L’été s’envole. Renouvelez votre adhésion à l’ABC et obtenez la série Maîtres en pratique sans frais.
Veuillez consulter notre FAQ ou communiquer avec l'équipe des Services aux membres.

Skip to main content
English
Devenez membre
Logo ABC
search
menu

Comment les provinces se positionnent pour la désignation de projets d'intérêt national

30 avril 2026

(Disponible uniquement en anglais)

Authors:

Introduction

While the Building Canada Act establishes a federal framework for identifying and advancing projects of national importance, its effectiveness will depend in part on provincial consent and on complementary provincial regulatory reforms. This article provides a cross-jurisdictional overview of recent and emerging regulatory initiatives in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Québec intended to address that gap and align with the new federal framework — whether through fast-track authorizations, substituted or harmonized impact assessments, equivalency agreements, or sector-specific permitting reforms. The measures surveyed below illustrate how several provinces are positioning themselves to work collaboratively with Canada to create practical pathways for projects of national importance to proceed more efficiently.

British Columbia

British Columbia has adopted a project-specific, designation-based approach to regulatory streamlining, prioritizing expedited approvals for infrastructure projects deemed “provincially significant” and aligned with economic, energy and reconciliation objectives. In May 2025, the Province passed the Infrastructure Projects Act to give effect to this approach by centralizing and fast-tracking permitting and approval processes for designated major infrastructure projects. Similar to the Building Canada Act, the legislation is intended to reduce approval timelines through coordinated decision-making, creating the potential for projects subject to both federal and provincial jurisdiction to be streamlined under both regimes.

Under the Infrastructure Projects Act, the Ministry of Infrastructure may designate certain projects as Category 1 or Category 2. Designated projects are eligible for streamlined and priority permitting processes, expedited environmental assessment, and other mechanisms designed to shorten approval timelines. Category 1 projects are classes of projects undertaken by a provincial ministry, such as hospitals and schools. Category 2 projects are projects that are “provincially significant” and may be carried out by private entities, First Nations, or government.

Many of the details of the new regime under the Infrastructure Projects Act will be set out in forthcoming regulations. As a result, it remains to be seen which projects will be designated as “provincially significant” and how the Infrastructure Projects Act will affect the timeline of designated (and other) projects. However, because the Building Canada Act requires the Governor in Council to obtain the consent of the province in which a project of national importance will be carried out (where the project falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the province), the new regime may increase the likelihood that projects of national importance will also be “provincially significant”.

Although no formal definition is currently available for “provincially significant projects”, the Province has released guidelines on an expected framework for such projects with respect to the following categories:

  • Project type: The project must be one of the high-priority types, which include critical minerals and mining, energy security, supply chain capacity and housing, among others.
  • First Nation support: The project must have support from directly and significantly impacted First Nations decision-makers.
  • Core requirements: The project must have a viable funding plan and path to success, show why the Infrastructure Projects Act can streamline the project, and the project must be material and significant, such as a capital cost threshold over $100 million.
  • Additional benefits: In addition to the above requirements, the project must provide one additional listed benefit, which includes trade diversification, access to new markets, supply chain security and replacing U.S. imports.

Even taking the above requirements into account, in its current form the Infrastructure Projects Act affords the applicable government decision-maker significant discretion in designating a project as provincially significant.

In March 2026, the Environmental Assessment Office released a discussion paper outlining a preliminary framework for its proposed expedited environmental assessment process for projects designated under the Infrastructure Projects Act. The expedited process is proposed to take 20 months, compared to the three to five or more years required for a standard environmental assessment. According to the discussion paper, in order for this timeline to be feasible the proponent must provide a “stable” project description (i.e., future material changes will invalidate the project from the expedited process), a documented record of engagement with First Nations, local governments and communities, and a year of baseline data. As a practical matter, these requirements will likely limit the expedited environmental assessment process to projects that are already in advanced stages of planning and that are supported by impacted First Nations.

Canada and British Columbia have an existing cooperation agreement for projects that require an assessment by both levels of government. Further details of the expedited environmental assessment process are forthcoming, but it appears that expedited assessments may be available for projects that would otherwise be eligible for substituted impact assessments.

Both the Infrastructure Projects Act and the proposed expedited environmental assessment process are in their infancy and remain subject to change; however, the information released to date provides some insight into which projects are likely to be streamlined, and how. While faster project approvals and construction will be welcomed by many in British Columbia — particularly project proponents (including First Nation proponents) — it remains to be seen how the Infrastructure Projects Act will apply in practice and whether it will achieve its ambitious objectives.

Alberta

Rather than creating a single fast-track statute, Alberta has pursued regulatory streamlining through cooperation agreements and project-specific federal-provincial coordination, particularly for energy and emissions-intensive projects. At the core of this coordination is the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the Alberta and federal governments in November 2025, which establishes a framework for coordinated regulatory oversight and equivalency across multiple policy areas. The stated objectives of the MOU include working with industry and Indigenous communities to advance oil and gas export capacity, develop a sovereign cloud through new AI technologies, and continue investment in carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) to support emissions-reduction targets. To operationalize these objectives, the parties committed to the following short-term deadlines:

  • April 1, 2026 — Cooperation Agreement on Impact Assessments — Final Agreement signed on April 2, 2026.
  • April 1, 2026 — Methane Equivalency Agreement — An agreement in principle was released on March 25, 2026. Alberta will retain responsibility for regulating emissions, as the federal Enhanced Methane Regulations will be stood down in Alberta.
  • April 1, 2026 — Carbon Pricing Equivalency Agreement — An agreement was not reached within the target timeline and remains outstanding as of the date of this submission. The key negotiation point is how quickly the carbon price reaches $130 under Alberta’s Technology Innovation Emissions Reduction Regulation. Suspension of the federal Clean Electricity Regulations in Alberta hinges on this agreement.
  • April 1, 2026 — Trilateral Agreement among Alberta, Canada and the Oil Sands Alliance — This agreement cannot be negotiated until the Carbon Pricing Equivalency Agreement is in place.
  • July 1, 2026 — Alberta to apply to the Major Projects Office (MPO) for construction of one or more private sector constructed and financed pipelines with Indigenous co-ownership and economic benefits.
  • July 1, 2026 — Alberta’s policy framework for AI data centres to be finalized.
  • January 1, 2027 — Alberta’s nuclear power generation strategy to be finalized.

Cooperation Agreement on Impact Assessments

The goal is to reduce duplication within the system and streamline project review. Canada has agreed to recognize Alberta as best placed to consult with Indigenous Peoples for projects primarily within provincial jurisdiction, while continuing to uphold its federal obligations. A joint coordinated assessment process meeting the legislative requirements of both jurisdictions will be designed to deliver a project decision within two years where both federal and provincial assessments are required.

Methane Equivalency Agreement

The proposed agreement, which will take effect January 1, 2027, establishes that Alberta will reduce its methane emissions 75% relative to its 2014 numbers by 2035 and will have a performance-based approach combining actual reductions, offset credits and targeted investments, all verified by a jointly selected independent third party. From a regulatory-streamlining perspective, the agreement is significant because it eliminates parallel compliance obligations under both federal and provincial methane regimes for regulated facilities in Alberta. For projects of national importance under the Building Canada Act — particularly large-scale oil sands, CCUS or energy infrastructure projects — the standing down of federal methane regulations in favour of a single, provincially administered regime reduces compliance complexity, regulatory uncertainty and approval risk across the project lifecycle. In this sense, equivalency functions as a substantive form of regulatory streamlining that complements the Building Canada Act’s objective of facilitating timely decision-making while preserving environmental outcomes.

Specific Projects Contemplated by MOU

West Coast Pipeline

The pipeline will be a privately funded and constructed pipeline capable of carrying one million barrels of bitumen per day to a Pacific export terminal. Alberta will facilitate Indigenous co-ownership of the pipeline and will ensure that British Columbia receives substantial economic benefit from it.

Pathways Project

Phase 1 has been proposed to the MPO. The Alberta–Canada MOU makes the proposed West Coast bitumen pipeline conditional on the Pathways project becoming commercially operational. The MOU describes Pathways as “the world’s largest carbon capture and storage project” and commits both governments to aligned CCUS incentives and a trilateral agreement, which was not signed by the April 1, 2026 deadline. Pathways is positioned as the core emissions-reduction mechanism enabling continued oil sands development while supporting the shared goal of net-zero by 2050.

AI — “Sovereign Data Cloud”

Under the MOU, the parties contemplate the construction of thousands of megawatts of AI computing power, most of which will be dedicated to a “sovereign cloud for Canada and its allies”. Although data centre policies are still in development, some legislation has been amended to clarify the framework for this development and to introduce a framework for levies on grid-connected data centre projects. For proponents, framing data centre infrastructure in sovereignty and security terms could position such projects for designation as projects of national importance, particularly where they underpin defence, intelligence or critical public-sector digital services.

Transmission Interties

Large transmission interties will be constructed between Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan to supply power for oil, LNG, critical minerals, agriculture and CCUS. These interties will increase grid reliability while supplying low-carbon power to western provinces. The proposed interties align with the recently announced National Energy Corridor Partnership, under which provincial and territorial governments are exploring coordinated, multi-use infrastructure corridors to support energy, electricity transmission and other linear infrastructure across provincial boundaries. This initiative underscores how transmission projects may increasingly be treated as strategically significant, multi-jurisdictional infrastructure suitable for streamlined review under complementary federal and provincial frameworks.

Nuclear Generation Strategy

The Government of Alberta launched a five-member nuclear panel, with stakeholder engagement completed in two phases. In the first phase, initial input from Albertans, Indigenous communities and stakeholders was gathered to understand key perspectives. The second phase focused on engaging directly with these stakeholders to understand the perspectives on the potential for nuclear development and to share industry feedback with the public. As of the date of this submission, there has been no update on the status of the final report, which was to be delivered by the Minister of Affordability and Utilities by March 31, 2026.

Ontario

Ontario’s model centers on process integration, advancing a “one project, one process, one decision” framework under the Co-operation Agreement signed by the Ontario and federal governments in December 2025. The agreement seeks to reduce duplication between federal and provincial assessment regimes by enabling greater reliance on a single assessment process, while clarifying the respective roles and responsibilities of each government.

While this step signals a continued policy shift toward streamlined project review, it does not amend existing legislation or limit either government’s statutory decision-making authority. Accordingly, its practical impact will depend on how the agreement and associated framework will be implemented in specific project contexts.

“One Project, One Process, One Decision” Framework

Under this framework, Canada may rely on Ontario’s environmental assessment processes where a project is primarily provincially regulated and Ontario confirms that its process can address effects within federal jurisdiction. Conversely, where a project involves a federal work or undertaking or where a project is located on federal lands, the federal government has committed to integrating Ontario’s assessment and regulatory requirements into the federal process, to the extent appropriate and as agreed with Ontario.

Early Coordination and Information Sharing

The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) have committed to early notification and coordination in respect of projects that may trigger both federal and provincial requirements. This includes identifying applicable legislative authorities and assessment obligations at an early stage, coordinating with proponents, and sharing information regarding potential adverse effects, including those within federal jurisdiction. The IAAC has committed to providing technical expertise, coordination support, and resources, as requested and as appropriate, where Ontario leads an assessment addressing federal effects.

Substitution and Harmonization

Where both federal and provincial assessments are required, Ontario may request that the federal process be substituted with the provincial process or that the parties pursue a harmonized assessment process satisfying both regimes. Notwithstanding any substitution or harmonization, both governments retain the responsibility of ensuring that the duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous Peoples is fulfilled, and have committed to coordinating consultation activities to the extent possible.

Decision-Making and Conditions

Following a substituted or harmonized assessment process, each government retains final decision-making authority under its respective legislation. Federal decisions will remain focused on adverse effects within federal jurisdiction. The IAAC and MECP have committed to coordinating the conditions attached to federal and provincial approvals in efforts to reduce duplication and regulatory burden, including through consistent terminology, reporting requirements, and timelines.

Indigenous Peoples

The Co-operation Agreement emphasizes coordinated, transparent, and timely engagement with Indigenous Peoples. The IAAC and MECP have committed to cooperating on the identification of Indigenous communities for consultation, coordinating consultation processes, supporting meaningful participation, and working together with Indigenous Peoples in respect of the sharing and protection of Indigenous knowledge. The agreement also addresses coordination of participant funding, including funding to support Indigenous participation in assessment processes.

Key Takeaways

While the Co-operation Agreement represents a potentially significant step toward reducing duplication and improving coordination between federal and provincial assessment regimes for major projects, its effectiveness will ultimately depend on how consistently it is implemented in practice. Canada and Ontario have committed to reviewing the agreement annually, suggesting that further refinements may be introduced over time in accordance with the “one project, one process, one decision” mandate.

Québec

Through targeted legislative reform, Québec has adopted a consolidation-based model that streamlines approval timelines for priority projects by restructuring sequencing and decision-making across multiple regulatory regimes. In furtherance of this approach, Québec has recently introduced legislative initiatives designed to consolidate authorization processes and modernize sector-specific frameworks. Two measures are relevant in this respect. Bill 5, An Act to accelerate the granting of the authorizations required to carry out priority national-scale projects, which has been tabled and is currently under parliamentary review, proposes a project-specific fast-track procedure allowing the government to replace multiple provincial approvals with a single authorization for designated projects. Bill 69, An Act to ensure the responsible governance of energy resources and to amend various legislative provisions, which was assented to in June 2025, reforms governance and permitting in the energy sector with the objective of facilitating infrastructure development and electrification. These regimes operate alongside existing environmental assessment and regulatory frameworks.

Bill 5: Fast-Track Procedure for Priority Projects

As proposed, Bill 5 would create an exceptional mechanism under which the Québec government could, for a limited period of five years following assent of the bill, designate certain projects as “priority national-scale projects” by government decree. The designation process would be discretionary and project-specific, and could apply to both public and private sector proponents. For the purposes of designation, the government may, in particular, consider whether:

  1. the project would consolidate Québec’s autonomy and resilience, including in relation to energy, critical and strategic minerals or infrastructure;
  2. the project would generate major economic spinoffs for Québec, notably by reason of the scale of required investment and job creation;
  3. the project would take local and Indigenous interests into account;
  4. the project would contribute to government objectives related to the energy transition; and
  5. the project could realistically be implemented in the short term, having regard to its proposed timeline.

Where a project is designated, Bill 5 would enable the government to issue a single consolidated authorization replacing several permits, approvals or authorizations otherwise required under specified provincial statutes. Schedule I of Bill 5 sets out the list of Québec statutes whose permissions may be replaced by an authorization, with the goal of allowing greater legislative flexibility with respect to the environment, natural resources, lands in the domain of the State, agricultural zones and the municipal domain.

Fast-tracking is achieved through the establishment, by Québec’s Minister of Finance, of a timeline for the various steps and conditions required to carry out the authorized project, in collaboration with the project proponent and the relevant ministers and public authorities. The Minister may also allow certain preparatory works, prior to issuance of the authorization, that would otherwise be precluded before the project begins.

The consolidated authorization could include any conditions that could lawfully have been imposed under the substituted regimes. The government would also retain the power to amend or revoke the authorization in certain circumstances, and the authorities would preserve their inspection, compliance and enforcement powers under the underlying statutes whose authorizations would be replaced. The proposed regime therefore consolidates authorization instruments but does not displace substantive regulatory obligations. As such, Bill 5 would not exempt designated projects from Québec’s environmental impact assessment and review procedure under the Environment Quality Act, but would provide for a streamlined procedure.

Bill 81: Environmental Assessment Reform

The approach underlying Bill 5 aligns with procedural reforms introduced through Bill 81, An Act to amend various provisions relating to the environment. These measures have revised the sequencing of environmental review with the intention of reducing the time taken by the administration to review applications for authorization from approximately 18 months to 9 months, including:

  • earlier disclosure of project information;
  • earlier involvement of the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE), Québec’s independent body responsible for conducting public consultation and hearings as part of provincial environmental impact assessments; and
  • issuance, at the initial stage of the process, of more project-specific ministerial directives for the preparation of the impact assessment study.

We note that these reforms are procedural in nature and do not alter environmental protection standards or the government’s discretion to approve or refuse a project. We also question whether the changes to the process will reduce the timeline for completion given the additional preparation and information requirements placed on project proponents at the initial stage of the process.

Bill 69: Energy Sector Streamlining

Bill 69, which came into force on June 7, 2025, modernizes Québec’s energy governance framework and regulatory processes applicable to electricity generation, transmission and distribution. Notably, the legislation:

  • modifies procurement and regulatory mechanisms, including by allowing Hydro-Québec to enter into certain power purchase agreements without mandatory tendering, enabling bilateral agreements with regulatory oversight, and accelerating Régie de l’énergie proceedings through procedural adjustments, and
  • provides for increased private-sector participation in renewable energy production and distribution under specific conditions.

While the Régie de l’énergie continues to oversee rate-setting, the new legislation emphasizes a cost-of-service methodology to provide greater predictability for industrial consumers.

Conclusion

The regulatory initiatives reviewed above demonstrate a clear trend: provinces are actively experimenting with procedural consolidation, discretionary designation mechanisms and cooperative federal-provincial frameworks to accelerate execution of large-scale infrastructure and energy projects. While the tools differ, common themes emerge. British Columbia and Québec have embraced project-specific fast-tracking through consolidated approvals and expedited assessments; Alberta has focused on equivalency agreements and bespoke intergovernmental arrangements tied to flagship projects; and Ontario has prioritized structural coordination through a “one project, one process, one decision” model.

For proponents of projects of national importance under the Building Canada Act, these developments create meaningful opportunities — but also variability. Jurisdictions relying heavily on ministerial discretion may offer speed but less predictability, while those emphasizing cooperation agreements may deliver more consistent outcomes over time. As outstanding agreements are finalized and these regimes are tested in practice, the degree to which provincial streamlining measures align with the federal framework will play a critical role in determining whether the Act achieves its objective of facilitating timely, coordinated decision-making for projects essential to Canada’s economic resilience, energy security and energy transition.