Transport Committee on June 18th, 2025

[Grand Chief Trevor Mercredi, Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Trevor Mercredi, grand chief of the Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta. I speak today on behalf of the sovereign Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta. Although I am here speaking, each sovereign nation has their own leadership, governance and priorities and retains their inherent right to speak for themselves.

We reject Bill C-5 as tabled. Its process is unconstitutional and its content is unacceptable. This bill is a clear attempt to fast-track infrastructure and resource projects by overriding rights holders under the banner of national interest. Canada gave us less than a week to respond to a non-substantive information sheet and did not share the full text of the bill before tabling it. It's a violation of the Crown's constitutional and treaty obligations.

Treaty No. 8 was entered into in 1899 with the imperial Crown, not Canada. It is not a domestic policy. It is a legally binding international agreement that remains in full legal force. Our inherent rights pre-exist treaty. They are not granted or defined by it. The treaty affirms our jurisdiction over our lands, decision-making and governance. The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that governments must consult with first nations before passing legislation that affects our inherent and treaty rights. Canada has ignored this direction with Bill C-5.

Canada did not consult with Treaty 8 first nations in the drafting of Bill C-5—not before, not during and not after. The bill effectively seeks first nations' consent before any impact assessment is conducted and before we understand how our treaty rights will be affected. This violates the principle of free, prior and informed consent as outlined in article 32.2 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples act, UNDRIP.

Instead of a nation-to-nation approach, Canada opted for speed and secrecy, and inclusion by marginalizing our nations. We understand that the Government of Canada has consulted with indigenous organizations like the Assembly of First Nations and the First Nations Major Projects Coalition. I would like to inform this committee that the Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta are not represented by the Assembly of First Nations or the First Nations Major Projects Coalition.

Bill C-5 gives sweeping power to federal officials to designate projects of national interest, bypassing our rights and institutions. There is no enforceable framework for assessing the cumulative impacts on our peoples and lands before authorizing such projects. This omission is a direct failure to uphold the Crown's duty to consult and accommodate, and places our communities at further risk of irreversible harm.

The bill facilitates development on our lands without our consent and without benefits for our communities. While Canada, the provinces and industry heavily profit from resource extraction, first nations do not see any profits. It erodes our rightful role as stewards and beneficiaries of our land and violates our fundamental and treaty-protected rights. No project should proceed without free, prior and informed consent.

We call on the Government of Canada to commit to a full rights-based consultation with the first nations of Treaty 8. Amend the bill with the following provisions: include explicit recognition of treaty and inherent rights; guarantee revenue sharing from appropriate projects under Bill C-5; include FPIC and UNDRIP explicitly; and establish a shared decision-making process with first nations.

We entered into treaty to live in peaceful coexistence, not to be legislated into silence while our lands are being developed without us. The rise in rare and serious illnesses linked to industrial activity cannot be dismissed. No project should proceed without fully understanding and addressing the long-term cumulative impacts on the health of our people.

If Canada wishes to be a global leader in indigenous rights, it must first uphold its legal and treaty commitments at home. It has a duty to uphold the honour of the Crown. We stand by, ready to partner.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Grand Chief.

We'll begin our line of questioning today with Mr. Morin.

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

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

[Member spoke in Cree and provided the following text:]

Kitamskahtinawaw Niwahkamahkanak.

[English]

Greetings to all my relations and to all the witnesses that came here today. It's nice to see witnesses from different backgrounds, whether they be in cancer, environmental protection, Métis or first nations leadership. Thank you for being here.

Grand Chief Mercredi, you mentioned first nations entered into treaties for peace and friendship. Ultimately, that would be peace and friendship across economic aspects, across social aspects and across living in harmony as human beings aspects.

You also mentioned FPIC. We heard in the throne speech a specific reference to free, prior and informed consent, but you mentioned that in this legislation there is no specific mention of that. I get concerned sometimes when things are said by the government and then walked back.

Again, we've also heard from third party organizations, a quote being something similar to the speed of trust when working with first nations. Throughout the last couple of weeks since Bill C-5 was introduced, I've heard nothing but first nations raising the concern about the speed and that there is no trust in this process. You've referenced that also.

Could you elaborate even more on whether this process undertaken by the current government is continuing to erode trust? Do you feel as though FPIC has been flaunted out there as just words or is it being uplifted as some aspects of the government have claimed in the recent past?

[Grand Chief Trevor Mercredi]

When we received the letter from the PMO, it raised many alarms. First of all, the letter was sent to our organization. It was not sent to all of the chiefs; it was sent just to our organization. That was very concerning as we know that the nations are the rights holders, and they were very concerned that this letter was shared with the AFN and other PTOs such as the Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta. We relayed the information immediately. It really set the course for the rest of the discussions around Bill C-5.

We feel like we've been pushed to the side, and the chiefs have really dug their heels in when it comes to this bill. It's a very concerning bill. It's very open-ended. Our rights are mentioned, but they're not reinforced.

There have been projects in the past that have been deemed national interest projects. Those national interest projects, like BC Hydro, have been a severe detriment to our communities, and they totally bypassed the rights of our people. When we see legislation like this that removes a lot of the legislation in the past or bypasses the legislation in the past that set these protections in place, we are very concerned.

We are here for treaty issues, but we understand that this is much bigger than a treaty issue. We understand that the government would like to move in a particular direction. They use the term “economic reconciliation”. As first nations people, we have to understand that when we talk about reconciliation, there is no such word in our vocabulary when it comes to what the federal government pushes forward. How can we reconcile something that was never there in the first place? It's really a play on words. We have an issue with the word “reconciliation”. How do we move forward from this? We really need to sit down with the Prime Minister and the ministers. We need them to understand our issues.

Right now, at home, there are many treaty chiefs who are waiting to see the outcome of this legislation. How are we going to react, and how are we going to move forward with the federal government in these projects and industry? I'd say the trust isn't there. That's why we're asking for certain amendments to be made to this bill. We simply cannot trust the people who are introducing this bill. We've seen it time and time again where our people have been pushed aside. We need to see some substantive amendments to this bill for us to support it in a way that our nations can grow alongside Canada. It's a very troubling issue right now that we're facing, and we're looking for rectification of our issues.

Thank you.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you, Chief.

My next question is for Mr. Chartrand. I too share the notion of finding balance and also getting a stronger economy, as I'm sure everybody around the table has said, no matter what their partisan stripe is, for the ultimate good of the country and of the regions.

Mr. Chartrand, you mentioned you would be looking at the positive aspects of this bill. Your organization is headquartered in Manitoba, and I'm wondering if you can elaborate on the specific natural resource-based projects you would like to see around the region of Manitoba and maybe some of the cross-provincial aspects of those. As you mentioned, your organization represents those beyond just Manitoba's borders. Can you elaborate on the specific projects you would like to see in the best interests of the nation?

[David Chartrand]

Firstly, I'm not an organization of a government. There are two different philosophies of thinking on that issue, but let me be clear: I am pro Bill C-5 right now. I do agree there's some clarity that needs to be further enhanced and further developed to make it very clear. A lot is being asked of us to trust. Indigenous people are very trustworthy people. We always trust. The sad part about it is sometimes we get burned because we're so honest and we trust.

However, at this particular time, when we look at our government, the Red River government has no more boundaries. We removed those boundaries when we signed our treaty. Those boundaries no longer exist. We have thousands upon thousands of citizens who have gotten their citizenship cards from western Canada.

When we look at some of the projects that couldn't possibly happen in particular, you said Manitoba, but we look at western Canada and the Arctic Gateway Group in Churchill. We already know pipelines potentially will be blocked in British Columbia by the Premier of British Columbia. He said that they're clearly not coming through there. We don't know what the full position of the first nations will be when it hits that territory. Quebec has also said pipelines are not going that way either, unless you maybe go around to the James Bay Cree and ask their permission. If you start looking in Manitoba, Hudson Bay, of course, is still a future output that could really be a game-changer. We see there's a massive opportunity.

Also, for defence, this is not just about national projects. There's going to be a massive investment when it comes to defence. In the past, Churchill was a main port of large contingency of the defence and potentially could be again. Manitoba could definitely be one that will find a great opportunity, but there could also be the opportunity for individuals and indigenous people from all over Canada to come and work.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, President Chartrand.

Mr. Lauzon, you now have the floor for six minutes.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here this evening.

Chief Chartrand, we had officials and ministers here earlier today—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Lauzon, I'm sorry to interrupt you. I've stopped the clock.

It seems that President Chartrand has no interpretation. Judging by his facial expression, I'm pretty sure he doesn't understand you.

President Chartrand, can you just confirm that you have translation before we continue?

[David Chartrand]

I don't have it right now. I do have, of course, one of my colleagues beside me who does speak French, but I don't; I speak Saulteaux.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'll have the clerk work with you.

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I can't hear the interpretation either, and I don't know why. No one else seems to be having this problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Colleagues, I will suspend for a couple minutes to make sure that we have proper translation.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

We'll pick up where we left off.

Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First and foremost, I would like to thank all today's witnesses for joining us this evening.

Chief Chartrand, we just heard from the ministers involved with Bill C‑5, as well as their officials. They all told us that there was still a lot of work to be done. As you said, this bill isn't perfect and needs to be worked on.

Among the factors to consider, do you think that advancing the interests of indigenous peoples will promote respect for the rights of indigenous peoples as our projects are moved forward?

[David Chartrand]

Mr. Lauzon, I'm president, not chief, just in case there's a mix-up. Thank you very much.

Again, by recognizing that indigenous right exist—first nations, Métis and Inuit rights—there is a purpose and a reason that section 35 was created in the Constitution of Canada. It makes it clear that these rights will be protected by the Constitution of this country, so I think it shouldn't be hard to attach a particular reference to ensuring that section 35 rights will be adhered to, respected and followed. I think that would be important.

The clarity that we are seeking is in the consultation section. I know that there are consultations. I read today that Dominic LeBlanc referenced there will be consultations throughout, I think, the summer and into the fall, so that's a process. It's going to be an extra few months, and, hopefully...but who's going to be consulted? That's going to be the key. We're governments. I'm a government. I speak on behalf of all my people, I'm elected democratically by my people, and so my government is also elected by my people. Clearly, at the end of the day, we need to make sure it's inclusive, with our governments at the table. There's going to be an indigenous advisory council. We don't know the role and authority of that advisory council. It is there just for advice? Is it there to have authorities? Does it have any type of powers? Those are the key things we are looking at.

Here's the pressing point for me: As a leader, I don't just look at the problems my people face, I also look at the country of Canada. We were there in World War I, World War II and the Korean War. We were asked to come in massive numbers. We came. We came to fight for a country that didn't respect our rights. We still keep the fight for it, and so, at the end of the day, we're going to fight for this country.

There's an economic war happening, and we're taking it very seriously. I do not take Trump lightly—I'll tell you that right now. He can cause so much damage. This is what I look at. In my cabinet discussions when we're talking, we look at...right now we're in a deficit in this country. We're trying to fight over the common deficit. Imagine if a recession were to kick in. What's it going to look like? I tell you this, Mr. Lauzon, if there is a recession and cuts are going to start drastically happening in large percentages of dollars, I guarantee you that my people will be the first hit. I guarantee you that it's the poor and the lower-middle class who will be hit the hardest, so we have to defend and fight vigorously to make sure we prevent a recession.

I'm supporting Bill C-5 because we're at the point of an economic war and we have to come together. I know, as I said in my speech yesterday to the Senate, you're asking indigenous people, you're asking the Métis of Red River to trust the Government of Canada, to trust the politicians of Canada, that they will make sure section 35 rights will be protected and included. That's a big ask.

Now, are you going to give us something in return to make sure that we can trust you, that it's going to be real and that somebody's not going to burn us at the end of the day and say, “Sorry, we made a mistake and your people will suffer again for another 10 years”? Again, that's the issue, but we believe strongly in moving forward. I know this agenda: The Prime Minister wants to pass this by July 1, and he will get my support. It's not just because he's the new Prime Minister. If it were Poilievre doing it, I'd give him the same support because, at the end of the day, I think we're in a position right now where we have to fight for our country, Canada. That's what is driving me right now to stand behind this bill.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chartrand.

Mr. Cunningham, you expressed your concerns about lower standards when it comes to interprovincial trade. That's legitimate, and I understand the danger of lower standards. Health and safety is an issue that affects all Canadians.

Are you aware that Bill C‑5 does not apply to tobacco, because there are no provincial regulations comparable to those of the federal government? It's hard to imagine how our relations with the provinces, territories and indigenous peoples would lead us to lower safety levels in order to move projects forward.

[Rob Cunningham]

When it comes to tobacco products, Minister Freeland testified at the Senate two days ago. I'm going to read you an excerpt from her testimony in English.

In the area of tobacco, for example, which is a really legitimate area of concern, federal regulations that apply to tobacco apply to the manufacturing, sale and promotion. There are no provincial regulations on these aspects of tobacco, and that's why this legislation would have no impact on it.

That's not true. The provinces have legislation on the sale and promotion of tobacco products that applies to manufacturers. In Quebec, the Act Respecting Tobacco Control mentions the word “manufacturer” or “manufactured” 48 times, at least in its English version. The provincial laws will be in direct conflict with that aspect.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Chair, do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You have 30 seconds.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Okay.

Ms. Sabaa Ahmad Khan, I'd like to give you a chance to answer a question as well.

As you know, the David Suzuki Foundation is near and dear to many Canadians. Most of the solutions they come up with are nature-based. Could Bill C‑5 be used to promote nature-friendly projects and to advance green energy projects that might be in line with your recommendations?

[Sabaa Ahmad Khan]

Yes, absolutely.

Bill C‑5 has potential. The problem is that the legislation should constrain the forthcoming regulations as well as those that will follow.

Right now, the legislative wording is extremely vague. The dangers of vague legislative wording include inconsistent, unpredictable and politicized rule-making. Vague terms also make it more difficult for Parliament, courts and the public to hold regulators accountable for how they interpret and apply the law.

The way the bill is currently drafted, it is clear that we are referring to climate change when we talk about the factors that are considered to designate projects of national interest. I'm referring to paragraph 5(6)(e) in part 2 of the bill, which states that a project must “contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.” That's extremely vague, and it would really be more precise to talk about Canada's environmental obligations, as well as its climate change and biodiversity commitments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Khan.

Next up is Mr. Bonin for six minutes.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here this evening.

Ms. Kahn, you talked about the criteria for project designation. What I understand from what you're saying is that these criteria are not currently mandatory, that the government may not comply with them and that you would prefer that they be mandatory. Is that correct?

[Sabaa Ahmad Khan]

Yes. Not only must these criteria be mandatory, but they must also constitute a genuine test for projects of national interest. At the moment, there are no mandatory public consultations either.

We therefore want to propose another amendment to subsection 5(7) of the act proposed in part 2 of the bill. This amended subsection would read that before recommending the making of any order under subsection 5(1), 5(3) or 5(4), there would have to be meaningful consultations not only with any other relevant federal minister and indigenous peoples, but also with members of the public, including Canadian residents, provinces and non-governmental organizations. Public consultation is one of the very foundations of our democracy.

As currently drafted, the bill sets out a weak liability in this regard, which could also create judicial uncertainty. The courts may find it difficult to assess whether a regulation or project is truly consistent with the intentions of the act if those intentions are poorly defined. We're seeing that right now throughout the bill, in both part 1 and part 2.