Ottawa hasn’t defined ‘national interest’ under major projects law

OTTAWA — The federal government still has not issued specific criteria to define the “national interest” under its new major projects law, despite calls from MPs to do so.

The Building Canada Act allows the government to identify projects in the “national interest” for faster approval processes, which could include exemptions from certain environmental laws.

As the government rushed the bill through the House of Commons in June, MPs studying it at the committee stage amended it to suggest that the government offer its criteria for determining which projects are in the national interest, and to require it to issue a timeline for when that might happen.

The amendment was moved by the Conservatives and narrowly passed on a 5-4 vote, with the Liberals opposing it.

In response, Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc tabled a report in the House on Sept. 26 saying the government had not defined “national interest.” The report did not say when, or if, the government would offer a definition.

“The Government has not made an order to prescribe the definition of national interest, and this report fulfils the legislative reporting requirement,” the brief report says.

The Building Canada Act does list five criteria the government can consider in deciding which projects get the fast-track treatment — but the government isn’t bound to them.

Those criteria include whether a project provides economic benefits to Canada, advances the interests of Indigenous peoples, or contributes to Canada’s climate change goals.

Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs pushed forward the amendment at the committee stage. In an interview on Monday she said the intent was to give investors clarity about how the government defines national interest.

“The government must clearly define what measures they use to declare what is in the national interest,” Stubbs told The Canadian Press.

“It’s important because the national interest designation is the final step that the cabinet makes when it approves or rejects a recommendation from the regulator.”

Asked for her thoughts on the government’s response to MPs calling for a definition of “national interest,” Stubbs said its actions speaks louder than its words.

“Canadians and proponents of major projects are right then to say they need to provide this clarity and certainty for investors,” she said.

Bloc Québécois MP Xavier Barsalou-Duval, who supported the Conservative amendment, said the law as written is too vague.

“The fact that there isn’t a real definition for what constitutes a project of national interest opens the door for all sorts of abuse, given that the law is already problematic since it can skirt pretty much any law in Canada,” he said.

“What we wanted was binding criteria.”

A spokesperson for the Bloc said the party is reviewing the report, specifically whether the government breached the act by not providing the required timeline in it.

The Canadian Press asked LeBlanc’s office whether the government intends to define “national interest” under the act and why the report to Parliament didn’t include a timeline.

His spokesperson deferred questions to the Privy Council Office.

In a statement, a PCO spokesperson said the requirement to define “national interest” was “discretionary,” and that the government had no obligation to define it beyond the five factors outlined in the bill.

Pierre-Alain Bujold said if the government had decided to further define the term more than 15 days after the bill became law, then it would have needed to explain the delay.

“Because the government has decided not to further refine the term in an order, this report fulfills the legislative reporting requirement,” he said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 20, 2025.

Nick Murray, The Canadian Press