Transport Committee on June 18th, 2025

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

There's no requirement for transparency. There's almost no counterbalance there. You're going to tell us which projects will be in schedule 1 and which acts will be in schedule 2, but that's the only element of transparency. I don't think that provides a lot of accountability to the public. You can even use those powers when Parliament is not sitting.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

There is an obligation to be transparent in the proposed legislation.

In the preamble to your question, you said that this was normally a power reserved for the legislature. What we're saying is that all the analyses required under environmental standards legislation or the Fisheries Act, for example, will be done, but more consistently and on an accelerated timeline. Ultimately, the Governor in Council will make the decision whether or not to approve a project. It's no different from how a number of other laws currently apply.

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

I have one last question for you.

Ms. Freeland said that it provides greater certainty—in fact, total certainty—to the proponents whose projects will be included in schedule 1 of the bill.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I don't think she said “total”.

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

Those are my words. It is decided in advance that projects will go ahead, so it is decided in advance that they will be authorized. Normally, departments have processes, safeguards and laws that apply, and various officials analyze the projects.

What do you think will go through the minds of public servants who have to analyze these projects knowing that they have already been approved? If a project is already designated as approved when it would not normally be approved under existing legislation, do you think public servants will be motivated to do a proper job when they analyze it?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I think so.

Perhaps the public servant who holds the second-highest position in the Public Service of Canada after the Clerk of the Privy Council can answer that question more specifically.

[Christiane Fox]

Transport Canada, Natural Resources Canada and the other current departments will be gateways for the work to be done on major projects. In the case of a port, for example, we'll work with Transport Canada, we'll get project descriptions and an analysis will be done by market diversification experts. Once it has been determined that the project meets the criteria, it will be sent to the Major Projects Management Office.

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

What I'm saying is that if the conclusions of a scientific analysis are scripted in advance, it distorts the science. That is the reality.

[Christiane Fox]

Department scientists will work to ensure that the conditions set by the minister are valid.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Thank you very much, Deputy Minister Fox.

Next we will go to Mr. Morin.

Mr. Morin, I believe the floor is yours. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Ms. Stubbs is to go first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Ms. Stubbs, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, please.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.

Minister Freeland, we Conservatives have been calling for fast-tracking, clarity and certainty on all of these pieces of legislation and these regulations that Bill C-5 allows to be circumvented.

We would agree with your comments here today that there is a thicket of legislation and regulations that means that big projects can't be built. That is why we, as Conservatives, are saying that those are your fundamentals to fix. Fix those laws instead of doing this workaround.

Further to the point that one of my colleagues was making earlier, Canadians have yet to hear from any of you how you are going to enforce federal jurisdiction on interprovincial pipelines, which are federal jurisdiction and which, of course, you've failed to do before.

I'm a person who comes from Treaty 6, and I'm proud to represent and work with five first nations and four Métis settlements in my area. All of them are involved in both traditional and clean energy, and they are the service suppliers and contractors to the oil sands. I am also a descendant of the Brokenhead Ojibway Nation in Manitoba. I, too, am concerned about this government's ability to fulfill its duty to consult, so far, through this legislation.

What's concerning, Minister, is that you talked about three different levels and layers of approval. That is, obviously, uncertain in itself. I'm glad to hear that Bill C-5 is promising capacity funding for the meaningful participation of indigenous communities through this process. I would note that this was also promised through Bill C-69. Every time I ask the indigenous leaders, workers, proponents and private-sector owners and operators—who, as you know, in Alberta for decades upon decades have been earning their own own-source revenue for energy development—they say that none of that funding ever flowed. I sure hope that you guys will keep your word this time.

I think that it really is incumbent upon you to clarify exactly how that duty to consult will be deployed by the actual decision-makers. The courts are clear that what's required is the two-way dynamic to mitigate adverse impacts on affected communities.

I particularly ask you this question in the context of yesterday's AFN national chief saying that Bill C-5will be an open invitation to court challenges and go all the way to the Supreme Court. For all of us who want to get to “yes” in a good way, how will you actually make clear to Canadians that, for the first time, you will actually fulfill the duty to consult fully and completely and to make that happen, given the differences in views among the 600-plus indigenous communities in Canada?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

One of the challenges is having a single definition for indigenous consultation. Like you mentioned, there are 600 different first nations. Then there are the Inuit and the Métis. We want to make sure that it's meaningful and adequate. Having that single definition doesn't work. It's also important. It's very fact-specific and situation-specific.

For the projects contemplated under this bill, it would depend on the nature of the project, on which section 35 rights holders may be impacted and to what degree, and on the nature of the section 35 rights that may be adversely affected. There are a number of other variables.

These ones are affirmed by the Constitution. We have the Supreme Court.

This legislation, in particular—the proposed building Canada act—has references in the proposed preamble, proposed subsection 5(7), proposed subsection 7(2) and proposed subsection 8(3). Those all require consultation with section 35 rights holders.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

That's right—which has not been done to date, we learned yesterday.

The bill does set up the cabinet ministers as the decision-makers. Will cabinet ministers be at the table on those projects as you go through this specific, project-by-project, ad hoc, obviously inherent, uncertain consultation?

Minister, you mentioned the removal of projects from the national interest list. You can imagine that is deeply concerning, certainly to indigenous proponents of, for example, pipelines that were vetoed in the past that they were relying on or LNG projects that were killed in the past that they were relying on and had spent years negotiating with big companies in a good way to get benefits for their communities. How can Canadians and indigenous people who all want to get to “yes” in a good way on these big projects trust the claims here?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

That one is in proposed subsection 8(3) on page 12 of the legislation. If a project is going to be removed, there's the requirement of consultation, the duty to consult, with indigenous rights holders who may be impacted.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Then you can imagine a project proponent—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Stubbs.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

—getting all of the way through and then being told no.

Also, why don't we just start with all of the indigenous back projects in front of the regulators right now and fast-track them?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Minister.

Next, we'll go with Ms. Nguyen.

Ms. Nguyen, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, please.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Thanks very much.

I want to ask a little bit about labour mobility because this is a huge part of why.... This is part of the economic growth piece, etc. We want to make sure that we're addressing the critical labour gaps, and we know that, as we get nation-building projects built more quickly, there are going to be cascading benefits in terms of job creation.

There was a recent study by the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses that shows that interprovincial barriers hold back productivity and limit access to qualified workers, especially in skill-dependent sectors.

Could you speak to the potential workforce and productivity impact that comes with strengthening labour mobility?

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

I sure can.

Before doing that, I just want to get two points quickly on the record. One is that, when it comes to pipelines, it is important to be very clear that it was a Liberal government and not a Conservative government that got TMX built. That pipeline is up and running at a time when we really need it, when we need to have a way to get our oil to market that does not just go through the United States. That pipeline is going to deliver $1.25 billion in revenue directly to the federal government, so let's be clear—that is a reality.

Let's also be clear that we are on the brink of some huge LNG projects coming online, such as Kitimat, Cedar and Woodfibre, including major indigenous participation.

When it comes to indigenous consultation, the team members here—particularly our public servants—have been doing a great job. In the development of this legislation, 66 indigenous groups were consulted or worked with, and now they are up to 80. That is real work that has been done and is being done.

Labour mobility, which I love, is tremendously important. It's going to be one of the big contributors to those huge productivity gains in bringing down prices and to the huge overall GDP gains. As I said in my comments—I think, to Mr. Albas—the principal impediments to labour mobility are not at a federal level. They are at a provincial level, but I am hugely encouraged by the work the provinces are doing. This legislation is about the federal government doing our share so that we can say to our provincial colleagues, “Let's get this done.”

I want to emphasize two aspects. One is the idea of mutual recognition. It is incredibly powerful. This is how Australia created free trade within Australia—the principle that we should trust each other. If someone has a credential in one province, other provinces should say, “You know what? I trust the great people of Ontario”—Chi, where you and I are MPs—“to do a good job in deciding who can be a dental hygienist, and that dental hygienist should be good enough to work in Nova Scotia.” That is the core principle.

I want to add one other thing that is connected to labour mobility, and that is foreign credential recognition. If we can get to a space—and we are moving there—where we have mutual recognition of credentials across Canada, that will be very helpful in foreign credential recognition. Both those things will make our economy stronger and also make life better for people. I know all of us have constituents who are frustrated that they're not able to work. It takes too long when you move around Canada.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Thank you, Minister. I'm going to ask one more question.

I know we've started to talk a lot about the examples and opportunities around energy corridors and clean growth. My kids are very worried about the transition to our future, and talk to me all the time about how we're mitigating against this. Can you tell me a little bit more about how we can use this bill to advance those really important nation-building goals?

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

Absolutely, and Minister LeBlanc has already detailed some of them in the five conditions. One of them is to contribute to clean growth and to meet Canada's objectives with respect to climate change.

We have heard already, in the meetings we've been in, a lot of enthusiasm around major clean energy projects. Wind energy in the east is Premier Houston's passion project, and it could make a huge difference to Canada.

I'm also going to mention critical minerals, which are hugely important. We need them to build a clean economy, but we need to get the projects built to get those critical minerals and to process them. We haven't really talked about nuclear and about SMRs. That is another set of projects that can be advanced through this legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Minister, and thank you, Ms. Nguyen.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.