue a decision statement within 365 days of the notice of commencement, they must post a notice with the reasons why the timeline was missed¹⁵. This is a transparency and accountability mechanism that does not trigger any automatic approval or refusal, does not create any specific right of action, and adds no additional legislative timeline for when the Minister must issue the decision statement after the notice is posted.

Timeline under the CER and CNSC processes

Bill C-39 adjusts the legislated timelines for projects regulated by the CER and CNSC so that federal decisions are made within one year of the posting of their respective completeness of information determination.

• CER’s timelines for a pipeline certification would be reduced from 450 to 300 days, and smaller infrastructure applications would be reduced from 300 to 180 days¹⁶. Existing mechanisms under the Canadian Energy Regulator Act for suspending or extending timelines would either remain or have been narrowed, such as the ministerial extension mechanism that now can only be invoked for the purpose of fulfilling the duty to consult Indigenous Peoples¹⁷.
• As for the CNSC, new timelines are set that mirror the IAAC process—i.e., up to 300 days for the CNSC’s report and up to 65 days for the decision stage (including if the decision is referred to Cabinet)¹⁸. Similar to the IAAC process, the CNSC or Cabinet are permitted to extend or suspect the decision stage, such as to facilitate cooperation with another jurisdiction or ensure regulatory requirements are met¹⁹.

One-year timeline for federal permits

Federal permits are expected to be completed concurrently with the IAAC, CER, or CNSC processes within the one-year timeline. Although proponents have been seeking concurrent reviews for some time, these shorter legislated timelines, combined with the Cabinet Directive, are designed to ensure the public service coordinates to achieve that objective. These changes represent a marked acceleration of the five-year target for federal impact assessments and permits for a project (two years for projects that do not require an impact assessment) that the previous government committed to in 2024²⁰.

New power to allow early works prior to project approval

One of the most interesting and flexibility-providing features of Bill C-39 is the new broad ministerial power to grant an order allowing construction and related early works before the IAAC or CNSC process has concluded. The Minister of Environment or CNSC may do so where it is considered “in the public interest” and the early works activities would be subject to conditions²¹. For the IAAC process, the Minister is also authorized to grant additional federal authorizations (including, for example, Species at Risk Act or Fisheries Act permits) required for the relevant early work, provided that the requirements of the federal statues governing those authorizations still apply²².

Overall, that means projects now have a path to carry out whatever early works the Minister determines are in the public interest, providing proponents a mechanism to raise and pursue meritorious early work. Because the mechanism is an order power, it also means that there will be a formal process to follow where public comment will be sought, Indigenous groups will be consulted, and each order can be challenged through the courts.

While this new power does not apply to the CER process, the Canadian Energy Regulator Act already includes powers to exempt narrow categories of projects from requirements before a certificate is issued or dismissed²³.

The duty to consult Indigenous Peoples

The Government of Canada has been working to adopt reforms intended to avoid delay while fulfilling its constitutionally mandated duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous Peoples whose rights may be impacted by a proposed project. The duty to consult process requires meaningful, two-way dialogue with Indigenous Peoples whose rights are potentially impacted by such a proposed project, aiming to address their concerns and, where appropriate, provide accommodation. Project proponents are expected to engage and consult meaningfully with Indigenous groups early in the project development process to obtain and maintain regulatory approvals, with the aim of minimizing risks of delay and dispute.

The Cabinet Directive aims to improve efficiency and reduce consultation burden on Indigenous groups by establishing a new Crown Consultation Hub at IAAC to coordinate direct Indigenous consultation for project reviews by the Crown, except for where the CER and CNSC are the sole assessor, or the project is being coordinated by the Transportation Project Office, Northern Projects Management Office, or the Major Projects Office. This clarification of which federal entity is the Crown’s lead on Indigenous consultation for a given project is intended to guide the public service, Indigenous communities, project proponents, and others involved in the regulatory process.

Bill C-39 does not change Canada’s duty to consult Indigenous Peoples or its obligations under modern treaties for impact assessments or federal permitting. The proposed amendments to the Canadian Energy Regulator Act process, and forthcoming regulations under the Impact Assessment Act, will expressly allow extended timelines to complete Indigenous consultations where required in the circumstances. The CNSC process contains broader timeline extension powers that can be exercised in the context of Indigenous consultations.

The designation of “Regions of National Interest”

Just over a year ago, the Government of Canada passed the Building Canada Act to establish a streamlined process for approving projects that are designed as a “Project of National Interest”. Bill C-39 now proposes to expand the scope of the Building Canada Act to enable the designation of a “Region of National Interest”, which could include areas such as transportation or energy corridors, telecommunications networks, energy production and transmission systems, and industrial regions, and could be established for current or future development needs²⁴.

Under the proposed new process, a regional assessment under the Impact Assessment Act (or the applicable federal legislation for the territories) would be a precondition to any designation of a Region of National Interest. Because that preliminary step can be a multi-year exercise, it will limit the acceleration potential of the new process, at least over the near to medium term.

A Region of National Interest designation will include geographic coordinates along with a list and description of development types, as well as eligibility criteria for the projects that will be eligible for the accelerated approvals pathway currently only available under the Building Canada Act for Projects of National Interest²⁵.

This new Regions of National Interest framework mirrors the existing framework for Projects of National Interest under the Building Canada Act, except for that Regions of National Interest must be made by Cabinet as opposed to the Minister. As a result, a judicial review or other court challenge would be made on the Governor in Council decision rather than ministerial decision. Of all the proposals in Bill C-39, this “Regions of National Interest” concept is the most novel addition to Canada’s project approvals process.  

Modernize ancillary requirements to accelerate projects

Finally, Bill C-39 includes a suite of legislative changes to modernize outdated requirements, reduce duplication, streamline permitting requirements, and move projects from application to construction faster. These include:

• amendments to the Species and Risk Act, Fisheries Act, and Canadian Navigable Waters Act to require the competent minister to take into account the “technical, economic and practical feasibility of terms and conditions” that are associated with project permits²⁶;
• increased flexibility for proponents to meet the offsetting requirements under the Fisheries Act. Specifically, the changes would allow proponents to purchase habitat credits from third parties, or pay fees-in-lieu to the Environmental Damages Fund for offsetting when projects are determined by DFO to have minor impacts²⁷;
• shifting decision-making authority from Cabinet to the competent minister under the Fisheries Act to amend regulations, and under the Canadian Navigable Waters Act to grant certain exemptions²⁸;
• establishing a new authority under the Canadian Navigable Waters Act for Cabinet to exempt certain structures with potentially minor impacts to navigation from being treated as “works” if satisfied it would be in the public interest²⁹;
• amending the Canada Transportation Act to reduce the need for companies to submit the same information separately to different departments and to exclude certain transactions from merger reviews; and
• transferring minor approvals under the International Bridges and Tunnels Act to the Minister of Transport.

Not all the proposals in the federal government’s discussion paper³⁰ made it into the Bill. Most notably, the discussion paper proposed to give Cabinet a limited power to exempt specific projects from the application of the jeopardy test under the Species at Risk Act if it’s in the public interest and the proponent has made all reasonable efforts to avoid or reduce the impacts on at-risk species. Following significant opposition during the spring and summer engagement period from the environmental community, this proposal was not included in Bill C-39.

Bill C-39 includes further proposed changes to the Canada Transportation Act related to port governance and security, and to the Canada Labour Code related to collective bargaining and workplace protections that are not covered by this bulletin.

Tracking success

As outlined in the Cabinet Directive, the Major Projects Office will continue to play a role providing strategic direction, coordinating across federal departments and agencies, supporting Crown-Indigenous engagement and consultations, and leveraging its financial expertise to support final investment decisions. The President of IAAC is also given an explicit role as the “Federal Review Coordinator” responsible for developing necessary policy tools, maintaining a public dashboard, and providing a point of contact for proponents and other jurisdictions. In addition to implementing Bill C-39 once adopted, all relevant departments and agencies are expected to demonstrate their progress and report on results.