Major projects bill expected to pass before MPs leave for the summer
OTTAWA — If you blink, you might miss it.
Prime Minister Mark Carney's controversial major projects bill was set to finish its dash through the House of Commons today — the final day of the sitting before summer — with support from the Conservatives and not-so-quiet grumblings from the other opposition parties.
'Usually, on the last day of sitting before the summer, everyone is smiling, we're in a good mood, we pat ourselves on the backs. But today, I would say that's not really the case,' said Bloc Québécois MP Xavier Barsalou-Duval during a speech on Friday.
The final vote on Bill C-5 in the House is set to happen shortly after 5 p.m. before making its way to the Senate for a final adoption expected within a week, on Friday, June 27.
The legislation has two parts. The first, which has more support across party lines, aims to eliminate internal trade and labour mobility barriers in Canada. The second part, which would give cabinet sweeping powers to approve natural resource and infrastructure projects deemed in the national interest, has raised considerably more concerns.
Indigenous communities, environmental groups, opposition parties and even some Liberal MPs have said they are uncomfortable with the lack of consultation with First Nations, Inuit and Metis people prior to tabling the bill, but also the extent of the powers that would give the government of the day the power to ignore other federal laws for five years.
'Pretending that this unprecedented power grab was ever discussed in the election is a sham, and we can add an 'e' to that. It's a shame,' said Green Party leader Elizabeth May.
C-5 was rushed through committee earlier this week. Despite that, opposition parties managed to pass amendments which include exempting a number of laws — such as the Indian Act and the Conflict of Interest Act — from being ignored when considering major projects and publishing a list of national interest projects with timelines and costs.
'These amendments matter,' said Shannon Stubbs, energy and natural resource critic for the Conservatives when describing the changes in the House. 'They bring transparency, accountability, more certainty, more clarity and integrity to a bill that originally had none.'
Stubbs said despite those changes, 'major concerns' remain. She cited the need to prevent ministers from removing projects from the national interest list at any time but also add in the bill clear timelines to approve projects to increase certainty for investors.
On Friday, opposition parties claimed a small victory. NDP MP Jenny Kwan, with the help of the Bloc's Marilène Gill, argued the Speaker of the House should divide C-5 into two distinct parts so that MPs could vote on the portions on internal trade and major projects separately at third reading. Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia granted their request.
'While they are ultimately designed to strengthen the Canadian economy, they deal with different issues that could very well stand independently from one another,' he explained.
The passage of C-5 concludes in a dramatic way a packed four-week spring sitting that saw Carney's government table significant omnibus bills, very fast, but adopt very few.
The government tabled C-2, the Strong Borders Act, which seeks to secure the Canada-U.S. border, fight organized crime and fentanyl and boost the fight against financial crimes. It is facing criticism for sweeping new powers that would allow officials to obtain information without a warrant and for restricting the asylum claim process, among others.
It also tabled C-4, the Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act, which includes some of the government's campaign promises on affordability like a middle-class tax cut and removal of the GST on new homes for first-time homebuyers. However, the bill has been criticized as it also seeks to exempt federal political parties from modern privacy laws.
Unlike the major projects bill, C-2 and C-4 were not fast-tracked, meaning that they will continue to make their way through the legislative process during the fall sitting.
Interestingly, the first legislation to pass all stages in this new Parliament was not a government bill.
Last week, MPs unanimously approved C-202, a Bloc bill to protect the supply management system which regulates the price and production of dairy, poultry and eggs, from future trade deals. That same bill was stalled in the Senate in the last legislature and ended up dying on the order paper when the election was called.
This time, the Senate approved C-202 on division, and it is now awaiting royal assent.
National Post calevesque@postmedia.com
Doug Ford apologizes to Ontario First Nations for his 'passionate' comments
'We have to get that balance right': Liberal MPs express worries about major projects bill
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
4 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Starmer Faces Brewing Rebellion Over £5 Billion Benefit Cut
By , Lucy White, and Joe Mayes Save UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is less than 10 days away from the biggest parliamentary challenge to his authority in his not-yet year-long tenure. Unpopular cuts to disability benefits unveiled earlier this year as part of Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves' efforts to balance the country's books are due before the House of Commons for their first vote on July 1, with a large-scale rebellion brewing on the Labour back benches.
The Hill
5 hours ago
- The Hill
How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees. ___
5 hours ago
How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON -- House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees.
