DEBATES OF THE SENATE 1st SESSION • 45th PARLIAMENT • VOLUME 154 • NUMBER 11 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Monday, June 16, 2025 The Honourable RAYMONDE GAGNÉ, Speaker

CONTENTS (Daily index of proceedings appears at back of this issue). Publications Centre: Publications@sen.parl.gc.ca Published by the Senate Available on the Internet: http://www.parl.gc.ca

The Senate met at 2 p.m., the Speaker in the chair. Prayers. BUSINESS OF THE SENATE The Hon. the Speaker: Pursuant to the order of June 12, 2025, I leave the chair for the Senate to resolve into a Committee of the Whole to consider the subject matter of Bill C-5,

An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act. The Honourable Senator Cormier will chair the committee. ONE CANADIAN ECONOMY BILL CONSIDERATION OF SUBJECT MATTER IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE On the Order: The Senate in Committee of the Whole in order to receive the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, P.C., M.P., Minister of Transport and Internal Trade, accompanied by at most three officials, and such other witnesses as may be determined according to the process established in the order, to consider the subject matter of Bill C-5,

An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act. (The sitting of the Senate was suspended and put into Committee of the Whole, the Honourable René Cormier in the chair.) The Chair: Honourable senators, the Senate is resolved into a Committee of the Whole to consider the subject matter of Bill C-5,

An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act. Honourable senators, in a Committee of the Whole, senators shall address the chair but need not stand. Under the Rules, the speaking time is 10 minutes, including questions and answers, but, as ordered, if a senator does not use all of their time, the balance can be yielded to another senator.

The list of all currently confirmed witnesses for the Committee of the Whole on the subject matter of Bill C-5 today was distributed to senators electronically with the Scroll Notes, and the pages can provide senators with that list upon request. The committee will first receive the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, P.C., M.P., Minister of Transport and Internal Trade.

I would now invite Minister Freeland to enter, accompanied by her officials. (Pursuant to the order of the Senate, the Honourable Chrystia Freeland and her officials were escorted to seats in the Senate Chamber.) The Chair: Minister, welcome to the Senate. I would ask you to introduce your officials and to make your opening remarks. [Translation] Hon. Chrystia Freeland, P.C., M.P., Minister of Transport and Internal Trade: Thank you for your warm welcome.

I’m pleased to be here with you today. [English] I am accompanied by some outstanding Canadian public servants who have been working so hard forever, specifically, on this legislation. Chris Fox, Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council Office, or PCO; Jeannine Ritchot, Assistant Deputy Minister for Multilateral Relations and Internal Trade at PCO; and Arun Thangaraj, Deputy Minister of Transport. Thank you very much to the officials, whom I can’t see, but, really, they have been working so hard. They are the best of Canada. Honourable senators, our country is at a critical moment.

U.S. tariffs are battering our economy and threatening to push the world 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 now with a project that costs nothing and can be accomplished at the stroke of a pen. That is delivering free trade here at home, inside Canada. [Translation] Ultimately, the decision to build a single Canadian economy out of 13 is a decision to trust one other.

It means deciding that the delicious steak being eaten in Calgary is surely good enough to serve in Charlottetown and that the dental hygienist loved by all her patients in Moncton can be trusted to do the same excellent job when she moves to Quebec. Australia, a country with which we have so much in common, made the decision to build a single continental economy 30 years ago. Australians decided to trust each other and, over the last three decades, that has enriched each Australian and reinforced the ties uniting that beautiful country to their people. [English] Now is the moment for Canada to do likewise.

The wave of patriotism that has swept across our great country over the past few months has been really inspiring and invigorating. Let’s seize that moment to turn that love of Canada into action by trusting each other and creating one single Canadian economy from coast to coast to coast. 271 THE SENATE Monday, June 16, 2025

[Translation] That is why we introduced this bill. [English] Momentum is growing across the country. P.E.I., Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have already passed legislation to remove barriers to internal trade. British Columbia introduced the Economic Stabilization Act, and Quebec is advancing its own legislative reforms.

Memoranda of understanding between Ontario and other provinces, including Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Manitoba and Saskatchewan, as well as powerful, really forward- looking regional agreements like the New West Partnership signal new levels of cooperation and a commitment to bring down barriers to internal trade. Senators, your house is less partisan than the house I sit in. I truly believe that these goals are not partisan goals. They are nation-building priorities, ones that benefit every region, every business and every Canadian.

And what a delicious irony it will be for us to respond to tariffs imposed from abroad by finally tearing down the tariffs and trade barriers we have imposed on each other. Let’s get this done once and for all and deliver free trade in Canada. I thank you very much for your attention. I am looking forward to hearing your questions. The Chair: Thank you, minister. We will now proceed to the first block of questions. I remind my colleagues that you have 10 minutes for each block starting with Senator Housakos, CPC. Senator Housakos: Minister, welcome to the Senate.

The stated purpose of the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act is to remove federal barriers to the interprovincial movement of goods, services and labour within Canada. To do this, you are choosing to recognize provincial standards as meeting federal requirements. My question is the following: What was the original purpose of establishing federal requirements which were different from those established by the provinces and territories? Are we just going to find ourselves in a race to the bottom in safety, environmental or consumer protection standards? •

(1410) Ms. Freeland: It’s a very good question, senator. One of the reasons this work has taken such a long time is the following: None of the barriers to trade are imposed maliciously. No one put them in place because they wanted to create problems for Canada and Canadians. Having said that, I think that we now have this thicket of overlapping rules and regulations, and now is the time to act. Let me give you a specific example. Today, there exists a federal requirement to be a federally registered land surveyor. Without that, you cannot work on federal projects.

I believe, for instance, that the Province of Ontario is pretty good at qualifying a person as a land surveyor, and we will cut a lot of red tape and get projects done more quickly if we say, “You know what? We’ll take that Ontario qualification as good enough without making you jump through federal hoops.” Senator Housakos: Minister, would you say there are instances where the federal government should be asking provinces to accept our federal standards rather than deferring to provincial ones? Ms. Freeland: Certainly.

There are areas where the federal government has the authority to regulate but where provinces do not. Particularly, this pertains to areas like national security. In the area of tobacco, for example, which is a really legitimate area of concern, federal regulations that apply to tobacco apply to the manufacturing, sale and promotion. There are no provincial regulations on these aspects of tobacco, and that’s why this legislation would have no impact on it.

I want to give you an example where there is federal legislation and federal requirements that will be lifted by this legislation, which I think is a really good thing. The example is energy efficiency of appliances. Right now, the federal government has its standard, and provinces have their standard. If I want to buy a washing machine — which I did during COVID because I guess we were using the machine so much — the washing machine has to pass Ontario and federal standards. What this legislation will say is if you meet the provincial standard, that is enough.

This is a particularly smart and effective action to take because these machines are principally manufactured outside Canada, so the energy efficiency of those machines is determined when they come into our country. The system that we currently have in place — and I believe this is overwhelmingly the case when it comes to interprovincial barriers to trade — is about red tape. It’s about a thicket of regulations which were put in place by well-intentioned people, but they have the cumulative effect of weakening our economy.

In fact, an International Monetary Fund, or IMF, study found that the collective impact of our internal barriers to trade amounts to a 7% tariff that Canadians impose on themselves. Think about that. When foreign countries impose a 7% tariff on our exports, we are up in arms — as we should be — but today that is what we are doing to each other. Senator Housakos: I have one last question before I cede the balance of my time to Senator Batters. Minister, do you have any projections regarding how much this free trade and labour mobility in Canada act will reduce the amount by a specific figure? Ms.

Freeland: What I can offer you are the projections of economists — this has been intensively studied — regarding what the impact of removing all barriers to trade and labour mobility would have on Canada. The view is that this would be worth up to $200 billion. This could increase Canada’s GDP between 2% and 4%. As I said, currently we impose a tariff of 7% on ourselves. 272 SENATE DEBATES June 16, 2025 [ Ms. Freeland ]

I want to be careful and candid, as I always seek to be when talking with all of you. This impact will not come immediately, and it will not come solely because of this legislation. In fact, interprovincial barriers to trade and labour mobility are not principally imposed by the federal government; they are principally imposed by provinces. That’s why — in my opening comments — it was important for me to give credit where credit is due: to provinces who are racing ahead. It’s my belief that the federal government needs to do its part. Provinces, frankly, have been magnificent on this.

This legislation is about all of us who are responsible for Canada saying, “Provinces and territories, well done. We are matching what you’re doing. We’re doing our part.” It’s about building momentum to get this done. Senator Batters: Minister Freeland, Bill C-5 allows your federal Liberal government to circumvent federal laws if your government decides a project is “in the national interest.” Several years ago, your government forced through the egregious Bill C-69. In doing so, you ignored the strong warnings of not only our Conservative opposition but also all provincial governments, I believe.

Then the Supreme Court of Canada declared the vast majority of Bill C-69 to be unconstitutional, again as many of us had warned. But what did your government do? You took your sweet time to propose a legislative fix. When you did that, the new Bill C-69 — with the same bill number — was contained in your budget implementation act. It was rammed through Parliament without proper debate or study, as the Senate decried. We didn’t have a chance to try to amend what many still claim is an unconstitutional bill.

Minister, rather than allowing Bill C-5 to give your government the ability to circumvent highly problematic federal laws for “national interest projects,” why don’t you just repeal Bill C-69 once and for all? Ms. Freeland: Thank you for the question, senator. As I said, I believe all of us — both in this house and in the house that I have the privilege of being a member of — disagree about many things, and that is entirely understandable. That’s called democracy. I think this legislation is one piece of legislation that every single member of this house can agree on.

I just voted in the House of Commons, together with Conservative MPs, on closure on this legislation. That says to me that my Conservative colleagues across the aisle in the house where I sit recognize that this is a critical moment in Canada. It’s a moment where we have to set aside partisan divisions and say, “Let’s build in Canada.” I’m proud to be a part of that; I hope senators will be as well. Senator Batters: Minister, my second question is this: Who speaks for Saskatchewan at the federal cabinet table? Saskatchewan is the only province without a full cabinet minister.

We have one lone secretary of state who, as stated on the Prime Minister’s Office, or PMO, website, does not sit at the cabinet table. When your federal Liberal cabinet is determining whether a project vital to Saskatchewan will fall within the “national interest,” according to Bill C-5, who at that table will speak for Saskatchewan? Ms. Freeland: I am really proud that Buckley Belanger was elected as a Liberal MP in Saskatchewan. I was really glad to spend some time with him and his community before the election. I spoke to him just this morning about this legislation, which he strongly supports.

He is a secretary of state and has a very important voice in our deliberations, including often participating in cabinet discussions. I would also say that Premier Moe, whom I personally respect very much — I found him to be an excellent partner when Canada came together to fight COVID — is a strong supporter of this effort. He was an exceptional host when he hosted us all in Saskatoon. Premier Moe is one of the premiers who believes very strongly, as do I, that now is the time to come together and to build Canada. I really hope that all senators from Saskatchewan and across the country will take the same view.

Senator Loffreda: Minister Freeland, welcome to the Senate once again. Canada faces a significant productivity challenge. In its most recent Economic Survey of Canada — released three weeks ago — the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, stated that more needs to be done to raise Canada’s productivity. The OECD noted that our performance has long lagged behind the top-performing OECD countries and might be further affected by current trade tensions. •

(1420) Bill C-5 appears to directly address some of those concerns. As the OECD highlights, reducing internal trade barriers and improving mutual recognition of qualifications across provinces to lower internal barriers to labour mobility can help strengthen productivity. What impact do you project Bill C-5 will have on Canada’s productivity? Ms. Freeland: Thank you very much for the question, senator, and for your hard work here for many years now.

On the internal trade barriers part of the legislation or, let me be more precise, on the question of removing barriers to internal trade and labour mobility, academic works suggest that if we do it — and by “we,” we’re talking about those responsible for the federal government doing its part, but also provinces needing to do their part — it could boost productivity by up to 7%, which is very meaningful. That doesn’t include what impact getting major projects built will have. It’s very hard, senator, to judge that, because this legislation is an enabling framework.

It doesn’t name specific projects, but I think we can all agree that getting nation-building projects built more quickly will have huge benefits. It will create jobs. We all know our steel and aluminum industries are under particular pressure right now. Building more now in Canada will provide projects into which they can sell their steel and aluminum. June 16, 2025 SENATE DEBATES 273

This is also about getting rid of critical bottlenecks in our country. Again, this is enabling legislation; it is not about specific projects. However, some of the projects it could enable include the Contrecœur Port Terminal container project. That is something I have discussed with Premier Legault and our members of Parliament for Quebec. It could significantly unblock that critical trade corridor. In addition, the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project could significantly add capacity in a Pacific trade corridor. Also, the Saint John trade corridor projects could significantly add to our capacity in the Atlantic.

Your question is an important one, because this is about building Canada, increasing our productivity, creating jobs and creating projects for which our steel and aluminum can be used. Ultimately, it’s about making our country more prosperous at a time when, let’s be candid, our economy is being battered by tariffs. Senator Loffreda: Thank you for that answer. I have a second question. As legislators, many of us value the inclusion of clauses in legislation that mandate a formal review and report on the implementation of new acts of Parliament.

In the case of Bill C-5, clauses 13 and 24 provide for a comprehensive review of the “One Canadian Economy Act” within five years. While I fully support this legislated review, I would like to ask this: Beyond the statutory requirement, is the government prepared to provide Canadians with ongoing status updates in the interim? Also, has there been any consideration of a public communication strategy, such as a dedicated website or regular progress reports, to share information on approved projects and the specific barriers that have been removed? Ms. Freeland: That is a great question.

Embedded in that great question are some great ideas. I would like to speak specifically to the review mechanism embedded in this legislation. It is very intentional. I had some really good discussions with Prime Minister Carney specifically about that element of the legislation. As we discussed with Senator Housakos, these barriers to internal trade are not put there as a result of any malicious or ill‑intended actions by provinces or the federal government. But they’re like barnacles on a ship or, to return to our appliance metaphor, calcium in your dishwasher: They tend to accrete over time.

The idea is to create a built-in mechanism through which we all look ourselves in the eye and ask if, without intending to do so, we have created more red tape and barriers to internal trade, labour mobility and getting big projects built in Canada. That’s why the review mechanism is there. I think it’s very important. Further to your proposals, I am very excited about this legislation and think it is historic. It comes at a moment when we need the boost and when there are a lot of areas where our country needs to spend a lot more money.

I think we all heard the Prime Minister’s announcement a week ago about spending more on defence. We need to have a source for that money. We need to have that engine of economic growth. As a former finance minister, one of the things I love about this legislation is that it adds to jobs, growth and productivity without costing a penny. What’s not to like?

But even as I very energetically champion this legislation, it’s important for me to say to all of you and to Canadians who are watching or listening to us that this is not the end of the journey; this is a step on the journey, as is the legislation being passed by provinces that I cited in my opening remarks. The ministers of internal trade of the provinces and territories and I are planning to hold a meeting on July 8, after this legislation will have been passed — I hope — and after provinces have done a lot of work; a lot of them have passed legislation, too.

We will talk about what we need to do next and how we need to keep going. One of three areas that I will be putting on the agenda at that meeting is trucking. It should be a lot easier than it is to drive a truck from Halifax to Vancouver. We need to get rid of conflicting requirements. Getting rid of that red tape doesn’t create winners and losers; it only creates winners. It will just mean that it is cheaper to move goods across the country. So I think we have to do more work on trucking. Another area is housing.

This is a moment when we’re hearing a lot of enthusiasm around home building in general, including modular housing. One of the challenges there is that if you’re going to build modular housing and elements of homes in a factory, an economy of scale is tremendously valuable. We can have an economy of 40 million, but that will require home- building standards that apply across the country. I have more to say, but I think I’m being told I have talked too much. The Chair: Thank you, minister. Senator, you may share your time with Senator Boehm.

Minister, with all respect, we have a lot of questions and, of course, there are many senators who want to ask questions. They would appreciate succinct and direct answers. Thank you. Senator Boehm: Minister, hello, and thank you for joining us. I’ll be succinct with my questions since we have a time issue. I want to focus on rail transport. As you know, headquartered in Calgary, we have CPKC, the combination of Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern. Since its establishment, it’s been the first and only single-line rail network operating in all three countries of North America. It employs 20,000 people.

It’s a great success story. Of course, it has a 32,000-kilometre network that moves everything from auto parts to potash, all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico, as we still call it here. How will this giant transnational rail network, vital to North American free trade, function in the context of this bill and its goal to promote interprovincial free trade? What about its future in the current global climate, particularly in the context of trade tensions we now have with the United States? 274 SENATE DEBATES June 16, 2025 [ Ms. Freeland ]

Ms. Freeland: Thank you for the excellent question. I treasure your reference to the Gulf of Mexico. I am here today as the Minister for Internal Trade, but I’m also here very enthusiastically and happily as the Minister of Transport. This bill is very important for our transportation networks. I spoke about trucking a minute ago. It is helpful for railway as well. We have conflicting requirements between provinces, and with the federal government’s action here we are doing — •

(1430) The Chair: I apologize for interrupting, minister, but your time has expired. The next block of questions goes to the Canadian Senators Group, and we will start with Senator Downe. Senator Downe: Thank you, minister, for being here today. During the election campaign, Prime Minister Carney identified a major trade barrier in Atlantic Canada: excessively high tolls on bridges and ferries. He made a commitment to reduce them. When will that be done to assist our economy? Ms. Freeland: I was delighted when he made that commitment, and, together with my Liberal Atlantic Caucus colleagues, urged him to do so.

We will act on our commitments regarding the bridges and the ferries. I’m not here today to give you a date, but I want to commit to you firmly that this campaign promise will be honoured and I am delighted that we will be doing that. Senator Downe: Liberal MP Bobby Morrissey has written to the Prime Minister suggesting that these tolls should be reduced by July 1. In your mind, is that realistic or are you looking at various methods to reduce the costs such as buying out contracts and tax rebates?

What are you considering as the best avenue to remove these — as I said — excessive trade barriers in Atlantic Canada? Ms. Freeland: I’ve had a number of conversations with Bobby — or I should say Member of Parliament Robert Morrissey — about this, as I have with Atlantic Caucus colleagues. I am not at liberty today to tell you exactly what we are going to do, or when, but I want to make a very clear and unequivocal commitment that the tolls will be reduced as we promised, and I am excited about doing it. As my Atlantic colleagues have said to me, the greatest barrier to interprovincial trade is those tolls.

That’s something easy to do. I agree with them. It is something we will do with great enthusiasm. Senator Downe: Could you please pass on our appreciation to Prime Minister Carney for that action? It is much appreciated in Atlantic Canada. [Translation] Senator Gignac: Good afternoon, minister. Welcome back to the Senate. To determine whether a project is in the national interest, the government must take into account the five factors that are set out in the bill. I noticed that there’s no mention of private sector participation in these projects.

Don’t you think it would be important to get the private sector involved in financing these projects so that they are not solely funded by the public sector? Ms. Freeland: Senator, I’m happy to speak with you again. One of the factors set out in the bill is that projects must be practical and easily achievable and they must strengthen Canada’s economy. We can include private sector participation in that, which is very important. I’m sure you’re aware of what the Prime Minister has said. We want to attract private sector investments with this bill. That is one of the main ideas behind it.

Senator Gignac: I could have also included the institutional sector, such as pension funds, in that. You’re now the minister responsible for a project that involves the private sector, the high-speed train that will run between Quebec City and Toronto — as well as Windsor, or so we hope. How could Bill C-5 speed up that project? It will take four or five years before construction is complete. Will Bill C-5 speed that up? Ms. Freeland: I certainly hope so. The high-speed train is one of the most inspiring projects we are talking about today in Canada. I hope that the bill will speed it up.

Today, our aluminum and steel industries are under pressure because of what is happening in the United States. These big construction projects could help those industries. [English] Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you, Minister Freeland, for being with us here today. Could you please elaborate on the urgency the government has attached to Bill C-5, and how it specifically addresses the economic impacts of recent American tariffs? Ms. Freeland: Thank you, senator, for your question, which is at the heart of my true, passionate enthusiasm for this legislation.

Everyone here is very hard-working and detail-oriented, and your question is a welcome opportunity to pull back a little bit from the details and talk about its core purpose. Today we all recognize, and need to recognize, that this is a critical moment for Canada. We are under extreme economic pressure, which is hurting our workers and businesses, and making it hard to attract investment. June 16, 2025 SENATE DEBATES 275

This legislation provides us the opportunity to give to ourselves what these U.S. tariffs are taking away from us. I think the numbers are astonishing: We are able to add $200 billion to our economy just by refraining from doing dumb things to ourselves. It’s actually remarkable, and it’s high time we do it. With regard to the major projects part of the legislation, the reason there is so much enthusiasm from the premiers and Canadians of all political convictions around that issue is because it is not a partisan issue to say that we need to build more big things in Canada, and we need to do it faster.

That is something about which all Canadians can agree, and we know that it is just too hard to do right now. This legislation is about making it possible to build Canada. That’s what we need. Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you. How does it specifically address the economic impact of the most recent tariffs? I didn’t hear any specifics about that. For example, steel and aluminum: How would it counterbalance that? Ms. Freeland: You offered a partial answer in your own question.

I spent a lot of time talking to people in the steel and aluminum industries — the unions that represent those workers and people who work in those industries. I was the minister responsible for fighting and lifting the

section 232 tariffs the first time they were imposed. Workers in those sectors are very worried — understandably so. Building these major projects is a way for Canada to use the steel and aluminum — especially the steel — that is going to struggle to find access to U.S. markets. More generally, there is so much uncertainty right now. It is very hard to make a specific judgment about the impact of this trade pressure on the Canadian economy, but we know it is not good. We know that lifting barriers to internal trade will have a very meaningful impact on our GDP.

Estimates range from 1% to 2% to 4% of our GDP: $200 billion. Senators, just think about it. What we are talking about here on internal trade specifically is a measure that doesn’t cost us money and will add $200 billion to the Canadian economy. I think we all need to say “yes” to that. Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you. •

(1440) Senator White: Thank you, minister, for being with us here today, and thank you to your officials. It is a pleasure to see them. I had the privilege of working with some of them in a previous life.

When Bill C-5 was tabled, there was a news release from your government on June 6, and it stated that projects designated for conditional approval will be done so following full consultation with affected Indigenous peoples and in accordance with Canada’s commitments to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, and Canada’s constitutional obligations to consult Indigenous groups.

I am happy to see that, but what concrete measures is the government taking to ensure that this bill will continue free, prior and informed consent with Indigenous peoples on whose lands these national interest projects will be built on? Ms. Freeland: Thank you, senator, for the question. Thank you also for acknowledging our great officials. The Indigenous element is really important, and I will give you a few specifics. Then I would like to talk at the higher level about the approach that I think we need to take. There will be the creation of an Indigenous advisory council for the major projects office.

There is capacity building for First Nations, Inuit and Métis of $18.6 million per year from 2025-26 to 2028-29. You know very well how important that funding is to make it possible to have real collaborative work. I want to emphasize something that I am personally proud of, which is the Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program. I put in place $5 billion. The Prime Minister one-upped me and raised that to $10 billion. I strongly support that.

I really believe that if we do this right — and I think all of us need to be committed to it — we can see this legislation as being about Indigenous prosperity, Indigenous participation in Canada’s economic growth and Indigenous participation in building Canada — as you rightly said, senator — on Indigenous lands. Senator White: Thank you. I’m very happy to hear that. There are a number of initiatives that have been doing great work in our communities. I guess my concern is that this bill will expedite timelines on major projects, and it will certainly affect Indigenous peoples.

How will the government specifically ensure that sufficient time is allocated for the consent and consultation of Indigenous peoples in any meaningful way? Ms. Freeland: I think I tried to offer some answers to that. I think the Indigenous advisory council will play an important role. I do believe that capacity-building funding is important so that First Nations, Inuit and Métis can participate in the work. This legislation is not about skipping steps. Rather, instead of taking steps sequentially, let’s take them simultaneously.

Let’s all roll up our sleeves, do the work we need to do and not take shortcuts, but do that work faster because we are in a crisis. I would say the substitution agreement that we already have with British Columbia is a very promising and exciting example of the way to do this. We intend on having substitution agreements done with everyone within six months. In a practical way, that’s about acting on this: Let’s do things simultaneously and not sequentially, and let’s not do things twice. 276 SENATE DEBATES June 16, 2025 [ Ms. Freeland ]

Senator Wilson: Minister, this bill addresses federal barriers to interprovincial trade. However, given the myriad of provincial standards and other barriers within their jurisdictions, what is the government’s plan to ensure accountability and visibility around what barriers may still be left to be addressed as the spotlight around this issue inevitably fades? In particular, how does the government plan to ensure that no stone remains unturned when the focus has turned away? Ms. Freeland: Excellent question, and it’s something I’m thinking about a lot.

My principal answer is that I don’t want the spotlight to go away, and I don’t want the momentum to slow. I have been very clear that this legislation is important, but it is not the end of the process. The actions that the provinces and territories have been taking are important but not the end of the process. I hope that every single senator here will do as I intend to do and keep up the momentum to get rid of all the remaining barriers to trade and labour mobility.

This legislation is really about the federal government ensuring that we can be decent and hold our head up high when we are talking to provinces so that we can say to them, “Hey, we’ve done our part.” The vast majority of the barriers are between provinces. I see huge action and huge energy by provinces, but there is still work to be done. Please pay careful note to the July 8 meeting of the Committee on Internal Trade — the responsible ministers — and let’s really push together to have further progress on trucking, housing and labour mobility. Senator Wilson: Thank you. I have no further questions.

Senator Cardozo: Welcome again, minister, to our chamber. My questions are regarding clauses 21, 22 and 23, which some have referred to as the Henry VIII clauses, which would allow the government to exempt your plans and activities from a series of acts. I wonder if you could explain the reason for that and a couple of other specifics. Are the exemptions limited to the acts in

Schedule 2? As I understand it, there is no time limit on that, so governments could ignore these acts for decades to come. Am I right or wrong? Ms. Freeland: I will not repeat the colourful but the — I think — not entirely fair term that you used. This is about ensuring that we can get big projects built. It is about recognizing that, today, the legislative frameworks that we have are not adequate at this moment in Canada. They have also become covered in barnacles, just as internal trade has been.

I hope you will agree with me and with the Prime Minister — I think you probably will — that this is a moment of real national crisis, and we need to respond to that crisis with some extraordinary measures by saying that we will get major projects built now, and we will give ourselves the tools to do it. I want to be clear, though, that this legislation is about enabling that. I truly believe there is no one in this chamber and no one in Canada who would disagree with the assertion that we need to build more big things in Canada faster. I think we all agree on that.

Also, I think we all agree that we need to do it safely, and we need to do it in a way that respects the rights of Indigenous people in Canada, in a way that respects the environment and in a way where provinces, territories and the federal government are collaborating. This process is designed to do exactly that. There will be great transparency and a lot of public debate around each project that goes through this process. Senator Cardozo: What would be an example of an occasion where you might want to exempt the government from

an act? Ms. Freeland: One of the things I learned during the first North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, negotiations was that it is a hostage to fortune to go into hypotheticals. What I will say is that this is about setting a framework, and there will be great transparency and great national debate around each project that goes through this process. Senator Cardozo: Does that cover housing? Ms. Freeland: As I’ve said, the bill outlines the criteria very clearly. It is not about naming specific projects. Some projects have been discussed as possibilities, but each project will have to go through this process. •

(1450) Senator Duncan: Thank you, Minister Freeland, for being here. Welcome again to the Senate. I would like to get in two quick questions. In

Part 1 of this act, there is no definition of what constitutes consultation. What is considered consultation varies from premier to premier, from First Nation to First Nation, from Inuit to Métis. There is no consultation protocol that exists in the Government of Canada. You have mentioned before the hard-working public servants.

Would you consider dedicating a group or asking for the dedication of a group of senior public servants to work at the federal, provincial and territorial, or FPT, table with First Nations throughout the country to develop a consultation protocol that would work for this legislation and other pieces of legislation? Ms. Freeland: Thank you for the question, and hard-working public servants have just handed me some pieces of paper that go into great detail on Indigenous consultation specifically. I mentioned already the plan to create an Indigenous advisory committee for the major projects office.

That is going to be an important part of this work. It’s also important to point out that 66 groups have already been consulted as part of the process of putting together this legislation both before and after the tabling. So there is a very active, very energetic series of conversations — some of which I’ve been part of, some of which public servants have been part of, some of which different ministers have been part of, some of which premiers of provinces and territories have been part of. The intent here is full, very energetic participation of Indigenous people in Canada.

The intent here is really Indigenous prosperity. The intent is for these projects to be projects that Indigenous people can use to participate in, including using the $10-billion Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program. June 16, 2025 SENATE DEBATES 277

This is about doing all of that more quickly because we recognize — and Indigenous leaders whom I have spoken to have shared this epiphany — that now is a moment when we have to build faster. Senator Duncan: I don’t disagree with you on the intent, minister, but it is critical that everyone has an understanding of what constitutes consultation. It is not defined in the act, and it is not it defined in the public servant guidelines. That is my point.

I appreciate the government has done that, but in order to indicate and for it to stand up in court, which is where these things end up when we don’t consult, it has to be clearly defined what has occurred in legislation. Do I have another 10 seconds? The Chair: You can have 10 seconds if you want to share your time with other colleagues from your group. Senator Duncan: If I could just make the point, minister, regarding transport, you have repeatedly mentioned — and others have mentioned — the focus has been Halifax to Vancouver. In the North, air transport is critical.

Is air transport part of the discussions in terms of improving the Canadian economy and these economic measures? Are air transport regulations and lowering the cost part of the discussions? Ms. Freeland: Yes, 100%. I have heard that from leaders from the Yukon, from the Northwest Territories and from Nunavut. You know the issues extremely well, and that was one of the first issues that have been raised with me.

Just as, pointing to our Atlantic colleagues, they said, “This is great, but what matters to us is ferries and bridges,” one of the things I heard from northern colleagues is, “You have to be sure that air transport is one of the things you are looking at.” I would also emphasize that in the list of criteria, the fact that a project is a high priority for Indigenous people, Indigenous partners, is one of the criteria that get it on the list. Senator Woo: Minister, welcome to the Senate. The issue of differing standards and codes across the country has come up already.

It makes a lot of sense to try to harmonize these standards so that goods can flow across provincial borders. But the prior question is how these standards and codes came up in the first place and how any future standards and codes are developed. Often they are developed by officials in their different ministries at the provincial or federal level, and that’s why in part we have the problem of inconsistency. Do you see, minister, a role for Canada’s Standards Development Organizations to play a bigger

part in the development of standards and codes that can be incorporated into what is called the National Standards System of this country and then incorporated by reference into the regulations of any new thing that needs to be regulated, rather than have officials regularly and routinely develop the regulations themselves? Ms. Freeland: I think it is a very good point and a very good idea.

What I will say, though, to everyone here is the approach right now — the drive to remove internal barriers to trade and to labour mobility, certainly in many areas — is about harmonization, but it is also and even principally about mutual recognition. That’s the approach that Australia took that has been shown to work. It is an approach that has the virtue of being often swifter than harmonization, and I think it’s an approach that has the virtue of being about true nation building. I really like the way that Premier Houston of Nova Scotia talks about mutual recognition. He says it is about trusting each other.

That’s why I used some specific examples in my opening remarks. They were not just boilerplate. I wrote my opening remarks myself because I think part of internal trade is really about saying if you feel safe eating a steak in Calgary, if you trust the Province of Alberta to be sure you are not going to be poisoned by eating that steak, why should it have to go through additional testing? Why should that steak, metaphorically, have to jump through additional hoops for me to eat that same steak in Toronto? The same applies to labour mobility.

If a nurse can work and treat you in Halifax, and you trust her to be fully qualified, why shouldn’t she be able to treat you in Saskatoon? Why should she have to jump through additional hoops? I appreciate the point about harmonization, and it is a very good idea, but I would like to emphasize the point that the very important approach that the provinces have led with and that the federal government is recognizing and supporting is mutual recognition — trusting each other to get it right and not having to duplicate processes.

Senator Woo: Mutual recognition is part and parcel of the standards system, and it includes conformity assessment, of course, which is essential to recognizing the standards of different jurisdictions.

The problem with incorporating by reference the standards developed outside of the government system, as I see it, is one that has to do with the Statutory Instruments Act, which is very strict on what can be incorporated, and, more importantly, it is a problem of culture within bureaucracies that have a tendency to want to develop regulations internally, by themselves, rather than looking to, if I can put it this way, the expert community that already exists across Canada. Is this an issue that your department is willing to look into?

Because while we can harmonize and mutually recognize existing regulations, there are going to be many, many more regulations that will have to be developed in the years ahead. We don’t want to end up in the situation where we continue to have duplicative and inconsistent regulations across the country. Ms. Freeland: Again, thank you for the point. It is a really interesting idea and proposal. I will say, though, we spoke a little bit earlier about the built-in review mechanism included in this legislation.

That is precisely because we recognized in drafting this legislation that there is a certain inevitability to the building up of these barriers and that they have not been put in place maliciously or in bad faith. 278 SENATE DEBATES June 16, 2025 [ Ms. Freeland ]

•

(1500) We think — and I’m going to use an agricultural metaphor here — that we have to swath our crop. We have to cut it down, but we’re going to have continue doing that every few years, because it’s going to grow back up. The Chair: Thank you, minister. [Translation] We have come to the end of the list of senators, by group, who wanted to ask questions. We have 10 minutes remaining. [English] Senator Housakos: In Canada right now we have a shortage of health care workers, minister, yet we have a plethora of health care workers across the country who are driving Ubers.

At the briefing for senators on Bill C-5, officials made it clear that the legislation does not apply to health care workers. Why did the government not take this opportunity to implement a “Blue Seal” professional licensing standard for health care workers, just as we have a Red Seal program for tradespersons? Ms. Freeland: I very much agree with your emphasis on the labour mobility aspects of reducing internal barriers to trade, and I very much agree with the emphasis on health care workers.

This is something on which we are working energetically with the provinces and territories, and they have made some major progress. At the July 8 meeting of the Committee on Internal Trade, we will be pushing further on that. There is nothing that would make me happier than for every single senator here give a speech after this bill has been passed and post on social media, “Let’s remove all barriers to health care workers working across the country.” I would add that we have to move faster in recognizing foreign credentials. Senator Housakos: Minister, my last question is a very important one.

Obviously, the Conservative opposition in the House supports this bill, as does the opposition in this chamber. Our concern, though, is that there are a number of members of the current government who were also members of the previous government, who — in our view — were a little overzealous when dealing with bills like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, putting into place impediments and red tape when it comes to fast-tracking and approval of projects in the energy sector. What has changed?

And will this government be ready to ensure that our oil can be transported to the east and to the west, and that Liquefied Natural Gas, or LNG, can finally be delivered to the countries that have been begging Canada to start delivering energy? Ms. Freeland: I will give you a two-part answer. Part one is that I am very proud to be the minister who had the Trans Mountain Expansion Project, or TMX, built. In my 2024 budget speech, I very intentionally referred to the “Golden Weld,” which completed the building of that pipeline.

That pipeline will add $1.25 billion, which it will return directly to the federal government this year. This will give us diversification at a time when we certainly need it. You spoke about LNG. There are new LNG projects coming online this year on our West Coast exactly when we need them. Those projects didn’t happen overnight. They have been under construction for some time, and, again, they are coming on stream exactly when we need them. Thank you for recognizing and highlighting that Conservatives support this legislation.

I want to say in this house — as I said in the House of Commons when I answered questions in Committee of the Whole — that I want to recognize member of Parliament Dan Albas, who has been advocating for this for a long time. I’m sure we all remember his very memorable “Free the beer” pitch. I want to give him credit for that. I also want to give credit to my friend former premier Jason Kenney, who was talking about lifting barriers to internal trade before it became fashionable to do so.

I would also be remiss if I didn’t point to the true leadership of Premier Tim Houston — whom I have quoted very intentionally — and Premier Doug Ford, who has taken this ball and is really running with it. I truly see this, not as a partisan effort, but as a nation-building effort, and I’m delighted that we’re able to work on it together. [Translation] Senator Hébert: Good afternoon, minister, and welcome. I will be very brief. We all know that the business community has long been calling for the removal of interprovincial non-tariff trade barriers. I think that this bill is a big step in that direction.

However, we also know that the provinces have to do their part. The bill talks about mutual recognition, which is great. That would be preferable to a system involving exceptions, because we know it is much more efficient. Some legislation provides for the implementation of mechanisms for discussion between the provincial and federal governments. Do you think that would be a good idea? We know that, often, in such cases, the provinces are the ones throwing a wrench into the works.

It’s all fine and good for the federal government to have a mechanism for mutual recognition, but the provinces don’t have such a mechanism. Would it be possible for the bill to provide for the implementation of such mechanisms for discussion, or could we give an existing organization the mandate to promote discussion among the provinces to ensure that they also do their part? June 16, 2025 SENATE DEBATES 279

Ms. Freeland: Thank you for that important question. I’m sure you understand that most of the barriers are interprovincial and impact areas under provincial jurisdiction. I believe the federal government’s job is to do three things. First, the federal government must do its part, and that is what it is doing with this bill. The federal government must also encourage the provinces to eliminate barriers and I, as a federal minister, have to be able to say that I did everything I could. The second thing the federal government can do is participate in national meetings. We are already doing that.

I mentioned that the ministers of international trade are meeting on July 8. We’re also organizing a transport ministers’ round table to talk about truck drivers specifically because that’s an issue that will have an economic impact as soon as it’s settled. The third thing we can do — something we can all do — is avoid doing what the senator talked about. I hope this bill will be passed by July 1, but I know our work won’t end there.

I hope that every honourable senator here will help me and the provincial and territorial premiers to keep talking about this and to keep acknowledging that, while this is a good start, we still have a lot of work to do. [English] Senator McPhedran: Minister Freeland, it is good to see you here. The Prime Minister recently used the term “decarbonized oil,” which sounds more like an oil industry buzzword than a scientifically grounded concept. •

(1510) Given the clear evidence that oil combustion inherently produces emissions, do you believe in the idea of decarbonized oil? More importantly, does your department plan to treat the oil sector infrastructure as part of a net-zero strategy, despite this contradiction? Ms. Freeland: I really believe that we, as a country, need to build Canada. We need to recognize the importance of our oil and gas sector to our economy and for creating jobs, as well as to the world economy. We also need to recognize the importance of clean and renewable energy and efforts to bring down emissions.

I’m really proud of the ITCs — the investment tax credits — that I put in place as finance minister and that create economic tools to do precisely that. I’m very excited about the CCUS tax credits that were put in place in one of my budgets. They provide a real tool to get the Pathways project done. I really believe that Canada needs to do all of these things. This legislation is about clean and renewable energy. It is about decarbonization and natural resources. The Chair: Honourable senators, the committee has been hearing from the minister for 65 minutes.

In conformity with the order of the Senate, I am obliged to interrupt proceedings in order to proceed with the second panel. Minister, on behalf of all senators, thank you for joining us today to assist us with our work on the bill. I would also like to thank your officials. Hon. Senators: Hear, hear! The Chair: Honourable senators, we will suspend for 10 minutes to prepare for the second panel. We will resume at 3:18 p.m. [Translation] Ms. Freeland: Thank you very much.

If I may, I’d like to thank our friend, Senator Hassan Yussuff, who is working very hard on this bill. [English] Thanks, Hassan. (The committee suspended.) (The committee resumed.) The Chair: (Pursuant to the order of the Senate, the witnesses were escorted to seats in the Senate Chamber.) Honourable senators, the Senate is resuming in Committee of the Whole to continue its consideration of the subject matter of Bill C-5,

An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act. The committee will now hear from David R. Pierce, Vice- President, Government Relations, Canadian Chamber of Commerce; Bryan N. Detchou, Senior Director, Natural Resources, Environment and Sustainability, Canadian Chamber of Commerce; Jay Khosla, Executive Director, Economic and Energy Policy, Public Policy Forum; Yiota Kokkinos, Senior Executive Advisor, Public Policy Forum; and Keith Jansa, Chief Executive Officer, Digital Governance Council. I would like to thank you for being with us today.

I would ask you to make your opening remarks. David R. Pierce, Vice-President, Government Relations, Canadian Chamber of Commerce: Honourable senators, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on Bill C-5, Canada’s new legislation aimed at reducing trade barriers and building critical projects of national interest. •

(1520) I’m joined by Bryan Detchou, who specializes in energy resources and environment policy at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. At the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, we represent our immediate members and the chamber network, with some 400 chambers and boards of trade across the country, and our combined 200,000 members. 280 SENATE DEBATES June 16, 2025

We applaud the Prime Minister and Government of Canada for moving so quickly and methodically on introducing Bill C-5. This legislation aims to address internal trade barriers and begin a conversation about building critical national infrastructure. This legislation is to address internal trade and infrastructure, but it is truly in response to one of the most important economic shocks of our generation. We live today in a different economic world, faced with increased risk for Canadian businesses and families.

Before I go into that, I’d like to draw your attention to February 4, 2025, when our CEO, Candace Laing, announced the Canadian Chamber of Commerce’s All-In Canada Plan. That plan featured four pillars: building critical resource infrastructure, reducing red tape and internal trade barriers, lowering taxes and opening new markets for our goods and resources. Fast-forward to today and Bill C-5’s response to many of the issues we flagged last winter. I would be pleased to speak more to that in the question-and-answer period. Now let’s talk about energy security.

Global energy demand is projected to rise by nearly 50% by 2050. Canada and its G7 partners must prepare for that now, ensuring the affordability, reliability and resilience of our systems. With geopolitical instability and fragile supply chains, energy policy has become a central issue with respect to both economic and national security. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce recently held the B7 here in Ottawa, where business leaders affirmed what we already know: Canada has a pivotal role to play in shaping global energy and clean economic growth.

This is a generational opportunity, but seizing it requires bold, coordinated and immediate action. Unfortunately, Canada has lost momentum in recent decades. I ask you this: Could Canada have built the TransCanada Pipeline today? What about the hydroelectric dams in Quebec? What about the Trans-Canada Highway? Today, large-scale energy and infrastructure projects are routinely delayed by regulatory gridlock, rising costs and political indecision. The consequences are real: weaker investor confidence, stalled productivity and capital flowing to more agile jurisdictions. An above-all energy approach is essential.

Leveraging our comparative strengths in conventional energy will allow us to drive clean investments, increase self-sufficiency and deliver for Canadians and our global partners. We are encouraged by Bill C-5 and its potential to improve Canada’s ability to deliver major projects. There are provisions of this bill we believe could be clarified or improved. For now, we ask senators to consider the following recommendations, not only for this bill, but also for future legislation which will come before this house and your committees or be introduced by your colleagues in the chamber.

Bill C-5 appropriately focuses on projects of national interest. However, we need a regulatory system that works efficiently for all infrastructure projects. Without broader reform, we risk a two- tiered process. Urgency cannot come at the expense of Indigenous rights, environmental considerations or provincial jurisdiction. A credible framework must be grounded in trust and legal certainty. Undermining these principles risks delays, opposition and legal challenges that defeat the goal we’re after. Finally, approvals are only part of the challenge.

To truly unlock progress, governments must also tackle the old and new cumulative regulatory burdens that are facing major energy and resource development projects. The greenwashing provisions, oil and gas emissions cap and many other examples must be looked at. Senators, let this be Canada’s moment to rise, seize our full potential and reaffirm our place as a global leader, securing a brighter, more prosperous future for all Canadians. Thank you. Jay Khosla, Executive Director, Economic and Energy Policy, Public Policy Forum: Thank you, chair and members of the committee.

I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. It’s truly humbling, an honour and a privilege to be here to respond to your questions. Let’s begin by acknowledging Canada is at a crossroads, as my colleague said. We have the resources, talent and global demand, but we’re not building energy infrastructure and critical mineral projects fast enough.

The Public Policy Forum, or PPF, wrote the report Build Big Things a few months ago with urgency, because the PPF believes this is not just moment of transition; it’s a once- in-a-generation opportunity to reshape our economic future and secure prosperity for all Canadians. Build Big Things is the PPF’s call to action and a road map to unlock hundreds of billions in investment, attract global capital and fast-track nation-building projects. We launched it in response to a sharp drop in investment and the urgent need for a bold, coordinated strategy to move projects forward.

What we call our playbook outlines 10 essential plays that, taken together, will ensure that key projects rapidly advance. The playbook’s premise is that if we build big things, Canada can reduce its reliance on the U.S. market, become a trusted global supplier of energy and critical minerals, meet our climate goals and strengthen the infrastructure that connects our country and supports our sovereignty. June 16, 2025 SENATE DEBATES 281

Let’s start with why. We all know Donald Trump provided Canada with a needed wake-up call. Canada must expand its market access and strengthen federal-provincial cooperation to stay competitive. Yet investment in major projects has fallen despite our massive potential. Navius Research modelled over $600 billion in proposed projects that could add $1.1 trillion to GDP by 2035, a full on 4.5% increase. That’s real growth driven by Canadian resources, workers and leadership. We have the expertise in this country to do that. Projects of this nature can and will boost our economy and environmental outcomes.

I would add that it’s not just about growth, but also critical supply chain security as well as addressing anything else that will move us forward strategically in the long run. We must be more entrepreneurial and globally competitive. Regarding Bill C-5, the good news is that momentum is being built across governments to accelerate the identification and approval of nation-building projects. As a convenor, the Public Policy Forum works to bring a coherent and unifying perspective to major issues shaping Canada’s future, such as the report’s findings.

This was the broadest consultation we’ve ever undertaken, engaging federal and provincial governments, regulators, Indigenous groups and industry across the country. As a result, we identified four specific and key levers that, if aligned effectively, will unlock investment and drive national growth. The first is getting the financing right. We need to de-risk projects and attract private capital. We’ve lost it and need to get it back, but that will only happen if the financing is aligned effectively. The second, very obviously, is regulation, which we have talked about for a decade and a half.

It has to be clear, fast and also environmentally effective. We believe that can happen. The third is enabling infrastructure, such as transmission, roads, ports and the associated workforce necessary to support these major builds. The fourth is Indigenous economic participation. This is critical and means real equity and capital access from day one. These are practical, achievable steps.

They’re aligned with some of the direction set out in Bill C-5, such as identifying major nation-building projects up front; adopting “one project, one review,” led by a federal major projects office; setting a firm two-year regulatory approval window; and shifting government culture from “Why approve?” to “How can we approve responsibly?” To build on this momentum, we also need a clear vision and a culture shift, including a national target for GDP growth per capita to guide and measure our progress. We find that is mission-critical.

This legislation is a good first step, but implementation depends on strong partnerships across governments and with Indigenous peoples. That’s where major projects have succeeded. I hope I can share examples I have worked on during my life during the question-and-answer session, if you wish. Our playbook offers a path forward, but the details truly matter. To truly unlock investment, implementation needs to go through 10 essential plays. Here are three we think stand out and could be strengthened: First, we need strong, accountable governance, from the Prime Minister down.

A dedicated deputy ministers’ committee that meets regularly, backed by a cabinet committee, should drive coordination and delivery. When governments are disciplined, focused and aligned, things can move fast, as we saw during COVID. •

(1530) Second, we need to sort out the alphabet soup of federal funding programs. Right now, project proponents and Indigenous peoples are bounced back and forth from the Canada Infrastructure Bank to the Clean Growth Program to the Strategic Innovation Fund to Export Development Canada — and we could keep going. The list is long. We need to put those capital stacks together to unlock these projects, and we need a single front door through which to do so. Third, we need a strategic investment office. That may be called the major projects office. We don’t know, but it has to have investment behind it.

It should not just focus on regulation. It should be a whole-of-government team that aligns financing, regulatory approvals, broader infrastructure and Indigenous participation in these reviews, and with the financial expertise to do so — The Chair: Mr. Khosla, your five minutes has ended. Mr. Khosla: I’ll just say one last thing, if you don’t mind. The Usher of the Black Rod was kind enough — if you want a copy of the report — to put a series of these cards there. There’s a QR code on the card, and you can access the report with that. I apologize for taking too long. 282 SENATE DEBATES June 16, 2025 [ Mr.

Khosla ]

Keith Jansa, Chief Executive Officer, Digital Governance Council: Honourable senators, thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today on Bill C-5. I commend the Government of Canada for recognizing the urgent need to accelerate projects of national interest, projects that serve our economy, energy security and sovereignty. This legislation rightly identifies interprovincial collaboration and infrastructure development as priorities. However, I must express concern that the approach Bill C-5 is employing puts the cart before the horse.

What I mean by this is that the legislation prioritizes comparable requirements or harmonization — the cart — which is a laudable goal, before establishing the structures needed — the horse — to achieve it. Without an accredited governance process to guide coordination and integration, Canada risks advancing legislation that will not be widely accepted, ultimately forcing the government to backtrack and rework elements after the fact, wasting time, resources and public trust. We have already seen this dynamic play out in Nova Scotia’s recent decision to backtrack on easing trade barriers.

These kinds of top-down shortcuts may appear efficient in the short term, but they fail in practice. At a time when Canada is making historic investments into infrastructure and modernization, failing to build in this layer of coordination is not just inefficient — it is strategically risky. In today’s economy, infrastructure is no longer just physical. It is digital. From national energy grids and transportation corridors to digital labour and supply chain platforms, critical infrastructure depends on digital technologies. These systems require more than intention. They require standards.

Standards ensure systems are interoperable, secure and scalable. Nowhere in the bill’s provisions is there any reference to standards despite their central role in supporting modern infrastructure across jurisdictions and industries, and the fact that many outdated and withdrawn standards remain incorporated in regulation. That is why I recommend amending Bill C-5 to include provisions that establish a formal, expert-driven, adaptive process for the timely creation, adoption and integration of standards.

This structure would operate under the authority of the Governor- in-Council and serve as a strategic foundation for the bill’s implementation. It would underpin federal, provincial, territorial, Indigenous and industry collaboration in recognizing and integrating consensus-based, voluntary standards to address outdated regulations, red tape and trade barriers that slow the adoption of new technologies and adversely affect our productivity. Our international counterparts understand this and have taken it seriously.

The European Union’s “New Approach” established a coherent mechanism between EU member states, their policymakers, regulators, industry, civil society and standards organizations to develop consensus standards that keep pace with change while serving the public interest. All member states have an obligation to adopt harmonized standards and to withdraw duplicative regulations. The U.S. and the United Kingdom have likewise not only prioritized this strategic approach, they have mandated the effective use of it decades ago.

They also recognize that digital infrastructure is national infrastructure and that sovereign control over the standards governing these systems is essential. Canada must do the same. The absence of organized Canadian priorities guiding critical standards undermines our growth and erodes both our sovereignty and security. I will say, though, that we are not starting from scratch. We already have institutions that bridge technical expertise, public- interest regulation and standards.

The Digital Governance Council, for example, is a national not-for-profit that convenes public, private and non-profit sector organizations across governments, industry, academia and civil society. It develops consensus-based standards through the Digital Governance Standards Institute, supports their implementation and provides a national forum for collaboration and alignment. Bill C-5 would best leverage these existing institutions and capacities, not to add bureaucracy but to ensure rapid implementation does not come at the expense of interoperability, trust or long-term effectiveness.

To seize that opportunity, Bill C-5 must include a formal provision to establish a mechanism that ensures standards are created, adopted and integrated in a way that is proactive, inclusive and aligned with national priorities. With this structure in place, Canada will be better positioned to respond to contemporary realities, reduce interjurisdictional duplication and delays, and embed sovereignty, trust and innovation into the infrastructure that underpins our economy and society. Honourable senators, this is more than a policy gap: It is a nation-building opportunity.

I urge you to view Bill C-5 not just as a vehicle for accelerating projects but also as a platform to modernize the governance foundations upon which those projects will stand. Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions. [Translation] The Chair: We shall now proceed with questions. Senator Carignan will have the first block. Please remember to specify to whom your question is addressed. Senator Carignan: My question is for the witness representing the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Pierce, you spoke about the urgent need to move forward on projects such as Roberts Bank and Contrecœur.

Bill C-5 doesn’t simplify the duties of proponents. They will still have to meet all the legislative requirements, provide the requested information and pay the associated fees before the minister can authorize the project. June 16, 2025 SENATE DEBATES 283

Under those circumstances, do you really think that the bill will help get major projects off the ground, or is there a risk that it’ll simply reorganize the process without actually moving projects forward? [English] Mr. Pierce: Thank you for the question. I would start by saying that at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, we work with government quite a bit. I think Canadians would be surprised to learn how much duplication there is in the system. That’s at the federal level, where departments can compete with each other for overlapping regulations, to federal-provincial regulations that overlap.

Ultimately, that delays infrastructure building, projects or basic initiatives generally. At first, we look at this bill and see it is a step in the right direction. It has taken two big pieces of what we called on the government to do back in February and moved forward with them in an expedited fashion. Could they do more? Sure, absolutely. Are there ways to expand the initiative of both sub‑acts within the bill? Possibly.

However, from our perspective, to meet this moment, what is included in Bill C-5 is necessary to get to that next step to approve and start to look at some projects that are of a national interest. [Translation] Senator Carignan: My second question is for Mr. Khosla. You co-authored a report in which you emphasize the urgent need to accelerate progress on major infrastructure and energy projects, and the need to simplify and stabilize the approval process. On the surface, Bill C-5 appears to follow that logic.

However, as it’s currently drafted, isn’t it too vague to guarantee this kind of acceleration, particularly given the very broad discretionary powers granted to the minister? Are you at all concerned that, as we’ve seen in recent years, the minister will ultimately base his or her decision on ideological considerations, such as hostility towards one sector or preference for another, rather than on criteria? [English] Mr. Khosla: That’s a terrific question. Thank you, senator. I could talk a lot about this, but I will keep it to two or three points.

The bill does take an important step machinery-wise, in our view, which centralizes both environmental assessment and regulatory permitting under one minister of the Crown. •

(1540) Second, as I said in my opening remarks, there is a lot more to be done than just the legislation. You are quite right in your question and what was implicit, which is the machinery underneath all of that. At the end of the day, our report argues that it is not just a regulatory mechanism. Any project that gets on this list — which is what the thrust of the bill is seeking — should serve the interests of Canada in four ways, and we lay this out in our report.

It has to lean into economic growth; it has to link into environmental sustainability; it should include Indigenous economic participation to the extent possible; and, finally, that market access is at the heart of everything we are doing. Those are the four factors. The last thing I would say and my third point — and maybe we could go into more detail later — is that the system really needs to step up at both the political and the bureaucratic level between governments to get this done. What that means, in fact, is that it is not easy. These projects are vast, they are complex, and they need oversight.

If I were overseeing that list personally, I would have in my jacket pocket every day a ledger sheet. Every day, I would look at that ledger sheet and ask, “Where is it in the system? Does it have a financing problem?” Because many of these projects will run aground on financing. I can tell you for a fact that some of the ones the provinces are putting out need help, and we have the instruments. That has to be coordinated. They also need regulatory fast-tracking, and they also need some of the government agencies that are working with Indigenous peoples on the economic participation side to step up.

What we heard in our report from Indigenous peoples is that they are being bounced back and forth. Hopefully, there will be a huge coordination arm in this. This has to be job number one for this country, up to and including the Prime Minister, but deputy ministers can do this. We have seen it in the past, and I hope they strike a committee to do exactly that — to watch over this on a daily basis. [Translation] Senator Carignan: In your report, you also recommended a two-year deadline, after which the project would be automatically approved or deemed approved.

The government talked about this in its various communications, including its press releases, but it’s not in the bill. Would you recommend that this deadline be included in the bill directly, to distinguish it from mere political intent or a press release? [English] Mr. Khosla: Thanks again; that is a very important question. Our report touches on how to unlock investment. That was our thesis. Final investment decision is a concept that not many Canadians are familiar with, so I’m sorry to be technical, but it is critical to all of these projects.

We sought to find out how one can hit final investment decision on megaprojects. One of the things that came up was certainty for proponents, clearly, and certainty for investors, who have left the country; let’s be honest. We need to pull them back. One mechanism or one lever to provide certainty would be a deemed approval process. We said the government needs to potentially look at that, but that is not the only thing we said.

We said, for example, if it is at the early stage of development of a project, and the government somehow at the end of it says it is deemed not approved, and the proponent has spent $1 billion — and we have had many examples of that in this country — then the government should perhaps be providing the insurance as a backstop for that. The idea is to attract capital as fast as we can. 284 SENATE DEBATES June 16, 2025 [ Senator Carignan ]

Those are certainty levers, but, fundamentally, forming this office that can pull the four levers together on these projects will make a difference. We have examples. I don’t know if you know this, but the Marathon palladium mine in northern Ontario had a two-year review. The LNG Canada project, a $60-billion investment in this country — maybe the single biggest project to date — had a two-year review. We could keep going. It is about making sure that the system is coordinated and dedicated to task. This is mission-critical. Hopefully, that helps. Let’s give certainty back to the system. Mr.

Pierce: I hope I am not breaking any rules, but if I may, on behalf of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, we would actually recommend that the two years be added to the legislation specifically. It is a concept that my colleague has spoken clearly about and that we support, but to be able to codify that in law would be encouraging. [Translation] Senator Carignan: Mr. Khosla, as for the one-window system, you also recommended simplifying the project consultation process, including the process for Indigenous consultations. Bill C-5 states that an office may be established, but it’s not mandatory.

It’s only an option. Don’t you think that should be changed? Shouldn’t the creation of such a committee or advisory body or one window be mandatory under the act? You can tell that we’ve read your report. Mr. Khosla: That is quite apparent, and I thank you. I lack the technical vocabulary to answer you in French at this time. Senator Carignan: You can answer me in English. [English] Mr. Khosla: This is a very clear answer for us.

If these four elements, including consultation, which is wedded into the regulatory part, are not brought together in an office with the right expertise, especially financial expertise, which we believe is lacking in the system right now, these projects will not move forward. The positive part of this is that consultation has actually moved a lot in this country in the last decade toward the positive, with Indigenous peoples in particular. We are starting to develop those relationships, and we need to capitalize on that.

Our regulators are getting quite good compared to 10 years ago, with all the movement on that file — Senator Loffreda: My question is for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I welcome Bill C-5 and view it as an important piece of legislation that, if implemented effectively, has the potential to attract significant investment and to create quality jobs across Canada. I understand that the overarching goal of this bill is to instill confidence in investors, signal that Canada is open for business and address concerns about an uncertain and unpredictable business environment. In my view, inclusion of a new project in

Schedule 1 sends a powerful message to proponents. It shifts the focus from whether a project will proceed to how it can be successfully developed. It’s about achieving results. Could you speak more broadly to how you think Bill C-5 will achieve this objective? I know the chamber is supportive of the bill, but have your members shared any concerns about the bill or its enforcement? Can you briefly share insights on the consultations conducted with your organization and the private sector in general prior to the introduction of this bill? Mr. Pierce: Thank you very much. I think that the

preamble to your question hit on the key points and the reason we support the bill. It will provide a framework to ensure that a project is looked at methodically. When the minister was here just before us — and I like the way she said it — she said that rather than having things happen sequentially, they could happen at the same time and move things along. We certainly applaud that. We did have an opportunity to consult with some of our members. I can’t share with you specifically with whom.

I hope that is okay from a confidentiality standpoint, but, certainly, on behalf of the chamber, I can share with you that our first point with the bill is that we believe that the two-year time frame should be codified in the act. It is a great idea, it is well supported in industry, and it has been spoken about quite positively by the government. If we can actually legislate that, that’s a prudent next step. The sunset clause is set at five years. Many of these projects, of course, run much longer than five years.

We would encourage that it would potentially be extended to 10 years, just to factor in the build and life cycle of some of these large projects. Our biggest concern goes back to Bill C-5 going forward and making some great improvements, specifically on project approvals, but the rest of the projects out there should not be left with a disadvantage. If a project is not deemed of national interest, does it then struggle to raise financing? Will it sit and be mired in a 5‑ or 10-year approval process?

Our encouragement, from across the chamber, is that we make these improvements through Bill C-5 to the approval process for a specific project that is in the national interest and, at the same time, take a really long look at the regulatory environment that surrounds project approvals to hopefully streamline it. Senator Duncan: Thank you to our guests for being here. Canada’s electricity grid is critical infrastructure, and it is referenced throughout your report. It is repaired by line workers when it goes down.

In the Yukon, hopefully, a transmission line from British Columbia will be built by line workers as a national project. •

(1550) These line workers all belong to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, or IBEW. The owners of the businesses are members of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. The international aspect means that of these workers — who are highly qualified and world recognized as highly skilled and safety trained — the Canadians are among the best. In this one-window, Team Canada approach, who has taken on the task of reaching out to these workers who are worldwide right now in order to bring them home to build these projects? June 16, 2025 SENATE DEBATES 285

Mr. Pierce: I can’t speak specifically to that on behalf of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I would love to get back to your office afterwards, if I could. Matt Holmes, our executive vice-president, issued an interesting call a few months ago, just as the tariffs really started to take hold and the national attention was really being focused. There is an opportunity in any of these crises to potentially bring expertise and skills home, as well as go out to actively recruit and find Americans who want to come to Canada and potentially take advantage of our great country and the opportunities that we have.

There is an opportunity there, but I can’t speak to it specifically. Sorry. Senator Duncan: We don’t know whose task it is in this one- window, Team Canada approach? We haven’t said, “It is your task” to any one agency or organization? Mr. Khosla: I will jump in. I talked about our 10 essential plays off the top. In the 10 essential plays, it is clear to us that if you put 10 or 20 projects on this list — let alone all the other projects happening out there — labour and labour supply will become a key issue.

We are saying in our report that this has to be part of any kind of strategic office and any kind of measure, but that obviously needs coordination between federal and provincial governments. Look at the Province of B.C. at this moment; it’s very interesting. They just approved 20-odd projects. They already have a ton of mega projects going on, and they are running short. This is a strategic question and a national interest question that should be wedded into the approval of those projects.

We would almost argue that a first ministers’ meeting, or FMM, should be struck here on both the projects and then how the labour supply would work across the country, because you will be exchanging people. Senator Clement: Thank you all for your testimony. My question is for Mr. Pierce from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I’m building on some of your opening remarks, especially Recommendation No. 2 around Indigenous rights and creating trust and certainty, which is what I heard you say.

There have been significant concerns about Bill C-5 from Indigenous communities, including Akwesasne, which neighbours my home community of Cornwall, Ontario. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Action 92(

i) calls on the corporate sector to commit to meaningful consultation, building respectful relationships and obtaining free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous peoples before proceeding with economic development projects. On your website, you list Indigenous affairs as a strategic issue, and you have an Indigenous Affairs Policy Committee. As a leader in the corporate sector, how has your organization addressed the opposition from Indigenous communities, considering your stated commitment and your comments this afternoon? Mr. Pierce: Thank you. We certainly do.

Our committees and our work in this area, especially over the past few years, have been led by Diana Palmerin-Velasco in our office. She is excellent and has done great work with industry and with communities across Canada. Our view with regard to Bill C-5 specifically, and how Indigenous communities would be consulted, is we can’t imagine a project that would go forward to the point of shovels in the ground that doesn’t have community-level support.

To make an investment of that scale and that scope, along with the financing required, the companies that would be involved, the stakeholders involved, as well as the government reputation and other things at stake, it would be a necessary precondition for any investment. From our perspective, we see Bill C-5 not as jumping the gun or avoiding that type of consultation but setting the table for it, and it is spoken to clearly in the bill in that regard. From our perspective, we just can’t fathom a world where you would not have community-level support on a project before it’s started.

I hope that answers your question. Senator Clement: Yes. You have leadership in the corporate world, so it’s very important to hear you say that — not just have a message on the website but actually say that publicly. Thank you. Senator C. Deacon: I will ask my first question to Mr. Jansa. Your opening remarks focused on standards, rules and regulations being economic infrastructure — a foundation upon which we build everything.

Senator Woo asked Minister Freeland about the growing importance of standards, particularly in the context of maintaining momentum within interprovincial trade over time in many of these projects. Could you explain a bit further how sovereignty is not just about territorial control of resource development, but also about owning the governing foundation — the governance of our economy — and making sure that it has resilience and agility over time as everything changes around us?

Then, if you could, could you give us some sense of how this process has been used in other jurisdictions to bring jurisdictions together and to coordinate their focus and their efforts to build momentum over time? Thanks. Mr. Jansa: Thank you for your question.

To start with the latter, Canada’s standardization versus its regulatory legislative system is separate in comparison to jurisdictions like the European Union, the United States or the United Kingdom, where their legislative, regulatory and standardization systems are actually integrated, as it is quite clear through national interest projects that the government-private sector-public sector collaboration, in association with rule setting, are structured into standards, instruments and performing assessment.

And then there is presumption of conformity when organizations are in conformity. 286 SENATE DEBATES June 16, 2025

Unfortunately, in Bill C-5, we don’t see any reference to standards at all. Meanwhile, you have provinces and territories referencing hundreds of thousands and likewise the federal family as well. To have legislation where the underpinnings of any economy are based on standards, where we see time and time again the references to different versions of standards incorporated in regulation across this country, you will not end up in a scenario where you have the seamless flow of people and/or goods and services as a result. I think it is unfortunate.

I also think that you have a top-down approach to establishing what becomes comparable requirements. To do that through a minister is complacent to having the type of collaboration and the expert-driven, adaptive process that’s necessary to build consensus not only behind the projects but also behind the people who ultimately build these projects and the rules that provide for a trustworthy infrastructure. Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much, Mr. Jansa. I want to have each of you respond to something that surprised me in the technical briefings.

I asked officials at the technical briefing on Bill C-5 about the use of standards and their value in getting everybody on the same page, because they are inclusive. All the stakeholders are at the table. They are transparent, agile and constantly being updated. I was amazed that the officials said that the regulatory development process is far more transparent and preferred by industry. My experience is it is not and it certainly is not agile. Could I have a response from each of you? I have about a minute left, so you have 20 seconds or so each. Mr.

Jansa: Consultation is not collaboration, so I would say the regulatory process by design has a one-way flow of information, if you will, with respect to what ultimately becomes the rules that set the benchmark. When you look at standardization, it is a collaborative model and consensus driven where you have public, private, non-profit, academia and Indigenous individuals all around that table building to a common objective. As much as our systems are kind of separate in comparison to other parts of the world, I would say we are not actually leveraging an expert-driven approach to these kinds of discussions. Mr.

Pierce: I don’t think we have a specific position between standards and regulatory. I’ll just say that, in my time, I have seen very positive regulatory processes and very negative ones, and I have seen very unhelpful standards processes and exemplary standards processes. •

(1600) The tool, when used effectively, is all about bringing to the table the opinions of experts and the people who are going to be impacted by the policy. We just encourage that consultation. Mr. Khosla: This is outside the swim lane of our report, but I would argue, having had some experience, that setting standards alongside industry can only help codify things in a much richer way, going forward. For the purpose of the projects piece, we are saying very clearly that there is not good alignment among the regulators that watch over all of these projects.

That has to be better aligned with the four-point frame. Senator Pupatello: My question is for all three witnesses. This is the first time I have spoken in the chamber, so don’t be too hard on me. We seem to think this is brand new. In fact, there are many examples in the country where various levels of government have come together to build, to ease regulations, et cetera. In Ontario, the province came to the table and said to the feds at that time, “You do our tax collection.” We actually wrote an agreement stipulating that we would eliminate our department and they would do it instead.

One of you mentioned the word “trust” in the first instance — that when entering an agreement both sides must trust each other; you’ll sign on the dotted line and let them do it thereby flattening out a lot of this regulation in the process. As another example, Hydro One has built transmissions. They are the master transmission of the country. The interoperability of our electricity system simply isn’t there, and I agree with some of my colleagues who suggested that that’s an underpinning of our economy.

What in our bill here today do we need to add to see that both sides are willing and at the table, or is it the time frame as it was recommended? Is it two years? We had a process in Ontario several years ago in which we turned the clock saying, “In 60 days, we’ll see you here, and we will have eased that regulation.” It had to be signed off on by all sides. So, saying that that’s the rule — incredibly — makes it happen sometimes. What language is missing from this bill that, if changed, would suggest that all the critical people come to the table, using expertise — as some of you suggested.

Ontario is a natural expert at nuclear energy. If we’re going to build more small modular reactors, or SMRs, across the country, it is clear that Ontario — according to its regulatory history — would be useful across the country. Clearly, in hydroelectricity, Quebec is the expert. We must take that expertise and say, “Here is a set of expertise that we can use and not recreate or, in fact, duplicate.” Is there a way to put that kind of language in a bill from your perspective? Mr. Khosla: I’ll start. That is a terrific question.

I’ll try to be very simple in my answer, but, again, I will refer to the report, because it contains a deeper discussion that you might like to see on the bill, which might answer your question. First and foremost, investment. This country must look seriously at that question. If the words “investment” and “enhancing investment” in these spaces is not in that bill, it’s not the focus, it’s not the discipline, it’s not the target — increasing investment in these spaces — then we will not have done what we need to do. I think that would be a good answer. June 16, 2025 SENATE DEBATES 287

The second is this: How does governance and accountability work with regard to this? We can debate about whether that’s a legislative question or not, but I think it’s critical. For example, the First Ministers’ meeting the Prime Minister called was a good step, but should there not be a regular process that monitors and tracks all this? To your point that we have expertise in every province in this country, we are an energy-rich, mining-rich, forestry-rich and agriculture-rich country. Draw in all of that if we want to boost the GDP. There has to be strong governance from the Prime Minister on down.

I would argue that some of that is actually between the federal and provincial officials at the government level, meaning at the administrative level. That is what is going to make this sing. It brings in those four pieces, because we have noticed that these projects stall in any one of those areas when they are not aligned. They come and go because they don’t have all four pieces together, especially with regard to the financing part. That’s where governments could come together.

We’re not talking about a massive amount of tax dollars; we’re talking about nominal funds that can actually tip the balance on some of these projects. I’ll come back to the LNG Canada project, for example. The federal government provided $250 million for that project to unlock $60 billion. The provincial government in that case worked alongside the federal government and provided a lowering of tax rates. That unlocked one of the biggest projects in the country. The Chair: Thank you, sir. I’m sorry I have to interrupt you again. Senator Cardozo: Thank you, folks, for being here. I’ll start with Mr. Pierce and Mr.

Detchou from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I hear you asking for credible regulatory certainty. When you look at sections 21, 22 and 23, which allow the government to override a list of acts, do you have concerns? What are your thoughts about that? Mr. Khosla, I note you are concerned about oversight of projects once they are under way. I noticed one of the issues you mentioned was enabling infrastructure, and sometimes I hear that as a euphemism for wanting the government to spend large sums of money on roads, pipelines and ports. If that’s the case, I understand.

Would you support deficit spending to obtain that? Normally, I hear the private sector calling on the government to throw down the chains of regulation and just let things happen. What I’m hearing from you is this: “No, no, no. Let’s get things organized first, let’s decide on some standards, let’s choose some processes and achieve some clarity on what we want.” Do you think we’re moving too fast here? Are you concerned that down the road we’ll end up in court on some of these issues? Mr. Jansa: From my perspective, to colleagues here, it’s a step in the right direction, but it’s the cart before the horse.

We’re talking about a laudable goal of compatible requirements. We have no structures established in the act to achieve that. This is where I say that it needs to be expert-driven, it needs to be consensus-based and it’s public and private. None of that is represented in the bill. There is no

section that speaks to standards, which is — in many ways — the reason why we have many interprovincial trade barriers. Mr. Pierce: Business is looking for government — and the process around an approval — to be predictable and credible. So, to have that, and yet having an unknown path to reach that end — because of competing regulations between levels of government — we think is problematic. So to answer your question, we think any initiative like this would have to override certain acts. It would have to take that into consideration in some way.

Again, this is a little bit beyond the business view, but that process is spoken to very clearly in the act: there are still pieces that must be followed, and those overriding principles would occur when there is some form of a process that would be communicated to the public. Again, it’s about signalling to the business community what that process is so that the business community can play. If it’s going to be dynamic and change every time, that will limit investment. Senator Cardozo: You don’t think that process is sufficiently defined at this point? Mr.

Pierce: No, and I don’t know that it could be in legislation at this stage. That’s certainly not meant to be a criticism. We feel this is an important step to arrive at that clarity on how that is actually going to work, and the faster the better. Mr. Khosla: I liked where you started, which was the oversight part. We think that strategy has to be moving now, with stealth, discipline and focus. We think there are many projects out there that can go, and they need to move quickly in light of where we are as an economy and in light of where we are in terms of our global presence. Natural gas is a key no-brainer.

We have this basin out in Western Canada that’s so rich, and no other country in the world would be sitting and just watching it potentially chug along the way we are. Generally, we think projects should move faster; that is the simple answer. To the second part of your question, on enabling infrastructure, there are two parts in our report on that. The first is — you’re right, broadly. Are there things that will cause roadblocks? For example, the Ring of Fire. We have been talking about it forever, right? If we start to unlock that, if the critical minerals actually come out, where do they go?

If you’ll notice, the Port of Vancouver is kind of congested, so that’s one element of that. That should be maybe the number one project on the list. I’m not sure. That is something we have put in our report. 288 SENATE DEBATES June 16, 2025 [ Mr. Khosla ]

•

(1610) The second

part is not to look at projects statically. In other words, most of these projects have many different elements. The example I can give you is the transmission line to a mine. Oftentimes, we only review one part of that. As far as the final point, no, not deficit spending. I talked off the top about all these financing agencies. They are flush with cash. They should be aligned. They should put the capital stacks together and start to move. We even have investment tax credits. I do not believe there is a lot more spending required unless there is a special project that takes billions.

TMX would be one of those examples, but the money is there. Let’s get going and then attract the capital back in this country. I mean, the Germans came with $1 billion a couple of years ago, but we couldn’t do anything with it. That’s what we’re talking about. Senator Wilson: My question for Mr. Pierce with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce — actually, part of it can be answered by anyone.

While Bill C-5 is a great step forward for bringing investor confidence back to Canada in supporting projects that will benefit our economy, we have to acknowledge there is a broader regulatory environment that requires a lot of additional attention. Mr. Pierce, in your remarks you mentioned greenwashing. Last year, Parliament passed Bill C-59, which featured a late-stage amendment on greenwashing that applies broadly to anybody making a representation about a business or business activity that relates to the environment.

While intended to protect consumers from false advertising and misleading environmental claims about a company’s products or activities, the amendment, in practice, has had much wider implications than that, resulting in profound and unintended consequences. Can you please speak to the impact of this greenwashing amendment within the previous Bill C-59 and how it relates to the bill currently before us? Mr. Pierce: Thank you very much for the question.

Here is a great example of a piece of legislation that was passed presumably with good intentions, that has been implemented by, I guess, one quasi government, one full department and that has created unbelievable uncertainty in the business community around what can and cannot be said for environmental claims for a project.

So much so — and I do not know of another example of this — that the Department of Environment and Climate Change wrote into the Commissioner of Competition’s public consultation process to highlight the risks of this measure: that it would quell or stifle the participation of industry working with them. One example is Bill C-59; there is a litany of others. The problem with that is the business community sits back and says, “Where are we going to deploy funds? Where are we going to invest?

What projects are we going to invest in?” When they see a regulatory environment like that in Canada, they choose elsewhere because from their end, why would they put themselves at risk? The penalty for a greenwashing violation, I believe — I’m going to look back to my boss to make sure I’m getting this number right — is 3% of global revenues. So find me a mining company in the world that is going to take that risk. That is already in force. There is some clarification coming into the Commissioner of Competition’s office recently that is with industry right now. But there is a private right of action

section that comes into force on June 20, this month, and any organization can sue a company for making a false or misleading claim that doesn’t align with an international standard. That international standard is not defined. So it doesn’t say what that standard is that you shall be shooting for. I can tell you I’ve talked to businesses specifically. They will not invest when that is the climate that they are looking at in Canada. That’s one example of many. Thank you for the question. Senator Wilson: I have a second question for Mr. Khosla. Thank you very much for bringing up Roberts Bank Terminal 2, or RBT2.

It’s a project I’m familiar with from my previous life, as I was involved in each of those 10 years that we went through in the regulatory process to get it to approval. I point out it’s still not finally approved because it still requires a Fisheries Act authorization. Is there anything that we should be considering in terms of this legislation in relation to making those connections between some of the inland projects and, say, gateways, transportation corridors, those kinds of things?

If we build one great thing in one part of the country, if it’s not connected to the other, it’s not going to do us very much good. Mr. Khosla: That’s a terrific point. I think that would get into the part of the legislation where the projects lie. Right now, we don’t have that project list. It will probably be a

schedule to the act. Once that project list emerges, you’ll start to see the variety of items that are out there. We need to ask a serious question: Can you monetize those? For example, when I talk about financing, for every one of those projects as they get on that list, we should be able to say they are financially secure. We do not want bad projects going through the system. That means environmentally secure, but that also means financially secure. Financial security, or whether they are investable, also means that whatever they do, they can reach other markets, they can help other areas.

So you have got to think about it in two ways. This is why that office, whatever it does, is supercritical. It cannot just be on the regulatory side. It absolutely has to look across the board, like you said. As far as RBT2 goes and any other gateway out West, to my mind and according to many others, there are port access problems in this country. We can talk about Churchill, Manitoba. That’s a great long-term concept. Out West, we need something. RBT2 hopefully will be approved way before this ever happens. June 16, 2025 SENATE DEBATES 289

Senator Moncion: I want to go back to what you were just talking about. I would like to talk about capacity because I think Bill C-5 is just opening the door to what the country can do, and I think it’s fast-tracking some of the projects. Now, could you speak of capacity? You have mentioned quite a few items, and I’ll give you some examples. You were talking about the Ring of Fire in northern Ontario, and you were talking about bringing critical minerals to the Port of Vancouver.

Then you just mentioned a port in Churchill, which would probably be the much smarter way of doing it, but by the time the port of Churchill is built, it will be for a number of years to come. You were talking about the LNG project. In Quebec, you have the Churchill Falls and the Gull Island expansions. There is capacity on the investment side and also on the workforce side. I would like to hear from all three of you on the different aspects of capacity in the regulatory or governance area, in terms of workforce and in terms of investors. Mr. Khosla: I’d be happy to take that.

If the premise of your question is where we are lacking capacity to do this, first and foremost, structures have to be stood up very quickly. If I think about COVID and how rapidly the system adjusted at both the political and the officials’ level, that’s an example of things moving quickly — we can rely on that — or the former Major Projects Management Office that the federal government had; it’s now defunct. We need governance and accountability around that. Underneath that comes the capacity problem.

Governance comes first — discipline-focused, targeted — but second, where one of the biggest gaps that I have seen on all of the projects we have ever worked on is looking at the books of those projects. It’s now time for governments to get involved. It’s not just a regulatory question. Maybe bring in capacity from the Infrastructure Bank, for example; it just started down this road, the Clean Growth Fund. That has to be brought into the centre, meaning the Privy Council Office or whoever watches over this because it’s going to be under Minister LeBlanc, as I understand.

Where that capacity matters the most is for those folks to have this office that aligns the financing and regulatory and Indigenous economic participation. We would argue that without Indigenous economic participation, you’re really going to be hard-pressed to move these projects forward. That should be some sort of a precursor, but you need those organizations in there. Financing capacity, financial analysis, the ability to be disciplined and look at that quickly, I would say, are some of the things that should be invested in underneath the bar, if you will. Mr.

Pierce: From the Canadian Chamber of Commerce perspective specifically, the labour force to accommodate these projects has not been something we have drilled into leading up to today. But I can tell you just from experience that there needs to be a culture change to encourage careers in the resource sector, and that’s with youth, but also mid-career. People are shifting careers. Of course, education, retraining is a provincial area, so I would encourage our provincial partners in this way.

If there is a way to encourage that, and to value those projects and the resource sector as a country — as a culture, almost — I think that would go a long way to helping with that. •

(1620) Mr. Jansa: We need a governance process that guides coordination and integration. We need the structures. As currently written, the bill simply states that whoever has administrative roles over that particular regulation ultimately gets to decide. I think that’s not tapping into the capacity and expertise needed to remove those kinds of trade barriers that are being experienced daily. Senator Moodie: Mr. Jansa, this question is primarily directed at you. Canada has immense energy needs, not only to power our everyday lives but also an increasingly technology-dependent economy.

I’m especially thinking of and considering artificial intelligence — which is crucial for our long-term economic relevance — and the increased energy it requires. Will the proposed changes in

Part 2 of this legislation strengthen our digital economy? As part of your answer, could you share with us any thoughts you may have on the specific standards for energy production, especially as they relate to new technology use? Mr. Jansa: Thank you for the question. When it comes to what is in Bill C-5, it speaks to the national interest. I’m not clear, upon reading the bill, whether when we talk about infrastructure, we are talking simply about physical infrastructure. We are talking about bridges, ports and those types of things, but we’re not actually talking about the digital infrastructure.

To your point regarding artificial intelligence, when you consider the kinds of data centres required and the amount of electricity required to power them, at the moment, you have electric utilities contemplating whether to prioritize the new building of housing, because we have a housing crisis, or the data centres necessary to ensure our sovereignty as a country and that our digital infrastructure does not collapse in on itself. You also have foreign interests, like the U.S., with the capacity to turn things off here in Canada, because we don’t have sovereign digital infrastructure.

So the way this bill is written, it is not clear on any of those fronts. I would certainly encourage senators, along with members of Parliament in the House of Commons, to elaborate on what you mean by “infrastructure” when we’re talking about this sovereignty and the national interest. The Chair: The last 10 minutes will be shared between the sponsors of the bill, Senator Yussuff and Senator Petten from the GRO. Senator Yussuff: — chamber for a long history of advocating around interprovincial trade barriers. I’m old enough and young enough to realize that this might happen in my lifetime.

This country is 158 years of age; that should remind us of the degree of time and energy that it would take for us to get there. We’re not there yet; this is only the first part of a longer process of realizing the potential of the country from its own jurisdictions. Ultimately, given the crisis we’re in, I hope we, as parliamentarians, seize this moment. 290 SENATE DEBATES June 16, 2025

Those of you advocating in regard to the bill ought to recognize that it took us that long to get here. In that regard, the bill has two parts. There is the interprovincial part, which our first ministers are working incredibly fast and hard to kind of figure out, but the other

part is how to build the country to take opportunities with respect to the capacity the country will now need going forward. Given the timeliness of this — we are here almost at the end of the parliamentary session — tell me how important it is for us to get this right and to pass this bill within the time frame we are stuck with in trying to deal with it? Mr. Pierce: Thank you very much for the question and your kind comments about the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. During the previous question, we were talking about AI and the demands that it will put on our system.

We also have housing that is exploding, business opportunities that are exploding and all these great opportunities that all require energy. As part of our 2025 B7 Communiqué, we identified that energy demand will increase by 50% by 2050. Unfortunately, that’s not considered the crisis; the crisis is what is happening in the U.S. with the tariffs. That’s what has garnered that public attention.

I think there is an opportunity for us to leverage that to address what is, in my opinion, the true crisis, which is that within less than a few short years, we could be stuck in a position where we don’t have enough electricity, power or resources. That building up has to happen now. The way our CEO makes it, I think it’s a great comment. We have done so much incrementally over the past 20, 30 or 40 years, working and encouraging systems to move. Over the past six months, we have found that that time is over. It’s time to build and to make investments.

The private sector is standing ready to support the government and public sector in that regard, because if we don’t, the difficulties for our economy and for business will be very dire. Mr. Khosla: I couldn’t have said it much better myself. We’re behind the 8-ball and have to move. A lot of it is in the bill. If we take too much time to get this right — perfection being the enemy of the good — we will have lost the moment. Our estimation is that three to four years is the window. Maybe things will settle after that, but there are a number of partnerships that need to be struck that are outside the bill.

We will look to see if those things happen. More important, these X number of projects, whatever they might look like, if they don’t get going quickly and exactly right, we will not hit the target for GDP we are looking to, and we will not have done a service to the country in this moment, as you said. The number one thing is making partnerships amongst Indigenous peoples, partnerships federally and provincially and partnerships with industry to get that done. It is financing, financing, financing. That should be our thesis.

We’re trying to draw investment back into this country so these can now live on their own. Finally, I really like the point about strategic assets. I am certain most people in the chamber know this, but we are out of clean hydro. That happened two years ago. We should be thinking about it. I really like the question about Gull Island. That’s something we want to look at more strategically. All of this has to move quickly and strategically. We have to be disciplined going forward. It’s really time to go.

Senator Yussuff: You are probably hearing public comments on a number of levels: Indigenous consultation, which is fundamental to the future of this country; and the environment, as Canadian don’t want to diminish their responsibility as custodians of the environment. Last, we’re stuck with the reality that we’re living in a period of climate change affecting our daily lives. How important is it for us to get this right in the context of passing this bill? Mr. Pierce: If I can jump ahead of my colleagues here, it’s critical. If not done correctly, we’ll find ourselves in the courts.

We’ll find ourselves in a political debate that will not move anything forward. We’ll find ourselves where the business community, the investment community and foreign direct investments dry up simply because there is not the confidence and the predictability of a system they can rely upon and invest in. As I said in my opening remarks, it’s critical that those considerations be factored into any viable process going forward. Mr.

Khosla: Very quickly, with respect to the amount of investment spending that has gone into our electricity system over the last while, RBC did a perfect study that said it would take $2 trillion to $3 trillion to decarbonize our system. We are nowhere close to that. Those investments aren’t happening, and those projects are not moving forward. It’s time. Look at east-west transmission lines. That is a perfect example. How many are actually being built in this moment when we’re experiencing a climate crisis? Those can solve things. Should we not put more emphasis on our small modular reactors?

We’re a tier-1 nuclear nation. Ontario Power Generation, or OPG, is moving forward. Let’s look at our entire nuclear fleet. It’s a system-wide issue. There are solutions sitting right underneath our feet that should be moved forward. Senator Petten: My question is for Mr. Pierce. •

(1630) There is uncertainty in a number of sectors in my province due to the tariffs from the United States — mining, for example. Given that one third of the nickel exports from Newfoundland and Labrador is to the United States, how do you see this bill giving confidence to industries in Newfoundland and Labrador? June 16, 2025 SENATE DEBATES 291

Mr. Pierce: Great question. Thank you. I think the tariffs and the trade environment are what led to the bill. I think the bill provides a framework for us to diversify our markets and to trade with like-minded countries beyond just the United States, which is an opportunity for everyone and for all of our exports. It is unfortunate that we had to wait for something like a U.S. administration to do what they did over the past six months to really become attuned to it, but we hear this all the time: The solution is we will just trade with Europe. Well, that’s an incredible statement.

That requires you to have a presence in Europe, to know the customer base and to have sales to start driving economic activity there. That’s not an overnight thing, and it is hampered by the fact that we don’t necessarily have the infrastructure to get our products or resources to market in the first place