Transport Committee on June 18th, 2025

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Ministers, thank you for being here today, and thank you to all of the other members on the panel for being here today.

Proposed sections 21, 22 and 23 operate to allow any project to be exempt from this legislation. Mr. Barsalou-Duval suggested that this legislation was similar to the Emergencies Act. I'm seeking some clarity on your answer, Minister LeBlanc, because notwithstanding the validity of a law, proposed sections 21, 22 and 23 of Bill C-5 allow a project to be exempt from the legislation. We have seen sweeping powers in the notwithstanding clause in section 33 of the Constitution that allow the suspension of liberties, but there is a provision that protects citizens under section 1, which is the reasonable limits clause.

Where are the reasonable limits in this legislation? Where are the breaks in this legislation so that federal governments don't become bullies and sweep into municipal and provincial jurisdiction like they did with Bill C-69?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

The reason the government has put this bill before Parliament is precisely to enable large projects in the national interest to be built. In the context and the purpose of the legislation, there's part 1, which speaks about free trade within Canada. The part with respect to major projects focuses on enabling, and this is enabling legislation that creates a framework for these projects to be advanced.

People often refer to the clauses, Dr. Lewis, that you properly raised. Any exercise of authority in that context has to be done with respect to the purpose of the legislation. If the purpose of the legislation is to enable these large projects to be built, you can imagine a series of statutes that may form part of that evaluation, and then it's exercised by the Governor in Council, which is not an unusual process.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

My question specifically, though, doesn't deal with the enabling aspect of the legislation. We know what the legislation is about. My question specifically is this: What do you, Minister, see as reasonable limits on these sweeping powers that allow the invalidation of laws pursuant to proposed sections 21, 22 and 23 of Bill C-5? Where are the reasonable limits? What do you see as reasonable limits, and why aren't they contained in this bill?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I think it's important, first of all, to put it in context. These decisions will be exercised in consultation with provincial and territorial leaders. I'm encouraged by premiers working together to create, for example, energy corridors. The proponents in many cases may be sovereign provincial and territorial governments with indigenous partners. That is a limitation in and of itself. We'll be designating projects that have gone through the scrutiny of other orders of government, for example.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Minister, yesterday we heard concerns from a number of stakeholders and constitutional experts who confirmed that this bill is vague, has been hastily written and leaves much uncertainty with respect to projects of national interest. In fact, it was concluded that the determination would be solely a political decision, which, given these provisions in proposed sections 21 and 22, leaves room for political abuse.

I'm turning back to my question: Where are the brakes in this legislation? Why are there no reasonable limits put in this legislation so that this government can evoke the confidence of the people?

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

If I may, Dr. Lewis, seeking to understand the roots of your concern, I'd like to understand whether you are concerned that as a result of this legislation, we will build too much, and whether, as a result of this legislation, we will get too many major projects built.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

No. Excuse me. I think that is actually a very pejorative way of characterizing my concern. Canadians are concerned. I don't want you to minimize Canadians' concern about building too much. That's very facetious and it's unnecessary. We're trying to help. We had witnesses yesterday who were very concerned about the liberties that will be suspended in this legislation, and you're making a joke out of it. It is not funny.

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

No, no, truly, I was in no way making a joke; I was being entirely serious. This legislation is being proposed by us, and I believe it is being supported by the Conservatives, because there is a national consensus, which I believe many Conservative MPs agree with, that we have come to a place in Canada where we have such a thicket of processes, rules and regulations at all levels of government that we are unable to build with the alacrity that this moment in time requires. This legislation addresses precisely that realization. That's why it creates a clear framework to consider and put forward projects of national interest. There will be great transparency in terms of which projects are being put forward. There is a specified list of the areas where the legislation may need to move with more alacrity.

I'm very sympathetic, as I believe my colleagues are, to concerns around protecting due process and protecting the rights of Canadians, absolutely, but I'm very confident that this legislation will in no way infringe on rights. It will do something that Canadians have a right to, which is to build Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Minister.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'd like the record to show that my question was not answered.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Dr. Lewis.

We'll turn the floor over to Ms. Gazan for five minutes.

The floor is yours.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thanks to the committee for letting me ask questions.

My first question is for you, Minister Alty. Article 19 of UNDRIP provides that states need to seek and obtain free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples before adopting every legislative measure. Has the federal government upheld this obligation with Bill C-5, yes or no? I have very limited time. I'm an independent now.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

This process has been accelerated for the legislation. However, the key is—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have five minutes. The answer is no. It's accelerated, so no, it hasn't.

I'm going to answer it for you because....

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

The key, though, is that for the legislation, the consultation is happening on projects to be added to schedule 1 as well as on the projects.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm sorry, Minister. I'm talking about this legislation specifically because, as I'm sure you're aware, nations that have signed modern treaty agreements should have been consulted before the bill was tabled. That did not happen.

Do you believe the advisory circle fulfills the constitutional requirement to consult, accommodate and obtain the full consent of indigenous peoples? Answer yes or no.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

As mentioned before, the indigenous advisory council is providing guidance to the major national projects office. However, the consultation on projects to add to schedule 1, as well as whether a project's added.... The consultation on conditions has to be done with the indigenous rights holders, which isn't the indigenous advisory council.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

You would agree that the advisory circle is not an indigenous rights holder.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

That's correct.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Okay. That's very good.

I think this question is for you, Minister LeBlanc. If Quebec says no to a pipeline, would you respect that? Answer yes or no.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

The Prime Minister has been clear that he does not see us using this legislation to impose a project over the objection of a province.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That's great. Thank you, Minister.

Moving to you, Minister Alty, if indigenous peoples say no to a pipeline, will that same principle apply? Answer yes or no.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Yes, the key thing for this bill is that it's about looking for projects that are urgent.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Because I have follow-up questions, I want to be clear on this. If indigenous peoples say, “No, I don't want a pipeline”, would the same principle apply? Answer yes or no.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Yes, what I was going to explain is that for this bill, we're looking for projects with urgency as well as advancing—