Transport Committee on June 18th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Nguyen.

You have six minutes, Mr. Lemire. Go ahead.

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

Chief Haymond, kitchi meegwetch for so clearly expressing your thoughts and ideas about a bill whose risks and consequences have not been properly measured, especially as they relate to first nations.

In the past few days, we've heard a number of chiefs express their opposition to Bill C‑5. They have highlighted contradictions and elements that could be very detrimental to the future, rights and resources first nations want to protect. There seems to be quite a clear consensus on that point, one that is shared by the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, the Ontario chiefs and many others.

You were with the Assembly of First Nations Quebec–Labrador today. You said there was a discussion on the matter. Did you get the sense that there was unanimous opposition to Bill C‑5 among Quebec's and Labrador's indigenous chiefs?

[Chief Lance Haymond]

Quite simply, I believe that most first nations will oppose this bill because of the fact that we have not had an opportunity to discuss the potential impacts. I hear witnesses talk about “our resources” and “our opportunities”, but what people tend to forget is that, look, I'm Algonquin Anishinabe, and you're sitting in Ottawa on unceded Anishinabe territory.

The definition of “unceded” is that we did not give up the rights or make a deal with the colonial government. These territories that everybody wants and talk about developing belong to first nations and we deserve an opportunity to have a robust consultation process. That is the judgment that was rendered by Judge Blackhawk in Kebaowek v. CNL.

We're not opposed to development, but we want a clear opportunity to make sure we understand the impacts of the project and whether or not those impacts can be mitigated, and then be in a position to move forward. We have two examples of where it works and where it doesn't. In the case of the nuclear project, again, the consultation process did not work. We—for 10 years—told Canada and the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories that calling us and sending us letters was simply not consultation, and that it required a deeper consultation, a framework and a robust process. They disagreed. We took them to court. We won. The court said that the consultation process wasn't adequate.

We have a second project where we have worked with PSPC on a bridge replacement project in our traditional territory. Through this process with PSPC and the Impact Assessment Agency, we came up with a process that allowed for us to have our say in terms of the environmental impact statement. We were able to develop a process to engage our people and talk to them about the options, the impacts and the mitigation strategies that needed to take place for us to support the project. Next week, we will be meeting with the Impact Assessment Agency and PSPC, and we will be giving them our consent to our preferred option of the three that were presented to us for this bridge replacement.

There's a good way to consult us, and there's a bad way. Bill C-5 is probably the worst I've ever seen.

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

Chief Haymond, I hear you loud and clear with respect to reconciliation, which is hugely important for first nations. Dialogue and discussion are fundamental, and the government failed on that front as far as Bill C-5 goes.

It is our parliamentary committee's job to consider how the bill can be amended to reach out to first nations and, as many members of first nations have pointed out, avoid decades of litigation before the courts.

Currently, in schedule 2, the government has listed 13 acts and seven regulations that project proponents will not have to adhere to if the bill is passed, including the Indian Act. Let's say the committee were to remove that act from schedule 2. Would that be a first step towards bringing first nations onside with Bill C‑5, a step that might help to avoid a national crisis?

[Chief Lance Haymond]

Of course it will lead to a crisis. When you overstep and override our rights, and you take away any of the fundamental protections that we have, even as bad as the Indian Act is, then, yes, it's going to cause a crisis.

I know that there will be challenges ahead. We're already seeing it in our province of Quebec with Bill 97 and the changes to the forestry regime.

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

Would you be in favour of removing the Indian Act from schedule 2 of Bill C‑5?

[Chief Lance Haymond]

Yes. Absolutely.

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

Kitchi meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

Thank you very much, Chief Haymond.

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

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here.

To the credit union, I hope the government listens to you. I am a rural resident of a rural community in Alberta. Credit unions are necessary for the daily lives of the people there. I also hope all the concerns we heard about the impacts on Canadian meat processing get addressed.

I too, Chief, hope that the decision-makers, who are the Prime Minister and the cabinet, actually listen to what they're being told so that they can fully deploy their duty to consult and mitigate adverse impacts on impacted communities so that everybody who wants to see big projects get built for the prosperity of all people, and especially for indigenous Canadians, can get to “yes” in a good way.

Dr. Exner-Pirot, thank you for being here. I agree with you: We find ourselves in an odd position where we have a government doing a short-term workaround, with sort of baby steps and breadcrumbs, rather than a big breaking through of barriers they themselves created over the last 10 years.

I'm wondering if in general you have concerns with the fact that in Bill C-5, the two-year timeline, which they keep claiming, isn't actually in the bill. Neither is there any timeline on which a final decision should be made. How does that give certainty to proponents or to investors?

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

It's a good question. Two years would obviously be ideal. I could see in some cases—for example, where there's a duty to consult and it wasn't possible to achieve all that consultation and accommodation within two years—that it's hard to legislate strict timelines. But certainly at least two years should be the goal. Proponents would like to see that. I can see legally, especially on the indigenous rights side, why it's maybe hard to mandate that. I have to remind everyone that a working group of cabinet members in 2024 already had some timelines that they put onto major projects. We haven't come close to achieving that.

Just saying that a timeline is going to be achieved isn't good enough anyways. I guess it's a great aspiration. Hopefully, we can get closer to it.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Yes. I think it's safe to say that what's in the law is really what matters.

What are your views on the fact that there are these vague concepts that would constitute the national interest, but one could make an argument on almost every single factor in every single way about any project that might be under consideration? Do you have any comments on the uncertainty around that sort of ad hoc, project-by-project, case-by-case adjudication rather than what I think you were probably leaning towards in your opening comments instead—that is, actually fixing and creating attractive and competitive investment and fiscal and regulatory conditions to attract private sector investment and a government with the will to back proponents to build on the back end?

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

Yes. Certainly the way it's been described lends itself to a boondoggle list. I've heard that 90 projects have been submitted from the provinces and territories. Many of those don't have proponents. Many of those don't have a business case and would probably rely on extensive government funding. In contrast, you do have, like I say, probably hundreds of projects in various regulatory stages with the provinces, the territories and the federal government that have been moved by private proponents. I would argue that any project that improves our productivity, increases our GDP and diversifies our trade is a project in the national interest.

So yes, it is, like I say, rife for abuse to let the government pick a few. Again, there's a honeymoon period, and people are quite pleased that we're focusing on building some projects, so there's quite a lot of leeway, but there are certainly ways you can see that this legislation could go sideways.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

There are, of course, dozens of projects stuck in various forms of federal review or a duplicate of federal review right now, including 28 nuclear, oil and gas, mining and LNG projects, all real projects with real proponents spending real money and losing real time trying to get approval. Does that seem like a sensible place to start?

Then, with the government, as you say, a G7 country whose economy is really dependent on responsible resource development, wouldn't that be a good place to start? Shouldn't the government be spending all of this time removing or fixing the barriers in all of those 13 pieces of legislation and five regulations that they clearly say are stopping things from being built?

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

I think that would be the preference of proponents now that we've identified what some of the issues are. It's not about having a lower standard; it's about getting rid of some, frankly, Orwellian processes that we have in place, permitting that has no relationship to the cost and the benefit to society and really just adds time and money and pain and frustration. Everyone wants world-class standards; no one wants to get rid of them. We just want some efficiency and proficiency in the system.

Like I say, this is a shortcut Bill C-5. I appreciate the desire to get some projects moving quickly. We do need to see that, but it's not a substitute for doing the hard work in the coming year of reforming some of that legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much.

Next we have Mr. Kelloway.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions will be to Ms. Exner-Pirot.

First I just want to reflect on the afternoon, evening and night with respect to the testimony. It's been very important to hear every side of the equation. The one thing I think about—I think everyone around this table or those watching at home or here in attendance are thinking about—is the real threat, the ongoing threat of these tariffs. Trump loves tariffs. He's talked about it ad nauseam, but when Trump decides to leave, Trumpism will probably continue, and the focus on tariffs will continue.

I think of energy. I think of how energy security is national security, Ms. Exner-Pirot. When I think of new technologies like carbon capture, hydrogen or small nuclear reactors that could potentially benefit the Canadian economy and decarbonized oil that goes through pipelines, whatever the projects are that are deemed important by the provinces, first nations and the private sector, I'm wondering if you look at some of these items like electricity transmission lines, for example. At the Macdonald-Laurier Institute—and I've asked this question of some other people as well—have you done any type of analysis in terms of the new energy projects that could be on the horizon and how they secure us from an energy perspective but also from a national security perspective?

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

We've done some work on the cost of some of the renewable goals that some of the provinces have had. As you know, electricity is generally a provincial remit, and we focus on federal policy, but I do have a paper coming out this week that does look at the emissions intensity lowering that we've seen in the Canadian oil and gas sector, in particular, in the oil sands. There are certainly ways that the sector has been successful, and there's certainly impetus from industry itself to want to lower its emissions intensity per barrel and get that decarbonized oil through, as we're talking about. There is enthusiasm for some kind of grand bargain, where again, we work harder towards reducing emissions to the extent we can, and that allows that social licence to get more product to export away from the United States and to other markets.

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

I would like to go a little deeper in terms of the work you've done or even in the paper that you're going to present later on this week or next week. If you take an example of the projects that you've referenced in terms of jobs or in terms of economic benefit, can you share a little bit of your paper with us? Can you give us a little foreshadowing of what might be in your paper that might give some sunlight to this?

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

It's not very related to Bill C-5, but basically the emissions cap comes at a very high cost on a carbon tax basis. We might want to rethink different ways, such as the Pathways Alliance, which the Prime Minister has indicated some enthusiasm for. It would certainly be a positive way of working with industry and maybe a major project that could be considered as part of Bill C-5.

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

Do you have major projects that the Macdonald-Laurier Institute would highlight as important to national security vis-à-vis energy security?

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

Yes, I have a list.

I would say Northern Gateway and Ksi Lisims LNG with Prince Rupert gas transmission; a final investment decision on LNG Canada, phase two, which isn't for the federal government to do but can create some conditions for success there; and the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline because it's quickly filling up—it's at 90% utilization. Those would be at the top of my list to expand our energy security. Those would also probably be the biggest GDP boosters that we have available to us.

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

Okay. Thank you for providing those examples.

Is there anything on the east coast? When I say, “east coast”, for those watching, I mean Atlantic Canada, not downtown Toronto.

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

Yes, absolutely.

I'm a big proponent of Atlantic oil and gas development. They had a great conference last week that showed some of the potential there. I think that, rather than doing an Energy East pipeline, we're better off using Atlantic oil and gas potential and Quebec potential to serve them there. If we want to reduce dependence on the United States on the east side of Canada, then we could use some eastern oil and gas to actually do it. In terms of supplying our allies in Europe with LNG, I think it's better that it come from the east coast as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you.

Mr. Lemire, you may go ahead. You have two and a half minutes.