THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 11, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met with videoconference this day at 6:45 p.m. [ET] to examine Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
Senator Claude Carignan (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good evening and welcome, senators and viewers across the country who are watching us on sencanada.ca. My name is Claude Carignan, and I am a senator from Quebec and the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. I will now ask my fellow senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Forest: Good evening. My name is Éric Forest, and I’m an independent senator representing the Gulf senatorial division in Quebec. Welcome.
Senator Gignac: Good evening. I am Clément Gignac, representing the Kennebec senatorial division in Quebec.
Senator Galvez: I am Rosa Galvez from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: Welcome. Senator Tony Loffreda, Montreal, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Cardozo: I am Andrew Cardozo from Ontario.
Senator Youance: I am Suze Youance from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Ross: Krista Ross, New Brunswick.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: I am Martine Hébert, representing the Victoria senatorial division in Quebec.
The Chair: For our first panel, we are pleased to have with us the Honourable Steven MacKinnon, Minister of Transport. Welcome. He is joined by the following officials from the Department of Transport: Arun Thangaraj, Deputy Minister; Luis Miguel Izquierdo Martin, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, High Speed Rail, Major Projects — we have questions about that, you know; and Nicholas Robinson, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security.
Minister, please go ahead with your opening remarks.
Hon. Steven MacKinnon, P.C., M.P., Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons: Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. This is my first time here as Minister of Transport, so this is an honour. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the high-speed rail network act, as part of your examination of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
Today, Canada is facing extraordinary threats, economic and otherwise. The Prime Minister was very clear when he described this moment in history as a rupture. We need a Team Canada approach to protect our economy immediately and to position ourselves for the future within a profoundly different world order.
[English]
Canada must once again build the ambitious, nation-building projects that have shaped our country and delivered prosperity and economic opportunities for generations of Canadians.
Like the other nation-building projects of our past, such as the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Confederation Bridge, the high‑speed rail network will be a testament to the greatness and potential of Canadian innovation and ingenuity.
The high-speed rail network should be understood as the beginning of a transformation. This generational project won’t just connect 18 million Canadians or cut travel times in half. It will also create over 50,000 jobs, contribute $35 billion to our economy, and reduce emissions equivalent to removing 100,000 cars from our roads.
Following our “Buy Canadian” principles, high-speed rail could source several hundred thousand tonnes of Canadian steel, lumber and concrete, while employing local businesses along the route.
Let me be clear: This project will create an industrial demand not seen in a generation.
However, to build a project as ambitious as this, we must take every necessary measure to build it the right way. To do so, it requires ongoing and meaningful consultation; clarity and certainty for local communities; measures to reduce impacts on potentially affected landowners; robust environmental assessments; and a modernized and consistent regulatory regime.
This can only be achieved through what the high-speed rail network act will deliver.
This act is a result of our engagement with the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Its measures draw directly from and align Canada with the well-established and effective infrastructure legislation in both provinces. This includes Ontario’s Building Transit Faster Act, 2020, and Quebec’s Act respecting expropriation. This act aligns its measures with the provinces so we can cut red tape and provide greater clarity and certainty around the regulatory regime while eliminating costly, duplicative processes. It also helps prevent delays, provide predictable project timelines and increase project efficiency. It will better support consultation, efficient and timely communication with landowners, ensure impact and environmental assessments are conducted for each project segment and enshrines the Official Languages Act into the operations of Canada’s high-speed rail network.
This legislation also reiterates how a meaningful and respectful relationship between the Crown and Indigenous Peoples is fundamental to advancing reconciliation and completing this project.
[Translation]
This commitment includes early, significant and ongoing engagement and consultation, while recognizing that Indigenous knowledge shared in confidence will be protected.
Since this is the largest and most complex infrastructure project in a generation, consulting with local communities will also be essential. Alto’s first round of consultations is already under way in communities along the proposed route, with more than 26,000 people submitting comments via the online portal. The consultation process is ongoing, forming an integral part of the impact assessment process made possible under this legislation.
The project seeks to minimize impacts on individual landowners, while recognizing the realities of building such an extensive and complex rail network. We will also continue to work productively with our provincial partners throughout development and construction.
I was extremely proud to announce recently that the first segment of the rail network will run between Ottawa and Montreal. If this bill is passed, construction of the segment should begin in just four years.
[English]
The high-speed rail network is an investment in Canada’s future: connecting communities, creating tens of thousands of jobs and driving enormous economic growth. Our country cannot afford to miss this opportunity.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to answering the committee’s questions.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Thank you, minister, for being here.
Could you explain to us the rationale or the process that you are using for the high-speed rail project? Witnesses so far have told us that there is no cost estimate, engineering or route selected. I would expect that the bill to talk about the mandate of the corporation, but it is focused mostly on expropriation.
What is out there now? There is not much information on the project itself. Decisions will need to be made on one of two routes.
It seems like everyone is stirred up, but there is no groundwork done. I would have expected to see a better cost estimate, some engineering work and more information upfront before you stirred up all of those people.
Can you elaborate on why? It seemed like the process is almost backward, but there must have been a rationale for it. Can you explain why you are doing it this way?
Mr. MacKinnon: Thank you, Senator Marshall. That’s a very good question.
This is not an expropriation provision; this is a land acquisition provision. One of the key steps in building infrastructure at this scale is speed such that, if we are able to save time in the advanced planning process, we can save — some estimate — $5 billion a year in construction costs.
The mandate that I have is to reduce the planning time — we are in the planning process — from eight to four years. The only way to do that is to shorten a number of the steps, land acquisition being a very important one of those steps.
We are actually not consulting on two different routes, as your question seemed to imply. There is a segment between Peterborough and Ottawa where two options are being consulted upon, but the corridor, which is the 10-kilometre wide stretch between Quebec City and Toronto, has been identified. That will be reduced to a 60-metre-wide maximum — in some cases less — alignment when the final alignment decision is made.
The reason why we have given rough order-of-magnitude estimates with respect to the cost of this infrastructure — the reason why we cannot be more precise is that, until we do pick the actual alignment and we know how much public land, rights of way and so on that we are able to use — those are just examples. Geology would be another example, as would station locations.
There are a number of variables the corporation is currently evaluating right now that will all have major impacts on the final project costs.
Senator Marshall: The estimate that is out there now, I would say, is not reliable. You are talking about a shortcut to reduce the time from eight to four years. Don’t you think there is a risk to all of that? The estimate might come in at $200 billion. If you are going to shorten a timeframe to four years, you are going to cut corners. Is some form of risk assessment done on all of that?
Mr. MacKinnon: We’re not going to cut corners. In fact, I would argue that the direction that I have been given, and that Alto is following, is to use actual tried-and-true processes. You will have heard me mention how we have relied and been inspired by expropriation regimes that were put in place in both Quebec and Ontario.
[Translation]
My Quebec friends no doubt remember the accelerated process that led to the construction of the Réseau express métropolitain. If you talk to the people in charge, they will tell you how essential the process was to getting that infrastructure built.
[English]
It is the same thing in Ontario. The Building Transit Faster Act is a tried-and-true piece of legislation that has shortened these timelines.
I will go one step further, Senator Marshall. There is rarely a process that is perfectly long. They can all be shortened.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you for being here, minister. I’m going to continue along the same lines as my colleague. In terms of numbers, what I’ve seen are preliminary estimates between $60 billion and $90 billion. There’s a margin of 50%. How did you arrive at those numbers? As the project advances, as expropriation and soil topography are discussed, the challenges that need to be dealt with will become clear. However, when the starting point is $60 billion to $90 billion, I’d like to know how that estimate was calculated. Per kilometre? Per segment average?
Mr. MacKinnon: Senator, there’s no doubt that we can look at other linear projects around the world and make an estimate based on length. The technology and material costs are more or less known.
It’s a proper estimate at this stage of the process, but that process will be much longer, much broader and much more extensive. The results will be shared with the Parliament of Canada, and Parliament, including this committee, will have to approve the investments.
I think you should expect to see me here fairly often as things progress. The projections, work, engineering, procurement and land acquisition are all key variables for more exact estimates. I can tell you, however, that unless we shorten the process and reduce the timeline, Canadians won’t see the project as being real. A high-speed train in Canada has been talked about for a very long time. How long have people been calling for it? They stopped believing it would ever happen, so we want people to see the project as something very real and concrete. A four-year horizon does that, but when it turns into five, six or seven years, the project becomes more abstract in people’s minds. That doesn’t even take into account the cost of long timelines or the cost of the teams working on the project, or the support of a private partner, a private consortium.
The longer the planning process, the more those costs go up. If we can shorten that process, it will be a huge gift to Canadian taxpayers.
Senator Forest: We have never needed a public transit service more; we’ve never been as badly off as we are now when it comes to VIA Rail’s service. What’s more, Air Canada no longer flies to Mont-Joli. It’s really the Stone Age we’re living in.
How much has already been spent on the project? I realize that some things are quite fluid — expropriation, topography and such — but, in addition to Alto’s funding, has any money been put directly towards carrying out the work?
Mr. MacKinnon: I can get back to you with the exact amount, but Alto has about $5 billion for the planning and implementation phase currently being carried out, if I’m not mistaken. I can get back to you with the exact number.
Senator Forest: Thank you. Do I have any time left?
The Chair: One minute.
Mr. MacKinnon: The amount is $4.9 billion, I was just told.
Senator Forest: Does that mean $4.9 billion of the $5 billion?
Mr. MacKinnon: No, the $4.9 billion is for the planning phase.
Senator Forest: I thought $4.9 billion of the $5 billion had been spent. I was worried. You committed to taking Indigenous knowledge into account in carrying out the project. Have you made arrangements for a mediation mechanism should a disagreement arise? Has a mediation platform already been identified with Indigenous partners, should it be necessary?
Mr. MacKinnon: When it comes to cooperation with all integrated levels of Indigenous partnership, I’m told that things are going quite well. Protocols are in place. I want to point out that the route does not go through any reserves. Just that is a good thing. Where there are claims, perhaps, and we have a commitment and a very strong partnership with Indigenous communities along the route.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: Welcome, minister, to the Senate for this hearing.
I also want to take the opportunity to thank Mr. Thangaraj for his services with Transport Canada and wish him the best as he goes off to Global Affairs. This is the National Finance Committee. We’ll find a way to get you back here, I’m sure.
Minister, as a Senator from Ottawa, I am a big supporter of this project. I think it will be good for Ottawa. I think that Ottawa needs a boost. This is one of the ways it can get the boost it needs.
I have some concerns. I want to share with you the concerns we’ve been hearing and, of course, you have been hearing from residents along the way, the concerns about expropriation.
One of my concerns is that the way that the debate is playing out is pitting rural residents against big-city residents. You, as a government, need to be aware of that and be concerned about that kind of division that can happen.
How do you ensure that Alto conducts itself properly in terms of consultations and awarding people the proper amounts when they are expropriating land?
With this bill, we have given them a bit of a free pass, a bit of a fast track. How do you ensure that the rural residents are treated fairly?
Mr. MacKinnon: Thank you, senator.
[Translation]
Sorry, Senator Forest, I didn’t catch that properly in my left ear; it was $3.9 billion.
Senator Forest: That’s still a good bit.
Mr. MacKinnon: I do want to give the Finance Committee exact numbers, obviously.
[English]
Sorry, senator. I did not want to let that go longer than it had to.
That’s a very good question. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
I represent the national capital.
[English]
I can tell you how excited that people in Gatineau, as I call it Gatineau-Ottawa, are about this project.
First, your observation on land acquisition: We will always attempt to negotiate respectfully on a willing-buyer, willing seller basis with all landowners.
I need to also reiterate, because it is very important that everyone understand that this is a linear project, so we cannot afford to have any breaks over about 1,000 kilometres.
We have asked Alto to find the straightest possible line between Quebec City and Toronto while stopping in a number of other communities.
That corridor or that alignment will be 60 metres wide. What does that mean? It means that we can be very reassuring to landowners, farmers and others right now by following some principles. There will, of course, be exceptions, but we’re going to try to avoid cutting fields or farms in two.
Where there are rural roads, accesses, or wildlife or livestock passages, we will try to make — not try — we will make provisions for those things.
We will try to follow the ends of lots to the extent that is possible. That is only after we have exhausted what public right‑of‑way possibilities there may be, such as energy corridors, highways and other public lands.
I am hoping that, as Alto goes through the consultations, which was also part of your question, they have already consulted — I think I mentioned how many engagements they have had in my remarks — communities big and small along these identified corridors. That work continues.
They were supposed to be in Gatineau today. Unfortunately, they postponed due to the weather. I will tell you that Gatineau is not exactly on the route. Ottawa is. We will be consulting with adjacent communities, rural communities and others.
To your final observation, which is: What can rural residents see in this project? I believe they will see what all Canadians see, which is a project on the scale of the St. Lawrence Seaway, on the scale of some of the great infrastructure projects that we have managed to undertake as a country.
They can imagine they or their children, as they get to an airport today, getting to an Alto station and using that as tourists, as businesspeople, as students, as people who are curious about this mode of transportation. The benefits will accrue to them in the same way the benefits of other transportation modes accrue to them today.
Senator Ross: Welcome, minister. I’m glad you’re with us tonight. You won’t be surprised that my question relates to business and supporting industry and Canadian suppliers. I know you recently mentioned in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, that Alto has launched a process with Canadian steel producers. Your words were “to see what we can do about using rail steel from here,” given that it isn’t made in Canada anymore. Are you confident this can be accomplished?
In your opening remarks, you mentioned the “Buy Canadian” policy. Are there other components of the project that currently are not made in Canada that you and Alto are working with to try and pivot and source here at home?
Mr. MacKinnon: Thank you for that question. We are acutely aware that this project needs to maximize Canadian content — labour; engineering; obviously, materials; and technology. The dilemma is that we don’t manufacture high-speed locomotives in Canada, and much to my chagrin — I didn’t know this before becoming transport minister — we no longer manufacturer rail steel in Canada. Most reasonable people would think, “We will use a lot of that, so let’s make some rail steel again in this country.” Apparently, it’s not so easy. I’ve asked Alto to consult with the steel industry to understand exactly what it would take to maximize the use of Canadian engineering, materials and so on in the manufacture of steel products.
Now, not all of the steel — in fact, maybe not even most of the steel — for this project will be certified rail-grade steel. We will apply the provisions of Buy Canada to the entirety of the project, but we have really zeroed in on steel because it is such an important component and material in the construction of this project.
I can tell you, to the extent that it is possible, every bit of iron or every bit of Canadian ingenuity — smelting, pouring — will be Canadian.
Senator Ross: Thank you for that. You mentioned in your opening remarks a $35-billion impact on the economy. Can you give me a sense of how that breaks down?
Mr. MacKinnon: It’s a rough order of magnitude, but many inputs will go into that, Senator. There are major efficiency and productivity gains. The construction and operation of the infrastructure itself will generate massive economic activity. Real estate activity around stations will be generated. This will have one-time benefits involved in construction. It will have ongoing benefits in other infrastructure that will follow this construction and, obviously, in terms of the operation and the productivity gains made by Canadians.
This number might significantly undershoot it if you also consider avoiding road construction, for example, and other expenditures that future governments would have to consider were we not to do this project.
Senator Ross: How many of the 50,000 jobs that you mentioned in your opening remarks. How many of those jobs would be one-time construction jobs and how many would be ongoing?
Mr. MacKinnon: Most of them would be jobs in construction. The operation of the infrastructure will require thousands of people. I don’t have the number, but it is substantially weighted toward construction.
Senator Ross: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Welcome, minister.
We’ve talked a lot about Alto so far. I stand firmly behind the project. You talked about how important timelines are. In Canada, we’ve often been the champions of timelines, but not in a good way, so I’m glad to hear you talking the way you are.
In the budget, the government created the Trade Diversification Corridors Fund. We know that the Prime Minister’s goal is to double non-U.S. exports in the next few years. It’s a $5-billion fund to help diversify trade corridors through investments in port, rail and road infrastructure, among other things. Could you tell us where those projects currently stand, because they are crucial to the way forward?
Mr. MacKinnon: I made an announcement last week, at the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada convention in Toronto. Last week, we also sent out letters regarding various key projects across the country. The Arctic Infrastructure Fund adds a billion to that $5 billion.
The best way to describe the types of projects concerned is to refer to them as impactful. Supply chain improvements are badly needed in Canada, and our transportation facilities — be they ports, rail lines or intermodal terminals — are somewhat the key to unclogging Canada’s transportation and logistics system. We are aware of quite a few projects, and we are proactively inviting proponents to submit them. That is the first phase.
Second, we will put out an open call for projects.
Third, smaller projects with a big impact will be considered, projects that address congestion, for instance. Small projects will make a big difference in making our systems more efficient.
Senator Hébert: Correct me if I’m wrong, but certain projects were already on the table, ones the government had committed to, Contrecœur, for instance. Am I wrong?
Mr. MacKinnon: As part of the project’s financing package, Contrecœur received funding support under the previous trade corridors program. A number of partners are contributing to the financing package.
By the way, the money in the diversification fund is meant to serve as a lever, not to fully fund a given project. As you can imagine, then, provinces, municipalities, private companies, railways, port authorities, the infrastructure bank and other funds will be part of the mix. Some projects may be dual use, meaning the infrastructure will also serve a defence purpose identified by the Defence Minister. It will all be very tailored. Every project will have its own financing package and its own group of partners to complete the necessary funding.
Senator Hébert: All those projects will be fast-tracked under the government’s new process, then. Do I understand that correctly?
Mr. MacKinnon: The proponents of certain projects are being asked to refer us to their other sources of funding.
The Chair: I’m not sure I understand with respect to the Contrecœur project.
The part you’re talking about, the Contrecœur port, is a $2.4‑billion project. That’s not included in the $5 billion that you announced. Is that right?
Very good. It wasn’t clear to me. I just wanted to make sure no one in Montreal had a heart attack when they heard this.
Mr. MacKinnon: Only minimally, through the previous corridors program.
The Chair: Very good.
Mr. MacKinnon: Obviously, port authorities have their own borrowing capacity.
The Chair: Thank you. That’s very clear.
Senator Hébert: As I understand it, though, all the projects considered through the new fund will be fast-tracked under the new process, not dealt with under the old system. Is that right?
Mr. MacKinnon: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Gignac: Welcome, minister. Thank you for being here.
As you mentioned, the high-speed train is undoubtedly the biggest and most complex project in a generation. I am sure it will have a transformative impact on Quebec and Ontario, just as the St. Lawrence Seaway did.
In 2010, Senator Pupatello was Ontario’s Minister of Economic Development and Trade, and I was Quebec’s Minister of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade. We worked together, alongside Mr. Charest and Premier McGuinty, to push the federal government for a high-speed train. Here we are, 16 years later, and we’re still talking about it.
Can you give us more numbers? Senator Ross talked about the economic spinoffs. The viability of the project cannot be measured solely on the basis of population density and the number of high-speed train users, because that won’t make it viable.
Are you open to the idea of having the Parliamentary Budget Officer take a closer look at the project, to help us, as parliamentarians?
We want to support the project and we’re looking for solutions, but the fear is that a lot of misinformation is swirling around and that people will get the wrong idea about the project.
At the time of Confederation, in 1867, we had the railroad to link the provinces of Ontario and the west.
I think $90 billion is a scary number to people. Personally, I think the cost could be as high as $125 billion, when you consider the price tag elsewhere, but I’m no expert.
Is there a way for your department to be more forthcoming with numbers, so that the Parliamentary Budget Officer can shed light on the situation as we examine things?
Mr. MacKinnon: This is what I would say, Senator Gignac. I think all of Canada needs to decide to go ahead with this project. That will require great transparency as the project is developed. I actually think that, in Canada, we sometimes get ahead of ourselves and say — as you just did, with all due respect — that it’s going to go over budget. Perhaps it won’t.
I am committed to making sure that any cost overruns are minimal or even that we stay under budget.
I also think it’s very important to keep in mind — and you referred to this initially — that this project is transformational. It is nothing short of a new way of life for a corridor that nearly 40% of Canadians call home.
It’s conceivable that new roles will emerge. Not that I want Trois-Rivières to have a new role, but this project could certainly bring new momentum to a city like that. It could be possible to wake up in Trois-Rivières and go to work in Quebec City. It could be possible to wake up in Peterborough and go to work in Toronto. Young couples could do that.
By the way, I spoke to Spain’s minister about its high-speed train, and he told me about the incredible transformation mid‑sized cities in Spain were experiencing, the new growth. They had been significantly de-industrialized, and now, those cities are home to knowledge-based industries. It’s becoming all the rage.
We can make that happen for ourselves, here in Canada. It’s a societal choice. It’s not the Transport Minister’s choice. It’s not even the government’s or Parliament’s choice. It’s the people’s choice. That is what we are proposing. We are proposing guiding and supporting that decision. My responsibility, and yours as well, is to support and guide people in the decision they ultimately have to make, in order to go ahead and break ground.
Senator Gignac: I can attest to that since I’ve been to Malaga twice; it’s nice to visit Malaga and Madrid in Spain. The development is there, I can corroborate that.
I support the project, whether it’s $125 billion or $60 billion. If you look at the next 50 years, that’s not going to keep me up at night. It’s just that they’ve started tossing out numbers, and I don’t know what they’re basing it on. I’m afraid we’re in damage control mode.
In Canada, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is independent and non-partisan, so we don’t want to see the same thing that happened in the United Kingdom where they ultimately dropped it.
Perhaps we need to have tools and independent, non-partisan expertise to help us think this through.
Mr. MacKinnon: The Parliamentary Budget Officer is at your disposal, Senator Gignac.
Senator Youance: Thank you, Mr. MacKinnon.
A number of municipalities will be directly affected by the accelerated projects. Can you tell us more about the collaboration process? What role will municipalities play in decision-making, mapping out the route, land management, environmental impact and so forth?
Mr. MacKinnon: Alto, as I just said, is involved in one of the upcoming collaboration, co-creation and consultation processes, which means going out into the field.
We announced a 10-kilometre-wide corridor. The purpose of the exercise they started today is precisely to get a better grasp of that local flavour and knowledge. We want to meet the farmers who hope their land will not be divided or split up.
They are adding more and more sessions. For people who are listening, I hope they have had the opportunity, if they wish, to attend one of those open houses and share their concerns. Otherwise, there is the website and there will be other consultation processes later on.
The goal is to get that deep understanding of the land, to hear old stories from people who have lived in those communities for a long time and to get a feel for the land.
Senator Youance: When will the government release the final route?
Along the same lines as previous questions, you said that this project is being planned on the basis of best practices from projects completed in Canada and probably elsewhere. Can you tell us what framework will be put in place to avoid soaring construction prices and speculation?
Generally speaking, how can you be sure that prices will not increase or even double?
Mr. MacKinnon: The short answer to your question is by getting Royal Assent for this bill. One of the critical steps is land acquisition. So optimizing this phase is essential to the project’s success.
We want to shorten the planning phase and thereby reduce construction costs. We can save about $5 billion in planning costs every year and move forward with construction.
In terms of financial oversight for construction and so forth, you have to remember that we have private partners such as the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec and the Cadence consortium. We have partners from France who have completed high-speed rail projects. SNCF Connect is involved and Air Canada is a member of the consortium. We have people who are motivated to keep costs and budgets under control and to avoid cost overruns.
Senator Youance: Thank you very much. I admire your optimism, and I think we can make this project a reality.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: Welcome, minister, to our Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. So Alto will act as the project authority for what has been described as Canada’s largest infrastructure project. My question is on accountability of Alto, governance safeguards and risk management.
What governance safeguards will ensure that Alto remains fully accountable to Parliament, and particularly with respect to procurement decisions, financing arrangements and long-term operating costs?
We have spoken about the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, and the Auditor General. We, obviously, could mandate the PBO.
With respect to forecast risks, passenger projections suggest that the network could reach 10 million trips per year by 2050. Could you explain those underlining forecasts, or maybe send them to us if you can share them? What financial exposure would the government face if demand falls significantly below those projections?
In my previous role as a banker, we always managed the risks and the mitigating factors.
Mr. MacKinnon: We appreciate that. We will be leaning into that expertise, Senator Loffreda, as we go through this.
Some of this you may be aware of: Alto is currently structured as a subsidiary of VIA Rail, although it is generally treated as a parent Crown corporation for the purposes of the Financial Administration Act. That general governance framework exists.
We have a highly qualified, motivated and respected board of directors who guides the management of the corporation.
We have the same oversight regime — one that you would have access to as a member of this committee, or indeed as a member of the Senate; it submits its own corporate plan and operating budgets to the minister for approval by the Governor-in-Council, on the recommendation of the minister.
Alto is accountable to Parliament, through me, the Minister of Transport, who is responsible for ensuring Parliament receives transparent and timely reporting on Alto’s activities, spending and performance, including tabling the summary of the corporate plan and operating budget, and a full annual report with Parliament.
The Treasury Board also makes public quarterly financial reports on the business and activities of all parent Crown corporations.
As you can see, we have a fairly high, multi-faceted and multi-opportunity transparency and governance framework, where the Senate finance committee, Senate transportation committee and other entities of Parliament can check in at any number of times on the evolution of the project.
Senator Loffreda: Excellent. With respect to the projections, we’re used to having pessimistic, optimistic and realistic projections. With respect to those projections by 2050, where do they stand? Is there a risk to the taxpayer to monetize or not monetize the project? Canadians do support the project. I’m not saying that they don’t.
[Translation]
You talked about a public choice and “obvious transparency.”
[English]
So I’m happy with those mentions.
But with respect to projections, if we really look at those numbers, to dive in — if I were to approve a project, I’d like to dive into those projections and see how realistic, what hypotheses you’ve made and where we’re going with that?
Mr. MacKinnon: All of that is reasonable, Senator. I think you will have the opportunity — that’s not what we’re asking you to do today, however.
What I would argue we’re asking you to do today is to approve a land-acquisition model that we know will reduce risk, timeframes and, hence, taxpayer expenditures.
With respect to projections, whether it be passenger or cost projections or operating model projections, obviously that’s the work that’s going on right now.
I can tell you we do have private partners. And while we have not yet settled on an operating model with those private partners, or with entities that may become involved in the future, there will be built-in incentives to make sure this project has ridership, is a success and generates the revenue it will ultimately be forecasted to generate.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Minister, thank you for being here and answering our questions.
I’m interested in the financing package for this major project. We heard from Alto representatives, and they gave us a good explanation of a various technical aspects.
[English]
In this budget you are asking for $3.9 billion to be used over six years, mainly for land acquisition. But we know that the project, the total cost is estimated between $60-$90 billion. And you’re saying that these have public and private sector partners. What is the proportion of the public and the private?
Mr. MacKinnon: We have not established that. We have a private consortium that is assisting in the development of the project, alongside the employees of the Crown corporation that I just —
Senator Galvez: What is the final montage that will be established?
Mr. MacKinnon: It will be an evolution, Senator Galvez, as we make decisions on routeing and land acquisition. You heard me talk about the options between Ottawa and Peterborough, make decisions about how we enter cities, for example.
Senator Galvez: Air Canada, la Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, SNCF and Air France. I hope Bombardier and Hydro-Québec are there too. What is the risk they will assume when these montage of financiers settle?
Mr. MacKinnon: That is all to be determined by what will be extensive contract negotiations, Senator.
Senator Galvez: If none of this is yet —
Mr. MacKinnon: Hydro-Québec, I can assure you, will be a key supplier.
Senator Galvez: And if you’re lucky, they will sell it for four cent a kilowatt, but we don’t know that.
Mr. MacKinnon: I will tell them you said that.
Senator Galvez: Yes, tell them.
Because of this, and the worries of my colleague, Senator Loffreda, how will Parliament be informed about these crucial steps? Because we don’t want to own land and not have all of the partners and money to construct.
Mr. MacKinnon: I don’t think you want me to repeat my answer to Senator Loffreda.
What I will say is all parliamentary oversight opportunities exist for this project. It is a public-private partnership, but emphasis, for our purposes, on the public. This is a Crown corporation. The shareholders of this corporation are the people of Canada.
Senator Galvez: How will you be assured, or what type of penalty will contractors suffer if they fail to finish something on the timeline? Because, as you said, the timeline is — you know, we do not want to disappoint everyone who is waiting.
Mr. MacKinnon: We will be negotiating a painstaking number of construction, operating and other agreements to support this project. I’m sure the feedback you have just given, that there ought to be risk sharing, which I think is essentially what you’re suggesting, be a feature of those agreements.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, minister. I have a few questions for you.
You said it was the public’s choice, so the public has to be involved. The people who are most affected are the people who live along the route. We’ve heard Mr. Imbleau, the press briefings, all kinds of statements about wanting to make things faster and less expensive, so we’re going to use farmland, since it will be faster to expropriate. We don’t need to remove buildings, so it will be faster and less expensive, so we will prioritize expropriation of farmland.
However, you are taking away the opportunity for people to be able to express themselves and be involved. Those people are part of the public as well. In particular, I’m talking about recourse to the Canadian Transportation Agency. Currently, if that recourse is removed — which would happen under Bill C-15 — the only ones who will be making decisions are you and Alto, which is your agency, so the public won’t decide much.
Why are you taking away the recourse to the Transportation Agency? To make it faster and less expensive?
Mr. MacKinnon: First, I would point out that you need two ministers. There is also the minister responsible for the act —
The Chair: I say “you,” but I was referring to the government.
Mr. MacKinnon: The minister responsible for the Expropriation Act is also involved in the process. I wasn’t there when the act was drafted, but I don’t think they were thinking of projects involving thousands of individual properties. Adding the future process to the current expropriation act would lengthen the process, not from four to eight years, but even more than that. I submit to you —
The Chair: I don’t want to cut you off, minister. I understood all of that. I think you’ve made changes to the bill to reduce delays and to provide some compensation.
Mr. MacKinnon: Without taking away respect for the owner, senator.
The Chair: I disagree with you in part, and I’ll tell you why. You say you’re going to negotiate beforehand, but you’re removing the prior negotiation requirement as a condition of expropriation. It’s a bit contradictory. That is not my question though. My question is mainly about the Canadian Transportation Agency.
The Transportation Agency is supposed to deal specifically with railways: it is their mandate to authorize railways. They have fantastic criteria on operational service needs, community impact, public interest, transportation economics and environmental impacts. Now, as to the case law — I’ve studied it — we could have subtitles for each of these four criteria. So why remove that?
Mr. MacKinnon: Senator, the government was elected, among other things, to. . . . It’s very clearly stated in our platform that we have to move forward on major project building, even nation building, in a much more efficient way.
I have been elected four times in Gatineau. There has been talk of LRT for 10 years, but we’re no further ahead than we were when I was elected in 2015. We have this issue in Canada: We question people, we question again, we add processes, but we don’t make progress.
Some jurisdictions have made progress. I mentioned REM in Quebec and certain public transit projects in Ontario. It’s not perfect, and no one is saying it is, but they were able to speed up the processes. In the case of Quebec, what they were able to do and what we have tried to emulate was involving people who have experience with projects, which is what we did with the Cadence consortium.
I can look a landowner in the eye and say there will be a negotiation phase. If we can’t agree — we cover all the costs, by the way, including assessments, legal costs and so forth — then we will expropriate, which means a notice will be issued. That owner can then appeal to the second minister I mentioned to challenge the notice.
I would argue that the process is quite exhaustive. In terms of the agency, the government has decided — the House of Commons, at least — that this project will benefit Canada as a whole. Some of our great achievements as Canadians fall into that category, and I would argue that this project is one of them.
[English]
Senator Pupatello: Good evening. It is great to see you here. Thank you for your hard work, especially that of your colleagues here tonight. I know it has been a big topic at this and other committees. I was pleased that you addressed it head on.
My own experience with expropriation was when bringing Highway 401 through the middle of my riding to arrive at the new bridge that is about to open, the Gordie Howe International Bridge. Also, when planning the Rt. Hon. Herb Gray Parkway — which was a massive swath of land — we had to go door to door and say that we were going to need that house space. It was very difficult.
When it was over — there will always be a minority, of course — the majority of people felt that they were dealt with fairly. I would appreciate that commitment that this government is going to be fair to people because it’s their lives and livelihoods — where they live. It is the biggest investment they make in their lives, and it is important we treat them fairly.
Senator Black was asking questions as the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry — a big focus on farmers because they feel that rural communities will suffer more than the urban ones that will benefit from high-speed rail, yet it is at their cost. Could you take a moment to address that?
Second, the first time we started talking about high-speed rail was in 1982. It was the Mayor of Windsor who started it as the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. He is still alive today, and I want him to hear you say that it will actually get to Windsor — even respecting the reports we did in our times past. I know that it is not seen as the one that is going to generate the most revenue initially, but I do believe that, as you keep adding those legs, those communities are going to benefit. It will create demand and GDP growth for the country.
So, I hope that you could express Windsor-Quebec City as often as you talk about Toronto-Montreal. Is that a deal?
Mr. MacKinnon: Let me take that one first.
I had a boss whose name was Paul Martin who used to talk about getting high-speed rail to Windsor, as well. Herb Gray probably did, too. Thank you for naming that parkway after him.
The Gordie Howe International Bridge, in fact, is another great collective decision that we as Canadians made. Yes, we do ask a lot of residents. You talked about those who were affected by the roadway. I was involved in building the Confederation Bridge to Prince Edward Island. There were some — some, not a lot — land acquisition issues there and environmental concerns.
All of these projects have a common theme: It is easy to ask 100 questions, and all of those questions need to be asked and require answers. What we have to adopt, just as we must adopt with all of the landowners who will be along the alignment, is respect and patience. We have to explain ourselves. We have to ensure people have all of the answers to the questions that they are asking. We also need to make this project real and believable for people.
That means explaining the benefits. We have a duty to explain the considerable benefits that will accrue to communities all along the line. Remember that you will never be that far from a station. Think of people who travel to airports now. Many of those people will change to travelling to an Alto station so that they can access this infrastructure and go somewhere else along that route.
But I understand that linear projects of all kinds have people who are concerned at the outset and will require the kinds of answers that we will need to provide as we go through the process.
Windsor is absolutely still in the vision. Call it phase 2. The train needs to get to Toronto, and then I hope and believe that we will immediately — maybe even before we open the first phase — begin planning the second phase, which would be a logical extension through southwestern Ontario to Windsor.
[Translation]
The Chair: We will have to stop there. Minister, thank you very much for appearing. We will certainly have the opportunity to invite you back and I am sure you will gladly accept.
I want to inform senators that the bell we are hearing right now reminds us that the Senate will resume at 8 p.m. We will suspend briefly before we welcome the second panel.
Colleagues, we are resuming our study of Bill C-15. For our second panel today, we are pleased to welcome by video conference Muhannad Malas, Director of Law Reform, and Julia Croome, Director of Litigation Practice, from Ecojustice; Geneviève Paul, Executive Director, and Charles Codère, from the Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement, or Quebec Environmental Law Centre; and also by video conference, Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, Director, Fundamental Freedoms Program, from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation to be here today. We will begin with opening remarks from Mr. Malas, followed by Ms. Paul and Ms. McNicoll.
Mr. Malas, you have the floor.
[English]
Muhannad Malas, Director of Law Reform, Ecojustice: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today and present our position on Part 5, Division 5 of budget implementation Bill C-15.
My name is Muhannad Malas, representing Ecojustice, Canada’s largest environmental law charity, where I serve as the Director of Law Reform. Joining me today is my colleague Julia Croome, our Director of Litigation Practice.
Last month, Ecojustice stood with over 100 constitutional law experts, human rights and health organizations, Indigenous leaders and civil society groups to sound the alarm about Part 5, Division 5 of Bill C-15. This section contains changes to the Red Tape Reduction Act that would grant ministers unprecedented powers to exempt individuals, companies or government entities from most federal laws. Those laws include the Canada Labour Code and critical health and environmental legislation, like the Food and Drugs Act, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
These are textbook examples of “Henry VIII” powers, named for the English monarch who ruled by decree rather than through parliamentary democracy. Such powers represent an affront to democratic governance and the rule of law. They fundamentally undermine Parliament’s role in lawmaking by allowing the executive branch to unilaterally suspend laws that both this chamber and the House of Commons have crafted, debated and refined over decades.
As the open letter stated so powerfully:
. . . these exemption powers do not streamline regulation — they dynamite the rule of law itself by creating a two-tier legislative system whereby laws debated and enacted by Parliament can be suspended for political convenience with little to no accountability or transparency.
While we acknowledge Parliament’s efforts to narrow these powers by limiting their application to the “clean technology” and “financial technology” sectors and to improve transparency measures, Ecojustice maintains that such extraordinary powers pose unacceptable risks to our constitutional order and urges the Senate to carefully consider the need for them.
If the Senate decides to support the proposed exemption clauses, we urge you to recommend further improvements that would provide necessary guardrails, ensure legislative clarity and protect vulnerable communities and ecosystems.
Ecojustice supports amendments proposed by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement, to enhance transparency, clarity and accountability.
In my remarks, I would like to highlight two key recommendations. First, to further clarify the scope of the “clean technology” sector, we recommend including a definition within the act. The Income Tax Act is the only legislation that defines “clean technology.” However, it’s uncertain whether this definition would be legally binding in the context of the proposed red tape reduction act exemption authorities. Hence, we recommend that a definition that is similar in clarity and scope be incorporated into this bill, Bill C-15, to ensure legislative coherence.
Second, expand the list of excluded Acts to include the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, known as CEPA, and the Species at Risk Act.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act stands as Canada’s cornerstone environmental law, protecting vulnerable Canadians from toxic pollution, including cancer-causing chemicals. This Senate played an instrumental role in modernizing CEPA in 2023 to include the first federal recognition of the right to a healthy environment and protections for vulnerable communities, including women, children and workers.
The Species at Risk Act serves as Canada’s primary legislative tool for protecting endangered species, from the last remaining Northern Spotted Owl to the iconic Southern Resident killer whales along our West Coast. Functioning ecosystems are the foundation of the long-term functioning of our economy, and protecting endangered species represents not merely environmental policy but a core expression of Canadian values and identity.
I would also like to underscore our strong support for adding other laws to which my colleague at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association will speak shortly, including the Canada Labour Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.
It is precisely in moments of uncertainty such as these that we must fiercely protect the foundations of our democratic principles and constitutional governance. The legacy of this committee’s recommendations on this fundamentally important issue will echo through generations. While innovation is essential to Canada’s future, it cannot come at the cost of the rule of law or the constitutional principles that protect Canadians. We urge the Senate, as the chamber of sober second thought, to stand as a steadfast guardian of a democratic, equitable and constitutionally grounded legal order. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Geneviève Paul, Chief Executive Officer, Quebec Environmental Law Centre: Honourable senators, on behalf of the Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement, the only non‑profit organization in Quebec offering independent legal expertise related to environmental protection, I sincerely thank you for the invitation to come and speak with you again today about Division 5 of Part 5 of Bill C-15.
I am the Executive Director of the CQDE and I am accompanied by Charles Codère, lawyer at the CQDE and J.D. with a specialization in innovation, science and technology from the Université de Montréal.
To begin, the CQDE considers that this division would create an exemption regime that would result in a significant and worrisome breach in the rule of law.
To be clear, we did not say that regulatory sandboxes were a threat to democracy and the rule of law. What we did say, however, is that the first iteration of Division 5 of Part 5 of Bill C-15 does not constitute a regulatory sandbox and that the lack of clear guide rails and the very broad provisions, both in terms of the sectors targeted and the persons or entities eligible for exemptions, do in fact constitute a threat to democracy and the rule of law.
The amendments adopted since then are a step in the right direction, in particular by further defining the sectors concerned and by limiting the scope of the laws that may be suspended.
That being said, we believe that both the approach taken and the very nature of the exemption powers conferred by this division are neither justified nor necessary, and that they pose risks to the health and safety of the public and respect for the rule of law in Canada.
As noted last December, the current extremely complex geopolitical context requires considerable effort by all actors in society, but it should not be used to normalize deregulation or justify such a concentration of power with such broad ramifications. It is even difficult, if not impossible, to fully grasp its scope.
It is important for us to remember that regulatory sandboxes are rare, strictly limited to innovation, targeted and temporary, which is not the case with Bill C-15 right now. We’re talking about three to six months in the case of certain fintechs. The OECD’s work on regulatory sandboxes and the work of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada do not propose deregulation of the kind found in Bill C-15; on the contrary, we want to ensure public safety and collect data to ensure that regulations are tailored to the emergence of new technologies.
We therefore reiterate that those powers should be removed. There are other ways to test real regulatory sandboxes in a way that is predictable for everyone, including the economic players.
My point has to do with the translation of an amendment agreed to during clause-by-clause consideration in the House of Commons.
In our opinion, the choice of the term in the French version of the bill is problematic. The English version says “clean technologies,” a term that is clearly defined in federal legislation, specifically in subsection 127.45(1) of the Income Tax Act. The French term that is used, however, “écotechnologie,” does not appear to be defined in Canadian law. The term used in the French version of the Income Tax Act is “technologies propres.”
In the interest of consistency and standardization, we would therefore suggest replacing the term “écotechnologie” with “technologie propre” and adding a specific and direct reference to the definition in subsection 127.45(1) of the Income Tax Act.
In our opinion, the Senate could make this correction to ensure that the bill is consistent and is properly applied.
Finally, I can conclude by saying that, to protect the public’s right to a healthy environment, to uphold the rights of Indigenous peoples and to protect Canada’s natural heritage as an integral part of our history and culture, certain laws must be explicitly excluded, such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Species at Risk Act. There are also amendments, which my colleagues will refer to, that can be made to provide for increased consultation, transparency and access to the information provided.
We are counting on you to recognize that innovation can only truly happen if Canadian democracy is protected.
[English]
We would be very happy to answer any questions that you may have, either in French or in English.
[Translation]
Thank you very much.
Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, Director, Fundamental Freedoms Program, Canadian Civil Liberties Association: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[English]
Good evening, honourable members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. Thank you for this opportunity to share with you the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, or CCLA’s, perspective on Bill C-15’s proposed amendments to the Red Tape Reduction Act.
The CCLA is an independent, non-governmental, non-partisan national organization founded in 1964 with a mandate to defend and promote the civil liberties, human rights and democratic freedoms of all people across Canada.
The CCLA is deeply concerned by the new power proposed in Bill C-15 that would allow federal ministers to exempt entities, for up to six years, from the application of most federal laws and regulations. Exempted entities could include individuals, corporations, as well as federal and provincial governments.
On February 20, more than 100 prominent law and human rights experts, labour, sector leaders and civil society organizations released an open letter warning parliamentarians about the anti-democratic path on which the proposed exemption powers would send Canada. The focus of our letter was on urging parliamentarians to vote against Part 5, Division 5, of Bill C-15.
A few days later, the House of Commons voted to add some constraints to the proposed exemption powers. Of note, these powers’ purpose would now be limited to encouraging innovation, competitiveness or economic growth in two sectors, namely, the clean technology and financial technology sectors.
While the amendments voted by the House of Commons are a step in the right direction, they neither address nor cure the profoundly problematic nature of the proposed exemption powers.
Giving the executive branch the power to unilaterally bypass an act of Parliament is an affront to the separation of powers: this constitutional architecture that stops any single branch of government from becoming too powerful, ensuring a system of checks and balances that prevents abuse and overreach.
Exemption powers are also an attack on the rule of law principle, which guarantees that everyone, including the government and powerful individuals, is subject to and accountable under the same publicly known, equally enforced and independently adjudicated laws. Our governments’ respect for these key principles will define how we as a country resist a troubling trend of democratic decline that we observe around the world.
In this context, we urge the Senate, as the chamber of sober second thought, to consider whether the new exemption powers introduced by the federal government are worth the threat they pose to our democratic processes and principles.
The CCLA’s response to this question is unequivocal: The risks clearly outweigh the benefits, so these exemption powers should be removed from Bill C-15.
Should the committee reach a different conclusion, we respectfully urge its members to add important safeguards to the proposed exemption powers in order to partially mitigate their detrimental impacts on the people of Canada. CCLA’s proposed amendments are attached to our opening remarks.
First, the CCLA recommends adding a handful of acts to the proposed definition of an “excluded Act” to minimize risks of human rights, workers’ rights, privacy rights and government accountability protections being trampled on in the name of economic growth, competitiveness or innovation. These statutes are the Canada Labour Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.
Second, the mandatory consultation process provided under proposed paragraph 12(3)(b) of the Red Tape Reduction Act should be amended to require that the minister consult groups and communities likely to be adversely impacted by a requested exemption.
Third, we note that the minister’s transparency duties pursuant to proposed sections 14, 14.1 and 14.2 of the Red Tape Reduction Act are significantly compromised by the breadth of the discretionary power granted to withhold information that, in the minister’s opinion, would be inappropriate to make publicly accessible, to publish or to include in the report “for reasons that include safety or security considerations or the protection of confidential or personal information.”
We recommend amending proposed subsections 14(2), 14.1(2) and 14.2(3) so that the minister’s discretionary power is limited by an exhaustive list of considerations as opposed to the current non-exhaustive list. This could be achieved by removing the words “reasons that include” from these three subsections.
We thank you for your attention, and I will be happy to answer your questions in the language of your choice.
[Translation]
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Would it be possible for you to send us some written notes to finish up your presentation? I’ll tell you why. We have a vote at 8:38. We are in a room that is quite far from the Senate Chamber. So we will have to stop the meeting at 8:28 p.m. That gives us about 15 or 20 minutes for discussion and questions. I don’t want to interfere with your presentation, so if you have further information to provide, I invite you to send us some written notes.
We can nevertheless move on to a few questions.
Are you comfortable with the following approach: we will ask our questions, you can take note of them, we say to whom they are directed and you can send us written answers? They will be posted on the committee website, so they will be public. Is that okay? Perfect. We’ll ask the questions right away and they can send us the answers.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: I just want to add one point. When you used the term “Henry VIII clause,” it is actually more specific than perhaps what Mr. Malas said, and perhaps you were just using it for shorthand. But in 1539, the Parliament of the United Kingdom actually passed a law giving Henry VIII these extensive powers to amend, repeal or override legislation. That was then repealed by the Parliament in 1547 upon his death. This is to add specificity to that term. It is not just something that happened a long time ago. It is really very specific.
I want to thank Ms. Bussières McNicoll for the specificity. As I understand it, you feel that the circumstances at the moment do not warrant using this type of clause. Are there any types of situations in which you feel they would be legitimate? But I take your very specific suggestions that you gave at the end of your presentation, which I think was very helpful. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: We can send you the questions. You don’t need to use shorthand to write them down. Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: Thank you to all our witnesses for being here. My question is on long-term institutional precedent. This project is being described as one of the largest infrastructure initiatives in Canadian history. From your perspective, do the powers granted in this legislation set any precedents that could be used in future projects? If so, what safeguards should Parliament consider to ensure that those precedents do not weaken accountability or the protection of individual rights in the future?
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Several of you commented on the issue of regulatory sandboxes and your concerns in that regard. I understand, however, that the government made amendments to tighten up the criteria in question. Those mechanisms also exist elsewhere in the world. A number of OECD countries come to mind, for instance.
As you know, Canada is currently facing significant economic challenges, which requires us to be more agile in a number of ways in various sectors that are very strategic for our collective future. I would like you to tell us, basically, why you are not satisfied, considering the parameters or guard rails that the government has put in place to tighten the criteria. What would be different in Canada as compared to other OECD countries where this has been very successful?
The Chair: If you have any examples of places where you say that it isn’t like this in other countries, or if you have specific examples of drafting . . . . When we heard from the ministers, they said that we were behind on sandboxes. I’m not sure that Canada shares the same understanding of sandboxes as found in other countries. We gather that you have expertise in this field.
Senator Galvez: Ms. Bussières McNicoll, can you elaborate on the four acts that you want to add to the list included as an amendment in the other place? To follow up on what we just discussed, the factors are scope, exceptions, as you said, clean technology, innovation and duration. There’s another factor that I can’t remember.
I read somewhere, in relation to the OECD and other countries, that these four aspects were involved. I’m missing a fifth. I would like you to explain why this sandbox method doesn’t meet the needs of the governments. They say that they need this, but they don’t normally do the sandbox in other places. I would like some clarification, please. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Pupatello: My question is along the lines of my colleague Senator Hébert’s. The OECD countries, the Minister of Finance, when he appeared at our committee a couple of days ago, mentioned that we are actually lagging.
In your experience and in your network that is global, if you have examples where a disaster has arisen because of this very thing, or if, in fact, the financial sector, which are these two elements, the financial sector technology or high-tech and finance, and the clean energy sector, where has it gone off the rails when they used this methodology? It has been put to us by that sector of innovation that it is not enough. “Why are you putting more guardrails? We need to get moving here and show you that we can do things,” and then once it is working, look at how you can expand it.
It is a pilot project, if you will, just to get them moving. When it has been done in every other OECD, I haven’t heard any case where something has gone off the rails.
Now, I’m not suggesting that it has never happened. Maybe it has just never been presented to us. But we are in two fields where we want them to excel, in particular in clean and green technology. In your network, please show us the examples of where this did not work well.
Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: In your brief for the finance committee, you asked the government to strengthen the anti-greenwashing regime by providing additional support to the Competition Bureau in order to better combat greenwashing and to better inform businesses through regulations. I would like you to share a few examples of how this could be stated in concrete terms.
The Chair: We apologize for asking our questions in this manner. We aren’t in the habit of making a list of questions. We hope that it won’t be too much work for you and that our approach to asking questions isn’t too cumbersome. You can answer as simply as possible. If you have graduate theses on the topics, all the better. Otherwise, we aren’t asking you either . . . . We know that you’re not-for-profit organizations, so we wouldn’t want to push things too far.
Yesterday, officials appeared before the committee. I asked the clerk whether we could send you the excerpts. They seemed to be saying that we had a poor understanding of sandboxes. They were saying that, when the clause stated that the minister has the power to exclude any legislation apart from the Criminal Code — in an amendment, on the other hand, they did add some legislation — it didn’t mean that the minister could do anything. It must fall within the minister’s jurisdiction. For example, if the Official Languages Act falls outside the minister’s jurisdiction, the minister can’t exclude the application of that act.
You spoke about the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Species at Risk Act. I gather from the official’s explanation yesterday that, if you aren’t the Minister of the Environment, but the Minister of Transport, for example, you can’t exclude the application of the environment act and the Species at Risk Act. That’s how I interpreted his comments.
We’ll send you this excerpt from the official’s testimony and ask you to comment on whether you agree or disagree, and why. Is that okay?
Thank you. We really apologize. We’ll certainly have the opportunity to invite you back. You’re extremely credible and competent organizations, so we greatly appreciate your contribution to the committee. We wish you a pleasant evening.
(The committee adjourned.)