Latest news with #nationalinterest
National Post
3 days ago
- Business
- National Post
From Nova Scotia's 'Wind West' to Alberta's pipeline dream, here are the national projects premiers are pitching Carney
OTTAWA — Think of it like the premiers' edition of Dragon's Den. When provincial and territorial leaders meet in Saskatoon next week, each will arrive armed with a list of projects they want fast-tracked and are seeking federal money to get off the ground. Article content While Prime Minister Mark Carney has not signalled that he plans to act like a venture capitalist to finance these endeavours, he has promised to speed up the timeframe from five to two years for massive infrastructure and energy projects to secure the necessary approvals by creating a new major projects office. Article content Article content Doing so would happen through legislation planned to be tabled by the end of June, expected to be combined in a bill to fulfill Carney's other promise of eliminating federal trade barriers. He has said he wants that to happen by July 1. Article content Article content A background document, titled 'major projects and proposed national interest legislation,' prepared by the Privy Council Office and obtained by National Post, outlines how Carney's government intends to fulfill his federal campaign promise to 'build, baby, build.' Article content 'The legislation would be designed to enable upfront decision-making on a small number of projects,' it reads. 'Once a project is determined to be in the national interest, federal reviews will shift from 'whether' to build these projects to 'how' to best advance them. It will streamline multiple decision points for federal approval and minimize the risk of not securing project approval following extensive project work.' Article content It goes on to highlight how the forthcoming legislation would lay out the factors that would be used to determine how a project would be considered to be in the 'national interest.' Article content Article content 'Projects will also be assessed against Indigenous and provincial (and) territorial interests and their clean growth potential.' It adds that leaders have asked that mines, nuclear facilities and ports be prioritized along with 'other infrastructure.' Article content Article content According to the document, the legislation would include a list of 'national interest' projects, adding that the government could add to that list through various orders. Article content 'Once determined to be in the national interest, a project would be prioritized and benefit from a seamless, single point of contact — the major federal projects office.' Article content It goes on to describe that a regulatory order stating a project was in the national interest would allow the legislation 'to provide that all subsequent federal regulatory requirements are deemed to have been satisfied' and that a 'conditions document' would be issued to address impacts of the project, which could include 'mitigation measures.'
CTV News
3 days ago
- Business
- CTV News
Ottawa tabling bill to skirt impact assessment law for ‘national interest' projects
Prime Minister Mark Carney arrives to Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Wednesday, May 28, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick OTTAWA — The federal government is developing a 'national interest' bill to fast-track nation-building projects with a streamlined regulatory approval process as a substitute for reviews under the Impact Assessment Act. A briefing document obtained by The Canadian Press indicates the legislation would lay out the criteria to decide if a project is in the national interest. Once that's decided, a single federal minister would be named to oversee a review process laying out how the project can be built. The document, dated May 23, was prepared for consultations between the Privy Council Office, or PCO, and provinces, territories, and Indigenous partners on the government's major projects strategy. PCO officials met with those partners as recently as Wednesday night to go over the proposal. It's expected to be a topic of conversation at the upcoming first ministers meeting in Saskatoon on June 2. Prime Minister Mark Carney campaigned on a promise to push big projects forward swiftly as Canada seeks to decouple its economy from an increasingly unpredictable and unreliable United States and turn itself into an energy superpower. He announced the plan after meeting with Canada's premiers two days before the election was called before making it the keystone of his election platform. 'We are going to build, baby, build,' Carney said in his victory speech after Canadians elected his Liberal party to a fourth consecutive mandate on April 28. The document, identified as a 'background' paper on 'National Interest Legislation,' says U.S. tariffs and 'other trade-distorting policies have put Canada's economic future at risk.' It then outlines the steps the government is planning to hasten the approval process for a 'small number' of major projects. Part of the plan involves drafting criteria to decide whether a project is in the national interest. Those criteria could include 'whether a project will make an exceptional contribution to Canada's prosperity, advances economic security, defence security and national autonomy through improved movement of goods, services and people,' the document says. 'Projects should strengthen access of Canadian resource, goods and services to a diverse group of reliable trade partners,' it says. Projects would also be assessed against Indigenous and provincial and territorial interests and on their 'clean growth potential,' according to the document. 'Once a project is determined to be in the national interest, federal reviews will shift from 'whether' to build these projects to 'how' to best advance them,' the document reads. 'It will streamline multiple decision points for federal approval and minimize the risk of not securing project approval following extensive project work.' The aim, according to the document, is to build more flexibility into the regulatory process and allow the government to decide that all federal regulatory requirements have been satisfied through a regulatory order. A designated minister would also have the power to impose conditions on those projects. 'The order would effectively substitute the determination for 'downstream' decisions about whether the project can proceed, including decisions under the Impact Assessment Act,' the document says. That would effectively circumvent C-69, the Impact Assessment Act. Conservative critics have claimed it has prevented projects from being built. The document says the intent is to 'send a clear signal early that will build investor confidence' and get projects built faster. The proposed legislation would not cover decisions made by arm's length authorities or regulators, federal-provincial entities or treaty-based processes in the North, the document says. It also commits to upholding Canada's obligations under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The document also indicates the government may have further plans for speeding up major projects — it refers to 'broader reform' required to get all projects down to a two-year decision timeline. This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 29, 2025 Nick Murray, The Canadian Press
Bloomberg
5 days ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
BBVA's Bid for Sabadell Delayed Amid Government Review
CC-Transcript 00:00Rodrigo, Spain's antitrust watchdog, had cleared the offer with some conditions. So I wonder how Madrid's justifying its own review. So they are saying it's about national interest and that gives them the right to look into this. Legally, they're allowed to do this, but they have certain restrictions and they can only comment beyond or on top of what the CMC, the watchdog, said. They cannot add new factors into their analysis. The other issue here is whether or not they can argue that this has to do with national security, not only national interest. That is a bit harder to imagine, but that is one issue that the other parties will be looking at, because BBVA says that legally they can only get involved in issues with national security. So you have two arguments. On one hand, they say it's national interest. On the other hand, you have BBVA saying the law only allows you to step in if you have issues of national security. So those are the two arguments that are being used right now to justify this. Okay. But if the government does set tough conditions on a takeover, how much could that limit what BBVA wants to do? Would it mean that the deal just isn't worth it in the end? So there are two kind of conditions they can set right now. On one hand, the one that's pretty clear is that the government has the ability to block the legal merger. What that means is BBVA could potentially end up buying a stake, even over 50% in SABADELL. But could it actually merge the banks? It could be just a shareholder, but not the actual owner. That's something the government can do legally. And obviously, then the question would be, is BBVA interested in being a shareholder in its competitor? Also, how does that affect competition? And that's one issue. BBVA has always said that they are interested and will stay here on the long run. The other way that this could play out is that the government sets tougher conditions, as you say, such as higher restrictions on the conditions they have to offer to clients, and that instead of doing these conditions like the competition regulator asked for three years or five, in some cases, the government says no, these conditions have to be one in ten for ten or 15. And that's when BBVA could potentially say, this is too much for me. The final thing is BBVA could also indicate that, okay, look, we will put money on the table. We will offer cash to the shareholders, and that suddenly changes the mood on this Sabadell site. That has not been floated yet, but it is a it's a trump card. Everybody's, you know, has expectations around.
South China Morning Post
7 days ago
- Business
- South China Morning Post
China's ambassador hits out at Australia's ‘questionable' Darwin Port return plan
China's ambassador to Australia has described the Australian government's plan to end a Chinese firm's control of the strategically located Darwin Port as 'questionable', saying the company should not be punished. Chinese company Landbridge Group was awarded a 99-year lease of the port in 2015, under a deal originally approved by the Northern Territory government, a move that was criticised by then US president Barack Obama. Last month, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said his government was working on a plan to buy back Darwin Port from its Chinese owners on national interest grounds, saying the port needed to be 'in Australian hands'. 08:35 Why voters around Asia had Trump on their minds as they headed to the polls Why voters around Asia had Trump on their minds as they headed to the polls Xiao Qian, China's ambassador to Canberra, said Landbridge Group had made significant investments in maintaining and building the port and had contributed to the local economy. 'Such an enterprise and project deserves encouragement, not punishment. It is ethically questionable to lease the port when it was unprofitable and then seek to reclaim it once it becomes profitable,' Xiao said in an embassy statement on Sunday. In an interview with various media groups, Xiao said the Landbridge Group had secured the lease through an open and transparent bidding process. He expressed hope that Australia would view the project 'objectively'. 'China and Australia are comprehensive strategic partners. The two sides should foster mutual trust, as mutually beneficial cooperation aligns with our shared interests,' he said, urging the Australian government to create a fair, transparent and predictable business environment for Chinese companies in Australia.
South China Morning Post
7 days ago
- Business
- South China Morning Post
China's ambassador hits out at Australia's ‘questionable' Darwin Port plan
China's ambassador to Australia has described the Australian government's plan to end a Chinese firm's control of the strategically located Darwin Port as 'questionable', saying the company should not be punished. Advertisement Chinese company Landbridge Group was awarded a 99-year lease of the port in 2015, under a deal originally approved by the Northern Territory government, a move that was criticised by then US president Barack Obama. Last month, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said his government was working on a plan to buy back Darwin Port from its Chinese owners on national interest grounds, saying the port needed to be 'in Australian hands'. 08:35 Why voters around Asia had Trump on their minds as they headed to the polls Why voters around Asia had Trump on their minds as they headed to the polls Xiao Qian, China's ambassador to Canberra, said Landbridge Group had made significant investments in maintaining and building the port and had contributed to the local economy. 'Such an enterprise and project deserves encouragement, not punishment. It is ethically questionable to lease the port when it was unprofitable and then seek to reclaim it once it becomes profitable,' Xiao said in an embassy statement on Sunday. Xiao said the Landbridge Group had secured the lease through an open and transparent bidding process. He expressed hope that Australia would view the project 'objectively'. Advertisement 'China and Australia are comprehensive strategic partners. The two sides should foster mutual trust, as mutually beneficial cooperation aligns with our shared interests,' he said, urging the Australian government to create a fair, transparent and predictable business environment for Chinese companies in Australia.
