Transport Committee on June 17th, 2025

[Maxime St-Hilaire]

In law, an emergency measure is one that overrides general law. Laws were passed. You are a parliamentarian. Laws were passed for the purpose of protecting the common good in a wide range of areas, from the environment and energy security to transparency and community participation. Legislators seek to achieve all kinds of objectives in order to ensure the common good. An emergency measure seeks to set the law aside, if you will. It seeks to give the executive powers it does not normally have.

Legally speaking, what does this bill do? It pushes the law aside.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

It does so to remove trade barriers. It seeks to remove interprovincial and interterritorial trade barriers. The bill does not necessarily constitute an emergency measure, as per your interpretation. You are interpreting the Emergencies Act.

Bill C‑5 deals with breaking down interprovincial barriers and working with an openness to creating energy corridors for better efficiency.

[Maxime St-Hilaire]

Is that a question you're asking?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Unfortunately, your time is up.

Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.

I want to make sure we have time for Ms. Gazan.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

I want to share my time, but I'm okay with no answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We've gone over 40 seconds for Mr. Lauzon, and I want to make sure that we have the time for Ms. Gazan.

Ms. Gazan, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I want to start by thanking the committee for giving me time to ask questions on this very important bill. I'm very grateful.

Section 5 of Bill C-15 states, “The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.” That was the purpose of the bill. The purpose of Bill C-15 was to ensure that all laws of Canada are consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In your opinion, is Bill C-5 consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

[Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak]

Is that for me?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes. I'm sorry. I should have said so.

[Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak]

Julie, do you want to go through that from a legal perspective, please?

Thank you.

[Julie McGregor]

In looking at section 5 of the UN declaration act, it's not just an interpretive aid. It's actually an operational provision, which meant that the laws of Canada should include FPIC, and not just as a sort of example or some sort of interpretation. It has to be operational.

Does Bill C-5 operationalize FPIC? The only thing we can turn to as an interpretive aid is the “whereas” clauses. In that meaning, in the meaning of what section 5 of UNDA was supposed to be—operational—then we can't say it is, because it's not operational within Bill C-5. It's only used as an interpretive aid.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you very much for that.

One of the things that's shocking to me about the bill is this kind of overreaching power of cabinet and ministers. One of the sections I find particularly disturbing—quite disturbing—says, “the Governor in Council may consider any factor that the Governor in Council considers relevant, including the extent to which the project can”, and then it says, “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples”. They list a bunch of things.

What is disturbing about that for me is that they used the same arguments in the creation of residential schools: that it was in the best interests of indigenous peoples. It is colonialism from the 1700s.

The bill in itself is harmful, but would you agree with me that it is particularly disturbing that the Governor in Council, rather than indigenous peoples themselves, has the power to decide what's in the interests of indigenous peoples?

[Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak]

Absolutely, and of course, we haven't had time to go through this legally. We've only had, in seven days, a few lawyers look through it. I need a few more to look through this so that we absolutely don't repeat what happened in the past. I think it's overreach. I think it's very concerning.

Like I said, I wish you could hear from our leadership. We haven't had a full, thorough conversation on this. We are asking you to please slow this down a bit and put the brakes on so that we can talk through the summer with all of you properly.

I think I'll close it off and say that.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Going on, you spoke about article 19 of UNDRIP, in that it provides that states need to seek and obtain FPIC of indigenous peoples before adopting a legislative measure. Has the federal government upheld this obligation in Bill C-5, yes or no?

[Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak]

They have not.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

They have not.

As the national chief of more than 600 first nations, do you share Bill C-5's proposition that the cabinet can determine what is in the best interests of indigenous peoples? We just discussed that. Do you think that can be amended? Going back to article 19 of UNDRIP, one of the things it talks about is “in good faith”. Do you think that is a demonstration of good faith?

[Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak]

It's not.

I'll say that Parliament and, of course, the Senate itself.... I told them this in the Senate yesterday. I told senators to follow their own laws and to follow the laws that we've fought hard for in the courts. Unfortunately, that's what first nations have been relying on over the past many years. We keep winning in the courts against provinces and against the federal government.

Are we done in court yet? Do we want to start to sit here and get some real traction together, or are we going back to court again? We're always in court and fighting really hard for every piece that champions and solidifies us as people in this country.

I think that starts with respect. There's no respect here, my friends.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Gazan, for joining us.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

On behalf of all the members of this committee, I want to express our sincere gratitude to you, National Chief Woodhouse Nepinak, Mr. St-Hilaire and Ms. Swift, for joining us and sharing your testimony on this very important piece of legislation.

Let's keep this discussion going.

With that, this meeting is adjourned.