Transport Committee on June 17th, 2025

[Maxime St-Hilaire]

That is precisely the problem I wanted to raise. The issue is that the government is not admitting to an emergency that is being passed off as a normal situation, whereas the use of emergency measures would usually be subject to debate. In a democratic society, it is the role of the opposition to demand that. It is not the role of the legal system. All the law can do is check whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that an emergency exists. The scrutiny, then, has to come from politicians. Politically, it is up to the executive to show that the situation cannot be dealt with under the laws in place. That is what it needs to prove.

The concepts are being confused: This bill is being passed as though it's a normal piece of legislation, without being described as an emergency measure, all in the name of virtues everyone agrees on. What the bill does is set aside a good many laws that exist for the public interest. An emergency measure like this one is always about choosing certain values or objectives over others. That is why the bill sets out an exemption from the regime that would normally govern. The regime exists to protect the common good. In taking exceptional measures, the government is focusing on something very specific. The focus in this case is on economic prosperity. Section 4 of the proposed act refers to national security. It's in there.

That comes with costs, and they concern the environment, public health, the recognition and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples, energy security and public safety.

That means there is another shortcoming—I will conclude my answer on this point—and it relates to the review of the act. The review does not involve weighing the costs and benefits. There is no cost-benefit analysis. In other words, the review is based solely on the emergency objectives and does not assess the costs in terms of protecting the common good, which takes a broad range of forms.

That should be debated.

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

That's a very interesting point. If the bill is passed and the new act is reviewed, presumably, given the current context, the review should take into account not just the objectives of the act, but also its consequences on all other aspects of society.

I have another question for you. Is there anything in the bill that would limit misuse of the provisions? The government is claiming that the exemption is being granted to approve or accelerate certain projects. What assurance do we have in the bill that the exception won't become the rule?

[Maxime St-Hilaire]

That is precisely the risk, in other words, emergency measures becoming the norm. There is no focus on the seriousness of the measure; that isn't being highlighted. There is no transparency. The ambiguity is being taken advantage of, and the line between the exception and the rule is being blurred. What this does is create a new regime. The bill is transferring power from Parliament to the executive. That is how the legislation works. It is giving the executive the power to circumvent rules enacted by Parliament for the purpose of carrying out projects. A few years ago, Tom Fleming did some very interesting work on another problem associated with normalizing emergency measures, and that is the increased use of delegated legislation and executive government.

Ironically, even though you've all heard of legislative inflation, the reality is almost the opposite. The problem is that parliaments are increasingly withdrawing and giving the executive the power to adopt general legal norms. That is the case in almost every Commonwealth country. That is one of the risks. A regime that functions by exception is giving the executive extensive regulatory powers and the ability to circumvent ordinary legislation. That gives rise to new habits, and what is supposed to be the exception becomes the rule. The individual, the citizen, no longer knows how to distinguish between the exception and the rule.

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

Thank you very much. That's fascinating.

I'm unfortunately out of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval and Mr. St‑Hilaire.

Next, we'll go to Mr. Lawrence.

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

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

I'm going to give my time to Ms. Stubbs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Ms. Stubbs, the floor is yours.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, colleague.

Thank you, Chair.

Again, I want to thank you, Chief Woodhouse Nepinak, for being here. Because of the timeline you have raised, I am going to turn my questioning to Ms. Swift, but on your comments, if the government continues on this course, I think it should concern proponents of this legislation. Although there may be goodwill and an attempt to try to get to a “yes” in a good way on major projects, it seems likely that the outcomes would be challenged, which would then defeat the very purpose of wanting to fast-track projects in the first place. I do hope that the Prime Minister and the ministers will listen to you, as they are the decision-makers too.

Ms. Swift, I wonder if you would expand on the shortcomings in Bill C-5 that your coalition has identified, particularly around projects that will or will not make the cut, which is a mystery and will be done secretly and behind closed doors, behind politicians, as far as we can tell so far.

[Catherine Swift]

The wording in the bill is incredibly vague and generic. I mean, there are things like, we're going to approve projects that benefit the economy of Canada. Duh. I'm sorry, but that is just so.... It wouldn't say, “No, no, we're going to have projects that hurt Canada.” It just sounds absurd to me. It tells me that this was whipped together awfully quickly. The government is just basically mouthing platitudes instead of giving any kinds of specifics, such as what sectors these should be in.

I mean, we have a lot of information in this country about what types of projects are needed. Why not more specifics? I think it's because this has been whipped together awfully quickly. The government wants to give itself an immense amount of leeway, and that's a problem.

Let's face it. That's a problem. How can you pass a bill when you don't really even know what it's talking about?

The manufacturing community has suffered greatly over the last decade, sadly, because as a country we say that we want to retain a strong manufacturing sector. Part of our problem—my background is as an economist—is that we know we have a huge productivity issue in Canada. The number one sector that will help our productivity is manufacturing and, actually, oil and gas as well. Those are the sectors that are so productive that they bring up the productivity performance of the entire country, yet those are being horribly neglected by the federal government—and by some provincial governments as well, to be fair.

The lack of specificity, the vagueness, I think that's a major problem. The government is asking for an enormous amount of trust but is not giving us enough detail to really warrant much trust on the part of the business community or the electorate in general.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

To your point, the sectors of the economy that have lost the most jobs in the last year are in fact manufacturing and all of the key sectors in natural resources. Do you have concerns about the fact that the two-year timeline actually doesn't exist in the legislation? These are claims about the timelines on which decisions will be made.

To your point, if you'd like to expand, what is the point of all of this temporary workaround rigmarole if there are 13 laws and five regulations that Bill C-5 can then circumvent? Doesn't it seem more reasonable that the government would actually just fix those fundamentals and that would be the long-term predictable certain solution for investors?

[Catherine Swift]

That would be immensely important, yes. Why have that law out there, whatever it may be—the Impact Assessment Act, the emissions cap, etc.? Why have these laws at all? If you want the power to override them, then you're basically telling all of us that they're bad. If they're bad, why keep them on the books? Get rid of them.

Like I said before in my opening remarks, if you're an international investor, I'd be very distrustful, and Canada depends a lot on foreign investment. Even on domestic investment, too, if you're looking at keeping those problematic laws on the books, yet you're saying, “Oh, we may override them from time to time just to do this particular project”....

Mind you, we have very loosey-goosey sorts of regulations around and so on. If I were a foreign investor, I'd avoid them like the plague, but that's what we need: We need investment badly. It has plummeted in Canada over the last number of years. Without it, we're going to remain a weak economy, at the bottom of the G7 like we are now, and we'll have a lower standard of living for all Canadians, because let's face it. If the economy isn't good, nobody's having a good time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Swift, and thank you, Ms. Stubbs.

Mr. Kelloway, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's an honour to be here today, to be with you.

Chief Woodhouse Nepinak, my dad was a coal miner in Unama'ki for probably 35 years. He didn't say a lot, but he would often say to me that he never learned much when he was talking. It was about listening. I really want to thank you and others who are here today and who have had some sidebar conversations. I hope to have more.

National Chief, I want to take this opportunity to give you the time to talk a little bit more. There may be things here that you want to unpack in relation to proposed sections 5 and 6. You talked about free, prior and informed consent. It might be something you didn't get a chance to speak to. I want to give you this time to communicate that to us. I may have a question or two, or this can be a simple matter of time for you to use.

[Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak]

That's very kind of you. Thank you so very much.

Look, when we talk about a national interest project, I think one thing that's common among first nations, and it should be for Canadians as well, is that if we were to close the first nations infrastructure gap, that alone would have a bigger economic impact than the negative aspect of all Trump's tariffs if they were to remain. It is the right thing to do, but also economically the scale of it provides a huge return to first nations and to this country as well. Prime Minister Carney said that very quote during the AFN virtual leaders forum on April 25, 2025, during the election.

Canada can also demonstrate to the world that we can win by being inclusive and by respecting rights and treaties, because Canada's gross domestic product is generated off of first nations lands and resources. Over $560 billion of projects are forecasted to be launched on our traditional lands over the next decade. The potential benefits are measured in the trillions of dollars, but they won't advance without first nations support.

There's clean water, quality housing, reliable roads and power supplies, modern schools and health care facilities, and high-speed Internet. According to the Conference Board of Canada, a $350-billion investment to close the first nations infrastructure gap by 2030 will generate over $635 billion in economic output over the next seven years and create more than 300,000 jobs each year. That's not just including first nations. Many Canadians will benefit from that. This means that Canada moves from last to first in the G7 for average annual GDP per capita growth. Invest in our roads. Invest in our schools. If there's one thing we start off with right now, quickly, that's the way to go.

As well, split this bill and hold for the summer. Start investing in first nations infrastructure projects right in our communities, right across the country, so that we close that gap for all of our children. It's just disheartening when you see it day in and day out. I think all of our kids—your kids, my kids, our grandkids—deserve a better Canada than we have at the moment. We can do that by working together and by making sure that the voices of first peoples are heard.

If I have a moment, Mr. Chair, I would like to talk about FPIC. People always ask about that. If you read the declaration carefully, the standard of free, prior and informed consent is obtaining, not simply seeking, consent.

FPIC means exactly what it says—“free”. That means the process of consulting with first nations and obtaining consent must be free of intimidation, coercion or other forms of duress.

“Prior” means consultation and co-operation must take place before decisions are made, not after a bill is passed with projects pre-approved in advance of actual consultation and dialogue about consent.

“Informed” means that indigenous peoples must have access to all relevant information to make their own decisions. Critically, indigenous peoples must have the time and opportunity to reach an informed conclusion based on their own forms of decision-making. Informed also means that first nations must be provided information regarding major projects and have access to proper assessment of potential consequences, such as an environmental and social impact assessment, including first nations’ own such processes. It may also require a human rights impact assessment for both collective rights and individual human rights. Translation of information into indigenous languages may also be required

We always talk about free, prior and informed consent. I just wanted to table that with all of you. Thank you.

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

Thank you, National Chief. I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, National Chief.

We now go to Mr. Lemire.

You have two and a half minutes, Mr. Lemire.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to start by thanking our witness Maxime St‑Hilaire. I think the issues he highlighted are especially relevant.

I'd like to ask National Chief Woodhouse Nepinak a question, if I may.

I want to refer to what your legal counsel told the Senate yesterday because I found her comments especially informative.

She said that, when you look at Bill C-5, the duty to consult and the standard of free, prior and informed consent were not operationalized within the legislation, meaning that the standards were interpretive and not included in the bill in any concrete way. She said that, with better consultation, those standards could have been addressed. She also said that amendments were necessary but that the government had not taken the time to consult with first nations.

If Bill C‑5 is passed in the current circumstances, with the use of time allocation, could it again lead to decades-long legal battles with first nations?

[Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak]

Because you're not hearing from first nations directly, I think that's going to cause division right off the bat, as we're seeing. We see the protest on the hill of the legislature this afternoon. I think you're going to see more of that.

Nothing is off the table. First nations are going to review all of the avenues. They always have. They've always protected themselves. They've always had to stand up for themselves. It's so unnecessary. It's 2025. We shouldn't treat each other like this. Trump may be treating his people like that on that side of the border. Let's not copy that. Let's be the good country that we're supposed to be by respecting each other.

A treaty relationship is a two-way street. We have to work together. Will it lead to legal issues later? Certainly it will if you're not talking to the rights holders. I'm sure they're going to take every tool in their tool box and use what they need to protect themselves. I don't blame them.

I think that, like I said, there's a real opportunity here to have a conversation with first nations to start to figure out how to either, one, make this bill better or, two, write a new bill or whatever they have. However, hear them out. That's true even for Canadians. You're going to have legal wrangling right up the yin-yang if you don't do the right thing and do this bill in a proper, respectful and good way. I think Canada can save itself years of litigation if it does that.

Thank you.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much.

Next we have Mr. Muys.

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

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses and all those who came today to this meeting.

My questions will be for Ms. Swift, and I think I know, probably, the answer to this question, although let me pose it to you so that you can elaborate.

With all of the economic challenges that Canada is facing, does this bill meet the moment?

[Catherine Swift]

I don't believe it does. The problem, really, is that it's so vague that pretty much anything could be considered under its auspices. We would very much like to see more specificity, more acknowledgement of the very serious problems Canada is facing.

Danielle Smith said something to me that I thought was very relevant a while ago. It was basically that, because we are not using our resources to our country's advantage.... This doesn't just include oil and gas; this includes minerals. We have such a wealth of resources in this country, and our government has squelched them over the last decade. There's no question about it. You could think of a family that could be taking advantage of something and just doesn't. It's just so foolish. She said that the rest of the world looks at us and thinks that we must be out of our minds. That's very true. Other countries look at us. We know that other countries have come to us and have asked if they could please have some of our LNG—

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Let me interject with a question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Muys, before you ask your next question.... I'm stopping your time here.

Ms. Swift, would you be able to, once again, just lift up your boom mic a bit? It's a request from the interpreters. They can hear you better that way.

[Catherine Swift]

I'm sorry about that.