moment. We will introduce the Building Canada Strong Act to the House this fall. What does that law actually do?
We are going to build on the success of the major projects office. It's already working on 27 nation building initiatives representing almost $500 billion in new private investment. We will now apply the lessons, the same urgency and the efficiency of the major projects office to or more broadly in this session and Steve will talk more about this in a moment.
We've been out we've been out consulting all summer on this. We've listened. We've made some adjustments.
The bottom line though is this. For projects, federal projects and supply chains, our standard will be simple. one project, one review, one year.
To be in Canada's national interest, a major project must strengthen Canada's autonomy, our resilience, and our security. It must have clear benefits for Canadians. It must have a high likelihood of being completed.
It must contribute to clean growth in Canada's climate goals. and it must advance the interests of indigenous peoples to ram legislation through parliament may have significant consequences. The rights of first nations under international law, the United Nations Declaration Act and the Constitution of Canada are at stake and failure to obtain free, prior, and informed consent will likely result in protracted litigation.
During my discussions with the prime minister yesterday, we were also pleased to restate that the significant nation that fifth test is where the argument sits and it is not a new argument. David Aken is in Ottawa. David, bill C5 has passed, but there were some concerns about it.
What was the focus of the debate? Well, Don, I'll tell you what, 12 of the Senate's 105 members are indigenous, and it was that group of senators that really took center stage uh today. Several of them arguing for a delay to C5 because in their view the bill fails to guarantee indigenous consent for those major infrastructure projects.
Two former MCMA chiefs who are in the chamber, PJ Prosper and Brian Francis were among those making that point. Uh it comes along to being equal partners at the table. And that's all we've been saying.
You're a former chief. I'm a former chief. We've been at the tables where uh you know consultation was talked about but it wasn't true meaningful consultation.
Now at this pivotal and deeply uncertain moment for Canada there's an opportunity for the government to achieve great things by acting honorably and it's an opportunity for all of our leaders to come together do the hard work of consultation and compromise find common ground and grow this country. 18 months later, the same question came back with a vote attached. And today's session comes after AFN delegates unanimously resolved to oppose the Carne government's sweeping proposed reforms.
They are aimed at streamlining major project approvals, but the AFN says it will oppose those reforms if they weaken environmental protections or sidestep indigenous rights. Today, AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepanak said that this process subordinates the honor of the crown to what she calls commercial imperatives. And she says it will give rise to questions about the legitimacy of approvals.
The feds can try and set up all the timelines they want for project approvals, but they can't put a deadline on First Nations rights. First Nations, we've always been for prosperity, but not at the expense of our rights or the crown's legal obligations to our people. And so, I know that, you know, we've talked to the ministers again this morning about the major projects office.
They can't use that as a crutch to avoid their um free priority informed consent to First Nations. And, you know, we want to make this country the best that it can be, but it needs to be in partnership with First Nations first and foremost. and you know uh we can't be left out of the prosperity of this country anymore.
Six cabinet ministers were in that room. One of them answered on the record. We want to include indigenous people, but when it came time for questions from the chiefs um a lot of them lined up immediately and were very um critical of the federal government of pushing natural resource projects forward but without indigenous consultation and lack of consultation.
And of course uh with regards to the environment, how these pipelines, how these future projects will infect will impact the environment potentially over the years. Um so so many questions uh First Nation chiefs left in the dark uh time and time again. As we transform our economy by advancing major nation building projects in every part of the country, we will uphold the rights of indigenous people as is our constitutional obligation and as our laws require.
Now this meeting sets the stage for one of this October between First Nations and First Ministers. It will be the highest level gathering in decades. So, what do I make of this?
My view is that the whole bill comes down to one question nobody has answered yet. Does the one-year clock start before consent or after it? The promise is simple and it is popular.
One project, one review, one year. And um the government's own five tests already say that a national interest project must advance the interests of indigenous peoples. So, the standard is not in dispute.
The sequence is 15 months ago when the earlier bill passed um 12 indigenous senators asked for a delay because uh they said it did not guarantee consent. This summer the delegates of the Assembly of First Nations voted unanimously to oppose the new reforms if they weaken environmental protections or uh sidestep rights. The national chief said the line plainly.
They can't put a deadline on First Nations rights. And she said the part that gets left out. First nations have always been for prosperity, but um not at the expense of their rights.
That is not a wall. That is a condition. A minister answered on the record that the government will uphold those rights as the constitution requires.
In the coming weeks, the bill itself will show whether that sentence is in the text or uh only in the speech. Watch for whether free, prior, and informed consent appears by name. And um watch what comes out of the October meeting with the first ministers.
Those two things will likely settle it. So, here is my question for you. If getting it right takes 14 months instead of 12, is the promise broken or is it kept?
