Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 160, Number 18
What SOR/2026-185 actually did
On 3 September 2026 the Governor in Council amended the Project List. Pipelines, international power lines and CER-regulated offshore renewables moved to a different federal regulator. In situ oil sands facilities and fossil-fuel power plants left federal impact assessment altogether. The instrument was in force for 6 days before it was published.
This page is the regulation read line by line against the Act it amends, with every claim from both sides marked for what can actually be checked.
The headline says major emitters were removed from federal environmental review. Read against the regulation, that is one of three separate operations, and the three have different consequences. Collapsing them is how both the press release and the press statement get it wrong.
Pipelines, international and designated interprovincial power lines, and CER-regulated offshore renewables were moved. A federal review still happens, under CER Act s. 183(2), which names environmental and cumulative effects, section 35 rights, Indigenous knowledge and Canada's climate commitments as mandatory factors. The Governor in Council still decides. What was removed is the integrated review panel — assessment by people seated from outside the regulator. That is a real loss of independence and it is the only thing in this instrument that the government does not contest. Its answer is that the panel was never once used for these projects in seven years.
In situ oil sands facilities and fossil-fuel power plants were dropped. Not moved — dropped. There is no federal impact assessment and no federal power to require one through the Project List. Whether these projects are assessed is now a provincial question. The in situ entry was written as a conditional backstop that only caught projects in provinces with no legislated cap on oil sands emissions, or where the cap had been reached. Removing it removes the federal lever precisely where provincial climate law is weakest.
And section 2(1) was rewritten. This is the part with no headline. It is not a list edit: it is a standing exclusion sitting above the entire schedule, which drops any CER-regulated facility out of the Impact Assessment Act automatically. It defeats entries still printed in the schedule — a new offshore oil and gas pipeline is still listed at section 40 and is still excluded — and it will defeat entries added in future without anyone amending the list again.
The upstream change matters more than any of them. Greenhouse gas emissions stopped being an adverse effect within federal jurisdiction in 2024, after the Supreme Court found parts of the Act exceeded federal power. The government states this in its own analysis. By 3 September 2026 the Project List was being aligned to a statute that had already lost the climate test. This instrument is the downstream tidy-up.
Ten project types, and the pathway each one entered before and after 3 September 2026. Two of them are controls: nothing about them changed.
Threshold75 km or more of new right of way, CER-regulated
Moved Still a federal review. Different statute, different reviewer.
Federal review continues under the CER Act. The Governor in Council still makes the final call. What is gone is the integrated review panel — assessment by experts seated from outside the regulator.
ThresholdCER-regulated facility in a national park or protected area
Moved Still a federal review. Different statute, different reviewer.
Named in the government's own list of removals. The park does not change the answer; CER regulation does.
Threshold345 kV or more and 75 km or more of new right of way
Moved Still a federal review. Different statute, different reviewer.
The entry and the defined term that scoped it were both removed in the same instrument.
ThresholdRegulated under the CER Act
Moved Still a federal review. Different statute, different reviewer.
For CER-regulated offshore renewables the CER is the final decision-maker, not the Governor in Council. The decision leaves Cabinet entirely.
Threshold200 MW or more production capacity
Dropped No federal impact assessment. The province decides.
No federal impact assessment at any threshold. The province decides whether this project is assessed at all.
Threshold50% increase and 200 MW or more total
Dropped No federal impact assessment. The province decides.
Same answer as a new plant. Federal designation is gone.
Threshold2,000 m³/day bitumen, in a province with no legislated oil sands emissions cap
Dropped No federal impact assessment. The province decides.
The old entry only bit where a province had no legislated cap on oil sands emissions, or had reached it. That conditional federal backstop is now gone.
Threshold50% increase and 2,000 m³/day or more total
Dropped No federal impact assessment. The province decides.
Same conditional backstop, same repeal.
Threshold200 MW or more production capacity
Unchanged Same pathway as before the amendment.
Nothing changed. A large dam is designated today exactly as it was before the amendment.
ThresholdNew storage, long-term management or disposal facility
Unchanged Same pathway as before the amendment.
Nothing changed.
Every provision SOR/2026-185 touched, with the wording as it stood in SOR/2019-285 beside what replaced it. The last two entries are untouched, printed as controls.
The construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of a new fossil fuel-fired power generating facility with a production capacity of 200 MW or more.
No federal impact assessment. Provincial assessment only.
Province decidess. 3 of SOR/2026-185
SOR/2026-185, Canada Gazette Part II · Physical Activities Regulations, SOR/2019-285
The expansion of an existing fossil fuel-fired power generating facility, if the expansion would result in an increase in production capacity of 50% or more and a total production capacity of 200 MW or more.
No federal impact assessment. Provincial assessment only.
Province decidess. 3 of SOR/2026-185
SOR/2026-185, Canada Gazette Part II · Physical Activities Regulations, SOR/2019-285
The construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of a new in situ oil sands extraction facility that has a bitumen production capacity of 2 000 m³/day or more and that is (a) not within a province in which provincial legislation is in force to limit the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced by oil sands sites in the province; or (b) within a province in which such a limit is in force and that limit has been reached.
No federal impact assessment. Provincial assessment only.
Province decidess. 3 of SOR/2026-185
This entry was a conditional backstop. It only caught a project where the province had no legislated cap on oil sands emissions, or had already hit it. Repealing it removes the federal lever that applied specifically where provincial climate law was absent.
SOR/2026-185, Canada Gazette Part II · Physical Activities Regulations, SOR/2019-285
The expansion of an existing in situ oil sands extraction facility, if the expansion would result in an increase in bitumen production capacity of 50% or more and a total bitumen production capacity of 2 000 m³/day or more, subject to the same provincial greenhouse-gas condition.
No federal impact assessment. Provincial assessment only.
Province decidess. 3 of SOR/2026-185
SOR/2026-185, Canada Gazette Part II · Physical Activities Regulations, SOR/2019-285
The construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of either of the following: (a) a new international electrical transmission line with a voltage of 345 kV or more that requires a total of 75 km or more of new right of way; (b) a new interprovincial power line designated by an order under section 261 of the Canadian Energy Regulator Act.
The entry and its heading were replaced with the bare heading "Pipelines". The designation is gone; review runs under the Canadian Energy Regulator Act.
Canada Energy Regulators. 4 of SOR/2026-185
SOR/2026-185, Canada Gazette Part II · Physical Activities Regulations, SOR/2019-285
The construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of a new pipeline, as defined in section 2 of the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, other than an offshore pipeline, that requires a total of 75 km or more of new right of way.
No Impact Assessment Act designation. The Canada Energy Regulator reviews it under the CER Act.
Canada Energy Regulators. 5 of SOR/2026-185
SOR/2026-185, Canada Gazette Part II · Physical Activities Regulations, SOR/2019-285
The physical activities that are set out in the schedule are designated for the purpose of the definition designated project in section 2 of the Impact Assessment Act.
The physical activities set out in the schedule — other than the construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of a regulated facility as defined in section 2 of the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, if those activities are regulated under that Act — are designated.
Canada Energy Regulators. 2 of SOR/2026-185
This is the structural change, and it is not a list edit. It is a standing exclusion that sits above the entire schedule. Anything the CER Act regulates falls out of the Impact Assessment Act automatically — including entries still printed in the schedule, and including entries added to it in future.
SOR/2026-185, Canada Gazette Part II · Physical Activities Regulations, SOR/2019-285
A defined term used to scope the s. 39 power-line entry.
Repealed as consequential to the removal of s. 39.
Canada Energy Regulators. 1(1) of SOR/2026-185
Land developed for an electrical transmission line, oil and gas pipeline, railway line or all-season public highway, not contiguous to existing such development.
Land to be developed for a railway line or an all-season public highway only. Transmission lines and pipelines are struck from the defined term.
Canada Energy Regulators. 1(2) of SOR/2026-185
The construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of a new offshore oil and gas pipeline, other than a flowline.
Still printed in the schedule. Caught by the new s. 2(1) carve-out where the pipeline is a CER-regulated facility, so the entry survives on paper while the designation does not.
Canada Energy Regulatoruntouched by SOR/2026-185
Reading the schedule alone gives the wrong answer for this entry. The carve-out in the body governs.
SOR/2026-185, Canada Gazette Part II · Physical Activities Regulations, SOR/2019-285
The construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of a new hydroelectric generating facility with a production capacity of 200 MW or more, and specified tidal facilities.
Still designated. Still a full Impact Assessment Act project.
Impact Assessment Act—
Printed here as a control. The amendment is targeted, not general — a large hydro dam enters exactly the process it entered on 2 September 2026.
The construction and operation of a new facility for the storage, long-term management or disposal of irradiated nuclear fuel or nuclear waste.
Still designated. Still a full Impact Assessment Act project.
Impact Assessment Act—
A second control.
Section 2(1) was not edited like a list. It became a filter above the whole schedule.
Before the amendment, section 2(1) designated the physical activities set out in the schedule. After it, the same section designates those activities other than the construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of a regulated facility as defined in section 2 of the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, if those activities are regulated under that Act.
Three consequences follow, and none of them are in a press release. Anything the CER Act regulates is out of the Impact Assessment Act automatically, whether or not the schedule mentions it. Entries still printed in the schedule are defeated by it — a new offshore oil and gas pipeline is still listed at section 40 and is still excluded. And any entry added to the list in future is pre-emptively carved out if the CER regulates it, without a further amendment.
The RIAS also says more is coming: further amendments responding to the 2024 Project List Review will be proposed at a later date. This instrument was the targeted subset.
What is actually owed under each pathway. This is the question the fight skipped: not whether review happens, but which duties survive the move. Read the climate row twice.
Required under the IAA as amended in 2024, narrowed to adverse effects within federal jurisdiction.
CER Act s. 183(2)(a) — the Commission must consider environmental effects, including any cumulative environmental effects.
Set by provincial statute. No federal floor.
Canadian Energy Regulator Act, s. 183 · SOR/2026-185, Canada Gazette Part II
The 2024 amendments narrowed adverse effects within federal jurisdiction. The government's own RIAS states greenhouse gas emissions would not be considered an adverse effect within federal jurisdiction for certain projects.
CER Act s. 183(2)(j) — the Commission must consider the extent to which the effects of the pipeline hinder or contribute to the Government of Canada's ability to meet its environmental obligations and its commitments in respect of climate change.
Set by provincial statute.
This row runs against the headline. For a pipeline, the CER Act names climate commitments as a mandatory factor in express words. The amended Impact Assessment Act does not carry an equivalent express duty, because greenhouse gases were narrowed out of federal jurisdiction in 2024 — before this instrument existed.
Canadian Energy Regulator Act, s. 183 · SOR/2026-185, Canada Gazette Part II
Required.
CER Act s. 183(2)(e) — effects on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The Crown's duty to consult is constitutional and does not depend on the Project List.
Canadian Energy Regulator Act, s. 183 · SOR/2026-185, Canada Gazette Part II
Required.
CER Act s. 183(2) — the recommendation is made in light of, among other things, any Indigenous knowledge provided to the Commission.
Set by provincial statute.
The integrated review panel was the mechanism: experts appointed from outside the assessing body.
No equivalent. The CER Commission conducts the review itself.
No federal panel.
This is the clearest single loss in the instrument, and the government does not dispute it. Its answer is that the mechanism was never used: no assessment by an integrated review panel has ever been conducted for a pipeline or electrical transmission line under the IAA.
SOR/2026-185, Canada Gazette Part II · National Observer — Fawcett-Atkinson, 10 Sept 2026
Required.
CER Act s. 183(3) — any member of the public may make representations with respect to an application for a certificate.
Set by provincial statute.
Required.
CER Act s. 183(1) — the Commission must prepare, submit to the Minister and make public a report setting out its recommendation and the reasons for it, plus every condition it considers necessary.
Set by provincial statute.
Time limits set under the IAA and the Information and Management of Time Limits Regulations.
CER Act s. 183(4) — no longer than 450 days after a complete application, extendable by the Minister under s. 183(6).
Set by provincial statute.
Governor in Council for panel projects; Minister or Governor in Council otherwise.
Governor in Council for pipelines and international power lines requiring 75 km or more of new right of way. The CER itself for CER-regulated offshore renewables.
Provincial decision-maker. No federal decision at all.
For pipelines the decision-maker is the same body before and after: the Governor in Council, which is Cabinet. A claim that this instrument moved pipeline approval into Cabinet does not survive the statute — it was already there.
SOR/2026-185, Canada Gazette Part II · Canadian Energy Regulator Act, s. 183
Yes, for a designated project.
Yes, under the CER Act.
No. For in situ oil sands and fossil-fuel power plants there is now no federal impact assessment, and no federal power to require one through the Project List.
The whole argument reduces to this row. For pipelines and power lines the answer is still yes. For in situ oil sands and gas plants it is now no.
Environmental Defence said there was no forewarning, no press release and no press conference. When Julia Levin wrote that, it was accurate — the group published before the government did, and National Observer recorded that order.
The regulation was registered on 3 September 2026 and came into force that day. It was published on 9 September. For six days it was law that no one outside government could read. Prepublication in Canada Gazette Part I — the step where a draft is shown to the public before it binds — was formally exempted, and the RIAS says so in plain words.
The other half is equally on the record. A discussion paper proposing this exact transfer was published on 8 May 2026. Engagement ran to 22 July 2026. Letters went to every premier, to more than a hundred national associations, and to Indigenous rights-holders with capacity funding attached. Removing in situ oil sands and gas plants had been consulted on in summer 2024. Hundreds of submissions came in, and the RIAS records that members of the public objected to exactly what has now happened.
So both sentences are true. The direction was public for sixteen months. The instrument was not, and it was in force before it was published. Those are different failures and only one of them is a surprise.
Parts of the Act are found to exceed federal jurisdiction.
Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 · SOR/2026-185, Canada Gazette Part II
The definition of adverse effects within federal jurisdiction is narrowed. Per the government's RIAS, greenhouse gas emissions are no longer an adverse effect within federal jurisdiction for certain projects. This is the change that did the work; the Project List is downstream of it.
The Impact Assessment Agency consults on options including removal of in situ oil sands facilities and fossil-fuel-fired power generating facilities from the Regulations.
Getting Major Projects Built in Canada is published. It proposes exactly this: assigning assessment of CER-regulated projects to the CER. Letters go to all premiers, 100+ national associations, investors, environmental organisations and Indigenous rights-holders.
Hundreds of submissions on pipeline reviews and the CER. Industry supportive. Members of the public raise the weakening of independent assessment. Indigenous groups raise UNDRIP concerns about removing independent review panels.
P.C. 2026-784 makes SOR/2026-185. Section 6: these Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered. The law changes on this date.
The RIAS records that an exemption from prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I was sought, on the ground that consultation had already been undertaken. Part I is the step where a draft regulation is shown to the public before it becomes law. It did not happen.
Six days after it took effect, the instrument is published. The consultation report is published the same day.
SOR/2026-185, Canada Gazette Part II · CBC News — Major & Thurton, 9 Sept 2026
Julia Levin: "There was no forewarning of this decision. No press release. No press conference." At the moment this was written, it was accurate.
Environmental Defence, 9 Sept 2026 · National Observer — Fawcett-Atkinson, 10 Sept 2026
National Observer records the order: Environmental Defence published soon after the amendments were made, and the government subsequently issued its own statement, in the afternoon.
National Observer — Fawcett-Atkinson, 10 Sept 2026 · Government of Canada news release, 9 Sept 2026
The same story reports that the Liberals are preparing to back down on a separate proposal that would have bypassed the Species at Risk Act jeopardy test.
Environment and Climate Change Canada does not answer by deadline whether the CER will evaluate the greenhouse gas impact of pipelines and power lines.
Every substantive claim made about this amendment, by whoever made it, checked against the regulation and the Acts. Contested does not mean false — it means two sourced accounts disagree and both are printed.
Pipelines, in situ oil sands extraction and fossil gas plants have been taken out of Impact Assessment Act review.
Correct, and the regulation is more sweeping than the claim. Sections 30 to 33, 39 and 41 are gone, and a new standing carve-out in s. 2(1) excludes every CER-regulated facility from the whole schedule.
Environmental Defence, 9 Sept 2026 · SOR/2026-185, Canada Gazette Part II
The 2024 amendments removed greenhouse gas emissions as effects within federal jurisdiction.
Corroborated by the government's own Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement, which states that under the amended definition, greenhouse gas emissions would not be considered an adverse effect within federal jurisdiction for purposes of the IAA for certain projects.
Environmental Defence, 9 Sept 2026 · SOR/2026-185, Canada Gazette Part II
There was no forewarning of this decision. No press release. No press conference.
True of the instrument, false of the policy. Prepublication in Gazette Part I was formally exempted, and the regulation was in force for six days before anyone outside government could read it. Against that: a discussion paper proposing this exact change was published on 8 May 2026, engagement ran to 22 July 2026, and the removal of in situ oil sands and gas plants was consulted on in summer 2024. Both halves are on the record.
Environmental Defence, 9 Sept 2026 · SOR/2026-185, Canada Gazette Part II · CBC News — Major & Thurton, 9 Sept 2026
The Canada Energy Regulator does not have the same mandate or depth of expertise on environmental issues, such as species at risk and fish habitat.
The mandate claim does not hold: CER Act s. 183(2) requires the Commission to consider environmental effects including cumulative effects, section 35 rights, Indigenous knowledge, and climate commitments. The expertise claim is a staffing question nobody has answered on the record. The specific, checkable difference is structural: the IAA route seated an independent panel from outside the assessing body, and the CER route does not.
Environmental Defence, 9 Sept 2026 · Canadian Energy Regulator Act, s. 183 · National Observer — Fawcett-Atkinson, 10 Sept 2026
The change makes project decision-making more political.
For pipelines and international power lines the final decision-maker is the Governor in Council both before and after. It did not move into Cabinet, because it was already there. What changed is who advises Cabinet: a panel seated from outside, or the regulator itself. For CER-regulated offshore renewables the decision moves the other way, out of Cabinet to the CER.
Environmental Defence, 9 Sept 2026 · Canadian Energy Regulator Act, s. 183 · SOR/2026-185, Canada Gazette Part II
No assessment by an integrated review panel has ever been conducted for a pipeline or electrical transmission line under the Impact Assessment Act.
Stated in the RIAS and not contradicted by any source found. The mechanism removed for these projects was never once used between 2019 and 2026.
These projects and facilities will continue to be subject to equally robust applicable provincial and federal assessment processes.
"Equally robust" is the government's characterisation and it is not established. For in situ oil sands and fossil-fuel power plants there is no longer a federal assessment process at all, so the sentence rests entirely on provincial regimes that vary and that the federal government does not control.
Government of Canada news release, 9 Sept 2026 · National Observer — Fawcett-Atkinson, 10 Sept 2026
Fossil-fuel power plants were 20% of initial project descriptions under the IAA and consistently received decisions that no comprehensive impact assessment was required.
Stated in the RIAS cost-benefit analysis. On the government's own numbers the removal takes 2 to 3 projects a year out of a baseline of about 10, and saves $14,867 a year in annualised administrative cost.
No in situ oil sands projects captured by the Project List are anticipated in the next 10 years.
Stated in the RIAS. On this analysis the in situ repeal has no near-term practical effect, which cuts against the government's efficiency rationale as much as against the criticism — it removes a backstop that was costing nothing.
Tim Hodgson, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources: "we're not lowering standards, but raising competence."
Not testable as written. The checkable version is whether CER reviews of the newly-captured project types produce comparable evidence, conditions and disclosure. No such project has been through the new pathway yet.
Government of Canada news release, 9 Sept 2026 · National Observer — Fawcett-Atkinson, 10 Sept 2026
The changes effectively remove the possibility of meaningful environmental assessment of any future data centres built in Alberta.
Reported by National Observer. Alberta exempted the $70 billion Wonder Valley data centre project from environmental impact assessment in the past year, and the provincial regulator told Suncor it would not need an assessment before releasing up to 12 million cubic metres of treated oil sands tailings water into the Athabasca River.
There will still be an environmental assessment, done by one regulator instead of two, and the change will help attract investment.
Accurate for pipelines and power lines, which keep a federal review under the CER Act. Not accurate for in situ oil sands and fossil-fuel power plants, where the count goes from one federal regulator to none.
Removing independent review panels limits the ability to engage in processes that are fair, impartial and consistent with UNDRIP.
Recorded in the government's own RIAS, in the Indigenous engagement section, alongside concerns that co-management regimes could be overlooked. The RIAS answers that CER hearings allow the Crown to meet its obligations and that treaties prevail.
The research agenda this page started with. Four of these the regulation answers itself. Four nobody has answered.
Answered in full by the crosswalk above. Sections 30 to 33, 39 and 41 of the schedule, the s. 1(1) definition of international electrical transmission line, and the pipeline and transmission limbs of new right of way. Plus the standing carve-out in s. 2(1), which is the part no press release mentioned.
For pipelines and power lines: a federal review continues under CER Act s. 183(2), which lists environmental and cumulative effects, section 35 rights, Indigenous knowledge, health and social effects, and climate commitments. The integrated review panel does not survive. For in situ oil sands and gas plants there is no federal review at all.
Governor in Council for pipelines and international power lines needing 75 km or more of new right of way, before and after. The CER itself for CER-regulated offshore renewables. A provincial decision-maker for in situ oil sands and fossil-fuel power plants.
Simplify the decision process by assigning assessment to a single federal regulator, and align the Project List with the Impact Assessment Act as amended in 2024. The costed benefit is $14,867 a year in annualised administrative savings and 846 hours across three proponents.
Not established. The RIAS anticipates one interprovincial pipeline in the baseline and at minimum one pipeline, one transmission line and one offshore wind project meeting the threshold within ten years. No source names a specific project that changed pathway on 3 September 2026.
CER Act s. 183(2)(j) names climate commitments as a mandatory factor, so the statutory answer is yes. National Observer put the practical question to Environment and Climate Change Canada and received no answer by deadline, with a spokesperson saying some questions are best answered by other agencies.
Unanswered on the record by either side. Environmental Defence asserts it does not. The government asserts the CER has conducted over 100 pipeline reviews under these factors since 2019. Neither has published a comparison of scientific staffing.
More is coming. The RIAS states that further amendments responding to the 2024 Project List Review and consultation will be proposed at a later date. This instrument was explicitly the targeted subset.
The mechanism is not new. These are the nearest cases already on the record, and where the comparison stops.
It opens the statutory space before the legal posture can change.
The nearest precedent in the archive. A Gazette notice can be legally consequential without being an approval, because it changes the sequence in which later action becomes possible. This instrument approves nothing. It moves the gate.
And it is that.
Streamlining as the removal of the layer that created friction. The comparison holds for the integrated review panel and fails for the rest: the CER Act keeps hearings, reports, reasons and public representations.
The science finding still happens.
The distinction between keeping an expert process and making its findings bind. This is the right frame for the duty ledger: the finding still happens under the CER Act, and the question is who makes it and what it constrains.
Signed a 15 May 2026 bilateral MoU with Alberta advancing an oil pipeline and weakening industrial carbon pricing, framed as compatible with working toward net-zero.
The political context, one week after the discussion paper that proposed this amendment. Climate-facing authority and fossil expansion running on the same calendar.
"Modernization" is the word laid over "we have removed the rule this appointment would have failed."
The administrative label over the substantive rule. Here the label is "streamlines project assessments" and the substantive rule is s. 2(1).
The RIAS says further Project List amendments are coming. One email when an entry here is added, corrected or overtaken. Nothing else, ever.
Primary means the regulation, the statute or the government's own Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement. Advocacy means an organisation arguing a position. Reported means a named journalist. The distinction is kept everywhere on this page and it is the reason some rows say contested rather than false.