EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities NUMBER 003 1st SESSION 45th PARLIAMENT Wednesday, June 18, 2025 Le mercredi 18 juin 2025 Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE June 18, 2025 Committee NUMBER 003 NUMBER 003 NUMÉRO 003 03 18 06 2025 2025/06/18 15:35:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent des transports, de l'infrastructure et des collectivités Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities TRAN Chair Peter Schiefke 1 45

(1535) [ English ]

The Chair (Peter Schiefke (Vaudreuil, Lib.)) :

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number three of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, June 16, the committee is resuming its consideration of Bill C-5 ,

an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application. Before we begin, I want to ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including our interpreters.

You will also notice a QR code on the card, which links to a short awareness video. Colleagues, I would now like to welcome our witnesses for the next two hours. Appearing before us today, we have the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Transport and Internal Trade. Welcome to you, Minister.

Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of Transport and Internal Trade) :

It's great to be here.

The Chair :

We have the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy. Welcome to you, sir. We also have the Honourable Rebecca Alty, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. Welcome to you. Also, from the clean growth office of the Privy Council we have Sarah Jackson, director; and Daniel Morin, senior adviser. From the Privy Council Office we have Christiane Fox, deputy clerk of the Privy Council and deputy minister of intergovernmental affairs; and Jeannine Ritchot, assistant deputy minister, intergovernmental affairs.

From the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations we have Valerie Gideon, deputy minister; and Bruno Steinke, senior director. Welcome to you all.

Hon. Chrystia Freeland :

We also have Arun Thangaraj, the deputy minister of Transport, here with us.

The Chair :

We could not have a meeting without mentioning his presence in the back. Welcome to you, sir. Ministers, we'll begin with five-minute opening remarks. With that, Minister Freeland, I'd love to turn the floor over to you for five minutes, please— Go ahead, Ms. Gazan.

Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) :

I have a point of order before the testimony begins. I was wondering if I could receive unanimous consent to have a round of questions at the end.

The Chair :

Is that similar to what we did yesterday, Ms. Gazan?

Leah Gazan :

Yes.

The Chair :

Is there any opposition to providing Ms. Gazan with five minutes to pose questions to the witnesses?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: Seeing none, it's adopted unanimously. I'll make sure you get that time, Ms. Gazan. Minister Freeland, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, please.

[ Translation ]

Hon. Chrystia Freeland :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. [ English ] Canada is at a critical moment. U.S. tariffs are battering our country and are threatening to push the world economy into a recession. Hard-working Canadians are losing their jobs, businesses are losing their customers and investors are holding back. That is why it is so essential for us to press ahead with a project that costs nothing and can be accomplished at the stroke of a pen: delivering free trade in Canada. [ Translation ] Ultimately, the decision to build one Canadian economy, not 13, is about trusting each other.

It's about deciding that the delicious steak people eat in Calgary is surely good enough to serve in Charlottetown and that the dental hygienist whose patients in Moncton adore her can be counted on to do the same excellent work when she moves to Quebec City. [ English ] According to a 2019 study published by the IMF, the impact of these barriers to internal trade is the equivalent to Canadians imposing a 7% tariff on ourselves.

A 2016 report by Trevor Tombe and Lukas Albrecht, in the Canadian Journal of Economics, found that removing all barriers to internal trade and labour mobility could lower prices by up to 15%. A 2016 study by the Senate committee on banking, trade and commerce found that lifting barriers to internal trade could boost productivity by up to 7%.

Research by Trevor Tombe and Ryan Manucha, published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute in 2024, estimates that free trade in Canada would add up to $200 billion to our economy. [ Translation ] Let's seize this opportunity to transform Canada by trusting one another and creating one single Canadian economy. We introduced this bill because we want to eliminate domestic trade barriers and build one Canadian economy. [ English ] Momentum is building across Canada. P.E.I, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have all passed legislation to remove barriers to internal trade.

B.C. has passed its historic Economic Stabilization Act. Quebec is advancing its own reforms. I do want to salute Jason Kenney, who was a leader in this area when he was premier of Alberta. Memorandums of understanding between Ontario and other provinces, as well as powerful regional agreements like the New West Partnership, signal new levels of co-operation. I want to be clear: The federal legislation is about being part of a broader wave and a broader national effort to remove barriers to internal trade and labour mobility.

This legislation by itself won't do the job, and there will be more work to do after, I hope, we pass this legislation on Friday, but this is the federal government's contribution to the excellent work provinces and territories are doing. It's important that we, as federal MPs, do our share. What a delicious irony it will be for us all to respond to tariffs imposed from abroad by finally tearing down the tariff and trade barriers we Canadians have imposed on each other. Let's get this done once and for all and deliver free trade in Canada. Thank you very much.

(1540) The Chair :

Thank you very much, Minister Freeland. Next, we'll turn the floor over to Minister LeBlanc. Minister LeBlanc, you have five minutes, please.

[ Translation ]

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy) :

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to discuss the proposed legislation on one Canadian economy and the critical importance of advancing projects of national interest. This is not only a period of profound change for Canada; it is also a pivotal moment. As my colleague just said, U.S. tariffs and rising protectionism are threatening Canadian jobs and businesses. Rarely have global markets been so volatile.

Given this new reality, Canadians expect their government to act boldly, decisively and with solidarity. [ English ] At this crucial time, Canada needs to be able to build strategic infrastructure, transportation corridors and energy networks that are essential for Canadians' prosperity and economic security. We must be able to move our resources from coast to coast to coast and get them to the world more quickly and more reliably.

This is an opportunity for the federal government to work with provinces and territories and with indigenous partners to identify and accelerate the projects we need right now to assure our autonomy, our security and our trade diversification. The one Canadian economy act aims to do just that. It's a key tool to secure Canadian jobs for this generation, and for generations to come, as all of us would hope.

At the recent first ministers' meeting in Saskatoon, where Chrystia and I and our colleague the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources were present, premiers from every political stripe expressed their enthusiastic support for advancing nation-building projects, because premiers understood that in order for Canada to succeed, we must build one Canadian economy out of 13 and thereby build a shared future. [ Translation ] Too often, it takes a long time for decisions to be made about projects that have the potential to connect our country and grow our economy.

The one Canadian economy bill is our chance to do things differently while remaining true to our values and our responsibilities as a country, of course. [ English ] We can and will accelerate the approval of projects, while obviously continuing to abide by constitutionally mandated responsibilities towards indigenous peoples and ensuring the protection and the environmental assessments that impose as well.

To that end, the government will set up a new major projects office that will provide a seamless single point of contact for project proponents once they're designated and for stakeholders, provinces and indigenous partners. My colleague will expand on many of these aspects. The one Canadian economy act is about nation-building on a scale not seen for generations. It's about transitioning from "Should we build?" to "How do we build?" The Prime Minister and our government have been clear about our objectives. We hope these objectives are shared by members of this committee and members in the other House.

Canadians have entrusted us to do things differently and better and to move nation-building projects forward. We believe this legislation is an important step in that direction. After you hear the phenomenal comments from my colleague, we look forward, as you can imagine, to your questions.

(1545) The Chair :

Thank you very much, Minister LeBlanc. As always, it's a pleasure to have you here. Next, we'll turn the floor over to Minister Alty. The floor is yours. You have five minutes, please.

Hon. Rebecca Alty (Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I'm pleased to be here today in support of the one economy act , legislation that reflects our government's commitment to building Canada strong. This bill lays the foundation for one Canadian economy: an economy that works for all Canadians, including first nations, Métis and Inuit people. Minister LeBlanc and Minister Freeland have outlined the substance of the bill. I'll focus on how we'll be implementing this with indigenous peoples.

First, let me start by being crystal clear: Major projects will proceed under this act only with meaningful consultation and accommodation with indigenous rights holders whose

section 35 rights may be affected. [ Translation ] This bill mandates meaningful consultation with indigenous peoples during the process of designating projects of national interest and establishing the terms and conditions that will apply to those projects. [ English ] This requirement is not optional. It's protected under the Canadian Constitution and embedded throughout the legislation. Thanks to the efforts of indigenous leaders, governments and representative organizations, last year, we also passed an amendment to the

Interpretation Act, which ensures that all legislation, including new legislation like the one economy act, is interpreted in a way that upholds and does not diminish the aboriginal and treaty rights recognized and affirmed in

section 35 of the Constitution. We also have legal obligations under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, as well as our modern treaties and self-government agreements, to ensure that the duty to consult and accommodate is honoured, and honoured in full. As we undertake this nation-building effort, the principle of free, prior and informed consent must and will guide every project.

As mentioned, this legislation mandates that there must be meaningful consultation and accommodation with indigenous peoples during both the process of determining which projects are in national interest and the development of the rigorous conditions for each project.

In determining which projects proposed by indigenous peoples, provinces and territories are in the national interest, we'll be evaluating based on whether they strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security; provide economic or other benefits to Canadians; have a high likelihood of successful execution; advance the interests of indigenous peoples; and contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada's objectives with respect to climate change. The legislation is incentivizing early engagement with indigenous peoples.

Proponents who don't engage with indigenous peoples before bringing their projects forward for consideration under this legislation will be given a lower evaluation. The intent of the legislation is to streamline the approvals to advance major projects. We know that failing to uphold our legal responsibilities around consultation and accommodation will only lead to costly and time-consuming delays in the courts. This legislation is about supporting projects that are not only shovel-ready but shovel-worthy; projects that respect indigenous knowledge and uphold aboriginal and treaty rights.

We'll be looking for projects that have indigenous support and, even better, indigenous equity in the project. [ Translation ] To get it right, the new process proposed in this historic bill includes the creation of a new major federal projects office that will bring all relevant federal departments together to establish a single set of binding conditions for the project to move forward. This new office will include an indigenous advisory council. [ English ] We will also be providing funding for indigenous participation in this new process, from start to finish.

At the same time, being a reliable partner to indigenous peoples is not just about upholding the duty to consult and accommodate. Enabling the creation of long-term wealth and prosperity for indigenous peoples through equity ownership is central to building Canada strong. That's why we doubled the indigenous loan guarantee program from $5 billion to $10 billion, enabling more indigenous communities to become owners of major projects.

Just this year, 36 first nations in British Columbia used this program to secure a 12.5% equity share in a major pipeline project, generating long-term income and economic power for their communities. (1550) [ Translation ] The truth is that our economy can be strong only when it benefits everyone. We know that investing in indigenous economies and communities is good for the country as a whole. [ English ] Together, let's move this bill forward so we can begin the vital work of building Canada's future economy, one that includes and is built with indigenous people.

Merci beaucoup . Mahsi cho . Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Ministers, for your opening remarks. We'll begin our line of questioning today with Mr. Lawrence. Mr. Lawrence, the floor is yours. You have six minutes, sir.

Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Clarke, CPC) :

Thank you, Chair. Thank you to the ministers for agreeing to be here for the next six hours. We appreciate that.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Philip Lawrence: No? That's a little fun to begin with here. You can smile here. Conservatives agree directionally that of course we need national projects built. We need the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers. In fact, over the last 10 years, the old Liberal government was very much against that, we felt. We are glad that the new government appears to be at least open directionally, but we do have some concerns, particularly on the ethics, accountability and transparency side. I'll start by referencing proposed sections 21, 22, and 23 of the building Canada act.

Together, when these are combined, they have the ability to give a minister the ability to exempt any national project from any piece of legislation passed since 1867, with the exception of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Given that, and given the fact that the Prime Minister worked for one of the largest constructors and manufacturers of national projects of infrastructure in Canada—and perhaps in the world—at Brookfield, could you please identify to us the screens that will be put in place to make sure that we don't have conflicts of interest or other lobbying concerns?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

Thank you for the question, Mr. Lawrence. It's a good question. You're right when you identify the operation of those particular clauses. In no discussions that I was in, or that I participated in, was exempting requirements under the conflict of interest and ethics act, for example, which would be a piece of legislation that obviously you're referring to. As the minister who would be designated as responsible for this act, I can't imagine that in the course of my recommendation to cabinet that would be the kind of exemption we're looking at.

I obviously would, in any circumstance, be governed by the advice we would get from officials from the Privy Council Office and the Ethics Commissioner in those circumstances. I get the hypothetical question you're asking, and I've seen you and your colleagues raise these concerns in different fora elsewhere. I just think that it feels very hypothetical that we would be approving a national project and look to exempt the responsibilities of any member of Parliament, public office holder or member of cabinet from the ethics obligations. I wouldn't ever do that myself.

I wouldn't go to cabinet with that kind of recommendation, but I take your point.

Philip Lawrence :

Thank you, Minister. Well, I would follow the old Ronald Reagan quote: “Trust, but verify.” The way in which proposed sections 21, 22 and 23 work together in the building Canada act is striking. Literally any legislation can be exempt, including the Conflict of Interest Act, the Lobbying Act, the Income Tax Act and the Criminal Code. While I certainly want to trust, I would also like to verify. My question is, would you be open to an amendment that would restrict that to prevent exemptions from the Conflict of Interest Act and other acts?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

The deputy clerk.... As I say, it is a good question, and I wouldn't want to leave an impression that is inaccurate. Perhaps Chris Fox could add something if, in my explanation, it's not as precise as it should be. There are limits in terms of what acts or what exemptions could be issued.

Part 1 talks about “Acts of Parliament”: Fisheries Act, Indian Act, International River Improvements Act, National Capital Act, Navigable Waters Protection Act and Migratory Birds Convention Act. It doesn't speak of some of the ethics obligations, like the Criminal Code. Again, it's a hypothetical question that we're going to approve or designate a project and exempt it from the Criminal Code of Canada. It doesn't seem like a legitimate line of questioning.

(1555) Philip Lawrence :

I appreciate that, but the act actually says in proposed

section 21 that you can add other acts to it, which means that you could, in theory, add the Criminal Code. I'm not saying you would, Minister. I'm saying that the possibility thereto exists, and we have seen, in the old Liberal government, some ethical lapses—I know, it's shocking—so we would be looking for an amendment to make sure. Specifically, like I said, the Prime Minister ran one of the largest infrastructure companies in the world, so putting those screens in place is I think incredibly important. Would you have any details on how the Prime Minister's screens might be put in place to make sure we don't have conflicts of interest?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

The Prime Minister has answered the questions and the Ethics Commissioner's office is able to talk about all the screens that are appropriately in place to ensure that there is in fact no conflict of interest or appearance thereof. I'm not sure that any of us are going to speak to those specific ethics provisions. Sarah, can you perhaps add something?

Sarah Jackson (Director, Clean Growth Office, Privy Council Office) :

Just on the controls that are in place with relation to proposed sections 21 and 22, yes, on the recommendation of the designated minister, the GIC could add acts and regulations. That needs to be done with respect to the purpose of the act, which is to advance national interest projects, provide environmental protection and respect indigenous rights. It needs to be in keeping with the purpose of the act, first of all. Then the regulations under proposed

section 22 would need to actually be on the recommendation of the minister responsible for each of those acts, such as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans if modifications were being made to the application of the Fisheries Act. That's another control that's in place. They're also subject to the Statutory Instruments Act regulatory process.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Ms. Jackson, and thank you, Mr. Lawrence. The next line of questioning will come from MP Nguyen. The floor is yours. You have six minutes, please.

Chi Nguyen (Spadina—Harbourfront, Lib.) :

Thanks very much. Thank you to our colleagues for joining us today. Minister Freeland, we know that this is clearly a time when we need to be building for Canada. That is what this bill is trying to achieve in terms of our objectives, strengthening trade corridors and accelerating those nation-building projects. Can you speak to how these could improve our transportation infrastructure and investments? In my riding of Spadina—Harbourfront, we have Union Station and the Toronto island airport. I'd love to hear more details on how this may open up opportunities for our country as we do that building.

Hon. Chrystia Freeland :

Congratulations on your election and on joining us here in this House and in this committee. It's really great. We are neighbours geographically as MPs. I want to start by picking up on something Mr. Lawrence said about the long-standing Conservative support of some of these measures. I do want to specifically single out Mr. Albas, in all seriousness, for having championed this issue at a time when it wasn't so much in vogue. We all remember his spirited “free the beer” campaign. He was absolutely right. I think it's very exciting.

We all know as politicians that there can be really good ideas, but you need the political moment sometimes to make them happen. I think that was the case with creating a national system of early learning and child care. For 50 years Canadian women had been fighting for it. Policy experts all agreed it was a good thing and would make our economy more productive, would make life more affordable for families and would give women more choice. It took a particular moment to make it happen. I believe when it comes to internal trade and major nation-building projects, that moment is now.

I really do want to put on the record that Mr. Albas has been championing this for a long time, and that's great. Thank you. To your specific questions, there are two ways this bill will help the life of every single person each one of us represents. One is the internal trade element. Truly getting rid of barriers to internal trade and labour mobility will make our life easier. It will make it easier for each one of our constituents to move and work around the country.

It will make it easier for each one of our constituents who has a business to sell things from that business or provide services across the country. It will give all of us more choice. I think it will also have a nation-building impact that is psychological. As we build economic networks that are truly pan-Canadian, we will truly be acting as Canadians when we do business or when we perform services rather than as residents of a province. The second element you mentioned, Chi, is equally important. I think every single one of us as an MP has a list of projects that we really want to get built in our riding.

Every single one of us has spoken with frustrated constituents who ask us why we can't get this project built faster. This legislation is an opportunity to build those projects. Now, I'm here as the internal trade minister, but I'm also the trade minister. I'm glad you mentioned the island airport. I think it provides a lot of benefit for the city that both you and I represent and for our country. This is an opportunity to support our airports and to support our trade corridors across the country.

I do really hope that every single MP who is a member of this committee will be actively working with proponents, working with premiers and working indigenous people in their communities to put forward great nation-building projects that could be facilitated by this legislation.

(1600) Chi Nguyen :

Thanks very much. I have another question. In the

preamble and the language of the legislation, we point to both

section 35 and UNDRIP. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm hoping you can help me understand how these sit with the legislation. Is there one that's more powerful? If you could help me understand as a layperson, that would be really great. That's for either Minister Alty or Minister LeBlanc, please.

Hon. Rebecca Alty :

Yes, it's the Constitution, ultimately. There are not only a number of clauses in this legislation, but pieces of legislation out. For example, there's the Constitution. The other one I mentioned has the changes to the

Interpretation Act in Bill S-13 , which is about how all legislation has to be interpreted in a way that upholds and does not diminish the aboriginal and treaty rights recognized and affirmed in

section 35. In the act itself, I would touch not only on the

preamble, but also on the body of the legislation. It requires the government to consult with

section 35 rights holders in the selection of projects, as well as in the process of approving or removing a project if it's deemed necessary. That's in proposed subsections 5(7), 7(2) and 8(3). Again, we're committed to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Outside of the legislation, there are a number of things that we're looking to do, including setting up a major projects office with an indigenous advisory council, having funding for capacity so that indigenous governments can meaningfully participate from start to finish and having the indigenous loan guarantee program. We want to see projects that advance indigenous interests.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Minister. [ Translation ] Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you now have the floor for six minutes.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the ministers for being here. This is a very important bill, and I find it really unfortunate that we won't get a chance to study it in depth. There are dozens of witnesses, if not more, who would have liked to testify before the committee on this bill. Unfortunately, they will not have the opportunity to do so. We won't even have the opportunity to properly debate the bill. I understand that the government has a sense of urgency right now. Otherwise, it wouldn't be forcing things through like this.

I'm wondering if they are basically invoking the Emergencies Act in disguise, because that act has the kind of extraordinary powers contained in this bill. That is what a constitutional expert told us yesterday. What can you tell us about that, Mr. LeBlanc?

(1605) Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

Obviously, I don't agree with that

interpretation. As I recall, when we decided to invoke the Emergencies Act, things were completely different from a context, justification and legal standpoint. I was actually involved in making that decision and I am proud of the former government's decision. The matter before us today is altogether different. During the election campaign and at our talks in Kananaskis, where I was present with Mr. Trump's government—

Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Thank you very much, Minister.

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

I was about to describe the emergency, not the context.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

You were about to describe your election platform. You clearly said that you see no similarity between this and the use of the Emergencies Act. If that's the case, why is there is a five-year time limit clause? Why does the power you would be granted allow you to override just about any law? This bill would give the executive branch powers that usually belong to the legislative branch. If there is no emergency, why does this bill let the government give itself extreme powers?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

You interrupted me as I was about to describe the emergency that makes it necessary for us to pass the bill. Tariffs imposed by the United States are a threat that constitutes an economic emergency. I'm glad you mentioned the election campaign. We talked a lot about taking urgent action to build major projects of national interest. We even discussed it with your province's premier at the meeting in Saskatoon. We believe we must take urgent action to diversify our international trade, build major projects, including clean energy projects like the ones the Government of Quebec wants to launch with Newfoundland and Labrador—

Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

I understand that you believe there's an urgent need to act, but don't you see that you're exaggerating this idea of an emergency? South of the border, they use executive orders to do things they wouldn't normally be able to do. Western nations seem to be getting more comfortable with the idea of labelling things as emergencies so they can do things that wouldn't normally be done in a democracy. Isn't that what you're doing?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

I completely disagree with your

interpretation that a legislative action we are taking today is anything like an executive order from the White House. You're comparing them, and I understand why. You can do politics however you like, but I fundamentally disagree with your

interpretation.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

What you're getting is essentially the power to secretly designate, since we don't know whether the consultations will be real or not. We don't know how genuine they'll be because there is no obligation to consult. There are no project selection criteria. The criteria are entirely subjective. You can also exempt projects from the application of any legislation and choose what conditions projects will be subject to. You will be given that power. Doesn't it seem like you're becoming a sort of deputy emperor?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

First of all, I don't want to correct you, but you said that there were no selection criteria for projects of national interest. However, my colleague was good enough to list the five factors that are actually set out in the bill. Furthermore, as our colleague from the Privy Council Office clearly explained, it is not true that the government could, theoretically or hypothetically, exempt all of the projects from the application of the law. These are only projects of national interest that are related to the objectives of the bill, if passed. That process is under the authority of the Governor in Council.

I understand your argument, but you've blown it so out of proportion that it's not valid.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Let's talk more about the criteria, which give you full arbitrary power. You are in no way required to respect the factors set out in subsection 5(6) of the act proposed in the bill. That's the first thing. The second thing is that the Prime Minister , your leader, promised that no projects would be carried out or imposed without Quebec's consent. That's what your leader promised, but we don't see that in this bill. Will you promise to accept amendments that are consistent with what your leader promised?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

At the press conference, I was standing behind the Prime Minister when he explained, as you just accurately reported, that he doesn't consider this an opportunity for us to impose a project on a province at all. I, for one, am encouraged by the province's desire—

Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

I'm asking you if it will be in the bill. Will you agree to put the words of the Prime Minister , your leader, in the bill?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

I'm not on the committee. I'm happy to be here for two hours, but I won't be here for six hours. When you do the clause-by-clause study of the bill, I won't be here. I have full confidence in your work.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Well, you're the one who introduced the bill. I feel like you're the wolf dressed up like grandmother. You keep telling us that you're doing this for our own good and that we have nothing to worry about, but at the end of the day, there's no guarantee that you'll act in our best interest. You'll do whatever you want. That's the problem with this bill.

(1610) Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

I realize that you don't often attend federal-provincial meetings. I myself was in Saskatoon when all the provincial and territorial premiers spoke on behalf of all the duly elected political parties in their provinces and territories in support of doing just that. That means you're basing your argument on an exaggerated hypothetical situation. You're good at it.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

It's a possible hypothetical situation.

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

Any hypothesis is possible.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

The government will be able to issue orders in council without any discussion.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval. [ English ] Next, we have Ms. Stubbs. The floor is yours. You have five minutes.

Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC) :

Thanks, Chair. I appreciate it. Thank you, ministers, for being here. To follow up and conclude on what my colleague Phil Lawrence was asking, is it safe to say that none of the three ministers here are responsible for the bill? This is not an accusation toward you in general, but none of you are aware of, have seen or know about a concrete ethical screen in place for the Prime Minister. Okay. I'll take that as a no.

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

These things are properly done by the Ethics Commissioner and the deputy clerk.

Shannon Stubbs :

I think the ministers need to answer because they're responsible for the bill.

The Chair :

Ms. Fox, do you want to respond to that?

Christiane Fox (Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council and Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Privy Council Office) :

I want to state quite clearly that at the Privy Council Office, we are working very closely with the Prime Minister's Office to manage all of the conflicts he's declared. That is operationalized within the communications between the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office, and it would be linked to anything, including this bill.

Shannon Stubbs :

Thank you. You may be aware, but it is clear that the ministers responsible aren't, so Canadians will trust you on that. This whole bill started in the election campaign with meetings with the premiers and the territorial leaders. There have been weeks since those meetings and weeks since Parliament started. Since there seem to be mixed messages about politicians sending lists in and not, is it possible for any of the ministers to identify a single energy project, for example, that will be approved and ready for shovels in the ground in June 2027 if this law passes this week?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

Chair, through you to Ms. Stubbs, that's a very good question. Obviously, we don't want to prejudge whether Parliament will adopt this legislation. We're hopeful. Monday night, I had dinner at a table with the Premier of Alberta and had a long conversation with the Premier of Saskatchewan. They are very enthusiastic about putting quickly before the Government of Canada projects that, in their view and probably in our view, would meet the national interest test. I think we're going to be very fortunate with the volume of projects that will come together quickly. I think this is instructive.

This isn't a federal infrastructure program as much as it's a way to expedite projects that provinces and territories, indigenous partners and private sector proponents will want us to work on in an expedited and effective way that encourages investment decisions. I think we'll have well more than one within the first two years, but I don't want to prejudge what will be submitted.

Shannon Stubbs :

Yes, and certainly, we Conservatives will join you in your hopes and prayers, but we obviously hoped for something a little more concrete. Of course, as you know—and I might suggest this as a first place for you all to stop—there are dozens of projects with real proponents spending real money and losing real time. They're stuck in the federal regulatory process. They're stuck in front of all of these various pieces of legislation and regulations that you are now identifying as barriers to projects getting built. That's why you're bringing in Bill C-5 to fast-track these projects.

I would suggest that you might want to start there with the real proponents of real projects, who are stuck in front of your regulatory mess right now, and give them some certainty. To that end, can I ask you about the lack of the two-year timeline embedded right in the legislation, including criteria and conditions that will be made behind closed doors, and then where projects will be adjudicated on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis?

How do those two embedded uncertainties—not yet addressed in the bill, but we hope you'll accept some amendments in that regard—possibly give private sector investors or proponents the certainty that they want to get these big, major, nation-building projects built for the benefit of all of us?

Hon. Chrystia Freeland :

If I may, Ms. Stubbs, I want to start where Mr. Lawrence began. A lot of us here are in violent agreement about the objective and that we need to get big things built faster in Canada. What—

(1615) Shannon Stubbs :

Certainly, because you announced that in 2022. Now, here we are, still with the same government trying to make that happen.

Hon. Chrystia Freeland :

What I would say is that there is a contradiction between the notion that specific projects should be named right now and the path we need to take to actually get things done. This legislation is quite intentionally about setting a framework that is clear and transparent and gives transparency to provinces, indigenous organizations and business leaders. We need to go step by step. We need to have the framework and transparency and hopefully get the legislation passed. As my colleague said, there are a lot of projects waiting for this. We were together in Saskatoon and we heard from the premiers.

They are very keen. It would be inappropriate to specify the projects in the legislation. The right way to do it is to create a framework and have the conversations. Let me tell you that as soon as this is passed, we're going to be dealing with moving with alacrity.

Shannon Stubbs :

Thank you. I get it, but what would you have to say for all of the projects that will not be fast-tracked or make the cut?

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Stubbs. Thank you, Minister. We'll move on now to Mr. Kelloway. The floor is yours. You have five minutes, sir.

Mike Kelloway (Sydney—Glace Bay, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the ministers for being here and for your testimony. I'm going to try to get questions to the three of you. I have limited time. I'm going to start with Minister Freeland. I think you did a really good job of explaining the “why” of this legislation, which is eliminating federal internal trade barriers. You talked about the “what”. It's impressive in its potential. We could reduce costs by 15%, increase productivity by 7% and increase the GDP by 4%. I think it's really important for Canadians to have a mental image of what that truly means.

Hypothetically, there's a company in Cape Breton that sells really good beer. How would it impact them going forward in terms of the elimination of federal trade barriers?

Hon. Chrystia Freeland :

Thank you very much, Mr. Kelloway, and thank you for agreeing to serve as my parliamentary secretary. It's great to be working together. As Mr. Albas identified presciently, the beer examples have a way of seizing the imagination of Canadians, so they're good ones. This legislation alone is not going to remove barriers to interprovincial trade, and it is not alone going to create free labour mobility. Most of the barriers are at a provincial level, and our government respects the jurisdiction of the provinces. What we have seen is, as part of this wave of patriotism across Canada, provinces stepping up.

Your own province of Nova Scotia, really, is a leader, if not the leader, of this effort with regard to the mutual recognition legislation. However, when we talk to the provinces and territories, we know that, in order to really be facilitating and encouraging true free trade in goods and services and true labour mobility, the federal government has to do its part. This legislation is about that. It's about removing the federal barriers that exist to trade in goods between provinces and territories and the federal barriers that exist to labour mobility.

I made a point in my opening remarks to be clear that the federal government is not the jurisdiction principally responsible. This legislation is not going to do it on its own when it comes to free internal trade and labour mobility, but it's a big part of it. I hope everyone here will help us keep up the momentum after, I hope, the legislation is passed on Friday. There is a meeting, as you know very well, on July 8 of the committee on internal trade of the provinces and territories to keep going.

On July 15 and 16, the deputy minister of transport is hosting a hackathon of transport officials to finally get movement on trucking. There is still a lot of work to do, but this is an important step.

Mike Kelloway :

Thank you, Minister Freeland. Minister Alty, does this act supersede

section 35 of the Constitution and/or UNDRIP?

Hon. Rebecca Alty :

No, it doesn't. I'd like to just take a moment to elaborate because I do think that there's talk of accelerating and talk of fast-tracking, and folks think that that'll impact the consultation. One of the things I'd point to is that, over the last year, the department has held Crown-indigenous relations engagement sessions with indigenous peoples across Canada through our existing forums and tables. They were about a proposed Crown consultation coordination.

In these sessions, the concerns we heard were that there's insufficient coordination, that there's difficulty navigating the system and that there's growing consultation fatigue where people are having that overlapping, duplicative process. With this bill, what we're really looking to do, as well, is have that major projects office. Without a new, coordinated mechanism to navigate these problems, we are running into those issues of consultation inadequacy and of delays on projects. Being able to streamline the process means, on one hand....

I think of my territory, and if one impacted indigenous rights holder is left out of the consultation, we have to go back and redo it all. The ability to have this one organization in the federal government be able to organize it will produce those better results. It's not impacting the quality, but it is impacting the time.

(1620) The Chair :

Thank you, Minister Alty. Thank you, Mr. Kelloway. [ Translation ] Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. LeBlanc, small projects located pretty much anywhere in Quebec or in our municipalities have to comply with the law. Like it or not, projects usually involve thorough consultation and work. This bill is about major projects with major repercussions. Typically, the whole of society would be part of the conversation because these projects will impact future generations. Now we're going to end up with major projects with major repercussions that are subject to fewer laws than small projects by SMEs. We're going to end up with decisions made behind closed doors.

The application of the law will be politicized. We have no guarantee that you, Mr. LeBlanc, won't turn into a minister of cronyism. This week, the Société de l'Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick wrote to us to say that it is concerned because this bill would allow projects to be exempt from the application of any law, including laws respecting francophones' official language rights. For example, the bill would allow projects to be exempt from the application of the Canada Labour Code or any other legislation. Personally, I find that problematic.

The bill already gives you the power to exempt projects from environmental laws. Why do you want more powers that you don't need to carry out these projects?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, I think you asked about 10 questions, but I'll try to answer them all. First, I would recommend not pursuing the idea that a project could be exempt from legislation such as the Official Languages Act or the Criminal Code. PCO's experts have said that the decision had to be made based on the objectives of Bill C‑5 . I'm sure legal experts will come and testify to that effect.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

If a developer doesn't want people speaking French or French signage on their site, the objectives of the bill would allow that. Similarly, if a developer says they don't want to pay tax in connection with a project, the bill would allow that. The bill you introduced is so far-reaching that it makes just about anything possible. What are the other acts that are not among the thirteen acts and seven regulations listed in the schedule? If you want to exempt upcoming projects, why not say so now?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

You're using examples that make no sense to substantiate a point that doesn't hold water. You also said that these projects of national interest would be subject to less oversight and assessment than municipal projects. You know that's not true—

Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Minister, what makes no sense is that it allows you to—

The Chair :

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, please let the minister finish his answer.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Mr. Chair, the minister says that what I'm telling him makes no sense. However, the bill allows for projects to be exempted from any act—

The Chair :

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, your time is up. Before giving the floor to the next speaker, I'm going to give the minister time to answer your question.

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

Mr. Chair, I would be very happy to move on to the next speaker.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Minister. (1625) [ English ] That brings us to Mr. Albas. Mr. Albas, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, sir.

Dan Albas (Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, CPC) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ministers, for your service to the country and for being here. Hopefully, we'll get some accountability. Minister Freeland, there was some reference to freeing the beer going between provinces. Really, under this act, there is nothing because if provinces like B.C. and Alberta come up with a bilateral between the two, all this bill says is that you'll just acknowledge it and recognize it, but it doesn't add any value. Is that the case?

Hon. Chrystia Freeland :

I was very careful, Mr. Albas, in my comments to not overstate the specific contribution that this legislation will make to internal trade and labour mobility. As you know very well, the federal government's role in that space is limited. This is about the federal government doing everything appropriately within its power to contribute to the larger goal of free movement of goods, services and people across the country. We need to do this because it's very hard for the federal government to play the appropriate role of convenor of provinces and territories if it's not doing its part.

Dan Albas :

Interprovincial shipping is actually a federal power, Minister. The Canada Post Corporation Act, for example.... I had a bill, Bill C-260 , that would actually give Canada Post the authorization to send beer, wine and spirits. Right now, it's something that can be prohibited by an individual province. That is a federal power. I'll move on. In the act here, it also says that you will recognize a designation or a credential from a provincial.... At the technical briefing, the bureaucrats who were there—good people—mentioned that a land surveyor, for example, might be.... Are there any other jobs that this would apply to, or is this just so niche that it really doesn't do very much?

Hon. Chrystia Freeland :

I've been very clear to not overstate the extent to which the federal government is our problem when it comes to barriers to interprovincial trade and the movement of goods, services and people. The fact is that this is principally a provincial matter. This law is about the federal government doing its part. There are a few specific areas that this legislation removes unilaterally because what we're saying to the provinces and territories is that this is a national effort.

I made a point in my remarks to highlight the excellent work that is being done by provinces and territories right now because they are leading the charge. We need to salute their work. We, as federal MPs, collectively have a responsibility to support what they're doing; the federal government has to do its part. I also want to be very clear: This legislation is very important when it comes to internal trade and labour mobility. It is not the end of the process, and we all have a responsibility to keep going to support the provinces to have truly free internal trade.

Dan Albas :

A previous Liberal prime minister used to talk about the dangers in being the “headwaiter to the provinces”, and it seems that all you guys want to talk about is provinces and territories. However, national interest, by its definition, has to reign over provincial interest. For example, the Prime Minister has said publicly that premiers have a veto. David Eby has said that he will not support a pipeline to the Pacific, even though it would be in our national interest to get our energy to other markets. Minister, is there a national interest here, or are you only serving up for the provinces?

Hon. Chrystia Freeland :

I am so happy that, right now, there is a moment of a degree of national unity and consensus around this effort of a kind I have never seen before. That meeting in Saskatoon—in a province that, as we know, has a Conservative government—was a meeting with more unity around free interprovincial trade and getting major projects built than any meeting of provinces, territories and the federal government that I have been present at. Mr. Albas, I see no benefit and a great deal of harm, at this moment when the provinces are all stepping up, in the federal government somehow saying, “We're going to push you guys around.” The fact is, we don't need to. The provinces are doing a great job.

Dan Albas :

Minister, this is why we have a prime minister and a federal cabinet. It is to decide what the national interest is. That actually is your job. Besides that, I would just go back. I'd like to go to Minister LeBlanc—

Hon. Chrystia Freeland :

Our job in the national interest is to work collaboratively with provinces and territories where we can. You get—

Dan Albas :

It's either a crisis or it's not, Minister. It's either an emergency or it's not.

Hon. Chrystia Freeland :

Honey can be better than vinegar sometimes in building consensus—

(1630) Dan Albas :

I would like to see a list, Minister, of federal initiatives coming from my federal government. Thank you.

Hon. Chrystia Freeland :

—and right now that's what's happening. I believe even the Conservatives are voting for this legislation, and I'm happy about that, too.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Mr. Albas. Thank you, Minister. [ Translation ] Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor for five minutes.

Stéphane Lauzon (Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all the witnesses who are here today for the review of Bill C‑5 , which is so important. My first question is about the major projects office. Minister Alty mentioned that one of the roles of the major projects office would be public consultation to ensure that work done on major projects is done properly. Can you give us other examples of how the major projects office can help with work on major projects? Also, what exactly will the office's role be in this context? My question is for Mr. LeBlanc or Ms. Freeland.

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

Thank you for your question, Mr. Lauzon. You're right, the Privy Council Office's goal in setting up the major projects office is precisely to help those entities whose proposed projects are selected on the basis of national interest. The major projects office will save provincial and territorial governments, indigenous peoples and private entities submitting projects the trouble of going through an assessment and permitting process that could take five, six or even seven years.

The idea is to create a kind of support service that will facilitate sending the project directly to all departments concerned, such as Environment and Climate Change Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada or Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. That way, assessments can be done at the same time, rather than one after the other, which takes longer.

We also want to work with proponents whose projects are designated as being of national interest to ensure that it takes no more than two years to establish the conditions under which they can obtain official approval from a legal standpoint. Basically, we're trying to be more consistent and effective. We want to eliminate what has become, over the years, a deterrent for investors, provinces and territories. We're not creating another layer of bureaucracy.

We're offering access to a small group of experts or scientists who might be, say, experts in Arctic infrastructure or supply chains, or who can advise on how best to integrate indigenous owners to ensure equitable participation and economic benefit. The idea is to bring numerous experts who are already part of the machinery of government together at PCO. There will be access to additional resources as needed, of course. We want to be efficient and consistent.

We want to make sure that, instead of evaluating whether or not a given project can go ahead, the process establishes from the outset that we want the project in question to go ahead because it is in the national interest. At that point, it's a matter of figuring out if there's a way to do the project that is appropriate and consistent with our constitutional obligations and environmental standards, and to do it expeditiously. I hope this approach will get more projects off the ground.

Stéphane Lauzon :

I would like Minister Alty to reassure indigenous people that not everything needs to be negotiated before Bill C‑5 is passed, and consultations will continue. You all mentioned that there would be a lot of work to do after the bill has been passed. For the benefit of this committee, can you explain how the government will adhere to the processes for working with indigenous peoples to get these projects approved?

Hon. Rebecca Alty :

Thank you for the question. I'm going to answer it in English, because I want to make sure I don't make any mistakes. [ English ] It is important that the indigenous advisory council will be providing guidance to the major projects office. The terms of reference will be drafted over the summer, with the council getting up and running in the fall. That will provide guidance and advice to the major projects office, but the consultation on which projects to add to

schedule 1 and, then, once they get added, the conditions for each project would actually be done with the indigenous rights holders who may be more impacted by the project. I know I got a question yesterday where somebody said that the indigenous advisory council would be consulted on whether to add a project to

schedule 1, and I just want to be clear that it is with the indigenous rights holders who may be impacted by the project. It's a two-step consultation with a potential third consultation so that, if we were to remove a project from the law, again, the indigenous rights holders would be involved in that consultation and those accommodations.

(1635) [ Translation ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Lauzon. [ English ] Thank you, Minister. Colleagues, before we jump into the second hour of testimony, I want to bring to everyone's attention that the CPAC numbers for today's meeting are off the charts. I've heard that Canadians are tuning in in record numbers, and among them, according to my wife, are my two children, Anderson and Ellie. I want to say hi from Papa.

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

The evening political shows, Mr. Chair, will be very jealous.

The Chair :

Thank you for allowing me to do that. We'll begin our next round of questioning with Dr. Lewis. Dr. Lewis, you have six minutes. The floor is yours, please.

Leslyn Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk, CPC) :

Thank you, Chair. Ministers, thank you for being here today, and thank you to all of the other members on the panel for being here today. Proposed sections 21, 22 and 23 operate to allow any project to be exempt from this legislation. Mr. Barsalou-Duval suggested that this legislation was similar to the Emergencies Act. I'm seeking some clarity on your answer, Minister LeBlanc, because notwithstanding the validity of a law, proposed sections 21, 22 and 23 of Bill C-5 allow a project to be exempt from the legislation. We have seen sweeping powers in the notwithstanding clause in

section 33 of the Constitution that allow the suspension of liberties, but there is a provision that protects citizens under

section 1, which is the reasonable limits clause. Where are the reasonable limits in this legislation? Where are the breaks in this legislation so that federal governments don't become bullies and sweep into municipal and provincial jurisdiction like they did with Bill C-69?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

The reason the government has put this bill before Parliament is precisely to enable large projects in the national interest to be built. In the context and the purpose of the legislation, there's

part 1, which speaks about free trade within Canada. The part with respect to major projects focuses on enabling, and this is enabling legislation that creates a framework for these projects to be advanced. People often refer to the clauses, Dr. Lewis, that you properly raised. Any exercise of authority in that context has to be done with respect to the purpose of the legislation. If the purpose of the legislation is to enable these large projects to be built, you can imagine a series of statutes that may form part of that evaluation, and then it's exercised by the Governor in Council, which is not an unusual process.

Leslyn Lewis :

My question specifically, though, doesn't deal with the enabling aspect of the legislation. We know what the legislation is about. My question specifically is this: What do you, Minister, see as reasonable limits on these sweeping powers that allow the invalidation of laws pursuant to proposed sections 21, 22 and 23 of Bill C-5 ? Where are the reasonable limits? What do you see as reasonable limits, and why aren't they contained in this bill?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

I think it's important, first of all, to put it in context. These decisions will be exercised in consultation with provincial and territorial leaders. I'm encouraged by premiers working together to create, for example, energy corridors. The proponents in many cases may be sovereign provincial and territorial governments with indigenous partners. That is a limitation in and of itself. We'll be designating projects that have gone through the scrutiny of other orders of government, for example.

(1640) Leslyn Lewis :

Minister, yesterday we heard concerns from a number of stakeholders and constitutional experts who confirmed that this bill is vague, has been hastily written and leaves much uncertainty with respect to projects of national interest. In fact, it was concluded that the determination would be solely a political decision, which, given these provisions in proposed sections 21 and 22, leaves room for political abuse. I'm turning back to my question: Where are the brakes in this legislation? Why are there no reasonable limits put in this legislation so that this government can evoke the confidence of the people?

Hon. Chrystia Freeland :

If I may, Dr. Lewis, seeking to understand the roots of your concern, I'd like to understand whether you are concerned that as a result of this legislation, we will build too much, and whether, as a result of this legislation, we will get too many major projects built.

Leslyn Lewis :

No. Excuse me. I think that is actually a very pejorative way of characterizing my concern. Canadians are concerned. I don't want you to minimize Canadians' concern about building too much. That's very facetious and it's unnecessary. We're trying to help. We had witnesses yesterday who were very concerned about the liberties that will be suspended in this legislation, and you're making a joke out of it. It is not funny.

Hon. Chrystia Freeland :

No, no, truly, I was in no way making a joke; I was being entirely serious. This legislation is being proposed by us, and I believe it is being supported by the Conservatives, because there is a national consensus, which I believe many Conservative MPs agree with, that we have come to a place in Canada where we have such a thicket of processes, rules and regulations at all levels of government that we are unable to build with the alacrity that this moment in time requires. This legislation addresses precisely that realization.

That's why it creates a clear framework to consider and put forward projects of national interest. There will be great transparency in terms of which projects are being put forward. There is a specified list of the areas where the legislation may need to move with more alacrity. I'm very sympathetic, as I believe my colleagues are, to concerns around protecting due process and protecting the rights of Canadians, absolutely, but I'm very confident that this legislation will in no way infringe on rights. It will do something that Canadians have a right to, which is to build Canada.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Minister.

Leslyn Lewis :

Mr. Chair, I'd like the record to show that my question was not answered.

The Chair :

Thank you, Dr. Lewis. We'll turn the floor over to Ms. Gazan for five minutes. The floor is yours.

Leah Gazan :

Thank you so much, Chair. Thanks to the committee for letting me ask questions. My first question is for you, Minister Alty.

Article 19 of UNDRIP provides that states need to seek and obtain free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples before adopting every legislative measure. Has the federal government upheld this obligation with Bill C-5 , yes or no? I have very limited time. I'm an independent now.

Hon. Rebecca Alty :

This process has been accelerated for the legislation. However, the key is—

Leah Gazan :

I have five minutes. The answer is no. It's accelerated, so no, it hasn't. I'm going to answer it for you because....

Hon. Rebecca Alty :

The key, though, is that for the legislation, the consultation is happening on projects to be added to

schedule 1 as well as on the projects.

Leah Gazan :

I'm sorry, Minister. I'm talking about this legislation specifically because, as I'm sure you're aware, nations that have signed modern treaty agreements should have been consulted before the bill was tabled. That did not happen. Do you believe the advisory circle fulfills the constitutional requirement to consult, accommodate and obtain the full consent of indigenous peoples? Answer yes or no.

(1645) Hon. Rebecca Alty :

As mentioned before, the indigenous advisory council is providing guidance to the major national projects office. However, the consultation on projects to add to

schedule 1, as well as whether a project's added.... The consultation on conditions has to be done with the indigenous rights holders, which isn't the indigenous advisory council.

Leah Gazan :

You would agree that the advisory circle is not an indigenous rights holder.

Hon. Rebecca Alty :

That's correct.

Leah Gazan :

Okay. That's very good. I think this question is for you, Minister LeBlanc. If Quebec says no to a pipeline, would you respect that? Answer yes or no.

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

The Prime Minister has been clear that he does not see us using this legislation to impose a project over the objection of a province.

Leah Gazan :

That's great. Thank you, Minister. Moving to you, Minister Alty, if indigenous peoples say no to a pipeline, will that same principle apply? Answer yes or no.

Hon. Rebecca Alty :

Yes, the key thing for this bill is that it's about looking for projects that are urgent.

Leah Gazan :

Because I have follow-up questions, I want to be clear on this. If indigenous peoples say, “No, I don't want a pipeline”, would the same principle apply? Answer yes or no.

Hon. Rebecca Alty :

Yes, what I was going to explain is that for this bill, we're looking for projects with urgency as well as advancing—

Leah Gazan :

Right, and you have explained that and it's already on the record.

Hon. Rebecca Alty :

I haven't explained that part, though.

Leah Gazan :

What is your understanding—

The Chair :

Ms. Gazan, I promise to give you an extra 30 seconds to make sure that the minister can respond to your question.

Leah Gazan :

Okay. Thank you. I just have five minutes.

Hon. Rebecca Alty :

I think it's important that you take a look at the legislation. It is about evaluating projects that have a high likelihood of successful execution and advancing the interest of indigenous peoples. If projects are being brought forward that don't meet those conditions, we're not going to be able to move with urgency as a federal government. We're looking for that high likelihood. We're not looking for

schedule 1 to have 500 projects, because the more projects we have.... We want that white-glove service.

Leah Gazan :

Can I move on now? You gave five criteria. I want to read this:

In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (1) or (4) in respect of a project, the Governor in Council may consider any factor

It reads, “the Governor in Council”. The words are very important.

that the Governor in Council considers relevant

I want to speak specifically to ( d ), which reads, “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples”. Do you think it's appropriate that the Governor in Council makes the decision on behalf of indigenous people of what's advancing their interests, or do you think indigenous people should be making those decisions themselves? It's very clear in here. This is a concern that's been brought up by many indigenous groups.

Hon. Rebecca Alty :

The key is that consultation would involve the indigenous rights holders who may be impacted. The consultation and accommodation would be with the indigenous rights holders.

Leah Gazan :

Would you agree that this probably needs some amendment?

The Chair :

Thank you very much.

Hon. Rebecca Alty :

It's actually in proposed subsection 5(7).

Leah Gazan :

While we're waiting—

The Chair :

Ms. Gazan, the time is up. I'm going to let the minister look to respond. I just want to make sure that she has a moment to look that up and respond to your question.

Hon. Rebecca Alty :

Proposed subsection 5(7) is on consultation. It's on page 10.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Minister. Thank you for joining us today, Ms. Gazan. Next, we will go to Mr. Greaves. The floor is yours. You have six minutes, sir.

Will Greaves (Victoria, Lib.) :

Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you very much to the ministers for joining us today. I'd like to pick up on a similar theme as my colleague, related to the five factors identified in the bill that would guide the decisions around projects in the national interest. This is probably for Minister LeBlanc, but I would welcome any of your comments.

Specifically on proposed paragraph 5(6)( e ), which specifies as a factor projects that would “contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change”, could you speak, Minister, to how this factor would be considered in the identification of projects of national interest? Would it mean that low-carbon projects, clean energy projects or projects that help to reduce emissions would be prioritized in the determination of projects under

schedule 1?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

Mr. Chair, through you to Mr. Greaves, that is a very good question. That particular paragraph of the legislation which you read, ( e ), is deliberately there because in a lot of the conversations we had with potential indigenous proponents and provinces and territories, there is a great deal of enthusiasm to put forward projects for designation and, hopefully, approval. There are wind energy projects, for example, and hydroelectric projects that the Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia is extremely excited about.

There is a massive offshore wind project, and the corresponding interprovincial ties that could take that clean green energy to markets in Canada and to our neighbours to the south. The Government of Quebec talked to us about a historic agreement it came to with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to further develop the Churchill River in Labrador. It's a project known as Gull Island. It's a massive green energy project similar to the Churchill River projects that Hydro-Québec and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador have operated for decades. Those are just two examples.

The Premier of Manitoba, Premier Kinew, talked to us about renewable energy projects and Arctic infrastructure that would help defend the sovereignty of the Canadian Arctic while bringing much-needed energy resources and hydroelectric links between his province and Nunavut, for example. You can see the potential. Your question is a good one.

One of the things that's a bit distressing is that often, in public conversation about this legislation, people go to one particular sector of the economy or one particular type of project, when the premiers, including the territorial premiers, have brought a myriad of projects from clean energy to conventional energy projects, infrastructure and diversifying ports. Many of those are under Chrystia's responsibility.

If you think of port projects, the port of Prince Rupert in British Columbia is a massive piece of infrastructure that's necessary for the effective diversification of the Canadian economy You're absolutely right. Those are examples. If the legislation is adopted, Canadians will be extremely reassured by the kinds of inspiring projects that proponents bring forward. If there's time, Mr. Chair, the deputy clerk said she has examples of projects that indigenous proponents are enthusiastic about submitting for the designation. You can see the myriad of projects, Mr. Greaves, in that regard.

(1650) Will Greaves :

Keeping in a similar vein about how this legislation would interact with environmental regulations and environmental review processes, my colleagues opposite are sometimes a little forgetful when it comes to the number of projects that have been built in B.C. in recent years. We've seen a lot of change and a lot of investment in economic development, while maintaining a commitment to environmental protection and rigorous environmental review for the projects that have gone ahead in our province in recent years.

In that spirit, can you describe, Minister, how the new major federal project office would interact with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the environmental review process, please?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

Mr. Chair, that's a great question. It's technical. I want to make sure that the committee benefits from the precise answer. The deputy clerk has done more work on this than we have. Perhaps she can offer a very specific answer to Mr. Greaves' question.

Christiane Fox :

Thank you very much. The most important principle here, and what we're trying to achieve, is to bring multiple decision points of several sorts of government departments in a streamlined way for proponents so we could advance projects. That still means there will be interaction with Environment Canada, with Fisheries and with Transport, but the major projects office would not recreate the good work that is happening in the departments.

It would bring together that service to proponents, working with the indigenous advisory committee and working with the minister and indigenous peoples across the country on the consultation element. Really, our system can be difficult to navigate. Through the major federal projects office, when a project is designated of “national interest”, we will work with all of the components of the system to bring people together in a streamlined way. That will allow for projects to meet a quicker time frame, and it gives certainty to a proponent at the front end of a project, which can help in a lot of ways.

Minister LeBlanc referenced the fact that we've been approached by indigenous proponents who say: “If we are listed under this legislation, we may attract more investment. It may allow our project to proceed.” There have been a lot of questions around meeting that test of national interest.

If a project is supported by an indigenous community, or an indigenous proponent, or by an equity stake, or if it is supported by a land claims organization and a territorial government, then you can start seeing how it would start hitting the mark of national interest: Arctic sovereignty and trade diversification through, potentially, Grays Bay Port. These are examples of how we will assess.

The major federal projects office will look at those project descriptions that come in, will assess their value and then will make recommendations to the minister, who will then consult his cabinet colleagues and provincial and territorial governments. I would echo Minister Freeland's comment that there is a lot of unity around the types of projects that come in.

That may mean that provincial and territorial governments may need to work together in proposing projects, but I think the major federal projects office's objective is to streamline the system and give good advice to government on projects of national interest.

(1655) The Chair :

Thank you very much, Deputy Minister Fox, and thank you very much, Mr. Greaves. [ Translation ] Mr. Barsalou‑Duval now has the floor for six minutes.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to come back to the minister's comments that what I said was nonsense. Those are his words: He said that I was talking nonsense. I suggest he read the press release issued by the Société nationale de l'Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick in which it expresses concerns about the impact of Bill C‑5 on the rights of Acadians. Then, Minister, you can go and tell them that their concerns are nonsense. What is actually nonsense, in my opinion, is the extreme powers you are trying to secure through this bill, which needs better safeguards and a thorough examination.

The bill is not ready to be passed in its current form. Earlier, I spoke to you about emergency measures. You said that it wasn't an emergency measures act in disguise. However, there is a sunset clause. In addition, you're trying to get this bill passed very quickly. Another feature of the bill is that it gives powers to the executive that normally belong to the legislative branch, which makes it possible to override the legislative branch. Then why is there a sunset clause right now? How can you know that, in five years, the emergency will be over?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

We introduced the bill in the context of an economic emergency. My colleagues have clearly described our concern about diversifying the Canadian economy and the need to look at projects of national interest that can increase Canada's GDP. We are facing the threat of global instability, in the economic context of the tariffs imposed by the United States. I understand that this is a separate topic, but it is related to the current emergency. During the election campaign, Mr. Carney made it clear that our government and our partners in the provinces and territories had an obligation to work together to advance these projects.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

It seems to me that you are granting yourselves excessive emergency powers. We'll see what the courts have to say about it in the future, because I'm sure your bill will be challenged in court. Your bill also allows you to cherry-pick laws that will or won't apply to different projects. You can negotiate with each proponent which laws will or will not apply to a given project. What guarantee does that give the public that this way of doing things will not raise the stench of corruption?

I'm not saying that you're corrupt or that you're going to exempt major projects from the application of the Official Languages Act. What I'm telling you is that this bill opens the door to that, which is a serious problem.

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

Obviously, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, I don't share the view that Bill C-5 opens the door to corruption. I wouldn't want to be associated with that idea. However, you're right, we did determine that there was an economic emergency. That is an opinion shared by the premiers of the provinces and territories. We are therefore providing, for a limited period of time, a way for projects designated as being of national interest to move forward more consistently. It shouldn't be implied either that the process will lack transparency.

These projects will be designated in a very transparent way, and the conditions for their approval will be made public. That will be done by order in council. You said that normally—

(1700) Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

There's no requirement for transparency. There's almost no counterbalance there. You're going to tell us which projects will be in

schedule 1 and which acts will be in

schedule 2, but that's the only element of transparency. I don't think that provides a lot of accountability to the public. You can even use those powers when Parliament is not sitting.

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

There is an obligation to be transparent in the proposed legislation. In the

preamble to your question, you said that this was normally a power reserved for the legislature. What we're saying is that all the analyses required under environmental standards legislation or the Fisheries Act, for example, will be done, but more consistently and on an accelerated timeline. Ultimately, the Governor in Council will make the decision whether or not to approve a project. It's no different from how a number of other laws currently apply.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

I have one last question for you.

Ms. Freeland said that it provides greater certainty—in fact, total certainty—to the proponents whose projects will be included in

schedule 1 of the bill.

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

I don't think she said “total”.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Those are my words. It is decided in advance that projects will go ahead, so it is decided in advance that they will be authorized. Normally, departments have processes, safeguards and laws that apply, and various officials analyze the projects. What do you think will go through the minds of public servants who have to analyze these projects knowing that they have already been approved? If a project is already designated as approved when it would not normally be approved under existing legislation, do you think public servants will be motivated to do a proper job when they analyze it?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

I think so. Perhaps the public servant who holds the second-highest position in the Public Service of Canada after the Clerk of the Privy Council can answer that question more specifically.

Christiane Fox :

Transport Canada, Natural Resources Canada and the other current departments will be gateways for the work to be done on major projects. In the case of a port, for example, we'll work with Transport Canada, we'll get project descriptions and an analysis will be done by market diversification experts. Once it has been determined that the project meets the criteria, it will be sent to the Major Projects Management Office.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

What I'm saying is that if the conclusions of a scientific analysis are scripted in advance, it distorts the science. That is the reality.

Christiane Fox :

Department scientists will work to ensure that the conditions set by the minister are valid.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval. [ English ] Thank you very much, Deputy Minister Fox. Next we will go to Mr. Morin. Mr. Morin, I believe the floor is yours. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Billy Morin (Edmonton Northwest, CPC) :

Ms. Stubbs is to go first.

The Chair :

Ms. Stubbs, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, please.

Shannon Stubbs :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. Minister Freeland, we Conservatives have been calling for fast-tracking, clarity and certainty on all of these pieces of legislation and these regulations that Bill C-5 allows to be circumvented. We would agree with your comments here today that there is a thicket of legislation and regulations that means that big projects can't be built. That is why we, as Conservatives, are saying that those are your fundamentals to fix. Fix those laws instead of doing this workaround.

Further to the point that one of my colleagues was making earlier, Canadians have yet to hear from any of you how you are going to enforce federal jurisdiction on interprovincial pipelines, which are federal jurisdiction and which, of course, you've failed to do before. I'm a person who comes from Treaty 6, and I'm proud to represent and work with five first nations and four Métis settlements in my area. All of them are involved in both traditional and clean energy, and they are the service suppliers and contractors to the oil sands. I am also a descendant of the Brokenhead Ojibway Nation in Manitoba.

I, too, am concerned about this government's ability to fulfill its duty to consult, so far, through this legislation. What's concerning, Minister, is that you talked about three different levels and layers of approval. That is, obviously, uncertain in itself. I'm glad to hear that Bill C-5 is promising capacity funding for the meaningful participation of indigenous communities through this process. I would note that this was also promised through Bill C-69 .

Every time I ask the indigenous leaders, workers, proponents and private-sector owners and operators—who, as you know, in Alberta for decades upon decades have been earning their own own-source revenue for energy development—they say that none of that funding ever flowed. I sure hope that you guys will keep your word this time. I think that it really is incumbent upon you to clarify exactly how that duty to consult will be deployed by the actual decision-makers. The courts are clear that what's required is the two-way dynamic to mitigate adverse impacts on affected communities.

I particularly ask you this question in the context of yesterday's AFN national chief saying that Bill C-5 will be an open invitation to court challenges and go all the way to the Supreme Court. For all of us who want to get to “yes” in a good way, how will you actually make clear to Canadians that, for the first time, you will actually fulfill the duty to consult fully and completely and to make that happen, given the differences in views among the 600-plus indigenous communities in Canada?

(1705) Hon. Rebecca Alty :

One of the challenges is having a single definition for indigenous consultation. Like you mentioned, there are 600 different first nations. Then there are the Inuit and the Métis. We want to make sure that it's meaningful and adequate. Having that single definition doesn't work. It's also important. It's very fact-specific and situation-specific. For the projects contemplated under this bill, it would depend on the nature of the project, on which

section 35 rights holders may be impacted and to what degree, and on the nature of the

section 35 rights that may be adversely affected. There are a number of other variables. These ones are affirmed by the Constitution. We have the Supreme Court. This legislation, in particular—the proposed building Canada act—has references in the proposed

preamble, proposed subsection 5(7), proposed subsection 7(2) and proposed subsection 8(3). Those all require consultation with

section 35 rights holders.

Shannon Stubbs :

That's right—which has not been done to date, we learned yesterday. The bill does set up the cabinet ministers as the decision-makers. Will cabinet ministers be at the table on those projects as you go through this specific, project-by-project, ad hoc, obviously inherent, uncertain consultation? Minister, you mentioned the removal of projects from the national interest list.

You can imagine that is deeply concerning, certainly to indigenous proponents of, for example, pipelines that were vetoed in the past that they were relying on or LNG projects that were killed in the past that they were relying on and had spent years negotiating with big companies in a good way to get benefits for their communities. How can Canadians and indigenous people who all want to get to “yes” in a good way on these big projects trust the claims here?

Hon. Rebecca Alty :

That one is in proposed subsection 8(3) on page 12 of the legislation. If a project is going to be removed, there's the requirement of consultation, the duty to consult, with indigenous rights holders who may be impacted.

Shannon Stubbs :

Then you can imagine a project proponent—

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Ms. Stubbs.

Shannon Stubbs :

—getting all of the way through and then being told no. Also, why don't we just start with all of the indigenous back projects in front of the regulators right now and fast-track them?

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Minister. Next, we'll go with Ms. Nguyen. Ms. Nguyen, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, please.

Chi Nguyen :

Thanks very much. I want to ask a little bit about labour mobility because this is a huge part of why.... This is part of the economic growth piece, etc. We want to make sure that we're addressing the critical labour gaps, and we know that, as we get nation-building projects built more quickly, there are going to be cascading benefits in terms of job creation. There was a recent study by the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses that shows that interprovincial barriers hold back productivity and limit access to qualified workers, especially in skill-dependent sectors. Could you speak to the potential workforce and productivity impact that comes with strengthening labour mobility?

Hon. Chrystia Freeland :

I sure can. Before doing that, I just want to get two points quickly on the record. One is that, when it comes to pipelines, it is important to be very clear that it was a Liberal government and not a Conservative government that got TMX built. That pipeline is up and running at a time when we really need it, when we need to have a way to get our oil to market that does not just go through the United States. That pipeline is going to deliver $1.25 billion in revenue directly to the federal government, so let's be clear—that is a reality.

Let's also be clear that we are on the brink of some huge LNG projects coming online, such as Kitimat, Cedar and Woodfibre, including major indigenous participation. When it comes to indigenous consultation, the team members here—particularly our public servants—have been doing a great job. In the development of this legislation, 66 indigenous groups were consulted or worked with, and now they are up to 80. That is real work that has been done and is being done. Labour mobility, which I love, is tremendously important.

It's going to be one of the big contributors to those huge productivity gains in bringing down prices and to the huge overall GDP gains. As I said in my comments—I think, to Mr. Albas—the principal impediments to labour mobility are not at a federal level. They are at a provincial level, but I am hugely encouraged by the work the provinces are doing. This legislation is about the federal government doing our share so that we can say to our provincial colleagues, “Let's get this done.” I want to emphasize two aspects. One is the idea of mutual recognition. It is incredibly powerful.

This is how Australia created free trade within Australia—the principle that we should trust each other. If someone has a credential in one province, other provinces should say, “You know what? I trust the great people of Ontario”—Chi, where you and I are MPs—“to do a good job in deciding who can be a dental hygienist, and that dental hygienist should be good enough to work in Nova Scotia.” That is the core principle. I want to add one other thing that is connected to labour mobility, and that is foreign credential recognition.

If we can get to a space—and we are moving there—where we have mutual recognition of credentials across Canada, that will be very helpful in foreign credential recognition. Both those things will make our economy stronger and also make life better for people. I know all of us have constituents who are frustrated that they're not able to work. It takes too long when you move around Canada.

(1710) Chi Nguyen :

Thank you, Minister. I'm going to ask one more question. I know we've started to talk a lot about the examples and opportunities around energy corridors and clean growth. My kids are very worried about the transition to our future, and talk to me all the time about how we're mitigating against this. Can you tell me a little bit more about how we can use this bill to advance those really important nation-building goals?

Hon. Chrystia Freeland :

Absolutely, and Minister LeBlanc has already detailed some of them in the five conditions. One of them is to contribute to clean growth and to meet Canada's objectives with respect to climate change. We have heard already, in the meetings we've been in, a lot of enthusiasm around major clean energy projects. Wind energy in the east is Premier Houston's passion project, and it could make a huge difference to Canada. I'm also going to mention critical minerals, which are hugely important. We need them to build a clean economy, but we need to get the projects built to get those critical minerals and to process them.

We haven't really talked about nuclear and about SMRs. That is another set of projects that can be advanced through this legislation.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Minister, and thank you, Ms. Nguyen. [ Translation ] Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yesterday, the committee heard from a constitutional expert by the name of David Robitaille. He said that the definition of “national interest” set out in this bill in no way corresponds to the one set out in Supreme Court rulings, including the one on carbon pricing. It seems that when you designate something as being of national interest, that's a way of saying that it's in the interest of Canada as a whole. Why did you not use the Supreme Court's definition instead of applying completely arbitrary criteria?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

Thank you for the question, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval. I don't think the criteria are arbitrary, given that they're in a bill that's before Parliament and that parliamentarians in the House and the Senate will vote on. As I understand it, a Supreme Court ruling on another subject is a bit different from an economic emergency requiring governments to get projects approved more quickly. I say governments in the plural because, in the vast majority of cases, if not all of them, decisions will be made following consultation and co-operation with the provinces and territories.

There are possible scenarios for all kinds of projects. If the premiers of western Canada and the northern territories present a project that affects several jurisdictions, I would be perfectly comfortable saying that it is in the national interest. I'm inspired by the work of the governments of Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, for example.

(1715) Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

I sort of understand your answer. The concept of a project of national interest doesn't really have a definition. Here, it says that these are the projects listed in

schedule 1. Don't you think that's a pretty arbitrary definition? In fact, the only existing criteria are in subsection 5(6) of the building Canada act, and those are suggestions for the minister to consider. There is no obligation in the act, unless you propose an amendment to that effect to add to the amendments that will be proposed today. Do you think you would support that?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

I'm not in a position to judge the amendments you're going to propose. I have full confidence in your committee colleagues to discuss these amendments. There is, in fact, a list of criteria that we will use to determine whether a project is of national interest. As my colleague told you, you're lucky to have had the five criteria read to you twice. I can do it a third time.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

I am well aware of them, Minister. I even mentioned the number of the proposed subsection where they are found.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval. [ English ] Next, we have Mr. Morin. Mr. Morin, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, please, sir.

Billy Morin :

Thank you, Chair. I want to congratulate Minister Alty on her appointment. Minister, for many first nations, rights often get kind of.... It's hard for first nations to understand

section 35 treaty rights and the umbrellas under that when it comes to how provinces have jurisdiction in certain areas. First nations' traditional inherent rights are mixed into Canadian law. Treaty first nations have long held that the Natural Resources Transfer Acts violate treaty rights, particularly for Treaties 1 to 11. I'm wondering if the minister agrees with first nations rights holders in this regard.

Hon. Rebecca Alty :

I'd have to look into that further.

Billy Morin :

Does the minister agree that resource revenue sharing when it comes to major projects and natural resource extraction is a model to agree with, that model of resource revenue sharing from the federal government?

Hon. Rebecca Alty :

I know that in the Northwest Territories that's an element, but I have to look into it further. As you mentioned, I'm new to the portfolio. I look forward to discussing this with you further.

Billy Morin :

The government has cited $40 million in consultation engagement for first nations. Typically, we've seen a lot of spending on third party consultants: $20 billion plus for consultants and the Liberals planning to spend $1,400 per family. For this particular instance, can the minister guarantee that the $40 million will go directly to rights holders, to indigenous communities, rather than third party consultants?

Hon. Rebecca Alty :

It is for indigenous rights holders. I know that in my territory some rights holders then go on to hire consultants. I wouldn't be in the position to say that rights holders have to hire somebody full time on their team. If they are going to hire a consultant to lead their work, that would be up to the rights holders.

Billy Morin :

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to pass the rest of the time to Jamie Schmale.

Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, CPC) :

Thank you to my colleague, Billy Morin, for the time. Congratulations, Minister, on your appointment. I look forward to working with you. Minister, we've had a number of nations here in the capital raising awareness of the fact that they were not consulted on Bill C-5. In particular, the Anishinabek Nation's grand council chief has said she has not been consulted. We have a number of others who are saying the same thing. First of all, did you have any involvement in the consultation? I believe some are saying they had been given seven days' notice on this.

Were you involved in any of the consultation, especially with this nation, and is it the plan going forward that seven days' notice is adequate consultation?

Hon. Rebecca Alty :

The project was led by another department, and there were a number of organizations, not only indigenous rights holders but also national indigenous organizations, that were engaged on the legislation. Moving forward, the legislation has two parts, or, I guess, three parts if a project were to be removed on the consultation. Listing a project in

schedule 1 involves consultation with impacted indigenous rights holders. For the second part, if a project were—

(1720) Jamie Schmale :

Maybe I could just cut in there. In your answer to Ms. Stubbs, you talked about meaningful consultation that has to be adequate, but there were no

definitions for that, and we're seeing nations here say seven days. Is that the definition of meaningful and adequate?

Hon. Rebecca Alty :

As I mentioned, the meaningful and adequate consultation is fact- and situation-specific. Some of the work that our department has been doing over the past year has been working with indigenous rights holders as well as national organizations on developing protocol guidelines for the federal government. Outside of that, I do know first nations, Inuit and Métis also have protocols and consultation guidelines, so we'd be looking to engage with the impacted indigenous rights holders to make sure that we are—

Jamie Schmale :

What about those who are in favour of projects? We have a number of indigenous communities that are in favour.

Hon. Rebecca Alty :

Exactly. When we're consulting on whether to include a project in

schedule 1, as well as the consultation once a project is added and the conditions, we'd be working with those indigenous rights holders. We have indigenous proponents who want to bring forward projects under this bill.

Jamie Schmale :

Okay, that's good if they want to bring that forward, but how do you deal with the fact that Bill C-69 is still in place? I know this bill gives extraordinary powers to the government, but at the same time, you still have some pretty powerful impediments to development in place right now.

The Chair :

Give us a very short response, please, Minister.

Hon. Rebecca Alty :

The legislation for the one economy is listing a project in

schedule 1, as well as putting in the conditions. We engage with indigenous rights holders in consultation and accommodation. Also, if we were removing a project, again, the consultation and accommodation would occur.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Minister. Concluding our line of questioning for the panel of ministers and officials today is Mr. Kelloway. Mr. Kelloway, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, sir.

Mike Kelloway :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first question is for Minister LeBlanc. The Prime Minister has been very clear that this legislation will get us to "one project, one review". I'm wondering if you can explain to the committee what that means. For instance, if we have an agreement for “one project, one review” with, let's say, the Province of Quebec, would they still be required to do, for example, an environmental assessment under their own processes?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc :

Mr. Chair, our colleague raises a good question. If we conclude on this, it's an instructive moment. One of the things that we've heard about projects is that they are big and small. This comes back to Mr. Barsalou-Duval's question around smaller projects that may have provincial or municipal approvals. The ability for the government to say that it has signed co-operation agreements with the provinces and territories to have one project and one review is not about lowering everybody's standards to the lowest common denominator. It's about eliminating duplication and overlap.

Of course, nothing in this legislation affects the jurisdiction of provinces, but it would allow proponents to benefit, again, from a basic principle that makes economic sense. We think it can make environmental sense, as well, in terms of allowing them to have the certainty that when a project is submitted, there is a coherent and non-duplicative review process. The Prime Minister's instructions to us have been clear. Within six months, he wants us to have co-operation agreements with all the provinces and territories and, frankly, to build on many of the best practices.

The provinces and territories have been doing great work in this regard for a long time. If there's a way to ensure there are comparable federal standards to a province doing the work, or vice versa, what an opportunity to assist proponents in arriving at a more coherent and cost-effective process. What's interesting is that improving that system will apply to projects big and small, so it's not only about a designated project in the national interest.

Done properly, this will assist, we hope, many much smaller projects going through the appropriate scrutiny and review but in a way that's much more cost-effective and much more effective in terms of time.

(1725) Hon. Chrystia Freeland :

Can I offer one concluding thought?

The Chair :

There are two minutes left if you'd like to add some thoughts.

Hon. Chrystia Freeland :

I'm going to be super quick. Dominic and I both know what it's like to be on the opposition side of the House. We know the job of the opposition is to oppose, and that's how our democracy works. However, in concluding this, I would just like to offer a hope and a suggestion that this is actually legislation all of us can be proud to support. I haven't heard a single person oppose free internal trade in Canada, lifting barriers to labour mobility, or lifting barriers to trade in goods and services. We can all get behind that.

On the major projects, I truly believe this is a piece of legislation that brings together everything we as Canadians want. We all want to get big projects built. We know we have to do it. We all know that we need to respect the rights of indigenous people and indigenous rights holders, including their right to build major projects and participate in that prosperity.

We all believe that we need to respect environmental rights. [ Translation ] I know that we all agree that provincial and territorial jurisdictions must be respected. [ English ] I really hope that at the end of this we can feel good about doing a good thing together for Canada.

Philip Lawrence :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Just really quickly, if the minister would be willing to stay for one more minute—I was going to ask for four hours more—Ms. Gazan could ask her questions.

The Chair :

Is there any objection from committee members?

Dan Albas :

We're good for two minutes.

Leah Gazan :

I'll take two minutes, please.

The Chair :

Seeing no objection, I'll turn it back to Mr. Kelloway, who still had 50 seconds left.

Mike Kelloway :

Minister Alty, one of the acts of Parliament listed in

schedule 2 of the bill is the Indian Act. Can you explain the reasoning behind including the Indian Act as one of the pieces of legislation that may need parts of it to be suspended for a specific project?

Hon. Rebecca Alty :

We're moving forward with projects. Some communities are subject to archaic provisions under the Indian Act, so we will engage with first nations partners on projects. If we need to suspend some provisions of the act, like a financial clause or leases we've heard about, we will do so in a way that allows for development while respecting cultural practices and environmental standards. We want to retain this option for where it makes sense to advance a project, but it's after consultations with first nations communities. Using this legislation on sections of the Indian Act may be beneficial, which is why it's included, but it would only be done in consultation with first nations.

The Chair :

Thank you. We'll turn the floor over to Ms. Gazan for one last question of the day. The floor is yours.

Leah Gazan :

Thank you so much. Thank you to everybody who has come, to all the ministers who have come here today. Minister Alty, you spoke about FPIC and about there being confusion. Because we've signed on to international law, I just want to point to the UN expert mechanism on the rights of indigenous peoples that we've agreed to uphold, this FPIC, so we shouldn't be confused at all. Are you aware that the federal government spends between $500 to $1 billion per year fighting indigenous peoples in court?

ITK, AFN and NAN have indicated that Bill C-5 is an ungracious invitation to the Supreme Court, meaning that the goal of this bill with regard to nation-building projects will actually be an economy-killing, job-killing bill because it's becoming very clear from constitutional experts that any projects going forward are going to end up in court. Are you aware of this? Any one of you can answer the question.

Hon. Rebecca Alty :

I would emphasize that the purpose of this bill is to get approval of good projects. We know that failing to meaningfully consult with impacted rights holders will not speed up the approvals and will actually lead to further delays in the courts. Again, this is why the

preamble, proposed subsection 5(7), proposed subsection 7(2) and proposed subsection 8(3) all require the government to consult with

section 35 rights holders in the selection of projects and in the process of approving them and adding conditions. As well, if it came to the case, the projects would have to be removed.

Leah Gazan :

Organizations have indicated that they haven't been properly consulted and that this will be in the courts. Thank you.

(1730) The Chair :

Thank you very much, Ms. Gazan, for your question.

Leah Gazan :

Thank you for the time.

The Chair :

Well, it is exactly 5:30. Here at the transport and infrastructure committee, we pride ourselves on running a tight ship. Thank you to Minister Alty, Minister LeBlanc, Minister Freeland and, of course, the officials. Thank you for your time today. We will suspend for five minutes to allow the clerk to transition to the next round of witnesses. The meeting is suspended.

(1730) (1750) The Chair :

I call this meeting back to order. I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of our new witnesses and to welcome them here. First, please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, please click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Colleagues, I'd now like to welcome our witnesses for the next hour. From the Canadian Cancer Society, we have Helena Sonea, director of advocacy. Welcome to you. We also have Rob Cunningham, senior policy analyst. Welcome, sir. From the David Suzuki Foundation, we have Sabaa Ahmad Khan, director general, Quebec and Atlantic Canada, by video conference. Welcome to you. From the Manitoba Métis Federation, we have David Chartrand, president, national government of the Red River Métis, joining us by video conference. Welcome. From Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta, we have Grand Chief Trevor Mercredi.

Welcome to you, Grand Chief. We'll begin with opening remarks. With that, I'll turn it over to the Canadian Cancer Society for three minutes, please.

Helena Sonea (Director, Advocacy, Canadian Cancer Society) :

Thank you very much. Chair and committee members, on behalf of the Canadian Cancer Society, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Helena Sonea, director of advocacy, and with me today is Rob Cunningham, lawyer and senior policy analyst. At the Canadian Cancer Society, we're proud to be the largest national charitable funder of cancer research in Canada. We also advocate to governments for policies that protect and improve the health of everyone in Canada. We've been at the forefront of historic advocacy wins like tobacco and asbestos, and the extension of Canada's EI sickness benefits.

We also provide practical and compassionate support like lodging, transportation and more. Regarding Bill C-5 , our testimony will focus on

part 1 regarding internal trade. While we understand the importance of strengthening the economy, our concern is that the health and environment standards will unintentionally be weakened. I will turn things over to Rob.

Rob Cunningham (Senior Policy Analyst, Canadian Cancer Society) :

Thank you, Helena. In terms of internal trade, the Bill C-5 provisions in

part 1, clauses 7 to 9 are of tremendous concern. This part of Bill C-5 would override all other federal laws. Bill C-5 would allow a company to comply with a weaker provincial or territorial standard instead of a more stringent federal standard. In the government's June 6 backgrounder, it gave an example of how a weaker provincial energy efficiency standard for washing machines would prevail over the federal standard. Here are a few examples from us.

The first is asbestos, where the federal government bans asbestos in products while provinces have weaker restrictions, allowing asbestos up to a certain percentage. Bill C-5 would allow these weaker provincial restrictions to prevail. In another example, tobacco, federal regulations ban all menthol and flavour ingredients in cigarettes,

whereas provinces have a less restrictive requirement allowing some flavours. Health and environment exceptions are standard in international trade agreements, and several agreements also have an explicit exemption for tobacco control measures, given the long history of abuse by tobacco companies seeking to use trade agreements to block or to invalidate tobacco measures, and that's also in the Canadian Free Trade Agreement. Thus, Bill C-5 has unintended consequences. The good news from our perspective is that there are ways to fix the problem. First, we recommend an amendment to include a general health and environment exception for the internal trade part of the bill, clauses 7 to 9 in

part 1. We have provided proposed text for this to the committee. Alternatively, we urge the government to commit to regulations under the bill for an exception for health and environment for these clauses 7 to 9 in

part 1, and there should also be a specific regulatory exception for tobacco. If other free trade agreements can include exceptions for health and environment, and also specifically for tobacco, then so can Bill C-5 for internal trade within Canada. We welcome your questions. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. Next, we'll go to Sabaa Ahmad Khan from the David Suzuki Foundation. The floor is yours. You have three minutes, please.

Sabaa Ahmad Khan (Director General, Québec and Atlantic Canada, David Suzuki Foundation) :

Thank you. Members of the committee, at a time of global disruption, Canada's sovereignty and resilience must be protected and strengthened. This includes investments in nation-building efforts that reinforce our ability to act in the public interest. In this effort, environmental and health sovereignty cannot be dissociated from Canadian public values. The committee has heard conflicting views over the last days on if and how these values are reflected in Bill C-5 .

This in itself reinforces the highly problematic nature of the rapid-fire study of a bill that has profound implications for Canadians and for the democratic rights of indigenous and provincial governments to protect public and environmental health. Government representatives have stated that Bill C-5 is not intended to lower health, safety or environmental standards, but intentions are not law. In a country governed by the rule of law, public policy must be defined by clear statutory language, not verbal assurances.

If the goal is truly to maintain or raise standards across jurisdictions, that commitment must be explicitly written into the bill through critical amendments to both parts 1 and 2. The David Suzuki Foundation shares concerns raised by Ecojustice and West Coast Environmental Law on

part 2 of the bill in their Senate testimonies.

Part 2 of the bill is an unprecedented threat to indigenous sovereignty and the constitutional balance between federal and provincial authority, and we have jointly submitted to the committee a list of priority amendments to the building Canada act.

Part 1 of the bill, the trade and mobility act, aims to facilitate internal trade by codifying automatic mutual recognition of goods, services and occupational credentials across provinces and territories. It is also problematic. While Bill C-5 's goal of administrative efficiency is understandable, it must not come at the sacrifice of public and environmental health. This is exactly the essence of both parts 1 and 2 of the bill. Currently, both parts not only undermine the implementation of national and provincial law and standards, they threaten the ability of indigenous nations, provinces and territories to uphold measures tailored to their unique public interest concerns. W