Mark Carney is celebrated abroad – while consolidating power at home | Shiri Pasternak

Carney has gained international praise for a Davos speech that confronted a reconfiguration of power in Donald Trump’s shadow. At home, however, the criticism is sharply different. The article portrays him as centralizing power inside the prime minister’s office and cabinet while weakening legal protections.

The clearest example is Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act. It expands fast-tracking from individual projects to whole “regions of national interest.” It also shifts environmental decisions to agencies that promote energy and nuclear sectors. The government has presented these changes as tools for building projects and attracting investment.

That agenda follows a Canada Investment Summit where 167 projects were offered to private equity and sovereign wealth funds. Carney claims the summit produced more than $500 billion in foreign investment commitments. Critics argue the promised growth depends on regulatory concessions, tax breaks, public subsidies, and reduced opportunities for communities and workers to challenge projects.

The Building Canada Strong Act, or Bill C-39, is a 250-page omnibus bill introduced on 21 September by Steven MacKinnon, the transport minister and House leader. Its central purpose is to accelerate approvals for projects the government considers nationally important. That matters because speed would come with reduced oversight.

The bill expands an existing fast-track designation from “projects of national interest” to “regions of national interest.” Federal ministers could designate geographic areas as special economic zones. Environmental review boards would be removed, while the Canada Energy Regulator would assess energy projects and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would approve nuclear and uranium projects.

Cabinet approval would disappear for most pipelines, remaining only for projects requiring more than 300 kilometres of new right of way. The framework also promises industry decisions within one year. Together, these changes could make pipelines, highways, mines, and nuclear facilities easier to approve while narrowing parliamentary, local, environmental, and Indigenous oversight.

The scale is unusually broad. A leaked pitch book for the Canada Investment Summit listed 167 projects among more than 200 private equity and sovereign wealth fund representatives. Carney said the summit generated over $500 billion in new foreign investment commitments to Canada.

The projects cover artificial-intelligence datacentres, publicly owned airports, defence manufacturing, and dozens of energy and mining developments. The government’s approach is not limited to attracting private money. It also uses tax policy and public support to make projects more financially attractive to investors.

Only one day after the summit, Carney introduced the Productivity Mega Deduction. It lets businesses immediately deduct a wider range of asset costs, including pipelines, mining property, aircraft, and bridges. The article also reports C$280 billion in federal subsidies through tax write-offs and by shifting risk from capital to taxpayers. Bill C-39 supplies the regulatory concessions intended to help these investments proceed.

The proposed fast-track system could reduce several protections at once. Regions of national interest might be exempted from environmental, Indigenous, and labour safeguards. The article also says the Canada Labour Code would gain an explicit power to end a legal strike, directly affecting workers’ bargaining leverage.

For Indigenous communities, the key mechanism is the one-year decision guarantee for industry. Communities would have to identify all cumulative impacts early in the assessment process. Because impact assessments are time-consuming and costly, the article argues that this timetable could leave communities little practical opportunity to influence a project’s direction.

Environmental oversight would also move away from arms-length boards. The Canada Energy Regulator would assess energy projects, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would approve nuclear and uranium projects. The result could be faster construction, but also less independent scrutiny and fewer opportunities to challenge projects before decisions are made.

A “region of national interest” would extend fast-tracking beyond a single project. Federal ministers could apply the designation to a geographic region, creating a broad area where special approval rules apply. The change matters because decisions would no longer be limited to one proposal and its immediate review.

The article says this designation would diminish Parliament’s sovereignty and bypass local elected officials and affected citizens. In practice, ministers would decide which areas receive the special status, while sector-promoting regulators would handle major approvals. Environmental review boards described as arms-length would be removed from the process.

That structure would concentrate authority in the federal executive and agencies tied to the sectors seeking development. Projects such as pipelines, highways, nuclear facilities, energy developments, and mines could move through the new framework with less local influence. The article presents this as a form of legal exceptionalism: not dramatic executive orders, but carve-outs from existing law.

The article says Indigenous peoples have fought for decades to constitutionally enshrine consultation rights for development affecting their lands. Consultation matters because communities need a formal opportunity to consider and influence projects connected to their territories. The article does not provide a fuller legal explanation than that.

“Cumulative impacts” means the combined effects that development can have, rather than examining one project in isolation. Under the proposed system, communities would need to determine all those impacts during the early assessment stages. That requirement makes timing and resources especially important.

The article argues that the one-year decision guarantee would make meaningful influence difficult. Impact assessments are described as costly and time-consuming, yet communities would have to resolve cumulative concerns quickly. If they cannot complete that work early, projects could advance before communities have shaped their direction, even though consultation rights remain central to the process.

Large projects can be made more attractive when governments absorb part of their cost or risk. Immediate tax deductions reduce the taxable income of businesses, leaving investors with lower near-term expenses. Public subsidies provide additional support even when a project’s commercial returns are uncertain. The article describes this as shifting risk from capital to taxpayers.

The Productivity Mega Deduction illustrates the mechanism. Businesses could immediately deduct a broader range of assets, including pipelines, mining property, aircraft, and bridges. The article says the effective tax rate fell from 13% to 6.4%, the lowest among major economies, including the United States. It also reports C$280 billion in federal support through write-offs and subsidies.

The article does not specifically explain government-backed loans. In general, such loans can similarly move losses toward taxpayers if public guarantees cover private lenders. The forward implication is clear in the article’s framing: private investors gain more favourable conditions, while the public assumes more financial exposure.