Building for Tomorrow
Issue #2 | September 2025

Canada is about to enter a new era of nation-building. As Ottawa promises to “build, baby, build,” the provinces line up behind new trade corridors and the private sector awaits new business opportunities. The stakes for Canada’s economic future are high.

Rail lines, airports, ports, roads and pipelines are essential contributors to national prosperity. However, not all infrastructure is created equal and the “how” of project approvals deserves just as much attention as the “what.”

The Building for Tomorrow series tracks, analyzes, explains and critiques the policies, projects and politics shaping Canada’s trade-enabling infrastructure.

Streamlining Canada’s major projects policy

Two major announcements have occurred since the first issue of Building for Tomorrow. First, the Major Projects Office (MPO) was launched on August 29. Second, the first tranche of projects being referred to the MPO was announced on September 11.

What is the Major Projects Office?

The Major Projects Office (MPO) was created under the Building Canada Act (BCA) to facilitate the review and approval of major projects. It has two primary functions:

  1. Assess a project’s contribution to national interest factors, identify which federal approvals are required, ensure consultation and ultimately recommend projects to the minister for fast-tracking under the Building Canada Act.
  2. Transform the regulatory process to ensure that major projects are reviewed within two years.

What projects have been proposed?

After consultation with the provinces and Indigenous groups, the federal government selected the following five projects for referral to the MPO:

  1. LNG Canada Phase 2 (B.C.)
  2. Darlington New Nuclear Project (Ont.)
  3. Contrecoeur Terminal Container Project (Que.)
  4. McIlvenna Bay Foran Copper Mine Project (Sask.)
  5. Red Chris Mine expansion (B.C.)

The MPO will also create business development teams to build on the following opportunities:

  1. Critical minerals strategy
  2. Wind West Atlantic Energy (N.S.)
  3. Pathways Plus (carbon capture) (Alta.)
  4. Arctic Economy and Security corridor
  5. Port of Churchill expansion (Man.)
  6. High-speed rail (Ont.-Que.)

What to make of it all?

According to the MPO’s website, it’s engaged in three types of work:

  1. Advancing major projects deemed to be of national importance and significance
  2. Working on transformative projects and concepts that require further development
  3. Transforming regulatory processes

The first two streams of work are industrial policy, with the federal government intentionally promoting projects it deems to be in the national interest.

The third stream aims to improve the general business environment in Canada by streamlining the review process industry proponents navigate to get projects approved.

Both industrial policy and review process streamlining are critical but bringing them together under the MPO risks streamlining getting sidelined.

Advancing nation-building projects

So far, the MPO has been almost solely an exercise in industrial policy.

The federal government, through a consultation process, has referred five “nation-building” projects to the MPO, as well as six “transformative projects and concepts” for which the MPO will “create business development teams to … make these … projects a reality.” Here are a few observations:

1. Low-hanging fruit

The five “nation-building projects” are low-hanging fruit.

This makes sense. The federal government cannot wait two years to show results. But by the same token, these projects do not constitute real tests for the MPO and the Building Canada Act.

2. Key questions

The effectiveness and authority of the MPO will be defined through practice.

For example, what happens if the office decides that one of the five initial projects should not be fast-tracked? Or if the minister will not approve a project supported by the MPO? Analysis conducted by the MPO is only valuable if it carries weight in the face of political expediency.

3. Clarity needed

It is unclear whether the MPO will recommend federal or provincial financial support for projects deemed to be in the national interest. The test may be the potential new pipeline from Alberta to Prince Rupert, which currently lacks an industry proponent.

4. What is national interest?

“National interest” has yet to be defined under the BCA, though one is eventually required under the legislation.

The BCA set out five high-level “factors,” but these aren’t operationalized criteria – they don’t set out concrete considerations that facilitate the prioritization of projects.

To put it another way, there is not currently an explanation, for example, for why two of the five nation-building projects are copper mines. To make the issue more concrete, here are two examples of what operationalized criteria might look like:

  • Define minimum economic benefits (e.g., five per cent ROI over five years, 200 jobs, etc.)
  • Prioritize investing in commodities that Canada can efficiently export to countries other than the U.S. to reduce our dependence on a single market.

Operationalization can take a variety of forms. What’s important is that there is clear rationale that enable and explain project prioritization.

Streamlining regulatory approval

Industrial policy is far more exciting than regulatory streamlining, especially from a government perspective, but it would be disastrous if regulatory streamlining were to fall by the wayside.

The MPO could theoretically serve as a long-term vehicle for federal industrial policy. It shouldn’t be a long-term substitute for regulatory approvals because it could create two tiers of projects: those of interest to parliament, which will be fast-tracked under the BCA, and other projects that might be left to languish.

Canada’s federal review processes are negatively impacting investment in Canada.

For example, since its launch in 2019, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada has only completed two full impact assessments, Cedar LNG and Ksi Lisims LNG. In both instances, the federal government substituted its approval process for the already underway B.C. approval process.

This led, for instance, to Cedar LNG being approved by the federal government a day after it was approved by B.C. If Canada wants to enhance its economic potential, it needs to have clear and timely regulatory processes that facilitate industry investment.

The MPO’s mandate to “transform the regulatory process to ensure that major projects are reviewed within two years” is a substantial responsibility which has so far played second fiddle to fast-tracking “nation-building projects.”

Regulatory processes are less sexy than industrial policy, but we must improve them if we want long-term industry investment in Canada.

Each month, Building for Tomorrow explores new developments in trade-enabling infrastructure in Canada, such as the rationale behind national projects, negotiations and agreements between different Canadian jurisdictions and developments in approval processes and policy.

Building for Tomorrow is written by Ryan Workman. If you have any developments you’d like to see featured or topics that you think should be covered, please send them to .

Further reading