On May 31, 2025, the federal government introduced the One Canadian Economy Act, Part 2 of which comprises the proposed Building Canada Act (BCA), setting out a process to identify and expedite the approval of major projects of so-called “national interest.”  There is much to unpack in the concepts of national interest projects, regulatory streamlining, and presumptive approvals – topics for further posts, perhaps – but for now we offer some initial thinking on how a review process under the BCA might look, to support collective discourse on its potential merits and shortcomings.

To this end, we provide a preliminary description of a potential review process, in ten steps, for national interest projects pursuant to the proposed BCA, as drafted, and highlight aspects that warrant further clarification or guidance through regulatory or other means in order to achieve the federal government’s stated two-year approval timeline.  The potential process steps are anticipated based on existing legislative regimes and past experience in federal impact assessment and permitting processes in Canada.  In general, in our view, every step of the process should be time-limited through regulation.

This post assumes the reader is already somewhat familiar with the national economic, political, and regulatory context within which the BCA has been proposed, and the typical federal impact assessment and permitting processes to which major projects are subject in Canada.

Step 1: Application for an Order

A proponent (or another party, such as a federal authority) would presumably submit a request or an application for an Order to add a project to Schedule 1.  The BCA specifies, in section 6, factors that must be considered before making an Order, including the extent to which the project can:

1. strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience and security;
2. provide economic or other benefits to Canada;
3. have a high likelihood of successful execution;
4. advance the interests of Indigenous peoples; and
5. contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.

This list is fairly consistent with the criteria laid out in the First Ministers’ statement on building a strong Canadian economy and advancing major projects issued following the First Ministers meeting in Saskatoon on June 2, 2025. 

Reasonably then, an application should describe the extent to which the project would support those factors.  The application could also identify the Indigenous groups potentially affected by the project, and perhaps also the anticipated effects on those groups and any outcome of consultation with those groups undertaken prior to an application being made.  An application should also identify all the relevant federal authorizations that are likely to be required, which would – if the project is deemed a national interest project – be included in the consolidated “national interest” authorization document pursuant to section 7(1) of the BCA.  

It would make sense for regulations to be established under the BCA to specify the Order application information requirements, similar to how certain information requirements are specified in the Information and Management of Time Limits Regulations under the Impact Assessment Act (IAA).

Step 2: Minister consults on the application for an Order and makes a recommendation to GIC

The Minister (it is as yet unclear which Minister this would be) would consult federal authorities (FAs), provincial or territorial governments, and potentially affected Indigenous groups regarding the application for an Order and make a recommendation to the Governor in Council (GIC) on whether an Order should be issued.  We anticipate this would be an opportunity for those parties to provide further views on the extent to which the project can (or cannot, as the case may be) support the relevant factors.

Step 3: GIC Order

Based on the Minister’s recommendation, we assume for the purposes of this discussion that the GIC would amend Schedule 1 of the BCA, by Order, adding the project as a national interest project.

Step 4: Requirements specified and coordinated?

The BCA reinforces that the proponent must “take all measures,” “provide any information,” and “pay fees” required in relation to the various authorizations to be included in the national interest authorization document (see sections 6(2) and 7(2)(a) of the BCA).  In other words, the processes of review that would normally be undertaken in relation to federal permitting would still occur:  proponents would still have to submit the information required to support, say, an application for a Fisheries Act authorization or a Canadian Navigable Waters Act approval.

For projects that are also designated projects under the IAA, the BCA would eliminate the Planning Phase of a federal impact assessment (IA), but the requirement for the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) to provide the proponent with tailored impact statement (IS) guidelines (TISG), among other things, and for the proponent to provide an IS that meets those guidelines would remain.  

This is an aspect of the BCA that begs for immediate improvement:  the information requirements for a federal IA and the suite of federal permits that will likely be needed for any major project of national interest are almost certain to overlap.  The BCA should allow for all the relevant information requirements to be consolidated into a single, project-specific “guidelines” document that eliminates duplication, redundancy, and conflict.  The BCA already contemplates (in section 20) a coordinating Office role that could facilitate this task.  

At the very least, absent this kind of coordinated approach, the existing TISG template currently used by IAAC should be revised to remove information requirements that would otherwise be duplicative with the information requirements of other permitting FAs.

Step 5: Proponent Submission(s)

Ideally, as noted above, a single, coordinated submission by the proponent will meet the needs of all FAs, including IAAC, to be consulted by the Minister in establishing conditions: “one project, one review,” being the policy objective, after all.

Step 6: Conformity Review

In this single submission approach, the process administrator (i.e., the Coordinating Office (CO)) would presumably coordinate the review of the proponent’s submission for conformity with the information requirements.  The scope of additional information requests (IRs) should be limited by regulation to the matters directly relevant to and necessary for the development of conditions for the project.

Step 7: Submission(s) deemed complete, technical review(s) proceed

In an ideal world, the Coordinating Office would coordinate a single review of a single, consolidated submission, engaging all the relevant FAs (i.e., consulting with them) as needed to carry out a technical review of matters within their respective mandates and provide recommendations for necessary conditions.  Any Indigenous and public consultation that would normally occur during the review stage of IA and most permitting processes should also be coordinated.  Again, the scope of IRs should be limited by regulation to the matters directly relevant to and necessary for the development of conditions for the project.  

Step 8: Draft conditions

The Coordinating Office would likely compile conditions recommended by the various FAs, including IAAC, taking into account the outcome of consultation during the review phase.

Step 9: Consultation

Before issuing the national interest authorization document, the Minister, presumably supported by the Coordinating Office, must consult potentially affected Indigenous groups.  The proponent should also have an opportunity to review the draft conditions to evaluate their technical and economic feasibility and to advance alternative approaches if any condition is determined to be infeasible.  

Step 10: Final document with conditions

The final national interest authorization document would be issued (and made available to the public), incorporating all the final and feasible conditions deemed to be required. 

The simplified diagram below illustrates this potential process.  Blue boxes indicate proponent actions, green indicate process actions led by either the Minister or the Coordinating Office (CO), and the orange box indicates action by the GIC.

Interestingly, over a year ago, in my last post on this blog, I recommended the establishment of an expedited process for clean transition projects of national importance…