Transport Committee on June 18th, 2025

[Sarah Jackson, Director, Clean Growth Office, Privy Council Office]

Just on the controls that are in place with relation to proposed sections 21 and 22, yes, on the recommendation of the designated minister, the GIC could add acts and regulations. That needs to be done with respect to the purpose of the act, which is to advance national interest projects, provide environmental protection and respect indigenous rights.

It needs to be in keeping with the purpose of the act, first of all. Then the regulations under proposed section 22 would need to actually be on the recommendation of the minister responsible for each of those acts, such as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans if modifications were being made to the application of the Fisheries Act. That's another control that's in place. They're also subject to the Statutory Instruments Act regulatory process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Jackson, and thank you, Mr. Lawrence.

The next line of questioning will come from MP Nguyen.

The floor is yours. You have six minutes, please.

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

Thanks very much.

Thank you to our colleagues for joining us today.

Minister Freeland, we know that this is clearly a time when we need to be building for Canada. That is what this bill is trying to achieve in terms of our objectives, strengthening trade corridors and accelerating those nation-building projects.

Can you speak to how these could improve our transportation infrastructure and investments? In my riding of Spadina—Harbourfront, we have Union Station and the Toronto island airport. I'd love to hear more details on how this may open up opportunities for our country as we do that building.

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

Congratulations on your election and on joining us here in this House and in this committee. It's really great. We are neighbours geographically as MPs.

I want to start by picking up on something Mr. Lawrence said about the long-standing Conservative support of some of these measures. I do want to specifically single out Mr. Albas, in all seriousness, for having championed this issue at a time when it wasn't so much in vogue. We all remember his spirited “free the beer” campaign. He was absolutely right.

I think it's very exciting. We all know as politicians that there can be really good ideas, but you need the political moment sometimes to make them happen. I think that was the case with creating a national system of early learning and child care. For 50 years Canadian women had been fighting for it. Policy experts all agreed it was a good thing and would make our economy more productive, would make life more affordable for families and would give women more choice. It took a particular moment to make it happen. I believe when it comes to internal trade and major nation-building projects, that moment is now. I really do want to put on the record that Mr. Albas has been championing this for a long time, and that's great. Thank you.

To your specific questions, there are two ways this bill will help the life of every single person each one of us represents. One is the internal trade element. Truly getting rid of barriers to internal trade and labour mobility will make our life easier. It will make it easier for each one of our constituents to move and work around the country. It will make it easier for each one of our constituents who has a business to sell things from that business or provide services across the country. It will give all of us more choice.

I think it will also have a nation-building impact that is psychological. As we build economic networks that are truly pan-Canadian, we will truly be acting as Canadians when we do business or when we perform services rather than as residents of a province.

The second element you mentioned, Chi, is equally important. I think every single one of us as an MP has a list of projects that we really want to get built in our riding. Every single one of us has spoken with frustrated constituents who ask us why we can't get this project built faster. This legislation is an opportunity to build those projects.

Now, I'm here as the internal trade minister, but I'm also the trade minister. I'm glad you mentioned the island airport. I think it provides a lot of benefit for the city that both you and I represent and for our country. This is an opportunity to support our airports and to support our trade corridors across the country. I do really hope that every single MP who is a member of this committee will be actively working with proponents, working with premiers and working indigenous people in their communities to put forward great nation-building projects that could be facilitated by this legislation.

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

Thanks very much.

I have another question. In the preamble and the language of the legislation, we point to both section 35 and UNDRIP. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm hoping you can help me understand how these sit with the legislation.

Is there one that's more powerful? If you could help me understand as a layperson, that would be really great.

That's for either Minister Alty or Minister LeBlanc, please.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Yes, it's the Constitution, ultimately. There are not only a number of clauses in this legislation, but pieces of legislation out. For example, there's the Constitution. The other one I mentioned has the changes to the Interpretation Act in Bill S-13, which is about how all legislation has to be interpreted in a way that upholds and does not diminish the aboriginal and treaty rights recognized and affirmed in section 35.

In the act itself, I would touch not only on the preamble, but also on the body of the legislation. It requires the government to consult with section 35 rights holders in the selection of projects, as well as in the process of approving or removing a project if it's deemed necessary. That's in proposed subsections 5(7), 7(2) and 8(3).

Again, we're committed to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Outside of the legislation, there are a number of things that we're looking to do, including setting up a major projects office with an indigenous advisory council, having funding for capacity so that indigenous governments can meaningfully participate from start to finish and having the indigenous loan guarantee program. We want to see projects that advance indigenous interests.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Minister.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you now have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the ministers for being here.

This is a very important bill, and I find it really unfortunate that we won't get a chance to study it in depth. There are dozens of witnesses, if not more, who would have liked to testify before the committee on this bill. Unfortunately, they will not have the opportunity to do so. We won't even have the opportunity to properly debate the bill.

I understand that the government has a sense of urgency right now. Otherwise, it wouldn't be forcing things through like this. I'm wondering if they are basically invoking the Emergencies Act in disguise, because that act has the kind of extraordinary powers contained in this bill. That is what a constitutional expert told us yesterday.

What can you tell us about that, Mr. LeBlanc?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Obviously, I don't agree with that interpretation. As I recall, when we decided to invoke the Emergencies Act, things were completely different from a context, justification and legal standpoint. I was actually involved in making that decision and I am proud of the former government's decision. The matter before us today is altogether different.

During the election campaign and at our talks in Kananaskis, where I was present with Mr. Trump's government—

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

Thank you very much, Minister.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I was about to describe the emergency, not the context.

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

You were about to describe your election platform. You clearly said that you see no similarity between this and the use of the Emergencies Act.

If that's the case, why is there is a five-year time limit clause? Why does the power you would be granted allow you to override just about any law? This bill would give the executive branch powers that usually belong to the legislative branch. If there is no emergency, why does this bill let the government give itself extreme powers?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

You interrupted me as I was about to describe the emergency that makes it necessary for us to pass the bill. Tariffs imposed by the United States are a threat that constitutes an economic emergency.

I'm glad you mentioned the election campaign. We talked a lot about taking urgent action to build major projects of national interest. We even discussed it with your province's premier at the meeting in Saskatoon. We believe we must take urgent action to diversify our international trade, build major projects, including clean energy projects like the ones the Government of Quebec wants to launch with Newfoundland and Labrador—

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

I understand that you believe there's an urgent need to act, but don't you see that you're exaggerating this idea of an emergency? South of the border, they use executive orders to do things they wouldn't normally be able to do. Western nations seem to be getting more comfortable with the idea of labelling things as emergencies so they can do things that wouldn't normally be done in a democracy. Isn't that what you're doing?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I completely disagree with your interpretation that a legislative action we are taking today is anything like an executive order from the White House. You're comparing them, and I understand why. You can do politics however you like, but I fundamentally disagree with your interpretation.

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

What you're getting is essentially the power to secretly designate, since we don't know whether the consultations will be real or not. We don't know how genuine they'll be because there is no obligation to consult. There are no project selection criteria. The criteria are entirely subjective. You can also exempt projects from the application of any legislation and choose what conditions projects will be subject to.

You will be given that power. Doesn't it seem like you're becoming a sort of deputy emperor?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

First of all, I don't want to correct you, but you said that there were no selection criteria for projects of national interest. However, my colleague was good enough to list the five factors that are actually set out in the bill.

Furthermore, as our colleague from the Privy Council Office clearly explained, it is not true that the government could, theoretically or hypothetically, exempt all of the projects from the application of the law. These are only projects of national interest that are related to the objectives of the bill, if passed. That process is under the authority of the Governor in Council. I understand your argument, but you've blown it so out of proportion that it's not valid.

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

Let's talk more about the criteria, which give you full arbitrary power. You are in no way required to respect the factors set out in subsection 5(6) of the act proposed in the bill. That's the first thing.

The second thing is that the Prime Minister, your leader, promised that no projects would be carried out or imposed without Quebec's consent. That's what your leader promised, but we don't see that in this bill. Will you promise to accept amendments that are consistent with what your leader promised?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

At the press conference, I was standing behind the Prime Minister when he explained, as you just accurately reported, that he doesn't consider this an opportunity for us to impose a project on a province at all. I, for one, am encouraged by the province's desire—

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

I'm asking you if it will be in the bill. Will you agree to put the words of the Prime Minister, your leader, in the bill?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I'm not on the committee. I'm happy to be here for two hours, but I won't be here for six hours. When you do the clause-by-clause study of the bill, I won't be here. I have full confidence in your work.

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

Well, you're the one who introduced the bill. I feel like you're the wolf dressed up like grandmother. You keep telling us that you're doing this for our own good and that we have nothing to worry about, but at the end of the day, there's no guarantee that you'll act in our best interest. You'll do whatever you want. That's the problem with this bill.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I realize that you don't often attend federal-provincial meetings. I myself was in Saskatoon when all the provincial and territorial premiers spoke on behalf of all the duly elected political parties in their provinces and territories in support of doing just that.

That means you're basing your argument on an exaggerated hypothetical situation. You're good at it.

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

It's a possible hypothetical situation.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Any hypothesis is possible.