Canada Deserves a Project Approval Process That Is Swift by Default

Viewpoint showing that in order to protect Canada’s interests and attract more investment, a loophole for the approval of a few favoured projects is not enough

Related Content

Canada deserves a project approval process that’s swift by default (The Hill Times, July 21, 2025) We need less politicking and more approvals for major energy projects (Calgary Herald, July 23, 2025)	Interview with Krystle Wittevrongel (Jerry Agar, Newstalk 1010, July 18, 2025) Interview (in French) with Gabriel Giguère (Marc Boilard, QUB Radio, July 18, 2025)	Interview (in French) with Gabriel Giguère (Marc Boilard, QUB Radio, July 18, 2025)

This Viewpoint was prepared by Krystle Wittevrongel, Director of Research at the MEI, in collaboration with Alessia Iafano, Research Intern at the MEI, and Gabriel Giguère, Senior Policy Analyst at the MEI. The MEI’s Energy Series aims to examine the economic impact of the development of various energy sources and to challenge the myths and unrealistic proposals related to this important field of activity.

On June 26, 2025, in direct response to shifting geopolitical realities and increased economic and political tension with the United States, Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, became law.(1) This omnibus bill enacts two distinct pieces of legislation at the same time: the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act, which focuses on removing federal barriers to interprovincial trade, and the Building Canada Act, which aims to expedite the approval process for projects deemed to be in the national interest.(2)

Reform to Canada’s regulatory approval process for major projects is long overdue, and indeed, Bill C-5 is an admission that current processes are too complicated and burdensome. However, what Canada needs even more than a loophole for the approval of a few favoured projects is an approval process that is swift by default.

An Expedited Way Forward for All Projects

Bill C-5 effectively overrides and limits the application of the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) for projects in the national interest. In place since 2019, the IAA has been criticized for its sluggishness. In fact, the IAA has been a major contributor to declining investment in Canada’s natural resource sector due to its unpredictable timelines and uncertainty for investors.(3)

Under Bill C-5, so-called “national interest” projects are intended to complete federal review in under two years. However, relying on projects the federal government deems to be in the national interest alone will not do enough to increase investor confidence and enhance Canada’s prosperity and economic security.(4)

There are currently only 20 projects undergoing an impact assessment under the IAA approval process, and these are still far from completion despite having already spent an average of 2.8 years embroiled in the process.(5) Of these 20 projects, the majority are in the second phase, with five still in the initial planning phase, having only begun the process within the past year (see Figure 1). Only a single project, Cedar LNG, has successfully navigated the entire approval process since the IAA became law in 2019.(6)

How to Speed Up Project Approvals

In order to attract investment, the Canadian government needs to institute an approval process that is swift by default. A more ambitious timeline is required, such as a hard deadline of 18 months, alongside additional mechanisms to restore investor confidence. The following six reforms should be made to the Impact Assessment Act.

1. Limit the scope of federal assessment to areas of federal jurisdiction in a way that respects constitutional boundaries. This ensures that federal authorities avoid overstepping into areas of provincial jurisdiction, maintaining clarity and efficiency by addressing only those projects where federal decision-making is applicable or required. This will help reel in timelines and alleviate legal uncertainty.
2. Fast-track projects using existing infrastructure or existing rights of way by focusing assessments on new or additional impacts not covered by an earlier assessment rather than reassessing all aspects of a project.
3. Remove the ability of the Minister (or Governor in Council) to extend the time limit or suspend the process, which not only creates uncertainty regarding timelines but also introduces political uncertainty due to the discretionary nature of this power.(7)
4. Automatically recognize provincial assessments that have already been conducted. This reduces overlap and duplication, and ensures timeliness.
5. Restrict the scope of factors under consideration during an assessment in order to enable projects to proceed in a timely and environmentally responsible way. The current review process and its expansive scope of considerations extends beyond relevant environmental factors to include elements that are not directly pertinent, such as the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors, which can be subjective and further complicate and extend the review process.(8)
6. Provide certainty for project proponents regarding whether an assessment is even required. The fact that proponents may not know during planning whether or not their project will require a federal assessment is a major hurdle to deployment. This reform can be achieved, in part, by removing the ability of the Minister to require an impact assessment for projects of a type that are not on an explicit, finalized, published list. As ministerial discretion can be exercised to include certain projects not explicitly designated for assessment, the current system creates significant uncertainty for project proponents.

In sum, to protect Canada’s interests, attract more investment, and “build, baby, build,” the federal government should adopt the above reforms to the Impact Assessment Act and create a system that is swift by default for all major projects, not just a favoured few.