The Decibel - What Carney is prioritizing with his new nation-building projects

Episode Date: November 14, 2025

Prime Minister Mark Carney has unveiled the next set of projects the federal government plans to prioritize in a bid to jumpstart Canada’s economy. The announcement focused on energy and mining, with six projects across the country ranging from liquefied natural gas to critical minerals. But many questions remain about how these projects will work and what disputes they will cause.Adam Radwanski, feature writer and policy columnist for The Globe joins The Decibel to talk about Carney’s strategy, how the newly-created Major Projects Office fits in and whether this plan meets the moment.Questions? Comments? Ideas? Email us at [e-mail] Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

On Thursday, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced the next group of projects in his nation-building plans. Three of them focus on energy production. There's a natural gas project, a hydroelectric project, and an electricity transmission line. The other three were critical mineral mining projects in Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick. Those projects are projects that strengthen Canada's autonomy, our independence, strengthen our resilience, strengthen our security. They're projects that provide major economic benefits to Canadians, ones that have a high likelihood of success.

The Prime Minister is selling these projects as so important that they need to be expedited by his newly created major projects office. But there are still lots of questions about how this is all going to work and whether this will actually speed up these developments. Adam Rewanski is our guest today. He's a writer and columnist at the Globe. who reports on government policy on energy, climate, and the economy. He'll explain why Carney picked these proposals

and whether these major projects actually meet the moment we're in. I'm Cheryl Sutherland, and this is the Decibel from the Globe and Mail. Adam, thanks for being here. Great to be here. So Adam, we're talking Thursday afternoon after the Prime Minister announced the newest list of what Carney's been calling these nation-building projects. We had six infrastructure projects added to the list. What message is Mark Carney sending with these new picks?

Well, broadly, the message is the same one that he's been trying to send from the get-go, which if he wants to move quickly on everything or more quickly than the government has previously. In terms of the projects themselves, a few takeaways. One from these would be clearly mining and critical minerals for front and center. I mean, three of the six projects here are, along with a couple in the first round of projects he announced. So I think if you're looking at where this federal government is most trying to assert and build economic sovereignty right now in terms of these sorts of relatively large projects, it seems pretty clearly to be in the mining space. A second takeaway that people are going to have, although it's not what he was emphasizing, is that there is no oil pipeline in this. So I don't think that's shocking, but it's clearly going to be a source of controversy, at least in Alberta.

A third takeaway, for me, would be that as we've seen with some of the previous projects that were announced, these are not ones that are in dire need of fast tracking through really significant approval or permitting processes. There are more things that are relatively far along that need maybe some help coordinating financing or other things. So these are not huge stretch goals. they're more accelerating things that are probably already happening, but making sure they happen faster. Okay. I want to pick up on the first point you mentioned there about mining. Why do you think the government is focusing so much on mining? I think of all the different types of potential projects, those in the mining space are ones where we've heard probably the most for the longest about not realizing our potential, that there are so many critical minerals opportunities,

which have, of course, grown more important during the energy transition to provide supplies for things like batteries for electric vehicles that are also now important for the defense industry, which we're obviously investing a lot in and that other countries are as well, and that could give us leverage in geopolitically at a time when we need it. And it's somewhere where I think, as opposed to some other industries, you can see a lot of projects that are kind of in the works but have been slow or bogged down in a sense of how do we get this actually,

happening when most people, I think, would think we should. They're not as controversial as something like oil and gas, but they've been pretty bogged down. Okay. And on oil and gas, you mentioned as well that it might be controversial, that he didn't talk about a pipeline. And I think it is actually might be surprising for some people, because last week, Carney spoke to the Canadian club in Toronto. And when he was asked about a pipeline, he said, don't worry. We're on the pipeline stuff. Daniel's on line one. Don't worry. It's going to happen. But, well, something's going to happen. Let's put it that one. Adam, what do you make of that?

Yeah, I don't know what he was trying to say at the Canadian Club. I've read that transcript a couple of times, and it wasn't super clear. He seemed to be rithing in a way that didn't really shut a lot of light. Because we're in Canada and because of how federal politics works in this country, we seem to be incapable of not making pipeline debates front and center in any discussion about our resources, about our energy opportunities, about how provinces interact with each other. And this government, I mean, the Kearney government, clearly wanted to show more openness to oil pipelines, new oil pipelines, than the previous Trudeau government did, notwithstanding that the Trudeau government

bought and built a pipeline. So they didn't want to close the door upon coming into office. And that sort of fueled the speculation of, okay, this is really going to happen. And a lot of talk around which pipelines will get built. And pipelines kind of becoming almost like a litmus test for whether we can get stuff built. The problem is that there is no pipeline proposal that's anywhere near being ready to advance. Certainly that's anywhere near as advanced as the other projects we're seeing on these lists. The federal government has itself indicated, including under this prime minister, that it only wants to proceed with that, if it can also get carbon capture facilities built, which are also not very far along. So it's just not really ready for prime time, which is why

I think it's not here. But it is going to be what a lot of people are talking about out of it, because it's just, as I said, become the sort of litmus test, despite that probably not being the best one we could use. Okay. Let's go back to the primetime projects, which are the ones that we're talked about today. So given that these are now projects that are going through the Major Projects Office, is it the idea that these will be more fast-tracked, basically? No. So far as we know, it does not mean that. Okay. That was what people thought the major Projects Office was for initially. It was to steer through this controversial process under which existing regulations we bypassed. That doesn't seem to be the case. Most of these are

relatively far along in the permitting process. There may be little things that it helps with, but no, I don't think that that's primarily what it's going to be doing. So, Adam, can you remind us of why Carney is focusing on these infrastructure projects in the first place? Like, what is his vision here? Like, what is he hoping to accomplish for Canada? The Prime Minister likes to talk about how we used to build things in this country, with the implication being that we don't anymore. Of course, we do. I mean, things do get built. But I think in general, the sense is, that we have not capitalized, particularly on our resources. I mean, we talk about infrastructure, and there are infrastructure components of this,

but almost everything they've announced is energy-related or mineral-related in some way, resource-related. So I think what he is really trying to do is just make us a country that embraces resource extraction and energy development more so than we had previously, and do so by getting out of the sort of, endless cycle that Ottawa can wind up in and the provinces can wind up in when these projects come to them of very slow processes and very slow decisions on where to put money and just kind of generally signal a sort of open for business approach on energy and resource projects.

Right. And the other thing I think that Carney talked about a lot about was just like trying to move away and diversify from the U.S., right? Like these nation building projects are supposed to help us move away from the U.S. That is the context here, yes. And the point is to be able to diversify our exports. Of course, when you're talking about something like natural gas terminals that can export to Asia, that's a very obvious example of that. Something like critical minerals, it could be diversifying from the U.S. It could be leveraged with the U.S. The sense of, you know, this is one of our best cards that we can hold, but we haven't really been playing it.

So we need to start playing it better. Okay. So the goal here is to build these infrastructure projects, to kind of boost the Canadian economy. Do we have a sense of when these projects will be done? We do have some sense of when these projects are supposed to start or finish. Of course, these things, particularly completion dates, are always up in the air, no matter how much they try to expedite them. In general, these are mostly ones with relatively near horizons.

You know, in a couple of the mining projects, we're looking at operations supposed to start, you know, later this decade, like 27, 28, 29. The natural gas project, Solisoms is, I think, the target date of 2028 or 29. a couple or a little further away, the Equalowit Hydro Project, I think they're aiming for 2030s, that's a probably more complex project. In the case of the Northern BC transmission line, that's supposed to break ground next year. It's a little more complicated to explain when it would end because there's different pieces to it, and it's not yet clear exactly how many different components it'll have. But for the most part, these are things that

are supposed to at least start work pretty soon. Okay. And it sounds like some of them will be completed the next couple of years. So there's a bit of a timeline there for us. Yes. And one of the ways that you'll probably be able to judge this office, or at least potentially be able to judge it is, okay, are things meeting their target dates? Are they moving even faster than planned? Or are they still getting bogged down, as the sorts of projects often do? So you mentioned this loquified natural gas project that is part of one of the new projects. This is called the Silasim's project. What do we know about that one so far? So this is a very large natural gas export terminal.

floating terminal, with a pipeline to the coast associated with it in northern B.C. It's definitely the most controversial of the projects that are on here. Yeah, tell me what. Yeah, largely because of the role of First Nations there. So a First Nation on whose territory it is, Aniska, are part of the project, they're partners in it, but there are two neighboring First Nations that oppose it and that are legally challenging it. So that's something that is likely to play out for quite a while.

to come and over which neither the major projects office nor any of the government department has full control. Obviously, it probably will wind up in the courts at some point. On those legal challenges, can the major projects office do anything to make the challenges go away? No. The major projects obviously doesn't have the power to supersede any legal conditions or the court. Perhaps it can work with all concerns to try to find common ground. I mean, there is sort of a project manager component to what it's doing. And it is supposed to be making a major effort here with indigenous communities in particular. There's an advisory council that's been appointed to work with it. I think they've already had meetings. So it can work on that. But no, I mean,

it doesn't change anything legally. We'll be right back. So I want to dig a bit deeper into the strategy Carney is building with these projects and this special office. So initially the office was set up to help projects overcome regulatory hurdles. How exactly does it do that? What this office will do on regulatory hurdles and what it will do in general seems to have evolved, at least in terms of public explanations, quite a bit from when the office was first announced as part of the government's plans last spring. Originally, the impression that the government gave, and I wasn't inside everybody's head, so I don't know what they were planning behind the scenes, but the impression they gave

was that it would primarily exist in order to fast-track or help fast-track projects under Bill C-5, which was the controversial legislation that the federal government passed again in the spring. And that was definitely how it was presented to us, like at the public. Like, that's all the things I remember in the announcements. Yes. And in fact, I think that's still often the perception of what it does. because I keep seeing things that say these projects have been referred to for fast tracking. Exactly.

But in fact, none of these thus far are following that particular process. The explanation of what it will do is evolved a couple of times. So a couple of months after that, after the initial announcement of the office being formed, we started to hear more about how it would also help to speed up permitting and approvals, even for projects that weren't under C5. So just helping with normal regulatory and permitting processes. Then on top of that, we've heard more in the last couple of months, particularly in the federal budget, about the office also helping coordinate financing for these projects. And in fact, if you look at the nature of most of these referrals so far, it seems like the bulk of what it's going to be doing is actually on the financing side.

Interesting. So, Adam, I want to come back to this point you made, which is really important. None of these projects are using Bill C5 to speed along their development? They are not. Interesting. Yes. As of now, Bill C5 looks a bit like a solution in search of a problem, but perhaps there will be more that will fall under it soon. Why is that?

I think there are two factors, or at least possible factors in that. One is that I'm just not sure there were that many projects that were advanced enough to need that in terms of the fast-tracking past existing regulations, but not already fairly advanced. advanced in terms of already going through a lot of the permitting. I just don't think there was quite the backlog that the prime minister may have assumed there was upon coming into office. Okay. The second thing is I've certainly heard from a few sources in different sectors that some

project proponents are actually quite reluctant to get put into the C5 process. Hmm. Because they're worried about both the legal uncertainties. Like if you wind up going past a lot of existing normal regulations. You're obviously going to wind up with a legal challenge from environmental groups or others. And that actually introduces more uncertainty than they might have otherwise. And it might paint a bit of a target on your back to environmental groups, to indigenous organizations, to others who are wary of this legislation and might look to really challenge the early ones. So that could get resolved the longer that this office is functioning and depending on the type of project.

But I think in general right now, there really just haven't been that many projects that, either need C5 or want C5. That is so interesting because I remember when we did a couple episodes on C5, and that was the idea, right, that you would kind of like skip over some of these environmental hurdles. And what you're saying is that, in fact, they don't want to have that. It could be faster. Yeah.

But the danger is nobody really knows how it would play out in the court. So it could introduce uncertainties. And if you're investing in one of these projects, that may be worse than just the usual regulatory uncertainty. Okay, very interesting. Let's turn back to the financing capabilities of this office. What do we know about that? On the financing side, as in most else that it's doing, its role is still a little bit ambiguous

because it does not itself have funding powers. What it's supposed to do more is to help arrange, coordinate, be an entry point for existing mechanism. So the two biggest federal entities that it would be working with in terms of financing, who the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which did actually have a financing announcement for one of the projects today, and the Canada Growth Fund. They have different mandates somewhat, but they both are involved in essentially providing concessional financing for different types of projects.

To this point, largely in the sort of clean energy space, but that seems to be broadening. How exactly it brings those together is not totally clear. It could play a role in figuring out, for instance, how the different mechanisms from different agencies could stack together to make a project viable or to indicate to a project proponent which of these entities is best suited to its needs. But I don't think that it can actually direct them itself. Okay. Interesting. So then there's this hope of private investments, right? Do we know how exactly the major project office is going to help court more private investors?

In terms of attracting more private investment, part of what the major projects office can do, of course, is just if it is able to provide greater certainty or greater confidence in projects moving forward and essentially giving projects the government stamp of approval. If it's gone there, even if we don't know exactly what this office does, it's clear it's a priority project that the government wants to fast track. Obviously, that could give investors confidence. Can you tell me how it gives it more certainty? Like, how does the office actually make investors feel like, okay, this is okay? Well, that's the thing I'm trying to figure out. I think at this point, it almost seems more symbolic that this means the federal government is going to do everything it can to fast track this.

You know, when I wrote about this office recently trying to explore what its actual function is, I sort of landed on a couple of different explanations or definitions of what it's doing. One is essentially being a champion for projects. It is just there to advocate within government, to government agencies, to provincial governments, whatever, to just move these things along. This is a priority. We need to move this along. Light a fire under folks.

A second would be sort of a concierge. They don't have the authority to grant funding or setting aside C5 to make regulatory decisions. But what they can do is help navigate those rather complex federal processes for project proponents. And then the third is sort of like a project manager. That, I think, is more when they have projects that are somewhat earlier stage. And it's like, okay, what are the potential financing mechanisms that could work for this to make it real? Or what are the regulatory pathways that work or even how can we work with the government in advance to speed up some of these regulatory pathways or maybe tweak regulations or whatever else? So I think it's playing those different roles, which in each case is at least supposed to give some greater sense of a project being sped through.

Okay. Interesting. So when this office was announced, the conservatives immediately criticized it as more bureaucracy that will actually make it worse for spring investments and development in the country. Is that critique fair? We don't know yet if the conservative critique is fair, but there's certainly a chance that it proves fair. I mean, the challenge for the major projects office, I think, is to find kind of a sweet spot because the flip side of what the conservatives are claiming would be this office actually exerting too much authority, whether it's in potentially pushing past regulatory processes that actually are important, it could be legally challenged, or even more so, I think, on the financing side, you know, you've got these entities like the Canada Infrastructure Bank or the and a growth fund, that have a pretty complicated and sophisticated task in determining where

government and how government agencies, government dollars, can best be spent in derisking projects and striking the right risk balance and not winding up, you know, losing a lot of money or finding things that would happen anyway or whatever. And you don't want to mess too much with that. If they exert too much authority, it could compromise some of those other agencies or processes. On the other hand, if they are too soft in what they're doing, if they don't exert enough influence over how things work, then you do wind up with what the conservatives are warning of another layer of bureaucracy that has to be included in everything, that's at all the meetings, you have to work with, but that's just kind of adding complication rather than actually

achieving much. I'm not saying that either those will be the case. There's definitely room in between, but they're going to have to find their niche there because there is the danger with conservatives or warning of, particularly as they're trying to avoid, as I said, the other side of it, which is actually being too forceful in ways that would actually negatively impact how government functions. Okay, yeah, it sounds like there's a sweet spot there, but it's a difficult one to achieve. I want to end here by coming back to the stated purpose of these projects and this office because it's meant to make Canada less economically dependent on the U.S.

And there's so much fanfare around all of this. It's something you've talked about, actually, in some of your reporting. So is it meeting the moment in terms of nation building or is this, I don't know, just a lot of hype? I think what this office has mostly done so far is give us a window into how this pretty new prime minister views the government that he is now running. And it reflects a sense that that government does not fit for purpose, that it moves too slowly, the bureaucracy. is not able to fast track things the way it needs to, that there's too much confusion about who does what, and rather than attempt to tackle all of that, which could take years, this is a little bit of an attempt to work around it with something that'll help steer things. In terms of whether

it meets the moment, I don't think it's failed to do that so far in the projects in terms of scale. I think some people will be disappointed that setting aside the pipeline thing, most of these are not in and of themselves massive projects. I saw the government describe them today as transformational. I don't think any one of these on its own would be considered necessarily transformational. But there's only so many of those that exist. And you don't want to get bogged down in like the three perfect gigantic projects. And I think cumulatively they could add up to something that could be transformative. I think the big question here still is, okay, but what will happen that wouldn't have happened if this agency hadn't been struck?

Like, it's one thing to think government moves too slowly. That's true. It can also be exaggerated. Most of these projects that we've seen referred so far were already well in the works under the previous prime minister. And in some cases, fairly far along in terms of their permitting and in some cases even their investment. And some in the first round, actually under construction already. But I do think there's still a need for this office to prove that it's more than either a communications exercise or a solution to search for a problem. So am I hearing here that's kind of in between hype and meeting the moment?

I think it's been overhyped a little bit and misunderstood. Okay. I do think that we might be at the end or nearing the end of this sort of hype cycle for the major projects office. You know, we've now seen a couple of big batches of announcements or referrals. There was the first one in September, and then they made a big thing of how they were going to do this one by the Grey Cup, which is a C.F. I appreciate it, but I'm not totally sure why that was necessary as a date. And then they were obliged to have like five or six of these at once and make a huge splash with it and all kinds of speculation about what it would be and so on.

I suspect that what we're going to see going forward is more of a steady stream of them. And hopefully once that happens and once it's a little bit less about what is going to next be referred to them, the focus will turn a little bit more. more to, okay, so what's actually happening and moving these along? And then we'll start to get a better sense of whether the pipe was actually warranted. Adam, really fascinating. Thanks so much for coming on the show. Thank you, Shaw. That was Adam Radwanski, writer and policy columnist for the globe. That's it for today. I'm Cheryl Sutherland. Our producers are Madeline White, Mikhail Stein, and Ali Graham. David Crosby edits the show.

Adrian Chung is our senior producer, and Angela Pichenza is our executive editor. Thanks so much for listening, and I'll talk to you soon.