Publication

A New Playbook for Major Projects – Ottawa Seeks Industry Input on Rewriting the Rules

Published:

May 13, 2026

Author(s):

• Melanie Gillis
• Lucia Westin-Eastaugh
• Michael Simms

Share

Print

Ottawa has signalled a rewrite of the federal approvals system for major projects with its May 8, 2026 announcement.  

While no legislation has yet been tabled, two things are already clear. First, Ottawa is proposing to rewrite the major projects playbook in a way that could make planning, review and permitting more integrated and time-bound. Second, these changes are not yet law: they’re the subject of a short consultation process running until June 6, 2026, after which the federal government has indicated that it intends to move quickly with legislation. 

The scope of what may be affected is also wider than the more narrow existing model for nationally significant projects. This rewrite would capture privately-sponsored, provincially-led projects where a federal permit, Indigenous consultation, or coordinated federal-provincial environmental assessment process is in play. 

For major project proponents, this is the latest in a growing series of federal moves signalling a strong push to build more—and build faster. 

This update reviews Ottawa’s latest announcement, explains how it fits within the broader major projects reform agenda, and highlights the key takeaways for proponents. 

The May 8, 2026 Announcement and White Papers 

The announcement on May 8 by the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc and the Honourable Steven MacKinnon points to legal reforms in two linked areas: major projects, and trade and transportation. The stated aim is to accelerate reviews while maintaining environmental standards and respecting Indigenous rights. As part of the announcement, the federal government also released two white papers for consultation. 

The First White Paper: Getting Major Projects Built in Canada – Proposed Legislative, Regulatory, and Policy Reforms 

What makes the first white paper important is not just its promise of speed, but its attempt to rework how the federal process is organized. Rather than allowing impact assessment and permitting streams to unfold in sequence, Ottawa is floating a model that would run them in parallel, supported by a central review function within the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. The premise is to improve today’s federal process, which has become too layered and too cumbersome for both proponents and affected Indigenous communities. 

From a proponent’s standpoint, the significance of the proposal lies in the redesign of the federal process itself. In broad terms, the discussion paper contemplates the following changes: 

1. A staged approvals framework under which proponents would be expected to complete studies and file supporting information within roughly 12 months. Federal review and decision-making would then be expected to conclude within the next 12 months, with assessment and permitting work moving in tandem; 

2. A more centralized federal consultation model through a proposed Crown Consultation Hub within the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, intended to give each major project a clearer single consultation pathway; 

3. A more consolidated federal approvals outcome for some projects, potentially reflected in one overarching federal decision document rather than multiple separate decision points; 

4. Possible creation of Federal Economic Zones, using a regional-assessment approach to support a more area-based model for approving certain categories of development, subject to project-level conditions; 

5. Federal commitment to streamline the regulatory environment; and 

6. Assigning a single project authority for certain projects as follows: 

   1. The Canada Energy Regulator (CER) as the single project authority for international and interprovincial pipelines, transmission lines and offshore renewable energy projects, and 

   2. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) for nuclear and uranium projects. 

The Federal Economic Zones concept may prove to be one of the most significant elements of the package. The proposal appears aimed at identifying particular corridors, networks or industrial areas where a more strategic, region-wide review could be used to clear the way for certain categories of development in advance, while still imposing conditions at the individual project level. If that approach takes hold, it would move the federal system away from an exclusively project-by-project model and toward something more spatial and anticipatory. 

Another potentially important shift is the move toward regulator-led review for certain sectors. The clearest example is the proposal that some CER-regulated projects would no longer be routed through a separate impact assessment track under the Impact Assessment Act. For proponents in pipelines, transmission and some offshore energy projects, that could materially simplify the federal path. The same broader idea appears in relation to CNSC-regulated projects, although the details are likely to vary by sector and project status. 

One thing is abundantly clear from the May 8 announcement: the proposed changes are about consolidating the review process. The paper expressly emphasizes meaningful Indigenous engagement and alignment with the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In practical terms, proponents should expect that consultation quality, early engagement and a well-supported accommodation strategy will remain central to project success, even if statutory timelines are compressed. 

The Second White Paper: Strengthening One Canadian Economy through Trade and Transportation 

The second white paper, Transport Canada’s Strengthening One Canadian Economy through Trade and Transportation, is relevant well beyond the transportation sector. It addresses the movement of goods and the efficiency of trade-enabling infrastructure—issues that are closely tied to the commercial viability of many major projects, particularly in energy, mining, industrial development and export-oriented infrastructure. 

For proponents, the transportation paper is another sign that Ottawa is targeting permitting friction and coordination problems beyond the core major project statutes. It identifies several possible reforms, including modernization of port governance and the National Transportation Policy, as well as targeted amendments to multiple statutes to reduce red tape and simplify regulatory obligations, including under the following statutes: 

• Canada Transportation Act  

• Canada Marine Act

• International Bridges and Tunnels Act  

• Impact Assessment Act 

• Shipping Conferences Exemption Act

• Marine Liability Act 

Notably, the paper contemplates amendments that would allow the responsible Minister to designate “National Trade Corridors” under the Canada Transportation Act. If pursued, that could help align transportation planning, permitting and investment across connected systems rather than treating projects in isolation. The paper also considers a Transportation Project Office to improve coordination of federal permitting and Crown consultation for certain transportation projects, potentially complementing the MPO and reinforcing the broader move toward centralized federal process management. 

 Stakeholders have only a limited time to shape these transportation proposals: the current engagement period runs until June 6, 2026. 

The Buildup to this Latest Major Projects Push: Building Canada Act and Major Projects Office  

The May 8 reform package did not emerge in a vacuum. It builds on earlier federal initiatives under the Building Canada Act and the creation of the Major Projects Office (MPO) as a single coordination window for nationally significant projects. That background matters because it shows Ottawa has already been moving away from fragmented federal decision-making toward a more centralized, proponent-facing approvals model. 

Under the Building Canada Act, the federal government can designate a project as a national interest project by adding it to Schedule 1. For proponents, that matters because designation is meant to streamline federal authorizations and give nationally significant projects a clearer and more coordinated path through the system. Whether a project fits that category will depend less on size alone than on how well it aligns with Ottawa’s priorities around economic resilience, trade, security, Indigenous interests, clean growth and execution readiness. 

The MPO is intended to make that model work in practice. It is designed to act as a single federal window for proponents and other stakeholders, coordinate departments and regulators, identify required approvals, and reduce process silos that have historically added time and uncertainty. 

But the regime is still more important as a signal than as a fully proven solution. Although 21 nation-building initiatives have reportedly been referred to the MPO, none have yet been formally designated under the Act. That’s why the May 8 white papers matter so much: they suggest Ottawa is now looking to expand and operationalize project acceleration beyond the initial national-interest framework. 

The project universe is also expanding through federal-provincial coordination. Canada has been pursuing “one project, one review” cooperation agreements to reduce duplication where both federal and provincial assessment processes apply. Such agreements are already in place with Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, with Newfoundland and Labrador still under negotiation. 

For proponents, the May 8 announcement is not just about federally sponsored projects; it’s part of a broader effort to streamline reviews across a wider range of private, provincial and trade-enabling projects wherever federal approvals, impact assessment triggers or coordinated review processes are engaged. 

 Practical tips for major project proponents 

• Assess now whether your project can credibly be framed as nationally significant, including by reference to trade, energy security, Indigenous partnership, economic resilience and execution readiness. 

• Revisit your regulatory roadmap and prepare to be adaptable. If federal reforms move ahead, sequencing, permitting strategy and agency engagement may need to change quickly 

• Prepare for a faster, but denser process—not a lighter one. Compressed timelines will likely reward proponents that can submit complete materials early and manage consultation efficiently. 

• Strengthen Indigenous engagement plans now. The reform papers point to more centralized consultation, but not to reduced expectations around meaningful engagement or accommodation. 

• Consider whether your business should participate in the current consultation process, either directly or through industry associations, while the details of the reforms are still being shaped. 

Ottawa has made its intentions clear: it’s trying to move major projects faster - and proponents that organize early will be best positioned to benefit. 

If you would like support assessing how these proposed changes could affect your project, strategy or consultation approach, please reach out to a member of McInnes Cooper’s Major Projects team. 

Share

Print