Expert group says the next six months are 'crucial' for major projects bill success
The Expert Group on Canada-US Relations at Carleton University released a white paper on the future of Canada's energy sector Monday morning, before Carney was set to meet with Canada's premiers in Huntsville, Ont.
Carney asked to join the premiers during their annual summer premiers gathering after President Donald Trump threatened Canada with 35 per cent tariffs starting Aug. 1.
The Building Canada Act, also known as Bill C-5, is a central piece of the Carney government's response to Trump's tariffs. The legislation gives the government the power to fast track projects like mines and pipelines deemed to be in the national interest, as the Liberal government seeks to shore up Canada's economy and rely less on trade with the United States.
The expert group, co-chaired by former Canadian Chamber of Commerce president Perrin Beatty and Carleton University international affairs professor Fen Hampson, wrote that the next six months are critical for the signature piece of legislation to be seen as a success.
Beatty said Trump's tariffs have created a "remarkable consensus" to change the way Canada conducts business.
"For too long, we've been a nation of builders that can't get anything built, to the point where you get decision by delay, where projects get abandoned or not even proposed because of regulatory paralysis," Beatty said in an emailed response.
"The prime minister has promised major improvements to the system, but to sustain and build the momentum, we have to show Canadians that the reforms are working."
The white paper says the Carney government should designate national interest projects "immediately." That list should include liquefied natural gas, oil, nuclear, hydrogen and renewable energy infrastructure.
The authors suggest deeming two LNG projects in northwestern BC, LNG Canada 2 and Ksi Lisims LNG, as being in the national interest because both have already cleared several regulatory hurdles. The Ksi Lisims LNG project is also a marine project, which puts it into federal jurisdiction.
"These projects are more manageable through federal action, and the potential rewards for Canada — 50,000 jobs and $11 billion per year added to the GDP — are major," Beatty said.
In order to deepen Indigenous engagement, the expert group says the government should formalize a co-developed benefit-sharing and equity process for land rights holders.
Carney held his first of three meetings with Indigenous leaders on Thursday in Gatineau, QC, meeting with hundreds of chiefs.
Some of the chiefs said they left the meeting feeling "cautiously optimistic," but others left early feeling that concerns they'd raised for weeks weren't being listened to.
Still, Beatty called the meeting an "important first step."
"The onus is on governments and business alike to demonstrate their good-faith commitment to the process and to communicate the tremendous opportunities these projects present for Indigenous communities," Beatty said.
Winning the trust and confidence of Indigenous communities won't happen overnight, but the prime minister has demonstrated a commitment to making it happen, he said.
Carney will co-host the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee with Natan Obed, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami president, in Inuvik, N. W. T., on Thursday to continue discussions about the legislation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
Bank of Canada widely expected to hold key rate steady amid trade uncertainty
The Bank of Canada is set to deliver an interest rate decision on Wednesday. Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem is seen during a news conference, in Ottawa, Wednesday, June 4, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld OTTAWA — Avery Shenfeld doesn't think the Bank of Canada will cut its benchmark interest rate at its decision on Wednesday, but if it does, he said it will be a 'pleasant surprise.' 'There's always a chance that they'll surprise with the rate cut,' the chief economist of CIBC said. 'But I'm not holding out that much hope.' Most economists are also expecting the Bank of Canada will hold its policy rate steady at 2.75 per cent for a third consecutive decision later this week. As of Friday afternoon, financial markets were placing odds of a quarter-point rate cut on Wednesday at just seven per cent, according to LSEG Data & Analytics. Stubbornness on the inflation front and surprise strength in the labour market have quashed arguments for further easing since the central bank's June decision. The Canadian economy gained an unexpected 83,000 jobs in June, Statistics Canada reported earlier this month, driving the unemployment rate lower for the first time since January. A few days later, StatCan reported annual inflation ticked up to 1.9 per cent last month while the Bank of Canada's closely watched core inflation figures held stubbornly around three per cent. 'Overall, sticky inflation readings, a weakening but relatively resilient economic backdrop and prospects for larger fiscal spending are reasons why we do not expect the BoC will cut again in this cycle,' RBC economists Claire Fan and Abbey Xu wrote in a note Friday. But Shenfeld's call for a lower policy rate — CIBC expects two more quarter-point drops before the Bank of Canada is done — isn't based on what's happened in the economy, it's about what's on the horizon. Outside of the June jobs jump, the labour market is still broadly weak with the unemployment rate at 6.9 per cent, Shenfeld noted. He also expects Canada's tariff dispute with the United States led to an economic contraction in the second quarter of the year. All told, there's enough 'slack' building in the economy to take steam out of inflation in the months to come, Shenfeld said. The Bank of Canada's own second-quarter business outlook survey released last week suggests that many firms are opting to absorb higher costs from tariffs, rather than pass them on to consumers who may be reining in spending amid economic uncertainty. Shenfeld said that's a sign that tariff impacts 'won't extend into a more persistent inflation issue.' He said that once the central bank gains enough confidence that any tariff-induced inflation pressures will be short-lived, monetary policymakers should feel confident enough to lower interest rates. 'I think at this point they know enough to rule out the worst-case scenario on trade,' Shenfeld said. Bank of Canada governor Tiff Macklem has explicitly said monetary policymakers are being less forward-looking than usual in the trade war. The central bank didn't publish a traditional forecast for the economy in its April monetary policy report, instead offering two scenarios for how tariffs could hit the economy. Jimmy Jean, chief economist at Desjardins, said he believes the Bank of Canada will have gathered enough clarity on the trade front to return to formal forecasts in this week's MPR. 'The uncertainty is there for everyone to recognize. But there's a point where you've got to sort of, stick your neck out and make the proper caveats,' Jean said. Tariff deadlines continue to hover over the Bank of Canada's head — U.S. President Donald Trump has threatened to levy tariffs of 35 per cent on Canadian imports starting Friday if a trade deal isn't reached before then, though CUSMA-compliant goods are expected to be exempt from the duties. Some forecasters, including RBC, expect the Bank of Canada is already done rate cuts and will turn the job of stimulating the economy through the trade war over to federal and provincial governments. While Jean also believes the central bank will opt to hold rates again on Wednesday, he said the bank's next decision in September is an 'open possibility' for a cut. Trump's sectoral tariffs targetting Canada's steel, aluminum and copper industries are of particular concern for Ontario and Quebec, Jean said. If those tariffs are sustained, he argued more rate cuts from the Bank of Canada will be warranted to cushion the economic hit. In addition to some sector-specific relief, the federal government has moved in recent months to ramp up Canada's defence and infrastructure funding — spending that could offer fiscal, rather than monetary, support for the economy. But Jean said Desjardins is expecting that lift to come over the ensuing years, not months, opening a window for the Bank of Canada to lower rates in the near-term. 'We think, despite those measures being in the pipeline, the Bank of Canada will still in September have a valid reason to cut interest rates,' he said. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 28, 2025. Craig Lord, The Canadian Press
National Observer
an hour ago
- National Observer
BC LNG project divides Indigenous nations, risks financial and environmental harm
A long-delayed and controversial liquefied natural gas (LNG) pipeline and export terminal in northern British Columbia is now officially back on track and promoted as a new opportunity for Indigenous economic development. However, a report released last week warns that the risks — to land, community and even investors — are far greater than the promised benefits. The Prince Rupert Gas Transmission (PRGT) pipeline and Ksi Lisims LNG terminal are poised to export up to 12 million tonnes of LNG annually, much of it destined for Asian markets. The pipeline's route cuts through Gitxsan and Tsimshian territories, but many hereditary leaders and community members remain opposed. Janna Wale, who is a Gitxsan community member and co-author of the new Yellowhead Institute report said the dominant narrative portraying LNG projects as straightforward economic opportunities overlooks significant realities. 'There's been one kind of narrative presented — economic growth is good and LNG equals opportunity. But there are trade-offs and checks and balances. It's important to include those in the conversation,' Wale said. Financial risks Financial risk stands out as a core issue for Indigenous communities being drawn into the project as equity investors, joint venture partners or through procurement contracts. 'There's been one kind of narrative presented — economic growth is good and LNG equals opportunity. But there are trade-offs and checks and balances. It's important to include those in the conversation,' Janna Wale said. Hayden King, executive director of the Yellowhead Institute, said these communities also bear the greatest risks if things go wrong. Few long-term shipper contracts have been signed, forcing the project to depend on the volatile spot LNG market, where global competition is fierce and prices are unpredictable. The report highlights that Japan and South Korea — key prospective markets for BC LNG exports — are already experiencing surpluses. 'Given the glut in the LNG market, where is this going to be sold, to which market and how is it going to get there? Those answers are not yet clear and so that presents a risk to those in it, and then those that are impacted by it,' King said. Emily Lowan, who co-authored the financial risk analysis for the report, said 80 per cent of PRGT's funding comes from loans and 20 per cent from direct investment. With this setup, sharing the equity portion equally between two parties (Western LNG and the Nisga'a Nation) means each holds a 10 per cent ownership stake in the whole project. 'Equity owners are paid after lenders, which means they are financially vulnerable if a project defaults or does not result in projected returns,' Lowan said. While Ottawa's $10 billion Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program is seen as proof that the government wants Indigenous communities to have a real share in these projects will offer some financial cushion, Lowan said the program does not cover lost revenue if profits fall short or shield nations if a commercial partner collapses. Lowan said at the time the report was written, no loan guarantee programs protected the full corporate debt exposure. The Nisga'a Nation's $3 billion equity stake would absorb nearly 30 per cent of Canada's Indigenous loan guarantee fund. If costs overrun — as seen in previous megaprojects — lenders may demand more equity or refuse additional financing, potentially triggering defaults, she said. Environmental and social concerns The report highlights how the floating LNG terminals and associated infrastructure will threaten marine ecosystems through dredging that destroys coral reefs and oyster beds, underwater noise pollution and shipping operations that produce significant greenhouse gas emissions. 'It really is a watershed of impacts. When you start to impact one part of that system, the rest of the ecosystem will be impacted as well. These cascading effects are especially concerning as climate change stresses these environments,' Wale said. The pipeline crosses two of British Columbia's largest salmon-producing river systems, requiring clear-cutting through major waterways and drilling beneath critical spawning habitats. Wale warned the pipeline will bisect important salmon runs, huckleberry patches and moose habitat critical to Indigenous food security and cultural practices. Despite this, the pipeline's approval relies on a permit granted in 2014. In June, British Columbia's Environmental Assessment Office ruled construction was 'substantially started,' allowing developers to move forward without a new review. This permit bypasses contemporary environmental standards, even as climate impacts worsen — raising concerns among conflicting Indigenous voices. Socially, resource hub towns such as Terrace are expected to face higher housing and food costs and overwhelmed health services. 'There will be 1,200 people in a man camp just a kilometer away … our health care system here is hanging on by its threads, and we're going to be bringing in over 1,000 workers into a tiny community,' said Gina Mowatt, a Gitxsan member. The influx of transient workers in 'man-camps' also raises worries about increased risks of sexual violence toward Indigenous women, a pattern linked to such developments. Beyond these risks, the report details uncertainty linked to BC's shifting LNG policy. The 2024 commitment to 'net-zero ready' LNG projects by 2030 still allows ongoing fossil gas use if electricity isn't yet available, meaning emissions will persist and put additional strain on local environments. Rifts between Indigenous nations While the Nisga'a Nation has actively invested in and supported the project, many hereditary leaders and community members of the Gitxsan and Tsimshian nations oppose it, asserting they never gave free, prior and informed consent. King warned that this dynamic revives a colonial 'divide and develop' tactic that pits Indigenous Nations against one another. 'There are plenty of opportunities for First Nations to negotiate with BC or Ontario or Canada, but fewer opportunities for nations to negotiate and undertake this type of diplomacy amongst themselves and I think that's by design,' he said. 'I don't think Canada wants nations to be working together. I think they want them to be divided.' He said the governments and corporations cultivate division by labeling communities that support resource development as 'the good Indians' while portraying resisting groups as 'the bad Indians.' This 'cleavage that's created and cast,' King said, mainly benefits external actors and undermines Indigenous governance, long-standing diplomatic relations and collective power. He said the approval process itself risks deepening these divisions by advancing consultation and consent with only select Indigenous groups, while excluding others is further fracturing Indigenous unity. Mowatt frames the conflict as a struggle between Indigenous communities and external actors, rather than a dispute within Indigenous nations. '[Instead] the war is against PRGT; the war is against these massive international corporations that are coming into our territory, every intention to destroy our lives here,' Mowatt said. As the project moves forward amid fractured consent and complex risks, the social and environmental stakes continue to weigh on the communities whose lives and lands intersect with the pipeline's path. 'We need the whole picture … it's about the legacy left for future generations, and who actually gets to decide what that legacy will be,' Wale said.
Globe and Mail
10 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
Ottawa's plan to boost deposit insurance is too timid and mired in concerns of ages past
John Turley-Ewart is a contributing columnist for The Globe and Mail, a regulatory compliance consultant and a Canadian banking historian. Between 1982 and 1985, the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation paid out $3.177-billion in claims to cover depositor losses. Ten poorly managed and badly regulated trust companies were the cause. By 1993, CDIC had recovered more than two-thirds of those funds when the liquidators were finished. The final cost to CDIC was $827-million. This loss put a dent in the Department of Finance's perception of deposit insurance. It was supposed to boost competition by levelling the playing field for smaller banks and financial institutions. Instead, some smaller institutions leveraged deposit insurance to attract deposits from unwitting customers that they then used to fund high-risk ventures. This boosted instability, not just competition. But those days are long gone, and financial regulation is different today. Ottawa needs to let the past go. Investor Clinic: Understanding deposit insurance rules could help simplify your holdings The quickest way to boost competition in Canada's banking system is now on the table: Increasing the dollar value of deposits guaranteed by the CDIC in cases of failure is under consideration in Ottawa. The more coverage CDIC offers, the easier it is to move beyond the Big Six banks for deposit accounts, chequing accounts, investment deposits – such as guaranteed investment certificates – and other CDIC-covered deposit categories and products. This in turn incentivizes Canada's Big Six to offer more competitive interest rates, reduce fees and improve service standards. Yet, the federal government is squandering an easy opportunity to boost competition with a timid proposal to insure consumer deposits up to $150,000 (versus the current amount, $100,000) for each eligible deposit product at member institutions, which include chartered banks, federally regulated credit unions, and loan and trust companies. Curiously, the Department of Finance is proposing that CDIC increase coverage for business deposit accounts to $500,000. Businesses will welcome this, but it creates a politically flawed, two-tier deposit insurance system. Such an approach puts any future federal government dealing with a bank failure in the invidious position of having CDIC business payouts exceed by more than three times consumer payouts. The likely outcome would see Ottawa cough up taxpayer money to make whole consumer deposits exceeding the $150,000 ceiling, defeating the purpose of CDIC. Rob Carrick: A $250,000 deposit insurance limit for banks would suit today's world a lot better than the current $100,000 The last time Ottawa increased CDIC coverage on Canadian-dollar deposit accounts was 20 years ago. Now the federal government is playing catch-up with the annual rate of inflation (2.18 per cent) since CDIC coverage was last raised to $100,000 in 2005. In real value of money terms, CDIC coverage dropped by almost 54 per cent over the past two decades. With the expansion of savings products covered by CDIC in recent years, such as the First Home Savings Account, one might assume the effective CDIC coverage has widened. And yet, the Department of Finance's own study found that CDIC-eligible deposits fell to 36 per cent in 2024 from 58 per cent in 2005. This advantages the Big Six banks at the expense of smaller financial players. Canadians are more likely to trust uninsured personal and business deposits to larger, older institutions. Following the failure of two finance companies in 1965 and 1966 that generated heavy losses, and a run on the Montreal City and District Savings Bank (known today as Laurentian Bank) in 1967, the federal government founded CDIC to restore confidence in the financial system while 'enhancing the competitive position of … smaller banks.' Deposit insurance was the antidote to the understandable bias toward larger banks. CDIC's initial deposit insurance coverage in 1967 was $20,000, the equivalent of $181,000 in today's dollars – 20 per cent higher than what Ottawa is now proposing. Competition would be enhanced by ensuring 'the safety and soundness of those depositors who are usually not in a position to judge for themselves the financial soundness of the institution holding their deposits.' It is an approach with advocates in other parts of Canada as well as the United States. Provinces regulate their financial deposit-taking institutions and have provincial versions of CDIC. In Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, deposit insurance is unlimited. In Prince Edward Island, it is unlimited for deposits in registered and tax-free accounts. Ontario offers a mix of unlimited coverage and $250,000 in deposit insurance depending on the deposit product. In New Brunswick, as well as Newfoundland and Labrador, provincially regulated deposit-taking institutions offer $250,000 per nine common deposit product categories. In the U.S., the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation offers US$250,000 (roughly $340,000) in deposit insurance for each of 14 deposit product categories. Revised CDIC coverage aligned with provincial and U.S. norms will better encourage competition in our banking system. It could be problematic, though, if the Department of Finance has real concerns about the state of some of our smaller financial institutions. Proposing such a modest increase to $150,000 raises the question: Does it?
