NORTHERN ONTARIO—Tariffs—the economic thunderclaps shaking supply chains and squeezing profits—becomes the perfect storm that two seemingly opposing parties are reaching into the same toolbox to wield.
While federal Bill C-5 and Ontario’s Bill 5 appear to address different policy areas—one focused on “sustainable jobs,” the other on “economic zones”—their timing and structure suggest a shared approach: easing regulatory constraints in order to accelerate private-sector-led development. One sets a national framework; the other operates at the provincial level.
The promise: cut the red tape and clear a fast lane for investment to race through.
Bill C-5, tabled by the federal government on June 6—just one day after Ontario passed Bill 5—positions itself as a jobs and climate transition strategy. It outlines a vision for economic growth through the creation of advisory bodies and transition plans intended to support Canada’s shift toward a net-zero economy. However, it does not contain binding protections for workers, enforceable environmental standards or clear requirements for Indigenous consent. The legislation emphasizes flexibility, consultation and industry partnership, leaving the implementation of protections largely to future policy instruments or market actors.
Ontario’s Bill 5, passed on June 5, grants the provincial government broad authority to establish Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in which existing labour, environmental and planning laws can be suspended or modified. These decisions rest entirely with cabinet, with no formal requirement for public consultation or municipal consent. Critics argue that this opens the door to a level of deregulation not seen in other parts of the province, creating exceptions to long-standing public safeguards.
Together, the two bills appear to represent a coordinated shift in governance. Bill C-5 signals a federal commitment to economic transition through flexible, investor-friendly policy tools, while Bill 5 creates the legal infrastructure for fast-tracked development in Ontario.
Both rely heavily on executive discretion and reduce the role of regulatory oversight in key development zones.
Concerns have been raised by labour unions, Indigenous Nations and environmental advocates regarding the potential for these measures to establish a two-tiered regulatory landscape—in which protections are unevenly applied and subject to political discretion. Critics also note the limited mechanisms for accountability or community participation in either bill.
In this context, Bill C-5 and Bill 5 can be seen as part of a broader trend: the restructuring of regulatory frameworks to prioritize investment attraction and project delivery, potentially at the expense of long-standing labour, environmental and human rights protections. While framed as tools for economic resilience and climate transition, their combined effect may be to weaken the very safeguards that communities and workers have relied on to ensure equitable development.
When queried by The Expositor at a local celebration of MPP Bill Rosenberg’s victory, Greg Rickford, the Minister of Northern Development and Minister of Indigenous Affairs, had this to say about the controversial twin bills: “I don’t talk about Indigenous issues,” says Ontario’s Minister of Indigenous Affairs and First Nations Economic Reconciliation. “I talk about Indigenous opportunities.”
“There’s more work to be done,” he admits, “and communication is going to be an essential element of making sure everybody understands what we’re trying to accomplish here.”
He points to a legal distinction between “duty to consult,” which he frames as technical and procedural, and “political engagement” — the more informal conversations with leadership already underway, including with the Regional Chief and various local First Nations. “We have every intention of doing it properly, thoroughly and with a vision,” he insists. “When we talk about partnerships, we’re talking about consenting parties building real economic arrangements — not just inclusion, but shared prosperity.”
Meanwhile, newly elected Algoma–Manitoulin MPP Bill Rosenberg is riding high on the energy of victory, but the concerns of the North are not far from his mind.
“Bill 5 is a great opportunity for everyone,” MPP Rosenberg told The Expositor, focusing on the tangible benefits promised by the province: roads, hospitals, broadband, education. “Especially those Indigenous reserves up there that have no opportunity.”
He admits the road ahead won’t be smooth. “It’s not going to be easy, but I think we’ll get there. The opportunity is here, and I think we can make a huge difference.”
Asked about Bill C-5, the federal legislation that would grant Ottawa similar powers to fast-track major infrastructure projects deemed “in the national interest,” Mr. Rosenberg is careful. “I can’t really comment on that,” he says. “But I want to help where I can.”
When asked about Manitoulin Island’s much needed new bridge, he simply smiled and said: “Well, these things take time.”
However for many First Nations leaders, the speed and scope of the bill raise fundamental concerns about jurisdiction, consent, and constitutional integrity.
In an emergency session, the Chiefs of Ontario Leadership Council passed a resolution opposing both the content of Bill C-5 and the process through which it is being pushed forward. They say the federal government has shut First Nations out of committee hearings and provided less than a week to respond to a summary of the bill — without releasing the full text.
A rally was held Tuesday, June 17 at 12:30 pm on Parliament Hill.
“First Nations are not opposed to development. We want to build, and we want to partner,” said Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict. “But we cannot accept a law that removes us from the consultation process. These decisions are being made about our lands, our rights, and our future — without us.”
Bill C-5 would give cabinet the power to designate certain projects as being in the “national interest,” fast-tracking approval while bypassing environmental review, parliamentary oversight and Indigenous consultation. The Chiefs of Ontario say this undermines Canada’s obligations under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDRIP) and risks setting a dangerous precedent.
Temagami First Nation Chief Shelly Moore, who introduced the emergency resolution, stated, “A meaningful role in development cannot be reduced to a checkbox. Our rights are not obstacles — they are foundational.”
The government, however, has framed the legislation as urgent and necessary, particularly in light of ongoing economic strain and escalating trade tensions with the United States. In a press conference addressing wildfire response and industrial layoffs, Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson defended the fast-tracked timeline.
“You should ask that to all the auto workers who are losing their jobs, to all the aluminum workers who are losing their jobs, to all the steel workers who are losing their jobs, to all the forestry products, people in small towns across the country who are losing their jobs,” Mr. Hodgson said.
“Every day, our economy is being attacked. Every day, we are losing jobs. We need to fight for those people. We need to move.”
However, Labour organizations across Ontario are voicing strong opposition to Ontario’s Bill 5 —meant to work hand in glove with the federal C-5—the Protecting Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, warning that it could significantly erode long-standing worker protections. At the heart of the concern is Schedule 9. Laws at risk include: The Ontario Labour Relations Act, the Employment Standards Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Ontario Human Rights Code.
These laws were established through decades of organizing by unions, worker advocates, and public health leaders. They provide foundational protections such as minimum wage guarantees, maximum work hours, protection from discrimination and enforceable standards for workplace safety.
CUPE (Canadian Union of Public Employees) echoed the concern, stating that the creation of zones where basic worker protections no longer apply risks importing labour conditions similar to “right-to-work” states in the US—jurisdictions known for lower wages, fewer benefits and weaker safety enforcement.
“This legislation opens the door to a two-tiered labour system,” said CUPE researcher Venai Raniga during public hearings. “It creates conditions for a race to the bottom, where firms operating inside SEZs can undercut those operating under standard provincial labour law.”
Critics argue that the bill’s emphasis on cutting red tape to attract investment conceals the reality that some of the “barriers” it seeks to remove are essential legal protections for working Ontarians. There is also concern about the lack of oversight, as the decision to declare an SEZ would lie solely with cabinet, without the requirement for public consultation or legislative debate.
Labour leaders are urging the province to reconsider, warning that the long-term economic and social consequences of stripping away core worker protections will outweigh any short-term gains in investment or development.
While internal trade reforms and labour mobility provisions in the bill are garnering some cross-party interest, critics—including the NDP’s Leah Gazan—argue that the legislation, as written, poses serious legal risks. “This is a clear violation of Indigenous peoples’ modern treaties,” Gazan said, warning that economic initiatives launched under Bill C-5 are likely to face significant court challenges.
The Senate has already moved to expedite review, launching a pre-study that will hear from key ministers and witnesses before a final vote, now expected by June 27. The Chiefs of Ontario, meanwhile, are preparing legal responses and outreach efforts to coordinate a broader national coalition.
For many, the debate over Bill C-5 is about more than infrastructure or trade — it is about process, principle and place.
