When Alvin Fiddler thinks back to the last time the federal government took a build-fast approach to major infrastructure projects, the first thing that comes to his mind is a small island on the Ottawa River, with a view of Parliament Hill.

The Grand Chief of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation visited Victoria Island in Ottawa in 2013, after former Attawapiskat chief Theresa Spence erected a teepee on the park-like expanse and began a month-long hunger strike.

Talking Points Prime Minister Mark Carney’s promise to hurry approvals of major nation-building projects for the Canadian economy is running into objections from Indigenous leaders who insist their constitutional and legal rights won’t be sacrificed

The federal government and multiple provinces are courting long legal challenges and protests over mines, pipelines and transportation projects

Efforts born in Indigenous communities—not outsiders seeking co-operation from them—might be some of the easiest to build quickly

Spence, who survived mainly on fish broth for weeks, had demanded a meeting with the prime minister and governor general—an ask that seemed to paralyze the government of the day under Stephen Harper. But her longer-term demand was for First Nations to have a seat at the table when decisions are made about their land.

Her personal act of dissent became a symbol of the wider “Idle No More” movement that spread across Canada in celebration of Indigenous identity and opposition to the Conservative government’s omnibus bill to speed up government approvals. Protesters argued the new law eroded Indigenous rights and environmental protections. “We’re seeing now again, sort of the beginnings of another movement,” Fiddler says.

Prime Minister Mark Carney seems to have lit a fire under the federal, provincial and territorial governments when it comes to getting long-stalled energy, resource and infrastructure projects off the ground with his promise to “build, baby, build.” Indigenous leaders say they will not be sidelined in the race toward big nation-building projects. If they don’t grapple with Indigenous opposition, Carney and company may be running headlong into the same roadblocks that confounded Harper’s similar aspirations.

Major national projects will get yes or no decisions within two years, Carney says, and his government will pass a bill—expected to be introduced today—creating an office to shepherd a list of high-priority projects. Carney convened a meeting on Monday of provincial and territorial premiers in Saskatoon to work out some of the details, from which they emerged praising the prime minister’s get-stuff-done spirit.

Yet in their respective capitals, many of the leaders have run hard into opposition from Indigenous leaders whose people have rights—to their land, to environmental protection, to benefit from development that affects them—and say they will insist that those rights be honoured.

This week, the fight was at Queen’s Park in Toronto.

The point of Bill 5, said the Ontario government when it introduced the legislation, is to “cut the red tape and duplicative processes that have held back major infrastructure, mining and resource development projects, including in the Ring of Fire.”

That region in northern Ontario is rich in critical minerals. Enabling mining companies to dig them out has been on governments’ to-do lists for over a decade—it will take not only the mines themselves, but roads, rail lines and electricity—and Premier Doug Ford put developing the deposits on his list of Ontario’s priority nation-building projects.

To do it, the governments and companies with stakes will need to co-operate with numerous First Nations that have rights to the land that the development projects will affect. Although Bill 5 explicitly says it does not affect Indigenous rights, it does give the government the power to override any other provincial or local law to advance projects in “special economic zones.”

As the government was preparing on Wednesday to push the bill through, Energy and Mines Minister Stephen Lecce told the legislature Ontario won’t use its new authorities to steamroll Indigenous rights.

“The government has a constitutional obligation which we plan to fulfill and to discharge fully,” he said. In its most recent budget, Ontario boosted—by billions of dollars—a loan-guarantee program to help First Nations invest in major projects, Lecce said, a symbol of its good faith.

Opposition MP Sol Mamakwa, who is Anishinaabe and represents the northern riding of Kiiwetinoong, scoffed at the idea that money will get Ontario or companies working there the consent they need. “You cannot just buy us off with $3.1 billion,” he said. “We are worth more than that.”

If development moves forward without First Nations’ consent, Mamakwa said, “They will once again be ‘Idle No More.’”

“If free, prior and informed consent is not obtained from First Nations, this legislation will be mired in conflict and protracted litigation.”

Plans are already underway in the Ring of Fire region to fight Ontario’s new approach, said Neskantaga First Nation Chief Gary Quisess. “Right now, they’re violating the treaty rights,” he says of the province. Neskantaga, about 430 kilometres north of Thunder Bay, Ont., hasn’t had safe drinking water for more than 30 years. Despite the potential economic boon mining projects could bring to the remote community, the chief has continuously called for more consultation.

Noting that Ford has taken to saying “Canada is not for sale,” Quisess said the same “goes for the minerals that we have, the resources we have in our area.” Young people in the community are particularly fed up and prepared to fight for their land rights, he adds. “I got people that are standing strong regarding this issue.”

The tension between the provincial government and Ontario First Nations offers a preview of what to expect if Ottawa takes a similar tack, Fiddler says. “Not only are we now fighting Ontario on Bill 5, but we’re also gearing up for what will happen on the federal front as well.”

To Fiddler, the solution is to bring First Nations to the table from the beginning, rather than asking them to weigh in on decisions that have already been made. That goes for developing projects and drafting new legislation. “It can’t be after the fact,” he says. In his view, both Ottawa and Ontario have failed yet again in that regard.

Before Carney’s meeting with the premiers, the federal government wrote to First Nations leaders to ask for their feedback on his plan, citing U.S. threats against Canada’s economic future. Yet it gave them only a week to respond, saying they plan to table the legislation in early June.

“We understand the timelines are accelerated, but immediate co-operation is required to secure our national interests,” said the letter obtained by The Logic, which was signed by two senior members of the Privy Council Office.

Fiddler says the letter suggests Carney is using U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats against Canada’s economy and sovereignty to justify the threat his plan poses to the sovereignty of First Nations.

The previous iteration of the Liberal government tried to give First Nations a greater role in the approval process by creating the Impact Assessment Agency in 2019 to address environmental, health, social and economic impacts of new pipelines, mines and other projects. Instead it contributed to project “paralysis,” says Martin Ignasiak, head of energy regulation at the Bennett Jones law firm in Calgary.

Calgary-based pipeline giant Enbridge is calling for major changes to simplify that process, and encourage firms to move ahead with major energy projects. But bypassing Indigenous rights isn’t one of them. Enbridge spokesperson Gina Sutherland says the company’s duty to consult with First Nations is a “foundational part” of how it operates that it would pursue regardless of the regulatory environment.

Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway oil conduit was opposed by many First Nations, and ultimately rejected by former prime minister Justin Trudeau in 2016. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith hopes to revive it, or a similar project to get Alberta oil to northern B.C., and while no one is currently putting their hand up to build it, Carney has expressed openness to the idea.

Ignaskiak says many of his clients hope to see this new approach extended to smaller regional projects. “We certainly have to work very closely with Indigenous groups to ensure they benefit from those projects wherever possible, and to ensure that they are adversely affected as little as possible,” says Ignasiak. The law, however, does not give First Nations the power to veto projects, he says.

The government has so far struggled to navigate that distinction. On Tuesday, federal Justice Minister Sean Fraser said something very similar in a Parliament Hill scrum—to disastrous effect.

Governments have a duty to consult and engage and to acknowledge Indigenous rights, he said, and “to the extent that those rights can be accommodated, we should make every effort to.” But veto power? No.

By Wednesday, Fraser was back in front of microphones apologizing. He’d heard from Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, he said, and reconsidered.

“I think my comments actually caused hurt and potentially eroded a very precarious trust that has been built up over many years to respect the rights of Indigenous people in this country,” he said. “At every stage of the process, from project selection to conditions that may be imposed, we’re going to engage, properly consult and work in partnership to respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

Fraser ought to have known he needed to take care. Before Monday’s meeting of Carney and the premiers in Saskatoon, Woodhouse Nepinak told the prime minister that the First Nations she represents will not be railroaded.

As things stand, it’s unclear how far the government thinks its duty to consult will extend, or whether the courts will agree.

In 2021, the Liberal government passed legislation aimed at harmonizing Canadian laws with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Though the word “veto” never appears in the declaration, it says governments must obtain “free, prior and informed consent” from Indigenous Peoples for anything that might affect them—including acts related to their lands, territories or resources.

The justice minister at the time, now a key advisor to Carney, David Lametti, said the variety of Indigenous governance structures and decision-making processes put a single definition of “consent” out of reach. Instead, he said, the government was trying to ensure meaningful consultation.

Long before that, the Supreme Court had established the Crown’s duty to consult First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities whose rights, or even potential rights, might be affected by their actions.

“The rights of First Nations under international law and the Constitution of Canada are at stake,” Woodhouse Nepinak wrote earlier this week in an open letter. “If free, prior and informed consent is not obtained from First Nations, this legislation will be marred and mired in conflict and protracted litigation.”

Indigenous buy-in has proven increasingly necessary to get projects built in Canada. Michael Sabia, the president and CEO of Hydro‑Québec, described last fall just how much things have changed since the Crown corporation and the Quebec government built the massive hydroelectric power station on the east coast of James Bay in 1971.

“If we are not able to work in partnership with First Nations, then we’re going to build about as many megawatts as you can count on your left hand,” he said last October at a conference in Ottawa.

In the past, Hydro‑Québec and the provincial government might create some jobs in the community, pay some compensation and then “flood hundreds of kilometres of their territory,” said Sabia, a former federal deputy minister of finance. “That’s not going to work anymore,” he added, partly because it’s not right from a social justice point of view, and partly because First Nations have become adept, “as they should,” at fighting back in court.

Versions of these conflicts are happening across the country.

In British Columbia, First Nations leaders recently objected to a pair of bills from Premier David Eby’s NDP government—one focused on “streamlined” approvals for renewable energy projects, the other on different types of infrastructure.

The B.C. legislature passed both bills by one vote at the end of May; Regional Chief Terry Teegee of the B.C. Assembly of First Nations called it “a new low point in the relationship between the Provincial Crown and First Nations” and promised to use “every legal available tool at our disposal to protect what is rightfully ours.”

In March, the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw Chiefs opposed a provincial move to allow fracking for natural gas—through a bill that also repealed a ban on uranium mining—and said the chiefs might take the issue to court.

“The province of Nova Scotia and Premier [Tim] Houston are making decisions and moving at a speed that appears to be rooted in racist and colonial policies,” the assembly said in a statement.

If there’s an exception, it might be in the North. Nunavut Premier P.J. Akeeagok (who is Inuk but whose government represents everybody in the territory) said in Saskatoon that while Indigenous leaders might not have been in the room, their perspectives were at the table through the projects pitched.

“I think it’s so important to realize that a lot of these nation-building projects that we’re talking about right now are being led by Indigenous groups,” Akeeagok told reporters before heading into the meeting with Carney.

Akeeagok noted that the four projects Nunavut wants to see fast-tracked through the federal approvals process are all led by Inuit: the Kivalliq Hydro-Fibre Link between Manitoba and Nunavut communities, a deep-sea port at Qikiqtarjuaq, a hydroelectric power project in Iqaluit and the Grays Bay port and road project.

An Indigenous-led project needs the same approvals as any other, pointed out Anne-Raphaëlle Audouin, the chief executive of Nukik Corp., which is trying to build the Kivalliq power line and internet connection, and is owned by groups representing Inuit in central Nunavut. Audouin herself is not Inuk but brings long experience in the electricity sector; she used to head WaterPower Canada, representing the hydroelectricity industry.

Even if it means no special regulatory treatment, Indigenous ownership of a project can make a huge difference, she says, because the people behind it know the land, the people and the need the project is meant to answer, and they aren’t looking to just get something done and move on.

“Linear” projects such as pipelines, transmission lines and transportation links can benefit in particular from Indigenous ownership, she says, because of all the governments and stakeholders they have to engage along a long route. Anything that smooths those many, many interactions can make a big difference.

“I think, quite frankly, it is the future, and it is the way a lot of infrastructure projects will get done—not through partnerships and consultations, but through actual ownership,” Audouin says.

Indeed, on Thursday, the elected president of the Nisga’a Lisims government in northwestern B.C., hailed a provincial decision giving a natural gas pipeline permission to proceed. The Nisga’a Nation owns half the project.

Carney said in Saskatoon the approvals process for each project would involve consultations with Indigenous Peoples, so the brief time he offered to comment on Liberals’ major-projects bill isn’t the end of anything. He also said that he and Woodhouse Nepinak agreed to discuss these issues next month when the AFN gathers in Winnipeg for its annual meeting.

In the meantime, Woodhouse Nepinak said in a statement Friday morning, she has spoken to Carney about the bill and she is not mollified. The AFN, she said, “remains deeply concerned about the lack of time and appropriate process to carry out the Crown’s consultation and consent obligations, especially given the potentially massive impact on the rights of First Nations.”

Though Carney and the Liberal government have been focused on speed, Fiddler suggests they pause and look around at what is happening in Ontario if they want to avoid the missteps of the past.

“I hope the prime minister and his team are watching,” he says. “This is not how you should be trying to promote your economic agenda.”

With files from Jesse Snyder in Calgary

The lights never seem to be on and the shutters stay shut.

As the weeks pass by at the White House, the corner of the residence long used by first ladies remains dark, because this first lady does not really live in Washington.

Listen to this article with reporter commentary

Melania Trump vanishes from view for weeks at a time, holing up in Trump Tower in Manhattan or in Florida, where she can lie low at Mar-a-Lago. Administration officials say she is at the White House more often than the public knows, but when exactly, and for how long, these officials will not (or perhaps cannot) say for certain.

It’s like having Greta Garbo as first lady.

Mrs. Trump is expected to reappear in the capital on Thursday to unveil a postage stamp honoring Barbara Bush, the former first lady, and to attend a ceremony for military mothers. But two people with knowledge of Mrs. Trump’s schedule said she had spent fewer than 14 days at the White House since her husband was inaugurated 108 days ago. Others say even that is a generous estimate. Officials in the East Wing and West Wing declined multiple requests for comment for this article.

That the first lady’s whereabouts is among the most sensitive of subjects in this White House only adds to the intrigue.

“We haven’t seen such a low-profile first lady since Bess Truman, and that’s going way back in living human memory, nearly 80 years ago,” said Katherine Jellison, a historian at Ohio University whose research has focused on first ladies. She said that, like Mrs. Trump, Mrs. Truman spent much of her time running back to “her home base whenever she had the chance.” (In Mrs. Truman’s case, that was Independence, Mo.)

“She just kind of liked her own private world,” Ms. Jellison said.

The same is true of this first lady. She has hired staff to work for her in the East Wing, but she rarely goes into the office. Even regulars at Mar-a-Lago say they don’t often see Mrs. Trump around the premises.

Every marriage has its highs and lows, but as with so many other things, the Trumps are in a league of their own. In the span of just a few months last year, the couple endured a public trial about his philandering, two assassination attempts and a presidential campaign.

The trial, which concerned hush money Donald J. Trump paid to a porn star, made for an especially challenging moment for the couple, two people with knowledge of their dynamic said. Mrs. Trump kept well away from the courthouse in Lower Manhattan and from the campaign that kicked into high gear in the weeks that followed.

Image Melania Trump has appeared at just a handful of official events since her husband took office in January. Credit… Doug Mills/The New York Times

The attempted assassination of her husband over the summer — and a subsequent incident in which a gunman got close to Mr. Trump on one of his golf courses — deeply spooked a woman who was already worried about her family’s safety and had been for years, according to two people familiar with her thinking. The first time President Trump was inaugurated, in 2017, she was concerned about even getting out of the car to walk in the parade.

At the White House this time around, Mr. Trump has taken to performing some duties that typically would fall to a first lady. She’s not the one carefully selecting light fixtures for the White House residence, redesigning the Rose Garden, greeting tour groups in the East Wing or hosting receptions for Women’s History Month. He is.

It has been a decade since husband and wife rode that golden escalator down into national political life together. Now, he has come to a moment in which he finds himself flush with power and self-confidence like never before. And yet, as he expands, she shrinks.

Mr. and Mrs. Trump do share one common approach to public office, though. They both know how to make money from the exposure. In January, Mrs. Trump launched her own cryptocurrency token. “You can buy $MELANIA now,” she wrote on social media the day before her husband’s second inauguration.

And then there is the deal she struck with Amazon, reported to have been about $40 million, for a documentary offering a “behind the scenes” look at her life as first lady.

What might that show? It’s hard to say, exactly.

‘You serve the country’

Mrs. Trump waited for months to move into the White House last time. But that was because her son was just 10, and his mother took the time she needed to arrange his schooling and the transition to a new city. Back then, Mrs. Trump’s parents were omnipresent at the White House as she learned to navigate the role. Mrs. Trump’s mother, Amalija Knavs, died in January 2024. These days, Mrs. Trump spends a lot of time with her father, Viktor.

Barron Trump is 19 now. He is finishing his freshman year at New York University and is increasingly independent. Still, there is a part of Mrs. Trump that remains attached to the protective maternal role she has in his life, people around her say.

“You know, I feel that as children, we have them until they are like 18, 19 years old,” Mrs. Trump told Fox News in a rare interview she gave in January before the inauguration. “We teach them. We guide them. And then we give them the wings to fly.”

She was asked where she planned to spend most of her time this term.

“I will be in the White House,” she answered. “And, you know, when I need to be in New York, I will be in New York. When I need to be in Palm Beach, I will be in Palm Beach. But my first priority is, you know, to be a mom, to be a first lady, to be a wife. And once we are in on Jan. 20, you serve the country.”

Because Mrs. Trump is seldom seen or heard from, the times when she does appear provide a glimpse of how she sees her role. Some of her choices have been in line with traditional first lady duties — up to a point.

She stood alongside her husband to preside over the White House Easter Egg Roll last month, but even that raised ethical and legal concerns after it was revealed that corporate sponsors were allowed to contribute. (All money raised was to go to the White House Historical Association, a private nonprofit educational organization founded by Jacqueline Kennedy in 1961.)

Image Mrs. Trump at the White House Easter Egg Roll last month. Credit… Doug Mills/The New York Times Image Mrs. Trump attended a ceremony for the International Women of Courage awards at the State Department. Credit… Maansi Srivastava for The New York Times

On April 1, she spoke at the State Department for the International Women of Courage awards, the first time she had been seen in public in Washington in weeks.

At the White House, the first lady has hired her own staff in the East Wing. But what to do when the boss doesn’t come into the office? “We were honored to welcome these curious, young gardeners to the White House this past week!” reads the caption of one recent video posted to the “FLOTUS” Instagram page.

But FLOTUS herself does not appear in the video. It’s not clear if she was even there.

Film crews have been spotted around Mrs. Trump lately. But for the most part, the Amazon documentary about her life is, like its subject, shrouded in mystery. Documentary filmmakers and Hollywood executives say that the $40 million that Amazon is reported to have paid for the documentary, which Mrs. Trump is executive producing, is tens of millions of dollars more than what such projects would ordinarily fetch. Amazon declined multiple requests for comment for this article, as did the film’s director, Brett Ratner.

Just as Mrs. Trump’s presence can make for an interesting sight, so too can her absence.

When the first tour group was led through the East Wing, it was Mr. Trump who popped up to surprise them. “The first lady worked very hard in making it perfect,” he told the group. But she was not there.

During the first Trump term, Mrs. Trump replanted and restored the Rose Garden. This term, the president plans to pave over it to turn it into a patio so he can entertain al fresco. Mrs. Trump was initially bothered by her husband’s plan, according to two people briefed on the matter. She has since been assured the rose bushes themselves will be left alone.

She also came around to the idea of the ballroom that he is adamant about building at the White House — once she was told the construction wouldn’t take place too close to the residence.

One person who has known Mrs. Trump for a long time is Paolo Zampolli, a former modeling agent from Italy who first spotted her in Milan in the 1990s. The Trumps say it was Mr. Zampolli who introduced them for the first time, in 1998, at the Kit Kat Club in Manhattan. He refers to Mrs. Trump reverently as “the lady.” Any persnickety questions about the lady’s absence in Washington, he said, were unfounded. “She loves the White House,” he insisted, “and she loves the role of serving as our first lady.”

When the president makes his big swing through the Middle East next week, to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, the first lady is not expected to go with him.

But she did accompany him to Vatican City for Pope Francis’ funeral.

When they landed back in Newark on a Saturday afternoon, it was Mrs. Trump’s 55th birthday. The president gave her a kiss on the cheek. She got into a car, he climbed into Marine One, and they went their separate ways.

Image Mr. and Mrs. Trump went their separate ways after attending the funeral of Pope Francis. Credit… Eric Lee/The New York Times

Audio produced by Adrienne Hurst .

Pinned

Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada won a new term on Monday night, a remarkable turnaround for his Liberal Party, which surged in popularity as President Trump took an increasingly aggressive stance toward the country.

Early Tuesday morning and after an all-night count, Canada’s elections agency said it would stop tallying votes for a few hours and resume at 9:30 a.m. Eastern — leaving unanswered the question of whether the Liberals had managed to narrowly clinch a majority of seats in the House of Commons. A minority government would require support from other parties to pass legislation and would be weaker and less stable than a majority.

But what was clear was that Canadians had opted for Mr. Carney, an economist who was running in national elections for the first time in his life, with Mr. Trump and his impact on Canada’s economy on their mind.

The centerpiece of Mr. Carney’s acceptance speech early Tuesday morning was Canada’s response to Mr. Trump’s policies.

“As I’ve been warning for months, America wants our land, our resources, our water,” he said. “President Trump is trying to break us so he can own us. That will never happen.” He warned Canadians that the road ahead would be difficult and might require sacrifices.

Image Canada’s elections agency said it would stop tallying votes for a few hours early Tuesday, leaving unanswered the question of whether the Liberals had managed to clinch a majority in the House of Commons. Credit… Cole Burston for The New York Times

The Conservative Party had been handily leading in polls until March when Mr. Trump’s tariffs on Canadian goods took effect and Mr. Carney replaced Justin Trudeau as prime minister and leader of the Liberals. For the Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, the party’s stinging defeat was compounded by the fact that he lost his seat, which he had held continuously for 20 years, to the Liberal candidate.

When Mr. Poilievre conceded early Tuesday morning, he said that he would remain as party leader. The Conservative caucus can remove him from that post, as it did to the party’s two previous leaders after it failed to form a government.

The election has been remarkable in many ways, with candidates and many voters describing it as the most important vote in their lifetimes.

It was dominated by Mr. Trump and his relentless focus on Canada, America’s closest ally and trading partner. He imposed tariffs on Canadian goods, pushing the country toward a recession, and repeatedly threatened to annex it as the 51st state. Even as Canadians were heading to the polls on Monday morning, he repeated that desire, arguing on social media that it would bring economic and military benefits.

Mr. Carney, 60, a seasoned economist and policymaker who promoted himself as the anti-Trump candidate and centered his campaign on dealing with the United States, ultimately benefited from the American president’s actions.

Image Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative leader, lost his seat as his party lost the election. Credit… Amber Bracken for The New York Times

Mr. Poilievre, 45, and the Conservatives had been dominating polls for years, building a platform against the Liberals and Mr. Trudeau around the argument that they had dragged Canada into prolonged economic malaise.

But they watched their double-digit lead rapidly evaporate after Mr. Trump’s aggressiveness toward Canada and Mr. Trudeau’s resignation.

Canadians heading to the polls were preoccupied both with the country’s relationship with its neighbor to the south and with the state of the economy at home. Affordability worries, primarily over housing, were top of mind, opinion surveys conducted before the election showed.

But Canada’s choice on Monday also came as a kind of referendum against Mr. Trump and the way he has been treating America’s allies and its trading partners.

It’s the second major international election since Mr. Trump came to power, after Germany, and Canada’s handling of the rupture in the relationship with the United States is being closely watched around the world.

Image Canada’s choice on Monday also came as a kind of referendum against President Trump and the way he has been treating America’s allies and its trading partners. Credit… Pat Kane for The New York Times

The election also highlighted that Mr. Trump’s brand of conservative politics can turn toxic for conservatives elsewhere if they are seen as being too aligned with his ideological and rhetorical style. Mr. Poilievre, who railed against “radical woke ideology,” pledged to defund Canada’s national broadcaster and said he would cut foreign aid, seemed to have lost centrist voters, pre-election polls suggested.

For Mr. Carney, Monday’s victory marked an astonishing moment in his rapid rise in Canada’s political establishment since entering the race to replace Mr. Trudeau in January.

A political novice but policy-making veteran, Mr. Carney conveyed a measured, serious tone and defiance toward Mr. Trump’s aggressive overtures, helping to sway voters who had been contemplating supporting the Conservatives, according to polls and some individual voters. And his politics as a pragmatist and a centrist seemed to better align with Canada’s mood after a decade of Mr. Trudeau’s progressive agenda.

There was ample evidence on Monday that Mr. Carney’s personality and background had boosted the Liberals. He is a Harvard- and Oxford-educated economist who served as governor of the Bank of Canada during the 2008 global financial crisis and the Bank of England during Brexit. He later went on to serve on corporate boards and became a leading voice on climate-conscious investment.

The road ahead for Mr. Carney and his new government will be hard. For starters, he will need to engage with Mr. Trump and his unpredictable attitude toward Canada and discuss fraught issues, including trade and security.

And he will need to show voters that his economic policy credentials can truly be put to use to improve Canada’s slow economic growth and persistently high unemployment.

In the early hours of Tuesday, amid celebrations, Mr. Carney said he was ready for the challenge. “We will fight back with everything we have to get the best deal for Canada,” he said. “We will build an independent future for our great country.”

“Build, baby, build.”

Canada’s spin on the mantra has been a nationalist rallying cry of Prime Minister Mark Carney: Build “Canada strong.” Build a Canada less dependent on the United States. Build an “energy superpower.”

That means to build, and quickly, projects of national interest that could include oil pipelines, nuclear facilities, mines, power grids, ports, roads and railways — all of it to create a stronger domestic economy and increase trade with countries other than the United States.

“We are going to build,” Mr. Carney said in his speech after winning the election in April. “Build, baby, build.”

But Mr. Carney’s ambitions are facing a fierce backlash — building any enormous infrastructure would most likely require doing so on the ancestral lands of Canada’s Indigenous groups. And they have denounced the government’s vision even before the first shovels have been pushed into the dirt.

Liberal party projected to form minority government as Trump congratulates Carney

Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney has spoken to US President Donald Trump the day after his Liberal Party won a fourth consecutive election.

The leaders agreed to meet in person “in the near future”, according to a statement from the PM’s office.

The Liberals will only form a minority government, however, after falling short of a majority in the House of Commons, according to a projection by public broadcaster CBC.

That means Carney will have to rely on other political parties to pass legislation.

His main rival, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, is projected to have lost his own seat. Jagmeet Singh, leader of the New Democratic Party (NDP) was also defeated.

The election was dominated by discussions about Trump and his repeated threat to make Canada the US’s “cherished 51st state”.

In an exclusive interview with the BBC, Carney said his country deserves respect from the US and will only enter trade and security talks with Trump “on our terms”.

We are ending our live coverage but you can stay across the results and fallout from Canada’s election on BBC News: