By Dean Brown.

Follow Dean: Instagram · TikTok ·

Facebook · Support my work☕

Good morning,

If Canada wants new mines, pipelines, power lines, ports and LNG terminals, there is one complaint you hear constantly:

It takes too long to build anything here.

Ottawa now says it has an answer.

Bill C-39 and a new federal directive are built around a simple promise:

One project. One review. One year.

That sounds like a major change.

But there’s an important catch.

The one year clock doesn’t start when somebody proposes a project. It starts much later.

Imagine a company announces a new pipeline from Alberta to the B.C. coast.

Before Ottawa can make a final decision, that project may require engineering, environmental studies, route planning, Indigenous engagement, provincial approvals, federal permits and regulatory review.

And some of that work can take years.

Under Ottawa’s new framework, the federal government wants its reviews and decisions completed within one year after the company provides a comprehensive application and the required studies and information. Canada

So the real timeline looks more like this:

Project idea

↓

Design, engineering and studies

↓

Indigenous and community engagement

↓

Complete application

↓

↓

Other approvals, financing and construction

That distinction changes the story quite a bit.

Part of it genuinely is government.

A large project can involve different federal departments, a province, specialized regulators and multiple permits. Federal and provincial assessments can also examine some of the same evidence.

Ottawa’s own review of the system identified duplication, separate approvals and poor coordination as problems. Its proposed solution is to have one lead federal assessor, run more permitting at the same time and coordinate federal Indigenous consultation through one system. Canada

Instead of:

Step 1 → Step 2 → Step 3 → Step 4

Ottawa wants more of:

Steps 1, 2, 3 and 4 happening together.

That could save real time.

A company still has to do the homework.

That can mean wildlife studies, water modelling, engineering, route analysis, financing, customer agreements and changes to the design.

Some environmental studies need information from different seasons. A company can also delay its own project because construction costs rise, commodity prices fall or financing disappears.

Regulatory approval and a company deciding to actually invest are not the same thing.

You can have a project that is approved but never built.

And you can have a commercially attractive project that is not yet approved.

Canada is a federation.

Provinces control many areas involving natural resources and land, while Ottawa has responsibilities involving things like interprovincial pipelines, fisheries, navigation and federal environmental effects.

That means some major projects legitimately involve both governments.

In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that much of the federal Impact Assessment Act’s original designated project framework went beyond Ottawa’s constitutional authority. Parliament later amended the law. Supreme Court of Canada

Ottawa can reduce duplication.

It cannot simply erase provincial jurisdiction.

The duty to consult Indigenous peoples is not just another permit Ottawa can delete to make a project faster.

It flows from Canada’s constitutional framework.

Bill C-39 does not propose eliminating it. Instead, Ottawa wants a Crown Consultation Hub so different federal departments are not repeatedly approaching the same Indigenous communities about the same project. Canada

Again, the idea is:

coordinate the process

not:

skip the process.

One year does not mean automatic approval. Ottawa is promising a decision within the federal window, not a guaranteed yes. Canada

One review does not mean one government. Federal and provincial governments can cooperate on one assessment while keeping their own constitutional authority. Canada

Bill C-39 is not law yet. It was introduced on September 21 and remained at second reading in the House as of the latest parliamentary proceedings. Parliament Now

Ottawa has already issued a Cabinet directive telling federal departments to work toward the one year timeline while Parliament considers the legislation. Canada

The government has identified a real problem.

But there are some much harder questions that the slogan “one project, one review, one year” doesn’t answer.

Could Ottawa simply make the official clock shorter while companies spend longer preparing everything before it starts?

Can a massive mine and a relatively straightforward expansion realistically operate under the same deadline?

What happens when Ottawa reaches month 12 and an Indigenous, environmental or technical issue still isn’t resolved?

And most importantly:

Will faster federal approval actually mean projects get built faster?

That’s where I go deeper in today’s Plus edition.

I follow a major project from the first announcement to construction, look at where the delays actually occur, and use Alberta’s proposed west coast pipeline as a real world test of Ottawa’s new system.

I think the biggest mistake in this debate is assuming there must be one villain.

There is real government duplication.

There are also real environmental studies, constitutional requirements, Indigenous rights, financing problems and commercial decisions that take time.

So I’m less interested in whether Ottawa can make the official number look like 12 months.

I want to know whether Canada can make good decisions faster without simply moving the waiting somewhere else.

That will be the real test.

What major Canadian project would you like me to trace next?

A pipeline? A mine? An LNG project? A power line?

Hit reply and let me know.

Dean