Transport Committee on June 18th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, please let the minister finish his answer.

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

Mr. Chair, the minister says that what I'm telling him makes no sense. However, the bill allows for projects to be exempted from any act—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, your time is up.

Before giving the floor to the next speaker, I'm going to give the minister time to answer your question.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Chair, I would be very happy to move on to the next speaker.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Minister.

That brings us to Mr. Albas.

Mr. Albas, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ministers, for your service to the country and for being here. Hopefully, we'll get some accountability.

Minister Freeland, there was some reference to freeing the beer going between provinces. Really, under this act, there is nothing because if provinces like B.C. and Alberta come up with a bilateral between the two, all this bill says is that you'll just acknowledge it and recognize it, but it doesn't add any value. Is that the case?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

I was very careful, Mr. Albas, in my comments to not overstate the specific contribution that this legislation will make to internal trade and labour mobility. As you know very well, the federal government's role in that space is limited. This is about the federal government doing everything appropriately within its power to contribute to the larger goal of free movement of goods, services and people across the country. We need to do this because it's very hard for the federal government to play the appropriate role of convenor of provinces and territories if it's not doing its part.

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

Interprovincial shipping is actually a federal power, Minister. The Canada Post Corporation Act, for example.... I had a bill, Bill C-260, that would actually give Canada Post the authorization to send beer, wine and spirits. Right now, it's something that can be prohibited by an individual province. That is a federal power.

I'll move on.

In the act here, it also says that you will recognize a designation or a credential from a provincial.... At the technical briefing, the bureaucrats who were there—good people—mentioned that a land surveyor, for example, might be.... Are there any other jobs that this would apply to, or is this just so niche that it really doesn't do very much?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

I've been very clear to not overstate the extent to which the federal government is our problem when it comes to barriers to interprovincial trade and the movement of goods, services and people. The fact is that this is principally a provincial matter. This law is about the federal government doing its part. There are a few specific areas that this legislation removes unilaterally because what we're saying to the provinces and territories is that this is a national effort. I made a point in my remarks to highlight the excellent work that is being done by provinces and territories right now because they are leading the charge. We need to salute their work. We, as federal MPs, collectively have a responsibility to support what they're doing; the federal government has to do its part. I also want to be very clear: This legislation is very important when it comes to internal trade and labour mobility. It is not the end of the process, and we all have a responsibility to keep going to support the provinces to have truly free internal trade.

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

A previous Liberal prime minister used to talk about the dangers in being the “headwaiter to the provinces”, and it seems that all you guys want to talk about is provinces and territories. However, national interest, by its definition, has to reign over provincial interest. For example, the Prime Minister has said publicly that premiers have a veto. David Eby has said that he will not support a pipeline to the Pacific, even though it would be in our national interest to get our energy to other markets.

Minister, is there a national interest here, or are you only serving up for the provinces?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

I am so happy that, right now, there is a moment of a degree of national unity and consensus around this effort of a kind I have never seen before.

That meeting in Saskatoon—in a province that, as we know, has a Conservative government—was a meeting with more unity around free interprovincial trade and getting major projects built than any meeting of provinces, territories and the federal government that I have been present at.

Mr. Albas, I see no benefit and a great deal of harm, at this moment when the provinces are all stepping up, in the federal government somehow saying, “We're going to push you guys around.” The fact is, we don't need to. The provinces are doing a great job.

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

Minister, this is why we have a prime minister and a federal cabinet. It is to decide what the national interest is. That actually is your job.

Besides that, I would just go back. I'd like to go to Minister LeBlanc—

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Our job in the national interest is to work collaboratively with provinces and territories where we can. You get—

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

It's either a crisis or it's not, Minister. It's either an emergency or it's not.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Honey can be better than vinegar sometimes in building consensus—

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

I would like to see a list, Minister, of federal initiatives coming from my federal government.

Thank you.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

—and right now that's what's happening.

I believe even the Conservatives are voting for this legislation, and I'm happy about that, too.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Albas.

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses who are here today for the review of Bill C‑5, which is so important.

My first question is about the major projects office.

Minister Alty mentioned that one of the roles of the major projects office would be public consultation to ensure that work done on major projects is done properly.

Can you give us other examples of how the major projects office can help with work on major projects?

Also, what exactly will the office's role be in this context?

My question is for Mr. LeBlanc or Ms. Freeland.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Lauzon.

You're right, the Privy Council Office's goal in setting up the major projects office is precisely to help those entities whose proposed projects are selected on the basis of national interest. The major projects office will save provincial and territorial governments, indigenous peoples and private entities submitting projects the trouble of going through an assessment and permitting process that could take five, six or even seven years. The idea is to create a kind of support service that will facilitate sending the project directly to all departments concerned, such as Environment and Climate Change Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada or Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. That way, assessments can be done at the same time, rather than one after the other, which takes longer.

We also want to work with proponents whose projects are designated as being of national interest to ensure that it takes no more than two years to establish the conditions under which they can obtain official approval from a legal standpoint.

Basically, we're trying to be more consistent and effective. We want to eliminate what has become, over the years, a deterrent for investors, provinces and territories. We're not creating another layer of bureaucracy. We're offering access to a small group of experts or scientists who might be, say, experts in Arctic infrastructure or supply chains, or who can advise on how best to integrate indigenous owners to ensure equitable participation and economic benefit. The idea is to bring numerous experts who are already part of the machinery of government together at PCO. There will be access to additional resources as needed, of course.

We want to be efficient and consistent. We want to make sure that, instead of evaluating whether or not a given project can go ahead, the process establishes from the outset that we want the project in question to go ahead because it is in the national interest. At that point, it's a matter of figuring out if there's a way to do the project that is appropriate and consistent with our constitutional obligations and environmental standards, and to do it expeditiously. I hope this approach will get more projects off the ground.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

I would like Minister Alty to reassure indigenous people that not everything needs to be negotiated before Bill C‑5 is passed, and consultations will continue.

You all mentioned that there would be a lot of work to do after the bill has been passed.

For the benefit of this committee, can you explain how the government will adhere to the processes for working with indigenous peoples to get these projects approved?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you for the question. I'm going to answer it in English, because I want to make sure I don't make any mistakes.

It is important that the indigenous advisory council will be providing guidance to the major projects office. The terms of reference will be drafted over the summer, with the council getting up and running in the fall. That will provide guidance and advice to the major projects office, but the consultation on which projects to add to schedule 1 and, then, once they get added, the conditions for each project would actually be done with the indigenous rights holders who may be more impacted by the project.

I know I got a question yesterday where somebody said that the indigenous advisory council would be consulted on whether to add a project to schedule 1, and I just want to be clear that it is with the indigenous rights holders who may be impacted by the project. It's a two-step consultation with a potential third consultation so that, if we were to remove a project from the law, again, the indigenous rights holders would be involved in that consultation and those accommodations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.

Thank you, Minister.

Colleagues, before we jump into the second hour of testimony, I want to bring to everyone's attention that the CPAC numbers for today's meeting are off the charts. I've heard that Canadians are tuning in in record numbers, and among them, according to my wife, are my two children, Anderson and Ellie.

I want to say hi from Papa.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

The evening political shows, Mr. Chair, will be very jealous.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you for allowing me to do that.

We'll begin our next round of questioning with Dr. Lewis.

Dr. Lewis, you have six minutes. The floor is yours, please.