Jamie Sarkonak: Mark Carney's 'one project, one year' mirage - National Post

Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Thursday, Sept. 24, 2026. Photo by HYUNGCHEOL PARK /PostmediaArticle contentThe newly tabled revamp to the federal infrastructure approvals process — Bill C-39 — comes with the tagline, “One project, one decision, in one year.” But this seems to be more a suggestion than a rule.

If passed, the bill would make numerous changes to federal laws that determine whether or not infrastructure gets built. The intent is to streamline the approvals process and to give a better estimate to prospective builders of when to expect a green light.

So, while proponents at present must work with multiple federal authorities to get their project approved, sometimes one after another, Bill C-39 would designate one federal authority as the point of contact.

Columnist Jesse Kline keeps you up to date with what’s happening in Israel and the effects of antisemitism on life here in Canada. Friday mornings.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Channel Israel will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

In cases where multiple assessments are needed from different federal bodies, Bill C-39 would have these run at the same time, rather than in sequence. Sequential assessments have been a problem in the past: a positive outcome under the Impact Assessment Act, which can take years to obtain, can be derailed by a negative Species at Risk Act assessment — or it can be later tossed out in court. This was what happened to Canadian Nuclear Laboratories when it tried to build a long-term nuclear waste storage facility at one of its research sites in Ontario.

And, when certain federal authorities are deciding what conditions to impose on a project they would like to approve under certain legislation, Bill C-39 would require them to take into account the “technical, economic and practical feasibility” of said conditions. This would apply to the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER), the federal transport minister with respect to the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, the environment minister with respect to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and the ministers who carry out the Species at Risk Act.

The bill is still in its early days, but at this point it’s received more praise than criticism. Part of that is no doubt marketing: the bill is couched as a way to grow the country’s independence and focus on what we can control, which is a major reason many Canadians support this country being an “energy superpower,” according to federal public opinion research conducted back in March. The prime minister knows his audience.

But it’s true that a more simplified project approval process is needed. It wasn’t surprising that Alberta Premier Danielle Smith showed optimism when asked about it the new legislation. And, in an interview with the Globe and Mail, Cenovus Energy board chair Alex Pourbaix called it “fantastic”: “The devil is always in the details, but if we can truly get to one review, a decision in one year — that makes the Canadian regulatory permitting system very similar to the U.S. and other places in the world whose economies are going great guns.”

That is exactly where the problem lies with Bill C-39: the details. There are a number of major caveats to “One project, one decision, one year” that threaten to get in the way of a timely, simple decision.