Bill C-5 (where the "C" stands for Chaos) - Parliamentary Briefing
It’s been many, many months since my last post to the Briefings section of this site - although things have been busy as always on The Audit itself. Given how these Briefings were conceived as AI-driven summaries and interpretations of impossibly-long transcripts from Parliamentary committee meetings, the absence of Parliamentary committee meetings through the first half of the year has been a damper on productivity.
But fear not! Our political representatives have now graced us with…not one….not two…but three heady weeks of new meetings before retiring for a well-earned three month summer vacation.
From a distance, Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities meetings relating to Bill C-5 (the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act) felt like a bit of a waste. After all, there was little chance that too much of the testimony from those sessions (which took place on June 16, 17, and 18) could possibly make a difference - given how the bill became law just a few days later.
In fact, the bill received Royal Assent on June 26 with (at best) minimal input from the committee testimony. I’ll address that input later.
Nevertheless, here’s my conversation with an AI (which was initially unaware that the bill had since passed into law) looking to make sense of the whole Kommittee Kabuki as it played out:
The Audit: Could you summarize the committee testimony and conclusions and identify anything that was particularly contentious or surprising:
Summary of Discussions on Bill C-5 in the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities
Bill C-5, comprising the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, was a central focus of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, as recorded in the provided trade_mobility.csv document. The discussions, held on June 16 and 17, 2025, involved testimonies from various stakeholders, including industry representatives, academics, and Indigenous leaders, addressing the bill’s implications for infrastructure development, economic growth, regulatory processes, and Indigenous rights. Below is a summary of the key points, followed by an identification of contentious or surprising elements.
Summary of Discussions
Overview of Bill C-5
Purpose: Bill C-5 aims to streamline approvals for major infrastructure projects deemed of “national interest” to enhance Canada’s economic competitiveness, particularly in response to global trade challenges, such as those posed by U.S. policies under Donald Trump. The Building Canada Act focuses on accelerating project approvals, while the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act addresses interprovincial trade barriers.
Key Features:
Establishes a framework to designate projects as being in the “national interest,” allowing for expedited regulatory processes.
Proposes a two-year timeline for project approvals and a “one project, one review” approach.
Grants significant discretionary power to the Governor in Council to designate and manage projects, potentially overriding existing federal legislation.
Includes provisions for consultation with provinces, territories, and Indigenous groups, but lacks mandatory consent requirements.
Key Themes from Testimonies
Economic and Infrastructure Development:
Francis Bradley (Electricity Canada) emphasized the critical role of electricity infrastructure in Canada’s economic success, advocating for faster approvals to meet growing demand (e.g., for electric vehicles and data centers). He supported the Building Canada Act for streamlining approvals but expressed concern that it only applies to a limited set of “national interest” projects, leaving many critical electricity projects uncovered. He highlighted issues with existing regulations (e.g., Fisheries Act and Clean Electricity Regulations) that complicate maintenance and increase costs.
Yiota Kokkinos (Public Policy Forum) supported the bill as a step toward unlocking billions in investments for energy, infrastructure, and critical minerals projects. She referenced the PPF’s “Build Big Things” report, which projects $1.1 trillion in GDP growth by 2035 from major projects. She advocated for coordinated financing, streamlined regulations, Indigenous economic participation, and a strategic investment office to enhance implementation.
Catherine Swift (Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses) acknowledged the need for economic development but criticized the bill for granting excessive, poorly defined powers to the government. She suggested removing problematic legislation (e.g., emissions caps, tanker bans) instead of overriding them temporarily, arguing that this would provide more certainty for investors. She emphasized the importance of oil and gas pipelines for rapid economic impact.
Constitutional and Jurisdictional Concerns:
David Robitaille (University of Ottawa) raised significant concerns about the bill’s potential to encroach on provincial jurisdictions. The broad definition of “national interest” could include projects under provincial control (e.g., natural resources, hydroelectricity), potentially violating the constitutional division of powers. He noted that the bill’s failure to explicitly limit its scope to federal jurisdictions risks being struck down by courts, citing precedents like the Impact Assessment Act ruling.
Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Bloc Québécois) echoed these concerns, highlighting clauses 21–23, which grant the Governor in Council power to override legislation, as a potential federal overreach. He questioned the ethical risks of opaque, minister-driven processes that could pre-approve projects without public or provincial input.
Indigenous Rights and Consultation:
Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak (Assembly of First Nations) strongly criticized the bill for inadequate consultation with First Nations, arguing it violates the principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) as outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). She noted that the consultation period was too brief (information provided only on June 6, 2025), and the bill risks undermining Indigenous rights by allowing cabinet to determine what is in their best interests. She urged splitting the bill and delaying it for proper consultation.
Julie McGregor (AFN) reinforced that Bill C-5 does not operationalize FPIC, rendering it inconsistent with section 5 of the UN Declaration Act (Bill C-15). She highlighted the lack of substantive dialogue and the risk of legal challenges if the bill proceeds without amendments.
Leah Gazan (NDP) questioned whether the bill adheres to UNDRIP’s article 19, which requires FPIC before adopting legislative measures, concluding that the government has not upheld this obligation.
Regulatory and Process Concerns:
Shannon Stubbs (CPC) expressed concerns about the lack of clarity in defining “national interest” and the discretionary power to designate or remove projects, which could deter long-term investment. She questioned why the government does not repeal problematic regulations instead of creating temporary workarounds.
Philip Lawrence (CPC) raised issues about interprovincial trade barriers affecting the electricity sector, suggesting that the bill could have addressed these more explicitly.
Mike Kelloway (Lib.) focused on the potential for job creation in Atlantic Canada, asking about workforce modeling for energy projects enabled by the bill.
Stéphane Lauzon (Lib.) defended the bill as a response to international trade pressures, not an emergency measure, arguing it would align federal, provincial, and municipal efforts for economic growth.
Contentious or Surprising Elements
Inadequate Indigenous Consultation:
Contentious: The strongest criticism came from Indigenous leaders, particularly Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, who described the consultation process as “unreasonably tiny” and inconsistent with UNDRIP’s FPIC requirements. The lack of operational FPIC in the bill and the brief consultation period (information shared only on June 6, 2025) were seen as violating the Crown’s obligations, potentially leading to decades-long legal battles.
Surprising: The government’s failure to engage substantively with First Nations, despite commitments in the May 27, 2025, Speech from the Throne to uphold FPIC, was striking. Woodhouse Nepinak’s call to split the bill and delay it for proper consultation underscored the depth of Indigenous opposition.
Broad Federal Powers and Provincial Jurisdiction:
Contentious: Clauses 21–23, which allow the Governor in Council to override existing legislation, were flagged by Barsalou-Duval and Robitaille as a “power grab” that could encroach on provincial jurisdictions. Robitaille warned that the bill’s broad “national interest” definition risks being struck down by courts, as seen with the Impact Assessment Act.
Surprising: The bill’s failure to explicitly limit its scope to federal jurisdictions, despite the Prime Minister’s stated intent to respect provincial needs, was unexpected given recent constitutional precedents.
Rushed Legislative Process:
Contentious: Multiple witnesses (Swift, Woodhouse Nepinak) and MPs (Stubbs, Barsalou-Duval) criticized the rushed timeline, with only a few weeks of House sittings and a 48-hour window for witness testimonies. This haste was seen as undermining transparency and trust.
Surprising: The urgency to pass such a significant bill before the summer recess, without splitting its two distinct components (trade and infrastructure), was notable, especially given the complexity and potential for legal challenges.
Vague Definition of “National Interest”:
Contentious: The lack of clarity in defining “national interest” was a recurring concern (Stubbs, Bradley, Swift). The discretionary power to designate or remove projects was seen as creating uncertainty for investors, contrary to the bill’s goal of providing predictability.
Surprising: The bill’s reliance on subjective criteria for “national interest” projects, without mandatory factors or clear guidelines, was unexpected given the need for investor confidence.
Override of Existing Legislation:
Contentious: Swift and Stubbs questioned the logic of granting powers to override legislation (e.g., emissions caps, Fisheries Act) rather than repealing problematic laws outright. This approach was seen as creating temporary fixes rather than long-term solutions.
Surprising: The irony, as noted by Swift, that the Liberal government seeks to override its own legislation (e.g., emissions caps) was a notable point, raising questions about policy consistency.
Limited Scope for Non-“National Interest” Projects:
Contentious: Bradley highlighted that many critical electricity projects may not qualify as “national interest,” leaving them subject to cumbersome regulations. This limitation could hinder the bill’s effectiveness in addressing broader infrastructure needs.
Surprising: The bill’s focus on a narrow subset of projects, despite the urgent need for widespread infrastructure upgrades, was unexpected given the scale of Canada’s energy demands.
The Audit: In the absence of any changes to the legislative timeline, what will be the likely fate of this bill? [Note: the AI was unaware that, as of June 26, 2025, Bill C-5 has already received Royal Assent]
Most Likely Scenario
Without changes to the legislative timeline, Bill C-5 is likely to pass in Parliament before the summer recess due to the government’s urgency and potential use of time allocation. The Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act will likely face minimal resistance, while the Building Canada Act may see minor amendments to address consultation concerns, though not enough to satisfy Indigenous or provincial critics. However, the bill’s passage will likely trigger legal challenges from First Nations, citing UNDRIP violations, and possibly from provinces, citing constitutional overreach. These challenges could delay or invalidate key provisions, particularly the override powers in clauses 21–23. Implementation will face hurdles due to investor uncertainty and bureaucratic inefficiencies, resulting in partial success with limited economic impact in the short term. Public and political backlash may grow post-passage, pressuring the government to revisit the bill when Parliament resumes in September 2025.
The Audit: How might the end of the current sitting impact those goals?
Impact of the End of the Current Sitting
The parliamentary sitting, noted as ending shortly after June 17, 2025, after a three-week period, significantly constrains the committee’s ability to implement these steps immediately. Below is an analysis of the impacts:
Time Constraints for Immediate Action:
Challenge: The tight timeline (48 hours for witness testimonies, as noted by Dan Albas) limits the committee’s ability to hear from a broad range of stakeholders, particularly Indigenous communities and provincial representatives. The session’s end prevents further hearings or amendments before the summer recess.
Impact: Critical issues like Indigenous consultation and jurisdictional clarity cannot be fully addressed before the House rises, increasing the risk of passing a flawed bill or facing legal challenges if time allocation is used (as warned by Sébastien Lemire).
Mitigation: The committee can adopt Albas’s motion to compile witness lists and plan a work schedule for the fall, ensuring a robust process when Parliament reconvenes. A committee report requesting a delay could also be submitted before the session ends.
Limited Opportunity for Consultation:
Challenge: The brief consultation period criticized by Woodhouse Nepinak (seven days after June 6, 2025) cannot be extended before the recess, particularly for Indigenous communities facing urgent issues like climate-related evacuations.
Impact: Rushing the bill without proper consultation risks alienating Indigenous rights holders and provinces, potentially leading to legal battles and project delays, as noted by Lemire and McGregor.
Mitigation: Use the summer recess for informal consultations, encouraging MPs to engage with First Nations and provincial leaders in their ridings, as suggested by Woodhouse Nepinak. The committee can prioritize Indigenous hearings in September, aligning with the AFN’s planned meetings.
Inability to Split or Amend the Bill Immediately:
Challenge: Splitting the bill or drafting amendments to address vague definitions and jurisdictional concerns requires more time than the current session allows.
Impact: The bundled bill may progress without resolving contentious issues, reducing its effectiveness and increasing opposition from provinces and Indigenous groups.
Mitigation: Propose a motion to split the bill as a priority when Parliament resumes, using the summer to draft amendments with input from legal and industry experts.
Stakeholder Engagement During Recess:
Challenge: The recess halts formal committee activities, delaying engagement with stakeholders like Electricity Canada, the Public Policy Forum, and provincial governments.
Impact: This delay could slow momentum for refining the bill, but it also provides an opportunity for broader outreach outside the formal parliamentary process.
Mitigation: Encourage committee members to conduct informal consultations over the summer, gathering feedback to inform fall hearings. The clerk can compile written submissions during the recess to prepare for September.
Political and Public Perception:
Challenge: The rushed process and secretive elements (e.g., opaque designation of “national interest” projects) have already eroded trust, as noted by Swift and Stubbs.
Impact: Passing the bill without addressing these concerns could further damage public and investor confidence, undermining its economic goals.
Mitigation: Issue a committee statement acknowledging concerns and committing to a thorough review in the fall, leveraging the recess to build public and stakeholder support.
The Audit: I've uploaded a transcript of the final sitting where Bill C-5 was debated. Were any points from the committee meeting testimony incorporated into the final bill?
Key Points from Committee Testimony and Their Incorporation into the Final Bill
Indigenous Consultation and Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC):
Committee Testimony:
Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak (Assembly of First Nations) emphasized that Bill C-5 lacked operational FPIC, violating UNDRIP and Bill C-15. She criticized the brief consultation period (information provided only on June 6, 2025) and urged splitting the bill or delaying it for proper consultation to avoid legal challenges.
Julie McGregor (AFN) reinforced that the bill’s consultation provisions were inadequate and inconsistent with UNDRIP’s article 19, risking court battles.
Leah Gazan (NDP) questioned the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations on whether FPIC obligations were met, receiving an admission that the process was “accelerated” and lacked full compliance.
Incorporation in Final Bill:
Amendment Attempts: Elizabeth May (Green Party) proposed Motion No. 11, amending Clause 4 to strengthen “participation of the affected Indigenous peoples and the public” (line 13, page 13). This motion was debated but not explicitly confirmed as adopted in the transcript. However, Shannon Stubbs (CPC) noted that Conservative amendments successfully incorporated “a clear map for indigenous consultation, with public reporting to build trust, earn confidence and respect indigenous rights and title” to minimize court challenges. This suggests some enhancement to consultation provisions.
Outcome: The transcript does not confirm that Motion No. 11 was adopted, and no amendments explicitly operationalized FPIC as demanded by Indigenous leaders. Leah Gazan’s speech at third reading (June 20, 2025) indicates ongoing concerns, stating that the Building Canada Act “constitutes a clear breach and violation of indigenous rights” and lacks consent for amending modern land claims agreements (e.g., James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement). The rejection of stronger consultation amendments, as noted by Claude De Bellefeuille (BQ), who said an amendment requiring mandatory consultation with Indigenous nations was voted down by Liberals and Conservatives, confirms that the bill did not fully address FPIC concerns.
Conclusion: Partial incorporation through Conservative amendments for public reporting and consultation processes, but the core demand for mandatory FPIC and pre-designation consultation (as suggested by Woodhouse Nepinak and Gazan) was not met, leaving the bill vulnerable to legal challenges.
Provincial Jurisdiction and Federal Overreach:
Committee Testimony:
David Robitaille (University of Ottawa) warned that the bill’s broad “national interest” definition could encroach on provincial jurisdictions (e.g., natural resources, hydroelectricity), risking constitutional challenges similar to the Impact Assessment Act ruling.
Xavier Barsalou-Duval (BQ) criticized clauses 21–23, which grant the Governor in Council power to override legislation, as a federal power grab, questioning the lack of mandatory provincial consent.
Incorporation in Final Bill:
Amendment Attempts: Conservative amendments, as noted by Shannon Stubbs, were adopted to “ensure provincial consultation and to protect provincial jurisdiction and provincial decision-making power.” These amendments likely addressed some jurisdictional concerns by requiring consultation with provinces, though specific details are not provided in the transcript. Xavier Barsalou-Duval’s Motion No. 1 (deleting Clause 4) and Motion No. 24 (deleting the Schedule) aimed to limit federal overreach but were debated and not confirmed as adopted.
Outcome: The adoption of Conservative amendments requiring provincial consultation suggests partial incorporation of Robitaille’s and Barsalou-Duval’s concerns. However, Claude De Bellefeuille’s speech at third reading highlights ongoing issues, noting that the bill allows discretionary consultation (proposed section 7: “the Minister must consult, if he considers it appropriate”), which does not mandate provincial consent. The Premier of Quebec’s insistence on Quebec-led environmental assessments, as cited by De Bellefeuille, indicates unresolved tensions. The bill’s passage with part 2 intact suggests that the override powers (clauses 21–23) were not removed, maintaining some risk of federal overreach.
Conclusion: Partial incorporation through amendments requiring provincial consultation, but the lack of mandatory consent and retention of override powers leave provincial jurisdiction concerns unfully addressed.
Definition of “National Interest”:
Committee Testimony:
Shannon Stubbs (CPC) and Catherine Swift (Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses) criticized the vague “national interest” definition, arguing it creates investor uncertainty and grants excessive ministerial discretion.
Francis Bradley (Electricity Canada) noted that the limited scope for non-“national interest” projects could exclude critical infrastructure, undermining the bill’s goals.
Incorporation in Final Bill:
Amendment Attempts: Shannon Stubbs stated that Conservatives “succeeded in adding that necessary clarity and structure to a process that started with none” by requiring the government to define “national interest” with clear, specific criteria. Philip Lawrence’s Motions Nos. 21–23 (amending Clause 4, page 21) aimed to clarify the definition by linking it to “prosperity and economic security,” “development of natural resources, energy products and related infrastructure,” and “facilitation of export markets.” These motions were debated but not explicitly confirmed as adopted.
Outcome: Stubbs’ claim of success suggests that some clarity was added to the “national interest” definition, likely through Conservative amendments adopted at the committee stage (as referenced by Kevin Lamoureux, who noted some Bloc and Conservative amendments passed). However, Elizabeth May’s third reading speech criticizes the bill for leaving “national interest” undefined, with schedule 1 blank and decisions left to cabinet discretion without reviewable criteria. This indicates that the amendments did not fully resolve the vagueness concern.
Conclusion: Partial incorporation through Conservative amendments adding some criteria, but the blank schedule 1 and lack of binding, reviewable criteria (as noted by May) suggest that the core issue of vagueness persists.
Regulatory Overrides and Transparency:
Committee Testimony:
Catherine Swift argued for repealing problematic legislation (e.g., emissions caps, Fisheries Act) rather than temporary overrides, which create uncertainty.
Francis Bradley highlighted regulatory burdens on non-“national interest” projects, particularly in the electricity sector, and called for broader streamlining.
Shannon Stubbs criticized the discretionary power to remove projects from the “national interest” list, seeking amendments to limit this and ensure transparency.
Incorporation in Final Bill:
Amendment Attempts: Conservative amendments, as per Stubbs, included requiring a public list of “national interest” projects with timelines, estimated costs, and rationale, as well as applying the Conflict of Interest Act to prevent corruption. Steven MacKinnon’s Motion No. 9 (Clause 4, page 12) amended the bill to include “detailed cost estimates that do not include private sector commercially sensitive financial information,” enhancing transparency. Philip Lawrence’s Motion No. 15 (Clause 4, pages 14–20) addressed procedural clarity by replacing terms like “dissolved” with “prorogued or dissolved.” Marilène Gill’s Motion No. 18 added the Canada Labour Code to the list of laws exempt from overrides, and a Conservative amendment removed the Indian Act from schedule 2, preventing overrides of these laws.
Outcome: The transcript confirms that some Conservative and Bloc amendments were adopted at the committee stage (per Lamoureux and Stubbs), including transparency measures (public list, cost estimates) and exemptions for key laws (Canada Labour Code, Indian Act). However, Stubbs’ amendment to remove the power to delist projects was rejected, as was her proposal for concrete timelines (e.g., one-year permit issuance, 90-day cabinet decisions). Elizabeth May’s Motion No. 19 to add the Species at Risk Act to exempt laws was debated but not confirmed as adopted, and her companion Motion No. 26 was not selected. The retention of override powers (clauses 21–23) and rejection of timeline amendments indicate that Swift’s call for permanent regulatory reform was not addressed.
Conclusion: Significant incorporation of transparency measures (public list, cost estimates, Conflict of Interest Act application) and some exemptions (Canada Labour Code, Indian Act), but the failure to repeal problematic laws or set firm timelines leaves regulatory concerns partially unresolved.
Splitting the Bill:
Committee Testimony:
Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak and Catherine Swift urged splitting Bill C-5 into its two components (Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and Building Canada Act) to allow separate consideration, given their distinct purposes.
Incorporation in Final Bill:
Amendment Attempts: Jenny Kwan (NDP) raised a point of order under Standing Order 69.1, citing Speaker Regan’s 2018 ruling, to request separate votes on part 1 (trade and labour mobility) and part 2 (Building Canada Act). Marilène Gill (BQ) supported this, referencing a letter to the government advocating for the split. The Deputy Speaker’s ruling on June 20, 2025, granted this request, allowing separate votes on part 1 and part 2.
Outcome: The transcript confirms that the Speaker’s ruling enabled separate votes, as evidenced by Divisions No. 33 (part 1 and short title, passed 335–1) and No. 34 (part 2 and schedule, passed 306–31). This directly incorporates the committee’s call to treat the two parts distinctly, allowing MPs to vote based on their constituents’ priorities (e.g., NDP and Greens supported part 1 but opposed part 2).
Conclusion: Fully incorporated through the Speaker’s ruling for separate votes, though the bill itself was not split into two separate pieces of legislation.
Environmental and Worker Protections:
Committee Testimony:
Leah Gazan (NDP) raised concerns about bypassing environmental and worker protections, particularly under the Canada Labour Code.
Yiota Kokkinos (Public Policy Forum) supported environmental protections alongside economic growth but did not specify amendments.
Incorporation in Final Bill:
Amendment Attempts: Marilène Gill’s Motion No. 18 added the Canada Labour Code to the list of laws exempt from overrides, addressing worker protection concerns. Elizabeth May’s Motion No. 19 sought to add the Species at Risk Act to exempt laws, but its adoption is unclear, and Motion No. 26 (removing it from schedule 2) was not selected. No specific amendments addressed broader environmental concerns beyond consultation provisions.
Outcome: The adoption of Motion No. 18 protects the Canada Labour Code, directly addressing Gazan’s worker rights concerns. However, environmental concerns remain unaddressed, as May and Gazan noted at third reading, with the bill still allowing overrides of key environmental laws (e.g., Fisheries Act) and lacking exemptions for others (e.g., Species at Risk Act). Gazan’s reference to Ecojustice’s warning about “sweeping power” to exempt projects from environmental laws suggests ongoing risks.
Conclusion: Partial incorporation through the Canada Labour Code exemption, but environmental protection concerns were not adequately addressed.
Summary of Incorporation
Fully Incorporated:
Splitting the Bill for Voting: The Speaker’s ruling under Standing Order 69.1, prompted by Jenny Kwan and supported by Marilène Gill, allowed separate votes on part 1 and part 2, directly addressing Woodhouse Nepinak’s and Swift’s calls for distinct consideration.
Partially Incorporated:
Indigenous Consultation: Conservative amendments added public reporting and consultation processes, but the lack of mandatory FPIC and pre-designation consultation leaves significant gaps, as criticized by Gazan and May.
Provincial Jurisdiction: Amendments requiring provincial consultation were adopted, but discretionary consultation (proposed section 7) and retained override powers (clauses 21–23) fail to fully address Robitaille’s and Barsalou-Duval’s concerns.
“National Interest” Definition: Conservative amendments added some criteria, but the blank schedule 1 and lack of reviewable criteria mean the definition remains vague, as noted by May.
Transparency and Regulatory Overrides: Amendments for a public project list, cost estimates, Conflict of Interest Act application, and exemptions for the Canada Labour Code and Indian Act address transparency and some override concerns, but the rejection of timeline amendments and retention of override powers leave Swift’s and Bradley’s issues partially unresolved.
Worker Protections: The Canada Labour Code exemption addresses Gazan’s concerns, but broader worker rights issues remain.
Not Incorporated:
Environmental Protections: No significant amendments addressed environmental concerns, with Motion No. 19’s status unclear and Motion No. 26 not selected, leaving the bill open to criticism for weakening standards (Gazan, May).
Repeal of Problematic Laws: Swift’s call to repeal laws like Bill C-69 or emissions caps was not addressed, with the bill relying on overrides instead.
Mandatory Timelines: Stubbs’ proposals for a one-year permit issuance and 90-day cabinet decisions were rejected, leaving Bradley’s call for broader streamlining unmet.
Impact of the Rushed Timeline
The transcript highlights the rushed process, with closure imposed before debate began (Barsalou-Duval, De Bellefeuille) and limited committee time (two hours, per Barsalou-Duval). This constrained the incorporation of testimony, as several amendments (e.g., Motions Nos. 2, 3, 6, 10, 12–14, 17, 20, 25, 26) were not selected because they could have been presented in committee, though Barsalou-Duval argued that clause-by-clause voting after midnight prevented this. The Liberal-Conservative collaboration on time allocation (Lamoureux) prioritized passage over comprehensive amendments, limiting the integration of committee concerns.
Conclusion
The final Bill C-5 incorporated several points from the committee testimony, notably through the Speaker’s ruling to split votes on part 1 and part 2, Conservative amendments for transparency (public list, Conflict of Interest Act), provincial consultation, and exemptions for the Canada Labour Code and Indian Act. However, critical concerns—mandatory FPIC, clear “national interest” criteria, environmental protections, repeal of problematic laws, and firm timelines—were only partially or not addressed, as evidenced by the rejection of key amendments and ongoing criticisms from NDP, Bloc Québécois, and Green Party members at third reading. The bill passed on June 20, 2025, with strong support (335–1 for part 1, 306–31 for part 2), but its vulnerabilities, particularly to Indigenous and provincial legal challenges, remain due to the incomplete incorporation of committee recommendations.