Transport Committee on June 18th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much.

Next we'll go to Mr. Greaves.

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

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

My question is for Grand Chief Mercredi. Thank you for being with us today, sir.

Before this group of witnesses, the committee heard from several of the cabinet ministers responsible for the implementation of this bill, including the Minister of Indigenous Services. The questions around consultation with first nations and other indigenous communities, around free, prior and informed consent, UNDRIP and section 35 were all raised and posed to the minister. She reassured the committee that those considerations remain fundamental to the government's approach to this legislation but also more broadly to the projects that would subsequently be introduced under this legislation.

I'm wondering if you could respond, sir, to the suggestion that because this bill doesn't actually authorize any projects, it creates a framework by which projects would be assessed, that the consultation that is required of the federal government under its treaty obligations, under its constitutional obligations to first nations and other indigenous peoples, would be met at the next stage once specific projects were put forward. Then the appropriate rights holders, the affected nations and communities would be identified, obviously, based on that project. It's at that stage that consultation and consent would be achieved with those nations. Perhaps you could respond to that, please.

[Grand Chief Trevor Mercredi]

It would be fair to say from our perspective that there's a very severe lack of trust with the federal government when it comes to treaties and the implementation of our rights. Right now, the bill doesn't reinforce our rights. If it's not in there, we'd have to make sure that it's in the bill to reinforce our rights—FPIC and also UNDRIP. We ask for that because we don't have that trust built between us and the federal government. One of the main reasons I'm here is to voice that opinion that we need to have some substantive amendments in this bill to have our first nations and our first people accept it.

As mentioned before, the last thing we want to do is hold up industry and projects with court cases. This is exactly where it's headed. When we're not at the table at the beginning of the projects, it really undermines our responsibility to our people and to our nation. That's why, to move forward, we need the federal government to work with the indigenous nations, with the rights holders and with the treaty nations. A treaty is what allows Canada to exist. A treaty is what allows Alberta to exist. It's what allows you to be here. Saying that each and every person here in Canada is a treaty person is what allows them to be here. It's what allows you to be here.

We have to understand that resources in industries and economic reconciliation are very important to us. We have to understand that lots of times our nations are feeling the repercussions of industry in our area, but we receive no benefit. What would make this any different than any other piece of legislation that's been passed down in history when it comes to our people? How does the Government of Canada expect us to trust them when in the past it's been shown that we have no reason to trust the federal government? We will come in here, and we will put recommendations forward for the amendments. That way, there are placeholders we can use to say that we've been here and we've sat here and we've explained our issues. If it ends up in courts, lots of times these types of discussions would be used. We're here to put you on notice that these are serious issues that have to be rectified before we can move forward in a reasonable way.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Thank you for that, Chief.

Building on the same general theme, one discussion that's come up a great deal is how, for the reasons you just outlined—the very clear failures of Canada to meet its treaty obligations to first nations over many years and many decades, and the need to ensure that indigenous peoples benefit from economic development and growth going forward—one of the potential benefits of this legislation would be to allow a greater role for indigenous peoples to benefit from projects they might put forward and that might be accelerated under this project of national interest framework.

I understand that at least one nation in northern Alberta, the Fort McKay First Nation, has actually submitted a proposal to this committee that includes a project it would like to see put forward.

I'm wondering if you could speak to whether meaningful indigenous consultation, and meaningful indigenous participation and benefit in those economic projects would be a step toward building the trust and building toward reconciliation, as you were describing.

[Grand Chief Trevor Mercredi]

Yes. On the point of Fort McKay First Nation, they have a very robust environmental policy built for their nation, which is recognized. They've done a lot for the community. They feel like they can move forward with this type of legislation because they're protected in certain ways. They've built themselves up to be very responsible within their nation and also within their traditional territory.

When we talk about the economics regarding our people and this new bill, we're talking about billions, possibly trillions, of dollars coming out of the natural resources of our territories. Today, there are billions and trillions of dollars coming out of our territories, when we talk about resources, and we don't receive a share of it. We don't receive a cent.

Why would that change today? What line item in this legislation protects our rights?

It's why we're here. We understand what the federal government is looking for. We understand what Canada needs. It's time that Canada looks at us, asks us what we need and comes to the table. It can't keep pushing us aside.

You know, our people have many grievances. Industry, politicians and cities reap benefits from our resources. We don't receive any benefits and that's today in 2025. The treaty has been in place for over 125 years. Canada, the provinces and industry have benefited, yet we're in poverty.

How is it that we can sit here today and talk about economic reconciliation and the economic ability of our nations when there is really no economic relationship between the federal government and the nations?

It's why our nations are starting to protect themselves. When we have nations like Fort McKay that do have a project they would like to move forward, we support it because it's on their terms. We support Fort McKay. We support all these nations that would like to have industry within their areas. We're not averse to industry. What we're adverse to is not being treated respectfully and responsibly within our own territories.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Grand Chief.

Thank you very much, Mr. Greaves.

Mr. Bonin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Khan, do you share the position of your colleagues at Ecojustice, who said that this bill would give the government superpowers never seen in modern environmental law history?

[Sabaa Ahmad Khan]

I couldn't agree more.

The bill creates a centralized process. So we will need only one federal authorization, which will replace all the other authorizations specified in democratically adopted laws and regulations. We have never seen such discretionary power.

Not only that, but the bill also omits provincial regulatory timelines. We feel that this bill is almost unconstitutional, not only because it does not respect the division of powers between the federal government and the provinces, but also because it violates the inherent and treaty rights of indigenous peoples, which have been mentioned several times today.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Are you concerned about the fact that a minister can, by order, pre-approve projects before even knowing the conditions and repercussions, and before the environmental assessments have taken place? Do you think that gives too much power to the minister?

[Sabaa Ahmad Khan]

Absolutely.

As I said earlier, what the vague wording in Bill C‑5 does is literally sweep aside all laws that protect the environment and human health.

We are in a climate and biodiversity crisis. We've seen a lot of progress in terms of enhancing our obligations and commitments with respect to the environment and species at risk. That helps to ensure their survival. As it is currently written, the bill moves away from all that progress.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bonin.

Thank you very much, Ms. Khan.

Now we'll go to 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 the witnesses for taking the time to be with us today.

Let me pick up a little bit with Mr. Cunningham and Ms. Sonea.

You talked about one of the flaws in Bill C-5 being the overriding of various pieces of federal legislation. Obviously, there was some discussion about provincial legislation and which one trumps that. Are there any specific provincial acts that you would suggest should be flagged?

[Rob Cunningham]

First, with your permission, Chair, I would just like to recognize you and Mr. Albas for your work and leadership as co-chairs of the cancer caucus. Thank you.

I think it would be very helpful if the government provided a list as to which federal laws would be affected. Quite a lot of federal-provincial laws do have some effects in the same areas. We don't have that list. We've identified certain areas that we have worked on with respect to cancer in terms of tobacco and asbestos, but undoubtedly there's quite a substantial list. I think it would be helpful if that were provided. That would support further examination.

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

You mentioned that you had a suggestion for an amendment. Could you elaborate on that?

[Rob Cunningham]

Yes. Many international free trade agreements contain exceptions for health and environment, whether it's the WTO, the trans-Pacific partnership or the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement. There could be one there. It's in the Canadian Free Trade Agreement as well. If we had just a very simple amendment to add to proposed section 7 a paragraph (c) that pertains to a matter other than health and the environment, that would deal with the problem.

It wouldn't affect other parts of the bill. It's simply with respect to this issue of internal trade and federal and provincial laws.

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

Thank you.

I will echo your thanks to Mr. Albas and Mr. Schiefke in their chairmanship of the cancer caucus, which is all-party. We've all had a chance to benefit from that.

I'll turn now to President Chartrand.

You indicated that the bill is not perfect, but you perhaps saw opportunity in it if implemented well. What would it take for this bill to be improved to the point of the certainty you would need for your nation to invest in projects?

[David Chartrand]

First, let me say this. I echo my statements. I am worried about Canada right now. I'm worried as a leader and as a founder of Manitoba. Our people brought Manitoba and western Canada into Confederation. We paid an ultimate price for that and we still suffer over that. However, my issue here, when you look at it, is that we need to come together. I understand there are Conservatives and Liberals who will be supporting this. I commend both of you because, at the end of the day, we're in trouble in this country.

If you want to know who are the worst treated anywhere, it would be the Métis. We are never invited anywhere. We are rights-bearing, we're in the Constitution of this country, and we're looking through the windows all the time, seeing everybody else negotiate. We're at a stage now to finalize our treaty, which will, hopefully, change the 154 years of waiting.

Consultation is going to be fundamental. I'll give you a good example. I know Conservatives are in the economic engine world. When you look at the procurement system you have right now in Canada, there's a 5% set-aside already in place. When you talk about multi billions, it does make a massive impact with employment, jobs, opportunity and businesses. If you could expand that even better in the context of this agreement, how is big industry going to come in there?

Let's understand and let's be frank with each other here. When industry comes, there are shareholders behind this. A lot of people are putting a lot of their money into these businesses, which come to invest in the multi billions. There is a risk factor for all of them. If they see something that potentially will be a risk, they won't want to put their money in there. They need the trust and responsibility—for us to give up our possession and that we will support it to the end—to make sure it's viable, workable and profit-making for everyone, including our country of Canada.

When we look at it in the long run, the consultation issue needs clarity. Who is the advisory council going to speak to? Who is it going to invite to sit at the table? What powers does it have? Is this for show? Will it have some authority? When we sit down with private industry, are we going to be assured that there is going to be a set-aside? Are we going to be assured that private industry does not look at the bottom purse only, but actually looks at what part of the indigenous relationship will be in there? Who will be in there and how much of that will be shared with them?

I support this country with all my heart. I want to make it very clear that I will support Bill C-5 on the premise that I have to make sure this country overcomes this economic war. Yes, five years is a long time. I know that in two years, we're trying to get a green light to go ahead with the project.... This is a five-year opportunity that exists for Canada, as a government, to do something right or wrong—hurt us or not hurt us—or really make us grow.

I thank you for that question, but there are areas in there that can easily be fixed. The Prime Minister can call a meeting so quickly, as he did with all the premiers and territorial leaders in this country. He can do the same for us and probably in two days we can have this thing debated, screamed out, yelled at and we can come to a conclusion of what we all believe would make us comfortable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, President Chartrand.

Finally, for this round of testimony, we have Mr. Kelloway.

You have five minutes, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to say thank you to all the witnesses here for providing some very important information and insight.

In particular, I'll start with the Cancer Society. I have a special place in my heart for you folks because my mom used to volunteer back in the 1970s and 1980s. She took a little Mike Kelloway with her door to door every April. She passed away last year from cancer, so I have a special place for the work you do.

I'm wondering if we could do it this way. We've heard a lot of great testimony from everyone here. From your testimony off the top—your opening statements—what are three things that you want us to leave with today or after the session? I want to capture it while it's fresh in our minds.

I'm going to come to you in a second.

My second question is for President Chartrand.

I appreciate and respect the importance of consultation. It is sacrosanct in going forward. I'm wondering if you can talk a little bit about what your nation envisions in terms of potential projects. However, I want to go deeper than that, Mr. Chartrand. I want to talk about how that impacts your nation in terms of jobs, economic development opportunity and moving forward united.

We'll start with the Cancer Society and then we'll go to President Chartrand.

Thank you.

[Rob Cunningham]

Thank you, Mr. Kelloway, and thank you for all your family's contribution and sharing what you did. You gave us the opportunity to offer three take-aways. I'm going to offer one. The bill has an unintended consequence. Minister LeBlanc, before the Senate yesterday, was asked about asbestos, and whether there could be lesser standards for asbestos. His response was an outcome absolutely unacceptable to us.

There's a bit of a disconnect in terms of the current drafting of the bill and what is not expected. That's not the intent. That's an opportunity to fix it, either through an amendment to the bill or through regulations that are still to be adopted. That's a non-partisan thing. That would be our one take-away to leave with this committee.

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

Thank you, Mr. Cunningham.

Mr. Chartrand, in terms of projects for your nation in your region, what are the impacts you would want to see? For example, in my neck of the woods in Atlantic Canada, the focus right now is on the electrification of the grid through offshore wind and hydro. We want to see—I want to see—the strongest connections economically or otherwise for the Mi'kmaq. I'm pretty much asking the same types of questions.

[David Chartrand]

Let me continue with your message there. I want to commend my premier, Wab Kinew, and the NDP in Manitoba. What they envisioned is now an inclusionary process of indigenous governments playing a role in the future of energy. In Manitoba right now, there are 600 megawatts put out for tender, but it's only for indigenous governments to bid on. They must always maintain 51% ownership. We are actually bidding right now with our government on 200-300 megawatts, and that's going to light up Ottawa. If you want to know how much power that is, it's a lot of power. When you start looking at it, that's a good example of how it can be done.

We're also looking at the future of the Port of Churchill. Again, there'll be a very big role for indigenous governments to be owners and participants. Industry has reversed the ideology of us knocking on the door and begging industry for a job. The wraparound now, the change, is that industry is now knocking on our door. We have 100% control. Only we can tender for this, and only we can own this. It's a different change maker, but it's a big one.

Enbridge is another example. We have a very good partnership with Enbridge. The president and I had a good relationship. Do you know what happens and the danger of that? That's why there are questions of what type of security we should have, and what kind of protection we should have if we allow national interests and national companies, maybe not even from Canada, to come and bid on making pipelines, making mines or taking natural resources? They're going to be after us.

With Enbridge, for example, we had a bid from an American company. We partnered with an American company and we won the bid. Right after we won the bid, the American company came back to us and said, “Okay, now we're going to renegotiate your percentage.” We said, “Whoa, wait a second. You won the bid based on our numbers and your numbers. You can't come back and change it.” The company said, “Yes, we can.” I met the president of Enbridge. He contacted the company and said that if it did not honour that bid, it would be out, it would be gone. Trust me, it honoured the bid immediately. It takes a good relationship for the president to take it seriously and call the component that was bidding on this, trying to, I would say, cheat us at the end of the day.

We have to be careful with big companies because, as I said, shareholders are their bosses, and that's who they report to. However, at the end of the day, we need to make sure there are guaranteed set-asides. We need to ensure there are guaranteed assurances that industry must—must and shall, and all the proper legal jargon you want to use—have no choice but to have us at the table on the inclusionary and the environmental side.

What does worry me is that if it's not government-to-government and nation-to-nation...That's what your government has been proposing now for quite a number of years. It's essential it stays that way. I have no disrespect to David Suzuki. I'm a very big fan of his. However, when people keep talking about indigenous people, they never ask me what my views are. They speak on us and about us. I'm not criticizing them, but I just don't like it when somebody speaks about my issues and my concerns.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chartrand. I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kelloway.

On behalf of all committee members, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Grand Chief Mercredi, President Chartrand, Ms. Khan, as well as representatives from the Canadian Cancer Society, Ms. Sonea, as well as Mr. Cunningham. Thank you for being so flexible and for coming here on such short notice. I wish you a safe return home.

The meeting will suspend for a couple of minutes to allow the clerk to welcome the next round of witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

I'd like to begin by welcoming our witness for the next hour and sharing a few comments for their benefit. First, please wait until I, as the chair, 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're not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation, either “floor”, “English” or “French”. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I'd now like to welcome our witnesses, colleagues.

From the Carpenters' Regional Council, we have Finn Johnson, director of government relations and communications. Welcome to you, sir.

From the International Union of Operating Engineers, we have Steven Schumann, Canadian government affairs director. Welcome to you, sir.

From the Raven Indigenous Outcomes Fund, we have Jeff Cyr, founder and managing partner. Welcome to you.

And from Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation, we have Chief Sheldon Sunshine joining us by video conference. Sir, I welcome you to our committee today as well.

We're going to begin with our opening remarks, and for that, I will turn it over to Mr. Johnson.

You have three minutes, sir.