The One Canadian Economy Act, or Bill C-5, is no ordinary piece of legislation. At a time of economic and geopolitical uncertainty, it is a critical component of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s plan for Canada with respect to economic growth and prosperity, energy security, and sovereignty. The bill does not guarantee any specific project or policy outcome. Instead, the legislation is really about governance—the how more so than the what. It’s about doing things differently (read: more quickly, with fewer hurdles and layers of red tape). The success of the legislation will depend on a steady supply of political will, good faith among the players involved, and clear communication with the broader public.
The One Canadian Economy Act has two distinct parts. The first, and perhaps the least controversial, is the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act. The legislation removes federal barriers to interprovincial trade and labour movement and encourages the provinces to do the same. The idea is to avoid duplication and redundancy in approvals processes, certifications, and regulations, thereby enabling goods and services to flow through the country with as few encumbrances as possible. The legislation puts an emphasis on interprovincial cooperation that we have never seen before and recognizes a pivotal role for provincial premiers in the economic growth and stewardship of the country. Former prime minister Justin Trudeau, and others before him, incentivized provincial action in social policy by signing cost-sharing agreements, but Prime Minister Carney is taking a different approach by setting the tone for premiers to be entrepreneurial and to play their own spaces. We have already seen evidence of this shift as several memoranda of understanding have been signed between provincial premiers so far this summer, including between Ontario Premier Doug Ford, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe on building new pipelines using Ontario steel that will connect western oil and gas to refineries in southern Ontario.
The second part of the legislation, the Building Canada Act, has gotten the most attention from the media and the public. This piece sets up a fast-tracked approvals process for projects deemed in the national interest. The idea here is that increased regulatory certainty and shorter time frames for approvals will be attractive to private investors, which will lead to growth. Cabinet decides which projects qualify for expedited approval according to a set of criteria spelled out in the legislation, including the project’s potential contribution to Canada’s economic growth and security, its likelihood for success, and its alignment with Indigenous interests and clean growth.
Many applaud the initiative and its not-too-subtle acknowledgement that lengthy and uncertain approvals processes have discouraged private investment in Canada’s economy. However, there are serious concerns that the proposed governance framework—and the permission to bypass typical requirements such as environmental impact assessments—puts too much power in the hands of the prime minister and cabinet without appropriate checks and balances. Also, Indigenous leaders and communities have been very vocal about their concerns that Indigenous rights and interests will suffer with this new approach. The legislation acknowledges the responsibility to “consult” Indigenous Peoples whose Sec. 35 rights might be adversely affected by a nation-building project. It’s not clear what “consultation” will mean. Justice Minister Sean Fraser said back in June that the duty to consult does not give Indigenous leaders a “blanket veto” on proposed projects. He walked the comment back the next day, acknowledging that his words could undermine trust, but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t mean what he said when he said it.
There are mixed reactions to the bill within the Indigenous population. While nine First Nations in Ontario filed a court injunction to stop the legislation, premiers met in Huntsville, Ont., with leadership from the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council, and the Native Women’s Association of Canada in July to discuss the legislation and its implications. Premier Ford called the meeting “productive,” citing an opportunity for partnership, and AFN national chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak said she considered the meeting “progress.” However, other First Nations leaders felt disappointed.
Governance is about relationships as much as it is about rules and structures. The legislation is only the framework; it is up to political actors to give it all meaning. So far, there has been much unity around the first ministers’ table, as premiers have solidly backed Prime Minister Carney’s approach to economic growth and nation-building. Time will tell how durable this solidarity is and whether it can have a positive effect on Canada’s relationship with Indigenous Peoples.
Lori Turnbull is a senior adviser at the Institute on Governance.
The Hill Times