Across Canada, politicians are forcing laws in the ‘national interest’ and dismantling our democracy along the way

“Climate change is a major threat to financial resilience and economic prosperity,” Canada’s Prime Minister, Mark Carney, wrote in his book ‘Value(s): Building a Better World for All.’

“It is within our grasp to create a virtuous cycle of innovation and investment for the net-zero world that our citizens are demanding and that future generations deserve. But the task is large, the window of opportunity is short, and the risks are existential.”

Published in 2021, before Carney formally entered politics, the national bestseller envisions bold changes for the future: a country powered by clean innovation, grounded in ethical capitalism and driven by a sense of shared responsibility. 

He penned a passionate plan to use the power of democracy alongside the economic rationalism of markets, to ensure our collective “Values” are protected for decades to come.

The bestseller helped many voters who saw in Carney a rare hybrid of economist, environmentalist and statesman—someone who could actually bridge the gap between boardrooms and the climate crisis; between Parliament Hill and our own backyard. He represented renewed hope for a new Canada.

The vision that was sold to electors across the nation is now being put to the test.

A wave of fast-tracked legislation is sweeping across the country, with bills in Ontario, British Columbia and at the federal level that critics say threaten Indigenous consultation, weaken environmental protections, and sidestep democratic accountability—all in the name of economic growth.

Bill 5 in Ontario, Bill 15 in British Columbia, and Bill C-5 in Ottawa all strike the same troubling chord: each piece of legislation provides regulatory override powers for major capital projects and attempts to strip away environmental protections and Indigenous rights, labelling them “red tape.”

Whether it’s ‘designated projects in special economic zones for trusted proponents’ in Ontario, ‘provincially significant projects’ in B.C., or projects of “national interest” pushed by legislators in Ottawa, the goal is the same: to bypass environmental assessments, public consultation and transparency, and First Nations rights, and hand power to the cabinet in the name of fighting an “economic war” in the name of unchecked development. 

The David Suzuki Foundation’s boreal project manager, Rachel Plotkin, calls this “short-term planning”, warning that leaders are taking dangerous shortcuts to boost the economy at the cost of leaving future generations “without healthy ecosystems to sustain healthy economies”.

Plotkin is concerned about a troubling trend in which provincial and federal governments declare projects to be of "provincial" or "national interest" without clearly defining what that means. 

“There’s been this growing narrative that regulations are what's holding people back from achieving their personal and collective goals,” she said. 

“It pits the environment against progress, a false dichotomy we’ve seen for a long time, without acknowledging that safeguarding nature directly supports human well-being.” She noted that protecting ecosystems is essential not only for clean drinking water but also for reducing the impacts of climate change, such as flooding and wildfires, which are increasingly common.

Since the start of 2025, there have been more than 2,000 wildfires across Canada.

(Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre)

Canada is burning — 298 wildfires are currently active nationwide—with nearly 4.1 million hectares already devastated this year, as of June 24. Of those fires, 80 are burning in British Columbia, 28 in Ontario, and 104 are classified as out of control, according to the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre.

Currently, there are more than 25 active wildfires in Ontario, with seven not under control, one being held, four under control, and ten being observed, as of June 19; the province has had close to 200 forest fires, nearly twice as many as this time last year.

(Government of Ontario)

A week before temperatures in the GTA hit 36 degrees Celsius and 46 degrees on the humidex scale, Carney welcomed leaders from around the world to the G7 Summit in picturesque Kananaskis, Alberta. A June 7 statement from the Prime Minister’s Office outlining the priorities of the three-day gathering of the most powerful politicians in the world, made no mention of climate strategy, adaptation, or the environment — there was only a single mention of a strategy to prevent and recover from wildfires.

The Pointer reached out to the PMO to ask why, but did not receive a response.

“Canada is literally a country on fire, but despite wanting to discuss an improved joint response to wildfires, it allowed the summit to end with a statement on the issue that included no mention of tackling the climate crisis fuelling the latest disaster,” Greenpeace Canada senior energy strategist, Keith Stewart, said.

“This was a wasted opportunity as Canada ducked away from a confrontation with Trump.” 

“As G7 leaders grapple with how to de-escalate multiple conflicts, they can ill afford to ignore another threat to global stability – the worsening climate emergency,” Greenpeace International climate politics expert, Tracy Carty, added.

“Even before the latest intensification in the Middle East, the climate had already been sidelined, as the G7 – under Canada’s leadership – tiptoed around (U.S. President Donald) Trump’s climate denialism. The leaders of these nations – among the most responsible for global emissions – cannot retreat and hide.”

Despite the leaders being mum on the issue, environmental activists and Indigenous leaders ensured the message was heard (see images below).

Five national climate organizations united to create and install a 95-metre-wide fabric banner at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, sending a bold message to Prime Minister Mark Carney and world leaders: “Pick a Path.” The banner calls on Canada to prioritize Indigenous-led climate solutions that uphold Indigenous rights, tackle the cost-of-living crisis, and build a clean, resilient economy.

(Indigenous Climate Action)

“I spoke my Tsuut’ina language. I showed him my treaty medal and told him it’s older than Canada and that this is native land. I spoke for my elders, babies, and future generations, and spoke for peace and protecting water for future generations. I tried to say as much as I could, as wisely as I could, while representing with honour and dignity. Whether he listened or not, time will tell. I don’t care if it was anyone else, in fact, I wish I was someone else. But I’m glad that the world got to witness a treaty suit, treaty medal, beautiful beadwork, precious feather hat, and us. I take assurance in knowing a message of protecting water and peace was spoken to world leaders,” Tsuu T’ina Minor Chief Steven Crowchild told National Chief Cindy Woodhouse regarding his conversation with U.S. President Donald Trump.

(Cindy Woodhouse/Facebook)

On June 2, Carney met with Canada’s premiers to discuss "nation-building" projects meant to shield the country from a rising tide of U.S. protectionism under Trump. Behind closed doors, they weighed ideas around natural resources and infrastructure.

After the meeting, Ontario Premier Doug Ford compared Carney to “Santa Claus.” 

“He’s coming, and his sled was full of all sorts of stuff. Now he’s taking off back to the North Pole, and he’s going to sort it out, and he’s going to call us,” Ford remarked as Ontario’s Bill 5 was being pushed through Queen’s Park despite multiple rallies led by First Nations communities and environmental organizations.

On June 5, bill 5, titled Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, received Royal Assent in Ontario after the Progressive Conservative government passed a time allocation to cut off debate, overriding opposition efforts to delay the legislation and forcing a final reading and vote on June 4.

On June 18, just ahead of a meeting with 40 northern Ontario chiefs on bill 5, Ford escalated tensions by telling First Nations they “can’t just keep coming hat in hand” asking for “money” without giving the government access to the Ring of Fire, a remark that ignited a firestorm of criticism. 

First Nations leaders slammed the comment as “dangerous rhetoric,” accusing Ford of disrespect and resource strong-arming.

“Doug Ford’s remarks are offensive, rooted in racism and colonial violence,” Grand Chief of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, Alvin Fiddler, said in a social media post.

“We are coming from generations of unresolved treaty rights, stolen lands & broken promises. Our Nations have taken care of ourselves long before your government existed. You are the one begging for our resources.”

On June 18, Ontario NDP MPP for Kiiwetinoong, Sol Mamakwa, issued a blunt statement following Premier Doug Ford’s controversial remarks to First Nations leaders. Mamakwa called on the Premier to repeal bill 5, engage in real consultation, and respect treaty rights instead of resorting to inflammatory language. “He is trying to create divisions in our province and is taking us back. This premier has made it clear that he won’t bring people together, uphold the honour of the crown, and obtain free, prior, and informed consent. Bill 5 was an assault on treaty rights, the whole province made their voice heard, the Premier needs to take a step back and listen. This is not how you build consent and true partnership, and it is certainly not how you build a stronger Ontario,” Mamakwa said.

(Sol Mamakwa/X)

Assembly of First Nations national chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak also wrote a letter to Ford on June 19, reminding him that instead of perpetuating “racist stereotypes,” his government needs to remember that it has “no choice but to deal with legal realities.”

“It seems that you are the party in this dialogue that is preoccupied with money and that you have closed your ears to core issues of First Nations’ rights, jurisdiction, and title,” she said. 

“For over 150 years, Ontario has benefitted enormously from exploiting resources on First Nations lands without reaching appropriate jurisdictional and other arrangements with First Nations on a whole host of matters, including the environment and resource revenue sharing, to name a few.”

Following the meeting at Queen’s Park on June 19, Ford apologized, saying, “I sincerely apologize for my words…I get passionate because I want prosperity for their communities.”

In Ontario’s 2025 budget, the Ford government has made an $865.2 million cut, over 85 percent, to the Ministry of Indigenous Affairs and First Nations Economic Reconciliation.

(Government of Ontario)

“The Premier says he’s treated us ‘like gold,’ but that’s deeply insulting to us,” Chief Gary Quisess of Neskantaga First Nation said in an interview with The Pointer.  

“Our community has been under a boil-water advisory for over 30 years. We don’t have proper healthcare. How is that gold?”

On May 29, British Columbia’s Bill 15, the Infrastructure Projects Act, became law after Premier David Eby’s NDP government passed a motion to limit debate on the bill—similar to the steps taken by Ford in Ontario to push through bill 5— on May 28. The law gives the Cabinet unprecedented power to fast-track “designated projects” like mines or dams by potentially bypassing key environmental rules. Under the law, the government can approve major developments without fully assessing cumulative impacts, consulting the public, securing Indigenous consensus, or meeting basic permitting requirements. 

Under Bill 15, B.C.’s Lieutenant Governor in Council (the provincial cabinet or executive) has the authority to make regulations designating certain infrastructure projects as either Category 1, which can be a single project or a class of projects, or Category 2, which are “provincially significant” projects. When making these designations, they must provide key details such as the project’s scope, purpose, constraints, and the proponent’s identity. Once designated, the government can empower the minister to use special powers for environmental assessments, permitting, professional certifications, and expedited approval processes, while also imposing terms, conditions, or restrictions on these authorizations.

(Government of British Columbia)

Most concerning to critics is the lack of clear criteria for what counts as a “designated project.” Those crucial decisions will be added later through regulations, entirely outside the legislature’s control.  That means current or future governments can shift the rules at any time, with no public debate. Similar concerns have been raised about Bill 5 in Ontario. 

“In developing Bill 15, the Province conducted no meaningful consultation and cooperation with First Nations and did not adhere to its own Interim Approach on the Alignment of Laws (Interim Approach). While we support the Province taking action to counter Trump’s erratic behaviour, such action must be principled, respect First Nations’ basic human rights, and be done in consultation and cooperation with First Nations. We are deeply alarmed by the Province’s continued backsliding on reconciliation.” Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, UBCIC President, wrote in a statement.

In effect, critics say bill 15 functions like a blank cheque. It empowers the Cabinet to override public, Indigenous and environmental protections, lets private consultants replace government regulators and allows ministers to push through permits even when projects pose serious risks to air, water, wildlife, and community health.

Sound familiar?

Bill 5 provides Ford and his cabinet the authority to establish “special economic zones” that allow projects and “trusted proponents” to bypass provincial and municipal laws. No criteria has been provided by the government to explain how these zones or proponents would be selected. 

On June 14, protesters carrying banners reading “KILL BILL 5” gathered at Ford Fest as Doug Ford spoke about Trump, tariffs and insisted Canada would never become the “51st state”.

(HeadwatersStopsThe413)

Now, the federal government is joining the club.

On June 6, bill C-5, dubbed An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, was introduced at Parliament Hill and is being fast-tracked—just like bill 5 and 15—with a second reading passed on June 16 with support from the Conservatives.

On June 18, a House of Commons committee sat until midnight rushing through a review of the bill. A similar scene played out at Queen’s Park weeks earlier.  

Kebaowek First Nation Chief Lance Haymond warned, “The conditions for an Idle No More 2.0 uprising are being written into the law as we speak,” during his testimony to the transport committee late that night.

Environmental Defence executive director, Tim Gray, warns, “Ontario's Bill 5 and the federal C-5 are two peas in an undemocratic pod.”

The first part of the omnibus legislation, the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act, aims to eliminate federal barriers to the interprovincial movement of goods, services, and labour. It allows products, services, and professional credentials approved in one province or territory to be recognized in others, provided their standards are deemed “comparable.” Federal regulators will determine whether those standards align, and the act grants Ottawa sweeping regulatory powers to implement this framework. 

It asserts that protections for health, safety, and the environment will remain intact, but critics warn it could override local and Indigenous concerns in the name of economic efficiency.

But it's Part 2 of the bill, the Building Canada Act, that has sparked the most concern. Critics are calling it deeply flawed from both democratic and environmental standpoints, and possibly a ‘gift to big oil’ as it bypasses 13 laws including the Fisheries Act, Canada Marine Act, Species at Risk Act, and the Impact Assessment Act. 

On June 17, hundreds gathered on Parliament Hill to protest Prime Minister Mark Carney’s sweeping bill C-5, a show of growing public pushback against the controversial legislation.

(Chiefs of Ontario/X)

“Essentially, it gives the minister (of intergovernmental affairs), Dominic LeBlanc, the power to decide which projects are in the national interest. That allows him to effectively bypass a number of laws and regulations that are in place to protect the environment and public health. This means a project could get approved before we fully understand its impacts,” Climate Action Network’s national policy manager, Alex Cool-Fergus, told The Pointer.

On June 20, the House of Commons held separate votes on the two main parts of bill C-5 after the NDP successfully pushed for the bill to be split, allowing the more contentious Building Canada Act section to be debated and voted on independently.

The first part of the bill passed with near-unanimous support, with only Green Party Leader Elizabeth May voting against it.

The section granting the federal government broad authority to approve major infrastructure projects passed with the help of Conservative MPs, despite strong opposition from other parties; Nate Erskine-Smith was the only Liberal MP who did not vote with the government.

With the House now adjourned until September 15, attention turns to the Senate, which is expected to complete its review of the omnibus legislation by June 27; if it passes without further amendments, the legislation will receive Royal Assent and become law soon after.

The creation of these powers for Carney’s newly formed government has many critics concerned, especially after the new PM has made statements that signal an unwillingness to truly address the climate crisis. 

In March, Carney signalled he may be open to abandoning emissions caps for the oil and gas industry, marking a potential shift from his predecessor, Justin Trudeau, whose government had initiated regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Last year was the hottest year on record, but that did not stop global banks from walking back climate pledges and significantly increasing fossil fuel financing. Over 65 banks across the world, including CIBC, TD Bank and Royal Bank of Canada in the top 15, have committed $10.8 trillion in fossil fuel financing since 2016, when the Paris Agreement went into effect.

(Banking on Climate Chaos)

He said he aimed to make Canada's energy sector more competitive by "working with industry and with provinces on specific ways to get those reductions, as opposed to… having preset caps or preset restrictions on preset timelines."

National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak presenting to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, while people from First Nations rallied outside Parliament Hill in Ottawa on June 17.

(National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak/Facebook)

Environmental organizations warn that, like its provincial counterparts, bill C-5 is moving too quickly and with too little scrutiny, particularly troubling given the federal government’s Section 35 obligations to Indigenous peoples.

“The Building Canada Act gives Cabinet unnecessary sweeping, unilateral power that lets it decide whether and how federal law applies to its handpicked national interest projects — even if science warns of catastrophic consequences and irreversible harm. At a time of climate emergency and biodiversity collapse, Canadians expect better,” Ecojustice program director Charles Hatt said.

It isn’t just the way these legislations are being expedited that’s similar, but also in the way they are designed, as critics have pointed out that they undermine democracy, local laws, Indigenous rights and environmental safeguards.

Critics have called all three bills a “threat to democracy.”

“The federal government is setting a dangerous precedent for provinces by prioritizing economic and infrastructure development at the expense of Indigenous rights and environmental protection,” Cool-Fergus with Climate Action Network, said.

“In medicine, we say slow is smooth and smooth is fast, meaning well-planned action leads to better outcomes. This bill (C-5) is the opposite of that. It plows over well-established legal processes to overturn regulations that I trust to protect my patients in ways that I cannot as a family doctor,” Dr. Sehjal Bhargava of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment said.

Evidence for Democracy executive director Sarah Laframboise says that the country “cannot afford to treat science, consultation, and evidence as red tape,” as they are the “very tools that protect our health, our environment, and our democracy.”

On June 19, the Assembly of First Nations National Chief joined other First Nations leaders in urging Governor General Mary Simon to intervene and split the federal major projects bill, demanding more time to review its development provisions.

Liberal MP for Beaches-East York Nate Erskine-Smith highlighted concerns over the fast-tracking of bill C-5, referencing a May 23 speech by the Minister of Natural Resources, who “set the stage for bill 5, bill C-5, calling for a renewed spirit of building by reframing the national conversation.” He urged the government to “take its own advice when it comes to bill C-5. Rather than defending the why, the idea of the bill, we should refocus our attention on the how.” He criticized the government’s “proposed guillotine motion [that] seeks to limit parliamentary debate at every stage of the bill” and “jam all expert and public testimony, and all committee scrutiny in less than two days.”

“Worse in bill C-5, in bill 5 deja vu, this federal government is proposing to shut down democratic debate, curtail committee scrutiny, and jam the bill through the legislature,” Erskine-Smith, said in the House of Commons calling it “a tale of two Bill 5s.”

“It would all actually make (Stephen) Harper blush. Liberals would rightly scream…if a federal Conservative government attempted the same.”

Unlike Ontario’s PC government, which passed bill 5 without any consultation with First Nations, the federal government sent a letter on May 23 stating its intent to “consult and cooperate on proposed legislation on national interest projects,” while also indicating it would streamline decision-making to fast-track projects that serve “Canada’s prosperity, economic security, defence security, and national autonomy.” In response, Neskantaga First Nation asked, “What about our autonomy as First Nations? What about the land essential to our idea of prosperity?”

(Neskantaga First Nation)

Environment law charity Ecojustice staff lawyer Laura Bowman told The Pointer that the three bills are “thematically…very similar, but in terms of structure, they provide broad powers to exempt major projects from environmental laws. They each go about it in slightly different ways.”

Bill C-5 could neutralize the Impact Assessment Act (IAA), a key law that allows Ottawa to evaluate environmental impacts of major projects and has stood up in court, including at the Supreme Court. The IAA was used in 2021 to slow down the PC government’s rapid push for Highway 413 which will cut across Ontario’s protected Greenbelt and the habitat of numerous species at risk. 

“It would essentially render IAA inoperable for these so-called “national interest” projects, which are poorly defined and could be virtually anything the minister or prime minister wants to see built. If the government can just ignore the Act, it raises serious questions about its purpose,” Cool-Fergus noted.

But Bowman says bill 5 is “one of its kind,” and significantly more vague when compared to either bill 15 or bill C-5.

“With bill C-5 federally, there's a specific list of acts included in a schedule to the bill, all of which are environmental laws. So, unlike bill 5 in Ontario, it doesn't cover every type of law; it’s a prescribed list. At least we have some idea of what they’re thinking about exempting. The exemption process under C-5 involves a sort of pre-approval with conditions, although it's not yet exactly clear how that would operate. Bill 5 in Ontario, by contrast, is more open-ended and unclear in terms of its scope,” Bowman noted.

In British Columbia, Bill 15 follows yet another model, with many of its key details left to be determined later through regulations. Its exemptions are somewhat more targeted, applying directly to the Environmental Assessment Act. 

Bowman says the three bills take different approaches, some focused on speeding up approvals, others on granting broad exemptions that presume approval, but all share the same theme. “There’s a lack of transparency in all of these bills about the criteria that will be used to protect the environment.”

On June 20, an amendment was added in committee to Schedule 2 of federal bill C-5, listing several laws—such as the Indian Act—that the new legislation cannot override. Environmental Defence program manager for land use and Ontario environment, and lawyer, Phil Pothen, said his team helped draft similar amendments to Ontario’s Bill 5, which were introduced by opposition parties. "Government-side MPPs either voted them down or prevented them from coming to a vote altogether," Pothen said.

(House of Commons)

Bills 15 and C-5 do establish some criteria on when these powers can be exercised, but those criteria are highly discretionary and loosely defined. What actual environmental protection measures will still be implemented under these conditional and expedited approvals, especially under bill 15, remains unclear. 

None of the bills offer substantive safeguards to ensure positive environmental outcomes. 

“Like bill 5, they open the door for projects that wouldn’t be approved under current standards to move forward, potentially sidelining protections for the environment, human health, and Indigenous rights,” Bowman said.

Does this mean Canada is quietly abandoning its emissions reduction targets and international environmental commitments?

“As for our international commitments like the Paris Agreement, this bill isn’t an outright abandonment of emissions targets, but it creates uncertainty,” Cool-Fergus said.

“It could fast-track good projects that help us decarbonize, like offshore wind developments in Atlantic Canada, which some premiers are asking for. But it could just as easily fast-track fossil fuel projects or other developments that go against climate goals.” 

Is it fair to say that there’s a possibility that all three bills can be abused?

“Yes, absolutely,” Bowman said. 

“The problem isn’t just the potential for abuse; it’s that the philosophy behind all three bills is about highly centralized executive power, and centralized power used to undermine environmental laws…In times of crisis, we are further entrenching executive power and discarding fundamental values around environmental protection. This is a disturbing trend. With the climate crisis, the sixth extinction, and the many challenges ahead, if every crisis leads us to abandon the social and environmental protections we've worked hard to build over the past century, the world we face will be very different from the one we know today.”

 First Nations protesters camping at Queen’s Park declined to be named or interviewed, but they told The Pointer they plan to stay “forever, until bill 5 is repealed,” and are actively seeking support.

(Anushka Yadav/The Pointer)

Critics also note that despite the push to fast-track projects, governments often overlook that such “unprecedented” legislation tends to provoke backlash.

“While governments are advancing fast-tracking of projects to supposedly provide economic certainty, in reality,  when communities and Indigenous people are shut out of decision-making processes about projects that affect them and the lands and waters around them, what we often see are lawsuits, blockades and protests, which actually lengthen processes and decrease the certainty for project investors,” David Suzuki Foundation’s Rachel Plotkin noted.

On June 21, members of the Attawapiskat First Nation and the Neskantaga First Nation rallied along the Attawapiskat River to defend “sacred waters” and oppose the Ring of Fire mining road.

Chief Gary Quisess of Neskantaga First Nation wrote: “The Attawapiskat River is not a corridor for extraction—it is a lifeline. Our ancestors are buried along its shores, our children learn from its currents, and we will defend it through any means necessary.”

Email: [email protected]

At a time when vital public information is needed by everyone, The Pointer has taken down our paywall on all stories to ensure every resident of Brampton, Mississauga and Niagara has access to the facts. For those who are able, we encourage you to consider a subscription. This will help us report on important public interest issues the community needs to know about now more than ever. You can register for a 30-day free trial HERE. Thereafter, The Pointer will charge $10 a month and you can cancel any time right on the website. Thank you