Transport Committee on June 18th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Perfect, thank you very much.

BQ-9 has not been moved.

We are now at NDP-22.

Are there any questions, comments or clarifications?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We are now at BQ-10.

You have the floor, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The purpose of BQ-10 is to prevent the minister from changing the name or description of a project of national interest that would change its nature. If the changes the minister wishes to make are superficial or minor, there is no problem. If the changes are fundamental, on the other hand, he could not make them. We want to prevent the excessive use of this type of change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Are there any further questions, comments or clarifications?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Let us move on to BQ-11.

Before I give Mr. Barsalou‑Duval the floor, I want to point out that BQ-11 introduces a new concept, which is also in BQ-12 and BQ-17.

Furthermore, if BQ-11 is adopted, CPC-3 cannot be moved because the lines in question will have been amended.

Go ahead, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

BQ-11 provides that, should the House of Commons at some point decide that a project designated as being in the national interest no longer is, the House would have the power to delete it from Schedule 1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Are there any questions, comments or clarifications?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Before I turn the floor over to Mr. Lawrence or Ms. Stubbs, if CPC-3 is adopted then PV-5, BQ-17, BQ-18, BQ-19, BQ-20 and PV-8 cannot be debated due to a line conflict.

Also, the vote on CPC-3 applies to CPC-15 as they are consequential.

I'll turn the floor over to you, Ms. Stubbs, or you, Mr. Lawrence.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

In Conservatives' efforts to help improve this bill with certainty, transparency and clarity for all Canadians, proponents and provinces and territories, this is another measure to attempt to give certainty on criteria and timelines.

We think it's pretty obvious that in order to give certainty for proponents, we must remove the power and the ability to eliminate projects from the national list after they've already been deemed as being in the national interest. That would clearly create uncertainty for investors all the way through the process.

That is the purpose of this amendment. It is to remove the minister's power to unilaterally delete projects from the national interest list.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We'll now go to CPC-4.

I'll see Mr. Lawrence or Ms. Stubbs on CPC-4.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

As Conservatives, we're helping to improve this bill with our ultimate goal of seeing decisions being made in the right way to get things built.

We want to ensure that the emphasis is on encouraging private sector investment, not saddling taxpayers with big major projects. This amendment ensures that fiscal responsibility is a key factor in designating national interest projects by requiring consideration of private sector or public-private funding, and it helps protect taxpayers by prioritizing projects with a reduced financial burden on the public purse.

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

On a point of order, we think this is out of scope.

This is legislation about accelerating the regulatory approvals for major projects. Nothing else in the legislation addresses the financing of projects. Should we be seeking to have it ruled out of order? That would be the primary objective of the point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kelloway.

Go ahead, Mr. Albas.

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

Simply, Mr. Chair, I think if you let her move it without informing her that it is out of order, then it is in order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I've received no guidance from the legislative clerks saying CPC-4 is out of order, so we will go to a vote on it.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're on PV-5. Before I turn it over to Ms. May, who's joining us by video conference, I want to read out that if PV-5 is adopted, NDP-23, NDP-24, PV-6, BQ-12, BQ-13, and BQ-14 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. Also, PV-5 introduces a concept that is also referenced in PV-8.

With that, Ms. May, I turn the floor over to you.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a critical amendment, and as I think all members of Parliament are aware, there's been extensive criticism of the claims that government has made, that the various factors that are referenced in the first reading version of this bill are referenced often in press releases, as if they would be requirements under the act, as opposed to what they are, which are factors that might be considered or might not be considered.

This amendment expands those factors to be more meaningful, for instance, including explicitly free, prior and informed consent for the rights of indigenous people to protect constitutionally protected interests and to be consistent with UNDRIP. It expands some of the other considerations that are currently listed as factors that may, or may not, be considered and instead creates an actual enforceable set of provisions that the Governor in Council may only make an order in respect of a project after considering the results of the governmental, indigenous and public consultations required under proposed subsection 5(7), and only if the Governor in Council determines that carrying out the project will.... and then there's a list of factors. You have the amendment before you. This would give the bill a legal framework that is reviewable, that would hold the cabinet to the same standard. As you know, the bill has been widely critiqued as creating unprecedented levels of purely political discretion in deciding what project is a project in the national interest and what isn't.

This is an essential amendment to ensure that Bill C-5 doesn't go down in history as the bill that, for the first time ever, created an unfettered discretion in cabinet to do things that have never been contemplated by any previous government. It's quite critical. It would go a long way towards public acceptance of the bill. Again, the purposes of the bill, I think, have widespread support across Canada, but the notions of expanded political discretion and increased power in the hands of PMO and cabinet has attracted widespread concern.

It's my hope to assist Bill C-5's passage in a way that builds public support as opposed to increased outrage. This bill needs this amendment. I beg you all to consider how much more good we can do here as parliamentarians by amending the bill with PV-5.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. May.

Are there any other questions, comments, clarifications, colleagues?

Seeing none, we will go to a vote on PV-5.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We will now go to BQ-12.

BQ-12 could not have been moved if PV-5 had been adopted, which it was not. BQ-12 is therefore admissible.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you may speak to BQ-12.

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

With this amendment, we are simply inviting the government to respect constitutional laws and provincial areas of jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Are there any further comments, questions or clarifications?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We will now move on to BQ-13.

I wish to inform the committee that, if BQ-13 is adopted, BQ-14 and NDP-23 cannot be moved, since they pertain to some of the same lines of the bill.

Go ahead, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I remember correctly, BQ-13 provides that, more than simply considering the rights of indigenous peoples, those rights must be upheld. The proposed wording strengthens the meaning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Are there any further comments, questions or clarifications?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you may speak to BQ-14.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Actually, you may go ahead and put it to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Are there any questions, comments or clarifications regarding BQ-14?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are on NDP-23, colleagues.

Are there questions, comments or concerns?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall NDP-24 carry, colleagues?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are on PV-6.

Ms. May, would you like to speak to PV-6?