Conservative MP Jamil Jivani criticizes Ford after re-election in Bowmanville-Oshawa North
Conservative MP Jamil Jivani spoke to CBC's David Common after getting re-elected in Bowmanville-Oshawa North and used the opportunity to criticize Ontario Premier Doug Ford, saying he was a "problem" for the province and country.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Canada Standard
11 hours ago
- Canada Standard
Liberals Table Bill to Speed Up Approvals for Major 'National Interest' Projects
Prime Minister Mark Carney's government introduced legislation Friday that would grant it new powers to quickly push forward major projects the federal cabinet deems to be in the national interest. Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc tabled a bill in the House of Commons that would give Ottawa the authority to draw up a list of large projects it wants to prioritize and to expedite their federal approval, The Canadian Press reports. Carney said it has become too hard to build new projects in Canada and vowed that this legislation will change that. "We're in an economic crisis," Carney told a news conference on Parliament Hill on Friday. "We're still facing intensifying, unjustified tariffs from our largest trading partner and the best way to respond to that is to respond at home, build strength at home." Bill C-5, the "free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act," is twinned legislation meant to break down internal trade barriers and cut red tape for major projects. The bill was a marquee election promise by Carney, who campaigned on a pledge to make the country an "energy superpower" and build up a more resilient economy in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's global trade war. The prime minister said he will do everything possible to get the legislation passed this summer and did not rule out having Parliament sit longer. The House is only scheduled to sit for another two weeks and the Liberals are governing with a precarious minority, forcing them to seek the support of MPs from other parties to advance their agenda. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre described the new bill as a small step in the right direction. He also said it amounts to an admission by the Liberals that their laws have inhibited building and urged the government to take much bolder action. "We do not need baby steps. We need breakthroughs," he said. Poilievre said he wants the government to repeal the oil tanker ban on B.C.'s northern coast, terminate the oil and gas sector's emissions cap and scrap the Impact Assessment Act that sets out a process for environmental reviews. He said he will consult with his caucus about how to approach the bill in Parliament but added that Conservatives would "vote in favour of accelerating even one project." Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers CEO Lisa Baiton said she is "encouraged by the federal government's flexibility and efforts to work with the provinces to accelerate the approval process for major projects." But environmental groups warned the new process could upend efforts to fight climate change. Jessica Clogg, executive director of West Coast Environmental Law, said that past experience shows "rushed approvals without assessment of risks are a recipe for conflict, legal challenges and future environmental disasters." Keith Stewart of Greenpeace Canada said the government should not fast track new fossil-fuel projects, as Carney has suggested. "To even consider designating oil and gas expansion projects as in the national interest is a slap in the face to not just the next generation, but every Canadian struggling right now to deal with climate change-fueled wildfires," he said. The legislation would create a new federal office to take the lead on streamlining approvals for major projects and task the intergovernmental affairs minister with overseeing the final permitting decision. The government said the goal of the bill is to send a clear signal to businesses and quickly build up investor confidence. Carney said the current approval process forces projects to undergo multiple reviews and assessments one after another, rather than at the same time. "That process is arduous," he said. "It takes too long and it's holding our country back." "For too long, when federal agencies examined a project, their immediate question has been, 'Why?' With this new bill, we will ask ourselves, 'How?'" The bill sets out five criteria to evaluate whether a project is in the national interest. They include the project's likelihood of success, whether it would strengthen the country's resiliency and advance the interests of Indigenous peoples, and whether it would contribute to economic growth in an environmentally responsible way. The new federal review office will work toward a goal of approving projects within two years. That's a political promise rather than a hard-and-fast rule; the legislation does not mention timelines. While the bill would give the government broad power to skirt environmental laws to push projects forward, one expert said it remains to be seen how Ottawa will use it. "This is the kind of consolidation that you sometimes see in times of national emergency. We see it in wartime, we saw it in COVID to some extent. That consolidation can let you move more quickly, which can be a good thing, but it can also be a risky thing," said Stewart Elgie, the Jarislowsky chair in clean economy at the University of Ottawa. He warned that trying to "shortcut environmental interests" does not help expedite projects. "The Harper government never got a major pipeline built, and it's because they gave short shrift to environment and Indigenous concerns. It ended up with blockades and litigation that ultimately slowed down the projects," Elgie said. Carney said the legislation requires meaningful consultation with Indigenous Peoples consistent with the Constitution and the Crown's duty to consult. The federal review office will also include an Indigenous Advisory Council with First Nation, Inuit and Metis representation. The legislation comes with a sunset clause that forces a review of the law after five years. Carney met with the premiers earlier in the week in Saskatoon, where they privately discussed various projects the premiers want to see quickly launched - including pipelines, trade corridors and mining projects. The new legislation does not touch on any provincial approvals that might be needed to allow a project to go ahead. - With files from Sarah Ritchie and Nick Murray This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 6, 2025. Source: The Energy Mix
15 hours ago
Experts warn of Bill C-2 as 'anti-refugee' and 'anti-immigrant' giving Canada 'unchecked powers' like the U.S.
Mbonisi Zikhali came to Canada in 2009 from Zimbabwe to pursue a master's in journalism at Carleton University. Post-graduation, the international student found himself homeless in Windsor and applied for refugee status – a privilege soon unavailable if Bill C-2 becomes the law. The bill is unnecessary and not sympathetic at all to people's well-being, Zikhali said. Many experts and community groups working with newcomers in Canada agree. They are calling the Liberal government's sweeping new legislation, Bill C-2 or the Strong Borders Act, anti-immigrant and anti-refugee, and say they hoping the legislation does not become law. Zikhali said he came on scholarship and in 2012 found himself in Windsor picking tomatoes at a greenhouse. Soon enough, he was living on the streets, and lost his passport which also had his study permit in it. Applying for refugee status, Zikhali said, was his saving grace and worries this bill will deprive vulnerable people of a safe haven. What is Bill C-2? The legislation proposes changes to a number of laws including the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Specifically it allows officials to cancel, suspend or change immigration documents immediately, pause the acceptance of new applications and cancel applications already in process if deemed in the public interest. Début du widget Widget. Passer le widget ? Fin du widget Widget. Retourner au début du widget ? Critics say new border legislation aligns Canada's immigration system with the U.S. 2 days agoDuration2:43The Liberal government proposed new border legislation this week. But critics say they worry the law will do more harm than good. The CBC's Pratyush Dayal reports. Asylum claims would also have to be made within a year of entering the country, including for international students and temporary residents. Take this hypothetical: An Afghan international student who came to study here in July 2020. When the Taliban takes over in August 2021 and things become uncertain back home, that student could have applied for asylum. But with this bill, the one-year time period would have lapsed and they would be ineligible. The immigration changes would also require irregular border crossers — people who enter Canada between official ports of entry — to make an asylum claim within 14 days of arriving in Canada. Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab is defending the measures (new window) . There's a lot of applications in the system. We need to act fairly, and treat people appropriately who really do need to claim asylum and who really do need to be protected to stay in Canada, Diab told CBC News. We need to be more efficient in doing that. At the same time, Canadians demand that we have a system that works for everyone. 'Very U.S.-like' bill: refugee help centre director says Windsor's Matthew House gives refugees a place to live and helps them with resettlement. Mike Morency, the organization's executive director, says he worries this bill will put more vulnerable people at greater harm. It continues to align our immigration system with that of the United States, Morency said. Refugee claimants are not the problem. The one year-ban is a major concern for us. The other major concern for us is the ability of the government to declare an emergency and suspend applications. That one to me feels very U.S.-like. Morency said he understands the government's will to try to cut back on international students and migrant workers making a refugee claim as a way to stay in Canada, but worries for people who have a legitimate need for protection being unfairly targeted. It also feels very much like a workaround to our commitment to the Geneva Convention. If the government wants to step out of the Geneva Convention, then then we need to do it with integrity and we need to approach the UN and say we're going to withdraw, he said. Syed Hussan, spokesperson for the Migrant Rights Network, agrees saying the bill violates Canada's most basic legal obligations and is immoral . 'Gives the government unchecked power to take away people's status': Migrant Rights Network Hussan asserts the bill infringes upon Canada's legal commitments and ethical standards by granting the government excessive authority to cancel permits. Every refugee gets to have the right to have their case heard. That's now being taken away, he said. Collectively it's a bill that gives the government unchecked power to take away people's status… This is an anti-immigrant and anti-refugee bill. It's illegal. Without any ability for people to appeal or have their case individually heard, Hussan said, the bill allows the government to make people undocumented or just throw people out of the country in the hundreds of thousands . Syed Hussan says the Migrant Rights Network condemns Bill C-2's anti-Refugee and mass deportation provisions. Photo: CBC The changes also allow the federal immigration department to share information more widely with different agencies within Canada. Hussan said anyone who was not a citizen or later became a citizen will have their data impacted by the bill. Hassan said this is similar to the US immigration policies. This is Carney's first test and he's failed it. He's no different from Donald Trump. 'Major rollback of rights,' 'disservice to refugees': Queen's university law professor Sharry Aiken, professor of law at Queen's University, also finds the bill troubling. Very disappointing. It's a betrayal of many Canadians that supported this government in the most recent election, she said, noting these issues weren't part of the Liberal election campaign. The omnibus bill, she said, is quite complicated with 16 different parts and neither serves to reform the asylum system nor address Canadians' privacy rights. Typically, omnibus bills don't get the degree of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight, she said, which is concerning. Aiken said the one year-bar for asylum claimants represents a major rollback of rights . No longer are these claimants eligible for a hearing before the Refugee Protection Division, she said. The division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) hears and decides claims for refugee protection in Canada. Aikens said this arbitrary bill will also very quickly develop a backlog. The bill proposes a legislative fix for a problem that doesn't require new law. It requires operational intervention, she said. This one year rule mimics what's in place in the U.S. and what has been the subject of extensive international criticism… This bill does a disservice to refugees and betrays the Canadian public's trust in the Liberal government for ensuring a fair refugee determination system consistent with international standards. She urges the MPs to separate out the provisions having the issues desegregated. 'Will make the process more cumbersome': immigration lawyer Toronto-based immigration lawyer, Mario Bellissimo, said with the bill creating arbitrary distinctions of 14 days and one year after June 2020, an individualized assessment approach is being taken away. While the number of refugee claimants have recently dipped, Bellissimo said the bill signals that Canada wants to potentially limit immigration. It wants to send messages to individuals who want to traverse the system over many years without legitimate claims that this is not a destination of choice for you, he said. Bellissimo agrees that targeting individuals who impact the immigration system in a negative way is important but the bill will end up targeting individuals in genuine need of assistance. Pratyush Dayal (new window) · CBC News
CBC
17 hours ago
- CBC
Halifax mayor defends motion to temporarily pause new bike lane infrastructure
Halifax Mayor Andy Fillmore is defending a motion he intends to put forward next week at regional council to temporarily pause awarding new design and construction contracts for bike lanes. In his memo to colleagues, which was posted to Reddit on Friday, Fillmore said the move is in response to frustration among residents and business owners over "worsening traffic congestion" and the escalating project costs for the AAA (all ages and abilities) bicycle network. Fillmore stated the municipality is also failing to deliver a "balanced and efficient mobility system" as per its integrated mobility plan. Fillmore told CBC Radio's Mainstreet Halifax on Friday that his goal is to build cycling infrastructure and active transportation infrastructure "in the right way, in a way that doesn't create the very unfortunate backlash that is very real in our city right now." The mayor said he'd like to create cycling infrastructure in Halifax that doesn't sacrifice the needs of others who use the roads, like bus drivers, people who ride the bus, delivery and commercial vehicle drivers, people who have to drive in a car because they're not on a bus route, and those who aren't able to ride bikes. "We have to have a very balanced approach and I just push back on any commentary that we're facing some sort of a binary choice," Fillmore told Mainstreet. "This is very much a pause so that we can all move forward together in a mindful way that reflects the changing reality we have in our growing and busy city." Only applies to tenders not yet awarded Fillmore said the municipal bicycle network was only meant to cost $25 million. He said $16 million has already been spent, but that the budget for the project now is $93 million. "That leaves $77 million yet to be spent. Only $8 million will come from provincial and federal sources, and that leaves an unexpected $69 million to be funded through the municipal tax rate," Fillmore said. Fillmore said construction being done right now will be finished. Tenders identified in the capital budget for the next four years — but not yet awarded — would be put on hold. "This gives us an opportunity to have staff come back to us with a list of all those projects that are in that capital budget with a red light or a green light," he said, adding projects that threaten to "worsen congestion" will be paused. "All that red light means is, OK, we're just going to take a redesign here," Fillmore continued. "I expect a great percentage of the project on that list will get a green light and may only have a holdup of a month or two." 'Misguided proposal' David Trueman, the chair of the Halifax Cycling Coalition, called Fillmore's recommendation a "misguided proposal." He's calling on people to write to their regional councillor and urge them to vote against it. "We just got the cycling infrastructure projects back on track with the report to council from staff where they took the plan that was supposed to be delivered by the end of 2024 and they presented a detailed plan to get to it by 2028," Trueman said. "If we have a temporary pause, this is going to be delayed by years. We have a lot of staff and consultants tied up in designing these infrastructure protects, which take years through the pipeline. If you stop the pipeline, the flow is cut off and there can be untold delays and escalating costs." Trueman said the roads are already built and cycling is catching up. He said the upkeep cost on cycling infrastructure is a tiny fraction of what it would be for road costs. Divisive issue "These projects include all the costs of revamping a given street, and often there are other aspects of the road improvement ... [that] reduce the impact on car traffic," he said, citing a flyover bicycle bridge planned for the Macdonald Bridge site. "If we weren't worried about cars, we could do a much less expensive solution there. It's our propensity to avoid any impact to cars that raises the cost of cycling." Trueman said he thinks Fillmore's proposal is politically motivated. "Halifax has the second highest rate of active transportation of any city in Canada. Surely we don't want to throw that away," he said. "But what Andy Fillmore is keying in on is that cycling is a divisive issue. There's maybe 30 per cent of the population that has their doubts or their objections to it and he wants to create a wedge issue."
