Bill C-39 introduced: What the Building Canada Strong Act could mean for major project approvals

On September 21, 2026, the federal government introduced Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act. It is the latest and most comprehensive instalment in a series of federal reforms that began in 2025 with the Building Canada Act and the creation of the Major Projects Office.

The policy objective is clear: Canada needs to approve and deliver major projects faster if it is to attract investment, develop natural resources, expand energy infrastructure, and reach new markets. The government has framed this as a competitive imperative. Major projects routinely wait five years or more for all federal decisions, while competitors in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia have been streamlining their own processes.

Bill C-39 is an omnibus bill in three parts:

• Part 1 (“Build Canada Now”) overhauls federal environmental and project assessment through amendments to the Impact Assessment Act (IAA), the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, the Building Canada Act, the Canadian Navigable Waters Act (CNWA), the Species at Risk Act (SARA), the Fisheries Act, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.
• Part 2 (“Keep Canada Moving”) modernizes transportation, trade corridors, port governance, and digital trade.
• Part 3 (“Canada Strong for All”) reforms federal labour relations under the Canada Labour Code and the Wage Earner Protection Program Act.

For the construction and infrastructure sectors, the most significant changes are in Part 1, and that is the focus of this article.

At a glance

• One year. Federal decisions would be due within one year, but the clock starts only once the proponent’s studies and information are complete.
• One decision document. A single decision statement would bundle most federal permits, with the Canada Energy Regulator and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission leading reviews in their own sectors.
• Regional pre-approval. Regions of National Interest could shift federal review from project-by-project assessment to regional pre-authorization.
• More ministerial discretion. Ministers would gain broader powers over conditions and could allow early works before a final decision.
• The duty to consult is unchanged. The central legal question is whether a faster process can still deliver constitutionally adequate consultation.

The regulatory changes

Bill C-39 proposes a fundamental restructuring of federal project reviews. The core elements fall under three themes: speed, consolidation, and the scope of federal discretion.

Speed

• One-year statutory decision timeline. Federal decision statements must be issued within one year of the proponent providing the required information and studies (cl. 51, new s. 65(3) of the IAA). The clock does not start when a proponent first approaches government, but only once the proponent has submitted a comprehensive application and finalized studies and information for permitting and impact assessment.
• Early preparatory activities before final approval. The Minister may allow certain preparatory work to proceed before the final decision statement is issued, where this is in the public interest, subject to conditions and remediation requirements (cl. 5, s. 7(3)(d)–(e) of the IAA).
• Building Canada Act made permanent. The sunset clause in the Building Canada Act is removed. Judicial reviews are directed to the Federal Court of Appeal rather than the Federal Court, removing a step and potentially raising the procedural bar for legal challenges.

The one-year timeline does not mean less work. Proponents will need greater design maturity, earlier environmental studies, and earlier Indigenous engagement before they enter the formal process. Faster decisions will require work that is better coordinated and front-loaded.

Consolidation

• Single federal decision document. The Minister of Environment will issue one decision statement incorporating all required federal authorizations, including Fisheries Act authorizations, SARA permits, and CNWA permits, rather than requiring separate departmental applications and decisions (cls. 49–50, new ss. 64.1–65 of the IAA). A new Schedule 5 lists the federal permits to be incorporated.
• Canada Energy Regulator (CER) as sole assessor for energy projects. The CER becomes the sole project assessor for designated pipelines, certain power lines, and certain offshore renewable energy projects, replacing the integrated review panel model with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) (Division 3, cls. 118–155, amending the Canadian Energy Regulator Act). The CER will also coordinate authorizations with other federal authorities.
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) as lead assessor for nuclear projects. The CNSC becomes the responsible authority for impact assessments of nuclear and uranium projects, replacing the integrated-panel model (cl. 7, new s. 8.3 of the IAA). The IAA decision and the licensing decision under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA) can be made concurrently. Energy and Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson has said the government expects the CNSC to “[c]omplete impact assessments under the IAA while also completing the nuclear licensing under the NSCA.”
• Crown Consultation Hub. A Crown Consultation Hub is established within the IAAC as a centralized federal lead, with the stated goal of one coordinated consultation process per project, per Indigenous community (cl. 4, new s. 6(1.1)(b) of the IAA).

Scope of federal discretion

• Regions of National Interest. Following a regional impact assessment, the Governor in Council may designate regions under the Building Canada Act (Division 2, cls. 94–117). Certain developments within a designated region could be treated as effectively pre-approved, subject to conditions. This would shift the framework from project-by-project review to regional pre-authorization and is potentially the most consequential proposal in the Bill.
• Expanded ministerial discretion on conditions. Decision-makers must now consider the technical, economic, and practical feasibility of conditions imposed on projects under the IAA, SARA, the CNWA, and the Fisheries Act (cl. 48, s. 64 of the IAA). The Minister may also add, remove, or amend conditions in the public interest. This is a notable expansion: under the previous regime, the Minister could not change conditions in a way that increased adverse effects.
• A market for Fisheries Act habitat credits. Third-party habitat credits may be used to offset adverse impacts, and fee-in-lieu payments to the Environmental Damages Fund are permitted for minor impacts. Regulation-making powers move from the Governor in Council to the Minister of Fisheries (Division 7, cls. 179–191).

Indigenous consultation

What the Bill says

The government says Bill C-39 does not alter the Crown’s constitutional duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous Peoples. It could not do otherwise: the duty is a constitutional imperative that sits above all statutes. The Bill also expressly preserves consultation obligations, and statutory timelines may be suspended or extended for Indigenous consultation.

Can a faster process deliver adequate consultation?

The real question is whether the accelerated process is structurally capable of delivering constitutionally adequate consultation in practice. The Supreme Court of Canada has made clear in Clyde River (Hamlet) v. Petroleum Geo-Services Inc., 2017 SCC 40, that the Crown may rely on a regulatory process to discharge its duty to consult, but only if that process is adequate. The decision-maker must be satisfied that consultation is adequate before authorizing the project, and a sophisticated environmental or technical review does not, by itself, amount to meaningful consultation.

This creates a further tension. Where the Crown has deliberately narrowed or removed a regulatory process through which Indigenous participation would otherwise have helped it meet its constitutional obligations, the Crown remains responsible for the outcome.

Early works and the risk of a fait accompli

The new power to authorize preparatory work before a final decision may also engage the duty to consult. If early works proceed, the eventual approval of the project may be seen as a fait accompli, which would undermine the purpose of consultation before the decision is made.

What Indigenous groups have said

The government’s own engagement record reflects these concerns. During the 75-day consultation period on the Bill C-39 proposals, Indigenous groups raised the following issues:

• the one-year timeline is inconsistent with the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP);
• communities with limited capacity cannot engage meaningfully within compressed timelines;
• concurrent permitting could fragment consultation and blur departmental accountability;
• the Crown Consultation Hub, while it may reduce duplication, must be rights-based and adequately resourced; and
• the Bill does not address Indigenous calls for shared decision-making.

Since the Bill was introduced, the Assembly of First Nations has called for sufficient time for First Nations consultation and for First Nations leaders to have an opportunity to propose amendments as the legislation proceeds through Parliament.

What’s next

• Bill C-39 received first reading on September 21, 2026. The government intends to move quickly.
• A parallel Cabinet Directive instructs federal authorities to align their internal processes with the one-year objective, including processes that have no statutory timelines.
• Key issues to watch in Parliament: Committee amendments to the Indigenous consultation provisions; the feasibility standard for environmental conditions; the scope of ministerial discretion; and whether Regions of National Interest survive in their current form.
• Legal challenges: Whether the one-year timeline is workable will depend in part on whether courts accept that accelerated processes satisfy the constitutional consultation requirements set out in Haida Nation and Clyde River. The shift from asking whether a project should proceed to how it should proceed may face challenge if the process is seen to predetermine outcomes before meaningful consultation has occurred.
• For proponents: Early Indigenous engagement, capacity funding, design maturity, and comprehensive regulatory planning before entering the formal process are more important than ever. The formal timeline may be shorter, but the work required before it starts is not.

How Gowling WLG can help

Bill C-39 proposes significant changes to how major projects are reviewed and approved in Canada.

If you have questions about the Building Canada Strong Act or how the proposed changes could affect your projects, please contact the authors or a member of our Infrastructure and Construction Group.