From Gridlock to Greenlight? What Alberta Businesses Need to Know About Bill C-5

By: Laura McPhee, Grant Sprague, and Doug Schweitzer

Tabled on 6 June 2025 as the “One Canadian Economy Act,” Bill C-5 bundles two distinct—but complementary—statutes under a single cover.

Part 1 – Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act pares back duplicative federal rules so that goods, services, and federally regulated occupations that already satisfy a provincial or territorial standard can move across provincial borders with far less extra paperwork.

Part 2 – Building Canada Act creates an accelerated, one-window federal pathway for projects the Governor-in-Council deems to be “national interest projects,” streamlining the authorisations those projects need under a list of specified federal Acts and regulations.

In this blog, we’ll start by unpacking Part 1’s deemed-equivalency rules and what they mean for day-to-day business operations. We’ll then turn to Part 2 to explore how the new fast-track regime could reshape timelines for large infrastructure and resource developments.

Part 1 - Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act 

At its simplest, the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act tells federal regulators that when a good, service, or professional licence already meets a provincial or territorial rule, Ottawa must treat it as compliant for interprovincial purposes unless it formally decides otherwise. It is important to note that provincial regulators retain full authority to govern industries and activities falling within their jurisdiction, provided their regulations are not primarily aimed at restricting trade.

For Alberta companies interacting with federal undertakings, that promise is anything but abstract. Imagine provincially certified Red Seal tradespeople who, at present, need fresh paperwork before stepping onto federally regulated work sites in Fort McMurray. Bill C-5, on paper, cuts through those headaches. It says: if it’s legal under one province’s standards, it’s good enough for the federal rulebook—provided the two standards cover the same aspect of the good or service and aim at comparable policy goals such as safety or environmental protection.

How the Key Sections Work

Sections 8 through 10 form the backbone:

• Section 8 deems provincially compliant goods to meet comparable federal standards;

• Section 9 applies the same logic to services;

• Section 10 requires federal licensing bodies to recognize comparable provincial credentials.

Sections 11 and 12 give Cabinet wide discretion to write regulations and shield regulators from liability for good-faith decisions, while Section 13 mandates a five-year review of how the Act is working in practice.

What This Means on the Ground in Alberta

Alberta’s beef processors are watching Bill C‑5 closely. Under Section 8, a HACCP[1] plan approved by Alberta regulators could be deemed compliant with federal requirements under the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR), allowing meat to move to provinces like Ontario or Quebec without duplicative CFIA licensing or inspection. This change could shave days off the supply chain, reduce compliance costs, and expand interprovincial market access—particularly for smaller processors previously limited to intraprovincial sales. Provincial oversight remains intact, but federal friction is (intended to be) reduced.

A Calgary software firm specialises in cyber-security audits built around Alberta’s information-security framework. Section 9 would allow the federal Crown corporation that owns a trans-provincial rail system to accept those Alberta-based audit protocols—provided the objectives and controls line up with Ottawa’s own cyber-security guidelines. The firm avoids running two parallel audit methodologies, while the Crown corporation accelerates vendor onboarding. Still, if the same firm advises a provincially regulated utility in Saskatchewan, it must respect that province’s separate data-security rules.

Further, imagine a crane operator certified in Ontario is contracted to work on a federally regulated expansion at an airport in Fort McMurray. The federal aviation regulator must accept the provincial credential under Section 10, provided it’s equivalent. This eliminates delays caused by duplicative credential vetting, especially during labour shortages. However, if the crane operator wanted to work on provincially regulated sites, they’d still need to meet Alberta’s licensing requirements.

In sum, the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act’s core reforms—particularly Sections 8 through 10—offer tangible efficiency gains for Alberta businesses operating across provincial lines or in federally regulated projects. Whether you're exporting beef, or providing services to or staffing national infrastructure projects, the legislation seeks to cut through layers of redundant federal approval processes without displacing provincial authority.

The Shadows Behind the Sunshine

None of this happens automatically. The Act’s promise hinges on how Cabinet defines “comparable,” how generous or cautious regulators feel when the first test cases land on their desks, and whether provinces decide to fight Ottawa in court. In the meantime, businesses may face a transition period where the old rules technically remain in force until new regulations are drafted and these test cases happen.

Provinces possess constitutional jurisdiction over property and civil rights, and some may view blanket federal recognition of provincial standards as an intrusion and push back. Importantly, the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2018 decision in R. v. Comeau reaffirmed that provinces can impose certain regulatory restrictions so long as they are not designed primarily to impede trade—even if they have incidental effects on interprovincial commerce. The decision left many trade barriers intact, which will remain unaffected by the Act.  In this context, courts will likely be asked where the line lies between legitimate federal trade regulation and unwarranted federal overreach.

Taking the Next Step

The prudent move for Alberta companies is to treat Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act as an oncoming reality rather than a distant possibility. Identify every point where federal rules currently bite—rail sidings, interprovincial pipelines, airport projects, federal lands. Gather evidence today that your Alberta certifications meet or exceed federal objectives; those dossiers can speed favourable equivalency rulings when regulators start deciding what is “comparable.” And stay in the conversation: Ottawa is about to consult on the regulations that give this statute life. Written submissions and industry coalition work in the next few months may shape the rules your business lives under for years.

Bill C-5 will not end every, or even many, interprovincial trade barrier, but it puts federal muscle behind the promise of a single Canadian market. For a province whose exports depend on friction-free access to domestic and foreign buyers, that is a development worth following—and influencing—every step of the way.

Part 2 – Building Canada Act 

For years, entrepreneurs have complained that federal project reviews feel like running an obstacle course wearing ankle weights while blindfolded. An interprovincial pipeline, a hydrogen hub, even a highway-widening project can bounce among the Impact Assessment Agency, Fisheries and Oceans, Parks Canada, the Canada Energy Regulator and a cast of other regulators before anyone sinks a shovel in the ground. Timelines balloon, investors get jittery, and cost overruns loom.

The BCA promises to blow up that maze. Cabinet alone could declare a proposed project to be “in the national interest” and add it to a new Schedule 1. The moment that happens, the rules purportedly shift. Findings that would normally be needed under seventeen different Acts and regulations are automatically deemed favourable. Instead of slogging through multiple permits, the proponent walks away with a single, consolidated authorization signed by whichever federal minister is designated under the statute. Conditions still attach—think of them as fine print—but they travel together in one tidy package rather than scattered across half a dozen departments.

Green Light or Gridlock?

From an Alberta vantage point, the upside is obvious. Whether you build critical-minerals processing in Medicine Hat or a carbon-capture corridor outside Red Deer, the federal stopwatch should tick faster. However, the newfound velocity comes with unfamiliar risks.

First is litigation risk. This new process of consolidating federal requirements is likely to be controversial with those who are deeply concerned with various topics from fisheries habitat to greenhouse gases. Litigation is not a maybe; it is a near-certainty.

Second, all that streamlined federal discretion lands in one minister’s lap, and the Building Canada Act explicitly shields both Cabinet orders and the consolidated authorization from the Statutory Instruments Act. That means no formal registration, no draft for public comment, no parliamentary scrutiny committee. Critics will describe this as executive power in overdrive. Courts will be asked whether such insulation offends broader principles of transparency and the rule of law.

Third, and perhaps most practically, the duty to consult Indigenous peoples remains. The Act requires consultation before a project is listed in Schedule 1, and again before any conditions are amended, but it does not mandate consent. What we have learned from the past is that the Federal government is not good at doing effective indigenous consultations. First Nations and Métis communities—many of whom have fought hard for robust, participatory consultation—may see the BCA as an end-run to meaningful consultation. If so, expect judicial review applications that seek injunctions while the courts test-drive this new model.

Where does that leave a Calgary energy startup or an Edmonton logistics consortium? It leaves them strategically rethinking chronology. Engagement with Ottawa can no longer be an afterthought; it is now Phase One, Day One. Proponents would be wise to enter the federal arena early, armed with credible studies that couch their project in the language Cabinet itself has written into section 5 of the Act: resilience, autonomy, Indigenous partnership, climate alignment, etc. Secure that “national-interest” label, and months—sometimes years—may fall from the timeline.

But don’t let the federal green light lull you. Alberta’s own regulators—the AER, the Alberta Utilities Commission, municipal development authorities—still control land, water, and intraprovincial infrastructure. None of those statutes vanish when the Federal minister’s consolidated document appears. In practice you will be navigating two lanes: a newly-paved expressway in Ottawa and the familiar provincial highway system. Overlap, or even outright conflict, is possible.

Further, the major question remains with respect to the Impact Assessment Act. While the federal government has promised “one project, one review,” it is unclear whether that promise extends to the Impact Assessment Act itself — or merely to the consolidation of permits under other statutes. The Impact Assessment Act remains one of the most administratively burdensome and procedurally complex federal statutes in the project development space. Even in its streamlined form, it demands extensive baseline studies, cumulative effects analyses, Indigenous knowledge reports, climate modelling, and socio-economic assessments — all before any shovels hit the ground. If the promise of single-window approval does not include a true simplification of Impact Assessment Act requirements, the core bottleneck may remain intact, albeit dressed in more centralized clothing.

Turbulence

Proponents would still be wise to budget for turbulence. Because the BCA bundles multiple authorizations into one document, an injunction that blocks any part of that document may freeze the entire project. Financing models should assume court delays, and EPC contracts should spell out who eats the cost if a judge hits pause. Early alliance with Indigenous communities—equity partnerships, revenue-sharing agreements, Indigenous-led monitoring—can turn potential litigants into proponents, shrinking the window for courtroom surprises.

Conclusion

In short, Bill C‑5 offers something rare from Ottawa: speed. But that speed is fueled by a concentration of federal power that’s all but certain to trigger constitutional disputes and draw scrutiny from those working in dual-regulated sectors, environmental law, and Indigenous rights. What looks like streamlining on paper may, in practice, invite new layers of legal and jurisdictional conflict.

Part 1 of the legislation—the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act—quietly rewires the regulatory framework for goods, services, and licensed occupations under the banner of interprovincial trade. For Alberta businesses, the promise of fewer duplicative approvals and faster market access may be real—but conditional. Everything depends on how federal regulators interpret the vague and legally untested standard of “comparability.” The Cabinet’s broad discretion to decide what qualifies—and what doesn’t—risks creating new uncertainty in place of the old. While provincial jurisdiction is formally preserved, the federal government has claimed for itself a sweeping gatekeeping role over which provincial standards count as good enough. For many businesses, that may mean not less red tape—but red tape with a different address.

Part 2 of the legislation—the Building Canada Act—offers speed, but at a constitutional and procedural cost. It centralizes federal approvals for so-called “national interest projects” into a single ministerial authorization, bypassing the multi-agency gauntlet that has long defined major project reviews. While this promises efficiency for Alberta developers in energy, logistics, and critical minerals, it also sidelines transparency, weakens public oversight, and shields Cabinet decisions from the usual checks under the Statutory Instruments Act. The duty to consult Indigenous communities remains—but without any requirement for consent, raising the risk of litigation and injunctions that could freeze entire projects. For proponents, the fast lane may look appealing, but it comes with sharper turns, looser guardrails, and far greater legal exposure than the government lets on.

If you plan to build anything large and lasting between now and 2030, the smart move is to treat the Building Canada Act as both an opportunity and a live grenade. Handle it deftly, engage early, and you may reach ground-breaking ceremonies faster than you ever thought possible. Ignore its complexities, and you could find your project stuck in the very gridlock the Act was meant to cure—this time in a courtroom instead of a regulatory office.

For tailored advice on positioning your Alberta operations or project under Bill C-5, reach out to the lawyers at Blue Rock Law.

[1] A Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points plan is a systematic written document outlining how a food business identifies, evaluates, and controls food safety hazards.