Canada is trying to dramatically shorten the time it takes to approve major energy and infrastructure projects, but faster permitting alone will not guarantee that projects actually get built.
That was a central theme of a discussion at Energy Disruptors: UNITE 2026 in Calgary moderated by Aaron Foyer, Director of Research at Orennia.
The panel brought together Canada Energy Regulator CEO Tracy Sletto, EY Managing Partner Steven Maynard, and ARC Energy Vice President Marcus Rocque to examine what it will take for Canada to move major projects from proposal to construction.
The conversation came just a week after the federal government introduced Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act, which proposes significant changes intended to make federal project reviews faster and more predictable.
Among its key measures is a proposed one-year timeline for federal reviews and decisions once a project proponent has submitted a comprehensive application. The bill would also reduce duplication and give agencies including the Canada Energy Regulator greater responsibility for coordinating assessments and permitting. The legislation remains before Parliament and is not yet law.
Faster Decisions, Same Standards
Sletto said the proposed changes would mean shorter timelines and more coordinated decision-making for projects regulated by the CER, including interprovincial and international pipelines and power lines.
But she stressed an important distinction.
“There’s a difference between getting a project permitted and getting it built,” Sletto told the Calgary audience.
She also pushed back against suggestions that faster timelines necessarily mean weaker reviews.
According to Sletto, the environmental and impact-assessment factors the CER must consider would remain unchanged, as would the Crown’s legal duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous Peoples.
The federal government similarly says Bill C-39 would retain existing requirements for impact assessments, permitting and consultation while changing how those processes are coordinated.
Maynard emphasized that regulatory reform is only one part of getting major projects built.
Drawing on EY’s work with governments, energy companies, Indigenous communities, and regulators, he argued that successful projects require those groups to align around a project that is responsible, commercially viable, and capable of attracting private capital.
Government can complete approvals and provide financing tools, he noted, but proponents still need to make investment decisions and build the relationships necessary to move projects forward.
Investors Want Certainty
Rocque examined the issue from the perspective of capital.
He said investors historically viewed permitting risk around some Canadian megaprojects as extremely high — particularly when lengthy regulatory processes could still end with uncertain political outcomes.
That made some risks difficult for investors to price into billion-dollar projects.
Rocque said the proposed one-year timeline and moves to reduce the number of decision-makers represent encouraging changes, although investors are still assessing the legislation.
“We’re in a significantly different space than we were before,” he said, describing the investment community as cautiously optimistic.
But permitting is only one piece of the equation.
Projects still require viable economics, customers, labour, supply chains, and private capital. Policy stability can also determine whether investors are prepared to commit money over the many years required to develop large infrastructure.
Speed Has to Produce Durable Decisions
Indigenous participation emerged as another critical element.
Sletto said increasing Indigenous involvement involves more than consultation at the beginning of a project. The CER has been expanding Indigenous participation in regulatory oversight, including joint inspection programs that allow community representatives to participate alongside federal inspectors.
She argued those relationships can help increase confidence in projects over their full operating lives.
Panelists also cautioned that compressing timelines cannot come at the expense of meaningful consultation. A faster decision that is later overturned or delayed through court challenges would ultimately undermine the objective of accelerating development.
Maynard similarly warned that early consultation will be critical if Canada wants faster decisions that remain durable and avoid unnecessary legal challenges.
That may be the larger test for Canada’s new approach: not simply making regulatory decisions faster, but producing decisions that investors, Indigenous communities, project proponents, and regulators can rely on.
Sletto said Canada may now be entering another period comparable to the major infrastructure-building era that led to the creation of the country’s federal energy regulator in 1959.
“I’ve never felt more positive about our role in that space,” she said.
The challenge now is turning that renewed appetite to build into projects that can survive the regulatory process, attract capital — and ultimately get constructed.