By Christa Croos & Stephanie Hewson
On May 8, 2026, the federal government tabled two discussion papers aimed at getting major projects built faster (the “Proposals”).
The Proposals are being pitched as “reforms”.[1] To “reform” something is to make it better to meet your goals.
Canada’s stated goal is to create “clear and efficient processes” that will give investors and proponents “the predictability, certainty and clarity they need to invest in and build” on Indigenous territories in Canada.
However, these goals say nothing about what is broken in Canada from the perspective of Indigenous governments, including addressing problems like the long-term and cumulative impacts of development on Indigenous peoples’ constitutionally recognized rights.
We would suggest that when a government proposes to (1) undercut the protection of Indigenous peoples’ constitutionally recognized rights and (2) eliminate necessary safeguards for the environment, “reform” is the wrong word. The changes Canada is proposing are likely to have the opposite of their desired effect, putting at risk the health, safety and prosperity of all Canadians.
What is being proposed?
Canada says the Proposals aim to create a “streamlined and efficient regulatory environment”, by reducing regulatory requirements in order to increase the “economic feasibility” of projects. Canada says these changes will continue to uphold “Canada’s environmental standards and the Crown’s constitutional obligations to Indigenous Peoples”. But in reality, the Proposals would reduce opportunities to assess the impacts of projects on Indigenous peoples’ rights and territories, and undermine protection of the environment that all Canadians rely on.
Three of the most troubling Proposals are:
- Federal Economic Zones – Sacrificing Indigenous Territories Without Free, Prior, and Informed Consent: This change echoes Ontario Premier Ford’s Special Economic Zones Act. It would allow Canada to create and implement “Federal Economic Zones” where the federal Cabinet can “pre-approve” development. Once these areas are identified, Canada will have unilateral authority to move projects ahead within these zones. Canada says it will consult and collaborate with Indigenous peoples on where these areas will be and what conditions will attach to them, but this is not the same as seeking their free, prior, and informed consent. This change will essentially create sacrificial areas where environmental standards and Indigenous rights are likely to be eroded.
- Narrowing Federal Impact Assessment and Permitting Construction Before Project Assessment: Impact assessment is a crucial tool for environmental fact-finding, Indigenous consultation, and public participation, to determine if and how projects should go ahead. The Proposals would mean that very few projects will be subject to federal impact assessment and even then, only on a narrow subset of environmental effects. Other changes would allow “early construction” of projects to begin before the impact assessment is complete, creating the risk that project approval is a foregone conclusion if construction begins before an assessment is completed.
- Authorizing the Extinction of Species at Risk: Changes to the federal Species at Risk Act would allow projects to go ahead even if they could cause an at-risk species to go extinct. Many fish and wildlife species currently at risk are of critical importance to Indigenous peoples, including salmon, caribou and certain types of whales.
Why This Won’t Work:
Canada’s Proposals are built on the assumption that regulatory oversight, and the consideration of Indigenous peoples’ rights, are the sole or primary reasons that projects stall or are prevented from proceeding. But this assumption is faulty. A recent study on mining projects in British Columbia since 1995 has showed that only three of 27 mining projects were delayed for regulatory reasons, while 17 were delayed for economic factors like commodity prices.[2]
Bypassing environmental assessment and Indigenous consent results in perpetuating greater harms that are complex, long-lasting and sometimes impossible to undo. We are all too familiar with the frequency of failed tailings ponds releasing toxic mine waste into drinking water, dumping of industrial waste into lakes and rivers, and oil spills that contaminate fish and habitat. These significant costs are usually borne by the Indigenous communities on the frontlines of development, and eventually the public coffers.[3]
Finally, a lack of Indigenous consent and public buy-in result in costly and time-consuming litigation, protests, and blockades, as Indigenous governments and concerned citizens are forced to seek alternative means to have their concerns heard.[4]
What We Need Instead:
Obtaining the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous peoples for the use of their territories is a foundational principle of United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), a human rights instrument with application in Canadian law.[5] The federal government has a responsibility to uphold this law.
Upholding Indigenous rights and environmental laws will also help Canada achieve its goals. By seeking and obtaining Indigenous peoples’ consent, and conducting thorough, evidence-based impact assessments, investors and proponents gain certainty that projects will proceed, and Canada attracts better projects. For example, a joint federal-provincial-Indigenous assessment of the Voisey’s Bay nickel-copper-cobalt mine located in northern Labrador extended the project lifespan and ensured jobs for local communities.[6] Replicating processes like this one throughout the country will result in better projects everywhere.
Ultimately, if Canada continues to proceed with the Proposals to the exclusion of Indigenous peoples, the safety and prosperity of all Canadians will suffer. The way to “reform” regulatory processes in Canada is to finally and properly give effect to the rights of Indigenous peoples, including obtaining their free, prior, and informed consent for development in their territories.
What You Can Do:
Canada has extended its public consultation deadline on these proposals to July 22, 2026. To ensure your voice is heard, you can submit comments and feedback to Canada through instructions on its discussion paper website. First Nations, Inuit and Métis governments, rights holders and Indigenous Peoples can send their responses and other feedback to engagement@pco-bcp.gc.ca.
If you are concerned about a Federal Economic Zone or major project in your territory, please reach out to legal counsel at Woodward & Company.
[1] Government of Canada, “Getting Major Projects Built in Canada – Discussion Paper on Proposed Legislative, Regulatory and Policy Reforms” (May 12, 2026) <https://www.canada.ca/en/one-canadian-economy/services/simplifying-canada-process/engagement-supporting-timely-decision-making/getting-major-projects-built-canada-discussion-paper-proposed-legislative-regulatory-policy-reforms.html>.
[2] See for example: Collard et al. (2024 December 11) “Does regulation delay mines? A timeline and economic benefit audit of British Columbia.” online: < https://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2024-0083>.
[3] Anna Johnston and Kristen Theriault (West Coast Environmental Law), “An Ounce of Prevention – How Strong Environmental Laws Contribute to a Prosperous and Resilient Canada” (June 2025), online: < https://wcel.org/sites/default/files/publications/2025-06-WCEL_An-Ounce-Of-Prevention_final.pdf>.
[4] For example, three lawsuits have already been filed against Bill C-5 and Ontario’s Bill 5.
[5] United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, SC 2021 c 14, section 4(a), online: < https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/u-2.2/FullText.html>; Kebaowek First Nation v. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, 2025 FC 319.
[6] Anna Johnston and Kristen Theriault (West Coast Environmental Law), “An Ounce of Prevention – How Strong Environmental Laws Contribute to a Prosperous and Resilient Canada” (June 2025), pages 32-33, online: < https://wcel.org/sites/default/files/publications/2025-06-WCEL_An-Ounce-Of-Prevention_final.pdf>.