Transport Committee on June 17th, 2025

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses attending online and in person.

I'll turn to you, Ms. Kokkinos. You have managed a number of intergovernmental projects and showed us your experience.

Do you think that Bill C‑5 will make our government's work easier? Can you elaborate on how it will bring our work in line with the work of the provinces and territories? We haven't talked much about municipalities, even though they'll have a role to play. All three levels of government are involved, along with indigenous peoples.

Can you describe the alignment that Bill C‑5 will bring to future projects?

[Yiota Kokkinos]

Thank you very much for the question.

What Bill C-5 tries to do is to bring all authorizations under one minister, but it's not a unilateral thing. That minister—the Governor in Council, I think they call them—is going to have to consult with the provinces and the territories involved in the specific projects and with the indigenous communities or rights holders involved in the specific projects. It may also be municipalities. These things are not going to be undertaken in a vacuum; that is how I read the bill.

What I do like about it is that we have some thinking outside of the box, because the moment calls for it. We can no longer think about project approvals the way we used to think about them. There's real momentum right now that we're seeing with the provinces, the territories and the indigenous rights holders all coming together and wanting to work collaboratively to move these projects forward, because it won't happen any other way; it really won't.

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

Mr. Bradley told us about the sometimes lengthy time frames, which will now be shorter. You have a personal commitment to the environment. Do you think that shorter time frames could affect our ability to carry out our projects? Do you think that we can complete the projects while taking into account both the environment and more reasonable time frames?

[Yiota Kokkinos]

Yes, my reading of Bill C-5 is that all the environmental protections that are currently in place will still be adhered to. The idea is to look at what process improvements we can make to make sure that we're not duplicating efforts—whether we can do things in parallel, for example, and not sequentially—but the idea is not to circumvent any environmental laws. That's how I interpret the bill, and that's the way it's going to have to happen, I believe.

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

Ms. Kokkinos, as you know, there is significant jurisdictional overlap. Officials from all levels of government have a hand in these projects, which leads to a great deal of repetition. Mr. Bradley mentioned establishing a major projects office to deal specifically with projects of national interest, helping to advance them.

You didn't mention a similar office, but do you think Mr. Bradley is on the right track with his recommendation for a major projects office? Such an office would take into account both the environment and stakeholders, be they indigenous communities, municipalities, provinces, territories or the federal government.

[Yiota Kokkinos]

Thank you.

Yes, the major projects office is something that we talked about during our consultations. We see it as critically important. The government will need a focal point to coordinate these projects.

However, where we would see the government going further with this office is by also integrating the financing, critical enabling infrastructure, indigenous consultation and economic participation components. You can't have those scattered around the office. It would be a missed opportunity to have those outside the office. Our experience has been that, with projects like LNG Canada—which did bring all those four components together right from the beginning, including the financing—this led to the project being approved in two years, and the financing was also approved very quickly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you once again, Ms. Kokkinos.

Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.

We now go to Mr. Barsalou‑Duval for three minutes and 15 seconds.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is again for Mr. Robitaille.

You are a constitutional expert, if I'm not mistaken, but first and foremost, you are a lawyer. It's clear that under the process set out in Bill C‑5, projects can basically be pre-approved somewhat secretly, without the public necessarily being consulted beforehand. The assessment is then done, but with the advance knowledge that the project is going to be approved. It is always the government, indeed the minister, establishing the conditions. The whole process is pretty opaque.

Normally, the process would require approvals from a number of authorities. In this case, though, since there is only one authority, only one approval is needed.

Is that risky, from an ethical standpoint?

[David Robitaille]

The risk is that the environmental laws enacted by the provinces and by Parliament will not be respected, that they will be circumvented.

Mr. Lauzon referred to the jurisdictional overlap in Canadian federalism, and it is true, but that overlap does not mean the government can seek to dismiss provincial authority at all costs. With the constitutional division of powers, the provinces are not subordinate to Parliament, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly established. Like Parliament, the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over certain things. As the bill is written, I do not see an intention to respect the division of powers—and that is the problem.

Joint assessments have been carried out in the past. They are rare, but they have happened. What that approach does is ensure that provinces and first nations are treated as equal partners of the federal government, not as subordinates to a central authority. It is important to take that into account in this bill.

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

Thank you. That doesn't quite answer my question, but I understand you wanted to elaborate on that point.

You said that Bill C-5 could apply to projects being carried out strictly within a single province. That could include projects that fall exclusively under provincial jurisdiction such as natural resource projects. They would automatically be pre-approved.

Am I wrong to say that amounts to federal overreach?

[David Robitaille]

The bill does indeed circumvent existing processes set out in federal and provincial legislation. It circumvents public participation, civic engagement, first nations participation and municipality involvement.

It's not for nothing that environmental laws set out rigorous processes for assessment and public participation. The idea here is to move quickly at all costs, but there is definitely a risk that projects could have consequences we end up regretting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Robitaille.

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Next, we'll go with Dr. Lewis.

Dr. Lewis, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, please.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bradley, you spoke of the importance of electricity. Do you have an opinion on the electricity grid capacity and whether we have sufficient electricity infrastructure to even facilitate Bill C-5?

[Francis Bradley]

I don't think there's a requirement for electricity capacity specifically for Bill C-5. It will remain to be seen whether projects that will build upon the electricity infrastructure of the country are, in fact, covered and identified as national interest projects. We're certainly hoping that some of them will be.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

If I may turn to Ms. Kokkinos, you spoke of a two-year time limit. Are you getting that from the bill, or is that something you are just speaking to in general?

[Yiota Kokkinos]

In our report, “Build Big Things”, we did recommend a two-year regulatory and permitting approvals timeline. The government has committed to a two-year timeline outside of the bill, so it has chosen not to legislate this.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Is it not in the bill?

[Yiota Kokkinos]

It's not in the bill, but it is a government commitment outside the bill.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you.

I'm sorry to go back and forth, but I'll go back to you, Mr. Bradley.

Would you see resource projects like oil and gas extraction being in the national interest under Bill C-5?

[Francis Bradley]

I'm here representing the electricity sector, so I'm only going to be talking about electricity projects. My colleagues who work for the oil and gas associations have strong views on that, I'm sure.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Okay. I can ask the constitutional expert.

I'll go back to you, Ms. Kokkinos.

With respect to the strategic investment office, I found it very interesting that you spoke about that. Would something like that include a watchdog for tenders and deliverables? We had a lot of problems during COVID with respect to waste and mismanagement. Do you see the transparency in that office as something that needs to be developed and perhaps operationalized?

[Yiota Kokkinos]

The real benefit of a strategic investment office and coordinating the financing is that it is really going to allow the government to optimize its federal spend on any particular project, because they're going to be able to align the best type of funding with a particular project. You won't have, for example, project proponents going to window A with their proposal and then window B and window C trying to see, for example, how much federal funding they could get. It would allow, probably through NDAs, for example—that's what we would envisage—the federal government to work with the proponent to see exactly what it is that's going to unlock that final investment decision for a project, with a view to minimizing how much the federal government has to invest in the project. There are real opportunities here.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you for that answer.

My next question is for Mr. Robitaille.

Who determines if a project is in the national interest, keeping in mind the constitutional implications under sections 91 and 92?

[David Robitaille]

It depends on what we mean by “national interest”. If we mean national interest in the constitutional sense, it should be the court and the tribunals. Parliament made the first judgment. They adopted a law that they think is valid under constitutional law. It's ultimately up to the court to determine whether the constitution is respected.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Essentially, you're saying that this bill is a constitutionally invalid bill.