'We have to get that balance right': Liberal MPs express worries about major projects bill
Article content
OTTAWA — More progressive Liberal MPs expressed cautious concerns about their government's decision to ram through the internal trade and major projects bill in a matter of days, with some of them saying it could lead to legal issues down the road.
Bill C-5 would give the federal government sweeping powers for five years to quickly approve natural resource and infrastructure projects once they are deemed to be in the national interest — sparking criticism from First Nations and environmental groups.
Article content
Those concerns have been heard loud and clear and, in some cases, have resonated with some Liberal MPs. The bill is being studied and will be amended in a parliamentary committee on Wednesday, before it makes its way back to the House of Commons for a final vote Friday.
Earlier this week, Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith said his government 'is proposing to shut down democratic debate, curtail committee scrutiny and jam the bill through the legislature,' all which he said would make former prime minister Stephen Harper 'blush.'
'Liberals would rightly scream if a federal Conservative government attempted the same,' he said in a speech to the House on Monday.
B.C. MP Patrick Weiler also urged parliamentarians to consider how this bill 'could be used in bad faith by a future government' given those powers will be in place for five years.
Article content
A few Liberals expressed discomfort at the idea that some Indigenous groups said C-5 could potentially violate their treaty rights and that it does not clearly define the need for them to give free, prior and informed consent for projects taking place on their lands.
'There is a clear desire on the part of Canadians to be able to get big projects done in this country,' said Karina Gould, a former leadership contestant and current MP. 'But there is a duty and an obligation to ensure that Indigenous rights holders are part of this process.'
'We have to get that balance right, because if you don't, the government will be facing court challenges,' she added.
The warning has been issued by First Nations groups, including Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict who represents 133 First Nations across the province and said he would support them however they see necessary, whether it be in the courts or with protests.
Article content
'Obviously, we have to talk. We have to have those conversations, and we have to assure that Indigenous participation is included all the way through. And I think that will be the job ahead of us for the summer,' said Brendan Hanley, the Liberal MP for Yukon.
Hanley dismissed the idea C-5 could lead to another 'Idle No More' movement? 'No. I think we're going to be able to handle this in collaborative conversations,' he said.
Marcus Powlowski, an MP from Northern Ontario, said he has heard the concerns Indigenous and environmental groups have about C-5 but does not totally agree with them, nor does he think the bill in its current form gives the government too much power.
'I think, especially at the moment, given the international situation, given the pressures from the United States, I think we need a strong Canada. And part of being a strong Canada is getting major projects going, getting access to critical minerals,' he said.
Article content
However, Powlowski admitted the government 'didn't have a lot of time' to come up with the legislation and hinted 'maybe this is the best we're going to get under the circumstances in the fact that we only have a few days to pass the legislation.'
'I think it's important we pass this legislation, and there's always an opportunity afterwards to amend it,' he said.
Government House leader Steven MacKinnon defended the government's decision to pass C-5 before the summer, saying that it won an election campaign focused on lowering internal trade barriers and getting the economy moving with nation-building projects.
'This bill enjoys incredibly broad support, and we're pleased to be making progress on that,' he said.
Other Liberals took issue with reporters describing the process as too expedited.
'I don't think we're ramming it through. I think we're getting it done with accelerated speed,' said James Maloney, the Liberals' caucus chair.
Article content
Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault, a fervent environmentalist, sought to minimize the reach of C-5 this week. He said most major projects do not trigger federal impact assessments, so the bill would only apply to a 'very small number of projects.'
'I think that, as we move forward, we will see that the type of projects that are being proposed are projects that we want in terms of being able to achieve our 2030 targets when it comes to emissions reduction,' he said during a press conference on Monday.
Guilbeault also expressed concern regarding consultations with Indigenous peoples: 'This is an area where we have to be very careful… It can lead to problems down the road.'
Article content
Latest National Stories
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Ottawa Citizen
an hour ago
- Ottawa Citizen
The complicated, high-risk task ahead for Alberta's new man in D.C.
Alberta's new man in Washington, D.C., is Nathan Cooper, the 44-year-old former MLA from the rural heartland of the province. Nathan just wrapped up six years as Speaker of the Alberta legislature, an all-around nice fellow credited with keeping partisan shenanigans in the legislature to a minimum. Article content Ontario, Quebec and Alberta are the only provinces with full-time boots on the ground in D.C.; Alberta has a total of 11 staff in four offices across America, Nathan reports. 'To put that in perspective,' he adds, 'Quebec has close to 100 full-time people trying to defend the interests of Quebec in the U.S.' Article content Article content Article content I'm curious: What would entice Nathan to quit a plum job — refereeing partisan debates under the dome in Edmonton — and move to D.C. as a diplomat, a place where it's a struggle for anyone to be heard above the cacophony of lobbyists and legislators? Article content Article content Alberta needs someone in D.C. 'who can tell our story,' Nathan pitches. It's a glib answer to my question, but he qualifies his response; he knows he needs to convince not just the pro-energy crowd in the U.S. of the merits of Alberta as a trading partner, but the skeptics too. 'It's very possible,' he observes, 'the House and the Senate will be different after the (American) midterms.' Article content 'And, I think the Speaker's role, in many respects, prepared me for that,' he explains, 'because at the end of the day, you need to be able to garner the trust and respect of both sides of the House, or you end up in a very unruly place.' Article content Article content Nathan replaces former MP James Rajotte as Alberta's representative in Washington, and when we chat, he's been in the new job for less than two weeks. Cellphone in hand and safely parked on the side of the road, he's enroute to G7 briefing meetings in Calgary. A full 20 minutes into our conversation, he relaxes a little, unbuckles his seatbelt and takes a few sips of his Tim Horton's coffee. Article content Article content 'What a rocket ride,' he says with a nervous laugh, and describes his first week in D.C., alongside Premier Danielle Smith: meeting U.S. senators and congresspeople, as well as Canadian and American energy producers. After the G7, where the hosting province enjoys certain privileges including 'grip and grins' with world leaders, there's the Calgary Stampede in early July, a shindig that attracts politicos from across the world. Article content By August, Nathan plans to have his family settled in D.C. and he'll be working from an office lodged within the Canadian Embassy. 'Alberta and Ontario are still inside the embassy,' he explains, 'while the province of Quebec has their own office space and functions independent of the embassy.'
Vancouver Sun
an hour ago
- Vancouver Sun
The complicated, high-risk task ahead for Alberta's new man in D.C.
Alberta's new man in Washington, D.C., is Nathan Cooper, the 44-year-old former MLA from the rural heartland of the province. Nathan just wrapped up six years as Speaker of the Alberta legislature, an all-around nice fellow credited with keeping partisan shenanigans in the legislature to a minimum. Ontario, Quebec and Alberta are the only provinces with full-time boots on the ground in D.C.; Alberta has a total of 11 staff in four offices across America, Nathan reports. 'To put that in perspective,' he adds, 'Quebec has close to 100 full-time people trying to defend the interests of Quebec in the U.S.' I'm curious: What would entice Nathan to quit a plum job — refereeing partisan debates under the dome in Edmonton — and move to D.C. as a diplomat, a place where it's a struggle for anyone to be heard above the cacophony of lobbyists and legislators? Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. 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 Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. More importantly, will his presence matter one whit, should Mark Carney, Canada's new prime minister and man of the moment in Kananaskis Country, make it clear he speaks for Canada, full stop? Alberta needs someone in D.C. 'who can tell our story,' Nathan pitches. It's a glib answer to my question, but he qualifies his response; he knows he needs to convince not just the pro-energy crowd in the U.S. of the merits of Alberta as a trading partner, but the skeptics too. 'It's very possible,' he observes, 'the House and the Senate will be different after the (American) midterms.' 'And, I think the Speaker's role, in many respects, prepared me for that,' he explains, 'because at the end of the day, you need to be able to garner the trust and respect of both sides of the House, or you end up in a very unruly place.' Nathan replaces former MP James Rajotte as Alberta's representative in Washington, and when we chat, he's been in the new job for less than two weeks. Cellphone in hand and safely parked on the side of the road, he's enroute to G7 briefing meetings in Calgary. A full 20 minutes into our conversation, he relaxes a little, unbuckles his seatbelt and takes a few sips of his Tim Horton's coffee. 'What a rocket ride,' he says with a nervous laugh, and describes his first week in D.C., alongside Premier Danielle Smith: meeting U.S. senators and congresspeople, as well as Canadian and American energy producers. After the G7, where the hosting province enjoys certain privileges including 'grip and grins' with world leaders, there's the Calgary Stampede in early July, a shindig that attracts politicos from across the world. By August, Nathan plans to have his family settled in D.C. and he'll be working from an office lodged within the Canadian Embassy. 'Alberta and Ontario are still inside the embassy,' he explains, 'while the province of Quebec has their own office space and functions independent of the embassy.' I can't help but wonder: Isn't it confusing, operating under one embassy roof, with the Albertans cozying up to Americans (for example, allowing U.S. liquor back on shelves) while other provinces threaten retaliation against Trump's latest tariff hikes for steel and aluminum? And worse, isn't there a risk that provincial representation in D.C. is proof — to those who care about these things — there is no unified Team Canada position that even the prime minister can wrangle? 'The (Canadian) embassy is pretty good to us,' Nathan answers, thoughtfully, 'and I think we're pretty fair with the embassy. On most things we're 'Team Canada.'' But, he acknowledges, 'there are some issues, around energy and resource development, where we have a different view of the world. 'The good news,' he adds, 'is most people don't know — even (American) legislators — what we're doing on a province-to-province basis, whether or not we're retaliating, whether we are in lockstep with the federal government. 'Things are so chaotic there,' Nathan reflects, that even the Americans 'don't pretend to know what the Trump administration is going to do.' Everyone, he says, accepts that every situation is fluid and dynamic: 'That's the default position of everyone right now in D.C.' Nathan represented the rural constituency of Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills for a decade; his exit from partisan politics triggered a byelection to be held later this month. One of the candidates in the race is Cameron Davies, leader of the Alberta Republican Party; it openly advocates for Alberta's secession from Canada. Many of his former constituents are frustrated, Nathan admits, 'they want to consider separation, but at the end of the day, the overwhelming majority of those people just want Canada to work and Alberta to have a strong role similar to the role that Quebec plays in Confederation.' That's a part of the Alberta story he may need to explain more fully to people in D.C. Nathan's certainly not agitating for Alberta to become America's 51st state, but he is paying close attention to Carney's nation-building efforts. 'If there's no pipeline with hydrocarbons in it, be it gas or oil, in the approved list of (nation-building) projects,' he cautions, 'that will have significant impact on how Albertans feel about national unity.' Americans, too, are watching Canada's new prime minister, and see him clearly as the guy in charge of negotiating a new bilateral economic and security pact with Trump, Nathan says. But some are asking: 'Which Carney is going to govern: the climate change advocate or the world banker?' It's a fair question. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our newsletters here .
Toronto Star
11 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Trump ignites debate on presidential authority with Iran strikes and wins praise from Republicans
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's bombardment of three sites in Iran quickly sparked debate in Congress over his authority to launch the strikes, with Republicans praising Trump for decisive action even as many Democrats warned he should have sought congressional approval. The instant divisions in the U.S. Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president's ability to conduct such a consequential action on his own, without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. While Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to go it alone, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority.
