The Liberal government’s controversial Bill C-5, which would allow cabinet to override a wide range of existing laws to fast-track major industrial projects, is drawing sharp criticism from legal experts, Indigenous advocates, and opposition parties — even as the government pushes to pass it by Friday.
Prime Minister Mark Carney, who introduced the bill earlier this month, has framed it as a bold move to bring back Canada’s ability to “build big things,” such as mines, ports, and pipelines, without being paralyzed by red tape.
“In recent decades, it has become too difficult to build new projects in this country,” Carney said during the bill’s unveiling on June 6.
But behind the government’s rhetoric lies a series of legal clauses — known as “Henry VIII clauses” — that would grant the federal cabinet authority to bypass or suspend 13 existing laws through regulation, without Parliamentary oversight. Those include the Indian Act, Impact Assessment Act, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Legal Experts Split, Indigenous Consultation Under Fire
Some constitutional scholars believe Bill C-5 could survive a legal challenge. Paul Daly, chair in administrative law at the University of Ottawa, said courts are unlikely to strike it down.
“This bill is probably constitutional. Courts have upheld similar clauses in past legislation,” Daly said, comparing it to the 2021 carbon pricing ruling.
Fellow professor Errol Mendes echoed that view, stating that the controversial clauses may be legally defensible.
But others remain deeply concerned. Anna Johnston, staff lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law, warned that the bill could allow projects to proceed without proper environmental scrutiny or Indigenous consultation, especially under tight government-imposed deadlines.
“If I were Canada’s lawyers, I would have advised them strenuously against this bill,” Johnston said. “It gives the federal government too much discretion and risks violating Section 35 rights.”
Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, affirms Indigenous and treaty rights, including the duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous peoples on decisions that affect their lands and interests.
Opposition Demands Transparency, Slower Process
The Bloc Québécois and New Democratic Party are demanding more scrutiny. Bloc Leader Yves-François Blanchet criticized the government’s rush to pass such a powerful bill with minimal committee review.
“The government seems to want to avoid scrutiny… that by itself is worrisome,” Blanchet said.
NDP MPs Leah Gazan, Alexandre Boulerice, and Lori Idlout wrote to the government formally requesting a slowdown, warning that the bill risks intensifying court battles and undermining climate and Indigenous rights.
“Failing to uphold constitutional and environmental obligations in the middle of a climate emergency will only lead to conflict, not development,” the MPs wrote.
Despite the controversy, the bill will undergo only a one-day study at the House transport committee on Wednesday and is slated for a final vote by Friday.
Conservatives Say It’s Not Enough
Ironically, while critics on the left say Bill C-5 gives the government too much power, Conservative MPs argue the legislation doesn’t go far enough.
Shannon Stubbs, the party’s Natural Resources critic, accused the Liberals of hypocrisy, calling for the repeal of Bill C-69 — the Trudeau-era Impact Assessment Act that many in the energy sector blame for stalling resource projects.
“The Liberals are anti-energy and anti-development. This bill won’t fix the damage they’ve already done,” Stubbs said in the House.
As the clock ticks down toward a rapid vote, Bill C-5 stands at the crossroads of Canada’s economic ambition, constitutional accountability, and environmental responsibility — with all sides warning of far-reaching consequences.