Evidence of meeting #3 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was federal.
A video is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Meegwetch.
Chief Haymond, I'd like to hear your views on the risks involved.
Who will face the risks? If some of the most important laws no longer have to be upheld, if proponents of major projects do not have to adhere to them, if a disaster or catastrophe happens—which is possible, foreseeable even in many cases—who will pay the price? Who will bear the responsibility if the project impacts wildlife, the environment, water or even humans?
Kebaowek First Nation
That's a good question and one that fundamentally concerns us. The fact that there will be nobody responsible means that we will be left with the mess if a project goes horribly wrong.
I think about the nuclear waste facility at Chalk River as an example. The technology they're proposing to use is supposed to protect this site for 300 years, but many of the radionuclides that they're going to be putting in there have half-lives that are in the thousands and millions of years. Therefore, the technology is not going to support the long-term safety of the watershed. At the end of the day, the government will be responsible because it allowed for the permitting of this project to happen. I can't see a proponent having enough liability insurance to cover the fact that this project risks the drinking water supply of nine million people living in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
It's a very good question. When push comes to shove, at the end of the day when there's nobody to be held liable, that pressure will again be put on the government of the day.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Lemire.
Next we have Mr. Muys.
Mr. Muys, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, please.
Conservative
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses.
Dr. Exner-Pirot, I hear you that we can't let perfection be the enemy of the good.
I want to pick up on Ms. Stubbs' line of questioning. Our criticism of Bill C-5 is that there are a lot of good intentions and a lot of symbols and signals but that there's a lot of substance that's lacking.
You started to talk a little bit about some of the shortcomings, and maybe you can continue to elaborate on those. What are some of the things to watch out for? What are some of the potential pitfalls? As we look down the road, are there milestones or measurables as to how this is being implemented and that it's successful?
Director, Energy, Natural Resources and Environment, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
That's a great question.
It could be implemented well, if humans were perfect, and governments were perfect. We shouldn't expect our governments to be perfect. We should have safeguards for that.
It's in the choosing of what projects are in the national interest. The governments are choosing that in the first place, but there is a role, certainly, for the government to build infrastructure and to provide support for nation-building infrastructure. We wouldn't have railways and highways, and those kinds of things that we have, like the St. Lawrence Seaway, if we didn't have government intervening. We wouldn't have the oil sands if government hadn't provided some support in that respect.
Again, we need to put in some safeguards regarding some level of proponent interest or some level of private sector interest in some of these projects that aren't fully or majority funded by the federal government. Some are probably already at an advanced stage. They are already in a process, and they've already been submitted to a regulatory body for review, so they are not starting from scratch, kind of out of a politician's dream. Those are the ones.
In the legislation, and using the Henry VIII clauses, there are laws it does tend to omit. It isn't to ride roughshod over environmental protection or rights, but it is really to just surpass some of the bottlenecking that sometimes is caused by our regulatory process.
Again, a hummingbird is an example of a species of least concern. It doesn't stop construction somewhere for four months because of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, at a cost of about $100 million to the Canadian taxpayer. Allowing to have a relief valve for some of those very difficult permitting issues but, again, not usurping the kinds of rights that Canadians expect....
Conservative
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON
It's interesting that the examples you cited of what would be the biggest GDP boosters were predominantly energy infrastructure projects. When it comes to choosing projects that are in the national interest that you mentioned, that's perhaps where the rubber is going to hit the road, or where the greatest risk lies.
How important is it to prioritize that as our biggest economic opportunity.
Director, Energy, Natural Resources and Environment, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
The Prime Minister has spoken about wanting to make Canada an energy superpower in conventional and clean energy. From a foreign policy perspective, what makes one a superpower tends to be from oil and to a lesser extent natural gas and sometimes critical minerals. In terms of the super power that comes with it, the influence, that is obviously going to come from some of these more politically sensitive commodities, and we're seeing that in global markets today.
When Trans Mountain comes online, you will actually see it in the Canadian GDP. There aren't many projects that you can see and measure, and that the Bank of Canada can measure as a portion of GDP. It's nothing like what a bitumen pipeline will do in this country, but an LNG terminal like LNG Canada comes pretty close.
Conservative
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON
Thank you, I agree.
There's not much time left, so just a comment, perhaps. There was an OECD report, not that long ago, a few years ago, that Canada had the lowest private sector investment in our economy in the OECD. It stated that was an impediment for this decade and some decades to come. Taxes and regulation, obviously, have a big impact on that.
How important is it that nation-building projects have that emphasis on private sector potential?
Director, Energy, Natural Resources and Environment, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
Yes, it's a lot. That's why I'm not opposed to the bill; the private sector has been quite enthused about it. It is a very good signal to them that this government does intend to do some business and to build some projects. Again, it's the first step. It is certainly not the last step of what we actually need to see in this country to bring that foreign investment back and to really have investor confidence. People are willing to give the benefit of the doubt for now, but that won't last forever either.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much.
Finally, for today, we have Mr. Lauzon.
You may go ahead for five minutes.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Exner‑Pirot, do you think the bill could improve Canada's ability to compete with countries that have streamlined approvals for major energy projects of strategic importance?
You got me thinking earlier, so I want to draw on your experience. I see in your bio that you were a special adviser to the Business Council of Canada and a research adviser to the Indigenous Resource Network. You may have done international work. Can you talk a bit about that?
Director, Energy, Natural Resources and Environment, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
Yes. I think Goldy Hyder has been testifying—to the Senate, I believe—on this issue too. I certainly provide advice, but I don't want to pretend to speak for him today. He has his own thoughts and position.
Certainly—and I do know this to be true—many of the members of the Business Council of Canada are very supportive of this bill. It is giving them optimism and it is giving them hope, and this is what I think many Canadians don't appreciate: It hasn't been evident in the last 10 years.
When they're allocating funds, they can allocate them anywhere, and they're going to allocate them on behalf of their shareholders to the jurisdiction where they get the best return and the fastest return. For so many of them, for the last 10 years, that has not been Canada. They are seeing some hope with this bill that there is a change in the tone and there is a government that does want to help them build things and does want to be a partner for them, not an adversary. There is optimism with this bill.
Yes, a lot of our capital competes in the United States, and the United States has been excellent at attracting capital in the last 10 years.
This at least recalibrates when the Trump administration is making things much easier, probably too easy. It's probably going to be subject to some legislation or some legal action, but this at least allows Canada to compete for that capital and earn a similar or competitive rate of return.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you.
It's important to bear in mind the situation we're facing with the United States right now. If we were in the same situation we were in during Donald Trump's first term, or even the same situation we were in two or three years ago, would we be saying more or less the same thing? Would we be having the same discussion today, in your view? Would we have to pass legislation like Bill C‑5?
Director, Energy, Natural Resources and Environment, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
There are so many ways we could have done things differently. I don't think that many businesses think the Trump administration is a model. Actually, a lot of his actions have caused turbulence and volatility, and it's not attractive for investment.
In fact, there's a real opportunity for Canada now, including with this bill, to say that we're a stable jurisdiction but we're also open for business. Many things have happened in the last 10 years with many different governments, and I guess that, going forward, all we can do is try to be the most competitive country and try to be that leader in the G7 nations that everyone wants us to be.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you.
Ms. Martin, you talked a lot about the food inspection system. You explained the difference between provincial and federal inspections. You said that only 5% of food inspections were conducted by the provinces. What's more, only federally inspected products can be sold in other provinces and other parts of the country.
You think Bill C‑5 could remove the barriers for that 5%. Can you elaborate on what needs to be done to remove those barriers?
Senior Director, Public Affairs & Corporate Counsel, Canadian Meat Council
Sure, and please redirect me if I did not understand the question. I understood it as being about how to remove the barriers on the last 5%.
Senior Director, Public Affairs & Corporate Counsel, Canadian Meat Council
To that, I say that I think we need to look at the learnings of the journey-mapping exercise of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and also the domestic comparability assessment tool led by the CFIA. There are opportunities to unlock that last 5%. I think the easiest starting place for the federal government would be those provincial facilities that are looking to become federal and determining what supports they particularly need—perhaps in cost—to get up to the federal standard.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you.
Is my time up already, Mr. Chair?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
That's true, but they were good questions.
On behalf of all committee members, I want to express my sincere gratitude to each and every one of you for being so flexible, for joining us at the last minute and for being here with us late into the evening, wherever you are across the country. It's greatly appreciated. You're contributing to the betterment of this piece of legislation, and we greatly appreciate it.
With that, colleagues, I'm going to suspend for 15 minutes. When we resume, we'll begin consideration of the clause-by-clause.
This meeting is suspended.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I call this meeting back to order.
I'd like to begin by reminding committee members that pursuant to the order adopted by the House on Monday, June 16, all amendments had to be submitted to the clerk of the committee by noon today. As a result, the chair will only allow amendments submitted before that deadline to be moved and debated. In other words, only amendments contained in the distributed package of amendments will be considered.
When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. The amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package each member received from the clerk.
I just want to confirm that everybody's received that package.
During the debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. Subamendments must be provided in writing. These subamendments do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment.
Only the subamendment may be considered. One may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment to an amendment is moved, it is voted on first, and then another subamendment may be moved or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.
Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There's no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.
Finally, pursuant to the order adopted by the House, if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:59 p.m., all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved and the chair shall put the question, forthwith and successfully, without further debate, on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.
(On clause 2)
The chair calls clause 2, which brings us to NDP-1.
Before we begin, I believe Mr. Barsalou-Duval has something he wants to move.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I believe there is agreement among all committee members to skip consideration of the preambles to the acts proposed in the bill and come back to them later. That said, before we proceed to clause-by-clause, I would like the committee to immediately consider a subamendment I want to propose. As you mentioned, for procedural reasons, we have until midnight to propose subamendments. After that, the committee will no longer be able to discuss my subamendment. It relates to CPC‑11.