About a (Omni)Bus? (including activities)

A Major Omnibus Bill

The federal government has introduced Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act. It is designed to speed up approvals for major infrastructure, energy, transportation, and trade-corridor projects. The government says projects should receive federal decisions within one year once a complete application is submitted.

Why is it being proposed?

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government argues that Canada needs to build more quickly because:

• US tariffs and trade pressure threaten Canadian jobs.
• Canada relies too heavily on a limited number of export routes and markets.
• Housing, energy, ports, mines, and transportation infrastructure are urgently needed.
• Long approval processes can and have discouraged investment.
• Canada needs more economic independence and resilient supply chains.

The bill would create clearer project-review processes, designate strategic trade corridors, and coordinate federal permitting. The government presents it as a way to strengthen energy security, create jobs, and get Canadian goods to new markets.

How is it different from C-5?

C-5, passed last year, was a broad law that created temporary powers and mechanisms for advancing projects or measures considered to be in the national interest. C-39 is specifically focused on fast-tracking major projects seen to be in the national interest by speeding up federal environmental reviews, coordinating Indigenous consultations, and changing the rules governing labour disruptions in areas of federal jurisdiction. If passed as proposed, C-39 would create a more permanent framework for fast-tracking major projects and coordinating approvals. In particular, it would remove the five-year time limit on some of the powers created by C-5, in theory making them normal features of government.

Why is C-39 already controversial?

• Environmental organizations fear that speed targets could weaken environmental assessment, climate review, or public participation in decision-making. They worry that national interest projects could receive approval before their long-term environmental effects are understood.
• First Nations and Indigenous organizations are concerned that faster timelines could reduce consultation and interfere with Indigenous rights, title, and consent. The government says the bill upholds Indigenous rights, but critics will judge that claim by how much decision-making power Indigenous governments and nations actually retain. Many Indigenous nations argue that meaningful consultation requires time for relationship-building, community discussion and deliberation – not simply faster administrative deadlines.
• Labour organizations worry that the bill could weaken the right to strike by making it easier for the government to intervene in strikes or lockouts in federally regulated sectors deemed to be in the national interest. Labour unions – an important voting bloc for the government and opposition – have already stated that C-39 would weaken their hand when negotiating future wages.

What’s an omnibus bill and why are they controversial?

An omnibus bill combines many legal changes in one large package. Governments like omnibus bills because they can move a broad agenda through Parliament efficiently. Critics object that:

• Parliament has less time to study each measure.
• Unrelated or technical changes can be hidden among popular policies.
• Committees and public consultations may be compressed.
• MPs may feel forced to vote for an entire package rather than individual provisions.
• Large bills can reduce transparency and weaken meaningful opposition.

In fact, former prime minister Stephen Harper tried to push through very similar omnibus bills that were met with fierce criticism from all opposition parties, including the Liberals. National protests – including the Indigenous-led Idle No More movement – focused on the bills’ undemocratic character and helped contribute to Harper’s defeat in the 2015 election.

Why C-39 really matters

Thanks to the threats from the south and the ever-growing cost-of-living crisis, the times have changed since the last time a bill like this was proposed at this scale. But concerns around environmental sustainability, workers’ rights and Indigenous consent haven’t just disappeared. 

Bill C-39 presents a central democratic trade-off: Can Canada act quickly without excluding the people most affected by a project? After all, if decisions are faster but communities have less ability to challenge them, public trust may decline. This is especially true given the nature of C-39.

By proposing an omnibus bill that combines major changes into one package, the government may make meaningful parliamentary debate and scrutiny more difficult. That has the potential to erode democracy in Canada, and so too does the extension of emergency powers first passed with C-5. By giving the prime minister and his cabinet more power over deciding what is in the national interest, fewer and fewer Canadians will have a say in decisions, given that all regions and peoples are represented in Parliament and not necessarily in the Prime Minister’s Office or Cabinet. Though Mark Carney enjoys incredible support in the polls, the powers being created or extended by C-39 will outlast the Carney government and will be available to future governments – whether popular and unpopular. 

Though the legislation might test Carney’s slim majority – some MPs have raised concerns about the bill – it is still likely to pass given the support of Conservative MPs. Other than from within caucus, who might oppose the bill? The NDP and the Greens, for sure, but they have a limited presence in the House. In fact, the Bloc might emerge as the bill’s most effective opponent, given their seat count. That could spell trouble in Quebec, where the separatist Parti Québécois is ahead in the polls. 

More than anything, C-39 threatens to renew old debates (in court and across cultural and regional divides), testing our unity on the issues we face at a critical time in the nation’s history. Canada does need pipelines, ports, mines, electricity systems, and railways to reduce our dependence on the United States. But omnibus bills and executive powers have the potential to undermine democratic rights and processes. And if fast-tracked projects damage ecosystems or ignore Indigenous rights, Canada may gain short-term economic capacity while weakening the country in other respects. 

That means the key question is this: Is a faster approval process and more executive powers, provided through an omnibus bill, a way of avoiding difficult yet important democratic and environmental scrutiny – or a necessary national response in a time of unprecedented crisis?

Want to know more?

Better understand Indigenous rights in Social Studies Chapter Three, how decisions are made in Social Studies Chapter Four (including how our approval processes work), or why bill C-39 is being proposed and opposed by watching our full Canada at a Crossroads series. 

Companion Story

A Final Thought

Canada is facing several linked choices: who should make decisions, how quickly governments should act, and how to protect democratic rights while responding to economic, environmental and security pressures. In each case, the central question is whether national urgency – the trade war, sovereignty threats, environmental concerns, constitutional rights, technological trade-offs, or public safety – justifies concentrating more power in governments and moving faster than normal democratic processes usually allow.

When governments claim that a crisis requires speed, what democratic safeguards should remain? Who decides what counts as a national-interest project? Can economic sovereignty be strengthened without sacrificing environmental protection or Indigenous rights? Does political instability make stronger executive leadership necessary, or does it make checks and balances more important? How should we respond when social media spreads fear, conspiracy theories or AI-generated falsehoods, especially targeting these questions? And what responsibilities do governments, media companies, political parties, and individuals have in protecting minority rights and ensuring democratic participation?

These are the questions. Over to you.

Activities by Subject