The passage of Bill C-5 may mark a new era for major infrastructure projects in Canada, but it also underscores an old challenge: the federal government’s strained relationship with Indigenous communities, and the ongoing struggle between ambition and accountability.
Prime Minister Mark Carney’s announcement of full-day summits with Indigenous leaders following the bill’s passage is a welcome gesture — but it is just that: a gesture. The real test will be whether the government is willing to listen, adapt, and share power in meaningful ways, not simply push forward projects with a veneer of consultation.
Let’s be clear: Bill C-5 aims to streamline the approval of projects deemed nationally significant — pipelines, highways, transmission lines — by removing federal hurdles and harmonizing rules across jurisdictions. It promises to be a powerful tool for economic development, with Carney insisting that Indigenous communities will not just be participants, but partners in ownership and management. That’s an encouraging vision, if it holds true.
But the skepticism from Indigenous leaders is not unfounded. The Assembly of First Nations, the Chiefs of Ontario, and the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations have all raised alarm bells — warning that Bill C-5’s fast-track mechanisms could sideline constitutionally protected consultation requirements, and violate commitments made under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
This is not a matter of semantics or bureaucratic red tape. It’s about history — and who gets to shape the future. For far too long, Indigenous peoples have been consulted in name only, brought in after decisions are made, rather than during the decision-making process itself. Real reconciliation demands something deeper: shared governance, shared prosperity, and shared responsibility.
To his credit, Carney seems to recognize the need for trust-building. The creation of a major projects office with an Indigenous advisory council is a constructive step. But advisory roles do not equal decision-making power. Indigenous leaders are right to question whether they will have a true voice — or merely be token participants in a process that ultimately serves industry and government agendas.
The question of veto power — whether Indigenous nations can say “no” to a project on their territory — is where things get particularly thorny. Carney sidestepped the issue, saying only that projects would be built “in partnership.” But partnership implies equality. Without clarity on how disagreements will be handled, or what happens when consensus cannot be reached, the promise of partnership rings hollow.
Conservatives like Andrew Scheer raise a different, but not unrelated, concern: will Bill C-5 actually deliver results? After years of regulatory delays and policy contradictions, many in the energy sector doubt it. Scheer criticizes the government for using this bill to “get around” its own barriers, while still keeping punitive policies like the carbon tax and tanker ban in place.
It’s a fair point — not because those policies are inherently flawed, but because inconsistency breeds paralysis. If Bill C-5 is meant to signal a new direction, it must be matched by coherent policy that supports responsible development without undermining climate or Indigenous commitments.
Ultimately, the success of Bill C-5 won’t be measured by how fast projects get approved, but by who benefits from them — and who gets to decide how they unfold.
The July summits with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis leaders must be more than symbolic. They must lay the groundwork for a new kind of dialogue — one in which Indigenous consent is not a box to check, but a principle to uphold. Only then can Canada truly claim that its nation-building projects are built not just in partnership, but in good faith.
