Bill C-5 passes in the House, as Carney vows to consult Indigenous groups
OTTAWA — Facing concerns and warnings of Indigenous resistance against a key part of his governing agenda, Prime Minister Mark Carney acknowledged Friday that 'more fulsome conversations are needed' to choose the development projects his government wants to fast-track through controversial new legislation, Bill C-5.
Speaking moments after the bill passed third reading in the House of Commons,
Carney pledged to hold meetings in the coming weeks
with First Nations, Inuit and Métis leaders and experts in a series of summits to 'launch the implementation of this legislation in the right way' in 'full partnership' with Indigenous communities.
This will be the 'first step' in the process to choose which projects will be chosen through the new legislation for the fast-track to approval within the government's goal of two years.
The Liberal government's major projects bill has passed the House of Commons thanks to help from the Conservative Party. Prime Minister Mark Carney calls the legislation the core of his government's domestic economic response to U.S. tariffs (June 20, 2025 / The Canadian Press)
Carney also repeated pledges earlier this week, as the Liberal government rammed the bill through the House
over the objections of some Indigenous
, environmental groups and opposition parties, that the new process will respect Indigenous rights to consultation and 'free, prior and informed consent' under the United Nations Declaration to the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The government House Leader said this week they expect the bill to pass in the Senate next week.
'These projects will be built with Indigenous nations and communities. This is not an aspiration. It is the plan embedded in the bill itself,' Carney said Friday.
'We all agree that more fulsome conversations are needed to select the nation-building projects and to determine the conditions that they must fulfil. In other words, the real work begins now.'
In the April 28 election, Carney's Liberals won a minority government while promising to fast-track development projects like mines, pipelines and ports to boost economic growth, make Canada a 'superpower' in clean power and fossil fuels, and reduce reliance on the United States that has imposed a series of tariffs on Canadian goods.
Carney
acknowledged the bill sailed through the Commons quickly, but argued Friday that speed was needed
to confront the 'crisis' of the American trade war.
'This is the response. This is us being in charge of our destiny. That's why we pushed it,' Carney said.
Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty — a former grand chief of Eeyou Istchee in Quebec — said the promised summits are a 'serious signal' that Indigenous communities are going to be 'at the table' in deciding how projects will be chosen under the new process.
'There have been more projects selected. It is something that we will define together,' she said.
The bill passed through the House of Commons Friday in two votes, after House Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia ruled to split the legislation into two parts. All parties supported a less contentious section to lift federal barriers to trade and labour movement inside Canada. The other, more controversial part dealing with major projects also passed with Liberals and Conservatives voting en masse in favour, and Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green MPs voting against.
Toronto Liberal and former cabinet minister
MP Nate Erskine-Smith also voted against the national projects part of the legislation
.
The version of the bill now moving to the Senate came with a suite of amendments, including some that the government supported, aimed at increasing transparency and restricting some of the powers the legislation would create. This includes a provision to obtain the written consent of affected provinces and territories before the government chooses to fast-track a given project, and to ensure the new process that the law would create respects ethics rules and can't override legislation like the Indian Act.
The changes also created a new requirement for the government to publish a suite of information about the projects — from the contents of any studies and assessments about their impacts, to all recommendations about them from the civil service — at least 30 days before it officially puts them into the fast-track process.
Business groups like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have also supported the legislation, arguing that a thicket of government regulations has delayed major projects, and that there is now an urgent need to build new infrastructure for energy, critical minerals and other sectors.
But
Bill C-5
remains controversial, including with predictions this week from some Indigenous leaders that it could inspire resistance and protest like the 2012 'Idle No More' movement because of a lack of consultation on the new powers. MPs have also condemned the national projects part of the legislation as a troubling expansion of power that risks trampling environmental protections and Indigenous rights. After the amendments Friday, the bill retained its proposal to allow the cabinet to choose projects to fast-track based on 'any factor' it considers relevant, and to skirt laws like the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and Species at Risk Act when reviewing projects to speed up.
'This legislation is an abomination and one that will be a stain on the reputation of this government and of our prime minister. As a first effort to lead this country, it's a bad effort,' said Green Leader Elizabeth May.
Bloc MP Sébastien Lemire accused the government of reproducing the 'condescending and colonialist spirit' of the last century towards Canada's Indigenous Peoples.
And Don Davies, the NDP's interim leader, alleged the bill creates 'Henry VIII' powers that allow the government 'to override laws by decree.
'It guts environmental protections, undermines workers and threatens Indigenous rights,' Davies said. 'This bill will end up in court.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
23 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Race for control of Georgia state House already in motion
ATLANTA — It's not even 2026, but the race to control the Georgia Houseof Representatives has begun. From a community center in LaGrange to the Chamber of Commerce in Macon to the waters of Lake Lanier, Democratic and Republican leaders are laying the groundwork forhigh stakes campaigning next year. 'For all practical purposes, the 2026 elections are underway,' said state Rep. Carolyn Hugley of Columbus, the Democratic leader in the Georgia House. It takes 91 seats in the House to win the majority. Republicans currently hold 100 seats and have controlled the chamber since the GOP flipped it in 2004. 'House Republicans are laser-focused on building on our success from 2024 and expanding our majority in 2026,' House Speaker Jon Burns, R-Newington, saidin a statement. But Democrats are eyeing this next election cycle to make a comeback. In 2018, the last midterm election during a Donald Trump presidency, Georgia Democrats gained 11 seats in the House. If all 80 Democrats hold their seats, a similar showing would allow them to take control of the chamber. That may be easier said than done. Trump's approval rating has hovered around 45%, butit is higher than it was during his first term in office. Then there is the electoral map, which was drawn by Republicans to help them hold on to their majorities in both the state House and Senate. 'All of the easy seats have already been captured, so every seat that we have from here on out is going to be more and more difficult to win,' Hugley said. The strategy Leaders behind Greater Georgia, a conservative voter registration organization founded by former U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler in 2021, traveled this June to Savannah and Macon to present Gov. Brian Kemp's No. 1 legislative priority: a bill that would limit the kinds of lawsuits people can bring and reduce the hefty verdicts. In Macon, Republican Senate Pro Tem John F. Kennedy explained how Republicans' narrow majority made the civil litigation legislation extremely difficult to pass. Thirty-three of the 56 Georgia senators are Republican, but 'we got a guy that votes no on everything, so we really got 32 on the best day,' Kennedy said, referring to Sen. Colton Moore, a Republican from Trenton. Three Republicans are plaintiff lawyers who had concerns about the ramifications of the legislation on their practice and their clients, and it takes 29 votes to pass a bill, he said. 'That's the challenge we had.' In the Georgia House, the vote was evencloser. Eight Republicans objected to the legislation, along with all but three Democrats. The bill passed by the requisite 91 votes. While Republicans control the maps determining district shapes, it's difficult to carve up metro areas and avoid pockets of Democrats while also meeting constitutional requirements: Each district must be connected, must have equal population under the 'one person, one vote' rule established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964, and cannot discriminate on the basis of race. Eager to chip away at Democrats' success with people of color, Greater Georgia also traveled to Stonecrest in DeKalb County, which voted for Democratic nominee Kamala Harris in 2024 with more than 90% of the vote and is 88% Black, according to census data. They met a skeptical audience, but organizers said the point was to build relationships where they historically had not been. Democrats are taking aim at more rural areas that have typically been Republican strongholds but hold promise for future elections. Georgia House Democrats, including Hugley, in May visited LaGrange, Dawson, and Montezuma 'to hear from Georgians who are struggling,' according to the announcement, and learn how lawmakers can better represent their constituents. On the trail The campaigning has already kicked off. A social media advertisement from the Georgia House GOP slammed Democrats for walking out on a vote in April that would ban gender-affirming treatment for transgender prisoners. 'Our conservative majority has consistently delivered real results on the issues that matter most to Georgia voters — from tax cuts and school security to health care and public safety,' Burns said, in the statement. He chided Democrats for hosting Stacey Abrams as a guest speaker at some of their events and said their policies don't resonate with people in Georgia. 'I'm confident it's a message that will resonate at the ballot box next November,' he said. Hugley said House Republicans are scared. 'Obviously the Republicans are concerned that we're talking to the real people of Georgia, and it's unusual for them to have an attack ad this far away from an election,' she said. 'I take it as a compliment that they are taking note of what we're doing, because they don't want real Georgians to hear real time what's going on.' One House Democrat already preparing for 2026 elections said he is focusing his campaign on local issues he can control. 'When people ask me about federal issues, or what is happening with international issues, I'm like, 'Look, I'm more worried about what's happening locally,'' said Farooq Mughal, at his campaign launch event in Dacula this month. Mughal lost his reelection bid for his seat representing the area around Dacula and Buford by just 80 votes in November. Based on lines drawn during the redistricting process, Mughal believes he was at about a 700-vote disadvantage going into his campaign. Mughal said the fact that he came so close told him his message was getting out. This coming election, he thinks he'll have more wind at his back. 'Things are changing. People are not happy with tariffs, with the corporate housing crisis. There are a lot of people who are going to start feeling that pinch,' he said. In addition to preventing Mughal from reclaiming his seat, Republicans are likely to aim their focus on House District 108 in Lilburn, which was a target of Gov. Brian Kemp's to flip last year. State Rep. Jasmine Clark is running to unseat Democratic U.S. Rep. David Scott, leaving her seat up for grabs. They may also explore options in House District 128, a Sandersville seat where Democratic state Rep. Mack Jackson, won by just 48 votes. Republicans could run a formidable candidate, or they may continue trying to convinceJackson, who supported anti-abortion restrictions in 2019 and voted in favor of Kemp's priority legislation this year, to switch parties. Anything could happen between now and then, said state Rep. Scott Hilton of Peachtree Corners, who lost his reelection in 2018 before winning it back in 2020. Although some have speculated Hilton may run for a statewide office, hesaid he's likely to run for reelection in his competitive North Atlanta district. 'A year in politics is a lifetime,' he said. 'Our side is prepared, and we have a great message to share with voters on the campaign trail.' Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Fetterman offers support for Trump decision to bomb Iran
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) is offering support for President Trump's decision to bomb Iran, standing out from a number of other Democrats who have criticized the military action. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' Fetterman wrote in a post on X that linked to a statement from Trump announcing the decision. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities,' Fetterman continued. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.' Fetterman since Hamas launched an attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023 has been a vocal supporter of Israel, and has at times criticized his own party over the Middle East. His remarks in the immediate aftermath of the bombing campaign, as a result, are unsurprising. But they stood apart from other Democrats who criticized Trump's decision as unconstitutional. For example, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) criticized Trump for vowing to bring peace to the Middle East but failing, saying he had 'misled the country about his intensions.' 'The risk of war has now dramatically increased, and I pray for the safety of our troops in the region who have been put in harm's way,' Jeffries wrote in a statement. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) both criticized the strikes as unconstitutional. Fetterman, however, tied himself to Trump by retweeting the president's Truth Social message announcing the attacks on the three nuclear sites in Iran. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Trump posted on Truth Social.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Republicans line up behind Trump after strike on Iran — with few detractors
Republicans on Capitol Hill quickly lined up behind President Trump after he announced that the U.S. conducted a strike on three Iranian nuclear facilities, a strong show of support for the White House with few detractors inside the GOP. Trump announced on Truth Social just before 8 p.m. EDT on Saturday that the U.S. 'completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran,' including Fordow, the nuclear site hidden in a mountain south of Tehran. He is scheduled to address the nation from the White House at 10 p.m. Republican leaders in the House and Senate backed the action, which had become a debate of sorts in Washington — especially among GOP — since Israel struck Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this month in what it called a 'pre-emptive' attack. 'The military operations in Iran should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says,' Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) wrote in a statement on X. 'The President gave Iran's leader every opportunity to make a deal, but Iran refused to commit to a nuclear disarmament agreement. President Trump has been consistent and clear that a nuclear-armed Iran will not be tolerated. That posture has now been enforced with strength, precision, and clarity.' 'The President's decisive action prevents the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, which chants 'Death to America,' from obtaining the most lethal weapon on the planet,' he added. 'This is America First policy in action. God bless our brave men and women in uniform – the most lethal fighting force on the planet – as we pray for their safe return home. May God bless America.' Johnson was briefed on the strike beforehand, a source familiar with the matter told The Hill. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) wrote in a statement with X: 'I stand with President Trump.' 'The regime in Iran, which has committed itself to bringing 'death to America' and wiping Israel off the map, has rejected all diplomatic pathways to peace. The mullahs' misguided pursuit of nuclear weapons must be stopped,' he said. 'As we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), similarly, backed Trump after the strike and applauded him for making the 'right call.' 'Iran has waged a war of terror against the United States for 46 years. We could never allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. God bless our brave troops. President Trump made the right call and the ayatollahs should recall his warning not to target Americans,' Cotton wrote on X. 'As I have said multiple times recently, I regret that Iran has brought the world to this point,' Crawford echoed in a statement. 'That said, I am thankful President Trump understood that the red line — articulated by President of both parties for decades — was real. The United States and our allies, including Israel, are making it clear that the world would never accept Iran's development of a nuclear weapon.' While the majority of Republicans backed Trump in the wake of the strike, there were some GOP detractors on Capitol Hill. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who has been advocating for the U.S. to avoid intervention in the Israel-Iran conflict, wrote on X minutes after Trump announced the offensive: 'This is not Constitutional.' Massie helped lead a bipartisan war powers resolution to prohibit U.S. involvement in the Middle East dispute. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) suggested that the move was unconstitutional. 'While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional. I look forward to his remarks tonight,' he wrote on X. Trump's decision to strike a trio of Iranian nuclear sites came after a week of debate on Capitol Hill over whether the U.S. should take action in Iran after Israel launched an attack on Iran, prompting a back-and-forth between the two countries. Trump on Thursday said he would decide whether to take action within the next two weeks. 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiation that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go in the next two weeks,' Trump said in the statement read by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. The big question had been whether the U.S. would deploy a large bomb known as a 'bunker buster' to strike the Fordow facility, which is underground. While some lawmakers advocated for the move, others — including some of the president's most vocal supporters on the right-flank — pushed against the U.S. directly getting involved in the conflict. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), for example, said 'Me and my district support President Trump and his MAGA agenda, it's what we voted for in November, and foreign wars weren't a part of it.' On Saturday night, she offered prayers for the safety of U.S. troops and Americans in the Middle East. 'Let us pray that we are not attacked by terrorists on our homeland after our border was open for the past 4 years and over 2 Million gotaways came in.🙏 Let us pray for peace. 🙏,' she added. But across the GOP conferences on Capitol Hill, Republicans were quick to back the move by the president. 'Our commander-in-chief has made a deliberate —and correct— decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime,' Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) wrote in a statement on X. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies and stability for the middle-east. Well-done to our military personnel. You're the best!' House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), the No. 3 House Republican, said Trump 'was right then, and he is right today: NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE.' 'A nuclear Iran posed a threat to the Middle East and to the world. @POTUS has been consistent that this dangerous regime should NEVER possess a nuclear weapon,' he added in a statement on X.
