Canada Wants to Build Faster. The Real Problem Is Execution.

Canada has spent a lot of time talking about investment.

This week, the conversation shifted toward something more important:

Can Canada actually get things built?

On September 21, the federal government introduced the Building Canada Strong Act, a major proposed overhaul of how large infrastructure and resource projects move through federal approvals.

The headline is simple. The government wants federal reviews and decisions completed within one year after a project submits a comprehensive application. It also wants to coordinate approvals more closely and reduce the number of separate processes projects have to navigate.

You can read the government's Building Canada Strong Act announcement for the details.

On the surface, this is a government and regulatory story.

But there is a much bigger business lesson hiding underneath it.

Canada's problem may not be knowing what it wants to do. It may be getting all the moving pieces to do it.

Canada is suddenly talking about speed

The timing is interesting.

Last week, Canada hosted its first Investment Summit and the federal government said it had secured nearly $500 billion in new investment commitments.

That came alongside the announcement of a new Productivity Mega Deduction designed to make a much broader range of business investment immediately expensable.

In other words, Canada is trying to solve two different parts of the same problem.

Get more capital interested in Canada.

Then:

Make it easier for that capital to actually get to work.

The first part gets more attention because investment numbers are easy to put in a headline.

The second part is harder.

It involves permits, reviews, infrastructure, transportation, consultation, financing, procurement and dozens of other pieces that have to line up before a project becomes something physical.

That is where execution becomes the story.

Capital sitting on the sidelines isn't productivity

Imagine a company announces that it is going to build a new distribution centre.

The investment is approved.

The business case works.

The financing is available.

Everyone agrees it is strategically important.

Then the project starts moving through procurement.

Then permitting.

Then engineering.

Then legal.

Then another approval.

Then a supplier changes its timeline.

Then someone realizes another team needs to sign off before construction can begin.

Nobody is necessarily failing.

But the project is waiting.

And waiting is expensive.

This is one reason the government's new approach is worth watching.

The proposed framework is not simply about making individual approvals faster. It is about changing how those approvals interact.

That distinction matters.

Because the slowest part of a system determines how fast the system can move.

The bottleneck is usually between teams

This is not unique to government.

I have seen the same thing inside companies.

A leadership team decides it wants to launch something.

Marketing owns one part.

Sales owns another.

Operations owns another.

Finance has to approve the economics.

Technology has to configure something.

Legal needs to review it.

Everyone is doing their job.

And somehow the thing takes six months.

The natural reaction is usually:

"We need people to move faster."

Sometimes that is true.

Often it isn't.

The real problem is that the workflow was designed around departments instead of outcomes.

The work moves from one queue to another.

Team A finishes.

Team B starts.

Team C waits.

Then Team A has to revisit something because Team C found an issue.

Suddenly the project has become a relay race where everyone is running in a different direction.

This is why I keep coming back to the idea that the meeting is not the work.

A calendar can be full while a project barely moves.

The visible activity is not always the actual output.

Canada's economic environment makes the problem more urgent

The Bank of Canada addressed this exact environment on September 21.

Governor Tiff Macklem said Canadian businesses have been adapting to trade tensions, demographic change and rapid advances in technology. Businesses are adjusting supply chains, looking for new markets and investing in technology.

But he also said renewed trade uncertainty is making investment and hiring decisions harder.

His full remarks are worth reading in the Bank of Canada's September 21 speech.

That creates an important distinction.

When the environment is stable, inefficiency is easier to tolerate.

When the environment is changing quickly, every delay becomes more expensive.

A company deciding whether to build a facility today has to think about tariffs, energy prices, supply chains, labour availability and demand.

A project that takes five years to get moving carries more uncertainty than one that can move through a predictable process.

That means speed itself becomes an economic asset.

Not reckless speed.

Predictable speed.

Canada is attacking both sides of the problem

This is what makes the last week of Canadian economic news more interesting than any single announcement.

The government is simultaneously trying to make investment more attractive and make major projects easier to execute.

The Productivity Mega Deduction proposes permanent immediate expensing for a broad range of depreciable property acquired from September 15 onward.

The government says the measure is intended to reduce the after-tax cost of investment and encourage businesses to put more capital into productive assets.

That sounds great on paper.

But tax incentives cannot build a project.

They can change the economics.

They cannot remove a bottleneck.

That still requires the operating system around the investment to work.

The subtraction problem

Companies often try to fix slow execution by adding things.

Add another dashboard.

Add another approval.

Add another meeting.

Add another project manager.

Add another software platform.

Sometimes the better question is:

What can we remove?

Remove a handoff.

Remove duplicate data entry.

Remove an approval that adds no meaningful control.

Remove the requirement for three teams to review the same thing independently.

Remove ambiguity around who owns the decision.

This is why process mapping is more useful than it sounds.

The value is not the diagram.

The value is discovering where the work actually stops.

Most organizations already know their processes in theory.

The interesting part is what happens in reality.

The data problem is the same problem

There is another version of this inside corporate systems.

A company can have five dashboards and still struggle to make a decision.

Why?

Because the dashboards might not agree.

Finance defines revenue one way.

Sales defines customers another way.

Operations has its own version of "complete."

Leadership sees three different numbers and spends the meeting debating which one is correct.

The technology is working.

The process is not.

That is why I wrote Your Dashboard Isn't Wrong. Your Metrics Are.

A dashboard cannot fix an organization that has not agreed on what it is trying to measure.

The same principle applies at a national level.

Canada can have capital.

It can have natural resources.

It can have skilled workers.

It can have investors.

But those assets only create economic value when the system connecting them actually works.

The career lesson is hiding in plain sight

There is also a useful lesson here if you are building a career.

The people who understand how different parts of an organization connect are becoming increasingly valuable.

Not because they are experts in everything.

Because they can see the gaps between everything.

They notice when a technology problem is actually a process problem.

They notice when a reporting problem is actually a definition problem.

They notice when a project-management problem is actually an ownership problem.

And they can translate between groups that normally speak completely different languages.

That is an increasingly useful skill in an economy where companies are trying to do more with fewer resources and more uncertainty.

You do not necessarily need another tool.

Sometimes you need someone who can see the whole system.

The real test starts now

The Building Canada Strong Act is proposed legislation. The government still has to take it through Parliament, and implementation will matter as much as the legislation itself.

That is why I would not judge the policy by the size of the announcement.

Watch the outputs.

Do projects actually move faster?

Do investors receive more certainty?

Do trade corridors get built?

Do approvals become less repetitive?

Does more announced capital become actual construction?

Those are the questions that matter.

Because Canada has now spent several weeks demonstrating that it can announce investment.

It is trying to demonstrate that it can make investment easier.

The harder part is proving that it can turn investment into execution.

And honestly, that is not just Canada's problem.

It is the problem inside almost every organization.

Strategy is relatively easy to announce.

Execution is where the system gets tested.

The distance between "we should build this" and "it's built" is where productivity lives.

Canada is now trying to shorten that distance.

The rest of us should probably be paying attention.

📚Further Reading

1. Government of Canada: Building Canada Strong Act
   The primary announcement outlining the proposed one-year federal review timeline and changes to major-project approvals.

2. Government of Canada: Building Canada Strong
   Background on the government's broader "one project, one review" and regulatory-efficiency approach.

3. Bank of Canada: Adapting to structural forces, navigating uncertainty
   A concise summary of Tiff Macklem's September 21 remarks on trade, investment, AI and Canada's economic adjustment.

4. Government of Canada: Productivity Mega Deduction
   Details on the proposed permanent immediate-expensing regime for a broad range of business investments.

5. Prime Minister of Canada: Canada Investment Summit
   The government's account of the September 15 summit and nearly $500 billion in announced investment commitments.

6. Canada Energy Regulator: Getting Major Projects Built in Canada
   An early look at how the proposed changes could affect the federal energy-regulatory process.

TL;DR

• Canada is trying to shorten the time it takes to approve major infrastructure, energy and resource projects.

• The move comes after a week of major investment announcements and as trade uncertainty continues to make businesses cautious.

• Speed is rarely created by telling individual teams to work harder. It comes from removing unnecessary dependencies between teams.

• Companies face the same problem when strategy gets trapped between departments, systems, approvals and unclear ownership.

• Canada's next productivity challenge may be turning capital and ambition into completed projects.

© 2025. All rights reserved.

Quick Links

Home
Blog
About
Contact

Connect with Alexander Pau