At Issue - Carney bulldozes his nation-building bill through Parliament

Episode Date: June 20, 2025

At Issue this week: The Liberal government pushes to expedite Prime Minister Mark Carney’s contentious major projects bill, despite objections from Indigenous communities. Canada commits to a new relationship with India. And Pierre Poilievre starts a podcast. Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

Ten years ago, I asked my partner Kelsey if she would marry me. I did that, despite the fact that every living member of my family who had ever been married had also gotten divorced. Forever is a Long Time is a five-part series in which I talk to those relatives about why they got divorced and why they got married. You can listen to it now on CBC's Personally. This is a CBC Podcast. Hey there, I'm Rosemary Barton this week on At Issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, June 19th, our final episode before the House rises. This legislation is enabling legislation. It creates the possibility of these projects.

He needs to live up to his obligations, treaty obligations, and the constitutional obligations that he has. At its heart, consultation, full consultation with Indigenous peoples to define what is a nation building project. This week we're asking what does the speed of Mark Carney's legislative agenda mean for consultation plus what comes next for Canada with more defense commitments to the EU and NATO?

So what's been made of how quickly this legislation is being passed? What does this tell us about the Carney government's approach? I'm Rosemary Barton here to break it down tonight. Chantelle Bair, Andrew Coyne, Althea Raj, good to see all of you. Althea, I was teasing you because you've written on this a couple of times so I'm going to start with you. What do you think is behind the speed at which the Prime Minister is pushing this legislation through and I guess what is your biggest concern? Well I think they want to have a big win before Canada Day. I think they want to free themselves from some of the laws that they feel currently

hamper their ability to green light projects fast. What concerns me is that this is legislation. It's not just enabling legislation. Some of the concerns that indigenous groups that you just aired have could easily be fixed by making consultation very clear and obligatory in the factors that government must consider because it just says at the moment, may consider. Some of the language could be tightened up to make the bill a lot less vague and that would go a long way to quell some of the concerns.

My concern is the precedent that it creates. This bill basically says that cabinet can decide to just omit certain laws from consideration from applying. So this is basically, as one senator put it to me, trust me legislation. The government is saying, don't worry, because we're gonna pass this law and we're gonna enact it properly and your concerns are gonna be allayed, don't worry about it.

But we are creating a framework that allows any government, it could be this government, it could be a future government, to just bypass the will of parliament, to bypass laws that have been debated, in some cases over several years and passed, and to vest the power in one individual to say, these are the conditions or zero conditions I'm gonna place on one project,

is rather insane, frankly. Imagine the corruption that could potentially be enabled by legislation like this. It is so problematic that it deserves more than a few days, two days of study. It could easily sit through next week, the House, or the week after so that the Senate can consider their amendments and have them approved by the House. There is no need to rush this because these projects are still going to take years to

build. So taking the summer to get this right, it makes you wonder what is the rush? What does the government not want us to see? Right. And we are expecting this to pass on Friday, at least inside the House. I would also just point out that the legislation does have a sunset clause of five years. Five years, because the government decided not to adopt the Green Party's amendment of two years. Okay, Chantel, what are your thoughts about what Alfie is saying there about some of the

concerns that people have raised? I do think that in a new parliament more time could have been given to debating this bill without anything happening to whatever projects the government has in mind. I believe that they are obsessed with this idea that this is a minority government and at this point we are in a honeymoon period so we need to get this done, because it could get complicated. What if we have to present a budget? Ah! And people kind of start turning against us because they don't like the budget, and then this bill gets caught in this.

I understand that. I also understand that there are amendments being put forward, and I'm curious to see what the end project will look like. But if the government really believes that passing this legislation in whatever shape or form by July 1st will end the conversation, it is just the beginning of a conversation. And yes, the government doesn't have enough confidence in itself to take the time to debate its bill, but civil society should have more confidence in itself to react to whatever is decided on the basis of that law. Yeah, I think Althea is right, Andrew. There is a trust me piece of this, certainly, but there is also opportunity for projects to not go ahead, either because the conditions are too heavy for the proponent or because,

as Chantel points out, people protest and it becomes very, very complicated for the government moving forward. Yeah, I think they've managed to annoy both the left and the right on this. So on the one hand, progressives can be upset, and rightly so, that a single minister can basically waive laws passed by parliament that were presumably passed with good reason, and if not, they should change the laws. But also people on the right, at least principal conservatives, which apparently doesn't include the Conservative Party of Canada, would be upset by the huge discretion given to a single minister to basically pick winners, the potential for cronyism, certainly the departure from any kind of even-hand market approach to things.

I think there's a large body of opinion that would say we need to do something to speed up the approvals process for these things. Some of these legislation are probably too onerous, have too many requirements, et cetera. Fine. Let's do the hard work of fixing that process generally for all projects, not giving a favored few a kind of a fast track in based on criteria that who knows what. I mean, you can set out the broad criterion in the legislation, but it's up to the minister basically to decide how and when they're going to be applied. That's different than having parliament pass a law saying this specific project is going

to go ahead because we've decided in a transparent way that it meets certain tests. So it's assigning a huge amount of discretion to one minister, on top of which it's not just C5. There's three bills now that the government's put forward, and they have several things in common. One is they're all omnibus bill. They yoke together vastly different types of legislation and demand parliament pass them at one go.

Secondly, they often involve, in a couple of cases, violations of privacy rights or individual rights that the government seems quite high-handed and unconcerned about. And thirdly, they involve trampling on the rights of parliament. This is, you know, Henry VIII legislation is this kind of thing, Henry V, Henry C5 is called, basically is empowering cabinet to just ignore parliament. That's not what our system is supposed to be about.

But the only piece of legislation that's likely going to get passed is C5. And to be fair to conservatives, I have heard conservatives make those exact points that you made off the get passed is C5. And to be fair to conservatives, I have heard conservatives make those exact points that you made off the top, Althea. No, I think C2 and C4, the Budget Implementation Act, which has some of the privacy requirements that, or lack of privacy requirements rather,

that Andrew was talking about, will get passed. Do you think the government doesn't really care because they're writing so high in public opinion polls and they're not worried about it and it's the summer and Canadians are not paying attention. But what's really kind of troublesome about this is, you know, if the conservatives introduced bills like this, the liberals would be up in arms and protesting. And so it's really hypocritical and frankly they're boxing themselves in a corner. Like this is the government that came in in 2015 and said that they were all about evidence-based decision-making.

And what business wants is clear, predictable, transparent rules so they know what the process is, they know what the timelines are going to be. This legislation, C5, is not that. And I will say that it's not just the business community that wants to see clarity, it's also environmental groups that want to see projects done faster, because if we're going to meet net zero by 2050, we need to get moving on the things that can get us there. So those big projects do actually need to get done a lot faster. Chantal.

I don't think this is the 2015 government, so up to a point. It's definitely not. No. So, I also believe that a lot of the groups who are getting ready to fight understand that this will be easier to fight. You're not going to get public opinion riled up on the day after an election, where most people are happy with the result on the legislative text. So the strategy to go is to wait for the projects to have a name and a face. That's where you draw the line. You don't draw it and I totally agree about process going too quickly,

but what that builds to is the consensus you have. You are undermining by going too quickly. And at some point there will be a price to pay for that, but that price will not be paid today. It will be paid tomorrow. Last 30 seconds to you, Andrew, because the government's also taking advantage of a feeling that Canada needs to do more because of Donald Trump, obviously, too.

Yeah, well, you know, vibes-based legislation is not necessarily the best basis for, you know, passing sound laws. Neither one might particularly come from the idea that we'll decide which projects go ahead based on which arouses the most, you know, opposition in the streets. You would hope that it would be based on what is the cost and benefit of the legislation of the project for the country and for the national interest. If the conservatives had brought forward legislation like any of this, C2, C4, or C5, the liberals would quite properly be screaming blue murder.

But here they are in power trying to court right-of-center center voters and they've only got the Conservatives saying in some cases go ahead like on the major projects, on the bill in C4 to remove the federal political parties from any scrutiny on privacy whether federal or provincial the Conservatives are also saying ready on that. It's not Parliament's finest hour. But this is the Parliament that Canadians chose, right? And so this is conservatives are also saying ready already on that. It's not parliament's finest hour. But this is the parliament that Canadians chose, right? And so this is what they're facing now.

Okay, let's leave it there. When we come back we're going to take a look back at the events from the G7. What progress was made with other countries as Canada seeks partners beyond the United States? What could it mean for the NATO summit next week? That's next. This legislation is enabling legislation. It creates the possibility of these projects. So is the G7 a success for Canada? What do new dynamics with allies mean for Canada's role in the world for the NATO Summit next week? Chantel, Andrew and Althea are back. Chantel, obviously the NATO Summit next week is different

because Canada now says, well, we're going to meet the 2% GDP of defence spending and we might be able to go higher if we include other things. Between what happened this week and next week, what are you taking away from this government's approach to Canada's place in the world? Well, first on Canada-US issues, I'm taking away that it was Canada that built expectations of a deal at the G7 that did not pan out. And I'm still waiting for some sense from the US that this 38 days accelerated deadline is actually real because yes, Canada says we agreed to something and I have seen no evidence of it. So why would you raise expectations if you didn't get what you want?

Probably because things didn't go as you wanted. The restoration of a relationship, if you want to call it that, with India, I think Mark Carney is up to a point busy erasing as many red lines from the previous government as he can while he's still in this honeymoon phase. Defence spending, Canada needs to show up there with more of a percentage. Why? Because there's going to be a fight over raising it to five percent and it needs allies. Spain came up today as an ally because we're not going to get to five percent.

Unless we run, I don't know. I'm curious to see a budget. run, I don't know, I'm curious to see a budget. Andrew, what does all this tell you about the way this Prime Minister is approaching the world though, both how he handled the G7 and then how he's going into this next meeting next week? Well, it's rather like those three pieces of legislation we were talking about. He is a fan of expedience. In his former life, he was not greatly encumbered by the obligation to respect individual rights or Parliament's prerogatives and now it's Canadian values

and interests. It's fine to say, oh, we're going to engage in real politics, we're going to strike a new arrangement with India. Okay. What was the conditions or were there any conditions attached to that? Do we have any undertakings from India that they're going to behave better, they're going to stop interfering in our elections, they're going to stop murdering our citizens, or was it just, you know, we're going to let bygones be bygones and simply look forward? That would be one thing I would like to know more about. This agreement with, on the trade thing, is not an agreement at all.

We're going to seek to strike a deal. 30 days was, I think, just pulled out of thin air. There's certainly no indication that the Americans gave anything in return for that. So, look, he's in a difficult position. We are cornered. We're alone in many respects. We're having to sort of forge new relationships on the fly, getting the defense spending up to 2 percent of GDP, although we really don't know what that's involved either. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was complaining

that there's no details on that, but it's certainly a starting point. But we're gonna have to, you know, he's kind of designing the plane while flying it. He's trying to create a new role for Canada and the world that's more independent than the United States without completely letting go of the US connection before we're sure of what we're doing with the Europeans for example on defense. Yeah because we're

also expecting him to announce this rearmed that Canada will be part of this rearmed Europe deal next week as well. Althea. The Black Coup de Grace leader described Mark Carney this weekend actually has been for several weeks as the the CEO of Canada and I think when you look at that through that frame, some of the stuff that Andrew's talking about, for example, the disregard for parliament kind of fits in that. Some people around the cabinet table are wondering if their role is just to rubber stamp things or if this is really a group decision making body. I think the number one thing is the commercial relationship. And you see that because the entire rhetoric of the campaign,

the elbows up, we're taking the fight to Donald Trump disappeared after the election was over. The Prime Minister is very complimentary to the President, who obviously loves that, for commercial reasons because he thinks that sucking up to Donald Trump will get us the best deal. I think the Canadian government assumed that there was going to be movement for commercial reasons because he thinks that sucking up to Donald Trump will get us the best deal. I think the Canadian government assumed that there was going to be movement and that's why we did not see counter-terrorists and movements and that's why we saw the news

that we had today. On the defense part, again, you can see it through a commercial relationship. You talk to cabinet ministers and the future that the current government imagines is one where we could be a major defense supplier and that could be a huge spur for economic growth in this country. And so our re-partnering with Europe or joining Rearm Europe is about enabling Canadian companies to do that. And the same thing with the relationship with India. The problem is I think at some point some of the commercial interests will butt with

political interests, and there will be tension there. Last 30 seconds to Chantel. Yeah, well, Mark Carney managed to lead an entire G7, G6 summit without the words climate being mentioned. That's quite something, and without any community on Ukraine. That kind of tells you everything you need to know. Donald Trump wasn't even there and that didn't happen. We're gonna take a short break when we come back. We'll look at how Pierre Poiliev is moving on from his election loss and what different approaches he might be trying.

Well we've got good news. As part of my series, to introduce you to the growing and even more impressive Conservative caucus, people who will form part of a future Conservative government. So what does this all of us tell us about Piyarpolyev and the direction of his party? We'll bring everyone back. Chantal, Andrew and Althea. Obviously the first thing Piyarpolyev is gonna do over the summer is try to get elected and get a seat in Alberta. That by-election can be called as early as June 29th, I think.

Andrew, tell me what you make of sort of where Piyarpolyev is as we head into the summer. Well, he's not in a particularly good position. If you look at the polling data, the party itself has now fallen in some polls 10, 12 points behind the liberals. His own personal numbers have also declined. There seems to have been sort of a dam breaking after the election.

People who had been sort of willing to hold their nose and vote for them going into the election are now, reconsidering at least some proportion of them are. You can see certainly that he's trying, I think, to adopt a somewhat less combative tone. He's trying to highlight a bit more some of the other people in the caucus, which I think would be wise, given that he himself is running behind his party. But, you know, he's got to reprieve until January, I guess it is, for the party review. But it's not a given that he gets all the way to January. It's going to depend, I think, on how he's doing the polls.

And some of the people who are now behind him may not necessarily be if they continue to struggle as they are now. He doesn't seem very present in terms of being on media or out there. And maybe that's just a function of the fact that he doesn't have a seat and he's trying different things but I feel like that's also a struggle for him, Chantal.

Well, if he's going to reinvent himself and if that is possible, the best thing to do is to fade a bit and then come back. He does have to fight a by-election and yes, he's going to by all accounts win it but you do realize that the conservative party won that riding by 82%. It's gonna be really hard to do better and this reputation of the guy who always mounts his lead stands to be reinforced by whatever the result is and by election. I am not taking it for a given either that we get to January and vote on this leadership and that it ends up being positive because he is dragging his party down. Basically is what the polls are

saying. Yeah. And something has to change. And I don't know if we've seen that yet, Althea, well we haven't in the polls, but in terms of how he's approaching things with the team around him or any of that part. Well we saw a fair bit of him right after the election, like he was still coming on the Hill to do scrums and he was basically given advice to say, please stop doing this. Go away, regroup, to do exactly what Shantada suggested. And he appears to be listening because there's no doubt that if he called you, Rosie, and said, I want to be on your show on Sunday and I want to

talk about all the other things, I'm sure people would book him. He could have an hour of the show, frankly. So it's not that he doesn't have access to those platforms if he so chooses. He's making a deliberate decision. On the building of the team, I think that's smart because one of the concerns and complaints and criticisms you heard about the last conservative election campaign was that it was all about Pierre Poilieff and his negative numbers were still quite high. Who is going to be a serious candidate to be the finance minister?

That wasn't clear. There was no team around him, so he was trying to build out that team. At the moment, he still has, I would say, strong caucus support, but that's because nobody has really actively put their hand up and is lobbying for Pierre Poliak's job publicly. But as soon as some of those people come out of the woodwork, because they do exist, as soon as some of the fundraising numbers start to decline, there will be more and more internal pressure to say, wait a second, is this the guy we want?

And right now, he seems to be conflicted between who does he want to be? He thinks he needs to win the support of the far right. And we've seen him reach out to far right influencers on social media, for example, and call them personally for the leadership review. But then on the Hill here, he seems to be taking more of a progressive conservative

center right approach. So which Pierre Poilieff does he want to be and how does he present himself? I think that's kind of what we're gonna see in the fall. Okay, that is at issue for this week week and just like the House of Commons, we are also taking a break for the summer. It's been a long and busy political season with the Prime Minister stepping down, an election, a new government, adding Donald Trump, an ongoing trade war, growing conflicts overseas. Thank you for watching and listening along with us all this season, for

sending your questions, and of course for making At Issue one of the most watched political panels in the country, really the one to watch. We'll be right back here in your podcast feeds in September, Touchwood, when the House returns. Thank you so much for listening. Hope you get a break.