The federal government’s controversial Bill C-5 is off to the Senate next week for a truncated study. Opposition parties amended the proposed legislation to ensure the government cannot override certain laws (including the Indian Act, Canada Labour Code and Criminal Code) but most environmental law and regulations can still be circumvented if a project is deemed “in the national interest.”
"We've been keeping ourselves dependent on foreign powers. By building at home, we will truly make Canada strong," Prime Minister Mark Carney said in a press conference following the bill's passage in the House of Commons. "This government was elected on a promise to break down the barriers and build things, big and faster."
This legislation “unlocks” the potential to advance nation-building projects, Carney said.
The bill would grant cabinet the power to override laws and regulations to get major projects built. In a marathon committee meeting Wednesday evening, the Bloc Québécois and Conservatives worked together to increase transparency and reporting requirements in the bill and prevent the government from overriding more than a dozen laws.
But the government can still override important environmental statutes including the Fisheries Act, Species at Risk Act, Canadian Navigable Waters Act, Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Migratory Birds Convention Act and Impact Assessment Act. The same goes for regulations including Wildlife Area Regulations, Marine Mammal Regulations, two migratory birds regulations as well as port and mining effluent regulations.
MPs had their last chance to amend the bill Friday afternoon in the House of Commons.
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May tried to add the Species at Risk Act to the list of laws cabinet cannot override. The Liberals and Conservatives defeated May’s motion, with Liberal MP Nate Erskine-Smith breaking rank and voting with the Bloc Québécois, Green Party and NDP. Erskine-Smith has been critical of Bill C-5 and previously voted against his own government’s order to limit debate on the bill, which would also remove some federal barriers to internal trade.
The Liberals and Conservatives voted together not just on the bill itself, but also on a motion to ensure the bill cleared the House of Commons before MPs leave Ottawa for the summer. Parliament will resume sitting in mid-September.
MPs ended up voting on the bill in two parts, as originally requested by the Bloc Québécois. NDP MP Jenny Kwan made the request again today, and the Speaker of the House decided to split the bill into two different votes — one on the internal trade components and one on national interest projects — both of which passed.
'This legislation is an abomination'
The Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green Party say the major projects bill is undemocratic because of the unprecedented powers it grants cabinet and lack of respect for Indigenous rights.
The Chiefs of Ontario and many Indigenous leaders mobilized on Wednesday for a rally on Parliament Hill calling on Carney’s government to drop bill C-5 and do it right this time.
Carney, in his press conference following the bill's passage, said the legislation would be a benefit to Indigenous nations. He said summits with Inuit, First Nations and Métis leaders would be starting July 17, to discuss how the legislation would be applied.
"Being a reliable partner to Indigenous Peoples is not just about upholding the duty to consult," Carney said. "It's about enhancing the creation of long-term wealth and prosperity for Indigenous people."
On June 16, Sen. 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.”
Along with emphasizing “partnership with Indigenous Peoples,” Carney stressed “consistency with our climate goals and environmental responsibility.”
Elizabeth May, in the bill’s final moments before the House of Commons, reiterated what many have said since it was introduced: that the speed of the bill and the vagueness of its application means much now rests on what exactly the government decides to do with it.
“There are many great projects … I’d love to see move ahead: east-west-north-south electricity grid, a passenger rail and bus interlinked system,” she said.
“There are many projects in the national interest, but we don’t know what they will be and the factors in the bill are not requirements. We could have a great project that we all want to see go ahead — or we could have a nightmare."
In the end, May — the sole MP to vote against both parts of the bill — did not mince words.
“This legislation is an abomination and one that will be a stain on the reputation of this government and of our Prime Minister.”
Natasha Bulowski / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer
Comments
Good, environmentally sound, climate-friendly projects do not need to override environmental laws.
Under C-5, the federal cabinet reserves for itself the power to ignore laws already on the books. Not to save time, but to circumvent environmental laws, indigenous rights, and democratic procedure in order to give project proponents the accelerated approvals they seek without proper scrutiny and due process:
"Henry VIII clause: Though not referred to in the Bill’s summary, and a marked departure from the government’s talking points about not diminishing environmental protections, the combined effect of sections 21, 22 and 23 give Cabinet an unconstrained ability to make regulations that not only alter the application of other federal regulations to NIPS, either by amending them or excluding their application altogether, but also to alter the operation of virtually all laws duly passed by Parliament, including outright exemption."
David V. Wright and Martin Olszynski, op. cit.
"Sections 21 to 23 of the bill allow the executive branch to bypass existing rules and processes in 13 laws — including the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Indian Act and the Impact Assessment Law — through a regulatory process that does not need to be approved by Parliament.
"These sections are what's known in the legal community as 'Henry VIII clauses' — a reference to a king who preferred to govern by decree rather than through Parliament." (CP, Jun 16, 2025)
Good, environmentally sound, climate-friendly projects do not need to override democracy.
I'm not a policy person, but how many of the federal bills that C-5 allows the government to bypass would be stopped at the provincial level? For these major infrastructure projects both the federal and provincial governments need to perform EIA's and get indigenous and community approval. My reading of C-5 seems to be that it lets the federal government opt-out of their assessments, contingent on the approval of the province/territory EIA and Community/Indigenous consent. Otherwise the project would fail at the provincial level before reaching the federal government.
With that said, I've never done a provincial EIA - I imagine the concern is that they don't consider the waterways or species at risk like the federal government does, or at least not to the same standard? If I misunderstand something please correct me.
Whose environmental assessments and protections are more stringent? Alberta's or Canada's?
The question answers itself. Alberta has no environmental protections in place more stringent than corresponding federal laws.
The federal regime itself fails to provides adequate protection for the environment, climate, and indigenous communities. The provincial process is even worse.
Under Bill C-5, projects may be deemed in the "national interest" and approved BEFORE a federal environmental assessment. That's backwards.
How can decision makers (cabinet, PMO) know whether a project is in the "national interest" — and identify and investigate potential pitfalls and deficiencies — before a thorough review? That's why we do environmental assessments before approving projects.
Finding out the project deficiencies after the fact leads to delays and cost overruns — and sometimes bad or unnecessary projects promoted for political reasons.
"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.
"Conservatives vote with Carney government to rush Bill C-5" (National Observer, June 16, 2025)
The federal government has nominally implemented the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). (Practice is different from theory, of course.) Alberta has not.
DM wrote: "both the federal and provincial governments need to perform EIA's and get indigenous and community approval"
In fact, the federal government recognizes only an obligation to consult affected indigenous communities. How well does that work?
Merely consider TMX; Coastal Gaslink and the Wet'suwet'en; Alberta oilsands.
"Meaningful" consultation means whatever the government says it means.
"[Ontario] Bill 5 and [federal] Bill C-5 will open the door for governments to carve out special economic zones or designate projects that can bypass both environmental rules and the need for Indigenous consent.
"'UNDRIP is broken. Free, prior, and informed consent is broken. The duty to consult is broken,' said Coleen Moonias, a spokesperson for Neskantaga First Nation. 'We must continue to fight together and be united.'
"… Kataquapit pointed to Ontario's Bill 5 as clear evidence that the provincial government does not value meaningful input from Indigenous communities. He noted that the legislation was passed without consulting First Nations, undermining the duty to consult and weakening legal protections for Indigenous rights and the environment."
"'Here We Stand': River journey protests controversial bills" (National Observer, June 20, 2025)
When federal and provincial reviews combine, the results are still dubious:
Report of the Joint Review Panel: Teck Resources Limited: Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project
"We find that the project is likely to result in SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS to wetlands, oldgrowth forests, wetland- and old-growth-reliant species at risk, the Ronald Lake bison herd, and biodiversity. The project is also likely to result in SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS TO THE ASSERTED RIGHTS, USE OF LANDS AND RESOURCES, AND CULTURE OF INDIGENOUS GROUPS who use the project area. The proposed mitigation measures have not been proven to be effective or to fully mitigate project effects on the environment or on indigenous rights, use of lands and resources, and culture."
If that sounds like sustainable development, what does unsustainable development look like?
"The question of how to deal with projects such as Teck is complicated, especially given THE HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENTS BEING APPROVED DESPITE INDIGENOUS CONCERNS.
Matt Hulse, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation regulatory affairs coordinator: "People don't want the (Teck Frontier) mine to go ahead, but, because we have so little confidence in regulatory process, INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES ARE FORCED TO FIND WAYS TO BENEFIT FROM THE PROJECT to offset the impacts. There ISN'T ANY GOOD OPTION.'"
"'Nowhere else to turn': First Nations inundated by oilsands projects face impossible choices" (The Narwhal, 2018)
"The bill would grant cabinet the power to override laws and regulations to get major projects built. In a marathon committee meeting Wednesday evening, the Bloc Québécois and Conservatives worked together to increase transparency and reporting requirements in the bill and prevent the government from overriding more than a dozen laws.
"But the government can still override important environmental statutes including the Fisheries Act, Species at Risk Act, Canadian Navigable Waters Act, Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Migratory Birds Convention Act and Impact Assessment Act. The same goes for regulations including Wildlife Area Regulations, Marine Mammal Regulations, two migratory birds regulations as well as port and mining effluent regulations.
"Bill C-5 passes the House of Commons vote after accelerated process" (National Observer, June 20 2025)
Why would climate-friendly projects need to override any of Canada's environmental laws?
"‘Ass Backwards’: Canada’s New Legal Posture Post-Bill C-5" (The Tyee, 2025/06/24)
...
"How will C-5 affect what happens in provinces?
"Inked into the Constitution, Canada’s governing responsibilities include anything interprovincial — think transmission or pipelines — but also particularly large projects like mines and LNG plants. The federal government also governs waterways and fish habitat. In places like B.C., its laws are the only ones governing species at risk, and it has legal responsibilities to First Nations, including through laws like the Indian Act.
"Federal laws have acted as an important safeguard before, said [Merle Alexander, a Hereditary Chief of the Kitasoo Xai’xais First Nation and a lawyer practising Indigenous resource law], including in 2014 when the government rejected Taseko Mines’ plan to turn the Tŝilhqot’in First Nation’s sacred lake into a tailings pond despite B.C.’s willingness to approve it.
"Provincial fast-track laws like B.C.’s bills 14 and 15 could compound C-5’s risks, said Alexander. 'They could create a harmonized streamlined process,' he said, which would eliminate all impact and environmental assessments, or EAs, and all environmental regulations.
"'Sometimes the provincial EA is the check, the check and balance, and sometimes it’s the federal check and balance,' said Alexander. 'The check and balance is gone if it’s not done right.'
"Although recent amendments added language to the bill requiring provincial consent before deeming projects in the 'national interest,' that doesn’t include federally regulated projects like a bitumen pipeline to B.C.’s north coast …"
I don't suppose "national interest" has been defined, either.
And I don't suppose there'll be a snowball's chance that government (i.e., us and our kids and grandkids) won't wind up paying for most of them.
Carney, like Ford and Trump, have joined the ranks of authoritarian leaders.
I agree with Geoffrey; «Good, environmentally sound, climate-friendly projects do not need to override democracy.»