Transport Committee on June 17th, 2025

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have a point of order. Thank you, Chair.

I wanted to ask for unanimous consent to grant me time at the end of committee to be able to ask questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Do I have unanimous consent from the members of the committee to grant a certain amount of time?

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

Maybe in the last round we could just take three minutes, but not five minutes, and give her the spare time. We have a round of five minutes; we could just give her six minutes.

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

I think that's okay. What I would say is that we would just add five minutes at the end, with three minutes to Ms. Gazan—

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

Three minutes and three minutes.

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

—and then two minutes to Ms. May, if she wants.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I'm going to give my two minutes to Ms. Gazan.

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

Maybe just add five minutes at the end. I don't want to take away from the time, but I have an extra five minutes tonight.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I think we have unanimous consent, Ms. Gazan, so we'll be sure to give you five minutes.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

That's very kind of you. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you for being so accommodating, colleagues.

We'll begin our line of questioning in this round with Ms. Stubbs.

Ms. Stubbs, you have six minutes. The floor is yours.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chief Ted, for your opening prayer. Thank you, National Chief Woodhouse Nepinak, for being here, and thank you to all of the witnesses.

I'm certainly proud to work with the indigenous communities in Treaty 6. The issues that you talked about at the beginning that you would like to see fast-tracked do align with the leaders of the five first nations and four Métis settlements that I work with there.

You noted that your first opportunity to have a technical briefing on the bill was yesterday, and you did touch on this. I wonder if you would expand on your concerns about the ability of a cabinet to temporarily override provisions of the Indian Act, or others you want to touch on, through regulation without consultation with or consent from first nations.

[Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak]

Absolutely. Thank you for your question.

I don't know. There's no other way to describe it. Take section 115 of the Impact Assessment Act. It only allows non-application of the act for reasons related to national security or in instances where the Emergencies Act is invoked. Bill C-5 goes far beyond this Emergencies Act clause in the Impact Assessment Act, with none of the safeguards contained in the Emergencies Act related to transparency and parliamentary oversight. It is project approval by executive decree, with any act or any regulation able to be set aside by the cabinet.

Julie is with me. She's my technical person at the Assembly of First Nations. She's the legal brain.

I don't know if you want to expand on that.

[Julie McGregor, Senior Legal Counsel and Acting Chief of Staff, Assembly of First Nations]

Meegwetch.

We are concerned specifically with the provisions in proposed sections 19 to 21, which are the so-called Henry VIII clauses—the overriding ability of cabinet to have the discretion to override legislation important to first nations, specifically the Indian Act.

We've not been advised what the intention was for the ability to override the Indian Act. We weren't consulted on why that was included in schedule 2. We're left to only speculate on what the intentions are of the government with respect to the Indian Act. The Indian Act governs a lot of administrative issues with First Nations, but it also deals with land and reserve lands. We very much want to know what the legislative intention is behind that.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you.

It’s partly clear why ministers should come to committee to testify on this bill since they’re also decision-makers, and it’s their obligation and their duty to consult with first nations.

Chief Woodhouse Nepinak, you have been a strong proponent of opportunities for ownership and partnership, and the communities in Lakeland are certainly owners and producers in both traditional and clean energy.

Given the diversity of views, values, aspirations and ambitions of the more than 600 first nations right across Canada, I wonder if you might, for the benefit of the MPs here and Canadians, talk a little bit about rights and title holders and the duty to consult them, and what meaningful two-way dynamic consultation would look like to you.

[Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak]

First of all, just on Bill C-5, I think there are many chiefs behind me who should be speaking about this. Some chiefs are supportive of the economic development opportunities that this bill may provide, while others are absolutely against it. I think the main issue I'm hearing about this bill is that it's being rammed through without consultation or first nations' free, prior and informed consent. If I could look to all of you, I'll have Julie expand a little more on that.

Split this bill. Send the bill back for further study and allow first nations rights holders to attend these hearings so that you can hear directly from them about their rights, titles, communities and ways of life. I think that this country, we're at a pivotal moment here. It has always been...especially first nations. We're the only people around the entire world who are legislated under the Indian Act. No other group—Inuit, Métis—nobody else in the entire world is legislated in the way that our people are legislated.

At the same time, that comes with.... The history of this country has not always been kind to first nations. In this moment, it seems like we've made some progress over the years. We've tried to come together in a better way. We've tried to come together at different tables. You see some communities progressing while others are trying to find their way through the basics of making sure their children have the basics, and there's this huge infrastructure gap. However, at the same time, when you come to this moment and you ram bills through the House and don't take into account the timing...and I've told the Prime Minister and the minister this. I continue to encourage all of you to split this bill. Let's take a little break for a little while and allow for proper consultation with first nations.

I don't want to speak for rights holders. I don't have that mandate. We will be meeting on September 3, 4 and 5. I look forward to hearing from my chiefs then and getting the specifics on what I can and cannot say at that point. At the same time, I think you all have an opportunity this summer to go out to our communities and talk to our leadership, our first nations people from coast to coast to coast, in your territories. All of you have first nations in your territories.

Again, congratulations to all of you on becoming new MPs just moments ago, but let's not start this session off like this. Let's start it off a better way by respecting each other and working together more closely rather than dividing and having a very divided Canada in a moment when we need to be together. First nations have always pulled for this country, but at the same time, pushing us aside and not allowing voices to be heard at this table is not the way to go with this bill. I ask you to split this bill, hold it for the summer and allow for proper consultation with our nations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, National Chief.

Thank you, Ms. Stubbs.

Next we turn the floor to Mr. Greaves.

Mr. Greaves, the floor is yours. You have six minutes for your line of questioning, sir.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, colleagues.

Thank you for being here, National Chief.

Thank you to the other witnesses, chiefs and leaders in the room today. It's an honour for me to be speaking with you during my first time at an in-person committee meeting here in the Parliament of Canada.

National Chief, if I may, given, as you pointed out, the limited amount of time that's been made available for first nations and other indigenous peoples to speak to the contents of this act, I wonder whether we could discuss a little some of the ways in which the provisions might be improved in light of the comments you've made.

You observed that proposed paragraph 5(6)(d) of the act could be strengthened by including language around free, prior and informed consent being a mandatory component for first nations, a step above the idea of consultation. I'm wondering whether you would feel that including language around free, prior and informed consent elsewhere in the bill—notably, proposed paragraphs 7(2)(c) and 8(3)(b)—might, similarly, strengthen the language and the commitment to ensuring not just consultation but free, prior and informed consent from indigenous peoples.

Would changes along those lines start down the path of addressing the concerns you've raised today? I welcome your thoughts on that.

[Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak]

I'll say this: I don't have specific amendments, as I do not have a mandate from the chiefs in assembly to provide a position on how this bill can be amended. However, I will say that you should hear from first nations rights holders directly, and that we are concerned about cabinet's absolute power to determine what projects of national interest are based on what cabinet thinks is in the best interests of first nations. We are also concerned that cabinet can unilaterally choose that laws don't apply, like the Impact Assessment Act.

We are concerned that the duty to consult and the United Nations declaration are not operationalized within the bill. We are concerned about the Indian Act's inclusion in schedule 2 of the bill, and it should be taken out. Those are, just generally, what we heard from chiefs across the country in our Monday discussion.

At the same time, they need time to get their lawyers to review things, their policy analysts, traditional people in their communities, elders and youth, but they haven't had that time. Many of them are still fighting fires. They haven't even had, probably, time to look at this act.

I don't know, Julie, whether you have anything further to add to that.

[Julie McGregor]

I think the national chief has captured it quite well. I know that you're referring to proposed paragraph 7(2)(c), which is about “Indigenous peoples whose rights recognized and affirmed by section 35”, with respect to the issuing of the document.

You need to go back to the rights holders to find out their rights that are being affected, and that's where FPIC needs to be applied. Thank you.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Thank you for that.

I'll switch gears a little bit, but you just touched on it again, National Chief, as you did at the beginning of your statement: the context of the fires currently raging across much of central Canada, much of the Prairies, and the context of the climate crisis that we are living in. There is an urgency around some of the shift towards a cleaner energy economy and trying to remove some of the sources of our contributions to degrading the natural environment.

In that context, combined with the context that you noted about the ongoing lack of critical infrastructure in many first nations communities—the desperate need for continued investment in housing, schooling and other essential services in many parts of this country—could you speak to how either you or the chiefs that you work so closely with feel about the possibility that projects of national importance, as outlined in this bill, might be a way of accelerating the pace at which we can address those challenges?

Separate from the questions around consultation that you very clearly spoke to, could you address whether the projects themselves might be a means by which we could accelerate the rate at which those challenges for indigenous communities are addressed?

[Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak]

There have been projects in this country since the creation of this country. How has that benefited first nations people when our little kids are without drinking water, when our little children are without proper homes and access to good, strong schools? We need a lot of schools built in our first nations communities across this country. Trying to wait for some project over here that hasn't worked in the past.... I mean, if that worked so well, why is it not working for first nations people in this country?

We're at a very important moment right now—I get it—where we can try to change our future. However, that doesn't happen by keeping our people from having a voice to say what they need and how we can change our country together. Saying maybe we'll have a project here, maybe you'll get a school or maybe you'll get a house...I don't think that is the way we want to go. Trying to assume that we're going to get all of these big interest projects, that all of a sudden first nations are going to have all these things.... I think our people would beg to differ on that, based on past history.

I think we have an opportunity here to rethink how this country is with first nations people. Let's have that conversation. We ask all of cabinet, all members of Parliament, as well as the Prime Minister, to come and meet with our people face to face; let's dialogue about this during the summer. I've been telling the Prime Minister that, and he has committed to meeting with our leadership across this country. These are the conversations that we have to have on the environment and on how to make our country a better place for everyone, including first nations people.

We're left out of the banking system, for instance. We have to get ministerial loan guarantees to ask for support in some of our communities. People always.... You know, it's out of sight, out of mind. Well, we're here now, and we're becoming stronger and more organized. The status quo is not good enough anymore. Talking about projects and how maybe that will accelerate things...maybe or maybe not. However, I think we need to ask the rights holders that, and they need a seat at this table, just like anybody else.

By ramming this through, you're also.... Follow your own laws. I also say that you're trampling on the rights and laws of many other Canadians as well. They need a voice, and they need the laws that come through this House to make it better for everybody. That means that we make space for each other and that we respect each other. This isn't a way to respect each other. We don't need more colonialism when we have Trump's colonialism at our borders. Ramming something through is not the way to go.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, National Chief.

Thank you, as well, Mr. Greaves.

We now go to Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

You may go ahead for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for you, Mr. St‑Hilaire.

You said in your opening remarks that the government seems to be giving itself powers that amount to what we would call emergency powers under the Canadian Constitution, but without admitting it.

We are seeing the government give itself this kind of power without admitting to it clearly and openly, and without a full debate on the matter.

How should we interpret that from a legal and democratic standpoint?