Speed Without Structural Reform: Thoughts on Alberta’s Proposed 120-Day Project Approval Timeline

Conor Chell and Manpreet K Dhillon, KPMG Law LLP, Vancouver and Calgary, conorchell@kpmg.ca; mkdhillon@kpmg.ca

Abstract (108 words): Alberta’s proposed Expedited 120-Day Approvals Act (“Bill 30”) introduces a compressed timeline for major projects approvals with the stated objective of accelerating oil and gas development and expanding market access. This article examines whether a fixed 120-day approval period, as currently presented, can achieve those objectives within the Province’s existing legal and regulatory framework. Constitutional constraints, including federal jurisdiction and the duty to consult Indigenous communities, along with the practical realities of project development and regulatory processes with embedded environmental considerations, limit the effectiveness of a compressed timeline. Absent broader structural reform, a legislated timeline alone is unlikely to materially reduce overall project timelines or improve investment certainty.

With Alberta’s introduction of the Expedited 120-Day Approvals Act (“Bill 30”), proposing a firm 120-day timeline for major project approvals, it remains to be seen whether such compressed timelines, as currently described, alone can materially accelerate approvals within Canada’s existing legal and regulatory framework.

The Expedited 120-Day Approvals Act

On April 14, 2026, Alberta’s Minister of Energy and Minerals, Brian Jean, introduced Bill 30. The bill follows three weeks after Alberta announced its intention to legislate a firm timeline for major project approvals, with the stated objective of doubling oil and gas production by 2035 and increasing market access.¹

Bill 30 broadly defines approvals to include any “approval, permit, licence, registration, disposition, certificate, allocation, declaration, or other instrument or form of approval or consent under a prescribed enactment.”² This broad definition could capture a wide range of key major project approvals in Alberta including environmental approvals under the EPEA, water licences, pipeline and facility approvals from the Alberta Energy Regulator, public land dispositions, municipal development permits, and other sector-specific licenses and authorizations required for energy projects.

If passed, Bill 30 establishes a new process for proponents to apply to the Minister to be designated as a qualified project, thereby accessing a compressed approval timeline for government and regulatory approvals. Applications must contain detailed information including:

• project scope;
• list of required approvals;
• minimum capital spend;
• the status of environmental assessments under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (“EPEA”); and
• proof “acceptable to the Minister” of the status of “planned, ongoing, or completed consultation” with indigenous communities.

The project designation will be available to proponents that can satisfy the following criteria:

• The project is of strategic importance to Alberta’s economy;
• The project’s benefits outweigh residual impacts;
• The project’s minimum capital spend exceeds $250 million;
• The project advances national and provincial security; and
• Any other factor the Minister considers relevant.³

Applications will be reviewed by a newly formed team within the Executive Council, which will in turn make recommendations to a committee of economic Deputy Ministers on whether to designate a project.⁴ If approved, the Minister will designate a project by Order-in-Council, including the dates by which government and regulatory approvals must be made.⁵ Bill 30 clarifies that the decision respecting approval must be made within the lesser of 120 days or the time frame set out in the prescribed enactment.⁶ In a press conference on April 15, Minister Jean clarified that while the Deputy Ministers Committee will have 30 days to make their determination, there is no prescribed time limit set on the Executive Council review team when reviewing an application.⁷

In addition, Minister Jean makes clear that Bill 30 does not take authority away from government decision-makes and regulators with respect to project approvals. What is more, proponents are expected to have “substantially completed” their environmental assessment and indigenous consultation processes prior to submitting an application under Bill 30.

Bill 30 does not mention how such timelines will be enforced against government authorities and regulators. It’s equally unclear how regulators will treat substantially or partially complete environmental assessment and indigenous consultation information from proponents, thus satisfying the project criteria under Bill 30, and how this impacts the proposed timeline.

Legislative and Policy Background

Bill 30 follows an October 2025 mandate letter from Premier Danielle Smith to Minister Jean, directing development of an expedited approval process for “priority projects designated to be in the provincial interest.”⁸ The Minister was instructed to advance this work in consultation with the Ministers of Environment and Protected Areas, Indigenous Relations, and other “relevant ministers, industry and applicable regulatory bodies.”⁹

In November 2025, Alberta and Canada entered a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) to more than double oil exports to Asian markets, address investment uncertainty, reduce emissions, and streamline federal and provincial regulatory processes to achieve a maximum 2-year timeframe, including those within Alberta’s jurisdiction.¹⁰

More recently, on April 2, 2026, Alberta and Canada announced a Cooperation Agreement for environmental impact assessments.¹¹ The final agreement states that Canada will defer “wherever possible” to provincial processes for projects and activities that “primarily fall within Alberta’s exclusive legislative jurisdiction” with the stated objective of eliminating duplication.¹² Canada further recognized Alberta as the “best place” to conduct such assessments, including addressing adverse effects within federal jurisdiction, as defined in the federal Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 1 (“IAA”). This is notable, given Alberta’s ongoing constitutional challenge to the IAA¹³ and its position that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (“UNDRIP”) does not impose binding obligations on the province while Canada has adopted federal legislation which takes a contrary position.

Legal and Practical Considerations

While application of the proposed timeline remains to be seen, several legal and practical considerations call into question whether a firm 120-day timeline can achieve its stated objectives, considering constitutional constraints, the structure of existing regulatory processes, and the practical realities of project development.

First, to increase access to Asian markets requires interprovincial and federal coordination. Interprovincial undertakings, such as pipelines, fall within federal powers under the Constitution Act, 1867.¹⁴ A provincial statute cannot impose binding timelines on federal decision-making or on other provinces. The cooperation agreement reflects this limitation, committing to defer to Alberta only where projects are primarily in provincial jurisdiction. As a result, the proposed timeline may have limited application to the types of large-scale multijurisdictional infrastructure projects required to expand export capacity.

For projects that fall primarily within Alberta’s jurisdiction, the province maintains powers over natural resource development and interprovincial infrastructure (to the extent it is within the province) under section 92a of the Constitution Act, 1867. However, even in those cases, provincial approvals must operate within a broader legal framework that includes overlapping federal requirements and constitutional obligations. Accordingly, the effectiveness of a fixed timeline will depend on the extent to which Alberta can coordinate its processes with the federal regime.

Second, project approvals must comply with the constitutional duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous peoples. This duty arises where Crown conduct may adversely affect asserted or established Aboriginal or treaty rights and requires consultation that is meaningful and proportionate to the potential impact.¹⁵ It is a substantive obligation that would be difficult to achieve for most major projects within the confines of a fixed 120-day timeline. Inadequate consultation may expose approvals to judicial review.¹⁶

Third, a fixed approval timeline does not account for the practical realities of project development. Major projects require extensive preliminary work, such as environmental studies, engineering design, and stakeholder engagement, that would fall outside this fixed timeline and proponents are unlikely to be able to meaningfully shorten. In addition, if the fixed timeline is not accompanied by additional capacity for regulators, they may be forced to rely on standard conditions, defer key issues to post-approval stages, or reduce the depth of technical review. Each of these possible outcomes introduces additional risk, including reduced regulatory certainty and increased exposure to judicial review and other litigation.

Fourth, it remains uncertain whether the proposed timeline will have the intended effect of attracting investors. While shorter approval timelines may reduce carrying costs and provide some schedule relief, investment decisions are typically driven by a broader set of conditions including project value, feasibility, and return. A compressed process may, in some cases, increase uncertainty if processes lead to a greater reliance on discretionary decision-making, exposure to legal challenges, and inconsistent application of regulatory standards. As proposed, the timelines are intended to be applied narrowly to cover timing following preliminary project works, environmental assessments, and indigenous consultation, then such firm approval timelines are unlikely to have any material impact on overall project schedules.

Finally, the proposed timeline is difficult to reconcile with how existing government and regulatory approval processes operate. Although Minister Jean has indicated that Indigenous consultation and environmental impact assessments are intended to be “substantially completed” prior to a project being designated under Bill 30, in many cases, these components are currently embedded within regulatory review timelines and inform approval conditions. Separating them in practice would likely shift substantial work to the pre-application stage or result in approvals subject to significant post-approval conditions and oversight. In either case, the overall project schedules is unlikely to be shortened and may, in some instances, have the adverse effect.

Conclusion

Bill 30 signals a clear policy objective to accelerate major project approvals, but as currently framed, it leaves key questions unresolved as to how a fixed 120-day timeline will operate within Canda’s existing legal and regulatory landscape. In particular, the absence of a defined and coordinated pre-application framework, addressing environmental impact assessments, Indigenous consultation, and federal and interprovincial alignment, limits the extent to which the proposed timeline can meaningfully compress overall project schedules.

Absent broad structural reform and increased regulatory capacity, a legislated timeline (including a new bureaucratic process) alone is unlikely to achieve the stated objectives of faster approvals, increased investment certainty, and expanded market access. Its effectiveness will ultimately depend on how it is implemented in practice, and whether it is accompanied by more comprehensive changes to the underlying major project approval regime.

End Notes