Carney's contentious major projects bill clears committee
Running roughshod over the environment. Spawning the next Idle No More movement. Picking economic winners and losers. Prime Minister Mark Carney's Building Canada Act is anything if not a magnet for criticism.
The Liberal government's controversial legislation that would let cabinet quickly grant federal approvals for big industrial projects like mines, ports and pipelines sailed through committee in the early hours of Thursday.
A House of Commons panel sat from Wednesday afternoon to after midnight reviewing Bill C-5 in a hurried study, as the Liberal government seeks to pass it through the chamber by week's end.
Indigenous and environmental groups, along with opposition MPs and senators, raised concerns that the bill is being rushed through Parliament and will grant cabinet sweeping powers to override other laws to plow ahead with industrial projects favoured by the government of the day.
"The process that led to Bill C-5 is a case study in how not to engage with Indigenous nations," said Kebaowek First Nation Chief Lance Haymond, adding there was no "meaningful engagement" or a "recognition of the complexity of our rights, titles and interests."
"The conditions for an Idle No More 2.0 uprising are being written into the law as we speak," he told the House of Commons transport committee late Wednesday night.
The legislation enjoys support from the business community and building trades, who testified to Parliament that it can take longer to get projects approved than to get them built.
Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc appeared at the hearings to defend the bill, warning Canada is weathering a "storm of change" amid U.S. President Donald Trump's punishing trade war and that the country needs to quickly bolster the economy.
"Canadians have entrusted us to do things differently and better and move nation-building projects forward," he said.
A bill in two parts
The bill is two pieces of legislation rolled into one, with the first part aimed at breaking down internal trade barriers — something Carney promised to achieve by Canada Day.
The second part grants the government the ability to designate major projects to be in the "national interest," then fast-track their approval.
Thanks to help from the Conservatives, who won a handful of amendments to the bill, the Liberal legislation appears on track to clear the Commons at a brisk pace.
Even still, the Tories and the Bloc Québécois raised concerns that it consolidates too much power in the hands of the prime minister and his cabinet.
In a series of testy exchanges with LeBlanc, Bloc Québécois MP Xavier Barsalou-Duval said there's no guarantee that the minister in charge of the new process will act in the best interests of the public by granting itself far-reaching powers.
"What we have at the end of the day is a series of decisions that will be made behind closed doors and nothing guarantees that you won't transform yourself into the minister of cronyism," he said in French.
"I do not agree that this bill opens the door to corruption," LeBlanc said in French.
As some MPs trotted out comparisons to the Emergencies Act, LeBlanc balked at the idea and added that it's not comparable to a "White House presidential order," either.
Conservative MP Philip Lawrence pressed LeBlanc on whether there are sufficient ethics checks in place.
He noted that Carney previously chaired Brookfield, which has a hand in infrastructure and construction, reviving conflict of interest concerns about Carney's past ties to the firm that the party brought up constantly throughout the recent election. LeBlanc said elected officials would continue to be bound by current ethics rules.
Balancing the need to act quickly
Critics lined up on Wednesday to warn one after another that the bill could pose a threat to species at risk and allow Ottawa to sidestep its duty to consult with Indigenous Peoples.
"The last thing we want to do is hold up industry and projects with court cases, and this is exactly where it's headed," Trevor Mercredi, grand chief of the Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta, told the Commons committee.
"We say go back to the drawing board," Charles Hatt, climate program director with Ecojustice, said at a press conference.
Anna Johnston, a lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law, said the bill throws the principle of informed decision-making "out the window."
"Allowing cabinet to decide whether projects proceed before reviewing them is like building a house and then calling an engineer to ask if it's safe," she said.
Liberal MP Marcus Powlowski said he understands the concerns raised by Indigenous and environmental groups but believes the government needs to act quickly.
"Are we going to continue to put this on hold, to tinker with it and make slight amendments? I think it's important we pass this legislation and there's always an opportunity afterwards to amend it," he said.
Heather Exner-Pirot of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute think-tank warned the bill lets political Ottawa pick winners and losers and is "rife with potential for abuse," but she said she does not oppose it.
She said at the hearings that the Canadian economy needs to be turned around at a critical moment, and this should be the start of broader reforms to spur investment.
"What good is a pipeline if the emissions cap means you can't fill it? What good is a railway if the Impact Assessment Act means you can't mine products to ship on it?"
The House is scheduled to sit until Friday, and a Senate programming motion has the upper chamber wrapping up its examination of Bill C-5 by June 27.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Globe and Mail
26 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Canada is not for sale – and neither are our skies
Ajay Virmani CM is the founder and executive chair of Cargojet. Thursday's recommendations from the Competition Bureau to open Canada's skies to foreign airlines may sound like a pro-consumer move. But beneath the surface, the move risks undermining our aviation industry, threatening Canadian jobs, and handing over control of a vital sector – all without getting a single thing in return. The bureau suggests allowing foreign carriers to fly domestic routes in Canada – a move known as 'cabotage' – and phasing out foreign ownership restrictions entirely. If adopted, these changes would fundamentally alter the aviation landscape in Canada. And not for the better. Watchdog says Ottawa should allow foreign-owned airlines to fly domestic routes to boost competition Let's start with the obvious: There is no reciprocal access. The foreign carriers most likely to cash in on this opportunity will be American ones, because of geography. But the United States, our closest trading partner, does not allow foreign carriers to operate domestic routes. It guards that privilege closely – as does many other major nations. Why, then, should Canada unilaterally open our skies? Competition is healthy – but only when it's fair. We cannot be the only country willing to give away our market while others protect theirs. That's not strategy – that's surrender. Canada is a country of extremes. We are the second-largest nation by landmass, but with a population spread thinly across vast geography. Air travel isn't just a convenience – it's a necessity. But let's be blunt: Canada is not big enough to support even three major airlines as the past two decades have shown. More than 15 carriers – from Jetsgo to Lynx – have gone out of business trying. Foreign airlines, with deep pockets and no long-term obligation to our infrastructure, will swoop in to cherry-pick profitable urban routes – Toronto to Vancouver, Montreal to Calgary – and leave Canadian carriers to subsidize unprofitable regional and remote routes. When the local players fold, who will serve the North? Who will fly to the small towns? Prices will go up, and service will disappear. The impact won't just be felt in boardrooms – it will hit everyday Canadians across the aviation workforce. We're talking about pilots, engineers, mechanics, technology professionals, baggage handlers, call centre teams and support staff. Foreign carriers have no incentive to hire in Canada beyond what's absolutely necessary. Opening the door to foreign dominance means exporting opportunity, experience and expertise – and leaving a skilled Canadian workforce behind. In today's geopolitical climate, the last thing we should do is hand over our aviation sector to foreign ownership. Aviation isn't just another business – it's a strategic asset. In emergencies, natural disasters and national defence, a strong domestic aviation backbone matters. Foreign ownership comes with no such loyalty. If the government truly wants to improve Canadian aviation, it should start with what's in its control: modernize our airports, lower sky-high airport rents and fees, invest in regional infrastructure and overhaul NAV Canada, which operates our civil air navigation system. These structural issues are what make flying in Canada expensive – not a lack of foreign players. Opinion: Stop the charade. Ottawa isn't prepared to do what it takes to improve airline competition Opening the door to foreign carriers without fixing the broken foundation is like inviting guests into a crumbling house and hoping they'll renovate it for you. The promise of cheaper fares is always tempting. But the reality is, foreign carriers will skim the cream off the top – and leave Canadian operators to handle the rest. Once Canadian carriers are weakened or gone, what leverage will we have left? The decisions will be made in boardrooms far away, with no regard for Canadian jobs, service standards, or national resilience. We need smart competition, not blind deregulation. We need policy that supports homegrown carriers and gives them the tools to grow and compete globally. And we need to recognize that our aviation sector isn't just about profits – it's about sovereignty, accessibility and nation-building. Canada is not for sale – and neither are our skies. Let's not let short-term thinking cost us our long-term future.


National Post
32 minutes ago
- National Post
Justice minister says he doesn't like 'soft on crime' slogans, but won't 'diminish' those concerns
OTTAWA — Justice Minister Sean Fraser says that while he does not believe in using labels like 'soft on crime,' which critics employ to describe the justice system, he says it is important not to dismiss the concerns of those who use them. Article content 'I don't necessarily agree with the sloganeering approach, but that doesn't mean someone who may agree with it doesn't have a point that deserves the government's attention,' he told National Post in a recent wide-ranging interview on Wednesday. Article content Article content Fraser enters the justice and attorney general portfolio at a time when premiers and police chiefs are pressing the federal government to further restrict access to bail, particularly in Ontario, as a strategy to stem the rising tide of auto thefts and home invasions, which police across the Greater Toronto Area and other regions of the country have reported. Article content Article content Making bail more difficult for those accused of these crimes, particularly when violence is used and when they are connected to organized crime, was a promise made by Prime Minister Mark Carney in late April's federal election, which saw the Liberals elected to a fourth term. Article content The Liberals also campaigned on a pledge to make bail harder for those charged with certain human trafficking and drug smuggling offences, as well as bringing in tougher sentencing guidelines for courts to follow for repeat offenders convicted of a home invasion or auto theft. Article content Crime was a major focus of Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre's campaign, with candidates handing out leaflets emblazoned with the percentages of how much car theft has increased in and around Toronto, where they flipped several seats from the Liberals. Article content Article content Conservatives have continued to draw attention to crime rates by laying them squarely at the feet of what they describe as 'soft on crime' and 'catch-and-release' Liberal justice policies. Article content Fraser says the discussion around tightening bail is rooted in legal analysis and not 'exclusively on the increased scrutiny that you may see from the public or from another political party.' It is also a multi-jurisdictional matter, he points out, and touches on issues like training for judges and justices of the peace, as well as the shortage of Crown prosecutors, which the Liberals have pledged to tackle. Article content 'When we hear the scrutiny that may come from the public on an issue that's an early warning system that you should be looking into, has there been a change? What is underlying that change?'

CBC
40 minutes ago
- CBC
Nova Scotia government contracts new emergency alert app
The Nova Scotia government has contracted an Alberta company to help improve the emergency alert system in the province. The Emergency Management Department awarded Alertable a $1-million, untendered contract for a new app on March 25. The government has the ability to sign deals without open calls for bids in certain situations. A department spokesperson said there is no other provider that can deliver the option. "The vendor specializes in emergency alerting, successfully developing similar solutions in Saskatchewan and Alberta for about 10 years," Patricia Jreige said in an email. "More information on the app will come soon." According to the Alertable website, the company's mass notification software allows messages to be sent to a variety of social media platforms, as well as by text message, phone call and email. Some municipalities in Nova Scotia, including the Town of Digby and Town of Yarmouth, already use the company's software for notices about traffic disruptions, public meetings and other advisories. The Annapolis Regional Emergency Management Organization also uses the app. There have been ongoing questions and concerns about emergency alerts in Nova Scotia in the face of natural disasters and a mass shooting in recent years. Alerts were delayed by several hours during fatal floods in the Annapolis Valley in 2023. There were also concerns about how emergency alerts were used during wildfires in Halifax Regional Municipality that same year. during the mass shootings that started in Portapique in 2020, leaving 22 people dead over a two-day period. The force relied instead on social media to provide updates.