Transport Committee on June 18th, 2025

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

You mentioned that there is a concentration of power in the hands of the executive branch, which weakens parliamentary power. Can you clarify what you are proposing in this regard, that it would instead be Parliament and not an order in council that would lead to the designation of projects and conditions?

[Sabaa Ahmad Khan]

First of all, we think this process is too hasty. It's impossible to conduct a consultation in two years if it has to take five years.

Among the recommendations we are proposing, our first priority would be to delete proposed sections 21 and 22 and paragraphs 23(a) and (b) of the act proposed in part 2 of Bill C-5.

Our second priority would be to clarify that the authorization document must meet the existing requirements of the responsible departments with respect to project approval and the exclusion of sections 73, 74 and 77 of the Species at Risk Act to ensure that the project will not compromise the survival and recovery of an endangered species or that its effects will be mitigated.

Our third priority would be the introduction of public participation requirements by adding section 8.1 to the proposed act in part 2 of the bill. This new section would require the minister to ensure that the public has an opportunity to meaningfully participate in any decision made under subsections 5(1), 5(3), 7(1), 8(1) and 8(2) of the proposed act.

We also want the minister to be required to make available to the public all relevant information, including a detailed project description, any information received from a proponent and any other federal minister, any information received from a regulatory body referred to in clauses 9, 10, 11 and 15 of the proposed act in part 2 of the bill, any comments received from the public, and any knowledge or information received from indigenous peoples, to the extent that the person providing that knowledge or information did not stipulate that it was confidential.

All of our amendments are in the document we submitted in collaboration with Ecojustice on parts 1 and 2 of the bill.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

You also mentioned the tariff crisis that the government is currently using to justify this bill. We know that a free trade agreement will be negotiated and should probably be finalized by the end of 2026. Is the current five-year period set out in the bill much too long given this new agreement and the fact that the entire tariff crisis will be over by then? Should that period be reduced from five years to two years, for example?

[Sabaa Ahmad Khan]

I think the risk is real but, as I said in my comments, it is important not to endanger public health and the environment.

It would be more strategic not to focus on renegotiating the agreement with the United States and Mexico, but rather to diversify our relations with other countries. In that sense, we can see that the European Union has been an ally of Canada for a very long time. We have a free trade agreement with them. In addition, the European Union's domestic market incorporates the precautionary principle. Environmental protection is one of the objectives of that domestic market, and I think that's closer to the values of Canadians. It's also much more—

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Ms. Khan, but I would like to clarify my question. Thank you for your explanation.

With regard to the current five-year designation period for projects, given that the tariff crisis will obviously be resolved by an agreement with the United States, it seems to me that you are proposing that the project designation period be reduced from five years to two years and, as a result, the deadline for reconsideration of this bill.

[Sabaa Ahmad Khan]

According to our reading of the bill, a decision, an authorization process that would normally take five years, will be made in two years. However, there are a lot of risks associated with shortening the timeline. The problem we foresee is that there won't be enough consultation. We've heard a lot of conflicting views on this bill. This shows that we really don't need to rush to pass this bill, but rather take the time to consult all the parties over the summer—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Khan.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Witnesses, I want to thank all of you for coming and sharing your testimony here tonight. I'm not going to have time to ask everyone all the questions that I have, but I do appreciate your presence.

I'll start with the Canadian Cancer Society, but quickly, I just need to remind everyone that we do have an all-party cancer caucus where we talk a lot about these issues. If people would like to know more about that, I'd be happy to share about that.

I'll now go to the Canadian Cancer Society. Thanks for being here.

When you're talking about the changes in Bill C-5 that would allow for a provincial standard to be recognized in an area of federal.... For example, on a Canadian Armed Forces base, a first nations indigenous community or a national park, if a building were to be constructed and it had, under the federal rules, no asbestos in the use of certain materials, what you're saying is if this law were to pass, if a province allows a certain amount of asbestos in that building material, it could be used instead. Do I have that right?

[Rob Cunningham]

It doesn't apply just to places in federal jurisdiction, such as armed forces bases, a national park, RCMP or federal government property and so on. It applies generally the way the bill is currently drafted, so that's of concern to us.

The example directly given by the government is washing machines and energy efficiency standards. It's not just on places that are under federal responsibility, such as federal property or military bases, armed forces bases and so on. It would apply in general, provided there's interprovincial trade, and in a lot of product categories there's a lot of interprovincial trade, so that's where our concern arises.

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

Can you give me a tangible product? What would be the difference, though, in a washing machine under a lesser standard, in your opinion, versus a higher one being held by the federal government?

[Rob Cunningham]

One example would be asbestos, where the federal government bans asbestos in products, in building materials, whereas provinces allow a certain percentage. Now, it's still a low percentage, but it's asbestos.

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

Could you name which provinces have these standards?

[Rob Cunningham]

Ontario would be one. There are many provinces—

I can get back to the committee.

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

If you wouldn't mind writing that, I do think that's important for people to know.

[Rob Cunningham]

Yes.

There are multiple provinces in this context, and they have different percentage standards.

The way the bill is currently written, the spirit is that if you comply with this provincial standard, if it's interprovincial trade, then the federal standard does not have to be complied with. It would be considered to be sufficient with the federal standard.

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

It's much wider than just a federal building that could be built with a provincial standard of materials.

[Rob Cunningham]

Absolutely.

Another example is tobacco products, where there's both federal and provincial regulations. The federal government bans menthol and flavours in cigarettes. Provinces and territories, a good number of them, more than half of them, have their own provisions with respect to flavours in—

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

Terms of sale, I think is what it's called. They get to set the terms of sale, what can be sold, what packaging, how it can be advertised, etc., within the store.

[Rob Cunningham]

Yes.

In terms of the flavours in cigarettes, the provincial restrictions are less than the federal. The way the bill is written, if there's interprovincial trade—for cigarettes, there are only a couple of factories in the country—then you could comply with the provincial standard and not the federal standard.

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

What are the provinces that have a lesser standard than the federal one?

[Rob Cunningham]

You would have the four Atlantic provinces. You would have Ontario and Quebec, and you would have several of the territories that would be among those.

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

Really, only western Canada, by the sound of it, is not.... They seem to have at least the same standards as the federal government. Is that correct?

[Rob Cunningham]

They don't have any standards, necessarily, so the federal one would prevail unless there's interprovincial trade.

It does say, if you are an Ontario company and you want to ship to B.C., which has no standard, then you could comply with the Ontario standard in B.C., the way the bill is written.

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

I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that in the Comeau case heard in the Supreme Court, they did say that if provinces, for example, had a legitimate health and safety factor, not as a primary deterrent to stop interprovincial trade, but had those legitimate health and safety issues....

If this law does pass unamended, does that...? Again, it might be unfair because you may not have legal counsel to advise on this, but to me, it sounds like the federal government would have the same ability to say it's not accepting that lower standard, but then enforceability, I think, is the challenge here.

[Rob Cunningham]

I'm a lawyer, and I'm specialized and have done a lot of work in this area, especially because of the number of legal challenges to tobacco legislation. It's been recognized that health and tobacco are concurrent federal responsibilities. For provinces, when they've had legal challenges, they've been upheld. However, this bill would change things when there's a stronger federal standard. Depending on the facts, very often compliance with the weaker provincial standard would be sufficient. From our perspective, that's a problem.