How ‘public interest’ is being used to justify power grabs in Canada and Ontario
- May 15
- 5 min read
'Public interest' is meant to be democracy’s guardrail, but critics argue federal and Ontario legislation is turning that phrase into political cover for faster approvals, weaker oversight and decisions that tilt toward corporate priorities
The concept of "public interest" is supposed to be democracy's guardrail, our governments’ commitment to act for the benefit of all citizens, not the privileged few. Yet recent legislation in Canada and Ontario reveals how this foundational principle can be weaponized as cover for decisions that prioritize corporate interests, ministerial power, and partisan advantage over genuine public welfare.
What "public interest" actually means
The public interest is fundamentally different from private interests, personal preferences, parochial concerns, or partisan political goals. It represents a collective dedication to outcomes that benefit society’s values like clean water, healthy ecosystems, livable communities, and sustainable livelihoods for all people.
When governments claim to act "in the public interest," they assume a specific obligation: to follow processes that are themselves rooted in public interest principles.
This means:
Transparent decision-making where the public can see how choices are made
Evidence-based advice from experts and affected communities
Proper accountability so officials answer for their decisions
Public access to information so citizens can evaluate whether government kept its word
Genuine, instead of performative consultations; ones that actually incorporate community input
As The Public Interest Revisited notes, these procedural safeguards matter as much as the outcomes themselves. Without them, "public interest" becomes a rhetorical mask for decisions made behind closed doors.
Contested Bills dismantling democratic process
Canada's Bill C-5 and Ontario's Bill 5 run roughshod over public interest principles. Both laws accelerate development approvals by concentrating power in the hands of individual ministers, bypassing established protections, and weakening the very legislation designed to safeguard human health, water resources, species habitat, and people's homes and livelihoods.
The environmental accountability gap
Ontario's own Auditor General (December 2025) documented systematic failures in environmental oversight: public consultations were bypassed, community input was ignored, and the Environmental Bill of Rights was violated. These aren't administrative hiccups. They're deliberate circumventions of the processes that are supposed to ensure decisions actually serve the public interest.
The Kawana'bi'kag Crisis: mining and climate
Kawana 'bi 'kag reflects the cultural heritage and connection of Indigenous peoples to the land that embraces the Ring of Fire. The proposed intensive mining development in the peatlands there illustrates the contradiction between political purpose versus public interest perfectly. These vast carbon sinks have accumulated carbon over millennia. Road building and mining could transform ecosystems into carbon sources, intensifying Canada's contribution to climate warming. The government has yet to acknowledge, let alone pledge to achieve free, prior, and informed consent from Indigenous communities who depend on these lands.
The environmental consequences are cascading:
Habitat destruction disrupting the wildlife populations that First Nations rely on
Water contamination from mining pollutants and sediments affecting both ecosystems and communities
Climate breakdown acceleration as carbon-rich peatlands become emissions sources
By rushing approvals, Bill C-5 and Bill 5 signal that "public interest" is a false flag. The actual objective—fast-tracked corporate profit—is incompatible with genuine public interest, which demands careful environmental stewardship and respect for Indigenous rights.
Corporate welfare: when government picks winners
Corporate welfare: subsidies, tax incentives, financial supports, and other government benefits to private companies—is sold as serving the public interest. The pitch is familiar: attract investment, create jobs, boost the economy. The reality is murkier.
The problem with corporate welfare
Critics point to three persistent failures:
Dubious effectiveness: Many subsidized projects would have happened anyway, or create fewer jobs than promised. Governments rarely conduct rigorous audits of whether the promised benefits materialized.
Unfairness: Corporate welfare redistributes public resources to wealthy shareholders and executives while ordinary citizens bear the cost through reduced public services or higher taxes.
Market manipulation: By picking winners, governments distort markets, protecting inefficient companies from competition and innovation.
The ISDS and FIPA trap: when corporate welfare becomes litigation risk
Here's where corporate welfare becomes genuinely dangerous: trade treaties and bilateral investment contracts often include Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) and Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) provisions that allow corporations to sue governments directly.
A company that believes a government policy threatens its profits can demand compensation. Even when Canada wins a dispute, the litigation costs are exorbitant.
And the chill effect is profound. Governments hesitate to strengthen environmental protections, improve labour conditions, or enforce human rights if doing so might trigger investor lawsuits. The threat alone hobbles policy ambition. Public interest gets sacrificed on the altar of investor confidence.
The democracy deficit: power grabs and secrecy
All sides, public, political and the private business sector seem to agree that a clean-economy future is desirable and depends on critical minerals. But the national and Ontario governments choose to override best practices and established law to concentrate power and weaken accountability. Public resistance and law suits launched by Indigenous and civil opponents are predictable.
The pattern
Bill C-5 and Bill 5 both feature:
Enhanced ministerial discretion: Individual officials can approve projects with minimal oversight
Weakened environmental protections: Legislation designed to safeguard public health and ecosystems is sidelined
Defunded public services: While governments court corporate investment, they starve the health care, education, and environmental agencies that actually serve citizens
The perverse logic is transparent: woo investors by demonstrably tipping the balance away from public interest protections.
Secrecy as a feature
Premier Ford's retroactive legislation blocking legal action for past wrongdoings, combined with his refusal to release phone records connected to the Greenbelt scandal, reveals how secrecy sustains this imbalance. Citizens cannot evaluate whether their government acts in their interest because the government refuses to show its work or rushes through pretended obstacle-beating omnibus bills. Clauses hidden extend perks to their well-heeled supporters while eviscerating environmental protections.
Ford’s take-over of Toronto Island Airport move, with plans to bring jet traffic to a small takeoff and landing area, exemplifies the pattern. Business travellers may celebrate the convenience. But the giveaway to elite users means families seeking the fresh air of Centre Island fun and leisure will have to contend with more air traffic and noise pollution topped off with jet fuel emissions.
A flawed democracy in decline
Canada's score on the world democracy index is 8.69, classifying it as a "flawed democracy." The rating reflects weaknesses in the electoral process, functioning government, and political culture—the very areas where Bills C-5 and Bill 5 are making things worse.
When democratic institutions are decimated, public services abandoned, and decision-making hidden from public view, the question becomes: what exactly is being built or strengthened?
PM Carney speaks of nation-building. Premier Ford promises to strengthen Ontario. Yet both are systematically dismantling the democratic institutions and public services that actually make nations and provinces worth living in. They're trading long-term public interest for short-term corporate confidence and betting that citizens won't notice, or do anything about it.
The legitimacy of government projects rests on a single question: Are they acting in the public interest, or merely using that phrase as cover? The evidence, marked by rushed processes, weakened protections, concentrated power, hidden records, defunded services, suggests the latter.
The reader must decide whether that's acceptable. Democracy depends on it.
Comments