As we will soon see in the federal government’s introduction of Bill C-5, a largely touted great first step. It gives the administration broad powers to accelerate the permitting process for significant nation-building projects. The administration is attempting to sell this as necessary for economic stimulus. This is particularly key now as a trade war with the United States threatens. Indigenous leaders from coast-to-coast-to-coast in Canada are raising alarm about the damage this could do to their rights and sovereignty.
The government responded to concerns by amending Bill C-5 to make it clear that it cannot override the Indian Act. However, even with these changes, as indigenous leader Tara Houska explains, the bill would still threaten basic rights. And Chief Vernon Watchmaker of the Kehewin Cree Nation thinks the legislation will lead to many court challenges. This too, he warns, risks eroding investor confidence in the long-term.
As the bill continues to make its way through Parliament, its long-term effect on Indigenous communities and the broader economy is no less a matter of debate. While some communities welcome the potential economic benefits, others fear that their rights will be compromised in favor of rapid development.
Economic Rationale Behind Bill C-5
Federal officials, as well as the new, elected Minister Carney, are eager backers of Bill C-5. They’re convinced it’s a key move to boosting Canada’s economy. Carney further underscores the need for the country to diversify its economic future and export capacity away from the U.S. The government argues that fast-tracking projects under Bill C-5 is essential for strengthening Canada’s autonomy and resilience in a volatile trade environment.
“This is a pre-determined process — a process that is disrespectful, top-down and (that) divided Indigenous leaders, by privileging some voices over others,” – Chief Phyllis Whitford of O’Chiese First Nation of Alberta.
The Ontario government has suggested that a major commuter highway tunnel could qualify as a nation-building project under this new legislation. The government maintains that decisions to fast-track projects will adhere to five specific criteria, including an assessment of whether projects can enhance national security.
Even with these protections, government transparency advocates say they worry about what the government really wants to do. They contend that previous bills such as Bill C-69, which federal Conservatives dubbed the “No More Pipelines Act,” has already choked infrastructure growth in their crib. They argue that it has not done enough to address Indigenous concerns in a meaningful way.
Indigenous Concerns and Responses
Indigenous leaders have been very clear that they oppose Bill C-5. Most of them believe that the current legislation is a clear and present danger to their rights and territories. Chief Vernon Watchmaker articulated his concerns clearly:
“That is not modernization. It is colonization in 2025.”
These emotions bring to contrast a considerable rift between Indian Country in regards to economic development versus environmental protection as well as preservation. While some communities have welcomed Bill C-5 due to potential economic opportunities, particularly those involved in energy projects, others have condemned it as a power grab that undermines their sovereignty.
Chief Phyllis Whitford, a delegate at last year’s gathering, blasted the federal government’s tokenistic treaty consultations, even calling meetings with Minister Carney “political theatre”. That made her wonder if real consultation was done. This raises alarm bells about the government’s commitment to uphold Indigenous rights in future pipeline developments.
Legislative Process and Political Support
The legislative history of Bill C-5 received unusual support from all political benches, including Conservatives. The House of Commons expedited the bill’s passage to the Senate through a programming motion that effectively forced rapid approval within days. Civil rights advocates are understandably spooked by this rushed procedure. They claim that legitimate debate around Indigenous rights and environmental degradation has taken a back seat.
Despite these concerns, other stakeholders opine that Bill C-5 may provide a greater degree of clarity in interprovincial trade that is desperately needed. The legislation allows Ottawa to deem goods and services meeting one province’s requirements as satisfying comparable federal standards, which could streamline operations for businesses navigating complex regulatory landscapes.
Critics are cautioning that if not done right the quick implementation of Bill C-5 could kill permanent infrastructure projects instead of fast-tracking them. They assert that an emphasis on speed over consultation could lead to greater conflicts with Indigenous communities and prolonged legal disputes.
