The C.D. Howe Institute has come forward with a model for assessing and ranking proposed major projects under the federal government’s new Building Canada Act.

Absent a clear, evidence-based method to assess and rank project proposals, the think tank says, the country risks delaying investments essential to economic security, clean growth, and Indigenous reconciliation.

In “Nation-Building in Practice: A Framework for Prioritizing Major Projects in Canada,” authors David Jones and Tasnim Fariha apply a multi-criteria decision analysis framework to projects referred to the Major Projects Office (MPO) across sectors, including trade and energy infrastructure.

“A structured, transparent methodology is important if Canada is going to prioritize projects that strengthen national resilience and deliver long-term economic value,” says Fariha. “Right now, the country faces too many competing pressures to rely on ad-hoc decisions.”

The analysis finds that projects that improve trade diversification, build Canada’s base infrastructure, such as transmission lines, and develop critical minerals offer some of the strongest combinations of economic potential, resilience gains, and alignment with long-term national priorities.

However, the report warns that without clear criteria, an optimized weighting of competing government objectives, and a transparent process, Canada risks overlooking projects with high long-term value or prematurely advancing those with weaker business cases. The authors recommend adding a sixth criterion, “additionality from designation,” to evaluate whether MPO designation would genuinely accelerate timelines or improve outcomes.

“The government will face real trade-offs,” says Jones. “Economic potential, environmental goals, Indigenous partnerships, and execution risk do not always align. Canada needs a disciplined framework that makes these trade-offs transparent, supports certainty for stakeholders and drives private sector investment.”

The report stresses that through the work of the MPO, policymakers will need to decide whether the objective is to help shovel-ready projects cross the finish line or to accelerate earlier-stage, higher-reward opportunities that carry more uncertainty. A portfolio approach, balancing projects across sectors and development stages, may offer the best path to national resilience.

Unless the government adopts a transparent, evidence-based methodology, the authors caution, Canada will continue struggling with slow timelines, missed opportunities, and inconsistent decision-making across regions and sectors.