Transport Committee on June 18th, 2025

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

Yes. It's a very minor amendment, Mr. Chair.

I'm more discouraged after the last few votes for more substantive amendments, but this would improve things somewhat. It's asking, in the consideration of factors, to simply add to the existing line in the legislation around climate change: to add biodiversity to climate change. That's the explanation for Parti vert. Obviously, I think the reasons for it don't need to be further explained. Canada has taken international commitments in relation to climate change and biodiversity, and there's no reference to biodiversity in the existing Bill C-5.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Are there questions, comments or clarifications?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We will now move on to BQ-15.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to drop BQ-15.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you. BQ-15 will therefore not be moved.

Let us move on to BQ-16.

Go ahead, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is simply to specify that projects must respect provincial and territorial rights.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Are there any questions, comments or clarifications?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On PV-7, Ms. May, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, it's another attempt to improve the way in which the bill has been redacted and to add conditions that we believe will improve Bill C-5 overall. To the specifics of it, I'm afraid I'm deep in the amendments package.

I apologize, Mr. Chair. I've opened up the package at the wrong tab, but I will find it in a moment to make sure that I give the best possible explanation of why I brought forward PV-7. For people who are watching and are wondering if I don't know my amendments, they get numbered after I send them in.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Chair, perhaps we could suspend for a moment while Ms. May collects her notes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Ms. May, I'm actually going to see if we can skip forward if that's what we're allowed to do as far as regulations are concerned.

Colleagues, do we have unanimous consent to move on until such time as Ms. May indicates that she's ready?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

May we have just a very quick moment to suspend, just to go over some things here?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We're going to suspend for two minutes.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

Colleagues, I would like to turn the floor over now to Ms. May to speak to PV-7.

Ms. May, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I now understand, of course, the extent of what my confusion was, and I apologize for that. Thank you for your indulgence.

Parti vert provides a definition to a term that was needed, had one of my earlier amendments, PV-5, carried. I sort of pulled it out of my pile when the earlier amendment didn't carry, because PV-7 provides a definition for the term “clean growth” for the criteria that I had hoped would be added by my amendment PV-5.

At this point, after checking with the clerk, as a non-member of the committee whose motions and amendments are deemed to have been moved by others, I don't think I'm allowed to remove this, but it would no longer make sense, because my earlier amendment was defeated, so we'd be providing a definition for a term that's not currently used.

If somebody wants to add the term “clean growth” to the bill, I think the definition that I had prepared for PV-7 would be a good definition, but the term “clean growth” doesn't currently appear in the bill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Do members want to go to a vote?

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

I'll just say, Mr. Chair, that I believe nuclear power is clean energy.

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

I'll let Dan know that we might disagree on that, and that will surprise you down to your toes, but thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. May.

Are there any questions, comments or concerns? If not, we'll go to a vote on PV-7.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Colleagues, we're making great progress. Do you want to keep this pace up?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

On NDP-25, colleagues, are there any questions, comments or clarifications? I see none.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We are on CPC-5.

I'll turn the floor over to Ms. Stubbs.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to my colleagues.

On behalf of all Canadians, we want to help improve Bill C-5. Of course there have been many concerns and very good reason to be worried about a bill that may provide exemptions to the Conflict of Interest Act and screens, especially in this case with so many decisions being made behind closed doors with so much of the criteria and many of the details to be determined through policy and regulation after the fact. It's obviously imperative for this legislation to ensure screens for conflicts of interest to ensure that Canadians can trust this process and the decisions that are being made and have confidence and certainty in our country.

Therefore, this amendment ensures that integrity by requiring that project proponents and public officials involved in decision-making are free from conflicts of interest. It protects the public trust by preventing politically connected or ethically compromised individuals from influencing national interest designations.

We as Conservatives believe very strongly that the application of the Conflict of Interest Act should be embedded into Bill C-5 to screen for politically connected and politically determined decision-making.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Stubbs.

Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. Kelloway, go ahead.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I just have a point of clarification for MP May. That used to be my riding, but it's no longer my riding. I will talk to the MP in question with respect to cell coverage.

We're going to be opposed to this. The project proponents are not public office holders, Mr. Chair. If a proponent is a public office holder, they would have already been subject, so we think it's redundant. That's the rationale for why we will be opposing it.