Canada’s infrastructure sector is in a moment of sustained acceleration, shaped by converging political priorities, renewed public investment, and the growing expectation that projects must move from concept to completion faster and with greater coordination than in previous cycles.
And while legal practitioners say the policy direction is not new, the urgency behind these big infrastructure plans is growing, offering a chance to highlight the vital role lawyers play in the process, creating both opportunity and complexity for governments, investors, and other stakeholders.
For llan Dunsky, national no-chair of the infrastructure and P3s group and global sector leader for industrials, transportation and infrastructure at Dentons, the current environment is best understood as an evolution rather than a reinvention. Infrastructure, he notes, has been a central feature of Canadian economic policy for well over two decades, supported by institutional capital, public funding programs, and a mature advisory ecosystem. “Where we are today is already in a very good place,” he says, pointing to a pipeline of projects that continues to expand across transportation, energy, and social infrastructure.
What has changed, however, is the broader geopolitical and economic context in which these projects are being advanced. Global instability, shifting trade relationships, and renewed industrial policy thinking have all contributed to a more interventionist stance by governments. Montreal-based Dunsky explains that “faced with the economic uncertainty of… an economic model being questioned for the first time in two or three generations, governments have turned to infrastructure spending as a means of stimulating the economy.”
That shift is increasingly visible in recent federal action. The Carney Liberal government, which recently achieved a majority following several opposition politicians crossing the floor and winning three byelections, has signalled a more explicit “nation-building” agenda, pairing faster approvals with targeted investments in energy corridors, trade infrastructure, and critical resource development.
This shift has broadened the definition of infrastructure itself. While traditional sectors such as transit, utilities, and housing remain central, governments are increasingly emphasizing assets with dual economic and strategic value. Dunsky highlights “dual-use” infrastructure, where projects such as northern ports or critical transportation corridors serve both commercial and national security objectives. The result is a more integrated approach to planning, where infrastructure is viewed not only as an economic stimulus but also as an expression of sovereignty and resilience.
Among closely watched developments is federal support for expanded natural gas infrastructure in British Columbia, including the recently announced Sunrise Expansion Program. It is expected to enhance pipeline capacity feeding LNG export projects on the West Coast. These initiatives reflect a broader effort to align infrastructure policy with export diversification and global energy demand, particularly in Asia-Pacific markets.
For Greg Southam, who heads the North American infrastructure/PPP practice at Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, the sector is experiencing a clear inflection point after years of uncertainty.
He says there is a shift in investor sentiment driven by greater policy clarity and renewed federal engagement. Southam frames the current landscape through three interdependent stages: “mandate, coordination, completion.” In his view, the federal government’s role in defining a national infrastructure mandate is increasingly important, particularly for projects that cross provincial boundaries or involve multiple stakeholders.
“For years, we’ve lacked certainty and stability, which discouraged investment. Now there’s a shift. The federal government is stepping in to define a clear mandate – what we’re trying to achieve as a country – and that’s critical.”
Southam also points to the impact of global disruptions in reshaping domestic priorities. Events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical conflict, and trade volatility have exposed structural gaps in Canada’s infrastructure capacity. Southam links recent federal moves – including accelerated approvals for energy export infrastructure and LNG-linked pipeline expansions – to this broader recognition that Canada must strengthen its supply chains and energy corridors. “We’ve realized gaps… These pressures have created a sense of urgency – and an opportunity,” he explains.
That urgency is translating into renewed investor interest, particularly among international players seeking stability and long-term returns. However, Southam is clear that domestic ambition alone is insufficient. “We need both,” he says, referring to the need for Canadian capacity alongside international expertise and capital. Given the scale and technical complexity of modern infrastructure, cross-border partnerships are becoming not only common but necessary.
Southam also observes a shift in how risk and incentives are being structured. Traditional models based on penalty-driven compliance are gradually being supplemented by shared incentive structures designed to align outcomes across project participants. He points to mechanisms such as shared success pools and Indigenous equity participation as examples of how alignment is being built into project design. “Providing Indigenous communities with ownership stakes is a powerful incentive,” he notes, emphasizing the long-term benefits of structural inclusion.
Brad Nicpon, a partner in McCarthy Tétrault's infrastructure and projects group, describes Canada’s upcoming infrastructure environment as a “golden era,” defined by the emergence of many new projects and rapidly evolving priorities. Over the past decade, he explains, investment focus has shifted several times – from transit and digital infrastructure to housing, and now to defence, energy systems, critical minerals, and nation-building projects.
Brad Nicpon
Governments increasingly see infrastructure as a policy tool for addressing economic threats and national security issues. “That’s why today, we're talking about defence, power, critical minerals and nation-building infrastructure,” he says. “These are projects that not only bolster our national security capabilities, but also better connect the country internally from an economic perspective”.
This evolution is closely tied to broader geopolitical pressures. Canada’s exposure to global economic uncertainty, trade tensions, and security considerations has elevated infrastructure into a tool of national strategy. Nicpon notes that governments are increasingly using infrastructure investment to strengthen sovereignty and ensure domestic resilience. That includes major energy and export infrastructure decisions, such as plans for expanded LNG-related pipeline capacity in British Columbia and associated approvals designed to support long-term export competitiveness.
“There’s a focus on connecting parts of the country in a way that allows Canada’s economy to grow and operate more independently,” he explains.
At the same time, the nature of projects themselves is changing. New asset classes – such as data centres, advanced energy systems, and defence-related infrastructure – are introducing unfamiliar regulatory and technical challenges. While Canada has long experience in transit and social infrastructure, Nicpon observes that many of these emerging project types require new frameworks and expertise.
For project proponents, success increasingly depends on preparation and alignment with government objectives. “There are actually a lot of projects, and the government is looking for projects that it can bring forward quickly,” he says. Those that are well-structured, strategically aligned, and policy-consistent are more likely to advance through funding and approval pipelines.
Nicpon also highlights the growing importance of mapping complex funding and regulatory environments. With multiple federal and provincial programs operating simultaneously, legal advisors are playing a key role in helping clients navigate overlapping frameworks and identify optimal pathways to approval.
Farris LLP partner Ryan McCracken says his perspective from British Columbia reflects many of these national themes, but with a particular emphasis on regulatory coordination and Indigenous participation. He notes that federal and provincial governments are actively working to reduce duplication and streamline approvals. “We’ve seen a focus by the federal government on attempting to remove duplication… trying to create a more unified front,” he explains.
Ryan McCracken
In British Columbia, infrastructure development is deeply shaped by Indigenous engagement, which McCracken describes as both longstanding and evolving. Early and meaningful consultation has become a defining feature of successful projects, often extending into partnership and ownership structures. “It is very common to have Indigenous involvement… and at an earlier stage,” he says.
One challenge is that many large projects cross multiple Indigenous territories, and their impacts can extend beyond the immediate project area. That means engagement needs to be broad, proactive, and thoughtful. Successful projects tend to involve Indigenous communities early and meaningfully, often through partnership arrangements.
For clients, McCracken says working with experienced legal advisors who understand how to structure these relationships is critical. “There’s already a strong foundation of successful models, so the focus should be on building on that experience rather than starting from scratch.”
The province’s infrastructure priorities are also shifting toward resource-linked and energy-intensive projects, particularly in critical minerals, electricity transmission, and port development. These projects are closely tied to broader economic goals, including export capacity supported by LNG infrastructure expansion and the build-out of West Coast energy corridors.
McCracken notes that timelines for regulatory approval appear to be improving in certain sectors, particularly where projects align closely with government priorities.
From a legal standpoint, he sees counsel as increasingly required to operate as strategic problem-solvers. “The real role and value of legal advisers… is being able to advise what’s been done before and trying to find a solution that balances everyone’s interests,” he says. In this context, legal work extends beyond risk identification to active facilitation of project delivery.
Marianne Smith and Claudie Imbleau-Chagnon at Blakes offer a complementary view of the sector from a national and Quebec perspective, emphasizing coordination and systemic complexity.
Smith, practice group leader of the procurement group and co-practice group leader of the infrastructure group, describes federal infrastructure strategy as becoming increasingly focused on targeted investment across transit, housing-enabling infrastructure, defence, and climate-related projects. Recent federal initiatives – including fast-tracked approvals and expanded funding tools for major projects of national interest, particularly in energy and transportation corridors – reflect a broader effort to accelerate delivery and reduce regulatory friction.
Marianne Smith
“It's very clear that the federal government is prioritizing infrastructure investment, she says.
“And it’s not just the federal government – many governments across Canada are doing the same.” The reason is partly an infrastructure deficit recognized for some time, but there is also a broader economic dimension. “Governments are responding to economic uncertainty and challenges in our trading relationships by investing in infrastructure as a way to bolster the resilience of the Canadian economy.”
As well, she emphasizes that the defining feature of the current cycle is not just funding levels, but the expectation of faster, more coordinated delivery.
That expectation is reshaping how legal and advisory teams operate. “We have to come to the table with solutions,” Smith explains, highlighting the need for counsel to help translate policy objectives into executable project structures.
Smith also notes that many of these projects will come with domestic procurement policies that encourage or require the use of Canadian goods and services for publicly funded projects. This is intended to support economic growth, productivity and domestic employment.
This doesn’t mean international players won’t be encouraged to take part in these projects, but they will often need support in understanding the Canadian legal and regulatory environment. “Established multinational investors tend to be more familiar with the market, but even they sometimes require guidance on the current political and policy context in Canada.”
Montreal-based Imbleau-Chagnon, also co-practice group leader of the infrastructure group at Blakes, underscores the increasing complexity of infrastructure delivery in Quebec, where energy transition objectives, social infrastructure needs, and large-scale public investment programs are converging.
Claudie Imbleau-Chagnon
She also notes that infrastructure is now widely understood as a lever for productivity, competitiveness, and decarbonization. “Infrastructure and investment [are] not only about asset replacement,” she explains, “but also a lever of productivity, economic competitiveness, decarbonization, social inclusion.”
As projects increase in scale, coordination across multiple stakeholders has become central to execution. Federal and provincial governments, municipalities, investors, lenders, and Indigenous communities must increasingly operate within aligned frameworks. Says Imbleau-Chagnon: “You need everyone who is involved on those projects to be aligned in the same direction,” she explains.
“From a legal perspective, we need to ensure consistency across agreements to avoid conflicting obligations. Our role is to help structure projects so that investment decisions can be made more efficiently, and so that regulatory frameworks remain clear, predictable and bankable.”
As well, she says, having a national perspective is very important. It allows us to bring broader experience to complex projects.
“Our role is also highly proactive. We anticipate risks, assess how they should be allocated, and understand the priorities of all stakeholders involved. We are involved from the earliest stages and continue through the full life cycle of a project, constantly anticipating what comes next.”
Both practitioners emphasize that the role of legal counsel has expanded beyond traditional advisory functions. Lawyers are now expected to anticipate risk, structure complex multi-party arrangements, and maintain coherence across regulatory, contractual, and financial systems.