Transport Committee on June 18th, 2025

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

The government will be able to issue orders in council without any discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Next, we have Ms. Stubbs.

The floor is yours. You have five minutes.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair. I appreciate it.

Thank you, ministers, for being here.

To follow up and conclude on what my colleague Phil Lawrence was asking, is it safe to say that none of the three ministers here are responsible for the bill? This is not an accusation toward you in general, but none of you are aware of, have seen or know about a concrete ethical screen in place for the Prime Minister.

Okay. I'll take that as a no.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

These things are properly done by the Ethics Commissioner and the deputy clerk.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I think the ministers need to answer because they're responsible for the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Ms. Fox, do you want to respond to that?

[Christiane Fox, Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council and Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Privy Council Office]

I want to state quite clearly that at the Privy Council Office, we are working very closely with the Prime Minister's Office to manage all of the conflicts he's declared. That is operationalized within the communications between the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office, and it would be linked to anything, including this bill.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you.

You may be aware, but it is clear that the ministers responsible aren't, so Canadians will trust you on that.

This whole bill started in the election campaign with meetings with the premiers and the territorial leaders. There have been weeks since those meetings and weeks since Parliament started.

Since there seem to be mixed messages about politicians sending lists in and not, is it possible for any of the ministers to identify a single energy project, for example, that will be approved and ready for shovels in the ground in June 2027 if this law passes this week?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Chair, through you to Ms. Stubbs, that's a very good question.

Obviously, we don't want to prejudge whether Parliament will adopt this legislation. We're hopeful.

Monday night, I had dinner at a table with the Premier of Alberta and had a long conversation with the Premier of Saskatchewan. They are very enthusiastic about putting quickly before the Government of Canada projects that, in their view and probably in our view, would meet the national interest test. I think we're going to be very fortunate with the volume of projects that will come together quickly.

I think this is instructive. This isn't a federal infrastructure program as much as it's a way to expedite projects that provinces and territories, indigenous partners and private sector proponents will want us to work on in an expedited and effective way that encourages investment decisions.

I think we'll have well more than one within the first two years, but I don't want to prejudge what will be submitted.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Yes, and certainly, we Conservatives will join you in your hopes and prayers, but we obviously hoped for something a little more concrete.

Of course, as you know—and I might suggest this as a first place for you all to stop—there are dozens of projects with real proponents spending real money and losing real time. They're stuck in the federal regulatory process. They're stuck in front of all of these various pieces of legislation and regulations that you are now identifying as barriers to projects getting built. That's why you're bringing in Bill C-5 to fast-track these projects. I would suggest that you might want to start there with the real proponents of real projects, who are stuck in front of your regulatory mess right now, and give them some certainty.

To that end, can I ask you about the lack of the two-year timeline embedded right in the legislation, including criteria and conditions that will be made behind closed doors, and then where projects will be adjudicated on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis? How do those two embedded uncertainties—not yet addressed in the bill, but we hope you'll accept some amendments in that regard—possibly give private sector investors or proponents the certainty that they want to get these big, major, nation-building projects built for the benefit of all of us?

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

If I may, Ms. Stubbs, I want to start where Mr. Lawrence began. A lot of us here are in violent agreement about the objective and that we need to get big things built faster in Canada. What—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Certainly, because you announced that in 2022. Now, here we are, still with the same government trying to make that happen.

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

What I would say is that there is a contradiction between the notion that specific projects should be named right now and the path we need to take to actually get things done.

This legislation is quite intentionally about setting a framework that is clear and transparent and gives transparency to provinces, indigenous organizations and business leaders. We need to go step by step. We need to have the framework and transparency and hopefully get the legislation passed.

As my colleague said, there are a lot of projects waiting for this. We were together in Saskatoon and we heard from the premiers. They are very keen.

It would be inappropriate to specify the projects in the legislation. The right way to do it is to create a framework and have the conversations. Let me tell you that as soon as this is passed, we're going to be dealing with moving with alacrity.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you.

I get it, but what would you have to say for all of the projects that will not be fast-tracked or make the cut?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Stubbs.

Thank you, Minister.

We'll move on now to Mr. Kelloway.

The floor is yours. You have five minutes, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the ministers for being here and for your testimony.

I'm going to try to get questions to the three of you. I have limited time.

I'm going to start with Minister Freeland.

I think you did a really good job of explaining the “why” of this legislation, which is eliminating federal internal trade barriers. You talked about the “what”. It's impressive in its potential. We could reduce costs by 15%, increase productivity by 7% and increase the GDP by 4%.

I think it's really important for Canadians to have a mental image of what that truly means. Hypothetically, there's a company in Cape Breton that sells really good beer. How would it impact them going forward in terms of the elimination of federal trade barriers?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Kelloway, and thank you for agreeing to serve as my parliamentary secretary. It's great to be working together.

As Mr. Albas identified presciently, the beer examples have a way of seizing the imagination of Canadians, so they're good ones. This legislation alone is not going to remove barriers to interprovincial trade, and it is not alone going to create free labour mobility. Most of the barriers are at a provincial level, and our government respects the jurisdiction of the provinces.

What we have seen is, as part of this wave of patriotism across Canada, provinces stepping up. Your own province of Nova Scotia, really, is a leader, if not the leader, of this effort with regard to the mutual recognition legislation. However, when we talk to the provinces and territories, we know that, in order to really be facilitating and encouraging true free trade in goods and services and true labour mobility, the federal government has to do its part. This legislation is about that. It's about removing the federal barriers that exist to trade in goods between provinces and territories and the federal barriers that exist to labour mobility. I made a point in my opening remarks to be clear that the federal government is not the jurisdiction principally responsible. This legislation is not going to do it on its own when it comes to free internal trade and labour mobility, but it's a big part of it. I hope everyone here will help us keep up the momentum after, I hope, the legislation is passed on Friday. There is a meeting, as you know very well, on July 8 of the committee on internal trade of the provinces and territories to keep going. On July 15 and 16, the deputy minister of transport is hosting a hackathon of transport officials to finally get movement on trucking. There is still a lot of work to do, but this is an important step.

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

Thank you, Minister Freeland.

Minister Alty, does this act supersede section 35 of the Constitution and/or UNDRIP?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

No, it doesn't.

I'd like to just take a moment to elaborate because I do think that there's talk of accelerating and talk of fast-tracking, and folks think that that'll impact the consultation. One of the things I'd point to is that, over the last year, the department has held Crown-indigenous relations engagement sessions with indigenous peoples across Canada through our existing forums and tables. They were about a proposed Crown consultation coordination. In these sessions, the concerns we heard were that there's insufficient coordination, that there's difficulty navigating the system and that there's growing consultation fatigue where people are having that overlapping, duplicative process. With this bill, what we're really looking to do, as well, is have that major projects office. Without a new, coordinated mechanism to navigate these problems, we are running into those issues of consultation inadequacy and of delays on projects. Being able to streamline the process means, on one hand.... I think of my territory, and if one impacted indigenous rights holder is left out of the consultation, we have to go back and redo it all. The ability to have this one organization in the federal government be able to organize it will produce those better results. It's not impacting the quality, but it is impacting the time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Minister Alty.

Thank you, Mr. Kelloway.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. LeBlanc, small projects located pretty much anywhere in Quebec or in our municipalities have to comply with the law. Like it or not, projects usually involve thorough consultation and work.

This bill is about major projects with major repercussions. Typically, the whole of society would be part of the conversation because these projects will impact future generations. Now we're going to end up with major projects with major repercussions that are subject to fewer laws than small projects by SMEs. We're going to end up with decisions made behind closed doors. The application of the law will be politicized. We have no guarantee that you, Mr. LeBlanc, won't turn into a minister of cronyism.

This week, the Société de l'Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick wrote to us to say that it is concerned because this bill would allow projects to be exempt from the application of any law, including laws respecting francophones' official language rights. For example, the bill would allow projects to be exempt from the application of the Canada Labour Code or any other legislation.

Personally, I find that problematic. The bill already gives you the power to exempt projects from environmental laws. Why do you want more powers that you don't need to carry out these projects?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, I think you asked about 10 questions, but I'll try to answer them all.

First, I would recommend not pursuing the idea that a project could be exempt from legislation such as the Official Languages Act or the Criminal Code. PCO's experts have said that the decision had to be made based on the objectives of Bill C‑5. I'm sure legal experts will come and testify to that effect.

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

If a developer doesn't want people speaking French or French signage on their site, the objectives of the bill would allow that. Similarly, if a developer says they don't want to pay tax in connection with a project, the bill would allow that. The bill you introduced is so far-reaching that it makes just about anything possible.

What are the other acts that are not among the thirteen acts and seven regulations listed in the schedule? If you want to exempt upcoming projects, why not say so now?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

You're using examples that make no sense to substantiate a point that doesn't hold water.

You also said that these projects of national interest would be subject to less oversight and assessment than municipal projects. You know that's not true—

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

Minister, what makes no sense is that it allows you to—