Designed to break down barriers and accelerate the approval of ambitious infrastructure, resource, and energy projects across the country, Bill C-5 is more than a new law—it’s a bold invitation.
As organizations look to the future, the benefits of Bill C-5 are both practical and profound:
- It streamlines approval processes for major projects, reducing administrative bottlenecks and providing greater predictability for proponents.
- It clarifies timelines and expectations, empowering stakeholders to plan with confidence and allocate resources more efficiently.
- It encourages early and meaningful engagement with Indigenous communities and the public, fostering transparency and trust from the outset.
All told, Bill C-5’s framework incentivizes collaboration, partnership and innovation, ensuring that projects move forward with a shared sense of purpose. By balancing streamlined processes with rigorous environmental and social standards, Bill C-5 aims to ensure that growth is both responsible and inclusive—provided that developers take the lead on building critical alignment and making the investments necessary to accelerate project development.
But let’s be clear: Bill C-5 isn’t a magic wand. It doesn’t guarantee a project’s success or wave away the need for careful planning, Indigenous consultation, public engagement or adherence to rigorous environmental standards. It also isn’t a “free ride” and doesn’t replace the hard work of building consensus, the sustained activity necessary to keep projects on the PONI list, or the responsibility to act with integrity. What it does offer is a smarter, more efficient framework—one that rewards readiness, partnership and vision.
Put another way: as promising as Bill C-5 may be, it isn’t without its share of challenges and potential pitfalls. For starters, streamlining approval processes, while intended to reduce delays, risks oversimplifying the realities of major project development.
That’s because the legislation’s ambition to clarify timelines and expectations hinges on effective coordination—any breakdown in communication between stakeholders and rightsholders could result in confusion, missed deadlines or conflicts that derail progress. We’ve seen this before. After all, Bill C-5 isn’t the first attempt to streamline approval processes over the past couple of decades—historically with limited success.
Moreover, the essential requirement for early and meaningful engagement with Indigenous communities and the public introduces its own set of complexities. If consultation is approached as a mere checkbox rather than genuine dialogue, trust may erode and opposition may intensify. Designating a project as “of National Interest” could inadvertently sideline local concerns. And there remains the risk that prioritizing expediency could overshadow the careful planning and consensus-building needed for truly sustainable growth. To make it across the finish line, projects will do well not only to have met consultative requirements but also to have embraced Indigenous ownership structures, governance models and co-development.