Nevertheless, the Canadian federal government is continuing to proceed with Bill C-5. This otherwise-desirable legislation would give cover to the executive branch to avoid long-standing environmental and regulatory standards. Introduced on June 6, the bill aims to expedite the approval process for major projects by enabling cabinet decisions within a two-year timeframe. At the same time, critics are raising alarm over its potential implications. They claim it could gut key laws that safeguard the environment and Indigenous rights.
Bill C-5 continues to provide the executive branch with the ability to ignore regulations in 13 key laws. This extension further covers important focal legislation such as Canada’s Environmental Protection Act, Indian Act, and the Impact Assessment Law. Sections 21-23 of the bill allow the government to do this without parliamentary approval, using a secondary regulatory procedure. This decision has sparked concern across the board, from local businesses to large corporations.
Prime Minister Mark Carney highlighted the urgent need for such legislative changes, stating, “Canada is a country that used to build big things. In recent decades, it has become too difficult to build new projects in this country.” This sense of urgency is part of a deeper frustration with regulatory delays that have held up transformative projects all over the country.
Legal experts have begun to weigh in on the likely constitutionality of the bill. Paul Daly holds the chair in administrative law and governance at the University of Ottawa. He thinks the provisions that give additional authority to the executive branch will withstand judicial scrutiny. He noted that it is eerily similar to the carbon tax repeal bill two years ago. At that time, the Supreme Court deemed the Henry VIII clause constitutionally valid. I would have thought that a court, if faced with a challenge to this much more streamlined and targeted statute, would reach the same result.
Errol Mendes, a law professor and constitutional expert, echoed this view, asserting that the clauses within Bill C-5 could be defended constitutionally. As he and others point out, there’s always the potential for overreach from the executive branch.
Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet has raised a ruckus in the last few days over the fast tracking of the bill. He insists that we need to do deeper analysis. It has been called essential because it allows the government to suspend any law protecting language rights, Indigenous rights, environmental protections and safeguards for endangered species. Blanchet said, “The government appears afraid of real scrutiny on the bill, which in and of itself is troubling.”
He further emphasized the importance of careful consideration. “How could we go forward with such a huge bill with huge consequences for Quebec and Canada without at least doing what we have been elected to do, which is studying, thoroughly, this bill in committee?”
Now environmental advocates are raising the alarm over two key sections of the bill. Anna Johnston, staff lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law stated that she was alarmed at sections 22 and 23. She emphasized how these provisions would essentially let major projects off the hook from having to follow Canada’s Species at Risk Act.
Shannon Stubbs, Conservative Natural Resources critic, condemned the government’s handling of Bill C-5. She argued that it is indicative of an “anti-energy, anti-development” worldview and demanded the repeal of Bill C-69. Stubbs went on to say, “If I were lawyers for Canada, I would have cautioned them in the strongest terms possible against this bill. She emphasized concerns regarding meaningful consultation with affected parties: “That consultation has to be meaningful and I worry that, especially under the timelines that this government wants to make these decisions, that this bill is basically circumventing the government’s constitutionally required duty to consult.”
So now the government wants to double down on its accelerated agenda. It proposes to have Bill C-5 go through an unusual one-day review by the House transport committee. Lawmakers last week hoped to force the legislation through the House of Commons by week’s end, overcoming substantial opposition.
