Bureaucracy vs Consultation: Canada's Complicated Path to Becoming an Energy Superpower

Canada has long taken pride in its strong advocacy for sustainability and environmental protection. Under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Canada implemented the Net Zero Emissions Accountability Act, set ambitious climate targets for 2030 and 2035, and supported international frameworks for fighting climate change.

However, the world has changed quickly. Since Trudeau’s departure from office in 2025, geopolitical turbulence, trade wars, and military conflict have forced Canada to reconsider its economic foundation and, consequently, its climate commitments. Prime Minister Mark Carney, though a member of the same Liberal Party as Trudeau, has taken a more pragmatic, conservative approach to the climate agenda, opting to prioritize the economic possibilities of Canada’s natural resources as he navigates a growing sovereignty movement in Alberta and ongoing tensions with U.S. President Donald Trump.

This article is the first in a series that looks at the way Canada’s sustainability trajectory has changed since 2025, highlighting some of the more significant ruptures with established trends and looking at the threats and opportunities that might lie ahead.

Reducing Barriers to Major Projects

Carney announced the formation of the Major Projects Office (MPO) on August 29, 2025. Headquartered in Calgary, the MPO operates as a single point of contact to help get major projects that contribute to Canada’s economic development built more quickly by streamlining regulatory processes and coordinating necessary financing. The MPO is the practical implementation of the strategy outlined in Bill C-5 (An Act to Enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act).

Dominic LeBlanc, the government minister responsible for Canada-U.S. trade, intergovernmental affairs, and the Canadian economy, said that the MPO represents a transformative shift in delivering infrastructure projects more quickly than ever before.

“By working closely with provincial, territorial, and Indigenous governments to streamline and simplify approval processes, the MPO will help diversify our trading relationships, strengthen our position as an energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy, and promote Canada's long-term economic prosperity,” said LeBlanc in the announcement.

The MPO is designed to address the long-standing criticism that Canada’s regulatory regime makes it difficult to approve major infrastructure projects, which consequently constrains private-sector investments. In the past, major projects have faced several levels of regulatory approval at the federal, provincial, territorial, Indigenous, and municipal levels, much of which happens consecutively, sometimes taking several years and costing millions of dollars for complex physical projects like oil and gas or chemical facilities. These approvals include extensive environmental impact assessments.

The government also has a duty to consult with Indigenous groups whose treaty rights could be in any way impacted by regulatory project approvals, licensing and authorization of permits, operational decisions, policy development, and negotiations. This duty stems from the Constitution Act, 1982 and has been affirmed several times by the Supreme Court of Canada.

A discussion paper from the Privy Council outlined the strategy to accelerate development in Canadian infrastructure while protecting the environment and respecting the process of Indigenous consultation.

Federal review and decision-making in no more than one year. Impact assessments and permit reviews will take place simultaneously instead of consecutively, with the review and decision-making taking no more than one year.

One Crown consultation process. A Crown Consultation Hub within the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) will provide a single, coordinated process for consultations with each Indigenous group impacted by a major project.

One project decision. While different federal departments will continue to review projects and provide advice, only one federal decision document will be issued by the Minister of Environment, Climate Change, and Nature (ECCN).

Single project authority. Responsibility for projects will be assigned to the federal organization with the most expertise, including the Canada Energy Regulator for energy projects and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for nuclear projects.

Economic zones enabled through regional impact assessments. Projects in Federal Economic Zones related to transportation corridors, telecommunications networks, energy, and industry would be pre-approved to reduce the permitting process and risk for investors.

Streamlined regulations. The government will make regulatory changes to improve efficiency, including transferring decision-making power to ministers, allowing some construction to begin before impact decisions are made, and potentially adjusting environmental impact assessments.

Another discussion paper from Transport Canada detailed similar changes related to transportation infrastructure projects to ensure that goods move more effectively along transportation corridors with the goal of doubling non-U.S. exports over the next decade.

Several projects have already been referred to the MPO, including the Arctic Economic and Security Corridor in the north, the Darlington New Nuclear Project in Ontario, and the Iqaluit Nukkiksautiit Hydro Project, a fully Inuit-led project in Nunavut for a 15- to 30-megawatt hydropower plant.

The government is currently engaging industry and Indigenous communities for feedback on the proposals until June 7, 2026.

Indigenous Groups Push Back Against Carney and Bill C-5

While Bill C-5 contains language expressing assurances that the duty to conduct Indigenous consultation will be upheld, Indigenous groups across Canada have decried what they see as a federal power grab and an attempt to run roughshod over Indigenous treaty rights and their role as protectors of the land.

In an interview, Rose LeMay, CEO of the Indigenous Reconciliation Group, said that Bill C-5 is a power grab that sidesteps engagement and consultation with the Indigenous nations and grants that power to the government.

“First Nations are also very concerned that their rights - as rights holders, citizens of this country, and protectors of the land - are not enshrined in this bill,” said LeMay. “And that’s a major barrier to the relationship and a major barrier to reconciliation.”

At a press conference, Nishnawbe Aski Nation Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler emphasized that Indigenous opposition to Bill C-5 and the MPO does not mean they are opposed to prosperity, but that they do not want that prosperity to come at the expense of their rights to be consulted on how Canada uses its natural resources.

“It’s not [up to] Ontario or Canada to try to dictate to ourselves or to industry how these resources should be utilized. That’s our responsibility,” Fiddler said. “Even if this bill passes, even if it does become law, it will not apply in our territories.”

In an article for the David Suzuki Foundation, Indigenous activist Katsi'tsakwas Ellen Gabriel said that Bill C-5 is an attack on the rights of Indigenous people to self-determination.

“In the rush to pass Bill C-5, Canada did not conduct proper consultations, did not cooperate with Indigenous Peoples in developing the legislation and did not obtain their Free, Prior and Informed consent,” she said. “Canada gave select Indigenous leaders one week to look over the bill's contents and make comments. This fails to meet the requirements of Canada's Constitution Act 1982, the UN declaration and the legislation for implementing it.”

Some First Nations are seizing the opportunity to partner with industry in natural resource development projects. In British Columbia (B.C.), the Nisga’a Nation near Prince Rupert has partnered with Rockies LNG Ltd. Partnership and Western LNG to develop the Ksi Lisims LNG facility, which will have the capacity to export 12 million metric tons of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from B.C. to Germany. The project was submitted to the MPO and reviewed for fast-tracked permitting and approval.

In a press conference announcing the partnership on May 27, 2026, Eva Clayton, president of the Nisg̱a'a Lisims government, said that the partnership with the First Nation was an important approach for ensuring that Canada’s ambition to become an energy superpower took place in conjunction with its responsibility to protect the environment.

“For the Nisga’a Nation, Ksi Lisims LNG has always been about developing our project in a way that is compatible with our climate goals and our environmental stewardship responsibilities,” said Clayton.

However, Indigenous territories are complex, and support from one group doesn’t mean every nation is on board. The Gitxsan Nation in B.C. opposes the construction of the Ksi Lisims LNG pipeline passing through its territory, demonstrating that the consultation and approval process is likely to be more complex than the government hopes.

“One of the biggest things that the [Nisga’a] Nation did coming out of the gate with the pipeline was the consultations with all the Indigenous groups along the pipeline,” said Clayton. “Granted, there’s a whole mixture of thoughts there, but more and more of our Indigenous people are beginning to recognize the very trying times that the world is facing, and so they’re looking at ways to bring prosperity to our people.” Clayton further said that projects like Ksi Lisims LNG have the potential to alleviate the conditions of poverty that many Indigenous groups continue to face.

On the other side of the political spectrum, the libertarian think tank The Fraser Institute has also criticized the initiative. In a commentary, authors Niels Veldhuis and Jason Clemens said that Canada is considered by many to be a country in which investment is nearly impossible because of the rigor of the approval process. While Bill C-5 might be expected to provide a remedy for this problem, Veldhuis and Clemens criticized it for placing the power to determine which projects get approval in the hands of the government instead of the private sector, which they argue will lead to cronyism, corruption, and less investment.

“With this type of ‘criteria,’ nearly anything cabinet or the prime minister can dream up could be deemed in the ‘national interest’ and therefore provide the prime minister with unprecedented and near unilateral powers,” they said.

With the global energy crisis seemingly worsening every day, many nations, including Canada, are seeking to build greater resilience to high-impact events and strengthen their energy independence. However, energy supply chains have always been fragile and complex, and crises often expose their weak points and broader vulnerabilities. Canada must now balance its economic ambitions with its responsibilities to its own communities as it attempts to navigate a new course in the global market.