Liberals see a need for speed on major projects bill. Critics warn that's risky

CBC

12 hours ago

Social Sharing
Liberals are attempting to bulldoze their mega projects bill through Parliament, according to critics who say the legislation interferes with Indigenous rights, environmental protection and democracy itself.
The government's One Canadian Economy Act is generating controversy inside and outside the House of Commons, with some arguing it confers king-like powers to rush projects deemed in the national interest to completion.
The Liberals say the bill is intended to fast-track major projects as Canada faces the urgency of a disruptive Donald Trump presidency.
"We have a trade war that is affecting sector after sector after sector. Canadian jobs are at risk. Canadians' livelihoods are at risk and, quite frankly, the prosperity of the country is at risk," said Tim Hodgson, the natural resources and energy minister, at a news conference Thursday.
"We need to do things that we have not done in a long time, in time frames we have not done since the end of World War II."
What's in the bill?
The One Canadian Economy Act, or Bill C-5, will create a list of major nation-building projects.
After a designated project is added to the list, the government will publish a document outlining all the conditions that builders must follow.
A single designated minister — likely Dominic LeBlanc in this government — would be responsible for listing the projects and issuing the conditions document.
"For far too long major projects, whether energy transmission lines, critical mineral developments, pipelines or clean technology projects, have been stalled by assessments, challenges and overlapping and duplicative regulations," said Leblanc on Friday during a procedural debate in the House Friday.
What gets on the list?
The prime minister has provided examples of projects that could be included on the list based on recommendations from Canada's premiers. Ports, mines, renewable energy and oil and gas pipelines could make the list, he said.
The legislation offers the following criteria:
Strengthening Canada's autonomy, resilience and security.
Providing economic or other benefits to Canada.
Having a high likelihood of successful execution.
Advancing the interests of Indigenous Peoples.
Contributing to clean growth and to meeting Canada's climate objectives.
The legislation gives the government broad discretion to apply all or none of these criteria, which worries Conservatives who still seem generally supportive of the bill.
"These concepts are broad enough that any interpretation or any argument could be made about each factor either way for each project," said Shannon Stubbs, the Conservative critic for energy and natural resources, during debate on the bill on Friday.
'Leap before you look' assessments
Some academics are concerned about what happens if the bill's broad powers to speed up projects aren't used carefully.
"That could be good for the economy if it is used wisely," said University of Ottawa law and economics professor Stewart Elgie. "But it could be bad for the environment if it is used poorly."
For major infrastructure and development projects on the list, such as hydroelectric dams, ports and large-scale mines, the bill removes the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada's authority to limit them.
But it does place limits on the minister's ability to fast-track cross-border pipelines and nuclear reactors. It states the minister cannot issue the approval document until both the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the Canada Energy Regulator are "satisfied that issuing the document will not compromise the health or safety of persons."
However, the bill suggests the power of all federal regulators and departments is constrained, as it states that every opinion and decision formed about a project once listed must be "in favour of permitting the project to be carried out in whole or in part."
This creates what some academics are calling a "leap before you look" approach that turns the federal environmental review's informed decision-making "on its head."
Henry VIII clauses
Those same researchers also note that a legislative tool — Henry VIII clauses, named after the autocratic King Henry VIII of England — are tucked into the bill.
WATCH | PM Mark Carney says 'more will be done' on energy:
Carney says 'more will be done' on energy, but conversation isn't all about pipelines
17 days ago
Duration 3:52
Asked by CBC's Power & Politics host David Cochrane about the separatist sentiment in Alberta, Prime Minister Mark Carney says his government is 'committed' to working with Canadians across the country.
Proposed legislation grants the Carney government, or future governments, the authority to exempt pipelines, mines or other listed projects from any law or government regulation.
Near the very end of the 18-page bill, it states that cabinet can exempt national-interest projects from not only environmental laws but also acts of Parliament.
"The combined effect of Sections 21, 22 and 23 gives cabinet an unconstrained ability to make regulations that not only alter the application of other federal regulations … but also to alter the operation of virtually all laws duly passed by Parliament, including outright exemption," as noted in a post co-authored by University of Calgary law professors David Wright and Martin Olszynski.
What about Indigenous rights?
The proposed law commits to consulting with provincial and territorial governments, as well as Indigenous Peoples, before a project is listed and a conditions document is issued or altered.
Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty on Thursday told reporters that the bill does not "do away with impact assessments" and there are "multiple points" where First Nations and other groups can bring forward their concerns.
"The prime minister has been clear: these projects will be selected if the communities wish to participate," she said.
Nevertheless, a national Indigenous group has raised concerns about a lack of consultation on the bill itself and what that could mean for the prospect of ongoing consultation.
"Unfortunately, the government provided First Nations only seven days to respond to an outline of the bill and did not provide the full text (a consultative draft) in advance," the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, said in a statement.
Likely Conservative backing
Conservatives have signalled that they are open to backing the bill, proposing some changes during the House of Commons debate.
Stubbs said the party would like to see it go further and faster while calling for a repeal of regulations like the Trudeau-era law that banned the oil tankers from ports or marine installations along British Columbia's north coast.
"Canadians deserve a government that backs them. Not a government that blocks them," Stubbs said.
However, with C-5's broad powers to sidestep existing laws for approved projects, the tanker ban could be overriden without repealing anything.
The Bloc Québécois has said the bill, in theory, could exempt a company building a major project from a range of laws, including the Labour Code, Criminal Code and language laws.
The party is calling for more scrutiny of the bill.
"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 — and that means studying effectively this bill in committee," Bloc Leader Yves-François Blanchet said.
Concerns over bad-faith use
The Liberals intend to send the bill to committee for two days of study before hoping to get it passed on Friday.
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May takes issue with what she calls an "abbreviated bulldozer time frame."
At least one Liberal is calling for changes to the bill, which is supposed to terminate in five years.
Vancouver MP Patrick Weiler wants the government to shorten the bill's five-year sunset clause, which he noted would go beyond Trump's term and "at least one more federal election."
"We need to consider how this legislation could be used in bad faith by a future government," he said.