Carney's controversial major projects bill becomes law
Prime Minister Mark Carney's Bill C-5 is now law after the Senate passed the bill without any changes.
Along with removing federal barriers to internal trade, the legislation allows the federal cabinet to conditionally approve projects it deems 'in the national interest' before regulatory processes take place and enable cabinet to exempt those projects from many laws and regulations.
The projects that will be fast-tracked under the new law have not yet been chosen. Carney solicited 'wish lists' of projects from the premiers at the recent federal-provincial gathering in Saskatoon, Sask. For the next five years, cabinet can designate projects as 'in the national interest' but after that, the list will close. As long as a project is on the list before the sunset clause kicks in, it can be exempted from laws.
A coalition of environmental groups quickly condemned the passage of the controversial major projects bill, saying it erodes democratic principles, runs roughshod over Indigenous rights, shuts Canadians out of decisions that could affect them and puts the environment at risk.
'Bill C-5 is an assault on science and democracy,' Anna Johnston, a staff lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law Association, said in a statement.
'For more than half a century, we have made decisions according to the basic principle that we should look before we leap. Bill C-5 throws that principle out the window.'
Some senators did attempt to amend the government bill, which authorizes cabinet to override many environmental laws and regulations to build major projects like port infrastructure, pipelines and electricity infrastructure. But their efforts were in vain.
'Bill C-5 is an assault on science and democracy,' said Anna Johnston, a staff lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law. On Thursday the Senate passed the controversial major projects bill with no amendments and it received Royal Assent soon after
Sen. Paul Prosper tried to change the bill to force cabinet to always consider specific factors when deciding which projects to designate for fast-tracking. As written, the factors — including considering clean growth and Canada's climate change commitments — are just a suggestion and can be ignored. Along with making the factors mandatory, Prosper sought to add the requirement of 'obtaining the free, prior and informed consent' of Indigenous Peoples to the factors.
His amendment and several others were all defeated.
The government's decision to force the bill through before summer and limit study and debate has damaged relationships with First Nation, Inuit and Metis communities, Sen. Paula Simons said on Tuesday. The Chiefs of Ontario held a rally at Parliament Hill last week and about 350 people turned out to oppose the legislation.
Prosper, a Mi'kmaq lawyer and regional chief for Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, said 'by investing a few more months into this bill and ensuring that rights holders had an opportunity to share their thoughts and offer revisions, we would've seen this bill pass with overwhelming support.'
In his speech, he quoted Chief Shelley Moore-Frappier of Temagami First Nation who called bill C-5 a 'betrayal' of reconciliation. Prosper used much of his time to highlight the many concerns raised by First Nations leaders, enshrining their quotes into the record.
'Canada continues to speak about nation-to-nation relationships and reconciliation; this legislation does the opposite,' he said, quoting Moore-Frappier. 'It asserts power over First Peoples — over our resources and rights. It was developed without us. It vaguely addresses our constitutional and treaty protections. And if passed, it will further entrench unilateralism as the default method of governing First peoples.'
Many senators, including Sen. Brian Francis, lamented that they had so little time to study the bill's substance and impact.
Francis called it a 'potentially dangerous bill' that risks undermining public trust.
Others, including Sen. Leo Housakos still had criticisms of the bill, calling it a 'poor piece of legislative crafting' put together 'without any real thinking and strategic planning' that is 'highly aspirational.' But he ultimately supported the bill and the decision to fast-track it.
Sen. Hassan Yussuff repeatedly urged the senators to pass the bill without amendments. He said opposition MPs made amendments that addressed some concerns and strengthened the bill. He also reiterated Carney's argument that the government was elected on a clear mandate to move quickly in response to the trade war with US President Donald Trump's administration.
In the House of Commons, Senate and among the Canadian public, there is overwhelming support for building big, nationally beneficial infrastructure projects.
A new Angus Reid survey found 74 per cent of Canadians support 'fast-tracking' major projects.
But the consensus starts to fracture when it comes to the specifics like provincial jurisdiction, environmental protection and Indigenous rights. Forty-nine per cent of Canadians, in the same survey, said they oppose bypassing environmental reviews to speed things up. The online survey took place from June 20 to 23, among a randomized sample of 1,619 Canadian adults who are members of Angus Reid Forum.
Environment and climate groups, labour organizations, Indigenous leaders and legal experts tried (in the limited time available) to get MPs to change the law. Last week, Conservative and Bloc Québécois MPs made some changes to ensure cabinet won't be able to override a list of laws, including the Criminal Code, Canada Labour Code and Indian Act. The changes help curtail the expansive powers the legislation affords cabinet, but it can still override most environmental laws and regulations, including the Species at Risk Act, Fisheries Act and Impact Assessment Act.
A briefing prepared by West Coast Environmental Law warned that bad impact assessments lead to major problems, like the collapse of the Mount Polley tailings dam in 2014. It is still the biggest environmental disaster in Canada's history, authors Anna Johnston and Kristen Theriault wrote. Approximately 25 billion litres of wastewater and tailings from the copper and gold mine — including 134.1 tonnes of lead, 2.8 tonnes of cadmium and 2.1 tonnes of arsenic — spilled into the environment and nearby bodies of water.
A 2016 investigation by the Auditor General of British Columbia found that the BC Ministry of Energy and Mines did not ensure that the tailings dams were designed or operated in accordance with the approved plan or original project certificate, the briefing noted. The project never went through an independent, public environmental assessment, according to the briefing.
On the flip side, a strong impact assessment can have positive impacts. For example, in 1997, the federal and provincial government, the Labrador Inuit Association and the Innu Nation worked together on an assessment for the Voisey's Bay nickel-copper-cobalt mine in northern Labrador. To avoid the boom-bust cycle that leaves the next generation in the lurch, the panel recommended the company decrease production so the mine can operate for longer and keep community members employed. The company agreed to produce only 6,000 tonnes per day compared to its original proposal of 20,000 tonnes per day and it is still operating.
In her speech on Wednesday, Sen. Paula Simons said she worries Bill C-5 is 'overcorrecting in expediting mega projects that may not be of local interest, even if they are of national interest.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Calgary Herald
an hour ago
- Calgary Herald
Bell: Smith, Freeland on collision course; Freeland says Team Carney loves Alberta
Article content 'I think people are angry,' says Smith. Article content She talks once again about how separatist sentiment was created by Ottawa. Liberal Ottawa. Article content Freeland was deputy prime minister when Justin Trudeau was prime minister. Article content Smith mentions how a separatist was elected in Alberta two decades ago during the National Energy Program when the most despised politician in this province was Pierre Trudeau, the prime minister father of Justin. Article content The premier notes when Brian Mulroney became prime minister and deep-sixed the NEP, the support for separatism 'evaporated.' Article content Smith wants Liberal anti-Alberta, anti-oil laws and rules changed. Article content You know, among those bad laws is the tanker ban off the west coast, the No More Pipelines Law, the Liberal net-zero power regulations, the emissions cap on oil and gas, the laws making it illegal for companies to talk about their environmental record. Article content Article content Talks between the Carney government and the Alberta government have started to go over these bad laws. Article content As you know, Smith also wants a bitumen pipeline to the west coast chosen as one of the nation-building projects the Carney government would fast-track under what is called Bill C-5. Article content Article content Freeland responds to Smith who has upped her pressure on the Carney government in recent days. Article content The Carney government insider says Bill C-5 is 'a turning point for our country.' Article content Now, Canada can 'build baby build,' to quote her boss Carney. Article content 'I'm not going to tell you today, Rick, that everything is totally solved.' Article content Good thing. It isn't. Article content
Canada News.Net
an hour ago
- Canada News.Net
Parks Canada launches international design competition for a new visitor reception and community hub in Banff National Park
International design competition will result in a conceptual design for the 200-Block of Banff Avenue Redevelopment Project. June 26, 2025 Banff, Alberta Parks Canada Parks Canada is pleased to announce the launch of an international design competition, overseen by the Royal Architecture Institute of Canada (RAIC), to develop a new conceptual design for the iconic 200-Block of Banff Avenue in Banff National Park. Today, Parks Canada announced the beginning of the pre-qualification phase for the architectural design competition after which up to six respondents will be invited to submit conceptual design proposals. The competition will be undertaken in accordance with the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC) guidance for competitions in Canada. To be considered, the conceptual designs must incorporate extensive feedback received by Parks Canada through years-long Indigenous, public, and stakeholder engagement. This project presents a unique opportunity to modernize facilities and open spaces in downtown Banff to welcome national park visitors, encourage connection with the national park, foster a welcoming and vibrant community. Each successful design proposal will be evaluated by an independent jury composed of recognized design and architecture professionals. The jury will evaluate the proposals and feedback received in further public engagement sessions and then provide a recommendation to Parks Canada. There will be continued opportunity for the public to provide input on the redevelopment project. Public engagement sessions on the conceptual design proposals will help to inform jury deliberations. Information and updates will be posted on the Let's Talk Mountain Parks website as they become available. Concluding in Spring 2026, the design competition for the 200-Block Banff Avenue Redevelopment Project will follow established industry standards and protocols and bring professional expertise to the evaluation process to generate world-class conceptual designs for this unique and iconic Canadian landmark.
Vancouver Sun
an hour ago
- Vancouver Sun
Opinion: Turbulence ahead — the real impact of proposed deregulation of Canada's skies
On June 19, the Competition Bureau of Canada released its final report on airline industry competition: 'Cleared for takeoff: Elevating airline competition.' Its central recommendations? That Canada consider allowing foreign-owned airlines to operate domestic routes and re-evaluate current ownership limits. By proposing to eliminate cabotage restrictions and foreign ownership limits, the bureau's suggestions threaten to unravel the very infrastructure that sustains Canada's aviation sector, with devastating consequences for workers, communities and national sovereignty. As the union representing over 16,000 airport workers across the country, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers sees these proposals not as policy progress, but as a direct threat to Canadian jobs, an erosion of our national aviation infrastructure and a dangerous precedent for public policy driven by short-term economics instead of long-term, Canadian public interest. A daily roundup of Opinion pieces from the Sun and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Informed Opinion will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. The U.S. strictly prohibits foreign carriers from operating domestic routes, and other regions — like the European Union — only allow such access among member states. Opening our skies unilaterally would offer foreign carriers privileges they don't extend to us. While we recognize that the airline industry needs reform, deregulating access to our domestic market isn't reform. It's a retreat. Canada's aviation sector operates under complex constraints: vast geography, regional routes that are economically and logistically essential but unprofitable, and a regulatory environment already strained by fees and infrastructure gaps. The bureau's proposal to allow foreign carriers to fly domestic routes — also known as cabotage — assumes all competitors arrive equally burdened. They do not. No major nation, including the U.S., offers Canada the same access. Foreign airlines would be invited to pick the most profitable routes without contributing to the rest of the network. That's not competition. It's market cherry-picking, and it undermines the carriers and workers who keep the full system running. For thousands of Canadians, airport jobs are often unionized, come with decent wages, benefits and job security, and offer permanence increasingly rare in the broader labour market. Our members are the backbone of the aviation economy. Foreign operators with no commitment to Canada will just bring lower wages, fewer benefits and more precarious, outsourced labour. This isn't speculation — it's history. We've seen it deteriorate countless Canadian airlines — from Canada 3000 to Jetsgo to Canadian Airlines International — and there's no evidence this time will be different. What makes these recommendations particularly troubling is the lack of labour consultation throughout the bureau's study. Only one labour union was interviewed over the course of a 13-month process, despite the airline sector employing tens of thousands of unionized workers. While the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers provided a detailed written submission to the bureau, we were never interviewed. Without input from the front-line workforce, these policy recommendations lack the perspective needed to understand their full impact. Our airlines operate in one of the most challenging geographies on Earth. They serve small towns, remote communities and Indigenous territories where air travel isn't a luxury — it's a lifeline. Foreign carriers, with no long-term investment in our infrastructure or workforce, will swoop in for the profitable urban corridors — Toronto to Vancouver, Montreal to Calgary — leaving Canadian carriers to shoulder the financial burden of essential, unprofitable routes. Once weakened, Canadian carriers will collapse — and with them, thousands of jobs. If Ottawa opens the door to foreign operators without long-term obligations, what happens when those players exit the market in a downturn? Who ensures continued service to the north? Who remains accountable to Parliament? The answer can't be: 'Whoever's left.' If the goal is a better system, let's fix what's broken. We don't dispute that Canada's aviation system has problems. But they begin with issues that tend to be ignored: airport rent and landing fees, overburdened infrastructure, outdated navigation systems and underinvestment in regional access. Fixing these problems requires political will, not privatizing the problem and hoping it solves itself. Canada has a responsibility to foster competition that serves the Canadian public, not foreign corporations. That means strengthening our airlines, protecting our workers and building an aviation system rooted in resilience, not deregulation. These are national priorities, not global business opportunities to be auctioned off to the highest bidder. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers urges the Canadian government to reject the competition bureau's recommendations on cabotage and foreign ownership. These proposals may promise cheaper fares, but they will come at the cost of sovereignty, safety and economic stability. Our skies aren't for sale. And the people who keep them running shouldn't pay the price. David Chartrand is the Canadian general vice-president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which represents over 50,000 members in Canada. He has been involved in the labour movement for more than 35 years.
