Laura Bowman
Canada is undergoing a seismic shift in how federally regulated projects are approved. On September 21, 2026, the federal government introduced Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act, which would again overhaul federal environmental review processes. The bill continues a broader trend of weakening the Haida duty to consult and accommodate and signals a further retreat from Canada’s commitments under UNDRIP.
Bill C-39 proposes major amendments to both the Impact Assessment Act and the Building Canada Act (Bill C-5). These laws have already been amended several times in recent years, creating a constantly shifting regulatory landscape that can make it difficult for affected communities and project opponents to understand or engage with the process.
C-39 would significantly reduce the role of federal impact assessments. Review panels would be eliminated for projects regulated by the Canada Energy Regulator (CER) and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), with those agencies conducting their own assessments. At the same time, recent changes have already narrowed the range of projects subject to federal review, and the federal government has increasingly declined requests for assessments. Under C-39, CER-regulated projects, such as interprovincial pipelines and transmission lines, could no longer be designated for federal impact assessments.
For the limited number of projects that still undergo a federal assessment, the Impact Assessment Agency would coordinate multiple federal approvals into a single decision package for ministers. Some of the underlying regulatory processes, including those under the Fisheries Act, have already been streamlined.
The government’s claim of a “one-year review process” requires context. Before the formal assessment begins, there is a 180-day application review period and up to a year for proponents to prepare their assessment materials. Once an assessment officially starts, a 300-day review period and a 65-day decision period apply. Importantly, key decisions about application completeness are made before the assessment process begins.
Bill C-39 would also create “Regions of National Interest,” where eligible projects could receive expedited approvals and exemptions from environmental requirements. While a regional assessment would be required before designation, it remains unclear which regions or project types would qualify.
C-39 would further reduce transparency by removing several public reporting requirements under the Building Canada Act, including obligations to maintain a public registry and disclose the rationale for permit conditions before permits are issued.
Perhaps most significantly, C-39 would allow “public interest” authorizations for early site work before an impact assessment is complete. Rather than treating consultation as a process that could substantially alter or stop a project, the bill increasingly frames consultation as a mechanism for identifying project conditions. New requirements that permit conditions be technically and economically feasible may further narrow the accommodations available through consultation.
The practical effect may be to reduce Indigenous peoples’ access to information and weaken their ability to secure project modifications and mitigation measures. Nations may need to engage proponents and regulators much earlier, seek binding consultation agreements, closely monitor applications for early site work, and consider legal challenges at earlier stages of the process.
More broadly, the continued dismantling of federal review mechanisms threatens the foundational procedural framework on which the Haida duty to consult and accommodate has relied. As those processes disappear, more Nations may be forced to pursue infringement claims directly, which will require a greater investment of resources. Nations should also review existing impact benefit agreements negotiated under previous regulatory frameworks, and consider how early negotiation strategies might help ease the transition to this new streamlined approach. Ultimately, Bill C-39 is incompatible with UNDRIP and with respect for Indigenous self-determination. As a result, Nations will likely need to revisit the duty to consult and accommodate through novel litigation.
