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.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Right, and you have explained that and it's already on the record.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Ms. Gazan, I promise to give you an extra 30 seconds to make sure that the minister can respond to your question.
Liberal
Rebecca Alty Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
I think it's important that you take a look at the legislation. It is about evaluating projects that have a high likelihood of successful execution and advancing the interest of indigenous peoples. If projects are being brought forward that don't meet those conditions, we're not going to be able to move with urgency as a federal government. We're looking for that high likelihood.
We're not looking for schedule 1 to have 500 projects, because the more projects we have.... We want that white-glove service.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Can I move on now?
You gave five criteria. I want to read this:
In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (1) or (4) in respect of a project, the Governor in Council may consider any factor
It reads, “the Governor in Council”. The words are very important.
that the Governor in Council considers relevant
I want to speak specifically to (d), which reads, “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples”.
Do you think it's appropriate that the Governor in Council makes the decision on behalf of indigenous people of what's advancing their interests, or do you think indigenous people should be making those decisions themselves?
It's very clear in here. This is a concern that's been brought up by many indigenous groups.
Liberal
Rebecca Alty Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
The key is that consultation would involve the indigenous rights holders who may be impacted. The consultation and accommodation would be with the indigenous rights holders.
NDP
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Ms. Gazan, the time is up. I'm going to let the minister look to respond. I just want to make sure that she has a moment to look that up and respond to your question.
Liberal
Rebecca Alty Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
Proposed subsection 5(7) is on consultation. It's on page 10.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Minister.
Thank you for joining us today, Ms. Gazan.
Next, we will go to Mr. Greaves.
The floor is yours. You have six minutes, sir.
Liberal
Will Greaves Liberal Victoria, BC
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you very much to the ministers for joining us today.
I'd like to pick up on a similar theme as my colleague, related to the five factors identified in the bill that would guide the decisions around projects in the national interest. This is probably for Minister LeBlanc, but I would welcome any of your comments.
Specifically on proposed paragraph 5(6)(e), which specifies as a factor projects that would “contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change”, could you speak, Minister, to how this factor would be considered in the identification of projects of national interest?
Would it mean that low-carbon projects, clean energy projects or projects that help to reduce emissions would be prioritized in the determination of projects under schedule 1?
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Chair, through you to Mr. Greaves, that is a very good question.
That particular paragraph of the legislation which you read, (e), is deliberately there because in a lot of the conversations we had with potential indigenous proponents and provinces and territories, there is a great deal of enthusiasm to put forward projects for designation and, hopefully, approval. There are wind energy projects, for example, and hydroelectric projects that the Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia is extremely excited about. There is a massive offshore wind project, and the corresponding interprovincial ties that could take that clean green energy to markets in Canada and to our neighbours to the south.
The Government of Quebec talked to us about a historic agreement it came to with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to further develop the Churchill River in Labrador. It's a project known as Gull Island. It's a massive green energy project similar to the Churchill River projects that Hydro-Québec and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador have operated for decades.
Those are just two examples.
The Premier of Manitoba, Premier Kinew, talked to us about renewable energy projects and Arctic infrastructure that would help defend the sovereignty of the Canadian Arctic while bringing much-needed energy resources and hydroelectric links between his province and Nunavut, for example.
You can see the potential. Your question is a good one.
One of the things that's a bit distressing is that often, in public conversation about this legislation, people go to one particular sector of the economy or one particular type of project, when the premiers, including the territorial premiers, have brought a myriad of projects from clean energy to conventional energy projects, infrastructure and diversifying ports. Many of those are under Chrystia's responsibility. If you think of port projects, the port of Prince Rupert in British Columbia is a massive piece of infrastructure that's necessary for the effective diversification of the Canadian economy
You're absolutely right. Those are examples.
If the legislation is adopted, Canadians will be extremely reassured by the kinds of inspiring projects that proponents bring forward. If there's time, Mr. Chair, the deputy clerk said she has examples of projects that indigenous proponents are enthusiastic about submitting for the designation.
You can see the myriad of projects, Mr. Greaves, in that regard.
Liberal
Will Greaves Liberal Victoria, BC
Keeping in a similar vein about how this legislation would interact with environmental regulations and environmental review processes, my colleagues opposite are sometimes a little forgetful when it comes to the number of projects that have been built in B.C. in recent years. We've seen a lot of change and a lot of investment in economic development, while maintaining a commitment to environmental protection and rigorous environmental review for the projects that have gone ahead in our province in recent years.
In that spirit, can you describe, Minister, how the new major federal project office would interact with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the environmental review process, please?
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Chair, that's a great question. It's technical. I want to make sure that the committee benefits from the precise answer. The deputy clerk has done more work on this than we have. Perhaps she can offer a very specific answer to Mr. Greaves' question.
Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council and Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Privy Council Office
Thank you very much.
The most important principle here, and what we're trying to achieve, is to bring multiple decision points of several sorts of government departments in a streamlined way for proponents so we could advance projects. That still means there will be interaction with Environment Canada, with Fisheries and with Transport, but the major projects office would not recreate the good work that is happening in the departments.
It would bring together that service to proponents, working with the indigenous advisory committee and working with the minister and indigenous peoples across the country on the consultation element. Really, our system can be difficult to navigate. Through the major federal projects office, when a project is designated of “national interest”, we will work with all of the components of the system to bring people together in a streamlined way. That will allow for projects to meet a quicker time frame, and it gives certainty to a proponent at the front end of a project, which can help in a lot of ways.
Minister LeBlanc referenced the fact that we've been approached by indigenous proponents who say: “If we are listed under this legislation, we may attract more investment. It may allow our project to proceed.” There have been a lot of questions around meeting that test of national interest. If a project is supported by an indigenous community, or an indigenous proponent, or by an equity stake, or if it is supported by a land claims organization and a territorial government, then you can start seeing how it would start hitting the mark of national interest: Arctic sovereignty and trade diversification through, potentially, Grays Bay Port.
These are examples of how we will assess. The major federal projects office will look at those project descriptions that come in, will assess their value and then will make recommendations to the minister, who will then consult his cabinet colleagues and provincial and territorial governments.
I would echo Minister Freeland's comment that there is a lot of unity around the types of projects that come in. That may mean that provincial and territorial governments may need to work together in proposing projects, but I think the major federal projects office's objective is to streamline the system and give good advice to government on projects of national interest.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Deputy Minister Fox, and thank you very much, Mr. Greaves.
Mr. Barsalou‑Duval now has the floor for six minutes.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to come back to the minister's comments that what I said was nonsense. Those are his words: He said that I was talking nonsense. I suggest he read the press release issued by the Société nationale de l'Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick in which it expresses concerns about the impact of Bill C‑5 on the rights of Acadians.
Then, Minister, you can go and tell them that their concerns are nonsense.
What is actually nonsense, in my opinion, is the extreme powers you are trying to secure through this bill, which needs better safeguards and a thorough examination. The bill is not ready to be passed in its current form.
Earlier, I spoke to you about emergency measures. You said that it wasn't an emergency measures act in disguise. However, there is a sunset clause. In addition, you're trying to get this bill passed very quickly. Another feature of the bill is that it gives powers to the executive that normally belong to the legislative branch, which makes it possible to override the legislative branch.
Then why is there a sunset clause right now? How can you know that, in five years, the emergency will be over?
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
We introduced the bill in the context of an economic emergency. My colleagues have clearly described our concern about diversifying the Canadian economy and the need to look at projects of national interest that can increase Canada's GDP. We are facing the threat of global instability, in the economic context of the tariffs imposed by the United States. I understand that this is a separate topic, but it is related to the current emergency.
During the election campaign, Mr. Carney made it clear that our government and our partners in the provinces and territories had an obligation to work together to advance these projects.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
It seems to me that you are granting yourselves excessive emergency powers. We'll see what the courts have to say about it in the future, because I'm sure your bill will be challenged in court.
Your bill also allows you to cherry-pick laws that will or won't apply to different projects. You can negotiate with each proponent which laws will or will not apply to a given project.
What guarantee does that give the public that this way of doing things will not raise the stench of corruption? I'm not saying that you're corrupt or that you're going to exempt major projects from the application of the Official Languages Act. What I'm telling you is that this bill opens the door to that, which is a serious problem.
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Obviously, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, I don't share the view that Bill C-5 opens the door to corruption. I wouldn't want to be associated with that idea.
However, you're right, we did determine that there was an economic emergency. That is an opinion shared by the premiers of the provinces and territories. We are therefore providing, for a limited period of time, a way for projects designated as being of national interest to move forward more consistently.
It shouldn't be implied either that the process will lack transparency. These projects will be designated in a very transparent way, and the conditions for their approval will be made public. That will be done by order in council.
You said that normally—