Ottawa is removing regulatory barriers Alberta has fought for years. The changes could strengthen Mark Carney’s economic strategy, move federal policy closer to some ideas Pierre Poilievre campaigned on, and force a fresh examination of arguments used by Alberta separatists. But Canadians should be careful about declaring victory — economically or environmentally — before the evidence arrives.

Something important has changed in Canada’s regulatory system.

Not because Ottawa “repealed C-69.”

It didn’t.

The Impact Assessment Act created through Bill C-69 remains Canadian law.

Instead, regulations registered on September 3 and publicly announced by the federal government on September 9 changed the Project List that determines which types of major developments are automatically designated for assessment under the Impact Assessment Act.

International and interprovincial pipelines, international and designated interprovincial electrical transmission lines, and certain offshore renewable-energy projects regulated under the Canada Energy Regulator Act are being removed from the IAA Project List and handled through the Canada Energy Regulator.

Certain other categories are also being removed, including qualifying in-situ oil-sands facilities and fossil-fuel-fired power plants.

That sounds bureaucratic.

It isn’t.

It reaches directly into three of Canada’s biggest political arguments:

How do we grow the economy?

How do we protect the environment and Indigenous rights while building major projects?

And is Ottawa preventing Alberta from developing and exporting its resources?

It also gives us new evidence with which to revisit another question North of Polite has examined:

Whose economic approach — Mark Carney’s or Pierre Poilievre’s — is better suited to the Canada we now live in?

First, give Alberta credit where it is due

Bill C-69 became a symbol of Western alienation for a reason.

Alberta challenged the constitutionality of the federal Impact Assessment Act, arguing that Ottawa had intruded too far into areas of provincial jurisdiction.

In October 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the designated-project portion of the federal scheme was ultra vires Parliament — outside federal legislative authority as it was then structured. Sections 81 through 91, dealing with projects carried out or financed by federal authorities on federal lands or outside Canada, were found constitutional.

That’s an important distinction.

It would be inaccurate to say simply that the Supreme Court “struck down C-69.”

But Alberta’s constitutional objection to the designated-project scheme was substantially vindicated.

Ottawa responded in 2024 by amending the Impact Assessment Act, narrowing the definition of adverse effects within federal jurisdiction and focusing federal decision-making more directly on matters within federal constitutional authority.

That history matters.

If we’re going to ask Albertans to reconsider arguments when the facts change, Ottawa deserves exactly the same treatment.

There was a serious constitutional problem with the original system.

Pretending otherwise would be bad journalism and worse federalism.

So what has Carney’s government actually changed?

The September amendments remove several categories of energy infrastructure from the federal Project List.

For pipelines and other projects regulated under the Canada Energy Regulator Act, the federal government argues that this eliminates unnecessary overlap because the CER already conducts its own assessment.

And there is an important fact buried in the Canada Gazette.

When the Impact Assessment Act was introduced in 2019, certain large pipelines, transmission lines and offshore renewable projects were supposed to undergo an integrated review-panel process combining IAA and CER requirements.

Not one such integrated assessment has actually been conducted for a pipeline or electrical transmission-line project since the system was created.

The Canada Energy Regulator Act, meanwhile, requires the CER to consider environmental effects — including cumulative effects — as well as health, social and economic effects and impacts on the rights and interests of Indigenous Peoples.

The federal regulatory analysis says the CER has conducted more than 100 pipeline reviews using those factors since 2019.

So this isn’t simply a case of projects going from “environmental assessment” to “no environmental assessment.”

They are changing regulatory pathways.

That distinction is essential.

How big is the immediate economic effect?

Probably smaller than the political rhetoric might suggest.

Without the amendments, Ottawa estimates that roughly 10 projects per year would enter the IAA system.

After the changes, it expects roughly seven or eight.

That’s an estimated reduction of only two or three designated projects annually.

And for projects moving from an integrated IAA/CER process to CER review, Ottawa’s own regulatory analysis says businesses are expected to continue facing similar project-review costs.

The formal administrative saving attributed to these regulations under the federal government’s one-for-one red-tape calculation is approximately $14,867 annually in 2012 dollars.

That’s worth understanding.

This amendment has not suddenly liberated billions of dollars merely by eliminating paperwork.

The potential economic significance lies somewhere else.

The real issue is certainty

Major energy and infrastructure projects require enormous amounts of capital.

Investors need to know who makes the decision, what information is required, how the different governments and regulators interact, and approximately how long the process will take.

Carney’s broader regulatory strategy is aimed directly at that problem.

His government has proposed federal reviews and decisions taking no more than one year after proponents have supplied the required information, greater reliance on specialized regulators, a single comprehensive federal decision and expanded federal-provincial cooperation under a “one project, one review” approach.

That matters because Carney has built a substantial part of his economic strategy around attracting investment into ports, railways, energy infrastructure, critical minerals, electricity and other major projects.

The federal government says 21 projects and strategies referred to the Major Projects Office represent more than $126 billion in investment and more than 60,000 jobs.

Those are government figures associated with projects and strategies being advanced through the MPO.

They are not $126 billion and 60,000 jobs already delivered by these regulatory changes.

That distinction matters.

Carney hasn’t proven his model works.

He’s trying to create conditions under which it can.

And something interesting has happened to the Carney-Poilievre comparison

Pierre Poilievre spent the 2025 election campaign arguing that Canada needed faster approvals, less regulatory duplication and a much simpler system for major projects.

His published Canada First Economic Action Plan proposed repealing C-69 and C-48, creating a national energy corridor, establishing pre-permitted development zones and creating a one-stop approval system with one application, one environmental review and a one-year timeline.

He also argued that expanding Canadian energy infrastructure would reduce Canada’s dependence on the American market.

Carney has not adopted that entire agenda.

The Impact Assessment Act remains.

The Oil Tanker Moratorium Act remains.

Federal environmental regulation remains.

And substantial differences remain between the Liberal and Conservative economic approaches, including taxation, carbon policy, public investment, government financing and the degree to which government should actively direct or catalyse private capital.

But on regulatory structure, something important has happened.

One project. One review.

Less duplication.

Faster decisions.

Greater reliance on specialized regulators.

Those principles now bring Carney’s regulatory approach closer to some of the ideas Poilievre campaigned on in 2025.

That deserves acknowledgment.

Poilievre can reasonably point out that Conservatives were advocating a faster, consolidated approval system before these latest Liberal reforms.

Carney can reasonably argue that his government is pursuing regulatory efficiency without abandoning federal environmental regulation, Indigenous consultation or its broader investment strategy.

So our previous comparison deserves an update.

This development addresses one potential weakness in Carney’s economic model:

You cannot build an investment-led economy if Canada cannot get major projects through its own regulatory machinery.

Carney appears to understand that.

Now we find out whether investors agree.

But what about the environment?

This is where North of Polite refuses to hand anybody a victory banner.

Ottawa’s regulatory analysis predicts that the changes will have net-neutral environmental effects because projects removed from the IAA remain subject to other federal or provincial regulatory regimes.

For CER-regulated projects, federal law still requires consideration of environmental and cumulative effects, health, social and economic effects, and effects on Indigenous rights.

In-situ oil-sands projects and fossil-fuel power facilities remain subject to applicable provincial processes and other federal laws.

That’s the government’s assessment.

It is not yet a demonstrated outcome of the new system.

And Ottawa’s own consultation record contains warnings that deserve attention.

Indigenous participants raised concerns about reduced transparency, fairness and meaningful participation if independent IAA review panels are removed. Concerns were also raised about Indigenous knowledge, environmental and cultural impacts, sensitive ecosystems and existing co-management arrangements.

Members of the public also expressed concerns about reduced independent environmental scrutiny and compressed opportunities for participation.

At the same time, the government says CER processes retain public participation and Indigenous consultation requirements, while treaties and treaty-based assessment processes remain constitutionally protected.

So neither side deserves to have its conclusion accepted automatically.

A duplicated process is not necessarily a better environmental process.

But a faster process is not necessarily an equally rigorous one.

We need evidence.

If projects move faster while environmental outcomes, Indigenous consultation and public transparency remain strong, Carney will have evidence that Canada was carrying unnecessary regulatory duplication.

If important effects receive less scrutiny or meaningful participation deteriorates, “streamlining” will have turned out to carry a real cost.

The results — not the slogans — should decide that argument.

Then there is Alberta separatism

This may be the most politically interesting consequence.

One argument used within Alberta’s independence movement is that federal regulation prevents Alberta from fully developing and exporting its natural resources.

That isn’t an interpretation imposed on the movement by its opponents.

The Alberta Prosperity Project has explicitly identified Bill C-69 as a grievance and argued that sovereignty would allow Alberta to escape federal restrictions on resource development.

Its own materials have described Bill C-69 as restricting pipelines and resource exports and have advocated greater Alberta control over natural resources.

Recent academic research examining Alberta separatism found something similar among voters inclined toward leaving Canada: respondents frequently emphasized escaping what they considered harmful federal policies and gaining greater control over provincial resources rather than emphasizing a separate Alberta national identity.

That creates a legitimate question for separatist organizations:

If Ottawa removes or changes policies that you have cited as evidence Alberta needs independence, does the case for independence change?

If the answer is yes, then some of this debate is ultimately about reforming Confederation.

If the answer is no, that’s important too.

It means the argument extends beyond correcting those particular federal policies.

To be fair, the Alberta Prosperity Project has already articulated something close to that response.

After an earlier Canada-Alberta pipeline agreement, the organization argued that a proposed pipeline was insufficient because Ottawa retained federal authority over Alberta’s energy sector.

In other words, its argument is not simply that Ottawa refuses to permit pipelines. It also objects to the continued existence of federal jurisdiction over aspects of resource transportation and development.

That’s a materially different argument.

And Canadians should understand the difference.

Meanwhile, the pipeline itself is becoming a real test

The proposed West Coast Oil Pipeline provides an unusually useful case study.

The Alberta government is proposing an approximately 1,250-kilometre interprovincial pipeline from the Edmonton region to a deepwater port in southern British Columbia, with proposed capacity of approximately one million barrels per day.

But this project is still in its early stages.

The precise route has not been determined.

The Major Projects Office is consulting Indigenous communities and other governments before a federal decision on whether to list the proposal as a project of national interest.

The federal government also says the proposal is dependent on advancement of the Pathways carbon-capture project.

So let’s be precise.

Canada has not approved and begun constructing this new pipeline.

But Ottawa is participating in a process intended to determine whether it can move forward.

That alone makes the old political shorthand — that Ottawa simply will not contemplate another major Alberta pipeline to global markets — harder to sustain without qualification.

Whether the project ultimately survives economics, regulation, consultation, Indigenous rights, environmental review and politics remains to be seen.

And that’s exactly why it is such a useful test.

What happens when governments actually respond to grievances?

This is the question underneath everything.

Alberta had legitimate constitutional complaints about the original federal impact-assessment system.

The Supreme Court confirmed that important parts of the designated-project scheme exceeded Parliament’s authority.

Canada changed the law in response.

Now the Carney government has gone further, reducing the number and types of projects captured by the federal Project List and shifting toward a faster, more specialized regulatory model.

That does not erase decades of Western alienation.

It does not prove that investment will surge.

It does not prove environmental protection will remain equivalent in practice.

And it certainly does not settle Alberta’s debate over Confederation.

But facts don’t stop mattering because they become inconvenient to someone’s political argument.

If Ottawa removes or substantially changes a genuine grievance, Alberta’s political conversation should acknowledge it.

If Carney promises faster construction and major projects still don’t get built, Ottawa should acknowledge that too.

If environmental safeguards deteriorate, Canadians deserve to know.

And if environmental protection remains effective while unnecessary duplication and delays decline, critics should be prepared to acknowledge that as well.

The same standard applies to Pierre Poilievre.

Some of what he argued about Canada’s regulatory system during the 2025 campaign now looks considerably closer to federal government policy than it did at the time.

That deserves recognition.

But Carney now owns the implementation.

And implementation is where slogans become either policy or failure.

Canada hasn’t suddenly solved its productivity problem.

It hasn’t solved Western alienation.

It hasn’t solved climate change.

And it hasn’t proven that we can build major infrastructure faster without sacrificing responsible oversight.

What Canada has done is more modest — and potentially more consequential over time.

It has changed part of the machinery.

Now we watch what happens when someone turns it on.

And perhaps the fairest question for everyone involved is this:

When the facts change, are we willing to change our arguments with them?

© 2026 North of Polite. Original reporting, analysis and commentary. All rights reserved. 🍁

NORTHOFPOLITE

@NorthOfPolite

Unapologetically Canadian. We stand for a strong, sovereign and united Canada. No party owns our loyalty. If you make a claim, bring the receipts. We will too.