Transport Committee on June 17th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting two of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, June 16, 2025, the committee commences its consideration of Bill C-5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Pursuant to the Standing Orders, members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application. Before we continue, I ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents, and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including, of course, our interpreters. You will also notice a QR code on the card, which links to a short awareness video.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses as well as our members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation—floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best as we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

I'd now like to welcome our witnesses. First, from Electricity Canada, we have Mr. Francis Bradley, president and chief executive officer. From Public Policy Forum, we have Ms. Yiota Kokkinos, senior executive adviser. Online, we have Mr. David Robitaille, full professor, civil law section, faculty of law, University of Ottawa.

Welcome.

Go ahead, Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Thank you for giving me the floor.

Usually, when a government tables legislation and it is referred to a committee from the House, we get the ministers here. I just want to put on note that I'm deeply dissatisfied—though not at you, Mr. Chair, or the clerk's activities here. This was hastily done, but to have a government say this was their number one priority for this week and to program a motion to not have the ministers come here and justify themselves in front of this committee, I think, is distasteful. I am going to let the ministers know that when they decide to appear, I guess, to do cleanup.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that statement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Albas.

I can confirm with members that the clerk has done a diligent job of securing ministers for tomorrow. They will be appearing at 3:30 p.m. I believe we have confirmed Minister LeBlanc as well as Minister Freeland, and the clerk is working on many others to appear tomorrow. I can confirm that for members.

We'll begin our opening remarks.

If it's okay with you, Mr. Bradley, we'll begin with you. If you have opening remarks, I'll turn the floor over to you. You have five minutes, sir.

[Francis Bradley, President and Chief Executive Officer, Electricity Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Francis Bradley and I'm the chief executive officer of Electricity Canada.

Electricity Canada is the national voice of the power sector. Our members generate, transmit and distribute electricity to every province and territory in Canada.

Thank you for inviting me to speak to Bill C-5. Today I’ll be focusing my comments specifically on the building Canada act.

We believe that this bill represents an important step towards accelerating the approval of major projects in Canada, which will help to build the infrastructure that Canada needs to bolster our economic sovereignty and security.

Electricity is central to Canada's economic success. Available, affordable power was key to building a prosperous country for our parents and grandparents. The electricity infrastructure that we build today will do the same for our children and grandchildren.

Demand for clean, reliable and affordable electricity is predicted to as much as double in some jurisdictions. This is being driven by population growth, rising industrial demand and new technologies like electric vehicles and data centres. This need will only grow greater as Canada pursues industrial strategies to make itself more globally competitive.

We need to build more generation, more transmission and more distribution infrastructure over the next two decades than we have built in generations. Unfortunately, Canada's approval process for major projects has not been up to the task. We've been ranked second to last in the OECD on the time it takes to get construction permits, for example. Streamlining regulatory approvals is a necessary step to get building at pace and at scale. Faster approvals can help get energy projects like new nuclear projects, hydro dams and transmission lines in operation faster. It reduces costs and project risk.

The building Canada act is a key step toward building important things faster. It focuses on how to move a project of national interest forward, not whether it should move forward. We can move faster while forging strong indigenous partnerships and adhering to environmental protections. The act has the potential to provide greater certainty for investors. It mirrors key recommendations that we've made to government, which are included in the annual state of the industry report we've provided to you.

Electricity Canada has long advocated for a two-year time limit on project approvals and for the government to adopt a “one project, one review” approach. We also believe a central major projects office can help coordinate between departments and act as the main point of contact for industry as we navigate an often cumbersome federal system. Beyond approvals, such an office could also help coordinate funding and financing support.

While this bill will have a primary impact on designated projects of national interest—I don't know what is of greater national interest than a strong electricity grid—the lessons learned from these could kick off a needed culture shift in our regulatory agencies and allow for broader improvements. Integrating these lessons more broadly should be an explicit goal of the bill.

Ultimately, it is essential that the regulatory environment for all projects is improved. Delay in getting permits and approvals adds costs for industry, no matter the size of the project. Those costs all end up on customers' bills.

The government must look at how we can better support existing infrastructure. If demand is going to double, we'll have to preserve and optimize what we already have. Too often, federal rules make it difficult to maintain or expand electricity infrastructure, even if it has been in place for decades. The Fisheries Act is the best example. Changes made in 2019 have complicated even the most straightforward maintenance.

We also need to make sure that operating rules don't hinder reliability. The clean electricity regulations will add significant costs and add reliability risks in several Canadian jurisdictions while not meaningfully reducing emissions.

Building the system will also require significant investment that will likely be too great for the ratepayer alone. Parliament must pass the clean electricity investment tax credit to support projects. It should also expand coverage to include all transmission and support distribution investments.

Electricity is a Canadian advantage. We have one of the cleanest electricity grids in the world, at 84% non-emitting. It is reliable and it is competitive. It is a key foundation for Canada's future economic success.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bradley.

We will now go over to Ms. Kokkinos.

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

[Yiota Kokkinos, Senior Executive Adviser, Public Policy Forum]

Thank you, Chair, and members of the committee.

I'm Yiota Kokkinos, senior executive adviser at the Public Policy Forum and former director general at Natural Resources Canada. It's an honour to be with you today.

I think we can all agree that Canada is at a crossroads. We have the resources, talent and global demand, but we're not building energy, infrastructure and critical minerals projects fast enough. The “Build Big Things” report is the Public Policy Forum's call to action, a road map to unlock 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 the “playbook” outlines 10 essential plays that, taken together, will ensure that key projects will 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.

Let me start with why building big things matters. Donald Trump provided Canada with a needed wake-up call. Canada must expand its market access and strengthen federal-provincial co-operation to stay competitive, yet investments in major projects are falling despite our massive potential. Navius Research modelled over $600 billion in proposed projects that are on the books right now that could add $1.1 trillion to the GDP by 2035—a 4.5% increase. That's real growth driven by Canadian resources, Canadian workers and Canadian leadership.

I would add that it's not just about growth. It's about making sure we have reliable, affordable energy that will drive all industrial activity, investment and job creation in Canada and allow us to export to the world. It's about critical mineral supply chains, as well as addressing our climate goals. This is about being bold, strategic and globally competitive.

The good news is that momentum is building across governments to accelerate the identification and approval of nation-building projects. The Public Policy Forum convened federal and provincial governments, regulators, indigenous groups and industry in our broadest consultation ever, and we identified four levers that, if aligned effectively, will unlock investment and drive growth.

The first is coordinating financing to de-risk projects and attract private capital. There is a global competition right now for financing. Other countries are moving faster. We then need to streamline regulations to make them clear, fast and environmentally effective. We should be providing enabling infrastructure, such as transmission lines, roads, ports and the workforce to support major builds. Finally, we need indigenous economic participation. This is critical, including real equity and capital access from day one.

They're all practical steps. They are achievable, and they're very much aligned with the direction that Bill C-5 is going in. This legislation is a vital first step, but implementation depends on strong partnerships across governments and with indigenous peoples. That's where major projects have succeeded in the past.

Our playbook offers a path forward, but the details matter. We recommend 10 essential plays. I will highlight three of these that would enhance the bill's implementation.

First, we need strong, accountable governance, starting with the Prime Minister. These projects are vast and complex and necessitate a high degree of oversight to succeed. We suggest a deputy ministers' committee that meets regularly, backed by a cabinet committee, to drive coordination and delivery. When governments are disciplined, focused, aligned and committed, we can succeed. We did it during COVID, and we can do it again.

Second, we need to sort out the alphabet soup of federal funding programs. Right now, project proponents and indigenous peoples are bounced from the Canada Infrastructure Bank to the clean growth fund and so on and back again. There are about 10. This process needs coordination. We need a single front door to package the right mix of loans, guarantees and incentives.

Third, we need a strategic investment office, not just a regulatory office. It should be a whole-of-government team that aligns financing, regulatory approvals, broader infrastructure and indigenous participation under one roof, with the financial expertise to assess projects and deliver value for public dollars.

In closing, how this bill is implemented will determine whether it delivers. It will take strong, sustained leadership across all levels of government and a culture shift within the public service that breaks down the silos, prioritizes collaboration, speed and problem-solving, and embraces opportunity over risk avoidance.

Implementation isn't the fine print; it is the outcome.

I invite you to read the “Build Big Things” report on the Public Policy Forum website. It was entered into evidence.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Kokkinos.

Next, we'll go to Mr. Robitaille, who's joining us online.

The floor is yours, sir. You have five minutes.

[David Robitaille, Full Professor, Civil Law Section, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you.

The bill enacting the Building Canada Act, which I'll be focusing on today, could significantly affect provincial jurisdictions and Canadian federalism. The Prime Minister publicly stated his desire for the bill to take into account provincial jurisdictions and needs.

However, in its current form, the bill fails to achieve this goal. The Building Canada Act isn't explicitly limited to works, projects or infrastructure under exclusive federal jurisdiction. The notion of national interest is broadly defined enough to include projects located entirely within one province.

For example, the preamble states that national interest projects include projects that:

strengthen Canada's ability to trade, enhance the development of Canada's natural resources as well as its energy production and infrastructure;

However, the development of natural resources and the strengthening of Canada's energy capacity largely involve projects that normally fall under provincial jurisdiction pursuant to subsections 92A(1) and 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The exploration, extraction and production of non‑renewable natural resources, forestry and hydroelectricity, along with the related environmental considerations, were allocated to the provinces by the constituent. At first glance, the preamble to the act seems to refer to both federal and provincial works, contrary to the constitutional division of powers.

In addition, the bill grants broad discretionary power to the Governor in Council to designate a national interest project. Under subclause 5(6), this designation may be made by order, on the recommendation of the minister, taking into account certain factors that are neither cumulative nor exhaustive. Although the bill provides for consultation with the provinces under subclause 5(7), it doesn't make the designation of national interest projects conditional on their consent. This leaves the door open for the federal government to impose unilateral decisions on the provinces in their own areas of jurisdiction.

In terms of the conditions that would be imposed on national interest projects, the bill doesn't include any obligation to consult the provinces. According to subclause 7(2), the minister responsible must consult the relevant federal ministers and the first nations concerned. It seems that, once the provinces have been consulted prior to the inclusion of a project on the schedule of national interest projects, the provinces are no longer involved in the development of the projects or in ensuring compliance with the conditions imposed on them. As a result, the projects seem to fall outside provincial control and, in particular, outside the application of provincial standards such as the standards set out in Quebec's Environment Quality Act and its equivalent in the other provinces.

Lastly, the bill often uses the phrase “national interest”. This could mean that Parliament considers the Building Canada Act a valid exercise of the national interest doctrine in constitutional law. However, in Canadian constitutional law, the national interest doctrine meets criteria that have been fairly well defined by the Supreme Court of Canada, even quite recently. Matters of significance to Canada as a whole, which clearly transcend provincial interests, may be of national interest. According to the Supreme Court, these matters must be specific and clearly distinguishable from matters of provincial jurisdiction and must have an impact that extends beyond provincial boundaries and the provinces' ability to take action for the long term. The Supreme Court of Canada set out and developed these criteria in its most recent carbon pricing reference.

The following matters have been recognized as matters of national interest: the establishment of national minimum standards for the stringent pricing of greenhouse gases; the pollution of the provinces' inland seas; the creation of the National Capital Commission's green belt; nuclear energy and aeronautics. These specific and distinct matters are intrinsically extra‑provincial in nature and impact. Broad and vague matters that constitute aggregates of provincial jurisdictions aren't of national interest. For example, the court ruled that inflation, the environment and greenhouse gases in general weren't of national interest.

As you can see, the national interest in the constitutional sense is quite specific and narrowly defined. It doesn't fall into the category of matters generally considered of national economic and commercial interest. Given all this, it's far from certain that the Building Canada Act would be deemed valid by the courts based on the national interest doctrine. Although it included a number of references to federal jurisdictions, the Impact Assessment Act was nonetheless deemed partially unconstitutional by the Supreme Court owing to its overly broad and imprecise scope and its encroachment on provincial jurisdictions.

By failing to explicitly state that its objectives are limited to projects under federal jurisdiction, Bill C‑5 faces a risk of being struck down.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Robitaille.

We will begin today with a line of questioning from Ms. Stubbs.

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

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here, both in person and virtually, for their testimony.

We, as Conservatives, over the last 10 years, certainly have advocated for certainty, clarity, predictability and fairness in conditions so that proponents are able to invest and build, and we have long advocated for expedited approvals and for clarity from the government.

Mr. Bradley, maybe we could start with you. Can you outline your main concerns regarding Bill C-5 in terms of certainty and clarity?

[Francis Bradley]

The principal concerns I have are what's not covered by Bill C-5. The challenge I foresee is the expectation that there will be a small set of projects that will be deemed in the “national interest”, but what is going to be required to meet our future requirements in the electricity sector—and probably for other critical infrastructure sectors—will likely be both within that small subset of national interest projects, but also, for a lot of them, outside the national interest projects.

Bill C-5 does not address some fundamental problems that we see as a sector with, for example, clean electricity regulations, the Impact Assessment Act, the Fisheries Act and others.

Our concern is really with respect to what isn't covered and what projects would fall outside those being deemed as within the national interest.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Yes, and to your point, I wonder if you might share some of the concerns of your members who are on the front lines and having to deliver affordable, reliable power to residents right across the country. I wonder if you might expand on those differences among the provinces and the punitive one-size-fits-all nature of the electricity regulations.

Also, do you have any comments on the timelines for decisions to date on projects that are waiting for approval?

[Francis Bradley]

Yes. On the issues around the clean electricity regulations, we've been very clear over the past year, both with officials within the department and with elected officials, in terms of what our concerns are. We've been very clear that our concerns have to do with the reliability impacts and the cost in some jurisdictions in the country—most particularly in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario, but not exclusively in those jurisdictions. Our concerns are not political, as I kept telling people over the past year. This is a question of physics. It is just basic physics.

The clean electricity regulations were developed and based upon economic models. The people in my sector are responsible for reliability, and their reliability projections are not based upon economic models. They're based upon reliability models.

The principal concerns we've been bringing forward are the concerns of the system operators and the people who actually have to deliver electricity to customers. We see an impact here, potentially directly, on reliability and on rates in multiple jurisdictions in the country.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

This is part of the reason why Conservatives advocate scrapping the electricity regulations, particularly in the context of a government that says it wants to fast-track and provide clarity and certainty for proponents like the members you represent.

To that end, then, again, does it concern you that there isn't clarity, as you indicated, around the definition of the “national interest”? There's also the ability in Bill C-5 for a sweeping power to, once a project has been designated as being in the national interest, also remove it. Does that lack of clarity concern your members in terms of being able to make long-term decisions?

[Francis Bradley]

The missing piece in all of this in the legislation—and of course, given the short timelines, it's not terribly surprising—is that schedule 1 is blank. As you know, there are open questions in terms of what would be in schedule 1 and what would be out of schedule 1, and then whether something would remain within the national interest. Yes, those are certainly concerns that we would have.

We think that directionally this is good. We're hoping, as I indicated in my prepared remarks, that it actually signals a change, a change that we'll see throughout the different regulatory authorities, really, because there's something in the order of about 90 federal laws, regulations and statutes that affect the electricity sector, a sector that is, in theory, a provincial responsibility. The ability to actually bring a project forward trips over a multitude of these different statutes. We're hoping that this is a signal of not just addressing what can be done for national interest projects, but indicating a more efficient approach to regulation going forward.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Instead of having a temporary bill that is set up to be a workaround for the various policies and legislation your members have to navigate, wouldn't it make more sense to have clarity in this bill on schedule 1 and the conditions that proponents must meet, and a definition of the “national interest”?

Wouldn't it also make more sense to streamline and fix the fundamental issues with the excessive red tape and uncertainty that your members face?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Give a 20-second response, please, sir.

[Francis Bradley]

Yes, it would be great to see those 90 different statutes, laws and so on change, but that's not something we would expect to see in the first week of a government.

I recognize that time is short.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bradley.

Thank you, Ms. Stubbs.

Next we'll go to Mr. Kelloway.

The floor is yours. You have six minutes, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's great to see the committee members.

Thanks to the witnesses for coming here.

I acknowledge that MP May is here as well, to the right of where I'm sitting.

I want to go to you, Mr. Bradley, for my questions. I appreciate the testimony from everyone because there's a lot to chew on with these questions for you.

We talked about looking at Bill C-5 from an economic development standpoint. We even talked about it from an affordability standpoint. We'll get into that if I have the time, but I want to look at the workforce modelling that may be done or may have been done by your operation. Do we get a sense of the possibilities in workforce development in terms of jobs?

I come from Atlantic Canada. Obviously, electricity as a source of energy is top of mind with all four premiers, whether it's hydro, whether it's nuclear or whether it's offshore or onshore wind. I'm looking to get a sense, with this legislation, of what this could contribute in terms of jobs, both in the short and long term.

[Francis Bradley]

That's an excellent question, Mr. Chair.

The challenge being faced by the electricity sector in particular with respect to ensuring that we have sufficient human resources is one that both our association and one of our partner associations, Electricity Human Resources Canada, have been looking at. We've been developing projections for what the workforce requirements are going to be in the future, and they're going to be significant.

I mentioned earlier that we're expecting to see demand for electricity out to 2050 double. Do we have enough people to be able to do that? No, we don't. Will there be significant growth in terms of the people in our sector? There absolutely will.

We're very concerned about the pipeline of talent and ensuring that we have sufficient talent. It's something that we addressed previously. We have some recommendations in this space, as does Electricity Human Resources Canada.

Related to that, I would also note that I'm concerned about the pipeline of people, but I'm also concerned about the pipeline of equipment. The supply chain is a very significant issue, and it will continue to be a big concern for us going forward.

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

Thanks for those comments. In particular, thank you for focusing on, I would assume, a need for a training plan and an upskilling plan across the country with respect to electricity and other items related to energy.

I'm wondering if we can pivot for a second. It's in the same milieu, of course, but when we're looking at electricity, again, with your modelling and your conversations in the industry, do we get a sense, when we scale up initiatives and projects, of how that will impact climate change in Canada?

Is there any type of modelling you could provide on prognostications at this point?

[Francis Bradley]

Yes. Our members and the sector are committed to and working toward net zero economy-wide by 2050. We recognize that the only way we will be able to achieve that is through pretty significant electrification to begin with.

Electricity is the sector that a lot of other sectors will be looking to in order to decarbonize. In transportation, for example, how are we going to reduce our emissions? Again, it will be through electricity, which is why the demand is expected to increase so significantly as we go forward.

As a sector, we're looking at every opportunity and an all-of-the-above approach to decarbonization as we head to the future. There are new technologies that are going to be coming down the track that will continue the reduction in emissions. We're at 84% non-emitting today, and that will continue to increase as we move into the future.

The future will be one where there is a continued decrease in overall emissions from the sector.

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

We're among friends here, and there are cameras here, so we have some other friends watching as well. When we talk about large-scale initiatives under the electricity banner, do particular projects come to mind? I know that regulations come to mind. That will be key here. How do you become lean but still stringent in terms of due diligence? Do certain projects come to mind?

I don't want to prejudice any decision-making body, but certainly you have some interest when you look at Canada and you look at where those opportunities are. Do certain projects come to mind that you could share with us?

[Francis Bradley]

Rather than point to specific projects, I can talk about the classes of projects that we absolutely know will be in our future.