Bill C-5 passes the House of Commons vote after accelerated process
The federal government's controversial Bill C-5 is off to the Senate next week for a truncated study. Opposition parties amended the proposed legislation to ensure the government cannot override certain laws (including the Indian Act, Canada Labour Code and Criminal Code) but most environmental law and regulations can still be circumvented if a project is deemed 'in the national interest.'
The bill would grant cabinet the power to override laws and regulations to get major projects built. In a marathon committee meeting Wednesday evening, the Bloc Québécois and Conservatives worked together to increase transparency and reporting requirements in the bill and prevent the government from overriding more than a dozen laws.
But the government can still override important environmental statutes including the Fisheries Act, Species at Risk Act, Canadian Navigable Waters Act, Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Migratory Birds Convention Act and Impact Assessment Act. The same goes for regulations including Wildlife Area Regulations, Marine Mammal Regulations, two migratory birds regulations as well as port and mining effluent regulations.
MPs had their last chance to amend the bill Friday afternoon in the House of Commons.
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May tried to add the Species at Risk Act to the list of laws cabinet cannot override. The Liberals and Conservatives defeated May's motion, with Liberal MP Nate Erskine-Smith breaking rank and voting with the Bloc Québécois, Green Party and NDP. Erskine-Smith has been critical of Bill C-5 and previously voted against his own government's order to limit debate on the bill, which would also remove some federal barriers to internal trade.
The Liberals and Conservatives voted together not just on the bill itself, but also on a motion to ensure the bill cleared the House of Commons before MPs leave Ottawa for the summer. Parliament will resume sitting in mid-September.
MPs ended up voting on the bill in two parts, as originally requested by the Bloc Québécois. NDP MP Jenny Kwan made the request again today, and the Speaker of the House decided to split the bill into two different votes — one on the internal trade components and one on national interest projects — both of which passed.
'This legislation is an abomination'
The Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green Party say the major projects bill is undemocratic because of the unprecedented powers it grants cabinet and lack of respect for Indigenous rights.
The Chiefs of Ontario and many Indigenous leaders mobilized on Wednesday for a rally on Parliament Hill calling on Carney's government to drop bill C-5 and do it right this time.
On June 16, Sen. Paul Prosper said he plans on putting forward an amendment to slow C-5 down if and when it gets to the Senate in 'hopes that more rational minds prevail in terms of consulting with Indigenous groups.'
Elizabeth May, in the bill's final moments before the House of Commons, reiterated what many have said since it was introduced: that the speed of the bill and the vagueness of its application means much now rests on what exactly the government decides to do with it.
'There are many great projects … I'd love to see move ahead: east-west-north-south electricity grid, a passenger rail and bus interlinked system,' she said.
'There are many projects in the national interest, but we don't know what they will be and the factors in the bill are not requirements. We could have a great project that we all want to see go ahead — or we could have a nightmare."
In the end, May — the sole MP to vote against both parts of the bill — did not mince words.
'This legislation is an abomination and one that will be a stain on the reputation of this government and of our Prime Minister.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Canada still doesn't understand respecting Indigenous rights
Opinion Thirty-five years ago this week, history was made in Manitoba. Events this week in Ottawa point to just how little we have learnt from that history. In Manitoba in June of 1990, Elijah Harper, MLA for what was then the third party NDP Opposition in a minority government, said 'No', and opposed the Meech Lake Accord. The backdrop was clear. A crisis. In this case, the 'need' to include Quebec in the constitution. The solution, Canadians were told, was the Meech Lake Accord. It was agreed to by Canada's premiers with an artificial deadline set by then-prime minister Brian Mulroney. He talked about rolling the dice. There was one problem. There were many people opposed to Meech Lake. In particular, Indigenous people were clear. It not only excluded Indigenous people, but threatened to be a major step backwards. Elijah Harper was the voice for Indigenous Peoples when he came out against the Accord. What is often missed is how Elijah Harper said 'No'. He said no to procedurally giving leave to rush through the ratification of Meech Lake. Despite great pressure from the federal government, Speaker Denis Rocan ruled in favour of the key point of order brought forward by Elijah Harper arguing that the proper notice procedure had not been followed. There was no closure and the Legislature could not pass the Accord before the deadline. Thirty-five years later, in Ottawa, the House of Commons is rushing through Bill C-5 without consultation. It is a bill that claims to respond to a crisis. That somehow Canada's response to the so-called existential threat with Donald Trump is to throw out our existing processes for approving major projects, and instead we must speed up approvals by threatening to sideline Indigenous rights and environmental protections. To achieve this, the government is relying on the full support of the Conservative opposition, not only to support the legislation but to bring in closure, limiting debate. A handful of MP's have spoken out against both the contents and process of Bill C-5. The Green and NDP MPs who face a challenging situation because they do not have party status have opposed it. Even one Liberal MP called out the unfairness of the process. What is different is that in 1990, despite all the pressures, the Manitoba legislature followed its own procedures based on hundreds of years of parliamentary democracy and did not ram through the Meech Lake Accord. The actions of not only Elijah Harper, but so many other Indigenous people forced Canada to recognize the need to respect Indigenous rights. In many ways, it was a major first step towards what in subsequent years has been reconciliation. What has been happening with Bill C-5 in 2025 couldn't be more different. There has been a blatant disregard for the process you would expect for a bill of this significance. The hasty introduction and closure being attached to Bill C-5 fly in the face of the consultation you would normally expect on any bill, let alone the constitutionally required consultation on matters involving Indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples have been clear in opposing both the process and substance of the bill. Many people have been calling out what is seen as a betrayal of reconciliation. We learned a major lesson in 1990. That Indigenous peoples will defend their rights. That reconciliation starts with not only recognizing Canada's history of genocide against Indigenous peoples but that provincial and federal governments must recognize the limits of their own powers in the context of Indigenous rights. But as Santayana said 'Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it ' Sadly, in 2025, key political leaders have chosen not to remember these lessons of history and are repeating Canada's failure to recognize Indigenous rights. There is one more lesson too. We also learned that the 'crisis' of 1990 was greatly exaggerated. Despite subsequent efforts with the failed Charlottetown accord, the constitutional question was never finally closed. But Canada continues. The so-called crisis we are facing currently will go the same way. What will matter is not just how we react to Donald Trump or any other political leader or economic threat. In terms of history, it is how much we will have acted in accordance with our own values based on our own distinct history. The events of 1990 set us on a better course. The events of 2025 with Bill C-5 threaten to set us back dramatically. Steve Ashton is a former member of the Manitoba Legislature. He was the NDP House Leader during the debate on the Meech Lake Accord in the Manitoba Legislature in 1990. Niki Ashton is the former NDP MP for Churchill-Keewatinook Aski
CTV News
5 hours ago
- CTV News
CTV National News: What the passing of the 'One Canadian Economy' Act means
Watch The Liberal government's contentious 'One Canadian Economy' bill cleared the House of Commons thanks to votes from Conservatives. Rachel Aiello explains.
Toronto Star
7 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Mark Carney promises to consult with Indigenous communities in choosing projects under controversial Bill C-5
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.
