May calls Carney’s decision to limit debate on major projects bill a ‘new low’

“It appears to me — and it remains to be seen — that Mr. Carney’s new majority coalition is Liberal-Conservative, delivering (Conservative Leader) Pierre Poilievre’s policies with a more friendly face.”

May spoke outside the House of Commons foyer Monday morning alongside First Nations leaders, NDP MP Gord Johns and lawyers from environmental groups — all of whom raised concerns about the legislation and the pace at which it’s sprinting through the Commons.

Grand Chief Linda Debassigé of the Anishinabek Nation said First Nations have “not been consulted on this bill appropriately or adequately.”

“This bill presents serious concerns that, in our view, creates a path forward for any government to create legislation that undermines the rights and interests of our First Nations people,” she said.

Soon after the press conference, the Liberals passed a closure motion with the support of the Conservatives to speed through study and debate of Bill C-5 by week’s end.

Government House leader Steven MacKinnon defended the government’s haste Monday, arguing it has public buy-in since the bill delivers on major Liberal campaign promises from the recent election.

“We just had the ultimate democratic test, and you know what we heard?” he said during debate in the House. “Get this country moving. We need a response to the threats coming from down south.”

The bill is now set for an unusually fast two-day study by the House transport committee Tuesday and Wednesday. The government expects to pass the bill through the Commons by end of Friday, which is also the last day the House is supposed to sit before the summer.

Sen. Paul Prosper said he will try to slow down the part of the bill dealing with major projects in the Senate with an amendment. If the Senate amends the bill it would have to go back to the House of Commons for another approval.

The legislation would give the federal cabinet the ability to set aside various statutes to push forward approvals for a small number of major industrial products, such as mines, pipelines and ports, if the government deems them to be in the national interest.

It aims to speed up the approval process for major projects so that cabinet can render a decision in two years at the most. It also aims to break down internal barriers to trade.

Critics warn the proposed law would allow Ottawa to flout its constitutional duty to consult with First Nations under Section 35 of the Constitution.

NDP MP Leah Gazan warned Monday that these fast-tracked projects will only wind up in the courts over the government’s failure to properly consult with Indigenous peoples.

“The federal government is absolutely bulldozing over democratic principles in favour of corporate interests and it’s going to have bad consequences,” she said.

“This is abhorrent. This is unprecedented. We need to ensure governments have proper oversights, not provide ministers in cabinet with unlimited powers to make decisions in violations of constitutional obligations.”

Some constitutional experts told The Canadian Press the legislation’s most far-reaching provisions — ones that would allow the executive branch to skirt laws to push forward big projects — are likely to survive a court challenge.

Paul Daly, chair in administrative law and governance at the University of Ottawa, said while the provisions giving the executive more power are controversial, they’re likely constitutional.

“It is unlikely that a court would invalidate this as violating the Constitution,” he said.

Sections 21 to 23 of the bill allow the executive branch to bypass existing rules and processes in 13 laws — including the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Indian Act and the Impact Assessment Law — through a regulatory process that does not need to be approved by Parliament.

These sections are what’s known in the legal community as “Henry VIII clauses” — a reference to a King who preferred to govern by decree rather than through Parliament.

Courts have not found these to be constitutionally invalid, Daly said, adding there are guardrails in the bill and Charter rights will continue to apply to the legislation.

“It’s similar in character to the carbon tax legislation from a few years ago, where the Supreme Court said the Henry VIII clause was constitutionally valid. And I suspect that a court, if this statute were challenged, would come to the same conclusion,” Daly said.

Anna Johnston, a staff lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law, said sections 22 and 23 are “very worrisome” because they could allow the federal cabinet to exempt a pipeline or some other project from the Species at Risk Act.

She said the bill overall gives the federal government too much leeway on the Crown’s duty to consult with Indigenous peoples on decisions that affect them.

“If I were Canada’s lawyers, I would have advised them strenuously against this bill,” she told The Canadian Press.

“That consultation has to be meaningful and I worry that, especially under the timelines that this government wants to make these decisions, that this bill is basically circumventing the government’s constitutionally required duty to consult.”

Liberal MP Jaime Battiste insisted the legislation should not be so controversial and blamed the public outcry on bad communication and a lack of understanding of the bill’s contents.

“This legislation not only takes the step of saying that the duty to consult on these future projects is there … but there actually has to be meaningful equity and participation,” he told The Canadian Press on Monday.

“That has the opportunity for some lucky First Nations to have billions of dollars’ worth of equity as part of these major projects and I’d love to see that and some clean energy in the Atlantic.”

Carney said in June that it takes too long to push major new projects through “arduous” approval processes and that in “recent decades, it has become too difficult to build new projects in this country.”

The federal Conservatives have claimed the bill does not go far enough and want to see the Impact Assessment Act repealed, the bill that currently lays out the federal review process required for major national projects.

— With files from Nick Murray

This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 16, 2025.

Kyle Duggan, The Canadian Press

by The Canadian Press

May calls Carney’s decision to limit debate on major projects bill a ‘new low’

What's Trending