The federal Conservatives voted with the Liberals on a special order to push a massive piece of legislation on major project approvals through the House of Commons before the week’s end.
The proposed legislation would grant the federal government broad powers including the option to override laws related to projects deemed "in the national interest."
Three hundred and five Conservative and Liberal MPs voted in favour of the government’s time allocation motion to limit debate on the bill, while 30 Bloc Québécois, Green and NDP MPs and lone Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith voted against it.
The federal government is determined to get Bill C-5 — dubbed the One Canadian Economy Act — through the House of Commons before MPs leave Ottawa for the summer recess. With the Conservatives’ support, it looks like the federal government will succeed.
Now, the federal Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities will have two meetings this week to study bill C-5 before it is set to report back to the House on Friday.
Conservatives and Liberals voted against a Bloc Québécois amendment that would have given the committee two full days to study the legislation.
The Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green Party say the Liberals’ time allocation motion is undemocratic and doesn’t give MPs enough time to study and fully understand the legislation. The section on major project approvals alone would give the federal government authorization to override 13 existing laws and seven regulations for projects deemed “in the national interest.” Many of these laws and regulations are environmental.
The proposed legislation would allow the federal government to conditionally approve projects it deems “in the national interest” before an environmental or impact assessment or other regulatory processes take place. Review processes will still take place but focus on “how” a project should be built instead of “whether” it can be built.
Liberal MPs, cabinet ministers and House Leader Steven MacKinnon justified the controversial time allocation motion by saying the government was elected on a mandate to move quickly on projects of national interest and remove federal trade barriers.
To assuage concerns, Liberal MPs and cabinet ministers have repeatedly referred to a set of “criteria” used to determine whether a project is deemed “in the national interest.” Some factors the government may consider include whether a project advances the interests of Indigenous Peoples and contributes to “clean growth.” The latter criterion was received with skepticism because Prime Minister Mark Carney touted an oilsands lobby group’s proposed carbon capture megaproject as an example of one possible project in the national interest.
The problem: the legislation does not require projects to meet all or any of these factors; they are merely a suggestion. Similarly, Carney said his government won’t impose a project on a province. However, this is not spelled out in the proposed legislation — Carney’s word is the only assurance that provinces won’t have a pipeline or other project forced through their jurisdiction.
This verbal commitment is not enough to protect provincial sovereignty, Bloc Québécois MPs argue.
All day Monday, Bloc Québécois MPs took shots at the Conservatives for voting with the federal government, questioning whether the official opposition is still willing to stand up for democracy. To this, Conservative MP Chris Lewis pointed out that the NDP and Bloc Québécois have both voted with the Liberals previously.
If all goes according to the federal government’s plan, Bill C-5 will pass third reading on Friday and be sent to the Senate where it goes through a similar process of study and possible amendments. The Senate got a headstart studying the bill on Monday. In the afternoon, senators heard testimony from Transport and Internal Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland on the first portion of the bill which aims to eliminate federal barriers to interprovincial trade.
The Senate sits for one week longer than the House of Commons; its last possible sitting day is June 27, compared to June 20 for MPs.
Senator Paul Prosper said he plans on putting forward an amendment to slow C-5 down if and when it gets to the Senate in “hopes that more rational minds prevail in terms of consulting with Indigenous groups.”
‘Looking at all options’
At a non-partisan news conference on Monday morning, Green Party MP Elizabeth May, Indigenous leaders, Senator Paul Prosper, NDP MP Gord Johns and two environmental lawyers urged the federal government to slow down and not rush the bill.
“This legislation is certainly something all Canadians should be concerned about,” said Abram Benedict, Regional Chief for the Chiefs of Ontario, referencing similar legislation in Ontario that is “undermining democracy” and First Nations rights holders.
Chiefs of Ontario is not opposed to development or projects, Benedict said.
“But First Nation rights holders must be involved from the beginning, not given three weeks' notice that legislation will be coming forward, and given two weeks' notice of what it looks like,” he said.
Benedict said the Chiefs of Ontario will “be looking at all options,” including protest and legal options to slow the federal government down in the courts to ensure rights-holders are heard. This includes a rally planned for Tuesday afternoon outside Parliament.
The bill “is an assault on science and democracy,” Anna Johnston, a staff lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law, said at the press conference. Johnston said the bill will shut the public out of decisions that affect them and allow cabinet to withhold “virtually all” information about projects from the public, including the project details, scientific reviews and the advice of responsible ministers. Public comment periods would still take place, but after a project has already been listed and received conditional approval, according to the legislation.
“If a highway were designated for fast-tracking just blocks from your home, the minister wouldn't have to give you any information beyond the name and a brief description of it, and you would have no say in whether, where, or how the highway was built,” Johnston said.
Ecojustice staff lawyer Joshua Ginsberg is concerned about the federal government giving itself powers to override existing laws to get projects built. Some of the 13 laws the federal government could override under the proposed legislation include: the Fisheries Act, Indian Act, Canada Marine Act, Species at Risk Act and the Impact Assessment Act.
“For example, today, the federal government cannot issue permits, by law, for activities that would jeopardize the survival and recovery of a threatened species, but under this bill, the government could be compelled to approve activities causing that kind of harm, even if science warns of catastrophic consequences,” Ginsberg said. The legislation also empowers ministers to override laws passed by Parliament. This “extraordinary mechanism” concentrates decision-making authority in the executive and weakens democratic oversight, he said.
This bill is worse than Stephen Harper’s omnibus bill C-38 which famously “destroyed 70 environmental laws,” May said.
“It appears to me, and it remains to be seen, that Mr. Carney's new majority coalition is Liberal-Conservative, delivering Pierre Poilievre policies with a more friendly face,” May said.
The bill has a five-year sunset clause, meaning that if the bill becomes law, there will be a five year period during which projects can be listed for conditional approval. May pointed out that one Liberal MP, Patrick Weiler, wants a shorter sunset clause because of the sweeping powers it affords to government.
“Allowing cabinet to decide which projects proceed before reviewing them is like jumping off a cliff and then asking for the parachute,” Johnston said.
The Bloc Québécois wants no part of projects based on “energy of the past,” MP Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay said during debate on his party's motion on Monday evening. This is just economic and environmental common sense, he said, referencing scientific reports that a vast majority of fossil fuel reserves must remain in the ground if the world has any hope of limiting global warming in line with the Paris Agreement.
Canada’s oilsands produce “some of the most heavily polluting oil in the world,” he said.
Natasha Bulowski / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer
This article was updated at 7:30 a.m. eastern time on June 17 to add additional details about the vote.
Comments
"The proposed legislation would allow the federal government to conditionally approve projects it deems 'in the national interest' before an environmental or impact assessment or other regulatory processes take place. Review processes will still take place but focus on 'how' a project should be built instead of 'whether' it can be built."
My doctor proposes to perform open-heart surgery on me this week. Before he goes away for his annual golf holiday. Plenty of time for an ECG come fall when he gets back.
"Liberal MPs, cabinet ministers and House Leader Steven MacKinnon justified the controversial time allocation motion by saying the government was elected on a mandate to move quickly on projects of national interest and remove federal trade barriers."
How can you tell when a Liberal is lying?
If anything, PM Carney got a mandate to not act like Pierre Poilievre. The Liberals did not get a mandate to circumvent Parliamentary procedure. No mandate to bypass rigorous environmental reviews. No mandate to ram through big projects without proper scrutiny. No mandate to ignore Canada's environmental laws. No mandate to fail to obtain informed consent from indigenous communities on the frontlines of development.
UNDRIP stipulates free, prior, and informed consent. In a constitutional democracy, majority will does not override protected minority rights. As Carney's predecessor stated: "Governments grant permits, communities grant permission."
What will Poilievre's Conservatives do with such powers?
The Bulldozing Canada Act will come back to haunt Canadians.
Poilievre is leader only right now so don't give him any credit whatsoever until he deserves it. Shocking that he's squatting at Stornoway and hanging around Parliament Hill on a daily basis as if he is still leader of the Opposition. Mind you looking at Scheer's face is the same as looking at Poilievre's sneer. One sneers one smiles all of the time.
There needs to be a Leadership Review 'before' he's handed a seat for nothing. Review his leadership and make him earn his seat.
Look at all those Cons smiling. They've got plans for this Bill but Carney is far, far, far from stupid which makes them look um er ahhh let's see 'not very smart'. Carney appears to love his country and care about Canadians so he would not create a bill that allows people like the Cons to pillage the country. More to come I'm sure.
Whether all-wise Dear Leader loves his country more than he loves Corporate Canada is besides the point.
A Conservative government can resurrect the bill or rewrite one of their own. Poilievre or his successor can ram legislation through Parliament without proper scrutiny, just like Carney is doing. A Liberal opposition will be able to say nothing to oppose it.
The Conservatives will likely repeal environmental assessment law altogether. Carney is merely making a mockery of it.
"The federal Conservatives have claimed the bill does not go far enough and want to see the Impact Assessment Act repealed."
"May calls out Carney's sprint to push major projects bill through Commons" (CP, Jun 16, 2025)
Carney has set a terrible precedent.
I had thought there might be a few token Conservatives that voted against. Now, there's a true example of his Majesty's loyal opposition!
"Carney’s word is the only assurance that provinces won’t have a pipeline or other project forced through their jurisdiction."
Oh, I don't think this, or any, bill passed by parliament can override the constitution. Busy times ahead in the Supreme Court the moment Mr. Carney attempts to steamroll provincial domain.
Poilievre is a goner. Wouldn't it be amusing if he simply resigned his position as leader, given that he's bound to quickly become a toothless lapdog as leader of an opposition that couldn't see any reason to oppose what the government is doing? My guess is he'll get back into parliament -- we all need a job -- and then be gone as leader.
Our not-so-much-of-late great nation may be unrecognizable within a few years.
It seems we now have a libservative government.
BC had TMX rammed through and backed by the highest courts in BC and the nation. Their decisions were easy and quick. Unanimous approval over all objections based on jurisdiction alone. All the Trans Mountain boys had to do was go back through the motions of warming seats at a conference table with Indigenous negotiators and affix smarmy smiles to their faces once again for a little while longer.
TMX was a federal project that "consulted." Period. That was all that mattered to all 12 judges in two separate courts.
One can legitimately ask why is Bill C-5 even necessary?
In favour.
The technological and economic realities are that the carbon industry has maybe one more big project in them. If that.
The bill can then be used to keep the oil lobby from getting in the way of major electrification projects, like wind farms, solar farms, and high-voltage transmission.
Ironically, a lot of green projects have been successfully held up by NIMBYs that were astroturfed up into existence with oil money. David Roberts at Volts has covered it repeatedly.
I'm betting you'll discover this was a good thing, when we look back in five years.
That is an excellent point.
>> Review processes will still take place but focus on “how” a project should be built instead of “whether” it can be built. <<
Overriding it all is the Constitution. That powerful instrument is the primary conduit yhrough which First Nations will still be able to protect their rights and provinces to protect their ownership of resources, including electricity, and their ability to manage them, including with provincial environmental regulation.
The focus will be on interprovincial connectivity. This is absolutely neccessary to build a national grid. There are some very interesting concepts and analyses coming to the surface now on provincial grid interties.
Carney has repeatedly said he will build out clean energy infrastructure, even when he throws a sop to Alberta oil and CCS (both will ultimately fail; Carney may already know the limits of that failure, and likely consuders it a necessary political calculation). He knows he won't get anywhere by rejecting the Crazy Smith Doctrine while seeking to reorient the Canadian econony E-W with provincial cooperation instead of N-S with the provinces continuing to be little fiefdoms isolated and often hostile to one another.
Pipelines and CCS have, in my view, reached their public financing limitations. That much is obvious with the exemplary and very vocal criticism. It's worth repeating: now is the time to put the onus on the private sector to finance them, starting with presenting genuine business cases, and not the childish numbers plucked from thin air that CAPP presented for TMX in 2015. Let Smith's masters in the oil industry show their math and prove their willingness to accept the majority of the risk of failure. That interprets to very clear limits to government support for oil infrastructure today.
We may end up with a pipeline and maybe a couple of CCS projects, but the ultinate way ahead is full of electrons flowing across provincial boundaries and expanding the national grid by orders of magnitude.
Even if Carney is a conservative pro oil wolf in liberal sheep's clothing who will turn the helm fully into the oil sands (the evidence isn't there yet, and what evidence there is -- mainly rhetoric -- is clearly mixed with clean energy and non-fossil resources) China and Europe will forceably alter the course into decreasing the carbon content of the world economy. It's not fast enoug, obvioudly, but Canada can either join the electrification club or be dragged kicking and screaming into a forced reduction in oil and gas production as overseas demand erodes.
Amusing to watch the mental gymnastics on display as Carney fans and partisans with rose-coloured glasses dance around the Liberals' devotion to fossil fuels.
Alex Botta wrote: "Overriding it all is the Constitution. That powerful instrument is the primary conduit through which First Nations will still be able to protect their rights and provinces to protect their ownership of resources …
Merely consider TMX; Coastal Gaslink and the Wet'suwet'en; Alberta oilsands.
*
AB wrote: "Carney has repeatedly said he will build out clean energy infrastructure, even when he throws a sop to Alberta oil and CCS …"
A sop worth tens, even hundreds, of billions of dollars.
Tens of billions of dollars down the drain. Scarce tax dollars not invested in renewables, grid expansion, public transit, etc. Huge opportunity costs.
CCS provides political cover for O&G expansion. Federal subsidies for pipelines, CCS, LNG, SMRs, blue hydrogen, etc. all perpetuate the fossil-fuel industry.
No need for the O&G industry to make a business case as long as governments are willing to prop up the industry. Neoliberalism in action.
Another oilsands export pipeline enables further growth in oilsands production and locks us into a fossil-fuel future. A pipeline to Prince Rupert would require lifting the tanker ban off B.C.'s coast, endangering marine life and fisheries.
Building out fossil fuel infrastructure that will operate for decades defeats Canada's climate goals. Pushing Canada's emissions targets out of reach for decades.
*
AB wrote: "Pipelines and CCS have, in my view, reached their public financing limitations."
??? No basis for this claim.
Wishful thinking masquerading as argument.
*
AB wrote: "We may end up with a pipeline and maybe a couple of CCS projects …"
Which put Canada's climate targets out of reach for decades.
Liberal supporters accept and defend Canada's failure on climate. What a shame.
AB wrote: "Even if Carney is a conservative pro oil wolf in liberal sheep's clothing who will turn the helm fully into the oil sands (the evidence isn't there yet, and what evidence there is -- mainly rhetoric -- is clearly mixed with clean energy and non-fossil resources) China and Europe will forcibly alter the course into decreasing the carbon content of the world economy. It's not fast enough, obviously …"
No, Carney is a pro-oil Liberal in green clothing. Just like his predecessor, Justin Trudeau. We have two O&G parties in Ottawa, not one.
Again, it does not matter how much we invest in renewables. If we invest in fossil-fuel expansion at the same time, we cannot hope to meet our climate targets.
The IEA projects that global demand for petroleum will peak around 2030 and then plateau for decades. A long tail, in other words. Not a rapid drop. Which leaves room for ongoing exploration and stable production volumes as old reservoirs run dry.
"Mark Carney's Liberals to make Canada the world's leading energy superpower"
Clearly a plan for fossil-fuel expansion not just out to 2030 but for decades to come:
Carney: "My government will work closely with our oil and gas industry to reduce their emissions over time, so that Canadian conventional energy will supply the world for decades to come."
The O&G industry, the Big Banks that back it, and governments like Canada are banking on climate disaster. Major fossil-fuel infrastructure projects must run for decades to recoup their capital costs. Building out pipelines, LNG, and carbon capture locks us into a fossil-fuel future.
Is financial economic wizard Mark Carney betting that all these assets will be stranded? Not likely.
This is not what I voted for.
I feel like one of the animals in the novel Animal Farm. The part at the end when they look in the window at the pigs and humans and can't tell which is which.