Canada Says It's Cutting Red Tape. So Why Are We Creating More Offices, Acts and Agencies?

Why This Matters

Federal frameworks ultimately shape which projects get built, how fast they move, and whether Canada can actually deliver on its housing and infrastructure commitments. That's particularly relevant given the urgent focus on federal housing delivery programs, which operate within this same approval environment.

First Came the Building Canada Act

On June 26, 2025, Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, received Royal Assent. One of its two major components was the new Building Canada Act.

The objective was straightforward: Canada wanted to get major projects built faster.

The Act created a special process for selected "projects of national interest"—potentially including major ports, highways, railways, mines, energy projects and other strategic infrastructure.

Once a project is formally listed under the Act, the federal government can provide an upfront national-interest decision and consolidate key subsequent federal permits and authorizations under a single minister.

The government originally said the approach was intended to shorten federal decision timelines for these projects from approximately five years to two years.

The government also committed to a "one project, one review" approach designed to reduce duplication between federal and provincial assessment systems.

In other words, the legislation itself was presented as a solution to Canada's lengthy approval process.

Then Came the Major Projects Office

The Building Canada Act was accompanied by another mechanism: the Major Projects Office, or MPO.

Its job is to serve as a single federal window for major-project proponents and coordinate among federal departments, provinces and territories, Indigenous Peoples and industry.

The MPO evaluates projects and advises the federal government about which projects should advance, including which may be suitable for the Building Canada Act process.

Again, the objective is to simplify the system. Instead of a project proponent navigating numerous parts of the federal government independently, the MPO is intended to help coordinate that process.

So Has the Building Canada Act Actually Been Used?

This is where the timeline becomes important.

The Building Canada Act became law on June 26, 2025.

Almost exactly one year later, on June 24, 2026, the federal government announced that it was initiating the process to potentially list three projects under the Act: the Mackenzie Valley Highway Project, the Grays Bay Road and Port Project, and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization's Deep Geological Repository.

That distinction matters. The announcement did not say those three projects had completed the Building Canada Act process. It said the government had initiated the process toward their potential listing.

Meanwhile, the Major Projects Office says it is supporting a much broader group of projects and strategies. In June, the federal government said 16 projects and seven transformative strategies supported by the MPO represented more than $135 billion in potential investment.

Now Comes Bill C-39

On September 21, 2026—approximately 15 months after the Building Canada Act became law—the federal government introduced another major piece of legislation:

Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act.

The government describes it as the most comprehensive reform of Canada's major-project approval system in a generation.

Among other changes, the proposed system would aim to complete necessary federal reviews and decisions within one year, once a proponent has submitted a comprehensive application and finalized the required studies and information.

It would also:

• assign certain projects to a single expert federal lead assessor;
• coordinate impact assessments and federal permitting concurrently rather than sequentially;
• consolidate certain federal decisions;
• establish a Crown Consultation Hub for Indigenous consultation;
• introduce "Regions of National Interest"; and
• change regulatory processes involving the Impact Assessment Agency, Canada Energy Regulator and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

So Bill C-39 is broader than the Building Canada Act. The Building Canada Act created a special fast-track mechanism for selected projects considered to be in the national interest. Bill C-39 attempts to change the wider federal regulatory and permitting system. That is an important distinction.

And There's Another Office

Bill C-39 also proposes a Transportation Projects Office within Transport Canada.

Its purpose would be to coordinate federal permitting for transportation projects that aren't being coordinated by the Impact Assessment Agency, Canada Energy Regulator, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission—or through the Building Canada Act.

The federal landscape would therefore include different coordinating mechanisms depending upon the project:

• the Major Projects Office;
• the Impact Assessment Agency;
• the Canada Energy Regulator;
• the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission;
• the proposed Transportation Projects Office; and
• in the territories, the existing Northern Projects Management Office.

The government's position is that these aren't intended to create additional approval layers. They are supposed to establish clear lead organizations so proponents don't have to navigate multiple federal processes independently.

Whether that produces a simpler system in practice will ultimately depend on how the agencies interact and whether overall approval times actually fall.

Bill C-39 Also Changes the Building Canada Act

This may be one of the most significant parts of the new legislation.

Bill C-39 doesn't simply create a broader permitting reform alongside the Building Canada Act. It proposes changes to the Building Canada Act itself.

According to the government's Bill C-39 backgrounder, the proposed changes would allow the responsible minister to adjust certain environmental conditions as projects evolve, send judicial reviews directly to the Federal Court of Appeal rather than beginning in Federal Court, and remove the Building Canada Act's original sunset provision so the Act could remain in force beyond its original five-year period.

That means legislation enacted only 15 months ago is already being amended before its original five-year lifespan has played out.

Why Change the System Again?

There are two different sides to this question.

The federal government's explanation is that the systems address different problems.

The Building Canada Act provides extraordinary coordination and approval mechanisms for a relatively small number of nationally significant projects.

The Major Projects Office helps shepherd major projects through government.

Bill C-39, meanwhile, is intended to reform the broader federal project-review system, including projects that may never be designated under the Building Canada Act.

The government says overlapping requirements, sequential reviews and multiple federal decision-makers continue to create unnecessary delays.

That provides a rationale for having both systems.

But it also raises a reasonable accountability question: If Canada created the Building Canada Act and Major Projects Office specifically to make major projects move faster, why are substantial additional legislative and administrative changes required just 15 months later?

The answer may simply be that the first reforms addressed only part of the problem. Federal housing programs can unlock capital and coordinate projects, but broader approval-system constraints still affect how quickly housing and infrastructure actually move through permitting and into construction.

The One-Year Promise Needs Context

"One project, one decision, in one year" is an extremely compelling target.

But there is an important qualification.

The proposed one-year federal timeline does not necessarily begin when someone first proposes a project.

According to the government's own explanation, the clock begins once the proponent has submitted its comprehensive application and finalized the studies and information required for permitting and impact assessment.

That distinction should be watched closely.

For businesses, communities and Canadians waiting for infrastructure, the meaningful measurement isn't simply how long the official federal review clock runs.

It is:

• How long does it take from a serious project entering the federal system until it receives the decisions necessary to proceed?
• How much time is spent preparing applications and studies before the formal review clock starts?
• Are we measuring the time federal government takes to decide, or the time from first concept to shovels in the ground?

Are We Eliminating Red Tape—or Reorganizing It?

It is too early to answer that definitively.

Bill C-39 was introduced only days ago and still has to move through Parliament.

The government argues that the new structure will reduce duplication by making federal reviews concurrent, assigning clearer responsibility and replacing multiple decision points with more coordinated federal decisions.

Those are potentially meaningful reforms.

But organizational charts and legislation don't build ports, mines, highways, energy infrastructure or housing.

Projects do.

So the success of these reforms should eventually be measurable:

• How many projects enter the system?
• How long do they actually take to receive decisions?
• How many reach final investment decisions?
• How many begin construction?
• How many separate federal departments or offices does a proponent still have to deal with?
• How do those results compare with the system Canada had before these reforms?

What Canadians Should Watch Next

Canada doesn't appear to lack mechanisms intended to accelerate development.

Within roughly 15 months, the federal government has established the Building Canada Act, launched the Major Projects Office and introduced Bill C-39, while now proposing another specialized Transportation Projects Office.

That doesn't automatically mean Canada has created more red tape. Some of these changes are explicitly designed to consolidate existing processes rather than add new ones.

But the ultimate test isn't how many processes are renamed, consolidated or created.

It's whether Canada can actually make decisions—and get major projects into construction—faster than it did before.

That is the number worth watching.

Frequently Asked Questions

This article is for general information and education only and is not financial, legal or investment advice. It reflects publicly available information about federal legislation and government initiatives as of September 23, 2026. Legislative details, timelines, and policy implementation are subject to change as Bill C-39 moves through Parliament. All figures and statements are sourced from official Government of Canada publications as noted above.