Bill C-39: The Building Canada Strong Act Introduces Significant Reforms To Federal Project Review And Permitting Process

On September 21, 2026, the federal government introducedBill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act (“Bill C-39”), in Parliament. Bill C-39 proposes significant amendments to the federal project review and permitting framework, including changes to the Impact Assessment Act (the “IAA”), the Canadian Energy Regulator Act (the “CERA”), the Building Canada Act, and several other federal statutes. Bill C-39 aims to give effect to Canada’s commitment to “one project, one decision, in one year” with a coordinated federal review process under which all assessments, permits, and consultations proceed concurrently culminating in a single federal decision within a legislated one-year timeframe.

In parallel, Canada issued a Cabinet Directive on Getting Projects Built in Canada (the “Directive”) which implements key elements of the proposed framework, including the one-year decision timeline and coordinated federal review process, pending the enactment of Bill C-39.

Key Takeaways

• Bill C-39 proposes a coordinated federal review process under which all assessments, permits, and consultations proceed concurrently. For projects subject to the IAA, the Minister of Environment (the “Minister”) would issue a single decision document incorporating all required federal approvals. For projects regulated by the Canada Energy Regulator (the “CER”) or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (the “CNSC”), those bodies would serve as sole assessor, with other federal permits coordinated concurrently. This consolidated process would replace the current multi-statute, sequential approach that has resulted in federal project decisions taking five years or more in many cases; a state of affairs that prompted then-Minister Jonathan Wilkinson to observe that “it cannot take us 12 to 15 years to open a new mine in this country”.¹
• A legislated one-year decision timeline would apply from the date a proponent provides a comprehensive application with the required finalized information and studies. The preceding phase, during which the proponent completes baseline studies, technical assessments, and engagement activities, is not subject to a legislated time limit, meaning total elapsed time from project inception to decision will depend on the duration of that preparatory work.
• Bill C-39 enables the designation of Regions of National Interest under the Building Canada Act, in areas such as energy corridors, transportation corridors, and industrial regions. A regional assessment would first be conducted under the IAA to identify the geographic area, types of activities, and standard conditions, following which certain developments in the region could be considered “pre-approved”, subject to those conditions and mitigation measures, if the region is designated.

Background

Under the current regulatory framework, major projects may be subject to multiple, sequential, overlapping federal review and permitting processes under the IAA, the CERA, the Fisheries Act, Species At Risk Act (“SARA”), and other federal statutes each operating on independent timelines with separate information requirements, consultation processes, and decisions. In practice, this approach has resulted in federal project decisions taking five or more years in many cases.

On May 8, 2026, the federal government published a discussion paper entitled “Getting Major Projects Built in Canada” which proposed a series of reforms to address these concerns, including consolidating project review under a single federal assessor, establishing legislated decision-making timelines, and reducing regulatory duplication. A nationwide engagement process was conducted from May 8 to July 22, 2026, during which the Major Projects Office received over 26,000 submissions. While industry stakeholders generally supported efforts to reduce regulatory duplication, Indigenous groups and members of the public raised concerns about transparency, meaningful participation, and the rigour of environmental assessments.

Bill C-39 builds on recent regulatory changes as part of the federal government’s broader aim to streamline and accelerate federal review and permitting for major projects, including recent amendments to the Physical Activities Regulations under the IAA and the Authorizations Concerning Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Regulations under the Fisheries Act. See our bulletins on each, here and here, for further information.

Bill C-39 also builds on the Building Canada Act, enacted in 2025 as part of Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act. The Building Canada Act established a framework enabling the federal government to streamline approval processes for projects designated as being in the national interest. Where a project is designated, all required federal approvals are consolidated and issued concurrently through a single conditions document issued by the Minister of One Canadian Economy. For further background on the Building Canada Act, refer to our previous bulletins, here and here.

Key Changes Proposed Under Bill C-39

One Coordinated Federal Decision Under the IAA

Currently, for projects subject to the IAA, the Minister issues a decision statement under the IAA while other ministers issue separate permits with conditions under their respective legislation. Bill C-39 proposes that all federal assessments, permits, and consultations would proceed concurrently through a coordinated review process where the Minister would issue a single decision document under the IAA incorporating all required federal approvals, enforceable conditions, and mitigation measures, in consultation with the relevant ministers. Where a project is found to have potential significant adverse effects within federal jurisdiction, the impact assessment decision would be made by the Minister jointly with the minister responsible for the relevant sector, with either minister having the option to refer the decision to the Governor in Council. Permits would continue to be enforced by responsible departments under their existing legislation.

This consolidation of decision-making is as consequential as the one-year timeline itself. Multi-year federal review timelines often reflect the sequential and fragmented nature of decision-making across multiple statutes. By targeting that fragmentation directly through a single review, Bill C-39 may do more to reduce information and assessment redundancy, improve regulatory certainty, and reduce investment risk than a shorter processing time alone.

Bill C-39 would also grant the Minister authority to permit certain preparatory work, subject to conditions, to proceed in advance of a decision statement where doing so is in the public interest. However, the approval of early preparatory work would not guarantee a positive impact assessment outcome.

Single Project Authority for Major Energy and Nuclear Projects

The single-decision framework described above would not apply to projects regulated by the CER or the CNSC. For such projects, Bill C-39 proposes to assign assessment authority to a single federal assessor, the CER or the CNSC, as applicable.

For pipelines, transmission lines, and certain offshore renewable energy projects regulated by the CER, Bill C-39 will amend the IAA and the CERA to formalize the CER’s role as sole assessor under the CERA. These changes would replace the integrated review panel process in line with recent amendments to the Physical Activities Regulations, which removed these project categories from the IAA’s designated project list. See our previous bulletin on these amendments for further details. On the same day Bill C-39 was introduced, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources issued a letter to the CEO of the CER outlining the government’s key focus areas for the CER in planning for implementation of the proposed authorities under the CERA.

For nuclear and uranium projects, the CNSC would conduct impact assessments where required under the IAA, similarly replacing the current integrated review panel process with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (“IAAC”). The CNSC would continue to regulate these projects under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

Permitting and assessments would be coordinated with other federal departments as required, ensuring that those decisions are rendered concurrently with the CER or CNSC decisions.

One-Year Federal Decision Timeline

Bill C-39 proposes to establish a legislated requirement that the federal government render a decision on a project, including all required permits and authorizations, no more than one year after the proponent provides a comprehensive application with the required finalized information and studies.

The Directive, which took effect on September 21, 2026, implements the one-year timeline pending the enactment of Bill C-39. For projects currently in the federal review process, the application of the one-year timeline will be assessed on a case-by-case basis by the Federal Review Coordinator (the President of the IAAC) and the Major Projects Office (the “MPO”).

Notably, from a practical perspective, the one-year time limit does not begin to run until the application is determined to be complete. The preceding phase during which the proponent assembles requisite studies and information and the application is assessed for completeness is not subject to any legislated time limit.

This approach reflects a broader trend toward front-end loading in environmental assessment frameworks. For example, British Columbia’s Environmental Assessment Office has similarly proposed an expedited process for projects designated under the Infrastructure Projects Act, requiring proponents to complete all baseline data collection, technical modelling, and First Nations engagement before entering the expedited process.

As under Bill C-39, the legislated timeline does not begin until the proponent has completed the requisite preparatory work such that total elapsed time from project inception to decision will depend significantly on the duration and complexity of that preparatory phase.

As currently published, Bill C-39 provides that the responsible authority, the IAAC, the CER, or the CNSC, as applicable, determines when a proponent has provided all required information and studies such that the one-year clock begins to run. However, the materials do not specify what information can be required before that determination is made, whether there is a deadline by which the responsible authority must make the completeness determination, or whether information requirements can change once an application is under review. These completeness and clock-triggering mechanics, as well as the permissible grounds and duration for extending or suspending the timeline, will be important determinants of actual project timelines and should be monitored closely as the revised framework is implemented.

The one-year timeline is also subject to adjustment to accommodate certain prescribed activities and, in the case of CER-regulated projects, the fulfillment of Crown consultation obligations. For CER-regulated projects, Bill C-39 proposes to allow the Minister to, by order, extend decision timelines where the extension is required to fulfill the Crown’s duty to consult with Indigenous Peoples. Each such extension may not exceed 90 days. For projects subject to the IAA, Bill C-39 proposes to introduce a general power allowing the IAAC to suspend certain time limits, including the time limit within which a decision statement must be issued, until any activity prescribed by regulations is completed.

Crown Consultation

Bill C-39 proposes to amend the IAA and the CERA to formalize the roles of the IAAC, the CER, and the CNSC in coordinating Crown consultations with Indigenous Peoples to support delivery of one consultation process per project, per Indigenous community.

A “Crown Consultation Hub” (the “Hub”) is proposed to be established within the IAAC to ensure one coordinated consultation process and would provide integrated tracking, early identification of concerns raised by Indigenous rights holders, and coordinated access to funding for participating Indigenous groups.

It is of note that while the Getting Major Projects Built in Canada discussion paper, the “What We Heard” report, and the Directive each reference the government’s obligations under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (“UNDRIPA”) extensively, Bill C-39’s supporting documentation does not contain any reference to UNDRIP, despite the government’s stated commitment to UNDRIPA and the concerns raised by Indigenous participants during the engagement process regarding the consistency of the proposed reforms with UNDRIP.

Bill C-39 purports not to alter northern impact assessment and permitting co-management regimes under modern treaties and land claims agreements.

Regions of National Interest

Bill C-39 proposes to enable the listing of Regions of National Interest under the Building Canada Act. These regions, which could be established for current or future development needs, could include areas such as transportation or energy corridors, telecommunications networks, energy production and transmission systems, and industrial regions. Under the proposed process, a regional assessment would first be conducted under the IAA to identify the geographic area of the region, the types of activities in the region, and standard conditions or mitigation measures for those activities to proceed in that area. Following the completion of the regional assessment, the region may be listed under the Building Canada Act such that certain developments identified through the assessment can be considered “pre-approved”, subject to conditions and mitigation measures.

A regional assessment and designation does not extinguish the Crown’s constitutional consultation obligations that arise when a specific subsequent project in the region may adversely affect asserted or established section 35 rights. However, consultation conducted at the regional assessment stage may be relied upon to inform or satisfy, in whole or in part, the project-specific consultation obligation.

Additional Amendments Across Federal Statutes

Bill C-39 proposes amendments across several additional federal statutes, including the following:

• introducing a requirement that decision-makers consider the technical, economic, and practical feasibility of conditions when establishing conditions for decision statements and permits under the IAA, as well as permits under SARA, the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, and the Fisheries Act where such permit authorizes activities related to projects that are designated under the IAA, regulated by the CER or otherwise prescribed;
• expanding the Minister’s authority to add, remove, or amend conditions under the IAA where the Minister determines the amendment to be in the public interest, which would replace the current restriction that amendments may only be made if they do not increase the extent to which the effects are adverse;
• granting the Minister of One Canadian Economy authority under the Building Canada Act to adjust environmental conditions for projects, such as updating technical details, construction timelines or as a result of additional consultations with Indigenous Peoples;
• removing the Building Canada Act’s sunset clause thereby extending the ability for additional projects to be designated under that Act; and
• changing the Building Canada Act‘s judicial review venue so that applications for judicial review of orders made under that Act commence in the Federal Court of Appeal rather than the Federal Court, which may narrow the practical avenues and compress timelines available to parties seeking to challenge decisions.

Bill C-39 also proposes reforms in other areas not addressed in this bulletin, including amendments relating to federal transportation project coordination and the Canada Labour Code. See our upcoming bulletin summarizing the key transportation- and trade-related aspects of Bill C-39 for further details.

Looking Ahead

If enacted, Bill C-39 would consolidate decision-making authority, establish legislated timelines, and formalize coordination mechanisms that have been the subject of longstanding industry and stakeholder advocacy. These measures are intended to provide the regulatory certainty and predictability that investors and project proponents have identified as prerequisites for deploying capital in Canadian resource and infrastructure projects.

While industry stakeholders broadly supported the consolidation of project review, Indigenous groups have raised concerns regarding the importance of maintaining rigorous environmental assessments, meaningful participation in decision-making, and adequate consideration of Indigenous rights throughout the reformed process, including with respect to the capacity of the CER and the CNSC to conduct rights-based impact assessments.² Members of the public raised concerns regarding the creation of economic zones, proposed changes to SARA, and the designation of the CER as sole assessor for pipeline projects.³ In response, the federal government has stated that environmental, health, social, economic, and Indigenous considerations will continue to be assessed with the same review standards and safeguards as under the current framework, and that Bill C-39 does not remove requirements for impact assessment, permitting, or consultation.⁴ The government has also indicated that feedback received during the engagement process will inform policy design and implementation planning.⁵ Whether and how these concerns are addressed in the enacted legislation, if any, and its implementation remains to be seen.

Moreover, several key implementation details have yet to be determined, including:

• the criteria, process and deadline (if any) for determining when a comprehensive application is complete and the one-year clock begins to run, including what information may be required before it is made and whether information requirements may change once an application is under review;
• the grounds and process for extending or suspending the one-year timeline in relation to IAA and CER decisions;
• the criteria and methodology governing the MPO’s case-by-case assessment of the one-year timeline for projects currently in the federal review process;
• the operational framework for the Hub, including how it will coordinate with responsible departments that retain their own consultation obligations and the free, prior, and informed consent-oriented guidance; and
• the process for designating Regions of National Interest.

Whether the objectives of Bill C-39 and the Directive are realized in practice will depend in part on how these and other details are implemented and on the adequacy of resources allocated to the relevant federal bodies to discharge their expanded responsibilities under the reformed framework.

Proponents of major projects should assess the implications of Bill C-39 and the Directive when contemplating project structuring, regulatory strategy, and stakeholder engagement, and should engage with the Federal Review Coordinator and the MPO regarding the application of the one-year timeline to projects currently in the federal review process. More broadly, proponents, investors and lenders should monitor implementation details, including those identified above, as regulations and guidance documents are published.

Footnotes

1. See Ottawa’s critical mineral strategy calls for faster project approvals | CBC News.

2. See What we Heard: Proposals for Getting Major Projects Built in Canada – Major Projects Office – Canada.ca.

3. See What we Heard: Proposals for Getting Major Projects Built in Canada – Major Projects Office – Canada.ca.

4. See Bill C-39 Introduction – Canada.ca.

5. See What we Heard: Proposals for Getting Major Projects Built in Canada – Major Projects Office – Canada.ca.