‘They haven’t progressed’: Why Canada’s Major Projects Office hasn’t delivered projects—yet

You can listen to this episode on Amazon, Apple, and Spotify. Episode Description Andrew Lamb, partner at Gowling WLG’s Calgary office, examines Canada’s Major Projects Office seven months after its creation. He discusses why the office hasn’t accelerated project approvals and compares Canada’s regulatory challenges to those in the U.S. He also explores the tension between regulatory certainty and market forces, the likelihood of brownfield versus greenfield developments, and prospects for the federal-Alberta energy MOU amid ongoing negotiations over carbon pricing, carbon capture, and pipeline expansions. Episode Summary Canada’s federal Major Projects Office has made modest headway in advancing large-scale infrastructure developments since its creation seven months ago, raising questions about the country’s ability to capitalize on growing global energy demand. The agency was established to expedite projects of national importance, but the approximately 15 projects and six strategies under its oversight have seen limited advancement. The office represents a shift in tone and signaling from the federal government, indicating greater willingness to move forward with major infrastructure initiatives. Some progress has been made in streamlining regulatory approvals, particularly through coordination between federal and provincial authorities. However, tangible accomplishments remain scarce, and the effectiveness of the new agency in reducing project timelines has yet to be demonstrated. Energy infrastructure projects face particular challenges in Canada despite increased international demand. European and Asian allies have expressed urgent need for reliable energy sources, with liquefied natural gas emerging as a critical commodity. Pipeline companies have indicated interest in expanding or building new infrastructure within Canada, yet actual capital investments continue flowing predominantly toward the United States. The investment pattern reflects multiple factors beyond regulatory considerations. Commercial viability remains the primary driver of project decisions, with companies requiring strong contractual foundations before committing capital to major developments. Construction risks, economic uncertainties, and market conditions all influence where energy companies choose to deploy resources. Even the most efficient regulatory framework cannot attract projects lacking fundamental commercial justification. Canada faces both structural and administrative regulatory challenges that complicate project development. The country’s federal structure and government relationships with First Nations communities create inherent complexities not present in other jurisdictions. While administrative regulatory risks exist in all countries, Canada’s structural regulatory environment presents unique obstacles that extend project timelines and increase uncertainty around costs. Cost certainty and regulatory predictability give the United States significant advantages in attracting energy infrastructure investment. The American regulatory landscape represents a known quantity with established timelines and clearer cost projections. Canada’s Major Projects Office, despite its promising mandate, remains unproven in delivering similar certainty to project proponents. The infrastructure development landscape increasingly favors brownfield projects over greenfield initiatives. Expanding existing pipeline corridors or twinning infrastructure along established routes presents fewer regulatory hurdles than constructing entirely new facilities. This reality proves particularly relevant for projects crossing challenging terrain, making integration with existing United States infrastructure more attractive than building new export routes to Canada’s west coast. This summary was prepared by NewsBox AI. Please check against delivery.