Bill C-5 (One Canadian Economy Act) – Overview and Analysis

Overview and Purpose of Bill C-5

Bill C-5, 45th Parliament (1st Session) – officially titled An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act (short title: “One Canadian Economy Act”) – is a major federal legislative package aimed at boosting Canada’s economy by removing internal trade barriers and expediting “nation-building” infrastructure projects. Introduced on June 6, 2025, by Prime Minister Mark Carney’s new government, the bill moved very rapidly through Parliament and passed the House of Commons on June 20, 2025 with broad cross-party support. It now awaits final approval in the Senate, with the government pushing for it to become law by Canada Day 2025.

Bill C-5 comprises two distinct parts, reflecting its dual objectives:

Part 1 – Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act: This part is designed to “eliminate internal trade barriers” and allow goods, services, and workers to move more freely between provinces. It creates a framework for mutual recognition of regulatory standards and professional qualifications across provinces:
- Goods and services: If a product or service meets the standards or licensing requirements of one province, the federal government will treat it as meeting comparable federal requirements for trade across Canada. For example, a food item certified organic in one province or an appliance meeting one province’s efficiency standards would not face additional federal hurdles to be sold nationally.
- Labour mobility: The act establishes **automatic or expedited recognition of provincial licenses and certifications for workers in federal jurisdictions. A professional licensed in one province (e.g. a nurse, teacher, engineer, or skilled tradesperson) should be able to practice in another province without lengthy re-certification. This aims to address skills shortages by allowing talent to relocate where needed (for instance, a nurse licensed in Quebec could work in British Columbia more easily). The government has signaled it will use federal funding incentives (“carrot-and-stick” leverage) to encourage provinces to comply with these mobility rules.
- Context: These measures respond to longstanding economic fragmentation. Studies have estimated that interprovincial trade barriers cost Canada’s economy on the order of tens of billions of dollars annually (roughly 4–7% of GDP). By harmonizing standards and credentials, Bill C-5 seeks to “fundamentally reshape professional mobility” and recapture lost productivity. Business groups like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have praised this effort, saying it “breaks down senseless barriers” and strengthens Canada’s economic framework.
Part 2 – Building Canada Act: This more controversial part empowers the federal government to fast-track approvals for major infrastructure and resource projects deemed to be in the “national interest”. It creates a new process to accelerate “nation-building projects” – for example highways, railways, pipelines, electrical grids, mines, ports, and other large ventures spanning provinces. Key features include:
- “National interest” designation: Cabinet (Governor in Council) can designate a project as being in Canada’s national interest, based on factors like economic benefits, contribution to national autonomy/security, likelihood of success, advancement of Indigenous interests, and alignment with clean growth and climate goals. A schedule of such projects will be created by order of government, in consultation with provinces and Indigenous rights-holders.
- Streamlined approvals (“One project – one review”): Once listed as a national-interest project, all required federal regulatory approvals are essentially pre-granted in principle, shifting the question from whether the project should proceed to how it should proceed. The bill collapses multiple federal permitting processes into one: relevant federal ministers will no longer each issue separate approvals under statutes like the Impact Assessment Act, Navigable Waters Act, Fisheries Act, etc. Instead, a single “conditions document” will be issued by a designated minister outlining the terms and conditions the project must meet. Once published, this single document is deemed to constitute all necessary federal permits or authorizations for the project.
- Continued assessments and consultation: Project proponents must still submit required information to federal agencies and undergo an impact assessment focused on mitigation measures. Indigenous consultation is to be undertaken regarding how to mitigate and accommodate impacts on Indigenous rights. However, importantly, these steps would occur after the project has been politically green-lit in principle. The government asserts that environmental protections and Indigenous rights will still be upheld under this framework, noting that conditions will address mitigation and accommodation.
- Major Projects Office: The bill establishes a Federal Major Projects Office as a single window for proponents. This office will coordinate federal reviews and work with provinces and Indigenous partners. It will include an Indigenous Advisory Council with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis representation to help ensure Indigenous consultation and partnerships in these projects. The government is also expanding an Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program (doubling it to $10 billion) to support Indigenous communities in taking ownership stakes in major projects.
- Faster timelines: A core goal is to cut federal approval timelines from the current ~5 years down to 2 years for designated projects. By providing upfront clarity and “one-stop” federal approval, the government hopes to improve investor confidence and get shovels in the ground faster. This responds to concerns that Canada’s lengthy and uncertain review processes have deterred investment in critical infrastructure.

In summary, Bill C-5’s intent is to “build one strong Canadian economy” by tearing down internal trade barriers and speeding up “nation-building” infrastructure. The backdrop to this initiative includes economic pressures from the U.S. (e.g. protectionist tariffs) and a drive to make Canada more self-sufficient and competitive. Prime Minister Carney cast the bill as a landmark measure to make Canada more economically independent of the U.S. and to “build big, build bold, build now” in the national interest. However, as outlined below, the bill’s rapid enactment and broad scope sparked intense debate – especially around the balance between economic development and Indigenous rights, environmental oversight, and federal-provincial jurisdiction.

Key Points and Debates at Third Reading

Parliamentary Process and Political Support: Bill C-5 moved extraordinarily quickly. It was introduced in early June 2025 and, after only a few days of debate and just one day of committee hearings (about 8 hours total), it reached third reading in the House by June 20. The government imposed time allocation to rush it through before the summer recess, arguing urgent economic need. In the House of Commons, the governing Liberals and the opposition Conservatives joined forces to fast-track C-5, while the New Democratic Party (NDP) and Bloc Québécois (BQ) raised procedural and substantive objections. In a rare show of cross-party agreement on an economic bill, Conservative support helped ensure C-5’s passage. (The Liberal government had framed these measures as part of its election mandate, and the Conservative opposition largely agreed with the goal of removing interprovincial trade barriers and accelerating resource projects, though with some caveats.)

Division of the Bill: Because C-5 covered two disparate subjects, the Speaker ruled that the votes at third reading would be split into two – one vote on Part 1 (internal trade and labour mobility) and a separate vote on Part 2 (major project fast-tracking). This acknowledged that MPs might support one part and not the other. Indeed, that is what occurred: the House unanimously approved Part 1 (free trade and mobility) with 335 votes in favor and only 1 against, reflecting broad consensus on easing internal trade. Part 2 proved more contentious, but still passed by 306 to 31 votes. The Bloc Québécois and a few NDP MPs comprised most of the 31 dissenting votes, opposing the project-fast-tracking measures over concerns of federal overreach and insufficient safeguards for Indigenous rights and the environment. (Notably, the BQ had earlier proposed splitting the bill into two separate bills so that Part 1 could proceed on its own merits – an idea the government rejected, choosing to keep C-5 as one package, albeit with separate votes.)

Government’s Case for Urgency: During third reading debate, Liberal ministers and MPs emphasized the economic urgency behind Bill C-5. They pointed to U.S. tariffs and a “trade war” initiated by President Trump that were harming Canadian industries, as well as years of sluggish growth and investment in Canada. Transport and Internal Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland argued it was time to “tear down internal trade barriers” and create one national economy. Energy Minister Tim Hodgson warned that “jobs are at risk” and Canada’s prosperity is threatened if we don’t act fast, citing U.S. protectionism and the need to become an “energy superpower” with critical infrastructure. The government repeatedly described C-5 as “meeting the moment” economically. Prime Minister Carney cast the bill as “a cornerstone of Canada’s economic strategy” to reduce reliance on foreign trade and unlock domestic potential. He defended the breakneck pace, stating “we are in a crisis” that requires bold action. Carney and his ministers also assured Parliament that environmental protections and Indigenous rights would be respected even as projects are accelerated. For example, the government inserted language in the bill (and into the record) affirming that nothing in C-5 overrides the duty to consult or the commitments under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDRIPA). An Indigenous Advisory Council and future meetings with First Nations were promised to keep Indigenous “partnership at the centre” of these projects.

Opposition and Critics’ Concerns: Despite general support for boosting internal trade, opposition members strongly criticized the sweeping powers Part 2 grants to Cabinet to “deem” projects approved. In a heated exchange, Bloc Québécois House Leader Christine Normandin accused Prime Minister Carney of trying to “steamroll” Parliament and concentrate power in his office. She noted C-5 would “greatly expand his own powers” to approve projects by decree, and denounced the government for invoking closure on debate for such a far-reaching bill. “Is the Prime Minister’s intention to bypass Parliament and govern by decree like Donald Trump?” she scathingly asked. NDP MP Leah Gazan likewise warned that rushing this bill through in two weeks was anti-democratic and “will trigger a series of court challenges” instead of speedy development. She argued that failing to properly consult Indigenous peoples would backfire: “It’s not going to build the economy out because it will end up in court”, undermining the goal of fast progress. The NDP and Green MPs highlighted the risk that C-5 pre-approves projects without full information, short-circuiting environmental assessments and community input. Green MP Elizabeth May and others characterized the approach as effectively “approve first, study later”, which they view as a dangerous reversal of sound decision-making.

Indigenous leaders outside Parliament voiced even sharper critiques. The Assembly of First Nations and Union of BC Indian Chiefs condemned Bill C-5 for diminishing the role of First Nations in project decisions. UBCIC President Grand Chief Stewart Phillip stated the legislation “would be a complete betrayal of Canada’s commitments under UNDRIP and of our constitutionally protected title and rights”. He warned Ottawa against cloaking the violation of Indigenous rights “under the guise of national interest”. These leaders argue that by allowing federal approvals before consultations are complete (or projects even fully defined), C-5 risks reducing consultation to a mere formality. “The federal government cannot cloak violations of our rights under the guise of national interest,” Phillip said, vowing Indigenous peoples will not let their rights be overridden unopposed. Environmental groups echoed that C-5’s fast-track process could undermine environmental laws – pointing out there are good reasons why approvals traditionally come after studies. As West Coast Environmental Law lawyer Anna Johnston explained, giving Cabinet power to green-light a project “before they have any information about it beyond what the proponent provides” is deeply concerning. Key decisions could be made without full knowledge of impacts on endangered species, climate commitments, or local communities.

Key Amendments and Safeguards Added: Some of these concerns were addressed through amendments at committee and report stage – many introduced by the opposition and oddly supported in a multi-party cooperation. Notably, the original draft of Part 2 contained “loopholes” that would have let Cabinet bypass or ignore several accountability laws, which raised alarms for ethics watchdogs. Conservative MPs pointed out that as first written, a minister could potentially approve a project even if they had a conflict of interest (personal investments in the project, for example) and such an approval would not be subject to the Conflict of Interest Act, the Lobbying Act, or even the Auditor General’s oversight. Essentially, normal transparency and ethics rules would have been waived for actions under this bill. The Conservatives worked with other opposition members to close these loopholes via amendments. By third reading, the bill was changed to:

Apply ethics laws: Public office holders (ministers, etc.) must recuse themselves in case of any conflict of interest on a project approval. The Conflict of Interest Act and other integrity laws will continue to apply.
Add transparency: A public registry of projects designated in the national interest will be created, including clear rationales for why a project was selected. The government must publish the criteria it uses to choose projects within 15 days of C-5 becoming law.
Parliamentary oversight: Regular reporting to Parliament is now required on how the act is being used. This creates a mechanism for MPs to scrutinize the expedited projects. Notably, the bill prohibits Cabinet from using these special powers during any period when Parliament is dissolved or prorogued (i.e. the government cannot approve a new project under C-5 in the absence of a sitting Parliament).
National security review: An amendment introduced a mandatory national security review for any project involving foreign state-owned companies. This was likely prompted by concerns over, for example, Chinese state enterprises in Canadian critical infrastructure.
Consultation reporting: The government must report on the consultations conducted for each project (to demonstrate Indigenous and stakeholder engagement was sought).
Indian Act protection: In response to Indigenous critics, the government removed or amended provisions that might have allowed Cabinet to bypass the Indian Act or other statutes when fast-tracking projects. It was clarified that nothing in C-5 negates existing obligations toward First Nations. (Originally, First Nations feared the bill could let Ottawa ignore requirements for Indigenous consent on reserve lands, for example, but this was adjusted after an outcry.)

These amendments were significant. A Conservative MP noted “we fought back, and we won” on inserting stricter controls, saying “Conservatives made the bill better” by adding transparency and guardrails. Even so, opposition parties (especially the BQ and Greens) maintained that fundamental flaws remained, namely the lack of any mechanism for Indigenous consent (versus mere consultation) and the continued existence of what they call a “approve now, justify later” model. The Bloc and NDP also argued the bill still does nothing to actually repeal the provincial barriers or the federal environmental laws (like the Impact Assessment Act, sometimes criticized as Bill C-69) that they see as root causes of slow project approvals. In other words, critics on one side feel C-5 goes too far, overriding normal checks and Indigenous rights, while critics on the other side (e.g. some Conservatives) feel it doesn’t go far enough, since it creates a “selective shortcut” but leaves much red tape untouched.

Outcome: After a final day of impassioned debate on June 20, 2025, the House of Commons passed Bill C-5. Part 1 was nearly unanimous, and Part 2 passed with a comfortable majority despite the dissent of the Bloc, two dozen NDP MPs, and the Greens. “The real work begins now,” Prime Minister Carney said, acknowledging that passing the law was just the first step and that implementation, including working with provinces and Indigenous communities, would determine its success. By that evening, C-5 was on its way to the Senate, which agreed to an expedited review (including unusual Committee-of-the-Whole sessions for senators to question ministers directly) in order to try to pass the bill before the end of June. As of third reading, One Canadian Economy Act stood as a signature (if contentious) achievement of the new government’s agenda, poised to reshape Canada’s economic landscape.

Impacts and Analysis by Sector and Population Group

Bill C-5’s effects will be far-reaching, touching multiple aspects of Canadian governance and society. Below is an analysis of how the legislation is expected to impact specific laws, groups, and thematic areas:

Impact on Indigenous Rights and Consultation

Indigenous peoples and rights are arguably the most affected group by Part 2 of C-5, and this has been the focus of intense debate. The legislation directly intersects with Aboriginal and treaty rights by altering when and how consultation occurs for major projects. Under the normal process, Indigenous communities are consulted before approvals and have an opportunity to say “no” or demand accommodations before a project is green-lit. Under C-5, once a project is designated in the “national interest,” it is effectively approved in principle, and consultations will largely focus on how to mitigate impacts rather than whether the project should proceed. First Nations leaders argue this “limits the capacity for proper consultation” and gives them “minimal opportunity” to influence decisions that directly affect their lands and rights. The Assembly of First Nations warns that projects could “proceed with limited debate, reduced oversight, and minimal opportunity for First Nations to influence decisions” – a scenario they consider unacceptable. Critics say C-5 “constrains and undermines Aboriginal and treaty rights, UNDRIPA, and the duty to consult” in order to prioritize speedy development. The Union of BC Indian Chiefs and many Indigenous commentators see the bill as backtracking on Canada’s recent commitments (like the UNDRIP Act passed in 2021) which called for free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) on matters affecting Indigenous rights.

The government, for its part, insists it will uphold Section 35 of the Constitution and UNDRIP obligations. The One Canadian Economy Act explicitly references that it does not abrogate Aboriginal rights or the duty to consult. Officials added clauses to ensure the duty to consult is still required for listed projects and to clarify that nothing in the act gives carte blanche to violate Indigenous rights. “The Government of Canada is committed to respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples… and the rights set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” the Prime Minister’s Office stated, pledging ongoing consultation and cooperation. An Indigenous Advisory Council is to be embedded in the new Major Projects Office to give First Nations, Inuit, and Métis a seat at the table during implementation. Additionally, the government doubled the Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program to $10 billion to enable Indigenous equity stakes in projects, aiming to share economic benefits.

Despite these assurances, many Indigenous leaders remain skeptical. They argue that consent, not just consultation, is the standard under UNDRIP, and C-5 provides no clear mechanism for Indigenous communities to withhold consent if a project threatens their rights. The timing is another issue: C-5 allows Cabinet to designate a project as nationally important early – potentially before full impact studies – and then consult afterward, which Indigenous jurists say “inverts” the process and risks making consultation perfunctory. Once a project is politically approved, communities fear that any consultation will lack teeth, since the government would be loath to reverse course. This could violate the “honour of the Crown” in consulting Indigenous peoples and lead to legal challenges. Indeed, experts predict C-5’s approach “is destined to end up in court” as First Nations litigate to protect their rights. Direct action protests are also a possibility if communities feel steamrolled. In short, Indigenous rights and reconciliation efforts stand at a crossroads with Bill C-5: the government touts partnership and shared prosperity, while many Indigenous leaders see an alarming potential to erode hard-won rights and precedent. This tension will play out in how the Act is applied. A positive outcome – where Indigenous nations are true partners in deciding and owning projects – could advance economic reconciliation. A negative outcome – where C-5 is used to override Indigenous opposition – would deepen conflicts. The stakes are thus extremely high for Indigenous peoples.

Effects on Environmental Oversight and Climate Commitments

Part 2 also significantly affects environmental assessment laws and regulatory processes. By compressing federal approvals into a single step and political decision, C-5 alters the operation of statutes like the Impact Assessment Act, Fisheries Act, Navigable Waters Act, etc. In practice, once a project is designated “in the national interest,” it is deemed to have passed all these reviews (subject to whatever conditions the minister later sets). Environmental advocates worry this reverses the normal sequence: typically, governments wait for full environmental assessments, public hearings, and scientific input before deciding whether a project’s benefits outweigh its harms. Under C-5, the Cabinet can decide a project is a go – often for economic or strategic reasons – with detailed environmental study to follow later on specific mitigation measures.

This raises the concern that projects might receive political approval without a comprehensive understanding of their environmental impacts. As one environmental lawyer put it, *“there’s a reason why we have decisions at the end of environmental assessments… so governments can make informed decisions about projects that have the potential to harm Canadians and the environment.”*Fast-tracking could mean critical information on ecosystems, endangered species, pollution, and climate effects might come too late to influence the yes/no decision. For example, a pipeline could be designated in the national interest before assessments reveal an endangered caribou habitat in its path. While the new process would still require addressing that issue via conditions, opponents note it might be harder to say “no” to the project at that stage.

The government has countered that all existing environmental standards and protections will still apply – C-5 doesn’t repeal any environmental law, it streamlines the process. Officials stress that the single “conditions document” will incorporate terms from all relevant departments (e.g. Fisheries and Oceans would feed in conditions to protect fish habitat, etc.). They also highlight that one of the factors for “national interest” designation is whether the project “contributes to clean growth and to Canada’s climate objectives”. In theory, a project inconsistent with Canada’s 2030/2050 climate commitments might not qualify. Additionally, the list of candidate projects is to be developed in consultation with provinces and Indigenous rights-holders, which could screen out the most harmful proposals. Proponents argue that speeding up approvals does not mean eliminating scrutiny – assessments will happen simultaneously rather than sequentially, and Canada will still enforce environmental mitigation measures through the conditions attached.

Despite these assurances, environmental groups like West Coast Environmental Law and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives predict C-5 will weaken the rigor of environmental reviews. They fear it sets a precedent of declaring a “national emergency” (economic or otherwise) to override normal environmental due diligence. The scenario they envision is one where any project deemed economically vital could be rushed, “without adequate study, without all the usual considerations about impacts on endangered species,” as CCPA researcher Stuart Trew warned. This could undermine Canada’s credibility in fighting climate change and protecting biodiversity. Furthermore, if accelerated approvals lead to poorly vetted projects that then cause environmental damage (oil spills, habitat destruction) or face court injunctions, it could ironically slow progress and erode public trust. The JFK Law analysis bluntly termed C-5 a “move fast and break things” approach that might actually exacerbate delays – since cutting corners now could invite legal challenges and protests that delay projects later. In summary, Bill C-5 attempts to balance environmental protection with speed, but critics worry the balance tilts too far toward speed, potentially at the environment’s expense. The true impact will depend on implementation: how selectively “national interest” is invoked, how stringent the conditions are, and whether courts uphold this new process as consistent with environmental law.

Effects on Criminal Justice and Other Laws

Despite examples cited in the question, Bill C-5 does not directly impact criminal justice laws or the Criminal Code – its scope is economic (internal trade) and administrative (project approvals). The confusion may arise because a “Bill C-5” in the previous Parliament dealt with Criminal Code amendments (sentencing reforms), but the C-5 of the 45th Parliament is unrelated to criminal law. It neither amends nor addresses any criminal justice provisions. That said, one tangential link was raised during debate: the original bill could have exempted ministers from Criminal Code provisions on corruption when fast-tracking projects. For instance, if a minister had used their position to favor a project they stood to gain from, normal sanctions might not apply. This was remedied by amendments ensuring no one is above standard laws – ministers must recuse from conflicts and cannot bypass ethics rules. Outside of this, C-5’s legal impacts are more in the realm of regulatory law: it effectively enacts two new Acts (the two parts above) and overrides certain procedural requirements in existing federal statutes for designated projects. It does not repeal those statutes but provides that a Cabinet-listed project is “deemed” to have approvals under them. This could be seen as temporarily suspending the normal operation of laws like the Impact Assessment Act for specific projects – a point likely to be litigated. Additionally, through amendments, the bill now explicitly upholds the application of Conflict of Interest laws, the Auditor General Act, and other accountability laws so that expedited projects still face transparency. In summary, C-5 creates special legal pathways but does not directly change the Criminal Code or most other statutes; it is more about how laws are applied in special cases.

Impact on Interprovincial Trade, Businesses, and Consumers

The economic and business impact of Part 1 (internal trade and labour mobility) is anticipated to be broadly positive. By eliminating duplicate regulations and “internal tariffs,” the bill aims to make it easier for companies to sell products and services Canada-wide and for workers to take jobs anywhere in the country. For businesses, this reduces compliance costs – for example, a manufacturer won’t need to meet multiple sets of federal vs provincial product standards if one set is recognized nationally. The Canada Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) already encouraged this harmonization since 2017, and the federal government under C-5 is removing almost all remaining federal exceptions under the CFTA by July 2025. The result should be greater competition and consumer choice, as goods can flow more freely across provincial borders. Canadians may see more variety on store shelves and potentially lower prices when interprovincial transport and compliance frictions are reduced.

Economically, numerous studies have suggested large gains from internal trade liberalization. The bill was accompanied by estimates (e.g. from the IMF and Canada West Foundation) that removing internal barriers could raise Canada’s GDP by up to 4% over time. That’s on the order of tens of billions of dollars – a significant boost. Sectors like agriculture, food products, manufacturing, construction materials, and retail are likely to benefit from a bigger seamless domestic market. Small businesses in one province will find it easier to expand to other regions without a tangle of differing rules. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce strongly backed Part 1, calling it “rising to meet the moment” for a struggling economy.

However, it is worth noting that Part 1’s approach relies on cooperation and future action, so the impact will not be instantaneous. C-5 creates a framework for mutual recognition, but provinces and regulatory bodies must work out the details. For instance, if a province has significantly different safety or quality regulations for a product than the federal standard, determining “comparable” standards could be complex. Likewise, professional bodies (engineering associations, medical colleges, etc.) will need to align their licensing criteria to truly allow full mobility. The bill provides no penalties for provinces that drag their feet and no automatic “blue seal” national license (an idea some experts floated). Some critics say Part 1 lacks teeth – it depends on goodwill and can only directly affect areas of federal jurisdiction. Provincial jurisdiction remains primary for regulating trades and professions, so Ottawa cannot unilaterally force provinces to change their standards. The federal government has tried to incentivize compliance by tying federal infrastructure funds to the labour mobility provisions, essentially using spending power to encourage provinces to honor the spirit of the law. This could become a point of intergovernmental negotiation (or tension) in the years ahead.

For Canadian workers, easier labour mobility could be a game-changer. Professionals like nurses, teachers, doctors, engineers, architects, electricians, and plumbers will find it simpler and faster to have their qualifications recognized if they move provinces. For example, a teacher certified in Nova Scotia who moves to Alberta would no longer face months of recertification and possibly duplicative training – under C-5’s regime, Alberta (and federal agencies) would accept that Nova Scotia certification as equivalent, allowing the teacher to start work much sooner. This is especially valuable in sectors with labour shortages, such as healthcare and skilled trades. Canada’s workforce imbalances (with some provinces lacking nurses or construction trades while others have surpluses) could be mitigated by smoother movement of talent. Workers gain more opportunity (they can pursue jobs anywhere without losing their credentials) and potentially higher wages, while employers gain a larger talent pool to recruit from. In the long run, this could also encourage standardization of training and certification across Canada, as professions coordinate more to facilitate mutual recognition.

One caveat is that some provincial regulators have expressed concerns about maintaining quality and safety standards. They want to ensure that “recognition” doesn’t become a race to the bottom – e.g. if one province’s licensing standards are lower, will all others be forced to accept those? The bill requires “comparable” standards, which implies a need for equivalency assessments. There may be initial frictions as provinces negotiate what counts as equivalent. Additionally, certain professions like medicine already have national tests and mobility agreements; C-5 could reinforce these or fill gaps in other fields.

Overall, if successfully implemented, Part 1 of C-5 should benefit consumers (through more choice and possibly lower prices), businesses (through a larger unified market and less red tape), and workers (through greater job mobility). These economic gains, however, rely on robust follow-through and cooperation among federal and provincial authorities.

Implications for Provincial Governments and Federal-Provincial Relations

Bill C-5 sits at the intersection of federal and provincial powers, so its implementation will heavily involve federal-provincial relations. By its nature, removing internal trade barriers requires provincial buy-in, and fast-tracking infrastructure can tread on provincial jurisdiction over natural resources and land use. Thus, one impact area is how it affects the dynamic between Ottawa and the provinces (and territories):

Provincial Autonomy: Some provinces, notably Quebec (as voiced by the Bloc Québécois), view Part 2 as an intrusion into provincial domain. Major projects often require provincial permits and affect provincial lands. While C-5 doesn’t eliminate the need for provincial approvals, a federal “national interest” designation could put pressure on provinces to go along. The Bloc Québécois has been a staunch critic, arguing that C-5 centralizes power in Ottawa at the expense of provinces’ ability to fully assess projects in their backyard. Quebec in particular guards its jurisdiction, and the bill’s failure to split the internal trade section (widely supported) from the projects section (controversial) was seen by the Bloc as Ottawa forcing a bitter pill on Quebec in order to get the sweet part. We can expect Quebec (and possibly other provinces) to monitor how C-5 is used and potentially challenge federal decisions that they feel overstep. Constitutional questions could arise, for example: Does the federal government have the authority to “deem” a project approved under federal law if a province objects or if it affects provincial Crown land? These questions might need Supreme Court clarification if disputes emerge.
Cooperative Federalism: On the other hand, all provincial premiers agreed in principle that Canada needs to build major projects faster and improve labour mobility. In early June 2025, at a First Ministers Meeting in Saskatoon, the Prime Minister and Premiers reached consensus on the “urgency of building major projects” like energy corridors, transportation links, and more. This suggests there is political will at the highest levels to make the concept work. Provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan are eager to see pipelines, transmission lines, and mines proceed; they supported the idea of streamlining, as long as provincial input is respected. In fact, Alberta’s Premier Danielle Smith immediately pointed to C-5 as a means to push for an oil pipeline through British Columbia – a project she deems vital for Alberta. BC’s Premier David Eby responded cautiously that while BC is critical to Canada’s trade strategy, any project must have a proponent and a plan – hinting that BC won’t simply roll over without specifics. This exchange illustrates that inter-provincial tensions (west-east pipelines, etc.) could be catalyzed by the new law: some provinces will invoke it to lobby for projects, while others might resist projects that impact them but benefit a neighbor.
Conditional Funding: Part 1’s labour mobility push uses federal spending power as leverage – tying federal infrastructure dollars to provincial cooperation on credential recognition. This approach has been used before (e.g. in healthcare funding tied to certain outcomes) and can strain relations if provinces feel coerced. We may see negotiations where provinces ask, “What do we get for complying?” The federal government might offer funding or flexibility in other areas to sweeten the deal.
Legal Challenges: Provinces or other groups might legally challenge C-5’s project approvals on constitutional grounds. For example, if the federal government approves a project crossing a province that opposes it (like a pipeline through BC), the province might argue its own environmental laws or consultation obligations are being impeded. Conversely, industry groups might sue if a province refuses to recognize another province’s certification despite the federal act intending it. These issues could lead to court clarifications on the division of powers regarding internal trade (Section 121 of the Constitution, which mandates free interprovincial trade, could be invoked in support of C-5) or regarding federal authority over declaratory projects and trade and commerce powers.

In essence, Bill C-5 has a dual nature for provinces: Part 1 is largely collaborative, aiming to knit provinces closer into one market (which many provinces support in theory, as it can boost their economies too), whereas Part 2 has a potential top-down element that could cause friction if Ottawa and a province disagree on a project. The Carney government has emphasized partnership – noting that the schedule of national-interest projects will be built “in consultation” with provinces. If this promise is kept (i.e. only projects with provincial buy-in get fast-tracked), C-5 could enhance federal-provincial cooperation by aligning investments on nation-building priorities. If not, it could revive old quarrels about Ottawa imposing its will. The coming years will test whether One Canadian Economy becomes a banner of unity or a flashpoint between jurisdictions.

Sources: