Carney's Big Bet: Inside Canada's Push to Slash Project Approvals From Five Years to One

On May 7, 2026, Prime Minister Mark Carney's government announced it would launch a 30-day consultation on proposed legislative reforms designed to compress the federal review process for all major projects to no more than one year [1]. The announcement marked the latest and most ambitious step in a regulatory overhaul that began with the Building Canada Act (Bill C-5) in 2025 and now aims to remake the entire federal approval apparatus — touching the Impact Assessment Act, the Fisheries Act, and the machinery through which Canada decides which projects get built and which do not [2].

The stakes, by the government's own accounting, are enormous: more than $126 billion in combined investment across two tranches of designated "nation-building" projects, tens of thousands of projected jobs, and the promise of a Canada that can build at the speed its competitors do [3]. But the opposition is equally fierce. Indigenous leaders, environmental lawyers, and civil society organizations argue the reforms gut constitutionally protected consultation rights, concentrate unchecked power in the executive, and risk reproducing the environmental and legal liabilities of past deregulatory experiments [4][5].

The Legislation: What It Changes

The government's May 2026 discussion paper proposes changes to several federal statutes. The core reform is structural: rather than requiring projects to pass through sequential federal and provincial reviews — a process the government says has routinely taken more than five years — the new system would run all assessments and permit reviews concurrently, with a single federal decision issued at the end [2].

Specific proposed changes include:

• Impact Assessment Act: For pipelines and offshore energy projects, the Canada Energy Regulator would conduct the review, eliminating the need for a separate assessment by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC). For nuclear and uranium projects, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would assume sole authority [2].
• Fisheries Act: The government proposes narrowing the types of activities requiring navigation permits and making fish habitat offsetting permits more flexible [1].
• Decision-making authority: Some powers currently held by Cabinet would transfer to individual ministers, and certain early construction activities could begin before a final impact decision — provided the necessary permits are approved [2].
• Indigenous consultation: A new "Crown Corporation Hub" within IAAC would coordinate all federal consultation with each affected Indigenous group, intended to address what the government calls "consultation fatigue" [1].

The government states that the duty to consult under Section 35 of the Constitution Act remains unchanged, and that alignment with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is required [2]. Critics dispute whether these assurances are meaningful within the compressed timelines.

Source: C.D. Howe Institute / Business Council of Alberta

Data as of May 7, 2026CSV

The Economic Case: $126 Billion and Counting

The Carney government has designated major projects in two tranches. The first, announced in September 2025, represented more than $60 billion in investment. A second tranche added $56 billion more and a projected 68,000 jobs [3][6]. The projects span LNG terminals in British Columbia, an open-pit mine, a nuclear plant in Ontario, a shipping terminal in Quebec, and wind power developments in Atlantic Canada [7].

Source: Government of Canada / CBC News

Data as of May 7, 2026CSV

RBC Economics has estimated that $600 billion in planned resource projects across Canada depend on the success of the project-review overhaul [8]. The government's argument rests on a straightforward comparison: Canada's federal review process has averaged more than five years, while Australia completes comparable reviews in roughly 2.5 years, the United States in 2.8 years, and Norway in 1.8 years [9]. Canada has fallen from 4th to 23rd in the World Bank's ease-of-doing-business rankings over the past decade [10].

The government has signed "one project, one review" cooperation agreements with Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island, with Newfoundland and Labrador in development [11].

Source: World Bank Open Data

Data as of Dec 31, 2024CSV

The Counter-Evidence: Is Regulation Really the Problem?

The government's central premise — that regulatory delay is the primary barrier to investment — faces empirical challenges. A peer-reviewed study published in FACETS examined 27 mines in British Columbia and found that regulation was a factor in only three of the 20 delayed projects. Commodity prices and economic conditions were the most common cause of delay [12].

This finding aligns with broader trends. Capital spending in Canada's mining and oil and gas sectors stands at roughly half of its 2014 peak. While regulatory uncertainty has played a role, falling commodity prices, high costs, labour shortages, and market access constraints have been at least as significant [10]. As the FACETS study concluded, "a faster permitting system cannot offset weak markets or financing gaps" [12].

The C.D. Howe Institute, while supportive of approval-process reform, has noted that the investment climate depends on multiple factors beyond permitting speed, including infrastructure availability, access to capital, and the resolution of Indigenous title claims [9]. The Business Council of Alberta's "From Barriers to Breakthroughs" report similarly identified labour shortages and supply chain disruptions alongside regulatory hurdles as key constraints [13].

Independent economists have yet to publish comprehensive assessments of the government's job creation projections. The 68,000 jobs projected from the second tranche of projects have not been independently verified, and the figures do not distinguish between temporary construction-phase employment and permanent operational jobs [6]. The government's Spring Economic Update announced a plan to train 100,000 new trades workers over five years, implicitly acknowledging that labour supply — not just regulatory speed — constrains project delivery [14].

The Harper Precedent: Lessons From 2012

Canada has run this experiment before. In 2012, the Harper government passed two omnibus bills — Bill C-38 (the Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act) and Bill C-45 — that overhauled federal environmental review. The previous Canadian Environmental Assessment Act operated on the principle that all projects were assessed unless excluded; Harper reversed this, requiring projects to be specifically designated for review [15].

The immediate effects were dramatic: approximately 3,000 environmental assessments were cancelled overnight, including hundreds of reviews of oil, gas, and pipeline projects. The Navigable Waters Protection Act was gutted, removing thousands of lakes and streams from federal protection [15][16].

The economic results were mixed. The deregulation did not prevent the resource sector's downturn when oil prices collapsed in 2014-2015. Canada's GDP growth slowed to 0.65% in 2015, suggesting that regulatory speed alone could not insulate the economy from commodity cycles [17]. Meanwhile, the legal and political liabilities accumulated: the Trudeau government spent years attempting to restore public trust in federal oversight through the Impact Assessment Act of 2019, only for the Supreme Court of Canada to rule portions of that law unconstitutional in 2023 [18].

Environmental groups draw direct lines between the Carney reforms and the Harper precedent. West Coast Environmental Law has described the Building Canada Act as containing "Henry VIII clauses" — provisions that allow Cabinet to override existing environmental legislation by executive order [5]. Ecojustice's Charlie Hatt warned that the Building Canada Act "hands enormous and unjustified power to the Cabinet with precious few checks" [4].

Indigenous Rights: Constitutional Collision

The sharpest opposition comes from Indigenous communities whose constitutionally protected rights under Section 35 are directly affected. The Assembly of First Nations unanimously passed an emergency resolution opposing new pipeline development under the fast-track framework. National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak stated: "First Nations people, we stand with Canada against Trump's illegal tariffs, but not at the expense of our rights" [7].

Fourteen First Nations have launched legal challenges against both federal Bill C-5 and Ontario's companion Bill 5, with five additional nations joining the case [19]. The Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs, whose territory is affected by BC fast-track projects, say the federal government conducted "zero consultation" before publishing its fast-track list. Sustainability Director Tara Marsden noted that with "20 to 30 First Nations" affected by the projects, having "three on board" does not constitute consensus [7].

Legal analysts at JFK Law have argued that the Building Canada Act's framework of "approve first, consult on narrow options later" contradicts twenty years of jurisprudence since the Supreme Court's Haida Nation decision, which established that genuine consultation must occur before decisions are made — not after [20]. Lead counsel Kate Kempton of Woodward and Company Lawyers said the laws "set reconciliation back 40 years" [19].

The picture is not monolithic. The First Nations Natural Gas Alliance, led by former Wet'suwet'en chief Karen Ogen, has embraced the approach. "LNG and natural gas development are not just an opportunity; they are a national imperative," Ogen said [7]. The Nisga'a Nation co-developed the Ksi Lisims LNG project, with President Eva Clayton projecting "$30 billion in investment" and "thousands of skilled careers" [7].

This division exposes a structural tension: international law requires the free, prior, and informed consent of all affected Indigenous communities, not just those that stand to benefit. As University of British Columbia professor Sheryl Lightfoot has warned, bypassing this standard risks undermining "the legitimacy and fairness of project approvals" [7].

Amnesty International Canada has called the Building Canada Act a "troubling threat" to Indigenous rights [21].

Who Decides: Discretion and Conflict of Interest

Under the Building Canada Act, the Minister responsible for the Act recommends projects for designation through an Order of the Governor in Council, following a 30-day publication in the Canada Gazette [22]. Projects are evaluated against five criteria: strengthening Canada's autonomy and security; providing economic benefits; having a high likelihood of successful execution; advancing Indigenous interests; and contributing to clean growth [22].

Critics note that several of these criteria are subjective and that the minister holds broad discretion over which projects enter — or are removed from — the fast-track pipeline. The consolidated conditions document issued at the end of review is "deemed to constitute a permit, decision, or authorization under all applicable statutes," effectively collapsing multiple independent regulatory checks into a single instrument [22].

Environmental and civil society organizations have identified the absence of meaningful conflict-of-interest provisions as a structural weakness. Thirteen major organizations — including Greenpeace Canada, the David Suzuki Foundation, the Sierra Club Canada Foundation, and MiningWatch Canada — issued a joint statement warning that Bill C-5 enables decisions "with little public participation" and "without robust environmental impact assessments" [4].

Enforcement After Approval: What Remains

The government maintains that environmental protections are preserved under the new framework and that only the process — not the standards — has changed. But enforcement capacity is a separate question.

Environment and Climate Change Canada conducted over 10,000 inspections and initiated more than 400 enforcement actions in 2025 [23]. Provincial administrative monetary penalty systems allow regulators to impose fines without court proceedings, and directors and officers of corporations face personal liability for environmental offences [23].

However, legal experts have raised concerns about what happens when a fast-tracked project causes harm that a full assessment would have identified. The compressed timeline reduces the window for identifying cumulative environmental effects, downstream impacts on fish habitat, and species-at-risk interactions. If a project approved under the accelerated process causes environmental damage, the federal government faces potential liability — costs ultimately borne by Canadian taxpayers [4][20].

The precedent is instructive: following the Harper-era deregulation, multiple projects proceeded without adequate environmental review, generating legal challenges that delayed — rather than accelerated — their completion. The risk is that speed in the approval phase produces delays, costs, and liabilities in the construction and operation phases.

What Comes Next

The 30-day consultation period launched on May 7, 2026 will shape the legislation the government introduces in the coming months [1]. The government has signalled it will move "quickly" after the consultation closes. Provincial cooperation agreements are already in place across most of the country [11].

The legal challenges from fourteen First Nations are proceeding through the courts [19]. Environmental organizations have pledged to participate in mandatory Parliamentary Review Committee reviews of the Building Canada Act's implementation [4]. And the fundamental empirical question — whether faster approvals will actually unlock the investment Canada seeks, or whether commodity prices, labour markets, and capital availability will continue to dictate project timelines regardless of regulatory speed — remains unresolved [12][13].

Canada's GDP grew just 1.6% in 2024, and the economic pressure to demonstrate results is real [17]. But so is the risk of building a regulatory framework that concentrates power, compresses consultation, and leaves taxpayers holding the bill when projects go wrong. The Carney government is betting that speed is the answer. The evidence suggests it is only part of the question.