Prime Minister Mark Carney’s recent announcement about launching a new major projects office by September 1 is a much-needed spark in a nation that’s long been bogged down by red tape, interprovincial trade barriers, and political hesitancy. The idea of a centralized hub to fast-track nation-building projects is not just welcome it’s long overdue. But while Carney’s intentions seem aligned with creating a stronger, more unified Canadian economy, one can’t help but wonder: Is this vision truly ambitious enough for the challenges we face?
The context couldn’t be more pressing. Trade uncertainty with the United States continues to cast a long shadow, and Canada’s patchwork of regulatory hurdles has stifled economic development for decades. So Carney’s desire to shift from “why build?” to “how to build?” is the kind of language we need from leadership. It signals a move away from hand-wringing and towards execution.
Still, for all the promise of the new major projects office and the One Canadian Economy Act, there are some very real questions about inclusivity and effectiveness. The criteria outlined—economic benefit, national security, project viability, Indigenous prioritization, and clean growth sound solid on paper. But implementation is what matters. For instance, Indigenous leaders have already flagged that the act was passed without “meaningful or any engagement.” Nine Ontario First Nations are seeking a court-ordered injunction. That alone raises serious doubts about whether the “how” includes everyone who should have a voice.
Moreover, the act’s path to passage was anything but smooth. The Conservatives, while ultimately voting in favour, did so only after amendments and with visible reluctance. Pierre Poilievre put it bluntly: “It’s baby steps when we needed a giant leap.” And he’s not entirely wrong. Canada’s energy and infrastructure sectors are brimming with stalled or underdeveloped projects that could transform our economy if only the political and regulatory will were there.
That said, there’s real potential in the projects Carney hinted at. An intertie project in northwest B.C. that connects power grids across multiple provinces and territories? A proposed port corridor from Prince Rupert to Hudson’s Bay? Offshore wind turbines in the Atlantic? These are big ideas nation-spanning ideas and they’re the kind of initiatives that actually live up to the “One Canadian Economy” branding.
Equally notable was the memorandum of understanding signed by the premiers of Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Ontario during the July 22 meeting in Huntsville. It’s rare to see provinces stepping up to cut through bureaucratic fog and commit to building energy and trade infrastructure. This is exactly the kind of interprovincial collaboration that Canada needs more of.
But as Carney himself noted, “It’s almost always the case that a project involves several provinces.” And that’s where national leadership is critical. The federal government must not just set up offices and pass legislation it must lead with clarity, urgency, and a genuine commitment to collaboration with Indigenous communities and provincial governments alike.
The truth is, the One Canadian Economy Act is not perfect. But it does represent progress. The major projects office could serve as a cornerstone of a more efficient and ambitious Canada if it’s empowered, inclusive, and accountable. But we must remain clear-eyed: symbolism and announcements alone won’t get shovels in the ground.
Canada doesn’t just need a streamlined process. It needs a bold, unified vision. The good news? That vision may finally be emerging. The challenge now is to ensure it delivers for everyone.
