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.
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Chrystia Freeland Liberal University—Rosedale, ON
I'm going to be super quick.
Dominic and I both know what it's like to be on the opposition side of the House. We know the job of the opposition is to oppose, and that's how our democracy works. However, in concluding this, I would just like to offer a hope and a suggestion that this is actually legislation all of us can be proud to support. I haven't heard a single person oppose free internal trade in Canada, lifting barriers to labour mobility, or lifting barriers to trade in goods and services. We can all get behind that.
On the major projects, I truly believe this is a piece of legislation that brings together everything we as Canadians want. We all want to get big projects built. We know we have to do it. We all know that we need to respect the rights of indigenous people and indigenous rights holders, including their right to build major projects and participate in that prosperity. We all believe that we need to respect environmental rights.
I know that we all agree that provincial and territorial jurisdictions must be respected.
I really hope that at the end of this we can feel good about doing a good thing together for Canada.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Clarke, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Just really quickly, if the minister would be willing to stay for one more minute—I was going to ask for four hours more—Ms. Gazan could ask her questions.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Seeing no objection, I'll turn it back to Mr. Kelloway, who still had 50 seconds left.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Sydney—Glace Bay, NS
Minister Alty, one of the acts of Parliament listed in schedule 2 of the bill is the Indian Act.
Can you explain the reasoning behind including the Indian Act as one of the pieces of legislation that may need parts of it to be suspended for a specific project?
Liberal
Rebecca Alty Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
We're moving forward with projects. Some communities are subject to archaic provisions under the Indian Act, so we will engage with first nations partners on projects. If we need to suspend some provisions of the act, like a financial clause or leases we've heard about, we will do so in a way that allows for development while respecting cultural practices and environmental standards.
We want to retain this option for where it makes sense to advance a project, but it's after consultations with first nations communities. Using this legislation on sections of the Indian Act may be beneficial, which is why it's included, but it would only be done in consultation with first nations.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you.
We'll turn the floor over to Ms. Gazan for one last question of the day.
The floor is yours.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you so much.
Thank you to everybody who has come, to all the ministers who have come here today.
Minister Alty, you spoke about FPIC and about there being confusion. Because we've signed on to international law, I just want to point to the UN expert mechanism on the rights of indigenous peoples that we've agreed to uphold, this FPIC, so we shouldn't be confused at all.
Are you aware that the federal government spends between $500 to $1 billion per year fighting indigenous peoples in court? ITK, AFN and NAN have indicated that Bill C-5 is an ungracious invitation to the Supreme Court, meaning that the goal of this bill with regard to nation-building projects will actually be an economy-killing, job-killing bill because it's becoming very clear from constitutional experts that any projects going forward are going to end up in court. Are you aware of this?
Any one of you can answer the question.
Liberal
Rebecca Alty Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
I would emphasize that the purpose of this bill is to get approval of good projects. We know that failing to meaningfully consult with impacted rights holders will not speed up the approvals and will actually lead to further delays in the courts. Again, this is why the preamble, proposed subsection 5(7), proposed subsection 7(2) and proposed subsection 8(3) all require the government to consult with section 35 rights holders in the selection of projects and in the process of approving them and adding conditions. As well, if it came to the case, the projects would have to be removed.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Organizations have indicated that they haven't been properly consulted and that this will be in the courts.
Thank you.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Well, it is exactly 5:30. Here at the transport and infrastructure committee, we pride ourselves on running a tight ship.
Thank you to Minister Alty, Minister LeBlanc, Minister Freeland and, of course, the officials. Thank you for your time today.
We will suspend for five minutes to allow the clerk to transition to the next round of witnesses.
The meeting is suspended.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I call this meeting back to order.
I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of our new witnesses and to welcome them here.
First, please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, please click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.
Colleagues, I'd now like to welcome our witnesses for the next hour. From the Canadian Cancer Society, we have Helena Sonea, director of advocacy. Welcome to you. We also have Rob Cunningham, senior policy analyst. Welcome, sir.
From the David Suzuki Foundation, we have Sabaa Ahmad Khan, director general, Quebec and Atlantic Canada, by video conference. Welcome to you.
From the Manitoba Métis Federation, we have David Chartrand, president, national government of the Red River Métis, joining us by video conference. Welcome.
From Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta, we have Grand Chief Trevor Mercredi. Welcome to you, Grand Chief.
We'll begin with opening remarks.
With that, I'll turn it over to the Canadian Cancer Society for three minutes, please.
Helena Sonea Director, Advocacy, Canadian Cancer Society
Thank you very much.
Chair and committee members, on behalf of the Canadian Cancer Society, thank you for the opportunity to testify.
My name is Helena Sonea, director of advocacy, and with me today is Rob Cunningham, lawyer and senior policy analyst.
At the Canadian Cancer Society, we're proud to be the largest national charitable funder of cancer research in Canada. We also advocate to governments for policies that protect and improve the health of everyone in Canada. We've been at the forefront of historic advocacy wins like tobacco and asbestos, and the extension of Canada's EI sickness benefits. We also provide practical and compassionate support like lodging, transportation and more.
Regarding Bill C-5, our testimony will focus on part 1 regarding internal trade. While we understand the importance of strengthening the economy, our concern is that the health and environment standards will unintentionally be weakened.
I will turn things over to Rob.
Rob Cunningham Senior Policy Analyst, Canadian Cancer Society
Thank you, Helena.
In terms of internal trade, the Bill C-5 provisions in part 1, clauses 7 to 9 are of tremendous concern. This part of Bill C-5 would override all other federal laws. Bill C-5 would allow a company to comply with a weaker provincial or territorial standard instead of a more stringent federal standard.
In the government's June 6 backgrounder, it gave an example of how a weaker provincial energy efficiency standard for washing machines would prevail over the federal standard. Here are a few examples from us. The first is asbestos, where the federal government bans asbestos in products while provinces have weaker restrictions, allowing asbestos up to a certain percentage. Bill C-5 would allow these weaker provincial restrictions to prevail. In another example, tobacco, federal regulations ban all menthol and flavour ingredients in cigarettes, whereas provinces have a less restrictive requirement allowing some flavours.
Health and environment exceptions are standard in international trade agreements, and several agreements also have an explicit exemption for tobacco control measures, given the long history of abuse by tobacco companies seeking to use trade agreements to block or to invalidate tobacco measures, and that's also in the Canadian Free Trade Agreement. Thus, Bill C-5 has unintended consequences.
The good news from our perspective is that there are ways to fix the problem. First, we recommend an amendment to include a general health and environment exception for the internal trade part of the bill, clauses 7 to 9 in part 1. We have provided proposed text for this to the committee. Alternatively, we urge the government to commit to regulations under the bill for an exception for health and environment for these clauses 7 to 9 in part 1, and there should also be a specific regulatory exception for tobacco.
If other free trade agreements can include exceptions for health and environment, and also specifically for tobacco, then so can Bill C-5 for internal trade within Canada.
We welcome your questions. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much.
Next, we'll go to Sabaa Ahmad Khan from the David Suzuki Foundation.
The floor is yours. You have three minutes, please.
Sabaa Ahmad Khan Director General, Québec and Atlantic Canada, David Suzuki Foundation
Thank you.
Members of the committee, at a time of global disruption, Canada's sovereignty and resilience must be protected and strengthened. This includes investments in nation-building efforts that reinforce our ability to act in the public interest. In this effort, environmental and health sovereignty cannot be dissociated from Canadian public values.
The committee has heard conflicting views over the last days on if and how these values are reflected in Bill C-5. This in itself reinforces the highly problematic nature of the rapid-fire study of a bill that has profound implications for Canadians and for the democratic rights of indigenous and provincial governments to protect public and environmental health.
Government representatives have stated that Bill C-5 is not intended to lower health, safety or environmental standards, but intentions are not law. In a country governed by the rule of law, public policy must be defined by clear statutory language, not verbal assurances. If the goal is truly to maintain or raise standards across jurisdictions, that commitment must be explicitly written into the bill through critical amendments to both parts 1 and 2.
The David Suzuki Foundation shares concerns raised by Ecojustice and West Coast Environmental Law on part 2 of the bill in their Senate testimonies. Part 2 of the bill is an unprecedented threat to indigenous sovereignty and the constitutional balance between federal and provincial authority, and we have jointly submitted to the committee a list of priority amendments to the building Canada act.
Part 1 of the bill, the trade and mobility act, aims to facilitate internal trade by codifying automatic mutual recognition of goods, services and occupational credentials across provinces and territories. It is also problematic.
While Bill C-5's goal of administrative efficiency is understandable, it must not come at the sacrifice of public and environmental health. This is exactly the essence of both parts 1 and 2 of the bill. Currently, both parts not only undermine the implementation of national and provincial law and standards, they threaten the ability of indigenous nations, provinces and territories to uphold measures tailored to their unique public interest concerns. Without amendments, the bill jeopardizes federal, provincial and territorial authority to regulate in the public interest, especially on matters of environmental protection and health.
Canada already has an internal trade regime under the Canadian Free Trade Agreement. Chapter 2 of that agreement allows governments to maintain regulatory measures that pursue legitimate objectives, including health and environmental protection; however, those measures are subject to strict conditions. They must not be more trade-restrictive than necessary and must not create disguised barriers to trade. These standards can already be challenging for provinces to meet. Bill C-5 adds a new layer of risk. For example, by turning mutual recognition into a statutory obligation, the bill potentially elevates interprovincial trade access into a de facto right, one that companies could use to bypass or even challenge legitimate, democratically adopted local, provincial and federal protections.
While part 1 includes a commitment to protecting health, safety and the environment while removing federal barriers to trade, the reliance on undefined, comparable requirements between jurisdictions sets a weaker standard than equivalency. This vague, overly broad benchmark risks sidelining stronger federal, provincial and territorial protections in the name of trade facilitation.
Rather than mimic the United States' approach to ruling by decree, diminishing the rule of law and suppressing public debate, Bill C-5 should confront threats to Canadian sovereignty by reinforcing indigenous nations' inherent and treaty rights, constitutional provincial authority, democratic processes and the environmental rule of law, all of which underpin our federation.
The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides a strong example of how high environmental protection can be a central component of removing barriers to trade and fostering a single market. Bill C-5 should be amended to explicitly exclude environmental health and safety standards from the mutual recognition framework. The bill should be amended to explicitly uphold the most protective requirements and allow for only federal recognition of equivalent provincial and territorial requirements.
Canada's federal model is built on shared sovereignty and regulatory pluralism. Bill C-5 in its current form threatens to override both. Economic mobility and interprovincial co-operation are worthy goals, but they must not come at the cost of environmental degradation, weakened public health safeguards or diminished indigenous jurisdiction.
Thank you. I'm happy to respond to any questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much.
Next we'll go to Mr. Chartrand.
The floor is yours for three minutes, please.
David Chartrand President, National Government of the Red River Métis, Manitoba Métis Federation
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand that the committee is burning the midnight oil and I thank you, of course, for all these late hours of work you're doing.
Thank you to the committee members for the invitation to present to the Transport, Infrastructure and Communities committee on Bill C-5 today.
On Monday, I spoke to the Senate committee of the whole on this important legislation, alongside leadership from the AFN and ITK. Today, my presentation will focus on the importance of consultation and the role of legitimate rights holders.
The MMF is the national government of the Red River Métis and represents our citizens' rights, claims and interests no matter where they live, both inside and outside Manitoba. The Red River Métis are Canada's negotiating partner in Confederation and founders of Manitoba. We're the only indigenous people to bring a province into Canada. The Red River Métis are section 35 rights holders. The MMF is the only Métis government with a modern-day treaty.
In 1870, in establishing Manitoba, the Red River Métis negotiated a unique treaty that included land for our families and children. Subsequently, we were not recognized by Canada as a people or nation, nor did we receive the land.
In its ruling on the unfulfilled Métis land grant section of the Manitoba Act, 1870, the Supreme Court of Canada held the following: “The ongoing rift in the national fabric that [section] 31 was adopted to cure remains unremedied.” It went on further to say: “The unfinished business of reconciliation of the Métis people with Canadian sovereignty is a matter of national and constitutional import.”
The 2024 Canada—Red River Métis self-government recognition and implementation treaty is an important step towards reconciliation. However, the treaty will not come into force until implementation legislation is passed. We hope it will be soon. As Canada seeks to strengthen the federation, part of that effort should be devoted to remedying the “rift in the national fabric” and the unfinished business of reconciliation with our citizens by moving to settle our land claim and immediately passing our treaty implementation legislation.
As Canada's partner in Confederation, we have a unique relationship with Canada and a special interest in the ongoing success of the integrity of our country. We understand the importance of this legislation and support its intent to strengthen the economy and diversify markets. While this bill is not perfect, we see the opportunity this moment presents to build on the recent success of Canada's policy of forming a distinctions-based, government-to-government and nation-to-nation relationship with the Red River Métis.
The MMF is the sole representative of the constitutionally recognized Red River Métis collectivity. It is through our government that early participation and meaningful consultation must begin and end. In the past, the Crown has tried to work around our duly elected government by turning to individuals and NIOs to fulfill its duty to consult.
I want to emphasize that neither of these options will fulfill Canada's duty to consult with the Red River Métis. Our relationship with Canada is direct and cannot be ignored or worked around. In acting on this bill, Canada must work with legitimate indigenous rights holders and their governments. This also means that our governments must be respected. We must not be held at a lower regard than provinces or municipalities. We are no less than any other government in this country and we must be respected as such.
In our case, the MMF must be where Canada focuses its efforts. We expect the following: to be consulted early and often on projects to ensure we have an opportunity to meaningfully partner; to work with us to identify national interest projects and co-develop project criteria; and to be included via procurement equity participation and workforce participation. Further, we must be involved in the establishment of the indigenous advisory council. There should be a commitment from the government that it will work with legitimate indigenous governments in establishing this important council.
In closing, I want to clarify and state that we are ready to support this bill with the understanding that it will be implemented properly. To us, this means working with legitimate rights holders and governments during all the phases of the projects, from identification to selection to delivery. The timely implementation of this legislation is imperative. We face a great economic threat from the south, and a recession would disproportionately impact our people.
With this in mind, the MMF is prepared to stand with the Government of Canada on the timely passing and implementation of Bill C-5.
Thank you very much.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, President Chartrand.
Next we have Grand Chief Trevor Mercredi.
Mr. Mercredi, you have the floor.
You have three minutes, sir.
