logo
Carney government's ‘nation-building' bill becomes law despite Senate criticism

Carney government's ‘nation-building' bill becomes law despite Senate criticism

Hamilton Spectator21 hours ago

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Mark Carney's controversial legislation to fast-track 'nation-building' development projects received royal assent and became law after the rushed passage of Bill C-5 through the Senate on Thursday.
But the legislative accomplishment — the first government bill to pass in both chambers under the minority Liberal administration elected April 28 — was marred by expressions of outrage from some senators, who criticized the legislation's creation of 'so-called Henry VIII' powers that allow the federal cabinet to override laws and regulations to approve development projects. Some also condemned what they saw as the bill's lack of consultation and requirements to respect Indigenous rights, suggesting the new process could get bogged down in the very opposition and delay that it is designed to avoid.
'Bill C-5 is not reconciliation. It's a betrayal of it,' said Sen. Paul Prosper, a Mi'kmaq lawyer from Nova Scotia, who told the red chamber his office received a deluge of 'racist vitriol' after he spoke about his desire to slow down the legislation that
sped through the House of Commons last week
with the support of opposition Conservatives.
Yet some in that party still had concerns about the legislation. Mary Jane McCallum, a Conservative senator from Manitoba, argued Thursday that the bill gives too much power to the federal cabinet to choose projects, and to decide which laws and regulations are relevant to how they are approved.
'Canada is not a dictatorship, yet the so-called Henry VIII clauses in Bill C-5 bring us dangerously close to the precipice,' she said.
After two days of debate, the Senate voted down several amendments that would have sent the legislation back to the House, and passed it as written without a recorded vote Thursday afternoon. It received Royal Assent from Gov. Gen. Mary Simon a short time later.
Since introducing and pushing to pass the bill before Canada Day, the Carney government has defended the legislation as a necessary framework to boost economic growth and reduce reliance on the United States that has imposed steep tariffs that Ottawa deems illegal and unjustified. Last week, Carney also promised to host summits with Indigenous leaders in July to ensure there is participation on which proposed projects — from pipelines to ports and mines — are chosen for the fast-track process under C-5.
The
legislation
gives the cabinet wide latitude to fast-track a development project based on 'any factor' it deems relevant. Although it's not written in the legislation, the government has pledged to finish the approval of fast-tracked projects so construction can begin within two years, while the special powers the bill creates are set to expire after five years.
On Thursday, Sen. Hassan Yusseff, a former labour leader who advocated for the bill in the upper chamber, echoed the government's rationale that the special process to fast-track major projects — and a separate, less contentious part of the bill to lift federal barriers to trade and labour mobility inside Canada — are necessary because of U.S. President Donald Trump's trade war.
His voice breaking with emotion, Yusseff made the case that the legislation is needed quickly to bolster the Canadian economy and help workers in the industries targeted by Trump's tariffs, from steel and aluminum to the auto sector.
'The men and women who build this country of ours are watching very closely,' Yusseff said.
Throughout the day, senators debated the merits of the bill, with some arguing it forces Indigenous groups and environmentalists to trust the government to respect rights and standards, rather than force the government to do so.
Some senators, however, said the bill's references to Indigenous rights in the Constitution, as well as the government's insistence it won't fast-track projects without provincial buy-in and Indigenous consultation, mean these concerns can't be addressed through amending the legislation.
'There's no bill we can pass that will guarantee the honour of the Crown,' said Alberta Sen. Patti LaBoucane-Benson.
'I don't think there's anything more we can do to the text of the bill to protect Indigenous rights.'
Others, like Ontario Sen. Bernadette Clement, argued Parliament should take more time to improve the legislation and address concerns raised by environmental groups, Indigenous communities, and organizations like the Assembly of First Nations.
'Growing our economy, nation-building — yeah, that's urgent. It requires a timely an efficient response. But it doesn't require the trampling of Indigenous rights and our environmental protections,' Clement said.
Marilou McPhedran, a senator from Manitoba, expressed shock that Conservatives and Liberals in the House voted en masse to surrender 'parliamentary sovereignty' to the cabinet under the bill.
'As we watch the results of the C-5 juggernaut roll out and roll over Canada, please remember this key question: are the constitutionally guaranteed rights to equality, to Aboriginal and treaty rights, the first to go with Bill C-5?' she said.
The House of Commons made several amendments to the bill that some senators welcomed, including new reporting requirements on how projects are selected, and the creation of a parliamentary committee to oversee how the legislation is being used.
The House also added a requirement to publish details of a project at least 30 days before it is named in the 'national interest,' and introduced limits so no projects can be added to the new process while Parliament is prorogued or dissolved.
The legislation also requires the minister responsible for the law — currently Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc — to consult with provinces, territories and Indigenous Peoples whose rights 'may be adversely affected' by a project. The Commons inserted a clause that requires the government to get 'written consent' from a province or territory — but not an Indigenous community — if a project falls within an area of its 'exclusive' jurisdiction.
Sen. Marc Gold, the government representative in the chamber, said the bill is 'fundamentally about trust' that all groups — including the government — will act in the best interests of Canadians during a time of crisis after an election he said gave the Liberal minority government a clear mandate to pursue rapid economic growth.
'C-5 is indeed extraordinary, and indeed it entails unprecedented trust,' Gold said. 'This is not about any partisan interest, but in the interest of our country.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Senate bill's Medicaid cuts draw some GOP angst
Senate bill's Medicaid cuts draw some GOP angst

Yahoo

time11 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Senate bill's Medicaid cuts draw some GOP angst

The Senate's deep cuts to Medicaid in the tax and spending megabill are setting off alarm bells among some Republicans, complicating leadership's effort to get the legislation passed by July 4. It seeks to clamp down on two tactics states use to boost Medicaid funding to hospitals: state-directed payments and Medicaid provider taxes. The restrictions are a major concern for rural hospitals, a key constituency for senators. Republicans have set an ambitious July 4 deadline to pass the bill and send it to President Trump to be signed into law. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who has been warning his colleagues about making cuts to Medicaid for weeks, said the changes took him by surprise. 'I had no idea that they were going to completely scrap the House framework with this. I mean, this totally caught me by surprise. And I've talked to other senators, and that's what I've heard consistently from everybody I've talked to, that no one was expecting this entirely new framework,' Hawley told reporters Tuesday. States impose taxes on providers to boost their federal Medicaid contributions, which they then direct back to hospitals in the form of higher reimbursements. Critics argue it's a scheme for states to get more federal funding without spending any of their own money. But provider taxes have become ingrained into states' Medicaid financing systems. States and provider groups say the taxes provide a steady source of financing for hospitals that operate on thin margins and would otherwise face closure. 'The draconian Medicaid cuts contained in the Senate bill would devastate health care access for millions of Americans and hollow out the vital role essential hospitals play in their communities,' said Bruce Siegel, president and CEO of America's Essential Hospitals, an organization that represents hospitals that serve low-income patients. The legislation would effectively cap provider taxes at 3.5 percent by 2031, down from the current 6 percent, but only for the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The cap would be phased in by lowering it 0.5 percent annually, starting in 2027. Nonexpansion states would be prohibited from imposing new taxes, but as was true in the House-passed version, their rates would be frozen at current levels. The lower cap would not apply to nursing homes or intermediate care facilities. All states except for Alaska finance part of their share of Medicaid funding through health care provider taxes, and 38 states have at least one provider tax that exceeds 5.5 percent. When asked if his concerns were enough to make him vote against the bill if it were brought to the floor as written, Hawley hedged. 'It needs a lot of work, so I would say maybe we could, I guess, try to fix it on the floor, but it'd be better to do it beforehand,' he told reporters. Republicans can afford to lose only three votes in the Senate and still pass their bill if Democrats remain united in opposition. Sen. Jim Justice ( said he was also surprised by the Senate's change. If provider tax changes are on the table, he said he wants leadership to keep the House version. Justice wouldn't say how he would vote if the provision was left unchanged but expressed some unease about the July 4 deadline. 'I promise you, I won't rubber-stamp anything,' Justice said. 'I want this thing to come out and come out quickly, but when it really boils right down to it, you may have to hold your nose on some things that you just absolutely don't like because we can't like everything.' Similarly, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) indicated he would also prefer the House-passed freeze on provider taxes but was still analyzing the impact on his state. Louisiana expanded Medicaid in 2016. Senate Republican leaders huddled with members Tuesday during a closed-door caucus lunch to talk through the details of the bill. Speaking to reporters afterward, Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said leadership was listening to members' concerns, especially about provider taxes. 'We think [the changes] rebalance the program in a way that provides the right incentives to cover the people who are supposed to be covered,' Thune said. 'We continue to hear from members specifically on components or pieces of the bill they want to see modified or changed, and we are working through that.' Members were also briefed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, who downplayed the impact of a lower provider tax cap. 'We do not believe that addressing the provider tax effort is going to influence the ability of hospitals to stay viable,' Oz told reporters. Without weighing in on the exact details, Oz said some changes to provider taxes and state-directed payments should be included. 'The framework of addressing the legalized money laundering with state-directed payments and provider taxes must be in this bill, it should be in this bill,' Oz said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Collins, Hawley — two key holdouts — will support advancing GOP megabill
Collins, Hawley — two key holdouts — will support advancing GOP megabill

Yahoo

time11 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Collins, Hawley — two key holdouts — will support advancing GOP megabill

Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), two key holdouts, said Saturday that they will vote to advance the Senate's version of President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' citing changes made to the text unveiled by GOP leaders on Friday. Collins said she will vote for the motion to proceed to the legislation out of deference to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), but warned that she still has significant concerns with the legislation and will propose several amendments to change it. 'I am planning to vote for the motion to proceed. Generally, I give deference to the majority leader's power to bring bills to the Senate floor. Does not in any way predict how I'm going to vote on final passage,' she said. 'That's going to depend on whether the bill is substantially changed,' she said. 'There are some very good changes that have been made in the latest version but I want to see further changes and I will be filing a number of amendments.' Collins vote on the procedural motion is crucial. Two conservatives, Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) say they won't vote for the legislation as it now stands. And Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) on Saturday he would vote 'no' on both the motion to proceed and final passage. Senate Republicans control 53 seats and can afford only three defections in their caucus and still pass the bill. But Thune scored another big victory when Hawley, who had sounded the alarm over hundreds of billions of dollars in federal Medicaid cuts, told reporters that he will vote for the motion to proceed to the bill and will also support final passage of the 940-page Senate version of the legislation, which leaders unveiled Friday night. Hawley said that changes to the legislation will result in significantly more federal Medicaid funding for Missouri over the next four years. He also cited $1 billion in funding for Missourians suffering from radiation exposure related to the nuclear weapons development in the 1940s during Manhattan Project as reasons for his yes vote. 'With the delay in the provider tax framework that we were able to get and with the changes to the rural hospital fund, Missouri's Medicaid dollars will actually increase over the next four years,' he said. 'We will get more money, Medicaid funding, over baseline until 2030. Any changes to our provider framework in Missouri will not take place until the next decade,' he said. He noted that GOP leaders agreed to increase a rural hospital relief fund from $15 billion to $25 billion and changed the funding formula to provide more federal funds to his home state. He also said that the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act funding he requested is 'fully here and fully intact.' 'That will mean major new dollars flowing to the state of Missouri, expansion of health care for the people of Missouri. On that basis, I'm going to vote yes on this bill,' he said. If the motion to proceed clears a simple majority threshold, the chamber would debate the bill before moving to a 'vote-a-rama,' during which unlimited amendments can be brought to the floor, before a final vote. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Tillis becomes third GOP senator to oppose Trump' s big, beautiful bill
Tillis becomes third GOP senator to oppose Trump' s big, beautiful bill

Yahoo

time11 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Tillis becomes third GOP senator to oppose Trump' s big, beautiful bill

North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis (R) announced after a meeting with Senate GOP leaders and colleagues Saturday afternoon that he will vote 'no' on both the motion to proceed and final passage of the Republican megabill to implement President Trump's agenda because of deep cuts to federal Medicaid funding. Tillis said he wants Senate Republican leaders to drop their plan to lower the cap on healthcare provider taxes and instead embrace the Medicaid language passed by the House last month, which would cut much less federal funding in the program. 'Oh no. The data hasn't changed so I got to vote no,' he said. The North Carolina Republican said Senate leaders should return to 'starting with the House baseline.' 'I'm going to vote no on motion to proceed and on final passage,' he said. Tillis's strong opposition to the bill is a significant development because two other Republicans, Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Ron Johnson (Wis.), have already said they will vote 'no.' That gives substantially more leverage to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and other swing-vote senators to demand changes to the bill. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) can only afford three defections from his conference and still pass the bill with a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Vance given their 53-seat majority. Collins said she will vote Saturday to begin debate on the megabill but she says she wants to make several changes to it and is not guaranteed to vote 'yes' on final passage. 'I am planning to vote for the motion to proceed. Generally, I give deference to the majority leader's power to bring bills to the Senate floor. Does not in any way predict how I'm going to vote on final passage,' Collins told reporters Saturday. Tillis said he would help House Republican colleagues by 'defending their bill,' which would prohibit states that expanded Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act from increasing health care provider taxes and barring states that did not expand the program from establishing new provider taxes. The Senate bill would cut more deeply into federal Medicaid funding for states by reducing the 6 percent cap on health care provider taxes by half a percentage point a year starting in 2028, reducing the cap down to 3.5 percent in 2032. States use healthcare provider taxes to collect more federal Medicaid funding, as the federal government matches what states collect in those taxes. Johnson, the Wisconsin senator, said in an interview with 'Fox & Friends Weekend' that he will vote against the motion to proceed to the bill on Saturday. 'I'm not going to vote for motion to proceed today. We just got the bill. I got my first copy about 1:23 in the morning, this morning,' he said. He said lawmakers have preliminary budget scores on less than half of the legislation. 'We don't even have the scores,' he said. 'We shouldn't take the [Rep.] Nancy Pelosi [(D-Calif.)] approach and pass this bill to find out what's in it,' he warned. 'We need to have a debate.' Paul, the Kentucky senator and other 'no' vote, has repeatedly said he will oppose the bill because it includes language to raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store