Transport Committee on June 18th, 2025

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yesterday, the committee heard from a constitutional expert by the name of David Robitaille. He said that the definition of “national interest” set out in this bill in no way corresponds to the one set out in Supreme Court rulings, including the one on carbon pricing.

It seems that when you designate something as being of national interest, that's a way of saying that it's in the interest of Canada as a whole.

Why did you not use the Supreme Court's definition instead of applying completely arbitrary criteria?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

I don't think the criteria are arbitrary, given that they're in a bill that's before Parliament and that parliamentarians in the House and the Senate will vote on.

As I understand it, a Supreme Court ruling on another subject is a bit different from an economic emergency requiring governments to get projects approved more quickly. I say governments in the plural because, in the vast majority of cases, if not all of them, decisions will be made following consultation and co-operation with the provinces and territories.

There are possible scenarios for all kinds of projects. If the premiers of western Canada and the northern territories present a project that affects several jurisdictions, I would be perfectly comfortable saying that it is in the national interest. I'm inspired by the work of the governments of Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, for example.

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

I sort of understand your answer.

The concept of a project of national interest doesn't really have a definition. Here, it says that these are the projects listed in schedule 1. Don't you think that's a pretty arbitrary definition?

In fact, the only existing criteria are in subsection 5(6) of the building Canada act, and those are suggestions for the minister to consider. There is no obligation in the act, unless you propose an amendment to that effect to add to the amendments that will be proposed today. Do you think you would support that?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I'm not in a position to judge the amendments you're going to propose. I have full confidence in your committee colleagues to discuss these amendments.

There is, in fact, a list of criteria that we will use to determine whether a project is of national interest. As my colleague told you, you're lucky to have had the five criteria read to you twice. I can do it a third time.

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

I am well aware of them, Minister. I even mentioned the number of the proposed subsection where they are found.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Next, we have Mr. Morin.

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

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to congratulate Minister Alty on her appointment.

Minister, for many first nations, rights often get kind of.... It's hard for first nations to understand section 35 treaty rights and the umbrellas under that when it comes to how provinces have jurisdiction in certain areas. First nations' traditional inherent rights are mixed into Canadian law.

Treaty first nations have long held that the Natural Resources Transfer Acts violate treaty rights, particularly for Treaties 1 to 11. I'm wondering if the minister agrees with first nations rights holders in this regard.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

I'd have to look into that further.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Does the minister agree that resource revenue sharing when it comes to major projects and natural resource extraction is a model to agree with, that model of resource revenue sharing from the federal government?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

I know that in the Northwest Territories that's an element, but I have to look into it further. As you mentioned, I'm new to the portfolio. I look forward to discussing this with you further.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

The government has cited $40 million in consultation engagement for first nations.

Typically, we've seen a lot of spending on third party consultants: $20 billion plus for consultants and the Liberals planning to spend $1,400 per family.

For this particular instance, can the minister guarantee that the $40 million will go directly to rights holders, to indigenous communities, rather than third party consultants?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

It is for indigenous rights holders. I know that in my territory some rights holders then go on to hire consultants. I wouldn't be in the position to say that rights holders have to hire somebody full time on their team. If they are going to hire a consultant to lead their work, that would be up to the rights holders.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to pass the rest of the time to Jamie Schmale.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Thank you to my colleague, Billy Morin, for the time.

Congratulations, Minister, on your appointment. I look forward to working with you.

Minister, we've had a number of nations here in the capital raising awareness of the fact that they were not consulted on Bill C-5. In particular, the Anishinabek Nation's grand council chief has said she has not been consulted. We have a number of others who are saying the same thing.

First of all, did you have any involvement in the consultation? I believe some are saying they had been given seven days' notice on this. Were you involved in any of the consultation, especially with this nation, and is it the plan going forward that seven days' notice is adequate consultation?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

The project was led by another department, and there were a number of organizations, not only indigenous rights holders but also national indigenous organizations, that were engaged on the legislation. Moving forward, the legislation has two parts, or, I guess, three parts if a project were to be removed on the consultation. Listing a project in schedule 1 involves consultation with impacted indigenous rights holders.

For the second part, if a project were—

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Maybe I could just cut in there. In your answer to Ms. Stubbs, you talked about meaningful consultation that has to be adequate, but there were no definitions for that, and we're seeing nations here say seven days. Is that the definition of meaningful and adequate?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

As I mentioned, the meaningful and adequate consultation is fact- and situation-specific. Some of the work that our department has been doing over the past year has been working with indigenous rights holders as well as national organizations on developing protocol guidelines for the federal government. Outside of that, I do know first nations, Inuit and Métis also have protocols and consultation guidelines, so we'd be looking to engage with the impacted indigenous rights holders to make sure that we are—

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

What about those who are in favour of projects? We have a number of indigenous communities that are in favour.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Exactly. When we're consulting on whether to include a project in schedule 1, as well as the consultation once a project is added and the conditions, we'd be working with those indigenous rights holders. We have indigenous proponents who want to bring forward projects under this bill.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Okay, that's good if they want to bring that forward, but how do you deal with the fact that Bill C-69 is still in place? I know this bill gives extraordinary powers to the government, but at the same time, you still have some pretty powerful impediments to development in place right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Give us a very short response, please, Minister.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

The legislation for the one economy is listing a project in schedule 1, as well as putting in the conditions. We engage with indigenous rights holders in consultation and accommodation. Also, if we were removing a project, again, the consultation and accommodation would occur.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Minister.

Concluding our line of questioning for the panel of ministers and officials today is Mr. Kelloway.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The first question is for Minister LeBlanc.

The Prime Minister has been very clear that this legislation will get us to "one project, one review". I'm wondering if you can explain to the committee what that means. For instance, if we have an agreement for “one project, one review” with, let's say, the Province of Quebec, would they still be required to do, for example, an environmental assessment under their own processes?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Chair, our colleague raises a good question. If we conclude on this, it's an instructive moment.

One of the things that we've heard about projects is that they are big and small. This comes back to Mr. Barsalou-Duval's question around smaller projects that may have provincial or municipal approvals. The ability for the government to say that it has signed co-operation agreements with the provinces and territories to have one project and one review is not about lowering everybody's standards to the lowest common denominator. It's about eliminating duplication and overlap. Of course, nothing in this legislation affects the jurisdiction of provinces, but it would allow proponents to benefit, again, from a basic principle that makes economic sense. We think it can make environmental sense, as well, in terms of allowing them to have the certainty that when a project is submitted, there is a coherent and non-duplicative review process.

The Prime Minister's instructions to us have been clear. Within six months, he wants us to have co-operation agreements with all the provinces and territories and, frankly, to build on many of the best practices. The provinces and territories have been doing great work in this regard for a long time. If there's a way to ensure there are comparable federal standards to a province doing the work, or vice versa, what an opportunity to assist proponents in arriving at a more coherent and cost-effective process.

What's interesting is that improving that system will apply to projects big and small, so it's not only about a designated project in the national interest. Done properly, this will assist, we hope, many much smaller projects going through the appropriate scrutiny and review but in a way that's much more cost-effective and much more effective in terms of time.