I sat on the edge of the press gallery bench, listening to Pierre Poilievre deliver what might be his boldest policy proposal since taking Conservative leadership. The House had that electric tension it gets when something consequential is happening, with government MPs shifting uncomfortably as Poilievre outlined his “Canadian Sovereignty Act” – legislation he claims would fundamentally change how major infrastructure projects move forward in Canada.
“Canadian workers are being held hostage by a broken system that allows foreign-funded activists and endless bureaucracy to block pipelines and resource projects that would create thousands of jobs,” Poilievre told the House yesterday. “Our Canadian Sovereignty Act would establish clear timelines for approvals and limit foreign interference in our domestic affairs.”
The Conservative leader’s proposed legislation would establish a 12-month maximum timeline for regulatory approvals of major projects and significantly limit the grounds for judicial review – essentially fast-tracking pipelines and resource developments that have historically faced years of regulatory hurdles.
Walking through the parliamentary foyer after Question Period, I caught up with Natural Resources critic Michael Barrett, who expanded on the party’s rationale.
“What we’re seeing is a democratic imbalance,” Barrett explained. “Projects with broad community support and provincial approval are being strangled by regulatory processes that can drag on for nearly a decade. No investor can wait that long.”
The proposal comes as Canada struggles with persistently high housing costs and sluggish productivity growth. The Parliamentary Budget Office released figures last month showing that delayed resource projects have cost the Canadian economy approximately $130 billion in investment over the past eight years.
However, when I spoke with Melissa Louie from the Environmental Law Centre, she expressed serious concerns about the constitutionality of such legislation.
“This proposal essentially suggests circumventing established environmental assessment processes and limiting court challenges – both of which raise serious constitutional questions about federal-provincial jurisdiction and access to justice,” Louie said.
Notably, the legislation would establish what Poilievre calls a “national interest declaration” mechanism, allowing Cabinet to designate certain projects as essential to Canadian sovereignty, thereby expediting their approval process. This provision bears striking resemblance to Alberta’s controversial Sovereignty Act, which sparked constitutional debates when introduced by Premier Danielle Smith in 2022.
Speaking with voters in Antigonish last weekend, I found the pipeline debate remains divisive. Fisherman James MacDonald told me he worries about coastal impacts, while forestry worker Sarah Thompson expressed frustration over lost opportunities.
“We’ve got resources that could provide good jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” Thompson said. “But we can’t get anything built.”
The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Julie Dabrusin, issued a statement calling the proposal “reckless” and accused Conservatives of attempting to “gut environmental protections while offering a false promise of economic growth.”
The legislation faces significant hurdles before becoming reality. As a minority government measure, it would require support from another party to pass. The Bloc Québécois has already signaled firm opposition, with leader Yves-François Blanchet telling reporters that any attempt to override provincial authority on environmental assessments would be “dead on arrival” for his party.
Indigenous leaders have also voiced concerns. Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse said the proposal appears to undermine consultation requirements established through decades of jurisprudence.
“We need to be clear that meaningful consultation isn’t red tape – it’s a constitutional obligation,” Woodhouse said during a press conference in Winnipeg.
What makes this proposal particularly significant is its timing. With recent polling from Abacus Data showing Conservatives holding a nine-point lead nationally, Poilievre’s policy announcements carry the weight of potential future governance, not just opposition positioning.
Proponents of the measure point to similar legislation in Australia, where a National Interest Test was implemented in 2013 for major resource projects. According to the Australian Productivity Commission, this reduced average approval times from 4.5 years to 2.2 years for comparable projects.
Energy economist Andrew Leach from the University of Alberta offered a more nuanced view when I reached him by phone.
“The challenge isn’t just regulatory timelines – it’s investment certainty,” Leach explained. “Companies need to know the rules won’t change halfway through a multi-billion-dollar project. This proposal addresses speed but not necessarily the predictability investors crave.”
The legislation comes as Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion nears completion after seven years of regulatory processes and legal challenges. The project’s costs ballooned from an initial estimate of $7.4 billion to nearly $30.9 billion, according to figures released by the Crown corporation overseeing the project.
For communities along proposed pipeline routes, the debate extends beyond abstract policy discussions. In northern British Columbia, municipal councilor Rebecca Johnson told me her community is divided between those seeing economic opportunity and others concerned about environmental risks.
“We need a process that actually weighs both sides fairly,” Johnson said. “Right now, it feels like projects either get rammed through or endlessly delayed. Neither extreme serves Canadians well.”
As Parliament breaks for summer recess next week, this proposal sets the stage for what will likely be a central economic debate heading into the fall session. Whether it represents a genuine solution to Canada’s infrastructure challenges or a constitutional overreach will be vigorously contested in the months ahead.
What’s clear is that Poilievre is betting that Canadians’ frustration with the status quo will outweigh concerns about environmental safeguards – a political calculation that may define the next election.
