This post is part of the Cursed: How the Resource Curse Manifests in Newfoundland and Labrador project, led by Dr. Lori Lee Oates.
Carney’s Building Canada Act is not the legislation of a leader who is serious about protecting the environment or addressing climate change
On June 21, 2025, I warned on this site of the dangers of Prime Minister Carney’s greenwashing of pipeline development. At that time, I also noted the problems with the Building Canada Act (Bill C-5), which Indigenous leaders and environmental groups were raising concerns about. Bill C-5 has since passed the House of Commons with conservative support and then, surprisingly, passed through the Canadian Senate with no further amendments.
The bill was originally introduced with claims that it would strike down internal trade barriers and fast track projects that were “in the national interest.” The Liberal platform promised to remove trade barriers to “create higher paying jobs, unlock economic potential, and become stronger at home and abroad.” The legislation was designed to help meet these goals.
As the details of the bill were released, Indigenous leader and Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict stated on on CPAC on June 17, “I can tell you that the First Nations rights holders know what sovereignty is about and we know what threats are about as well. We have been subject to colonial legislation since the government has been making legislation and C-5 is the wrong way to go about it.” (3:10).
Environmental Defence also raised concerns about what it called “sweeping powers” for Cabinet to override existing environmental laws through regulation. They specifically referred to sections 21-23 as a “Henry VII clauses” which were “unnecessary” because Parliament could pass “project specific legislation,” as has been done in the past. They also warned of inconsistencies that could lead to “years of litigation, public backlash, environmental harms, as well as slowing and delaying important nation-building projects.”
On June 19, 2025, political commentator Althia Raj stated on CBC’s The National (25:40) that: “This bill basically says that Cabinet can decide to just omit certain laws from consideration from applying. So, this is basically, as one senator put it to me, trust me legislation.” She then went on to state that, “we’re creating a framework that allows government, it could be any government, it could be this government, it could be a future government, to just bypass the will of parliament, to bypass laws that have been debated, in some cases over several years, and passed, and to vest the power in one individual, and to say, these are the conditions, or zero conditions I’m going to place on one project, is rather insane frankly. Like, imagine the corruption that could potentially be enabled by legislation like this.”
She also stated: “There is no need to rush this because these projects are still going to take years to build. It makes you wonder what is the rush?… What does the government not want us to see?”
Kebaowek First Nation Chief Lance Haymond also raised concerns about the speed at which the bill was being rushed through parliament. He stated that: “The process that led to Bill C-5 is a case study in how not to engage with Indigenous nations,” and it created “the conditions for an Idle No more 2.0 uprising.”
“The process that led to Bill C-5 is a case study in how not to engage with Indigenous nations.” – Kebaowek First Nation Chief Lance Haymond
One June 19, 2025, the bill cleared the Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure, and Communities with amendments. Environmental lawyer Isabel McMurray, who is with Climate Action Network Canada, stated (4:00) that while the amendments did create more transparency, there were still concerns. These included problems with section 21 and 22, which still allowed for the bypassing of environmental protections or consultations with Indigenous groups. She stated that this is “not the only way ‘or even the best way’ to achieve regulator efficiency. The government could just implement existing laws better, rather than giving Cabinet sweeping powers to fast-track projects.”
On June 26, 2025, the legislation passed the Senate without any further amendments. A lot will depend on the government of the day going forward. Even if you trust the sitting Liberal government, does that mean you should trust all future governments with this “trust me legislation.”
The legislation does have a sunset clause of five years. Notably, Liberals and Conservatives ignored the Green Party amendment which would have seen the legislation revisited in two years.
This rush seems to have been driven by the Liberal promise to achieve open interprovincial trade by Canada Day.
The bill sets out five criteria that prospective projects must be weighed against in order to be declared nation building projects. The criteria are vague and give a lot of power for interpretation to the executive branch. They legislation states that projects may be declared as in the national interest if they:
- Strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience, and security;
- Provide economic or other benefits to Canada;
- Have a high likelihood of successful execution;
- Advance the interests of Indigenous Peoples; and
- Contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.
Canada’s Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Tim Hodgson, defended the bill on CBC’s The Front Burner. He stated that “what the Prime Minister has said very clearly is that if we are going to build pipelines, it will be with the support of the jurisdictions affected. It will be with the support of Indigenous communities and to the extent that it involves oil, it will be decarbonized oil.”
As noted in my last post, the notion that oil can be decarbonized and that there is a good business case for proceeding with fossil fuel developments at this time is not a match with existing economic research. The Liberal government seems to be deflecting these concerns by stating that the projects will be private sector led, and it is the private sector that will be providing the capital. Given the history of subsidies for the oil industry in this country, it will undoubtedly be left to Canadian taxpayers to deal with it if a private sector project is approved and then becomes economically challenged in the future.
Notably, Angus Reid polled on bill C-5 and one of their key findings was that only thirty-eight percent of respondents strongly supported or supported condensing or bypassing environmental reviews in certain cases. Forty-nine percent strongly opposed or opposed doing this.
If a project is deemed to be “in the national interest,” a conditions document will be provided by government. Minister Hodgson claims that:
“all of the requirements, including whatever consultations are left to do with Indigenous peoples, including whatever environmental requirements, will be outlined in that conditions document. That conditions document is designed to bring all of the requirements of the various acts together into one document and to rationalize and to synthesize all of these into one set of conditions. That document will be a public document. It will be transparent. Everyone will get to see it. In addition, under the act every project that goes through will be reviewed by a committee of Parliament.”
This doesn’t really deal with a scenario in which further environmental problems or Indigenous concerns become obvious as projects proceed.
Minister Hodgson reiterated the fifth criteria, that every project must “contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.” However, economic anthropologist Jason Hickel has stated to the Dutch Parliament on March 10, 2023, that by pursuing green growth, at existing rates of emissions reductions, it would take the Netherlands 200 years to reach net zero. Furthermore, none of the high-income nations were on track to meet their Paris Climate Accord goals.
Hickel stated that if all nations were to overshoot their carbon budgets in this manner, the world will see global warming of four degrees: “There is nothing green about this … It’s a recipe for disaster.” What world leaders should be focused on at this time is meeting their commitments under the Paris Climate Accord, rather than “green growth.” In addition to the fallacy that you can “decarbonize oil,” the federal government is relying on the myth that growth can be clean. Fossil fuel development is certainly not “green growth.” We simply do not have the carbon budget, or the time left for more fossil fuel development. We also do not have the carbon budget or time for unchecked growth and consumption at this point.
It has long been obvious that the fossil fuel lobby has a powerful influence on the Liberal Party of Canada. However, it is truly amazing to see how quickly they have gained influence over this new Prime Minister.
While the public has tended to view Mark Carney as a champion of addressing climate change, it is becoming increasingly clear that this is not how he plans to govern. It has long been obvious that the fossil fuel lobby has a powerful influence on the Liberal Party of Canada. However, it is truly amazing to see how quickly they have gained influence over this new Prime Minister. It also tells us a lot about how much power the fossil fuel lobby has in this country, and that should concern all of us.
Feature Image: “Mark Carney Remarks following the Cabinet Planning Forum 2025 (2m34s)” by Prime Minister of Canada is licensed under CC BY 3.0.
