Transport Committee on June 17th, 2025

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Fair enough.

[Francis Bradley]

Small modular reactors absolutely are in our future. We'll see the first one coming online in the late 2020s. A number of jurisdictions in this country are actually betting on small modular reactors to be part of their future, as will be, potentially, traditional nuclear generation. Large hydro, small hydro, potentially even carbon capture as we move forward, and more transmission will be critical. All of these technologies, including more wind—onshore wind, and offshore wind sometime off into the future—will all be part of the energy mix as we head into the future.

There are proponents in most of these areas. This is not pie in the sky at this stage. For example, I mentioned small modular reactors. Ontario Power Generation is actively building their SMR. Saskatchewan is looking at it very closely. They want to be next.

These are projects that are already moving forward.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kelloway.

Thank you, Mr. Bradley.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you now have the floor for six minutes.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for joining us.

Mr. Robitaille, in his public statements, the Prime Minister of Canada referred to two main points. First, the projects wouldn't go ahead without the agreement of the provinces and the first nations. Second, there must be a single project or a single assessment.

I would like to know how these two components of the Prime Minister's remarks fit into the bill currently before us.

[David Robitaille]

In fact, they don't.

In terms of provincial agreement, the provinces are indeed consulted for the designation of projects of national interest. However, it's only a consultation. Perhaps the people who drafted the bill didn't quite capture the Prime Minister's intention. If the provinces are consulted for the designation of bills, their consent isn't required.

Moreover, this isn't the first time that federal legislation has attempted to provide a single assessment for a single project. It's a good idea to have joint assessments involving people from the federal and provincial levels. However, the idea of a federal project or assessment doesn't fit in with Canadian federalism. A number of projects that could be affected by this legislation fall under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. The environmental aspects related to federal jurisdictions fall within the purview of the federal Parliament, while the environmental impact of projects under provincial jurisdiction lies with the provinces. However, the current bill seems to want to replace provincial assessments. According to constitutional law, this isn't possible.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you. Your response is quite informative.

Another point came to mind during your remarks. I'm talking about the notion of national interest found in the bill in question.

In the bill, the definition of “national interest” simply refers to a project named in Schedule 1. According to the bill, the definition of “national interest project” is as follows: “project named in Schedule 1”. This includes everything listed in Schedule 1 and designated by the Governor in Council. I gather from your comments that this doesn't fit with the Supreme Court's definition of a national interest project.

Do you feel that there's some confusion between two types of national interest projects, or that we're talking about the same kind of national interest project?

[David Robitaille]

It's difficult to say whether the legislator intended to create confusion. However, the bill certainly creates confusion between the notion of national interest used in the bill and the notion in constitutional law.

We often hear the phrase “national interest”. A number of years ago, former prime minister Paul Martin said that child care was of national interest. We must be careful. In constitutional law, matters of national interest are clearly defined by the Supreme Court. These projects go beyond provincial interests in well‑defined matters or issues, and are clearly distinct from provincial jurisdictions. However, the current bill doesn't seem to meet these conditions. It still carries a significant risk of being overturned by the courts, given the reference regarding the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the most recent reference regarding the Impact Assessment Act, which was struck down in part.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you.

I didn't hear you talk about clauses 21, 22 and 23 of Bill C‑5. In my opinion, these clauses are particularly concerning. They would give the Governor in Council absolute power to disregard the legislation currently before us, or any other legislation, with respect to all major projects or just one major project.

Does this concern you? Do you have any thoughts on the matter?

[David Robitaille]

Yes. Certainly.

It's troubling, to say the least, since this amounts to a fairly significant concentration of power held by the Governor in Council. Both the federal and provincial governments have environmental legislation designed to uphold vital principles, such as the protection of biodiversity and endangered species. It's concerning, to say the least, that a minister can almost wave a wand and decide to set aside long‑established environmental standards.

The bill should state more clearly that project proponents must adhere to the environmental legislation of the provinces and the Canadian Parliament.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you.

I don't think that I have much time left.

Mr. Chair, I would appreciate it if you could add my remaining time to my next turn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

We'll now go to our second round, and we'll begin with Mr. Lawrence.

Mr. Lawrence, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, sir.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Thank you to the chair and the clerk for organizing this so promptly.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming so quickly. We realize it was short notice.

Mr. Bradley, I'm going to start with you. Of course, we are spending a lot of our time on the building Canada act, but the first part of Bill C-5 is with respect to interprovincial trade. You talked about the 90 pieces of federal legislation.

Can you also add in there the provincial part? How many different pieces of—if you know roughly—provincial legislation do electricity providers have to adhere to? Are there conflicts of law or issues—what we would call interprovincial trade barriers—that are affecting your industry as well?

[Francis Bradley]

That's an excellent question, and it's one for which I don't have a precise answer. To be able to calculate across 10 provinces and three territories all of the different laws and statutes that impact the electricity sector would certainly be a challenge.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Would it be helpful to your industry if government officials from all provinces, as well as from the federal government, came together and had either a system of mutual recognition or a harmonization of those regulations? Would that be of benefit, and would that provide economic benefits for Canadians?

[Francis Bradley]

Yes.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Thank you.

Maybe that's something that we could have included in Bill C-5. Is that fair to say?

[Francis Bradley]

As I said earlier, I recognize that the time is short. There are a lot of, as I said, things that I'd like to see addressed.

At the same time, I must say that I'm certainly heartened by the openness. We seem to be at a particular point in time right now where there is an openness in provincial capitals and here in Ottawa to look at ways to collaborate more closely and to reduce trade barriers. Certainly, there are things that would be of benefit to the sector right across the board, whether it's a recognition of credentials in the trades or making it simpler to trade across borders.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Bradley.

I think this is an incredible moment, and I think that the government, by taking very limited steps on interprovincial trade, is missing the moment.

I'll move on to the building Canada act. One of the worries that I might have is that the government is not going to list enough projects as national interest projects to actually make an impact.

I know you won't have exact numbers, but as much as you can, give us what you think would be a win in terms of an amount for projects within your industry that could be approved by the government. Would it be half a billion dollars' worth? Would it be a billion dollars' worth? Would it be half a trillion dollars' worth? What type of number would you hope to see being classified as national interest projects within your industry?

[Francis Bradley]

We don't have a number. Again, because this is fairly early days in terms of the legislation, we don't have a clear indication of how expansive that list may be.

We do know that the investments that are going to be required in this sector up to 2050 are in the order of $1.7 trillion. The investments are going to be very significant, but I don't have a number in terms of what we would want to see included in national interest projects.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Thank you. That's very helpful.

I'm going to ask Ms. Kokkinos the same question.

[Yiota Kokkinos]

This came up during our consultations, actually. At the time, we talked about 15 to 20 projects, and it's not really about the value. I think it's about the number. The public service is going to have to rethink this process and almost reverse-engineer it, taking into account this two-year window. There's a lot to consider and a lot to work through with the provinces.

I would recommend a manageable number. Fifteen to 20 is what we talked about during our consultations. We're going to learn a lot through this first wave of projects that is going to inform future projects, but we also want it to inform the regulatory process for all projects going forward in the future. They want to set themselves up to succeed. If you overshoot, you could be setting yourself up for failure.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Just quickly, because I'm out of time here, when you say 15 to 20 projects, do you mean by the end of the year? What's the time frame?

[Yiota Kokkinos]

No, that would be to approve them up front within the next few months, and then they'd have the two-year window.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Kokkinos.

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.

Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor for five minutes.