The desire to build big things in Canada is both understandable and necessary. You hear it in conversations about our economic competitiveness, our need for clean energy, and our lagging productivity. The narrative is compelling: we must cut through red tape to build the infrastructure of the 21st century. The federal government has presented Bill C-5, The Building Canada Act, as the answer. It promises to fast-track projects of “national interest.” But when you look past the title and examine the mechanics of the bill, as revealed in the testimony before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on June 17, 2025, you discover that the proposed solution is more alarming than the problem it claims to solve.
The bill does not fix our regulatory system. Instead, it creates a mechanism for the executive branch of government, the Prime Minister and his cabinet, to simply ignore it. It creates what you might call a Legislative Hall Pass: a special permission slip the government can write for itself to bypass the very laws Parliament passed to protect the public interest, the environment, and constitutional rights. This approach sets a dangerous precedent, substituting the rule of law with rule by executive decree.
An Undeclared State of Emergency
Here is the detail I find most revealing. Professor Maxime St-Hilaire, a law professor from the Université de Sherbrooke, argued that Bill C-5 is effectively an emergency bill, but one that never declares the emergency. In a modern democracy, governments sometimes need exceptional powers to deal with a crisis. But those powers come with a trade-off, namely rigorous parliamentary oversight. This bill grants the exceptional powers without the oversight.
As Professor St-Hilaire explained to the committee, the bill’s core function is to give the executive an exemption from general law.
This bill is being passed as though it’s a normal piece of legislation, without being described as an emergency measure... What the bill does is set aside a good many laws that exist for the public interest... The bill is transferring power from Parliament to the executive. It is giving the executive the power to circumvent rules enacted by Parliament for the purpose of carrying out projects.
This points to a critical question. Why create a temporary, opaque workaround instead of permanently fixing the laws that are supposedly causing delays? The answer seems to be that it is easier to grant yourself a hall pass than to do the hard work of reforming the system for everyone. The bill allows the cabinet to set aside provisions from nearly two dozen federal acts, including the Impact Assessment Act, the Fisheries Act, and even the Indian Act, for any project it unilaterally deems to be of “national interest.” This is not streamlining. This is a fundamental shift of power from the legislature to the executive.
Constitutional Overreach and Vague Definitions
The constitutional foundation of the bill appears to be built on sand. Professor David Robitaille of the University of Ottawa testified that the bill’s definition of “national interest” is so broad it could easily include projects that fall under exclusive provincial jurisdiction, like natural resource development. The bill provides for “consultation” with the provinces, but not consent.
This leaves the door open for the federal government to impose unilateral decisions on the provinces in their own areas of jurisdiction... By failing to explicitly state that its objectives are limited to projects under federal jurisdiction, Bill C-5 faces a risk of being struck down.
The Supreme Court of Canada has been clear that for something to be of “national interest” in a constitutional sense, it must be specific, distinct, and transcend provincial interests. Bill C-5, however, defines a “national interest project” as simply any “project named in Schedule 1.” That schedule is currently blank, meaning the cabinet can add anything it wants, at any time, without clear, legally defensible criteria. This vagueness is a feature, not a bug, as it maximizes executive discretion.
The Honour of the Crown Is Not Being Upheld
Perhaps the most powerful testimony came from the Assembly of First Nations National Chief, Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak. She described a process so rushed and disrespectful that it made a mockery of the Crown’s duty to consult. First Nations leaders were given just seven days to respond to the bill’s details, a bill that gives the cabinet the power to override parts of the Indian Act without their consent.
We all need more time and opportunity to speak to this legislation and get answers to our questions... Deep consultation involves a two-way exchange of information sharing, accompanied by substantive dialogue. It is more than merely inviting first nations rights holders to speak for five minutes... In short, the honour of the Crown is not being upheld, friends.
The National Chief also pointed out the deep, colonial irony in a provision that allows the Governor in Council to approve a project based on its own determination of whether it will “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples.” As Member of Parliament Leah Gazan noted, this is the same paternalistic logic used to justify residential schools. The bill fails to operationalize the principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), a key standard in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which is already law in Canada. The government is not only giving itself a hall pass to get around its own laws, but also its constitutional and international obligations.
A Flawed Solution, Even for Proponents
Even witnesses who support the goal of accelerating projects raised serious concerns. Francis Bradley, from Electricity Canada, noted that the bill would only apply to a “small set of projects” and does nothing to fix the underlying problems with the 90-odd federal statutes that affect the electricity sector. His testimony suggests the bill is a niche tool, not a systemic solution.
Catherine Swift, representing the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada, highlighted the uncertainty this creates for investors. Why would an investor trust a system where laws can be arbitrarily set aside?
If they’re bad, why keep them on the books? Get rid of them... If you’re looking at keeping those problematic laws on the books, yet you’re saying, ‘Oh, we may override them from time to time just to do this particular project’.... If I were a foreign investor, I’d avoid them like the plague.
This is the ultimate indictment of the Legislative Hall Pass approach. It not only undermines democratic principles and constitutional rights, but it also fails to provide the long-term certainty required for the very nation-building projects it claims to enable.
The True Cost of a Shortcut
The debate over Bill C-5 is not about whether Canada should build big things. It is about whether we should abandon the rule of law to do so. Granting the executive a hall pass to circumvent Parliament whenever it deems convenient creates a system of exceptions that will inevitably become the rule. It trades the hard work of legislative reform for the easy path of executive power, a path that history shows is fraught with peril. True progress is built not by taking shortcuts, but by reinforcing the democratic foundation upon which all lasting projects depend.
In Other News...
Beyond this deep dive, you can find more analysis and commentary on the On Hansard site.
Sources:
House of Commons. (2025, June 17). Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities: Evidence, Number 002 (45th Parliament, 1st Session).
Mike, a few links led me to your article on Bill C-5.
"The bill is transferring power from Parliament to the executive. It is giving the executive the power to circumvent rules enacted by Parliament for the purpose of carrying out projects."
PM Carney and the puppeteers pulling trump's strings show a merging of minds in these statements. Hope I'm reading this wrong...