In an unusual show of unity, the Liberals and Conservatives have joined forces to fast-track Bill C-5 through the House of Commons — a bill that, at first glance, promises to reduce red tape and promote internal trade. But the speed and manner in which this legislation is being rushed through Parliament should concern anyone who believes in democracy, proper scrutiny, and respect for Indigenous rights and environmental protection.
On June 16, 305 Liberal and Conservative MPs voted to limit debate on Bill C-5, pushing it along to the Transport Committee with just three days allocated for review, amendments, and final approval. Only 30 MPs — from the Bloc Québécois, NDP, and Greens — opposed this move. Even Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith broke ranks to vote against fast-tracking the bill, citing concerns about democratic process and lack of time for public and expert testimony.
He’s right to be concerned.
This isn’t just another procedural quibble in Ottawa. This is about how we make laws that will impact the very fabric of our federation — from how provinces interact economically, to how we assess and approve major national projects. Bill C-5, in its current form, proposes a major overhaul: it would streamline interprovincial trade by allowing goods and services that meet “comparable” provincial rules to satisfy federal requirements. It would also attempt to cut major project approval timelines from five years to just two, by creating a single-window assessment and better aligning federal and provincial permitting.
These may sound like much-needed improvements — and in principle, they are. But when a government seeks to remake significant parts of Canada’s regulatory and project-approval landscape in less than a week of parliamentary debate, alarm bells should ring.
This legislation could have long-term consequences for provincial jurisdiction, environmental oversight, and Indigenous rights. Yet, meaningful parliamentary and public scrutiny is being treated as a luxury, not a necessity. It’s no wonder Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet called the move a “gag order” on Parliament, while NDP MP Leah Gazan criticized it for undermining Indigenous rights and environmental protections.
Even the Conservatives — who voted with the Liberals to fast-track the bill — have reservations. They’ve said Bill C-5 doesn’t go far enough to deliver true interprovincial free trade and have called for amendments to ensure clarity and transparency in how projects are approved. Their support appears less enthusiastic than strategic — a reluctant thumbs-up to a bill that aligns, at least partially, with their platform goals.
It’s also telling that the bill combines two very different priorities: trade liberalization and project streamlining. The Bloc is right to suggest it be split into separate pieces of legislation. Lumping them together gives the government cover to push through controversial development policies under the banner of reducing trade barriers — a classic political sleight of hand.
Liberal House Leader Steven MacKinnon insists this process is “responsible” and “democratic,” but that’s hard to square with the facts. Parliamentarians were given just a few days for committee hearings, leaving little to no room for meaningful public input or evidence-based amendment. Rushing a bill of this magnitude to meet a self-imposed July 1 deadline — one tied more to political optics than legislative necessity — is neither responsible nor democratic.
Canada’s democracy isn’t just about holding votes. It’s about how we deliberate, how we consult, and how we balance competing interests across a diverse country. Bill C-5 may very well contain good ideas, but good ideas deserve good process. And this process is failing us.
If the government wants to build confidence in major projects and foster truly free interprovincial trade, it must start by respecting the institutions and principles that hold our federation together. That means slowing down, opening up, and doing the hard work of governing — not just pushing “urgent” legislation for the sake of headlines.
Let’s get it right, not just get it done.
