Ģ����ý

This article was on Jun. 3, 2026

Recent federal announcements propose to reform Canada’s regulatory landscape to enable , addressing long-standing concerns about the timeliness of major project regulation. The identifies several causes of project delays and cancellations, including co-ordination issues between authorities and long regulatory approval timelines, which create investment uncertainty.

Our finds infrastructure development in Canada would benefit from a streamlined, integrated planning approach based on existing assets. Canada’s current approach to infrastructure planning and spending priorities is disjointed, with projects driven by a single level of government and often a single ministry. Consequently, following elections or changes in a ministry’s priorities, infrastructure spending priorities shift as well. Building institutions that reflect Canada’s federation, rather than treating it as an afterthought, means provincial, territorial, municipal, federal, and First Nations governments can reinforce each other.

Infrastructure projects in Canada often involve multiple authorities. In practice, this multilevel governance approach has contributed to a lack of clarity around responsibilities and inconsistent decision-making processes. An integrated governance mechanism, such as the proposed would improve jurisdictional clarity.

Another key pillar of the proposed reform is Indigenous engagement. , limiting meaningful participation and increasing the risk of conflict. Improving consultation requires more than better co-ordination. It includes prioritizing early, continuous, and well-resourced engagement; involving Indigenous communities in shaping project design from the outset; and strategies to build capacity in smaller and under-resourced communities. Such reforms are critical for improving project outcomes and advancing reconciliation.

Recent steps to facilitate major project development address several of these concerns. Proposed reforms such as the “” framework, the creation of a centralized (MPO), and federal aim to streamline approval processes and reduce duplication of assessments. These measures aim to enhance predictability for project proponents and investors, improve co-ordination among interest holders, and address long-standing inefficiencies, including consultation practices. Canada’s proposal to also reflects the region-based infrastructure planning approach highlighted by our CNC research.

However, these reforms require a careful approach. First, while accelerated timelines may improve certainty for investors, they compress Indigenous consultation processes. Without sufficient capacity and early engagement, shorter timelines may undermine meaningful Indigenous participation and increase the risk of legal challenges creating further delays. As we learned from the court challenges to the Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain pipelines, the federal government cannot discharge its duty to consult indirectly through a regulator or other agency. Compressed timelines that inadequately resource consultation processes will only create more problems.

Second, . Without , regional economic zones and impact assessments may improve project-level efficiency, but fail to resolve underlying co-ordination and planning gaps.

Third, the proposed reforms are silent on cumulative effects and long-term impacts of infrastructure development. While the MPO has designated of national priority, these are not embedded in a broader strategy identifying long-term objectives and combined impacts. A continued focus on individual projects risks duplicating assessments, and overlooking broader regional consequences. Strategic and cumulative impact assessments are an effective solution to avoid piecemeal decision-making.

Finally, the proposed reforms do not fully resolve inter-jurisdictional co-ordination issues. Many reviews will remain with their respective regulatory authority, such as the Canada Energy Regulator and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which have their own processes and timelines. While some federal processes may become faster, misalignment with other systems could persist, limiting the overall gains of these reforms.

The Government of Canada’s proposed reforms to speed up major infrastructure development are a first step toward improving co-ordination and providing clearer timelines. Success will depend on deeper structural reforms, including a long-term national infrastructure strategy. Our research suggests integrated, region-based planning, strengthening multi-level co-operation, and embedding early Indigenous engagement and consultation throughout decision-making and approval processes. Adjusting the speed of reviews is only one lever; combining faster processes with better planning is essential for a regulatory regime that can support Canada’s long-term objectives.