THE FEDERAL government is asking Canadians to concede some fundamental values and hard won legal reforms and regulations as a means of expediting its economic development agenda.
Bill C-15, an Act to implement certain provisions of the 2025 budget, proposed legislation is a voluminous 600-page omnibus bill containing numerous budgetary provisions and procedures. But tucked away in its centre, in the ‘Red Tape Reduction Act’ part of the bill, is a piece of legislation of extraordinary scope and power.
Under the bill, government ministers are handed unilateral power to by-pass federal laws when testing new products and services.
A minister in Prime Minister Carney’s government has merely to proclaim that ‘in their opinion’ a proposed project is ‘in the public interest’ and federal laws and regulations can be set aside. Testing could be done anywhere, including in the marketplace, and the exemption period can last up to six years.
Profoundly sweeping in possible application, this provision in Bill C-15 can set aside any environmental or labour law. Only the criminal code is excluded. Under the Bill’s broad and vague criteria, countless projects could be considered without any requirement to consult impacted stakeholders.
A project could, for example, bypass the Impact Assessment Act, which is designed to protect the environment and Indigenous rights, including biodiversity loss, cumulative environmental impacts, and Canada’s legally binding climate targets.
The Bill would also allow for shorter, narrower environmental reviews that don’t properly assess the impact on ecosystems, communities, or sustainability. This far-reaching could, for example, sideline the Canada Labour Code, Canada’s two federal privacy laws, the Hazardous Products Act and the Explosives Act. Could it impact food and drug safety, or be used in high-risk areas such as nuclear energy, weapons, artificial intelligence, or carbon capture? Will it be used to waive immigration and refugee protections or workers’ rights? It could mean all of the above, if a minister says so.
The public has reacted swiftly to the unprecedented reach of this proposed legislation. Over 6000 people across Canada have written to their MPs and Prime Minister Carney demanding that the provision be removed. Various civil society groups have presented briefs responding to Bill C-15. The Centre Québécois du droit l’environnement, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Democracy Watch, and Seniors for Climate Action Now! have asked for this section of Bill C-15 to be removed.
In response to the widespread public criticism, the government recently proposed to add what it calls ‘guardrails.’ The Conservatives have responded with a number of amendments. But even with the changes the ministerial powers are still far too broad. The amendments are inadequate. Environmental laws are notably absent from the list of amendments.
This cannot be fixed or constrained by guardrails. Laws adopted democratically by the representatives of the people in parliament should not be seen as an inconvenience. They represent years of advocacy, debate, hard-won reforms, and legal structures.
A worrying legislative trend
C-15 expands on measures already enacted under Bill C-5 federally and Bill 5 in Ontario. Taken together these developments are a worrying trend.
Bill C 15 emphasizes regulatory exemptions when ‘testing’ a product, service. The scope of the measure is cause for alarm. What exactly is to be tested? Small modular reactors (SMRs) come to mind. The government has not yet decided on the final design of the SMRs to be constructed at the Darlington site. Several concepts may need to be tested before a final design is approved and construction can commence. The provisions of Bill C-15 allow for the freedom to experiment with the technical feasibility of different designs without the ‘encumbrance’ of any form of impact assessment.
Ontario’s Bill 5, the so-called “Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act”, passed in June 2025, allows the province to designate ‘special economic zones’ that bypass environmental regulations and labour law. According to the Ontario government’s news release, this approach is “cutting red tape and speeding up approvals for major projects.”
Critics refer instead to ‘special lawless zones,’ where economic interests may be pursued without the ‘encumbrance’ of environmental protections or labour laws, potentially allowing suspension of basic worker protections and paving the way to violate Indigenous Treaty rights. Shortly after passing Bill 5, the Ford government moved quickly to establish the Ring of Fire as a ‘special economic zone’.
The Ford government has aggressively supported development and expansion of mining in the Ring of Fire over the known and ongoing opposition to exploratory mining without consent by Treaty 9 Indigenous peoples. Along with the ‘special economic zone’ designation, the province proposed changes to the Water Resources Act in December 2025to allow hundreds of mineral exploration companies to take water for early-stage work without a permit. The province defends alterations to the Act as a means “to accelerate critical mineral development in Ontario, boost the province’s economy and support job creation.”
The Ontario government’s naming of the Ring of Fire as a special economic zone coincides with a 2023 legal action from ten Treaty 9 First Nations, including Attawapiskat and Apitipi Anicinapek Nation, and now before the courts. This $95-billion lawsuit accuses the Ontario and federal governments of breaching Treaty 9 “by granting rights and authorizing activities in and to” land in the area “without the plaintiffs’ consent, especially where such regulation threatens their way of life.”
The province is seeking to dismiss the First Nations legal action, claiming that Treaty 9 does not supersede Crown sovereignty over the affected lands.
Fast-tracking, hand in hand
The federal government and the province of Ontario are working hand in hand to fast track development. Ottawa and Ontario signed a deal to eliminate duplicative work on the federal government’s environmental impact assessments on large projects, including the Ring of Fire. The deal allows Ontario to take the lead in environmental assessments of “primarily provincially regulated” projects.
If Ontario’s actions are an indication of government’s intent, there’s reason to be wary of the unprecedented power under the federal Bill C-15 and whether it will also be used to push forward projects without regard to environmental impacts and/or to pre-empt opposition to a project.
The federal government’s “Projects in the National Interest” under Bill C-5 that are designated to be “fast-tracked” include some that are outrightly opposed by Indigenous peoples. The Ksi Lisims liquified natural gas (LNG) facility at Kitimat BC, along with a new transmission line and the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Pipeline (PRGT), are slated to be fast-tracked. Affected First Nations have consented to neither. There are legal challenges by two different Indigenous nations against Ksi Lisims. Indigenous peoples have set up blockades against the PRGT’s construction and are seeking to have the PRGT’s environmental certificate revoked.
In rushing through Ontario’s Bill 5, and Canada’s Bill C-15 and Bill C-5 without consultation with Indigenous nations, the federal and provincial governments are violating the principle of free, prior and informed consent stated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which Canada has endorsed.
That such undemocratic and unaccountable power could be used to sweep aside environmental and labour protections should concern us all.
The federal government defended the proposed departure from existing laws in Bill C 15, comparing the approach to that of a ‘regulatory sandbox’, where a new idea or initiative can be ‘tested’ without hindrance of existing controls or safeguards.
This is a misuse of the “sandbox” concept. Its original intent was conceived by international agencies such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. For the OECD, the sandbox is small, compact, and of limited extent and duration. Its purpose is to encourage businesses to test and try out innovative approaches in support of their commercial objectives.
The government’s sandbox represents an edifice of much greater reach and power. It would extend exemptions to individuals and government entities, along with businesses. It also widens the purpose to encourage ‘competitiveness’ and ‘economic growth’. Also troubling is the government’s hands off posture. While most waivers provided by a regulatory sandbox are temporary, Bill C-15’s new power has a six-year cap that can be extended. Environment law non-profit Ecojustice, in its recent brief to the House of Commons Finance Committee, specifies that while “regulatory sandboxes” can be found in some Canadian legislation, the current proposed amendments extend “far beyond the traditional scope of regulatory sandboxes”.
This includes protecting those who play in the sandbox. A minister who exempts a product, service, process or procedure from legislation is allowed discretion in how much information about a decision is shared with the public. A government minister who invokes an exemption is effectively above the law without being subject to any kind of review or challenge by Parliament.
The Alto high speed rail connection
Bill C-15 also introduces significant changes to the federal expropriation process, particularly for high-speed rail projects. The Bill’s High Speed Rail Network Act would give Alto, the Crown corporation building the Quebec City - Toronto rail line, sweeping new powers to freeze land for up to two years, accelerate expropriation, and bypass independent oversight. The Bill eliminates the requirement to attempt a purchase under the Expropriations Act before expropriating land for public works, allowing direct expropriation if the Minister concludes that the land is required for public work. It also removes the requirement for public hearings to entertain objections to expropriations, significantly reducing safeguards.
Already, residents in Kingston and surrounding regions are fighting the Alto proposal, which outlines two possible routes. The proposed ‘southern route’ would sever the Frontenac Arch, a UNESCO biosphere, and negatively impact the environment, local communities and rural residents who will derive absolutely no benefit. The project will sever local roads, disrupt local services and transportation, and impact the watershed. Under Bill C-15, Alto will be able to expropriate, without public hearings or a mechanism for objections, from the people and communities that will be impacted.
We need better, low carbon, public transportation options. But a high-speed rail should connect communities and serve people, not divide them. The changes to the Expropriations Act in Bill C-15 are yet another example of governments pursuing development at the expense of people, communities and the environment. The use of legislation to suppress consultation and opposition must be rejected.
Erosion of Democracy
Government accountability is a core tenet of democracy. It is astonishing to see the government try to invoke special immunity for their cabinet ministers and allow decisions to be made behind closed doors. It should also be noted that the lack of meaningful limits on such sweeping discretionary power create fertile ground for corruption.
Generations of Canadians and First Nations have fought for decades to achieve our current environmental, social, health and safety, workplace and human rights protections. But these laws, meant to protect us, are too often viewed by businesses and the current government as “an administrative burden.” Driven by the vision outlined in its 2025 Budget of “building the strongest economy of the G7” and becoming “an energy superpower,” the Carney government is determined to clear the way for economic interests including setting aside hard won social, labour and environmental protections. C-15 is yet another tool for this purpose.
As Bill C-15 has come under growing scrutiny, the sections of greatest concern are being re-negotiated. This is an important moment to become informed and active in fighting to have the undemocratic parts of Bill C-15 scrapped completely. What is clear is that public pressure is working.
More information with regard to Bill C 15 ‘Red Tape Reduction Act’ may be found at Seniors for Climate Action Now. And with regard the changes to the Bill C-15 changes to expropriations, one valuable source of information is the citizen-led research and analysis that aims to provide factual information to help residents and communities understand the issues associated with the development, construction and implementation of the proposed ALTO high speed rail.
Nancy Nicol is a Kingston resident and Professor Emerita York University. In 2025, she completed the documentary film, Later is Too Late.
Martin Bush, PhD, is a chemical engineer and author of two books on climate change and renewable energy. He lives in Toronto.
They are both members of Seniors for Climate Action Now.
 | A guest post by
|