‘Harper's dreams coming true': MPs slam Carney's fast-tracking plan
Prime Minister Mark Carney's new bill to fast-track major projects will have to rely on Conservative votes to pass, with all other parties expressing major reservations.
The legislation would allow the federal government to conditionally approve projects it deems 'in the national interest' before an environmental or impact assessment or other regulatory processes take place.
Both the NDP and Greens have spoken out against it, while Patrick Bonin, Bloc Québécois environment and climate change critic, called Carney's plan to fast-track major projects 'highly problematic' at a French-language press conference on Monday. The federal government is seeking to give itself 'superpowers' to accelerate projects and weaken environmental protections, Bonin said. Some of the factors used to evaluate whether a project is in the national interest are vague, and there's no obligation for the government to adhere to it, he added. Then, there is the question of sovereignty and whether provinces can say no to projects in their jurisdiction.
Last week, Carney said projects need consensus from provinces to move forward, but the legislation doesn't spell that out, leaving room for potential overreach on provincial jurisdiction, Bonin said.
The Building Canada Act is part of an omnibus bill that also includes action to remove federal barriers to interprovincial trade, which is less controversial than the changes to major project approvals. On Monday, the Bloc Québécois called on the federal government to split the omnibus bill into two separate bills so the issues can be studied in the relevant federal committees.
The federal Conservatives have not confirmed whether they will support the bill — Leader Pierre Poilievre said caucus will discuss it on Wednesday. For the Conservatives, the question is not whether legislation is perfect, but whether it is better than the way things are, Poilievre said on Friday. 'That's what we'll be looking at as we study this newly-introduced bill over the next few days.'
'We would vote in favour of accelerating even one project,' Poilievre said, indicating that he wants to see new pipelines in particular.
'Once a project is on that list, it's not a question of if it's going to move forward, but how,' Alexandre Boulerice, NDP critic for environment and climate change, said. 'It's like Stephen Harper's dreams coming true."
Last week, BC Premier David Eby said he will not support Alberta Premier Danielle Smith's vision of building a new oil pipeline to BC's north coast.
Poilievre made it clear he doesn't think provinces should get veto power over nationally important projects.
'We need a pipeline to the Pacific, and if the prime minister says he's going to wait till everyone agrees, then nothing will get done, which is what has been happening for the last decade,' Poilievre said at a press conference at Parliament Hill on Monday.
If the Conservatives support Bill C-5, the Liberals will have the votes they need to get it through the House of Commons. The NDP says its members will vote against the bill, with one MP calling the major projects section 'really dangerous.'
'Once a project is on that list, it's not a question of if it's going to move forward, but how,' Alexandre Boulerice, NDP critic for environment and climate change, said in a phone interview with Canada's National Observer.
'It's like Stephen Harper's dreams coming true.'
He said the NDP is currently exploring possible options to block the bill, but any action would likely require cooperation with the Bloc Québécois. Either way, Boulerice doesn't see how the federal government can rush the bill through by July 1, given that there are less than two weeks left before the House rises for the summer.
'It's a really capitalist logic that what we need to do is to provide certainty to investors and companies,' Boulerice said.
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May also criticized the proposed legislation in a June 9 press release.
'Bill C-5 gives the federal Cabinet sweeping discretion to fast-track projects while weakening Indigenous rights and environmental protections,' May's statement reads.
'This is the first time in 40 years that Canadian environmental assessment law has been written to serve political deals first and environmental responsibility second.'
Factors for determining national interest 'carefully worded'
The bill lists some factors the government may consider when deciding whether a project will be listed for fast-tracking, one of which is whether it will 'contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada's objectives with respect to climate change.' Another factor is whether it will 'advance the interests of Indigenous peoples.'
Boulerice said these are nothing more than broad slogans.
Mark Winfield, a professor of environmental governance at York University, was of the same mind.
'These are attempts to cover off points of potential vulnerability,' he said in a phone interview with C anada's National Observer.
The bill does not have a clear definition of 'clean growth,' he said, which creates huge loopholes for approving projects or employing technologies that many Canadians wouldn't consider 'clean.'
'The government has been very liberal in its definition of 'clean' to include things like CCUS [carbon capture, utilisation and storage], critical minerals, [and] nuclear,' Winfield said.
The bill raises serious questions about how the federal government will reconcile Canada's climate change obligations with all the talk of potential pipeline and fossil fuel export projects at the same time as northern Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario are going up in smoke, he added.
'Everybody thinks that it's an open door for pipelines, in fact, for oil and gas,' Boulerice said. 'It's not about solving the housing crisis with a big project of building millions of homes. It's about energy.'
Carney has made repeated references to both clean and conventional energy, the latter of which refers to fossil fuels like oil and gas.
Carney has referenced 'decarbonized' oil and used the Pathways Alliance's proposed multi-billion dollar carbon capture project as an example of projects that could be considered for fast-tracking.
'Oil is carbon. There's no such thing as decarbonized oil,' Angela Carter, an associate professor of political science at Memorial University of Newfoundland, said in a phone interview.
'We need to be very, very careful about this definition of clean growth. If it's a project that contributes to sustaining and growing oil production, well, that's not clean growth. It's very, very, very simple.'
Bloc Québécois House Leader Christine Normandin said it's too early to say whether her party will support the bill. First, they want the government to respond to their request to split the bill into two parts, one for interprovincial trade and one for major projects.
'In a sense, this is taking what Stephen Harper tried to do with C-38 and putting it on steroids … The problem with trying to take shortcuts is it has a tendency to backfire and to make the underlying conflicts worse than ever,' Winfield said.
'Look what happened: Northern Gateway died, Energy East went nowhere, it took extraordinary steps to get Trans Mountain done.'
The biggest challenge for Carney's government will likely be navigating Indigenous opposition and constitutional rights, said Michael Wernick, former clerk of the Privy Council. Indigenous Peoples have the most 'legal ability' to slow things down, he said, adding that it is not unsolvable for the Carney government but will be a key hurdle.
Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak voiced her concerns with the bill on Friday and called an emergency meeting on it this week.
Onlookers and experts who care about climate are looking on with 'considerable uncertainty' because the bill could allow for massive progress to be made on an east-west electricity grid or fast-tracking renewable energy infrastructure, but that may not be the case, James Rowe, an associate professor of environmental studies at the University of Victoria, said.
'Given the political economy of Canada as the fourth largest oil producer in the world … it's more likely those real powerful forces are going to get their way — and projects that might otherwise have been stopped by regulatory processes and consultations … are going to get fast-tracked,' he said.
Hashtags

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


CTV News
3 hours ago
- CTV News
Calls for fentanyl task force
The opposition is calling on the NDP government to step up its enforcement of fentanyl trafficking and organized crime.


Calgary Herald
4 hours ago
- Calgary Herald
Tasha Kheiriddin: Liberals finally making Canada's defence a priority
Damn the torpedoes! Canada's Liberal government is taking aim at defence — and it's about time. Article content This week, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that Canada will hit the NATO benchmark of 2 per cent of GDP on defence spending this year, instead of waiting for 2032, deploying an additional $9 billion in 2025-2026. Ever the banker, he's also deploying some accounting manoeuvres, shifting $16 billion from the ledgers of other departments to the defence budget to bring it up to the required amount. But that is in line with the tabulations of other NATO countries — and is something predecessor Justin Trudeau should have done, so that Canada would have appeared to be less of a defence laggard for the last decade. Article content Article content Article content But better late than never — and perhaps, just in time. Article content Article content Carney's announcement comes just weeks ahead of both the G7 summit he is hosting in Kananaskis, Alberta and a meeting of NATO leaders later this month in The Hague. The change sends a message to both U.S. President Donald Trump and E.U. allies that Canada means business on defence. Together with the government's border security bill announced earlier this week, Carney is paving the way for a trade deal, or at least some relief from tariffs, with the United States. Article content His spending boost will sit well with his recent pledge to join ReArm Europe, in light of upcoming NATO demands that members spend 5 per cent of GDP in coming years, instead of two. Carney also gets a gold star for actual change. The government will beef up salaries, recruitment and retention of troops, finally acknowledging that new equipment is pointless without skilled personnel. Ottawa will also overhaul the procurement process, a boost for the Canadian defence industry which could offset some of the costs to taxpayers through job creation and revenue. That could also help sell future spending hikes: while polling shows two thirds of Canadians support spending 2 per cent on defence, there's not much appetite for five. Article content Article content But as always, a landmine looms on the horizon: in this case, the infamous F-35 program. Article content Article content On Tuesday, Auditor-General Karen Hogan dropped a bombshell. Canada's planned fleet of 88 F-35 jets is now projected to cost nearly 50 per cent more. It has ballooned from $19 billion in 2022 to a staggering $27.7 billion in 2025, and that's before factoring in infrastructure upgrades, weapons and inflation. Hogan's audit was brutal: the Department of National Defence relied on outdated cost estimates, ignored improved data, and has no coherent contingency plan in place. Infrastructure to house the jets is running three years behind schedule, with some bases not expected to open until 2031. The RCAF is also short on qualified pilots — something it knew back in 2018, but which for the previous government was presumably not a priority. Article content Canada needs stealth fighters. We don't, however, need another lake of red ink. Instead of sticking with 88 F-35s at $27 billion-plus for the fleet, Canada should look at Sweden's Gripen, Boeing's Super Hornet, or a mix of planes. If Carney approves the F-35 as-is, that failure will become the focus, instead of his ambitious plans to rearm. Defence Minister David McGuinty hasn't committed to a review of the project, saying only that he'd ensure that the auditor general's recommendations will be 'fully integrated' into his department. But he should, especially now that Canada is also building stronger ties with Europe, be considering where some of these planes could be sourced.


Calgary Herald
4 hours ago
- Calgary Herald
John Ivison: Carney now has billions of reasons to buy fighter planes other than F-35s
In his speech pledging to meet NATO's two per cent spending target, Mark Carney expanded on his plan to rearm the Canadian military. Article content Key to this transformation are moves to strengthen the Canadian defence industry and to diversify defence partnerships away from the United States, where Canada spends 75 per cent of its capital budget. Article content Carney didn't mention the F-35 fighter jet contract but in March he ordered a review to look at whether the order to buy 88 fifth-generation planes is the best investment for Canada. Article content Article content The results of that review are expected this summer, and if the government is minded to cancel the remainder of the contract (it is legally obliged to take the first 16 jets), the auditor general's office has just given it a good excuse. Article content Article content The AG's latest report suggests that the F-35s will not be delivered on time or on budget — which is, perhaps, as predictable as death, or Donald Trump turning on his closest confidants. Article content But the findings will prove maddening to a prime minister who has promised to build big things, from concept to completion, in short order. Article content The AG's report suggests that the Department of National Defence should have known sooner that costs were considerably higher than had been made public. It probably did, but it has wanted to buy this aircraft for two decades and didn't want nosy busybodies like the taxpayer intruding in the process. Article content Article content The Trudeau government finalized arrangements to buy 88 F-35s in December 2022 (having initially cancelled the project in 2015). Article content Article content Projected purchase costs at the time were $19 billion. Article content But the Department of National Defence's own numbers suggest that, by 2024, inflation, fluctuating exchange rates and rising facilities costs had increased the cost to $27.7 billion. Article content The AG's team calculated that another $5.5 billion can be added to that number to cover infrastructure upgrades and advanced weapons, taking the new bill to over $33 billion. Article content Delivery will start next year, with the first eight being sent to Luke Air Force base in Arizona for pilot training. The rest will be sent to Canada to form fighter squadrons at Cold Lake, Alta., and Bagotville, Que.