CDN NEWS | 
US NEWS 
By EnergyNow Media
Ottawa is promoting Bill C-39 with a simple message aimed directly at industries frustrated by Canada’s long project-approval timelines:
“One project, one review, one year.”
For Canada’s energy sector, that sounds like a major breakthrough.
Bill C-39 would shorten federal review timelines, reduce duplication and give regulators such as the Canada Energy Regulator a larger role in assessing pipelines and other energy infrastructure.
But the one-year promise is not an absolute guarantee that a major project will receive a final federal decision within 365 consecutive calendar days.
The legislation still contains mechanisms that can extend or suspend review timelines.
For energy investors, that distinction matters.
The One-Year Clock Does Not Start Immediately
One of the first qualifications is when Ottawa’s one-year clock actually begins.
The federal government’s Cabinet Directive says the objective is to make federal decisions within one year after a proponent has submitted a comprehensive application and completed the required studies and information.
That means the clock does not necessarily begin when a company first brings a project to federal regulators.
Before the formal review period starts, a proponent may still have to complete engineering work, environmental studies, Indigenous engagement and other information requirements.
Bill C-39 shortens some of these preliminary stages, which could be an important improvement.
But the practical timeline from first engagement with Ottawa to final approval can still extend beyond one year.
The Clock Can Be Suspended
The more important issue is that statutory review days are not always the same as calendar days.
For projects reviewed under the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-39 would generally reduce the assessment phase to about 300 days, followed by up to 65 days for a ministerial or Cabinet decision.
That creates the government’s advertised one-year framework.
However, the legislation retains mechanisms that allow timelines to be suspended or extended while specified activities are completed.
In practical terms, a 300-day regulatory review does not necessarily mean a project receives a decision 300 calendar days later.
If the clock is stopped, the calendar keeps moving.
For developers considering multi-billion-dollar investments in pipelines, LNG infrastructure, transmission projects or nuclear facilities, that is a critical distinction.
Indigenous Consultation Can Extend Reviews
One area where Ottawa explicitly recognizes that timelines may have to be extended is Indigenous consultation.
The Crown’s duty to consult Indigenous Peoples is constitutionally grounded and cannot simply be removed by imposing a one-year administrative target.
For Canada Energy Regulator projects, Bill C-39 allows timelines to be extended where necessary to complete Indigenous consultation.
Ottawa has also indicated that regulations under the Impact Assessment Act will allow timelines to be suspended when additional consultation is required.
For major linear infrastructure, this could be significant.
A new pipeline crossing hundreds of kilometres could affect numerous Indigenous communities.
That means a project could have a nominal one-year federal review while the real elapsed timeline becomes considerably longer.
Large Pipelines Can Still Go to Cabinet
Bill C-39 does make important changes specifically for pipelines.
The Canada Energy Regulator would become the primary federal assessor for pipelines, certain transmission lines and some offshore renewable-energy developments.
Pipeline certificate timelines would be shortened from 450 days to 300 days.
The bill also introduces different approval paths depending on how much new right-of-way a pipeline requires.
Projects involving less than 300 kilometres of new right-of-way would generally be decided by the CER.
But pipelines involving 300 kilometres or more of new right-of-way would still require approval by the Governor in Council — federal Cabinet.
That is especially important for Canada’s largest proposed energy projects.
A major new Alberta-to-Pacific pipeline would likely involve hundreds of kilometres of new corridor unless it relied heavily on existing rights-of-way.
So while Bill C-39 could remove Cabinet from many smaller pipeline decisions, it does not necessarily remove political decision-making from the country’s biggest pipeline proposals.
Other Extension Powers Remain
The bill also retains extension powers elsewhere in the energy regulatory system.
For designated nuclear projects, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would become the primary assessor and would generally be expected to complete its assessment within 300 days.
But provisions remain allowing regulators and Cabinet to extend timelines to facilitate cooperation with other jurisdictions or deal with other regulatory requirements.
Some of those extensions do not appear to have a strict statutory ceiling.
Again, that is the difference between a target timeline and a hard calendar deadline.
Federal Permits Are Supposed to Run Together
Another potentially important reform is Ottawa’s plan to process multiple federal permits concurrently rather than one after another.
Major energy projects can require separate approvals involving fisheries, species at risk, navigable waters and other federal responsibilities.
Under the new model, departments are expected to coordinate their reviews so that the various approvals can be completed during the same general one-year period.
If implemented effectively, that could remove years of unnecessary duplication.
But much of that coordination comes through the federal Cabinet Directive rather than through an absolute statutory deadline written directly into Bill C-39.
A Cabinet Directive tells departments how the government expects them to operate.
It is not the same thing as a law requiring that a project be approved or rejected by a fixed date.
What Happens If Ottawa Misses the Deadline?
This may be the biggest test of whether Bill C-39 creates true regulatory certainty.
What happens if Ottawa reaches Day 365 without making a decision?
Bill C-39 does not automatically approve a project simply because the federal government misses the deadline.
Nor does missing the deadline necessarily terminate the review.
That means the one-year system is not equivalent to “decision by Day 365 or the project is deemed approved.”
For investors, that difference matters.
A deadline backed by transparency and political accountability is not the same as a deadline backed by an automatic legal consequence.
The Real Test
Bill C-39 still represents a meaningful attempt to improve Canada’s project-approval system.
It would reduce duplicate reviews, shorten statutory timelines, give the CER a larger role and require more federal permitting processes to run at the same time.
Those changes could materially improve Canada’s investment climate.
But energy companies will ultimately judge the system by elapsed calendar time, not statutory clock time.
The most accurate description of the new regime may therefore be:
One project. One coordinated federal review. A targeted one-year decision period — with provisions that can stop or extend the clock.
For Canada’s energy sector, that is still an improvement.
But the ultimate test will be whether major projects actually receive final decisions in roughly one calendar year — or whether Canada’s new one-year clock proves capable of stopping whenever difficult issues arise.
Share This:
