Bill C-5 · 45th Parliament · Mark Carney
One Canadian Economy Act
An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 6, 2025
- Debated in principleJune 16, 2025
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 20, 2025
- Passed the second chamberJune 26, 2025
- Became lawJune 26, 2025
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Mark CarneyPrime Minister
- Hassan YussuffSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Pierre MoreauSenate · Government Representative in the Senate
- The Assistant Deputy SpeakerConservative
- Guillaume Deschênes-ThériaultLiberalPresents the bill's measures as central to the government's election commitments.
- Kevin Lamoureux20 interventions in debateDescribes the bill as fulfilling the mandate to build one strong Canadian economy.
- Chrystia Freeland8 interventions in debateMoved the bill and cites strong cross-party support for acting now.
- Hon. Steven MacKinnon8 interventions in debateExplicitly endorses the bill as fulfilling election promises and enabling labor mobility.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 6 June 2025, the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy introduced Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act One Canadian Economy Act) and it was given first reading. Part 1 enacts the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act, which establishes a statutory framework to remove federal barriers to the interprovincial trade of goods and services and to improve labour mobility within Canada. In the case of goods and services, that Act provides that a good or service that meets provincial or territorial requirements is considered to meet comparable federal requirements that pertain to the interprovincial movement of the good or provision of the service. In the case of workers, it provides for the recognition of provincial and territorial authorizations to practise occupations and for the issuance of comparable federal authorizations to holders of such provincial and territorial authorizations. It also provides the Governor in Council with the power to make regulations respecting federal barriers to the interprovi…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
3rd reading and adoption of Bill C-5 · 2025-06-20 · Passed
- Voted for: 306
- Voted against: 31
- Paired: 2
- Did not vote: 3
For it 288
Voted for it, or spoke in support
and 248 more
Challenging it 23
Support only with changes, or serious objections raised in debate
Against it 26
Voted against it and argued against it
How it changed on the way
23% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (5,227 words introduced, 6,718 passed). A committee amended it.
moderate changeintent mostly kept
The bill retained its core framework for removing interprovincial trade barriers and approving national interest projects but added new transparency, consent, and oversight rules. Changes expanded project descriptions, required provincial consent and conflict checks, created a public registry, and mandated annual independent reviews.
- Added requirement for 30-day Canada Gazette notice and provincial written consent before adding projects to Schedule 1.
After: “Publication and consent of province or territory (1.1) Before adding the name of a project to Schedule 1, the Governor in Council must cause a notice of 30 days, that includes the name and description of the project, to be published in the Canada Gazette and must consult with the government of the province or territory in which the project will be carried out, and obtain its written consent if the project falls within areas of exclusive provincial or territorial jurisdiction.”
- Added definition of national interest with criteria and reporting on delays.
After: “National interest 4.1 (1) The Governor in Council may, by order, for the purposes of section 5, define national interest . Criteria (2) In order to promote transparency and predictability, an order made under subsection (1) must set out specific criteria that must be met by the proponent of a project in order for the project to be found to be in the national interest.”
- Added annual independent review of each national interest project status.
After: “and (d) requires that minister, each year, to cause an independent review to be conducted of the status of each national interest project.”
- Added conflict of interest conditions before recommending project orders.
After: “Conditions — conflict of interest (6.1) Before recommending that an order be made under subsection (1), the Minister must be satisfied that (a) the proponent of the project, or any director, officer or significant shareholder of the proponent, has not been found to have committed a violation under the Conflict of Interest Act and is not the subject of an ongoing proceeding in respect of a violation under that Act;”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill relies heavily on subjective ministerial opinions, undefined comparability tests, and broad regulatory powers rather than fixed objective criteria. This leaves core decisions about projects, requirements, and authorizations open to prolonged interpretation.
Open to argument
“if the Governor in Council is of the opinion, having regard to certain factors, that the project is in the national interest”
Replaces any objective test with a purely subjective ministerial judgment.“the Minister must be satisfied that, with regard to any foreign investments in the project, all necessary measures have been taken”
Uses a personal satisfaction standard instead of measurable conditions.“the Minister considers appropriate”
Grants unlimited discretion over who must be consulted.“intended to achieve a similar objective”
Vague similarity test that invites argument over purpose and scope.
Clear-cut
“a notice of 30 days, that includes the name and description of the project”
Specifies exact content and timing of the notice.
Discretion. Ministers decide who to consult, whether requirements are comparable, whether projects are in the national interest, and what conditions to impose, while the Governor in Council holds sweeping regulation-making power over exceptions and obligations.
Challenging the law itself. Broad subjective language and undefined terms such as 'national interest' and 'comparable' readily engage the Charter doctrines of vagueness and overbreadth, particularly regarding section 35 rights.
Disputing a charge under it. Subjective standards like ministerial satisfaction and similarity of objectives make it difficult for a person to prove they have or have not breached the rules.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.