Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 160, Number 41: ORDERS IN COUNCIL

October 10, 2026

MAJOR PROJECTS OFFICE

BUILDING CANADA ACT

Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Building Canada Act

P.C. 2026-925 October 1, 2026

Whereas the West Coast Oil Pipeline project (the Project) is an interprovincial pipeline being advanced by Trans Mountain Corporation, Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission and Pembina Pipeline Corporation;

Whereas, on July 2, 2026, the Government of Canada announced that it was launching a process to consider listing the Project as a national interest project under the Building Canada Act (the Act);

Whereas, on August 1, 2026, in accordance with subsection 5(1.1) of the Act, a notice of more than 30 days, which included the name and description of the Project, was caused to be published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, advising that the Governor in Council may amend Schedule 1 of the Act to list the Project as a project of national interest;

Whereas the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada, being satisfied that the conditions set out in subsection 5(6.1) of the Act have been met, recommends that the annexed Order under subsection 5(1) of the Act be made;

Whereas, in accordance with subsection 5(7) of the Act, the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada, before recommending that the annexed Order be made under subsection 5(1) of the Act, consulted with other federal ministers that the Minister considered appropriate, with the governments of Alberta and British Columbia and with Indigenous peoples whose rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 may be adversely affected by the carrying out of the Project;

Whereas the Governor in Council, in deciding whether to make an order under subsection 5(1) of the Act to add the name of the Project and a detailed description of it, including the location where it is to be carried out, to Schedule 1 of the Act, has considered the factors that the Governor in Council considers relevant, including those factors set out in subsection 5(6) of the Act, and has taken into account the concerns identified during consultations between the Crown and Indigenous peoples;

Whereas the Governor in Council has considered the adverse impacts on marine and terrestrial environments that the Project may cause and the potential for those adverse impacts to be mitigated, and has determined that the potential benefits of the project outweigh its potential impacts, costs and limitations;

Whereas the Governor in Council is satisfied that the consultation process between the Crown and Indigenous peoples provided meaningful dialogue, and that Canada has fulfilled the duty to consult, consistent with the honour of the Crown, in relation to the proposed amendment to add the Project to the list of national interest projects set out in Schedule 1 to the Act;

And whereas the Governor in Council has determined that the Project would strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience and security while creating material economic benefits that will improve the nation’s prosperity, and that making an order under subsection 5(1) of the Act in respect of the Project at this time is warranted to build investor confidence and to ensure that Canada is acting swiftly to counteract the undervaluation of one of its most important exports and to unlock critical growth and revenue during a period of global economic instability and realignment;

Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, being of the opinion that the West Coast Oil Pipeline project is in the national interest, on the recommendation of the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada, makes the annexed Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Building Canada Act under subsection 5(1) of the Building Canada Act.

Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Building Canada Act

Amendment

1 Schedule 1 to the Building Canada Act is amended by adding the following in numerical order:

Item	Column 1 Name of Project	Column 2 Description of Project
1	West Coast Oil Pipeline	Interprovincial pipeline capable of transporting one million barrels per day of Canadian crude oil, from Bruderheim, Alberta (approximately 50 km northeast of Edmonton) to a deepwater port near Delta, British Columbia (approximately 35 km south of Vancouver), for transfer to vessels and shipping to global markets, including the following major components: 1 a receipt tank terminal in Bruderheim, Alberta, where product will be received, measured, stored and then pumped through the pipeline; 2 a pipeline up to approximately 1 250 km in length; 3 power interconnection, transmission and possible generation; 4 approximately 11 pump stations along the route to keep product flowing and maintain the required flow rate and pressure over long distances; and 5 a delivery tanks terminal and offshore marine loading facility with capacity for Very Large Crude Carrier vessels where product will be delivered, stored and then loaded onto Very Large Crude Carrier vessels.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Order.)

Proposal

On July 2, 2026, the Government of Alberta submitted a proposal to the Major Projects Office (MPO), asking Canada to consider the proposed West Coast Oil Pipeline (the Project) for listing as a national interest project under the Building Canada Act (the Act, or the BCA). This proposal followed a November 27, 2025 Memorandum of Understanding and a May 15, 2026 Implementation Agreement completed between Canada and Alberta, in which both Canada and Alberta affirmed the importance of augmenting Canada’s export of domestic oil to foreign markets as one element in a national strategy to meet a pivotal global moment.

The Project is a proposed interprovincial pipeline capable of transporting approximately 1 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of Canadian crude oil from Bruderheim, Alberta, to a deepwater port near Delta, British Columbia (BC), where the oil would be transferred to vessels and shipped to global markets.

Order

The Governor in Council (GIC), pursuant to subsection 5(1) of the Act and on the recommendation of the Minister responsible under the Act, the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada — the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc (the Minister) — amends Schedule 1 of the Act to add the Project as a national interest project, as specified in the Order in Council to which this Explanatory Note is appended.

Objective

The objective of this Order is to enable the Project’s timely development by bringing it within the regulatory framework of the Act, based on the GIC’s determination that the Project is in Canada’s national interest and that the Act thus supplies an appropriate framework to structure applicable federal regulatory authorizations, ensure appropriate environmental safeguards, and meet Canada’s constitutional obligations to Indigenous peoples.

Background

Building Canada Act context

The Act was enacted by Parliament on June 26, 2025, to provide a simplified, direct, timely and comprehensive process to secure federal regulatory authorization for projects determined to be of vital interest to Canada.

The legislation provides Canada with a means to confront the reality that nation-building natural resource and infrastructure projects have long faced complicated, cumbersome and time-consuming federal regulatory processes. This has fostered uncertainty and deterred proponents from pursuing projects that could render vital social and economic benefits to Canada. The federal regulatory system for major projects has involved numerous authorizations and permitting decisions distributed among multiple federal agencies and departments, each requiring separate applications from project proponents, and entailing multiple, often disjointed processes of consultation with Indigenous communities. The duration and complexity of this system can delay federal authorization of worthy project proposals for years, and systemically limit the willingness of proponents to bring forward projects that complement Canada’s economic growth, security, and prosperity. Proponents are required to make large investments in project development, and to produce the detailed information required for project applications, without any certainty about whether the project would be approved until the end of these lengthy and complex processes.

While this problem was already acute, it became pressing following the rupture of prior stable forms of international economic integration and trade brought about by the sudden change in policy orientation of the United States (US), Canada’s largest trading partner and the market for the majority of Canadian exports. Canada faces new geopolitical circumstances in which overreliance on trade and economic integration with a single dominant power threatens to undermine national sovereignty. Trade-exposed sectors and regions have already faced significant adverse impacts as a result of these changes, and the accompanying uncertainty has weighed on Canada’s economy, impacted Canadian workers, and placed livelihoods at risk.

To preserve its sovereignty and quality of life, Canada must act ambitiously to grow domestic economic resources and strengthen access to more diverse trade and investment partners. Securing confidence in Canada’s ability to develop major natural resource and infrastructure projects is foundational.

Framework and objectives

The Act provides a means to advance Canada’s ability to develop major natural resource and infrastructure projects. It enables the GIC to determine whether certain projects are of such importance to Canada that they warrant early confidence in the approval of applicable federal permits and authorizations, shifting Canada’s regulatory focus from “whether” a project should proceed to “how” it should proceed.

This reorientation of federal decision-making occurs within the framework of Canada’s respect for Aboriginal and treaty rights as recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982; its duty to consult with Indigenous peoples; its commitment to reconciliation; and its respect for the rights set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Crown-Indigenous consultation is explicitly required to inform key decisions taken under the Act, including decisions to list national interest projects. These decisions can be taken only after Canada has met its duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous peoples whose Aboriginal and treaty rights may be adversely affected by the carrying out of the projects to which the decisions relate.

The reorientation of federal decision-making itself is achieved in two steps.

First, the GIC’s decision to list a national interest project under Schedule 1 of the Act (a listing decision) results in immediate, deemed fulfillment of substantive prerequisites to the release of federal permits and authorizations listed in Schedule 2 of the Act. Project proponents, investors, Indigenous communities, and Canadians thus receive the immediate confidence needed to marshal initiative and resources in support of the project. Consultation with Indigenous communities prior to a listing decision facilitates involvement early in project development. It allows for Indigenous perspectives on whether a project is in Canada’s national interest, and enables Indigenous communities to identify key issues and opportunities early to better inform subsequent project development and regulatory review.

Second, the Act enables diffuse federal regulatory processes to be consolidated in support of a single, omnibus authorization from the Minister responsible under the Act. This omnibus authorization (the Conditions Document) defines the regulatory conditions under which project construction and operation can occur. These conditions are developed based on further assessment and consultation with Indigenous communities about the project’s impacts, following receipt of a regulatory application by the proponent. The consolidation of authorizations under a single framework streamlines the process for proponents, and provides a better coordinated process of consultation with Indigenous communities, building on the consultation undertaken prior to a listing decision.

The Act also recognizes a commitment to working in partnership with Indigenous peoples and envisages opportunities for Indigenous peoples to participate in the advancement of major projects as proponents, stakeholders, and investors. The Act identifies the extent to which a project can advance the interests of Indigenous peoples as one of the key factors relevant to the GIC’s determination of whether a project is in the national interest.

Finally, the Act reflects Canada’s commitment to safeguard the natural environment — including through the mitigation of potential effects of project development on critical species, habitats, and marine and terrestrial ecosystems — and to meet the challenges of climate change.

MPO, as a Special Operating Agency within Canada’s Privy Council Office, supports the Minister in the administration of the Act.

West Coast Oil Pipeline Project

The Project is a proposed interprovincial pipeline to transport approximately 1 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of crude oil from Bruderheim, Alberta, to a deepwater port near Delta, British Columbia. Key components of the Project include

• a receipt tank terminal in Bruderheim, Alberta, where product will be received, measured, stored, and then pumped through the pipeline;
• a pipeline up to approximately 1 250 km in length;
• power interconnection, transmission, and possible generation;
• approximately 11 pump stations along the route to keep product flowing and maintain the required flow rate and pressure over long distances; and
• a delivery tanks terminal and offshore marine loading facility with capacity for Very Large Crude Carrier vessels where product will be delivered, stored, and then loaded on to Very Large Crude Carrier vessels.

The Project corridor will begin at a receipt terminal in Bruderheim, Alberta, which will collect Canadian crude oil from various pipelines in Alberta, serving as a central hub where the product will be measured, stored, and then pumped into the pipeline. The pipeline and pump stations will transport the crude oil to a proposed marine terminal (Delivery Tank Terminal) near Delta, British Columbia, for loading onto marine vessels for export to global markets. The corridor for the pipeline largely aligns with disturbed land and existing infrastructure, including the existing Trans Mountain pipeline system (i.e. Line 2, the Trans Mountain Expansion Project [TMEP]).

Two marine berths will be designed to support Very Large Crude Carriers; these vessels typically have a capacity of two million barrels. After loading, marine vessels would follow existing navigation lanes (i.e. International Maritime Organization-adopted traffic separation schemes) within the Delta area, British Columbia, and the 12-nautical-mile limit of Canada’s territorial sea at the western entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Ownership Group

Trans Mountain Corporation (TMC), Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission (APMC), and Pembina Pipeline Corporation (Pembina) [together, the Ownership Group] will form and lead a new jointly owned company:

• Pembina’s economic interest through construction will be 10 percent, with the opportunity of up to an additional 10 percent once the Project enters commercial operation.
• TMC and APMC will own equal shares of the balance of the Project.

In addition, a minimum of 10 percent ownership interest in the Project will be offered for purchase to Indigenous peoples.

TMC will be responsible for the construction of the proposed Project, making regulatory submissions to receive permits to operate, and subsequent operation of the asset. TMC will be engaged by the new company to design, develop, permit, construct and operate the project. In this capacity, it is expected that TMC will represent the ownership group as “the Proponent” and is referred to as such for the purposes of this Note.

Regulatory requirements

Given that the Project would require dozens of federal permits and authorizations affecting its timely execution and economic viability, the Project would benefit from the streamlined regulatory framework, coordinated review, and consolidated authorization process enabled by the Act.

While the list of required authorizations will be finalized as the project design is further developed, the Project is expected to require permits and authorizations under the Canadian Energy Regulator Act; the Fisheries Act; the Species at Risk Act; the Canada Marine Act; and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. Under the BCA framework, all of these authorizations can be issued through a Conditions Document.

Basis for the Governor in Council’s determination

Subsection 5(6) of the Act provides that, when making a listing decision, the GIC may consider any factor that it considers relevant, including the extent to which a project can

• (a) strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience and security;
• (b) provide economic or other benefits to Canada;
• (c) have a high likelihood of successful execution;
• (d) advance the interests of Indigenous peoples; and
• (e) contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.

Critically, the GIC’s decision-making is informed by Crown-Indigenous consultation completed by the responsible Minister pursuant to subsection 5(7) of the Act and as required by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It is also informed by consultation with implicated provincial or territorial governments; by the Minister having consulted with other ministerial colleagues as he considers appropriate; and by the views of Canadians, including those who respond to the publication of the Notice of a potential listing decision in the Canada Gazette.

The following reflects the GIC’s assessment of the merit in listing the Project. As elaborated in the sections below, the GIC is of the view that

• the balance of relevant factors in ascertaining the potential benefits of the Project, as well as its limitations, potential impacts, and costs, points clearly in favour of recognizing the Project as one in Canada’s national interest, to be pursued as a matter of priority;
• the successful pursuit of the Project’s national benefits is time-sensitive and warrants placing the Project within the framework of the Act immediately. Timely listing is warranted not only to provide the necessary confidence for the Project to proceed, but also to ensure that Canada is acting swiftly to counteract the undervaluation of one of its most important exports and to unlock critical growth and revenue during a period of global economic instability and realignment;
• the listing of the Project is informed by meaningful consultation with Indigenous peoples; consistent with the honour of the Crown; informed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and consistent with respect for Aboriginal and treaty rights;
• the experience of TMC and Pembina provides confidence that the ownership group has the necessary capacity to develop and operate the pipeline; and
• all appropriate preconditions for project listing have been met.

Analysis of national interest factors

1. Strengthening Canada’s autonomy, resilience, and security

The GIC has concluded that the Project presents an exceptional opportunity to strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience, and security.

While Canada holds the world’s fourth-largest oil reserves (approximately 163 billion barrels), its oil exports are heavily concentrated in a single market.^{footnote 1} Over four fifths of Canada’s pipeline export capacity is oriented for U.S. export markets. In 2025, 90.1 percent of Canadian crude exports continued to be shipped to the United States, despite completion of the TMEP in 2024 and its resulting increase in Canada’s capacity to reach additional foreign markets.^{footnote 2}

This creates structural vulnerabilities for the Canadian oil sector by contributing to wider price differentials between Canadian and U.S. crude, as well as price instability in the global trading system. Price differentials negatively impact producers by lowering the value realized from their production, as well as governments, by contributing to reduced tax revenues and royalties. Together, this weakens growth and prosperity. In 2024, the differential between West Texas Intermediate (WTI — crude benchmark for the United States) and Western Canadian Select (WCS — Canada’s heavy crude oil benchmark) was US$14.73/bbl.^{footnote 3} That differential reached as high as US$40–50/bbl at its peak in 2018, contributing to a mandatory production curtailment limiting Canada’s production and exports of oil.^{footnote 4} Studio.Energy estimates US$49 billion of foregone value from wide differentials between 2010 and 2025.^{footnote 5} While there are a range of factors that contribute to price differences for Canada’s WCS, the foregone value resulting from price differentials has severely hindered Canada’s ability to attain the full value and benefit of its natural resources.

Growing geopolitical tensions and trade disruptions are increasing economic uncertainty and reinforcing the need for Canada to quickly pivot and diversify into new markets. Canada’s reliance on U.S.-directed export infrastructure is a structural vulnerability, given the limited ability to redirect barrels when trade, policy, or market conditions change. These risks have been further intensified within the current geopolitical context as the United States diversifies its crude imports by increasing imports from Venezuela.

Notably, in 2025, Canada’s economic growth was slowed by weakness in exports linked to U.S. trade actions and uncertainty.^{footnote 6} This trade uncertainty has persisted and could continue for some time. For example, on July 20, 2026, the United States announced 50 percent tariffs on an additional C$27.6 billion of Canadian goods. The Bank of Canada’s most recent Monetary Policy Report (July 2026) noted that while Canada’s economy is showing signs of improvement, uncertainty still remains high.^{footnote 7}

These uncertainties have negative impacts on Canadian jobs and growth. In real terms, Finance Canada noted in the 2026 Spring Economic Update that private sector forecasters expect Canada’s real GDP to remain about 1.6 percent below its pre-tariff path by 2029.^{footnote 8} These signs point not only to the need to pivot Canada’s export and trade strategies, but to develop supporting infrastructure urgently so that Canada is positioned to take advantage of new opportunities created by trade shifts.

Market diversification is a key strategic benefit associated with the Project. In total, the Project would add an estimated one million barrels per day (MMb/d) of export capacity, providing additional large-scale sovereign access to global energy markets. The Project would significantly reduce Canada’s dependence on exports to the United States by enabling more exports to the Asia-Pacific region, including key markets such as South Korea, China, and Japan. Combined with optimization of the Trans Mountain system, the increase in export capacity contributed by the Project could reduce Canada’s overall structural fixed land-pipeline dependency on the United States from approximately 82–83 percent (2025) to the 65–70 percent range of capacity. Diversification would also benefit Canada by supporting greater economic resilience and providing additional options when trade disruptions occur, enabling more efficient pivots to different markets as global trading patterns shift.

Expanding Canada’s crude oil export capacity to the Asia-Pacific region also aligns with the Government of Canada’s broader export diversification objectives, including Canada’s goal of doubling non-U.S. trade by 2035. The Government has established a target to generate an additional C$300 billion in trade and to reduce economic dependence on the United States as a trading partner. According to a Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) analysis, the Project could generate roughly C$20 billion in incremental annual exports (based on 1 MMb/d at 90 percent utilization, and a WCS price of US$60 per barrel).^{footnote 9}

Additional pipeline capacity to the Asia-Pacific region also increases the prices that all Canadian producers can capture as the pricing differential between WCS and WTI narrows. For every US$1/barrel that the differential declines, revenues increase by approximately C$2 billion annually on approximately 3.7 MMb/d of existing production. Based on historical averages, the price differential could narrow in the range of US$3 to US$5/bbl. On that basis, a 1 MMb/d pipeline would add incremental revenues of C$6–10 billion annually for all existing crude exporters — an amount that is shared among producers, suppliers, employees and governments. As a single piece of infrastructure, the project could therefore enable the realization of C$26–30 billion annually of new value, contributing decisive and material support for the Government’s trade diversification agenda.

The Project’s capacity to strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience, and security was a key topic on which Canadians provided input in response to the publication of the Notice in the Canada Gazette. Canadians supportive of the Project frequently highlighted the extent to which the Project could enable export diversification, increase government revenues, and enhance energy security. Other Canadians nonetheless voiced concern about whether greater resilience and security could be achieved through a transition away from fossil fuels and towards cleaner energy sources.

Indigenous communities consulted by MPO expressed a range of perspectives regarding the Project’s potential to strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience, and security. While some communities acknowledged the potential economic and strategic benefits associated with expanded market access and energy infrastructure, others questioned whether sufficient information was available at this stage to support such a conclusion. Many emphasized that achieving these objectives must be accompanied by meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples, protection of Aboriginal and treaty rights and Indigenous interests, environmental stewardship, and the development of respectful and enduring partnerships between Indigenous communities, governments, and the Project Proponent.

Considering all of the foregoing, the GIC has determined that recent geopolitical developments and trade shifts have demonstrated a concrete, quantifiable cost to Canada’s concentrated reliance on a single export market. Market diversification enabled by the Project is a vital strategic benefit to Canada. Importantly, the Project would advance alongside substantial, concurrent national investments in other sources of energy that will enhance Canada’s resilience — including through the National Electricity Strategy, which aims to double the capacity of Canada’s grid by 2050 and supply clean, reliable, affordable power across the country for decades to come. Canada is also advancing a suite of nation-building projects in sectors including clean energy and nuclear. This comprehensive approach will position Canada for a sustainable energy future.

2. Provides economic or other benefits to Canada

The GIC has concluded that the Project would generate significant material economic benefits through pipeline construction, associated upstream production growth, and improved access to global markets, and by reducing the negative impacts of pricing differentials. Forecasts and analysis demonstrate that the Project will generate substantial benefits, including by contributing to significant increases in GDP, employment, and public revenues. Economic benefits include activity that will occur through construction and post-construction operations.

The GIC has considered that a significant number of jobs will be created as pipeline construction and associated infrastructure development advances. A wide variety of skilled trade and professional services will be required to build the Project. As the Project transitions to operations after construction, employment will decline from its construction peak, though some good-paying jobs will be sustained through ongoing production and maintenance. As a major infrastructure project, the Project will also generate spending on labour, engineering and other professional services, and materials such as equipment, cement, and fabricated structural metals. The most significant economic impacts will be focused in Alberta and British Columbia, but other regions may also benefit, such as those that produce steel pipes, which could be used in construction.

Publicly available analysis by ATB Economics and Studio.Energy estimates that adding 1.5 MMb/d of pipeline capacity — including a new pipeline to Canada’s West Coast — alongside associated investment could increase Canada’s real GDP by an average of C$31.4 billion annually (1.1 percent) through 2035, and support an average of 112 000 additional jobs across Canada, peaking at 136 100.^{footnote 10} The proposed 1.0 MMb/d WCOP represents roughly two thirds of this modelled capacity expansion. For the Project specifically, modelling undertaken by RBC Capital Markets for the Proponent examines an estimated C$70 to C$81 billion in pipeline and upstream construction investment. It estimates employment could peak at about 140 000 jobs and longer-term GDP impacts, averaging 0.6 percent annually by the 2040s.^{footnote 11} Although the studies differ in scope and timing, both indicate the potential for expanded pipeline capacity and associated production to support substantial investment, employment and sustained economic activity across Canada.

Moreover, the Project will contribute directly to government revenues through royalties, which oil sands operators pay to the Alberta government in exchange for the right to develop oil resources, as well as through provincial and federal taxes generated from personal and business incomes earned from the Project. The Project will also generate long-term property tax revenues for local governments along the corridor, supporting local communities and governments.

The GIC has also considered the importance of timing in unlocking these economic benefits. An accelerated project completion will deliver superior financial performance, including reduced costs, improved returns, and faster realization of benefits that strengthen the investment case for the Project and position Canada to capture economic value sooner.

While the GIC has considered the fact that there are a range of projections for long-term crude oil demand, from both public and private sources, sufficient demand is expected to exist for the new pipeline. For example, future Asia-Pacific demand is expected to remain comparatively resilient, creating a strong market for oil exports from the Project. Markets such as China, India, South Korea, and Japan continue to seek reliable heavy crude supplies. Interest from potential buyers and support from government partners also suggest meaningful demand exists.

While these positive indicators strengthen the market case for the Project, they do not alone establish the volume or duration of future demand. Securing long-term contracts will ultimately be required to ensure offtake for the pipeline. To that end, the Proponent has indicated an intention to contract the line through an open season process, which is a formal, competitive bidding procedure to allocate capacity and sign long-term service contracts. This is an important measure to mitigate risks related to future demand.

The GIC has also considered the fact that upstream investment from producers will be required to supply the Project. However, analysis demonstrates that the upstream sector has sufficient financial capacity to fund a significant share of the required growth, and the production-growth case is expected to be supported by demand growth in other countries, including in Asia. Further, listing the Project under the Act will enhance regulatory certainty for the sector, creating a positive signal for additional investment.

The Project’s economic potential was noted as a positive area of feedback among many Canadians who responded to the publication of the Notice of a potential listing decision in the Canada Gazette. Supporters highlighted employment opportunities and the Project’s expected contributions to broader economic growth. Many others who responded to the Notice nonetheless questioned the Project’s financial viability, raised concerns about taxpayer exposure and cost overruns, and argued that projected economic benefits, including government revenues, long-term market demand, and expected returns from expanded oil exports, were uncertain and could be outweighed by alternative investments in other sectors of the economy.

Indigenous communities consulted by MPO expressed a range of perspectives regarding the extent to which the Project would provide economic or other benefits to Canada. Some communities identified potential benefits associated with increased export capacity, market diversification, investment, and employment. Communities also identified potential opportunities for Indigenous participation through employment, training, procurement, business development, revenue sharing, and equity ownership, particularly where these contribute to long-term community development and economic self-determination. Many others emphasized that economic benefits must be considered alongside impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights, Indigenous cultures, communities, and the environment. Communities generally indicated that meaningful economic benefit requires equitable participation, recognition of Indigenous rights and priorities, protection of existing Indigenous economic interests, and benefit-sharing arrangements that are responsive to the nature and extent of Project impacts.

Overall, the Project’s business case is very strong. It is expected to contribute to a wide range of key economic objectives, providing good-paying jobs, increasing investment, providing royalties and revenues for governments, and supporting Canada’s prosperity. The development of the Project is therefore expected to provide significant economic benefits for Canada.

3. Has a high likelihood of successful execution

While the Project is in the early stages of development, it presents a credible, financeable, and executable pathway to completion, assuming timely advancement of planned activities.

The Ownership Group has a strong ability to deliver the Project, bringing significant experience in major infrastructure development and demonstrated capacity to develop and deliver a project of this magnitude. TMC’s experience delivering and operating TMEP will support effective project planning and execution. TMC has extensive operational knowledge of the existing and proposed corridor, delivery and receipt terminals, marine terminals, construction, contracting, and regulatory environment. It also has existing operational familiarity and relationships with Indigenous and other communities that intersect with proposed routing and infrastructure. Pembina’s experience with large-scale energy infrastructure and Indigenous community partnerships will also support project success, with the company having demonstrated a strong track record in disciplined pipeline and other energy infrastructure operations, commercial management, and regionally relevant capital project execution.

The proposed development strategy relies on advancing engineering, commercial work, regulatory work, and planning activities concurrently, rather than sequentially. The Project is expected to largely parallel the existing TMC right of way rather than establish an entirely new corridor. Leveraging an existing corridor where possible, with alignment proposed to overlap approximately 70 to 90 percent of current infrastructure, is expected to significantly improve constructability and reduce cost and schedule uncertainty. In addition to enhancing confidence in project execution, this poses stronger environmental and economic benefits when compared with a new route.

Although project design is not finalized, initial work towards the development of route options, terminal studies, and technical assessment supports a credible development pathway. Supply chain and labour challenges, such as limited domestic manufacturing capability for large-diameter line pipes, are both areas that will require additional attention. Several key agreements also remain under development, including governance and commercial agreements.

Financing is another key consideration in relation to executability. The Project is estimated to cost between C$35.2 billion and C$43.7 billion, which is a risk-adjusted estimate that includes a contingency. Funding commitments from Canada and Alberta to support early works are advancing, a credible plan to finance the full construction of the Project is being developed, and the key parameters of an equity purchase right for Indigenous communities have been identified.

Indigenous communities consulted by MPO expressed a range of concerns related to Project execution. Many communities indicated that successful execution depends on more than technical feasibility or financing and emphasized the importance of project maturity, meaningful engagement with Indigenous communities, and protection of Indigenous rights and interests. Many communities also advised that, in the absence of route-specific, engineering, environmental, marine infrastructure, and mitigation-related information, they were unable to fully assess the Project’s likelihood of successful execution. Some communities also identified regulatory uncertainty, unresolved impacts on Indigenous rights, public controversy, and implementation risks as factors that could affect successful execution if not appropriately addressed.

In response to the publication of the Notice in the Canada Gazette, many Canadians raised concerns about the Project’s schedule and cost risks, drawing comparisons to previous major projects to question whether a project of this scale could be delivered on time and within budget.

Accounting for all of this information, the GIC has concluded that the probability of timely and successful execution is supported by the experience of a strong Proponent and Ownership Group; the ability of the regulatory framework under the BCA to closely coordinate all regulatory steps and to integrate these with continued consultation with Indigenous communities following a listing decision; and the issuance of a single Conditions Document that considers all factors collectively. Listing the Project as a project of national interest increases the probability of successful execution in a timely fashion.

4. Advances the interests of Indigenous peoples

Canada has made clear that collaboration with Indigenous peoples and the pursuit of opportunities for Indigenous partnership and investment are central to a broader strategy of rapidly advancing vital infrastructure and natural resource projects. In addition to recognizing that the decision to list a project under the Act cannot be taken without fulfilling Canada’s duty to consult with Indigenous peoples, the Act invites the GIC to consider whether the listing of a project advances the interests of Indigenous peoples.

The GIC has concluded that listing the Project does present true potential to advance the interests of Indigenous peoples. The Project will provide significant benefits to multiple Indigenous communities through equity participation in combination with other anticipated economic opportunities, including employment, training, contracting, and procurement. Canada, Alberta, and the Project’s Ownership Group have affirmed a commitment to offer to Indigenous communities a minimum of 10 percent ownership interest in the Project. Access to this offering will be supported by the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation and the Canada Indigenous Loan Guarantee Corporation, which assist eligible Indigenous communities with financing capacity to purchase Project equity. The terms of the offer will be settled prior to construction.

Many Canadians provided comments on the Project’s potential to advance the interests of Indigenous peoples, following publication of Notice of a potential listing decision in the Canada Gazette. Supportive submissions highlighted opportunities for Indigenous participation through employment, business development, partnerships, and equity ownership, while supporting continued consultation with affected Indigenous communities. Both opposing and non-opposing submissions emphasized the importance of meaningful consultation, respect for the rights of Indigenous peoples, reconciliation, and adherence to commitments such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

As discussed more fully below in relation to Crown-Indigenous consultation, the Act presents a new paradigm intended to provide federal regulatory certainty for national interest projects at a much earlier stage than has been the case in Canada’s recent history. While this change is necessary to support Canada’s sovereignty and security, it must occur within the framework of respect for Aboriginal and treaty rights and commitment to reconciliation. Approached in a spirit of partnership, the GIC believes the Act presents an opportunity to involve Indigenous communities from the earliest stages of project development, in order to ensure that their rights, perspectives, and priorities help to inform design choices and other key decisions from the outset.

With this ethos in mind, the GIC has concluded that the Project can significantly and meaningfully advance the interests of Indigenous peoples.

5. Contributes to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s climate change objectives

The GIC has considered potential impacts of the Project on clean growth and on Canada’s climate objectives.

While the Project itself does not directly contribute to Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets for 2030 and 2035, it is central to agreements between Canada and Alberta, and between Canada, Alberta, and the Oil Sands Alliance of companies, to reduce the emissions intensity of Canada’s oil production and create the enabling conditions for a competitive, resilient, and low-carbon economy. These priorities strongly complement and reinforce Canada’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions through technological investment and effective, market-driven regulatory measures. Together, the trilateral memorandum of understanding between the Governments of Canada and Alberta and the Oil Sands Alliance establishes a pathway to reducing emissions by 16 million tonnes per annum (mtpa).

Critically, the Project will advance alongside Pathways, one of the world’s largest post-combustion carbon capture and storage projects. The Pathways project will capture and store 6 mtpa of emissions by 2035, reducing the emissions intensity of heavy oil produced in Canada and supporting the production of lower-carbon oil. Under the trilateral agreement, an additional 10 mtpa of emissions reductions will be achieved through the expansion of the Pathways project, deployment of other emissions reduction technologies, or projects deploying improved production practices focused on lowering emissions. These measures will have a meaningful impact on lowering the carbon content of Canada’s oil, including the oil it exports to other markets.

Canada and Alberta have also reached an agreement in principle on methane equivalency that would reduce methane emissions by 75 percent below 2014 levels by 2035. Lowering Canada’s methane emissions is recognized as an effective way of reducing greenhouse gases without impacting production, particularly as methane has a warming impact greater than carbon dioxide. Moreover, as an integral part of larger agreements that include significant climate commitments, the Project is aligned with Canada’s Climate Competitiveness Strategy. The Strategy, announced in Budget 2025, aims to better link Canada’s climate and economic goals, including leveraging Canadian clean technology to reduce emissions intensity of energy generation and manufacturing. These efforts are key components of Canada’s plan to strengthen its position in global energy markets, as customers across the world prioritize low-carbon oil and gas.

The construction and operation of the Project is expected to result in modest GHG emissions, but these emissions are not projected to contribute significantly to Canada’s overall emissions profile. Future engineering decisions will determine the final emissions performance of the Project, along with regulatory requirements for the final design and potential offsetting of emissions, which may be imposed through the Conditions Document at the conclusion of the post-listing regulatory process.

Feedback on climate objectives was a core theme in input received from Canadians following publication of Notice of a potential listing decision in the Canada Gazette. Many commenters argued that the Project would increase GHG emissions, worsen climate-related impacts such as wildfires, flooding, drought, and extreme heat, and undermine Canada’s climate commitments.

Submissions from many Indigenous communities also reflected significant uncertainty regarding whether the Project would contribute to clean growth and to Canada’s climate change objectives. While some submissions acknowledged potential emissions-related advantages associated with pipeline transportation and the use of existing corridors, many raised concerns regarding GHG emissions, climate impacts, cumulative effects, and the adequacy of available information. Submissions generally emphasized the need for further analysis, environmental assessment, and Indigenous community involvement before conclusions can be reached regarding the Project’s contribution to clean growth and climate objectives.

According to Alberta’s submission to MPO and based on large-diameter pipeline analogues that have been assessed through federal review processes, estimated emissions from construction of the Project are between 1.4 and 1.5 megatonnes (Mt) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e), which is expected to occur over the total construction timeline.^{footnote 12} Per the same submission, projected emissions associated with operation of the Project are 0.2 Mt CO₂e per year,^{footnote 13}extrapolating from a comparable project, the TMEP, which reported annual operational emissions of 0.16 Mt CO₂e in 2025. These operating emissions would represent an increase of approximately 0.03 percent compared to Canada’s most recent annual national emissions inventory (685 Mt CO₂e in 2024).^{footnote 15} Based on these figures, construction and operation of the Project would not contribute significantly to Canada’s overall GHG emissions profile.

As a conduit to new markets, the Project is expected to enable increased upstream oil production and exports. These upstream activities would result in increased emissions. While precise future upstream GHG emissions associated with the Project cannot be predicted with certainty, Alberta’s submission estimates these emissions to be in the range of 15.5 to 18.2 Mt CO₂e per year between 2032 and 2041 based on operation starting in 2032 at a nominal capacity of 1 MMb/d. This would be an increase of approximately 2.3 to 2.7 percent compared to Canada’s most recent annual national emissions inventory.^{footnote 14}

The GIC also recognizes that the Project would be developed during a period of increasing climate impacts, with wildfires and severe floods putting pressure on communities and on Canada’s capacity to respond. According to Canada’s Changing Climate Report 2026, the annual average temperature in Canada is expected to rise by about 1°C from 2021 to 2040, leading to an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Meanwhile the costs associated with climate impacts are expected to continue to rise, extending across Canada’s economy and contributing to increases in the costs of housing, food, energy, insurance, and other essentials.

The GIC has carefully weighed these considerations and determined that they do not displace the Project’s strong alignment with Canada’s national interest. Prioritization of the Project is appropriate in the present circumstances when accounting for Canada’s broader, integrated efforts to address climate change.

While the Project can be expected to moderately increase Canada’s emissions, these emissions are unlikely to be material given persistent global demand for and consumption of oil for decades to come, as projected under most current forecasts. Since demand for oil persists, there is an opportunity for Canada to supply that demand using best in class approaches to mitigate upstream emissions caused by extraction and processing, while serving as a source of supply to countries that share in an overall commitment to mitigating climate change and achieving net zero emissions.

Finally, the GIC recognizes that the Project presents several potential clean growth opportunities for Canada, including clean technology deployment, emissions monitoring technologies, lower-carbon materials, and low-emission electricity infrastructure. The Project could also support additional demand for Canadian suppliers, technologies, and infrastructure that contribute to broader clean-growth objectives.

In summary, although the Project does not directly contribute to clean growth and to Canada’s climate change targets, it is aligned with Canada’s overall climate strategy and efforts to reduce emissions intensity of oil production. Considered together with the Project’s additional merits and its links to key climate-related commitments such as Pathways, this supports its recognition as a national interest project.

6. Marine and terrestrial impacts

In addition to the five national interest factors explicitly contemplated in the Act, the GIC has devoted significant attention to the potential effects of the Project on marine and terrestrial ecosystems — a key focal point in consultations with Indigenous communities, and a consistent theme in submissions made by many Canadians following publication of Notice of a potential listing decision in the Canada Gazette.

Concerns raised by Indigenous communities included both general environmental impacts and specific impacts on species and ecosystems of cultural and socio-economic significance — including, for example, the impact of a marine loading facility and increased vessel traffic on fish and fish habitat, Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKW), and other marine life in the Salish Sea.

Construction of a marine loading facility in the Delta region of British Columbia, in addition to Project-related increases in vessel traffic, will result in environmental disturbances impacting fish and marine mammals. The Project will also result in additional vessel traffic in the Salish Sea from oil tankers transporting crude oil to overseas markets, resulting in incremental noise and other impacts on sensitive ecosystems and species, including SRKW. Underwater noise is a serious threat to the SRKW, an endangered species. Finally, land disturbances will be required to complete the construction of the Project, resulting in impacts on terrestrial ecosystems, inland water bodies, and animals, including species at risk such as caribou.

The GIC has considered these concerns in the context of ongoing efforts to protect critical species and habitats, including measures that were recommended to Canada through the 2019 TMEP reconsideration process. Many of these measures are designed to establish standing environmental safeguards within which important infrastructure development and commercial activity can occur.

Since 2018, the Government has made significant investments to support recovery efforts and mitigate the impacts of key threats to whales, including the SRKW. As part of the Spring Economic Update 2026, the Government announced an additional C$258 million over 5 years to renew and enhance funding for the protection of whales and their habitats. This investment will build from the success of the Whales Initiative and Oceans Protection Plan. This new funding, of which C$95 million over 5 years plus an additional C$16 million per year ongoing is dedicated specifically to enhanced protections for SRKW, will help address ship strikes, underwater noise mitigation, prey availability, entanglements, and enhanced habitat protections. The Government is also advancing investments to renew the Oceans Protection Plan and for enhanced protection and monitoring measures to support management of projected growth in West Coast shipping.

The Government is also working to finalize an interim underwater noise objective by November 2026, which will establish 2023 levels as a measurable baseline for underwater noise, and will be supported by a new regional noise monitoring and management program.

To reduce new terrestrial disturbances, the Project is expected to follow the existing TMEP corridor wherever possible. Impacts from the construction of the marine loading facility may also be materially minimized by utilizing existing infrastructure, such as an existing causeway and design features. While these approaches do not eliminate all risks, tools and lessons learned from previous projects can be leveraged to identify sensitive areas and aid in determining mitigation actions for precise route determination.

Most importantly, as outlined further below, national interest listing of the Project is a precursor to regulatory assessment and further consultation with Indigenous communities, oriented toward the identification of conditions that can help to mitigate adverse environmental effects. This will include a hearing process conducted by the Commission of the Canada Energy Regulator (CER). Ongoing consultation following project listing can also serve to identify appropriate measures to mitigate, and accommodate, where appropriate, potential adverse impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights, including potential adverse impacts on species and habitat of cultural and socio-economic significance to Indigenous communities.

Accounting for all of these considerations, the GIC has concluded that the Project’s marine and terrestrial environmental impacts can be addressed through mitigation measures, including existing programming. Informed by the issues raised in the consultation on the listing decision, these impacts will be further evaluated and addressed through the subsequent regulatory review process and ongoing consultation with Indigenous communities.

Crown-Indigenous consultation

1. Overview

The BCA involves a significant change to the manner in which federal authorizations are granted for projects that Canada determines to be in the national interest. As noted above, federal regulatory processes typically require detailed project information and the completion of complex and varied regulatory assessments before determinations are made as to whether a project should be allowed to move forward. With the BCA, Canada now has a tool to provide early confirmation that, from a federal regulatory perspective, a project should be allowed to proceed — and more specifically, that the need for further project detail and regulatory scrutiny should not stand in the way of securing early confidence to move forward with the project. This objective is critical; otherwise, the proponents and developers of such projects may not incur the time and cost to advance their proposals to fruition, and Canada may be deprived of key contributors to its economic resilience and prosperity. Consultation with Indigenous communities is embedded in all steps of the novel regulatory process under the BCA. Importantly, the BCA provides for consultation at an early stage of project development, allowing for Indigenous community perspectives on whether a project is in Canada’s national interest, as well as allowing for early identification of key issues to be addressed through the subsequent regulatory review.

The submission provided by Alberta for consideration of the Project notes that “The most important enabling condition for the successful development and construction of this Project is the regulatory and permitting streamlining and approval of the federal and provincial governments. Previous pipeline project costs have escalated because of inefficient and duplicative regulatory regimes and significant delays in decision-making.”^{footnote 16} The GIC agrees with this observation, noting that the most recent precedent for a major pipeline developed in Canada’s national interest — the TMEP — consumed more than a decade to reach final federal regulatory approval. As the Project will require multiple years to advance through construction and reach operation, Canada must act now if it is serious about seizing the benefits of the Project to counteract current pressure on its economic security and sovereignty.

Alberta’s submission also illustrates the scope and scale of activities needed to establish the foundations for an effective regulatory assessment:

• Advancement of engineering, route definition, Indigenous engagement, community engagement and land access in parallel to support regulatory application and approval;
• Progression of regulatory applications, environmental field programs and secondary permitting across jurisdictions;
• Advancement of procurement and contractor engagement during the regulatory review period, including progression of major materials procurement and execution planning;
• Use of validated existing data to reduce field program scope and accelerate development timelines; and
• Advancement of land acquisition and access permitting to support construction readiness.

These measures necessarily require project proponents to incur significant investments of time and resources, including opportunity costs. It is exactly the risk that proponents will decline to do so, owing to regulatory uncertainty, that the BCA can help to counteract. Recognizing that many proponents simply will not advance a project to the level of detail needed for a full regulatory assessment without confidence that this effort is worthwhile, the Act supplies Canada with a tool to facilitate project advancement in a new way based on early information but where the national interest warrants it.

A shift in policy orientation does not, however, alter Canada’s fundamental constitutional obligations to Indigenous peoples, including its duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous communities on decisions that may adversely affect their rights.

Canada’s duty to consult with Indigenous communities on the possibility of listing a project, which is assigned to the responsible Minister under subsection 5(7) of the Act, focuses on ensuring that the potential adverse effects of a listing decision on recognized and asserted Aboriginal and treaty rights are well understood and grappled with by the GIC in making such a decision. This requires consulting with Indigenous communities about how the decision to give early federal support for a project via a BCA listing, but subject to a regulatory process targeted at identifying appropriate conditions for the release of federal permits and authorizations — and which Indigenous communities will continue to be consulted — could adversely affect the recognized or asserted rights of those communities. The GIC must ascertain whether there are potential adverse impacts of such a gravity that they cannot be effectively mitigated through the identification of appropriate regulatory conditions after the project has been listed, and to consider whether a project that could render such effects is truly suited to the BCA regime. Relatedly, the GIC must ascertain whether the tools available through the regulatory process that would follow a listing decision, including ongoing consultation with Indigenous peoples during that process, are fit for purpose in being able to meaningfully address the potential adverse impacts of the project on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

During the consultation that MPO completed with Indigenous communities on potential listing of the Project, a concern voiced by many communities was that insufficient information was available about the Project for communities to reach an informed view about whether or not they supported listing of the Project. The GIC recognizes that the new regulatory paradigm provided by the BCA involves consulting with Indigenous communities based on project information that is, by its nature, nascent and subject to further development, and that this departs from the level of detail available in typical project-specific consultations. Based on Alberta’s submission and the realities of the Proponent and investor reluctance to further develop a project of this magnitude without regulatory confidence, the GIC is of the view that delaying its listing decision would not have resulted in additional project information coming forward, and would have been contrary to the public interest in advancing the Project’s potential benefits at the earliest opportunity.

For this reason, the GIC also recognizes that the majority of Indigenous communities consulted were not prepared to support Project listing based on the information available, and instead focused their dialogue with Canada on concerns about potential impacts of the Project and about the processes Canada should observe to ensure that recognized or asserted Aboriginal and treaty rights are respected. Accepting that consultation on potential listing of the Project necessarily involved grappling with incomplete project information, Canada also found the process of receiving early awareness of Indigenous community perspectives and concerns to be constructive in assessing whether and how the Project, if listed, could be further developed to align with Aboriginal and treaty rights. To reiterate, the nature of the BCA regime is that it involves a new approach to project regulation responsive to current pressures on Canada’s sovereignty and security, but not one that dispenses with Canada’s constitutional obligations. While the early status of project information before a listing decision may provoke legitimate questions, concerns, and challenges, it can also yield benefits by allowing consultation to begin from early stages of project conception so that key issues can be identified and better addressed in subsequent project development and regulatory review.

The Government acknowledges that the time frame within which it sought to reach a listing decision, driven by a sense of urgency in the public interest, resulted in Indigenous communities being asked to participate in a consultation period coinciding with summer months when many members were out on the land, and with wildfires that affected several communities severely. Indigenous communities showing a willingness to meet Canada’s request for consultation under these circumstances reflected genuine commitment to contribute to a decision of national importance, in addition to appropriate identification of individual concerns and rights.

The GIC has concluded that the listing of the Project under the BCA will not, in itself, result in any adverse impacts to Aboriginal and treaty rights that cannot be effectively mitigated or accommodated, as appropriate, through the further, post-listing regulatory process in which Indigenous communities will be consulted. The GIC is confident that the post-listing regulatory process and attendant duty of consultation can ensure that the final release of federal permits and authorizations will be compatible with Aboriginal and treaty rights, and that the Project as a whole will have been informed by meaningful consultation at each point of decision-making. Among several elements of the regulatory process to follow the listing decision, the GIC notes the importance of public hearings to be conducted by the Commission of the CER, and the opportunity for Indigenous communities to participate in that transparent forum.

In reaching this determination, the GIC has taken account of the consultation process completed with Indigenous peoples and informed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and of the meaningful two-way dialogue undertaken about a variety of issues raised in that consultation, as summarized below.

2. Consultation process

On July 3, 2026, on behalf of the Minister responsible under the Act, MPO initiated consultation with potentially impacted Indigenous communities regarding the potential listing of the Project. Consultation was undertaken between July 3 and September 18, 2026. The consultation sought to understand Indigenous perspectives regarding the potential adverse impacts of a listing decision on Aboriginal and treaty rights and on Indigenous interests, and assess whether issues raised by Indigenous communities could be appropriately addressed through the subsequent consultation, regulatory review, and conditions-development processes that would follow a listing decision.

The consultation process with Indigenous communities was informed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and by free, prior and informed consent. The process was substantively geared toward reaching mutually acceptable arrangements with communities, with the aim of seeking consent or achieving consensus, where possible. Canada will continue to be guided by this objective in subsequent and ongoing consultation with Indigenous communities.

MPO identified and consulted over 130 potentially impacted Indigenous communities. The consultation list was informed by a Preliminary Traditional Territory Analysis prepared by the CER, consultation records from the TMEP, geographic proximity to the proposed corridor and marine terminal, Canadian treaties and modern treaty considerations, and information from federal and provincial sources.

On July 3, 2026, MPO issued notification letters advising potentially impacted Indigenous communities that Canada was considering whether to list the Project under the Act. On July 10, 2026, MPO distributed a consultation package containing information about the Project, guidance on available participant funding, consultation questions related to national interest factors, information about the future consultation and regulatory review processes that would follow a positive listing decision, and instructions for providing written submissions.

To facilitate participation, MPO employed multiple consultation mechanisms, including

• participant funding;
• bilateral meetings conducted both virtually and in person;
• four regional virtual information sessions;
• ongoing correspondence and two-way follow-up discussions;
• responses to community questions and information requests;
• provision of preliminary corridor mapping and shapefiles upon request;
• opportunities for communities to review draft community consultation summaries before finalization in MPO’s consultation report; and
• opportunities to provide written submissions.

Senior MPO officials participated directly in consultation activities and made themselves available to meet with communities when requested. Those officials remained available throughout the consultation period to provide the best available information, answer questions, and discuss concerns raised by communities. In addition to meetings carried out by MPO officials on the responsible Minister’s behalf and focused on Crown-Indigenous consultation, the Prime Minister and other members of the federal Cabinet met directly with several communities to share and explain the Government’s vision of the potential importance of the Project to Canada.

Participant funding was made available to eligible Indigenous communities to support the review of Project information, participation in consultation activities, community engagement, technical review, and preparation of submissions. Ninety-five Indigenous communities accessed this support as of September 25, 2026.

During consultation, Indigenous communities advised that their participation in the current process was occurring alongside summer harvesting activities, cultural gatherings, community events, other consultation processes, and, for some communities, significant impacts associated with the 2026 wildfire season. In response to concerns regarding timing and community capacity, MPO extended the deadline for written submissions from August 26 to September 18, 2026, and aligned the public comment period published in the Canada Gazette with the extended consultation timeline. MPO also continued to receive, review, and assess written submissions received after September 18, 2026.

3. Indigenous Peoples’ participation

Between July 3 and September 18, 2026, MPO held over 140 meetings with representatives of over 110 Indigenous communities and organizations. Meetings were held with communities identified on the consultation list and with additional Indigenous communities that requested information regarding the Project.

To support informed participation, on August 28, 2026, MPO provided Indigenous communities with its preliminary assessment of the Project in relation to national interest factors specified in the Act. MPO also provided participating Indigenous communities with their respective draft community consultation summaries for review and validation and invited communities to identify any inaccuracies, omissions, or clarifications to ensure that concerns, interests, and perspectives were accurately reflected in the consultation record and understood by Canada.

Written submissions were requested by September 18, 2026. MPO received over 100 submissions from consulted Indigenous communities, including several received after the submission deadline. MPO continued to receive, review, and assess all submissions in order to help inform the GIC’s determination.

The key concerns, interests, and priorities raised by Indigenous communities during consultation, and the Crown’s consideration of those perspectives, are summarized below.

4. Key concerns raised during consultation

A predominant theme throughout consultation was that many communities did not consider sufficient information to be available at this stage to support listing. Communities frequently identified the absence of detailed information regarding routing, engineering and design, environmental effects, marine shipping, emergency response, cumulative effects, impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights, mitigation measures, accommodation approaches, and Indigenous participation in project oversight and decision-making.

Communities also consistently highlighted the information, studies, assessment, consultation processes, mitigation measures, and participation opportunities that they would expect to see addressed should the Project proceed to a subsequent regulatory review process. These included information on protection of Aboriginal and treaty rights and Indigenous interests, comprehensive assessment of environmental and cumulative effects, protection of lands, waters, fisheries, and species at risk, meaningful consultation and accommodation, Indigenous participation in monitoring and oversight, emergency preparedness and spill response, and opportunities for economic participation. Whether Indigenous communities opposed listing, did not take a position, or expressed support for continued assessment of the Project, these issues emerged as recurring concerns throughout consultation.

a. Availability of Project information and consultation timelines

Many Indigenous communities expressed concern regarding both the lack of project-specific information and the time frame within which the Government sought to make a listing decision. Communities noted that important information commonly available during major project reviews, including final routing, engineering and design details, environmental studies, marine terminal infrastructure, spill response planning, cumulative effects assessments, and potential mitigation measures, had not yet been developed. Many communities advised that these information gaps limited their ability to fully assess potential adverse impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights and determine whether they supported listing of the Project.

Many Indigenous communities also identified challenges associated with the consultation timeline. Communities advised that participation occurred alongside summer harvesting activities, cultural obligations, community events, ongoing consultation processes, and, for some communities, significant impacts associated with the 2026 wildfire season, including community evacuations.

The GIC recognizes these concerns. As noted above, the BCA establishes a different sequencing of federal decision-making than traditional regulatory frameworks, reflecting the Government’s determination that projects of national interest require earlier regulatory certainty in light of rapidly changing global economic and geopolitical circumstances. National interest determination may occur before completion of the detailed engineering, environmental studies, technical assessments, and regulatory reviews that would ordinarily precede federal authorization decisions. Although this approach necessarily results in less project-specific information being available at the listing stage, it also creates an opportunity for Indigenous communities to participate earlier in project development and to help inform the studies, assessments, and regulatory processes that will follow.

The Government’s assessment of the public interest stemming from geopolitical and economic pressures also motivated its commitment to reach a listing decision by October 1, 2026. While some Indigenous communities expressed concern regarding the timeline for consultation, the GIC notes that MPO undertook extensive consultation efforts during the timeline set out for the process. It provided participant funding, held bilateral meetings and information sessions, responded to information requests, extended the deadline for written submissions, and continued to receive and consider information after the formal submission deadline.

The GIC is satisfied that, notwithstanding the early stage of Project development and the compressed timelines for consultation in advance of the listing decision, the consultation process provided a meaningful opportunity for Indigenous communities to identify potential adverse impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights and Indigenous interests, communicate community-specific concerns, priorities, and recommendations, and inform the GIC’s understanding of Indigenous perspectives regarding the potential implications of a listing decision. Through the consultation process, the GIC has obtained a substantial understanding of the issues and concerns Indigenous communities consider most significant should the Project proceed.

The GIC is also satisfied that the concerns identified by Indigenous communities regarding project-specific information can be appropriately addressed through the post-listing regulatory review and consultation process. That process is specifically intended to provide the opportunity for detailed project information to be developed and assessed in consultation with Indigenous communities, including route alignment, engineering design, environmental and technical studies, Indigenous Knowledge, traditional land use information, emergency management and spill response planning, and cumulative effects assessment. A regulatory application will be required from the Proponent to support the post-listing regulatory review process, which will enable the identification of potential adverse impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights as a result of the Project, with a view to developing effective mitigation or accommodation, as appropriate, through continuing consultation.

While the Act enables the release of federal permits and authorizations through an omnibus Conditions Document issued by the responsible Minister, the content of that document is nonetheless informed by the work of federal agencies and departments that would be engaged in assessing a project proposal and providing advice within their respective mandates, in consultation with Indigenous communities. For example, the Conditions Document would replace the CER certificate, Fisheries Act Authorizations, and Species at Risk Act permits, among other federal permits, that would otherwise be issued by separate ministers. However, the Conditions Document would continue to include conditions to protect the same scope of matters that would normally be covered under these permits — including with respect to potential adverse impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights, safety and security, and impacts on the marine and terrestrial environment. As with the federal permits and authorizations it replaces, consultation with Indigenous communities will be key in informing the Conditions Document.

In the Project’s case, the review process will also include an assessment by the Commission of the CER, which has deep capacity and expertise to provide the Minister with recommendations on conditions to meaningfully address the issues noted above. The Commission process will include public hearings in which Indigenous communities would be invited to participate.

At the end of the hearing, the Commission will provide an assessment report focused on mitigations and potential conditions within the scope of its mandate. MPO will coordinate work with relevant federal departments on potential conditions to cover additional permits for inclusion in the Conditions Document, in fulfillment of obligations under the BCA, and including additional consultation with Indigenous communities as necessary. The Minister responsible under the Act will consult other federal Ministers and with the Commission of the CER prior to issuing the document to the Proponent.

In sum, Indigenous communities will continue to be consulted throughout the process following Project listing and leading to the eventual release of a Conditions Document. This ongoing constitutional duty is reinforced by subsection 7(2)(c) of the Act and informed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

With this in mind, the GIC is confident that challenges regarding the availability of project information at the listing stage will be addressed as project conception continues to be developed, informed by Indigenous perspectives shared during the consultation process, and by further ongoing consultation with Indigenous communities. Further, the GIC is also confident that potential impacts on asserted and established Aboriginal and treaty rights of the nature identified through consultation to date can and will be effectively accommodated, mitigated or otherwise addressed, where appropriate, in keeping with Canada’s constitutional obligations.

b. Protection of Aboriginal and treaty rights and Indigenous interests

Many Indigenous communities emphasized the importance of ensuring that protection of Aboriginal and treaty rights and of Indigenous interests remains central to all future decisions concerning the Project. Communities raised concerns regarding the potential effects of the Project on traditional land and marine use, harvesting activities, fisheries, cultural practices, culturally significant areas, stewardship responsibilities, and the continued exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights. Many communities also emphasized the importance of consultation continuing throughout future phases of Project development and the need for Indigenous Knowledge and Indigenous perspectives to meaningfully inform future decision-making.

The GIC recognizes that these concerns go to the core purpose of consultation undertaken for a listing decision under the BCA. The GIC considered whether concerns regarding potential adverse impacts of the Project on Aboriginal and treaty rights could be meaningfully assessed and accommodated, where appropriate, through the subsequent regulatory review process.

In light of the measures comprising the post-listing regulatory process, as outlined above, the GIC has concluded that a decision to list the Project under the Act should not be precluded by concerns raised during consultation regarding potential impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights. The post-listing process will include continued Crown consultation, opportunities for Indigenous communities to provide Indigenous Knowledge and technical information, detailed assessment of project-specific impacts, and the development of legally enforceable project conditions. Through participating in hearings conducted by the Commission of the CER, for example, Indigenous communities will have an opportunity to provide feedback on potential project conditions, present Oral Indigenous Knowledge related to potential project impacts, and submit information requests to the Proponent. The GIC is satisfied that these processes provide an appropriate framework through which potential adverse impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights, including specific concerns already raised in consultation, can be further addressed before any final federal authorizations are issued.

c. Indigenous participation and economic opportunities

The GIC notes that Canada, Alberta, and the Project’s Ownership Group have affirmed a commitment to offer Indigenous communities the opportunity to acquire a minimum of 10 percent ownership interest in the Project. The GIC recognizes that discussions regarding equity participation, economic opportunities, benefits agreements, and other forms of Indigenous participation will continue as project-specific information becomes available through the regulatory review process.

Communities expressed significant interest in economic participation opportunities, including equity ownership, employment, training, procurement, revenue sharing, and benefits agreements. Many Indigenous communities emphasized that meaningful Indigenous participation should extend beyond economic benefits and include ongoing involvement in project planning, assessment, regulatory review, monitoring, stewardship, oversight, and governance processes. Indigenous communities consistently advised that economic opportunities should complement, and not replace, the protection of Aboriginal and treaty rights and Indigenous interests, environmental stewardship responsibilities, consultation, and accommodation and measures necessary to address potential project impacts.

The GIC recognizes that meaningful Indigenous participation and economic involvement were recurring priorities identified by Indigenous communities during consultation. The GIC also recognizes that many communities discussed economic participation, equity ownership, benefits agreements, potential mitigation and accommodation measures, and the protection of rights and interests together as considerations that should continue to inform future phases of Project development, consultation and regulatory review.

The GIC is satisfied that the regulatory process and ongoing consultation following listing of the Project will provide an appropriate framework through which Indigenous participation, economic opportunities, potential adverse impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights and Indigenous interests, and any associated mitigation and accommodation measures, will be assessed and developed in an integrated and holistic fashion.

d. Environmental impacts, stewardship, and cumulative impacts

Many Indigenous communities expressed concern regarding the potential effects of the Project on lands, waters, wildlife, culturally important resources, ecosystem health, and cumulative impacts arising from existing and proposed development within their territories. Communities emphasized the importance of environmental protection, stewardship responsibilities, incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge into future assessment and decision-making processes, and understanding the Project’s contribution to cumulative effects and the exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights.

The GIC recognizes the importance of these concerns. The GIC also recognizes that the detailed studies, environmental assessments, and project-specific information required to fully understand environmental impacts will emerge through the regulatory process that follows the listing decision.

Accordingly, the GIC is satisfied that these concerns do not preclude listing of the Project. The regulatory review process is specifically intended to develop and assess detailed environmental information, informed by Indigenous Knowledge and technical studies, in order to identify appropriate accommodation and mitigation measures and establish legally enforceable conditions intended to protect the environment and address potential adverse effects of the Project.

e. Impacts on fish, fish habitat, marine species, and species at risk

Many Indigenous communities expressed concern regarding potential impacts on fish, fish habitat, marine species, and species at risk. Particular concern was expressed regarding salmon populations, fish and marine resources relied upon for harvesting, marine mammals, including the SRKW, other species of cultural importance, and the broader health of aquatic and marine ecosystems.

The GIC recognizes the importance of these concerns. The GIC also recognizes that many Indigenous communities identified the protection of fish, fish habitat, marine species, and species at risk as important considerations in assessing the Project’s potential impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights and Indigenous interests, harvesting activities, and stewardship responsibilities.

The regulatory review process will support omnibus issuance of federal permits or authorizations required under the authorities listed in Schedule 2 of the Act. Accordingly, if project-related works or undertakings may result in adverse impacts to fish or terrestrial or aquatic species at risk or their critical habitat, the Proponent will be providing the equivalent information that would be required to apply for and obtain a Fisheries Act authorization or Species at Risk Act (SARA) permit. This will support federal experts’ assessment of the potential impacts of the Project on fish, fish habitat, and SARA-listed terrestrial and marine species. Indigenous communities will be consulted during this process in order to ensure that assessments take account of potential adverse impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights and Indigenous interests.

The GIC is satisfied that the regulatory review process provides the appropriate framework through which potential impacts on fish, fish habitat, marine species, and species at risk can be further examined, assessed and considered in the development of project-specific conditions, prior to the issuance of a Conditions Document, and as informed by ongoing consultation with Indigenous communities.

f. Emergency management, marine shipping, and marine spill response

A recurring theme throughout consultation was the adequacy of spill prevention, emergency preparedness, and emergency response measures, as well as the ability of existing response systems to protect Indigenous lands, waters, harvesting activities, and culturally significant resources in the event of an accident or malfunction. Indigenous communities raised concerns in relation to both terrestrial pipeline incidents and marine spill scenarios.

The GIC recognizes that these concerns relate not only to the potential consequences of accidents or malfunctions, but also to confidence in the systems that would be relied upon to prevent, prepare for, and respond to such events. In considering the concerns raised by Indigenous communities, the GIC considered whether these matters could be appropriately examined through the post-listing regulatory process.

As an interprovincial oil pipeline, the Project would be regulated by the CER over its lifecycle. In the event of an accident or malfunction, the CER holds its regulated companies accountable for an appropriate response under their Emergency Management Program, as required by the CER Onshore Pipeline Regulations.

The marine shipping component of the Project would operate within a well-established marine safety regime. In Canada, tanker movements are subject to a range of requirements intended to prevent accidents and oil spills, including vessel safety standards, navigational and pilotage requirements, and traffic management protocols. Transport Canada’s National Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Regime is in place to build preparedness capacity for potential accidents.

During the MPO-coordinated regulatory review process, Transport Canada, the Canadian Coast Guard, and other participating maritime organizations will undertake a Navigation Safety Assessment Process (NSAP) based on marine-shipping information and studies that will be provided by the Proponent. NSAP studies will support the assessment and establishment of mitigation measures for potential accidents and malfunctions related to marine shipping. Any recommendations from the NSAP will be provided to the Commission of the CER as part of its public hearing to inform potential project conditions. Ongoing Indigenous community consultation and participation in the Commission hearings will help to ensure that Indigenous perspectives and concerns inform the identification of those conditions.

In light of the foregoing, the GIC is satisfied that the post-listing regulatory process provides an appropriate framework through which these concerns can be meaningfully examined and considered prior to the issuance of a Conditions Document.

Next steps

Going forward, MPO will coordinate a regulatory review process to develop specific technical conditions to accommodate, mitigate, avoid, and, where appropriate, offset potential project effects. This includes measures to protect the environment and the rights of Indigenous peoples.

Upon receipt of comprehensive project information through a regulatory application, a review process will be launched, which will include public hearings led by the Commission of the CER. These hearings will be a venue through which the technical, environmental, social, cultural, health, safety, and security elements of the project, as well as potential adverse effects on the rights of Indigenous peoples, will be further reviewed and assessed. This will also be a transparent forum for Indigenous communities and others, including landowners, stakeholders, and the public to provide feedback on the conditions that may be applied to the Project. Following the completion of CER Commission hearings, MPO will coordinate work with relevant federal departments in determining final conditions to include in a Conditions Document. Consultation with Indigenous communities will occur throughout this process.

Following the completion of regulatory review, MPO on behalf of the Minister will assess the advice and then develop final conditions to be issued to the Proponent and made public through a Conditions Document. The Conditions Document will replace the permits and authorizations that would otherwise be required under federal authorities listed in Schedule 2 of the Act.

This Conditions Document will be the legal equivalent to applicable federal permits, decisions, or authorizations, and will be enforceable as such. If the Proponent fails to meet these conditions, the Project cannot proceed.

Conclusion

In reaching a decision that the Project is in the national interest, the GIC considered the factors in subsection 5(6) of the Act, information gathered through consultation with Indigenous peoples, input from Canadians provided in response to the Canada Gazette Notice, and engagement with implicated provinces and federal departments, among other factors and sources of information. The GIC is satisfied that the duty to consult with Indigenous peoples in relation to the listing decision has been fulfilled. The GIC is further assured that consultations will continue to be conducted with Indigenous peoples through the regulatory review of the Project following its listing under the Act, in order to inform the issuance of a Conditions Document.

The GIC has determined that the Project would strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience, and security while creating material economic benefits that will improve the nation’s prosperity, which will be critical within a context of increasing trade uncertainty and economic rupture. The Project also demonstrates a credible pathway for successful execution with an experienced Ownership Group and strategic development approach, and it is expected to provide benefits to Indigenous peoples and advance their interests through equity and benefit sharing, employment, and procurement opportunities. Although the Project does not directly contribute to Canada’s GHG emission reduction targets and is anticipated to have some adverse impacts on marine and territorial environments, the GIC has concluded that these impacts can be mitigated through the regulatory process and do not displace the national interest character of the Project. The Project can also be a key enabler for other important environmental measures.

Having regard to the considerations above, the GIC is of the view that the West Coast Oil Pipeline is in the national interest, and has, by Order amended Schedule I to add the name of the Project and a detailed description of it.

Contact

Major Projects Office
WCOPComment-CommentaireOCO@mpo-bgp.gc.ca

PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY OF CANADA

QUARANTINE ACT

Minimizing the Risk of Exposure to Ebola Disease in Canada Order, 2026, No. 3

P.C. 2026-873 September 25, 2026

Whereas the Governor in Council is of the opinion that there is an outbreak of a communicable disease, namely Ebola disease, in a foreign country;

Whereas the Governor in Council is of the opinion that the introduction or spread of the disease would pose an imminent and severe risk to public health in Canada;

Whereas the Governor in Council is of the opinion that the entry of persons into Canada who have recently been in that foreign country may introduce or contribute to the spread of the disease in Canada;

And whereas the Governor in Council is of the opinion that no reasonable alternatives to prevent the introduction or spread of the disease in Canada are available;

Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Health, makes the annexed Minimizing the Risk of Exposure to Ebola Disease in Canada Order, 2026, No. 3 under section 58 of the Quarantine Act ^{footnote a}.

Minimizing the Risk of Exposure to Ebola Disease in Canada Order, 2026, No. 3

Definitions

1 The following definitions apply in this Order.

air carrier

has the same meaning as in subsection 3(1) of the Aeronautics Act. (transporteur aérien)

Canadian Forces

means the armed forces of His Majesty raised by Canada. (Forces canadiennes)

common-law partner

has the same meaning as in subsection 1(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. (conjoint de fait)

dependent child

has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. (enfant à charge)

immediate family member,

in respect of a person, means

• (a) the spouse or common-law partner of the person;
• (b) a dependent child of the person or of the person’s spouse or common-law partner;
• (c) a dependent child of the dependent child referred to in paragraph (b);
• (d) the parent or step-parent of the person or of the person’s spouse or common-law partner; or
• (e) the guardian or tutor of the person. (membre de la famille immédiate)

isolation

means the separation of persons who have symptoms of Ebola disease in such a manner as to prevent the spread of the disease. (isolement)

private operator

has the same meaning as in subsection 101.01(1) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations. (exploitant privé)

quarantine

means the separation of persons in such a manner as to prevent the possible spread of disease. (quarantaine)

quarantine facility

means a place that is designated under section 7 of the Quarantine Act or that is deemed to be designated under subsection 8(2) of that Act. (installation de quarantaine)

symptoms of Ebola disease

includes symptoms such as a fever, chills, a sore throat, joint or muscle pain, a rash, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bleeding. (symptômes de la maladie Ebola)

Exemption

2 A person who arrives at an airport in Canada aboard a commercial passenger aircraft, is transiting to a foreign country and remains in a sterile transit area or designated holding area, as those terms are defined in section 2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, is exempt from the application of this Order, other than sections 3 and 4, until they leave Canada.

Prohibition

3 A foreign national, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, is prohibited from entering Canada if they have been in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the 21 days before the day on which they intend to enter Canada.

Exempted persons — prohibition

4 (1) Subject to subsection (2), section 3 does not apply to the following persons:

• (a) a crew member, as defined in subsection 101.01(1) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations, or a person who enters Canada only to become such a crew member;
• (b) a member of a crew, as defined in subsection 3(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, or a person who enters Canada only to become such a member of a crew;
• (c) a person who holds a passport that contains a valid diplomatic acceptance, consular, official or special representative acceptance issued by the Chief of Protocol for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development;
• (d) a person who holds a temporary resident visa who is taking up official duties as a foreign representative with a diplomatic mission, consular post, international organization or special representative’s office in Canada, as well as any person who is an immediate family member of that person and is eligible for accreditation by the Chief of Protocol for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development;
• (e) a person who is attending a meeting in Canada that is hosted by an international organization, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, and who benefits from privileges and immunities under that Act or the Privileges and Immunities (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Act;
• (f) a member of a visiting force, as defined in section 2 of the Visiting Forces Act, who enters Canada for the purpose of performing their duties as a member of that force;
• (g) a person who enters Canada for the purpose of providing medical care, transporting or collecting essential medical equipment, supplies or means of treatment or delivering, installing, maintaining or repairing medically necessary equipment or devices;
• (h) a person — or any person in a class of persons — whose entry into Canada, in the opinion of the Minister, does not pose a risk of significant harm to public health and is in the national interest; and
• (i) a person registered as an Indian under the Indian Act.

Exemption letter

(2) Unless the Minister determines that exigent circumstances exist that make it impracticable, a person referred to in paragraphs (1)(g) or (h) is exempt under subsection (1) only if they first obtain a letter from the Public Health Agency of Canada granting the exemption and,

• (a) if they intend to enter Canada by aircraft, they present the letter to the private operator or air carrier before boarding a direct or indirect flight to Canada; and
• (b) they present the letter to a screening officer or quarantine officer on request.

Suitable quarantine plan

5 (1) A suitable quarantine plan must meet the following requirements:

• (a) it includes the civic address of the place where the person plans to quarantine themselves during the 21-day period that begins on the day on which they enter Canada;
• (b) it includes the person’s contact information for the 21-day period that begins on the day on which they enter Canada; and
• (c) it indicates that the place of quarantine meets the conditions set out in subsection (2).

Place of quarantine — conditions

(2) The conditions for the place of quarantine are the following:

• (a) it allows the person to avoid all contact with other people with whom they did not travel, unless the person is a minor, in which case the person may have contact with people who provide them with care or support and who reside with them until the end of the 21-day period that begins on the day on which the person enters Canada;
• (b) it allows no other person to be present at the place, unless that person resides there habitually;
• (c) it allows the person to access the necessities of life without leaving the place; and
• (d) it allows the person to follow any instructions that a quarantine officer provides with respect to their contact with other persons who habitually reside at the place.

Health assessment on entry

6 (1) A person who, in the 21 days before the day on which they enter Canada, has been in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda or South Sudan — or in another foreign country for which the Minister has assessed the risk of an outbreak of Ebola disease to be high or very high — must, on entry into Canada,

• (a) disclose that fact at the entry point to a screening officer or quarantine officer; and
• (b) immediately undergo a health assessment as required by a quarantine officer.

Factors

(2) In assessing the risk, the Minister must consider

• (a) any scientific evidence and other data relating to an outbreak of Ebola disease in the foreign country;
• (b) any relevant epidemiological data, including the size and severity of the outbreak in the foreign country and the rate at which the number of cases is increasing;
• (c) any public health measures that are in place in the foreign country; and
• (d) any other factors, including the public interest, that the Minister determines to be relevant to minimizing the risk related to Ebola disease.

Minister’s assessment or reassessment

(3) The Minister may, at any time, assess or reassess the risk of an outbreak of Ebola disease in a foreign country referred to in subsection (1) and, when doing so, must consider the factors set out in subsection (2).

Risk no longer high or very high

(4) This Order does not apply to a person who has been in a foreign country referred to in subsection (1) if, before the day on which they enter Canada,

• (a) the Minister has assessed or reassessed the risk of an outbreak of Ebola disease in that country; and
• (b) the Minister determines, on the basis of the assessment or reassessment, that the risk of an outbreak of Ebola disease in that country is no longer high or very high.

Determination

7 On the basis of the health assessment referred to in paragraph 6(1)(b), the quarantine officer must determine the person to be

• (a) asymptomatic; or
• (b) symptomatic, if the person has symptoms of Ebola disease that are not related to another condition.

Asymptomatic

8 (1) A person who is determined by a quarantine officer to be asymptomatic must

• (a) provide to the quarantine officer a suitable quarantine plan;
• (b) travel without delay to their place of quarantine, in accordance with the instructions of the quarantine officer, and quarantine themselves in accordance with the quarantine plan; and
• (c) remain in quarantine until the end of the 21-day period that begins on the day on which they enter Canada.

Quarantine facility

(2) If the person does not provide to the quarantine officer a suitable quarantine plan or a new suitable quarantine plan, they must quarantine themselves without delay at a quarantine facility, in accordance with the instructions provided by a quarantine officer, and remain in quarantine at the facility or at any other quarantine facility to which they are subsequently transferred until the end of the 21-day period that begins on the day on which they enter Canada.

New place of quarantine

(3) With the approval of a quarantine officer and in accordance with the quarantine officer’s instructions, the person may change their place of quarantine, if they provide to the quarantine officer a new suitable quarantine plan and comply with the requirements set out in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c).

Mandatory relocation

(4) If a place of quarantine no longer meets the conditions set out in subsection 5(2) or if a quarantine officer determines it to be necessary for a public health reason, the person must, in accordance with the quarantine officer’s instructions, provide to the quarantine officer a new suitable quarantine plan and comply with the requirements set out in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c).

Leaving quarantine facility

(5) With the approval of a quarantine officer and in accordance with the quarantine officer’s instructions, the person may leave the quarantine facility before the end of their quarantine period if, during that period, they provide to the quarantine officer a suitable quarantine plan and comply with the requirements set out in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c).

Quarantine — additional requirements

9 A person referred to in section 8 must, in accordance with those instructions,

• (a) report their arrival at, and the civic address of, their place of quarantine within 48 hours after entering Canada, in the manner specified by a quarantine officer;
• (b) while they remain in quarantine,
  • (i) monitor themselves for symptoms of Ebola disease, and
  • (ii) report on their health status relating to symptoms of Ebola disease in the manner specified by the quarantine officer; and
• (c) immediately report any symptoms of Ebola disease that they develop and satisfy the requirements set out in sections 11 and 12.

Exempted persons — quarantine

10 (1) Sections 8 and 9 do not apply to the following persons:

• (a) a crew member, as defined in subsection 101.01(1) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations, or a person who enters Canada only to become such a crew member;
• (b) a member of a crew, as defined in subsection 3(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, or a person who enters Canada only to become such a member of a crew;
• (c) a person who holds a passport that contains a valid diplomatic, consular, official or special representative acceptance issued by the Chief of Protocol for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development;
• (d) a person who holds a temporary resident visa who is taking up official duties as a foreign representative with a diplomatic mission, consular post, international organization or special representative’s office in Canada, as well as any person who is an immediate family member of that person and is eligible for accreditation by the Chief of Protocol for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development;
• (e) a person who is attending a meeting in Canada that is hosted by an international organization, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, and who benefits from privileges and immunities under that Act or the Privileges and Immunities (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Act;
• (f) a person who enters Canada for the purpose of providing medical care, transporting or collecting essential medical equipment, supplies or means of treatment or delivering, installing, maintaining or repairing medically necessary equipment or devices;
• (g) a member of the Canadian Forces who enters Canada for the purpose of performing their duties as a member of those forces;
• (h) a member of a visiting force, as defined in section 2 of the Visiting Forces Act, who enters Canada for the purpose of performing their duties as a member of that force; and
• (i) a person, or any person in a class of persons, if
  • (i) in the opinion of the Minister, their release from the requirements to quarantine themselves in accordance with sections 8 and 9 of this Order does not pose a risk of significant harm to public health and is in the national interest, and
  • (ii) they comply with all conditions imposed on them by a quarantine officer to minimize the risk of introduction or spread of Ebola disease.

Symptom monitoring

(2) A person referred to in subsection (1) must monitor themselves for symptoms of Ebola disease until the end of the 21-day period that begins on the day on which the person enters Canada and, if they develop any symptoms of Ebola disease, immediately report those symptoms, in accordance with the instructions provided by a quarantine officer, and comply with the requirements set out in sections 11 and 12.

Symptomatic

11 (1) A person who is determined by a quarantine officer to be symptomatic, or who becomes symptomatic during the period for which they are quarantining in accordance with the requirements of this Order, must follow all instructions provided by a quarantine officer and must

• (a) immediately undergo a medical examination, as specified by the quarantine officer;
• (b) isolate without delay at a health care facility or at another place that the quarantine officer determines to be suitable for that purpose; and
• (c) remain in isolation while awaiting or undergoing the medical examination and, if they are tested for Ebola disease, while awaiting test results to determine whether they have Ebola disease.

Isolation — person with Ebola disease

(2) If the quarantine officer determines that the person referred to in subsection (1) has Ebola disease, the person must remain in isolation until the quarantine officer determines that they no longer present a public health risk.

Symptoms not related to Ebola disease

(3) A person referred to in subsection (1) whose symptoms are determined by the quarantine officer to not be related to Ebola disease and who is released from the health care facility or other place the quarantine officer determined to be suitable must

• (a) quarantine and continue monitoring themselves for symptoms of Ebola disease for the remainder of their 21-day period under this Order; or
• (b) in the case of a person referred to in subsection 10(1), continue monitoring themselves for symptoms of Ebola disease for the remainder of their 21-day period under this Order.

Isolation — additional requirements

12 A person referred to in subsection 11(1) must also, in accordance with the instructions of a quarantine officer,

• (a) report their arrival at, and the civic address of, the place of isolation within 48 hours after entering Canada or after symptoms of Ebola disease first appear, whichever is later, in the manner specified by the quarantine officer; and
• (b) while they remain in isolation, undergo any medical examination that a quarantine officer requires, monitor their symptoms of Ebola disease and, if they require additional medical care, report to the public health authority specified by a quarantine officer.

Exempted persons — medical reason

13 (1) A person is exempted from the quarantine and isolation requirements of this Order during any medical emergency or essential medical services or treatments that require the person to visit a health care facility that is outside the place where the person is in quarantine or isolation.

Accompanying person

(2) If the person exempted from the quarantine and isolation requirements under subsection (1) is a dependent child or requires assistance in accessing medical services or treatments, the exception set out in that subsection extends to one other person who accompanies the dependent child or the person requiring assistance.

Requirements

(3) The persons referred to in subsections (1) and (2) must

• (a) not take public transportation, including an aircraft, bus, train, subway, taxi or ride-sharing service, to go to or return from the health care facility referred to in subsection (1), and
• (b) not go to any other place.

Quarantine Act — powers and obligations

14 For greater certainty, this Order does not affect any of the powers and obligations set out in the Quarantine Act.

Transitional provisions

15 (1) In this section, former Order means the Minimizing the Risk of Exposure to Ebola Disease in Canada Order, 2026, No. 2.

Persons quarantining under former Order

(2) A person who was required to quarantine under section 8 of the former Order and is quarantining in accordance with a suitable quarantine plan or at a quarantine facility on the day on which this Order comes into force is required to quarantine for the remainder of the period for which they were quarantining under the former Order and must comply with the requirements set out in sections 8 and 9 of this Order.

Persons isolating under former Order

(3) A person who was in isolation under section 11 of the former Order and is isolating on the day on which this Order comes into force must comply with the requirements set out in sections 11 and 12 of this Order.

Persons self-monitoring under former Order

(4) A person who was required to monitor themselves for symptoms of Ebola disease under subsection 10(2) of the former Order on the day on which this Order comes into force is required to do so for the remainder of the period for which they were monitoring themselves for symptoms under the former Order and must comply with the requirements set out in subsection 10(2) of this Order.

Effective period

16 (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Order has effect for the period beginning at 00:00 Eastern Daylight Time on September 29, 2026 — but if it is made after that day, it has effect for the period beginning at 00:00 Eastern Daylight Time on the day on which it is made — and ending at 23:59:59 Eastern Standard Time on November 27, 2026.

Continuing obligation

(2) In the case of a person referred to in section 6 who enters Canada during the period beginning at 00:00 Eastern Standard Time on November 8, 2026 and ending at 23:59:59 Eastern Standard Time on November 27, 2026, this Order continues to have effect until 23:59:59 Eastern Standard Time on December 17, 2026.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Order.)

Proposal

The Minimizing the Risk of Exposure to Ebola Disease in Canada Order, 2026, No. 3 (the Order) is made pursuant to section 58 of the Quarantine Act to reduce the risk of introduction or spread of Ebola disease in Canada.

The Order succeeds Order in Council P.C. 2026-779, which came into force on August 30, 2026.

This Order is in effect from Tuesday, September 29, 2026, at 00:00 Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) — but if it is made after that date, it has effect at 00:00 EDT on the day it is made — and expires on November 27, 2026, at 23:59:59 Eastern Standard Time (EST). For travellers subject to the Order entering Canada beginning 00:00 EST on November 8, 2026, and ending at 23:59:59 EST on November 27, 2026, the Order continues in effect until December 17, 2026, at 23:59:59 EST.

Objective

The objective of this Order is to protect public health by reducing the risk of the introduction or spread of Ebola disease in Canada. As a precautionary measure, the Government of Canada is continuing to apply a temporary prohibition on the entry of foreign nationals who have, in the last 21 days, been present in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), with a limited number of exemptions. Targeted public health measures also continue to apply to all travellers entering Canada who have, in the last 21 days, been in the DRC, South Sudan, Uganda, or any other foreign country that has been assessed to have a “high” or “very high” risk of an outbreak of Ebola disease by Canada’s Minister of Health. These travellers will be identified upon arrival, referred to a quarantine officer for a health assessment, and required to comply with public health measures. Unless exempt, these travellers must remain in quarantine for 21 days beginning on the day they enter Canada. They must self-monitor for symptoms of Ebola disease and, if they develop symptoms, they must report any symptoms and enter into isolation at a health care facility.

Background

Ebola disease is a severe and often fatal illness caused by viruses in the genus Orthoebolavirus, including Bundibugyo virus, for which there are currently no approved vaccines or specific treatments. The current Bundibugyo virus outbreak continues to expand in the DRC, with sustained transmission across multiple provinces and evidence of ongoing community spread and under-detection of cases. As of September 13, 2026, the World Health Organization (WHO) had reported 7 258 confirmed cases and 3 510 deaths. The outbreak is now the second-largest Ebola outbreak on record, with the WHO indicating that transmission in certain outbreak affected areas is continuing to outpace containment efforts. Response efforts continue to be challenged by insecurity, population mobility, limited health care capacity, and community mistrust in outbreak affected areas. Combined with non-specific early symptoms and an incubation period of up to 21 days, these factors continue to pose challenges for case detection and outbreak control.

The outbreak in the DRC continues to pose a risk to neighbouring countries due to cross-border population movement, trade, and other ongoing links with affected areas. South Sudan in particular remains under close monitoring due to ongoing humanitarian challenges, insecurity, population displacement, and limited health system capacity across the region, which continue to pose an increased risk of importation and onward transmission. The WHO continues to assess the risk in South Sudan, Uganda and all other countries sharing a land border with the DRC as high, even as the WHO and Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention have recently declared Uganda’s Ebola outbreak to be over as of August 27, 2026, following 42 consecutive days without a confirmed case.

In response to the evolving outbreak, the Government of Canada has, to date, taken a precautionary approach to support the early detection and public health management of potentially exposed travellers. While the current outbreak remains geographically limited and the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) assesses the overall risk to the Canadian population as low, international travel creates opportunities for infected individuals to cross borders before symptoms develop. Prompt identification of individuals who may have been exposed is therefore critical to support timely risk assessment, monitoring, and the implementation of appropriate public health measures.

Given the severity of Ebola disease, sustained transmission in the affected region, and the potential consequences of delayed detection, targeted border measures have been renewed for a 60-day period to reduce the risk of Ebola disease entering and spreading in Canada. Border measures are an available means of limiting the introduction to or spread of Ebola disease within Canada, and, in the case of importation, limiting export beyond Canada. The use of powers under section 58 of the Quarantine Act is intended to facilitate the targeted screening of arrivals from affected countries, to support a nationally consistent framework, and to extend federal oversight and jurisdiction over incoming travellers beyond arrival. These protections are stronger than those achieved through reliance on existing authorities, which would necessitate individual screening on a case-by-case basis using the authorities under the Quarantine Act. Reliance on existing authorities carries the risk of inconsistency in application. Additionally, it would require the assessment of a significantly higher volume of travellers, substantially increasing operational pressures for both the Canada Border Services Agency and PHAC. It would also require the referral of suspected cases to provincial or territorial authorities, who may not have the capacity to manage a higher volume of such referrals. At the same time, it is beneficial for Canada to remain broadly aligned with the United States (U.S.) and Mexico. A coordinated regional response continues to be important due to the highly integrated nature of cross-border travel and trade, while recognizing that public health measures may be determined by each jurisdiction based on its respective authorities, circumstances, and public health considerations.

Continued entry prohibitions for foreign nationals who, in the last 21 days, have been in the DRC reduce risks associated with an increase in the numbers of persons attempting to enter Canada from the country most heavily affected by the Ebola disease outbreak, while also allowing finite resources to be focused on managing travellers with a right of entry. Individuals with a right of entry into Canada (such as citizens and permanent residents) who require health care are managed through the domestic publicly funded health care system, whereas foreign nationals without a right of entry who have been in the DRC in the preceding 21 days are prohibited from entering Canada (subject to limited exemptions) in order to prevent an increase in the number of potentially exposed foreign nationals coming to Canada who may require public health resources in Canada. Additionally, given the travel prohibition by the United States and the resulting significant risk that additional foreign nationals who have been in the DRC may attempt to travel to Canada as a route to the United States, aligning Canada’s approach with that of the United States helps to mitigate risks of increased numbers of travellers attempting to enter Canada associated with misalignment in regional measures.

Implications

Key impacts for travellers and industry

This Order sets out border measures that affect persons based on recent travel history. Subject to certain narrow exceptions, foreign nationals who have, in the 21 days before the day on which they intend to enter Canada, been present in the DRC are prohibited from entering Canada. Canadian citizens, permanent residents, persons registered as an Indian under the Indian Act who have been present in the DRC within the 21 days before the day on which they intend to enter Canada may enter Canada.

The Order does not prohibit entry to persons who, in the previous 21 days, have been present in South Sudan, Uganda, or any other foreign country that the Minister of Health has assessed as being “high” or “very high” risk.

All persons entering Canada who have been present in the DRC, South Sudan, Uganda, or any other country assessed by the Minister of Health as being “high” or “very high” risk in the 21 days before the day on which they enter Canada will be referred to a quarantine officer for a health assessment upon arrival to Canada. Asymptomatic travellers will be required to present a suitable quarantine plan upon arrival, quarantine for 21 days, and be subject to regular monitoring. If asymptomatic travellers start to experience symptoms of Ebola disease, they are required to inform a quarantine officer and comply with requirements for symptomatic individuals, including undergoing a medical examination and, if they are determined to have Ebola disease, isolating until the quarantine officer determines that they no longer present a public health risk.

The Order provides flexibility for persons in quarantine to transfer from a designated quarantine facility or suitable place of quarantine to another approved place of quarantine, subject to quarantine officer approval. Individuals in transit to a foreign country who stay exclusively in an airport sterile transit area or designated holding area while in Canada are exempt from the Order, except for the entry prohibition.

Travellers experiencing symptoms consistent with Ebola disease (including fever, headache, fatigue, rash, abdominal pain, and internal and external bleeding) will be immediately referred for a medical examination and, if they are determined to have Ebola disease, required to isolate until a quarantine officer determines that they no longer pose a public health risk. Symptomatic travellers, for whom Ebola disease is determined not to be the cause of their symptoms (i.e. who test negative for Ebola disease), must continue to comply with the remainder of their original quarantine requirement or self-monitoring (if exempt from quarantine).

This Order does not impose new requirements on industry stakeholders, including air, marine, and land conveyance operators. Conveyance operators remain subject to existing obligations under the Quarantine Act, including to report, as soon as possible before arrival in Canada, any reasonable grounds to suspect that a person, cargo, or other thing on board could cause the spread of a communicable disease listed in the Quarantine Act schedule, or if a death has occurred on board. These obligations are routine and continue to apply regardless of this Order.

While Transport Canada’s Interim Order under the Aeronautics Act imposes requirements on air carriers, this Order does not. Rather, it supports air carriers who must verify that travellers meet conditions for boarding a flight to Canada under Transport Canada’s Interim Order to Prevent Certain Persons from Boarding Flights to Canada Due to Ebola Disease, No. 3, by imposing the requirement on certain travellers eligible to be exempted from entry prohibitions to obtain an exemption letter from PHAC prior to departing for Canada. If they travel by air, such travellers are required to present this letter to air carriers before boarding a flight to Canada.

Travellers should be aware that an exemption under the present Order does not automatically exempt them from the application of an order pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Similarly, should a traveller receive an exemption under the Order No. 2 Amending the Minimizing the Risk of Exposure to Ebola Disease in Canada Order (Immigration Applications and Documents) allowing them to travel to and enter Canada, they will still be subject to the provisions of the Minimizing the Risk of Exposure to Ebola Disease in Canada Order, 2026, No. 3 upon entry to Canada, which may include the requirement to quarantine.

While the Order remains in effect, the Minister of Health may assess additional countries as requiring the imposition of measures or remove countries if assessed that measures are no longer required. Factors the Minister will consider in assessing “high” or “very high” risk include scientific evidence and other data relating to an outbreak of Ebola disease or the risk of an outbreak of Ebola disease in a foreign country; epidemiology (including severity, increases in disease rates) in a country; public health measures in place in a country; and any other factors the Minister considers relevant to minimizing the risk arising from the disease, including the public interest.

Persons arriving in Canada without travel history to the DRC, South Sudan, Uganda — or to any other country assessed by the Minister of Health as being “high” or “very high” risk — in the 21 days before the date on which they enter or intend to enter Canada will not be implicated under this Order. All persons arriving in Canada are subject to the Quarantine Act.

Penalties

Failure to comply with this Order and other related measures under the Quarantine Act are offences under the Quarantine Act. The maximum penalties are a fine of up to $1,000,000 and/or imprisonment for three years, or both. Non-compliance may also be subject to fines under the federal Contraventions Act.

Consultation

The Government of Canada has engaged key stakeholders (provincial and territorial partners, relevant Government of Canada departments and agencies, transport industry stakeholders, and humanitarian organizations) to align efforts and to advance implementation plans.

As part of its commitments under the International Health Regulations, Canada will also notify the WHO of this action.

Contact

Luc Brisebois
Public Health Agency of Canada
Email: Luc.Brisebois@phac-aspc.gc.ca
Telephone: 613‑960‑6637