Honourable senators, the Senate is resolved into a Committee of the Whole to continue its study of the subject matter of Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act.

Honourable senators, in a Committee of the Whole, senators shall address the chair but need not stand. Under the Rules, the speaking time is 10 minutes, including questions and answers, but, as ordered, if a senator does not use all of their time, the balance can be yielded to another senator.

The list of all currently confirmed witnesses for the Committee of the Whole on the subject matter of Bill C-5 today was distributed to senators electronically with the Scroll Notes, and the pages can provide senators with that list upon request.

The committee will first receive the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, P.C., M.P., Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy, and the Honourable Rebecca Alty, P.C., M.P., Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. I would now invite them to enter, accompanied by their officials.

(Pursuant to the order of the Senate, the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, the Honourable Rebecca Alty and their officials were escorted to seats in the Senate Chamber.)

Ministers, welcome to the Senate. I would ask you to introduce your officials and to make your opening remarks.

Mr. Chair, honourable senators, thank you for the invitation. I see you introduced my new colleague, someone I worked with when she was Mayor of Yellowknife. I believe this is her first appearance before a Committee of the Whole in the Senate. Thank you for having us.

Mr. Chair, with me today is Christiane Fox, Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council Office and Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, along with Sarah Jackson and Daniel Morin, who are also from the Privy Council Office.

Mr. Chair, thank you for having me. It is a privilege to be in the presence of a Speaker pro tempore and Chair of this Committee of the Whole who is from my home province of New Brunswick.

I also want to acknowledge a very important moment for me personally.

I have had the privilege of working closely with Senator Marc Gold for a number of years. I chair the Operations and Parliamentary Affairs Committee of cabinet, where Senator Gold is a standing invitee and participates in those conversations.

Senator, you have made an enormous contribution to Canada through your service in this place. You look 54 years old, but you are actually 74 years old. Senator Gold will, as you know, colleagues, be leaving this chamber but not without having made an enormous contribution to our country. I wanted to identify that, senator, before we begin.

Senator Gold, I want to let you in on a secret: There’s a cake waiting for you at the Operations and Parliamentary Affairs Committee of cabinet.

Honourable senators, I am here to speak to you about the importance of moving forward with Bill C-5 and the merits of the approach we are planning to take with this bill, an approach that will enable us to take advantage of the opportunity to make Canada a more prosperous and sovereign country.

Our country is at a turning point. The choices we make today will determine our country’s economic future. Our workers, our industries and our sovereignty are being threatened by U.S. tariffs. The world is becoming increasingly unstable.

I was in Calgary this morning, where I attended the G7 meeting with the Prime Minister, and we met with Mr. Trump yesterday morning. In this new context, Canadians expect their government to act decisively to protect our national interests. They expect us to set aside our old ways of doing things and to rise to the challenge ahead in a spirit of solidarity and determination.

Honourable senators, if Canada is to emerge stronger from this moment, we must give ourselves the ability to connect our resources, people and ambition from one coast to another to another and out to the world. Building transmission lines, ports, rail lines and energy infrastructure is about creating possibilities for every region of the country and for all our people.

It is about enabling our entrepreneurs, farmers, manufacturers and workers to compete, innovate and succeed at home and globally as well.

This is a time when the national interest calls for the federal government to step up, catalyze investment and accelerate federal approvals for projects that are of national significance and in our national interests.

Bill C-5 is our response to this “hinge moment.” It enables the kind of nation-building initiatives that will power our economy, drive greater trade and secure our future, and we will do this in a way that aligns with our values and responsibilities as a country.

We will work together with provinces and territories, advance reconciliation through the economic participation of Indigenous peoples and ensure the continued protection of our environment.

This determination to work in lockstep with provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples, “to get big things done,” was recently echoed in the discussions at which I was present with all of Canada’s first ministers in Saskatoon two weeks ago.

On June 2, premiers from every political stripe expressed enthusiastic support for the potential that this approach represents. The time has come for us to do away with some traditional delays and focus our collective energy in delivering for Canadians. We believe Bill C-5 gives us an opportunity to do that. To that end, our government will establish a major federal projects office that will act as a single point of contact and coordination for proponents.

The Prime Minister and his government have been very clear about our objectives. We are steadfast in our determination to position Canada as an energy and natural resources superpower. We will not only export raw materials, we will unlock value-added processing and innovation.

I wanted to sing the praises of my friend, Marc Gold, so I used up some of my time doing that.

Honourable senators, this bill is about affirming our national will. My colleague will touch on some important aspects of it, and I look forward to answering your questions and working with you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. I would like to begin by recognizing the staff who are joining me tonight. Today we have Rob Wright, Georgina Lloyd and Bruno Steinke. I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the unceded territory of the Algonquin, Anishinaabe people.

I am pleased to be here today in support of the one Canadian economy act, legislation that reflects our government’s strong commitment to building Canada strong. This bill lays the foundation for one Canadian economy — an economy that works for all Canadians, including First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples.

Minister LeBlanc has outlined the substance of the bill, and I will focus on how this legislation will be implemented with Indigenous peoples.

First, let me be absolutely clear: Major projects will only proceed under this act with meaningful consultation and accommodation with Indigenous peoples whose section 35 rights may be affected.

This act requires extensive consultation with Indigenous peoples, first during the national interest designation process, then while developing the conditions these projects will have to meet.

This requirement is not optional. It is protected under the Canadian Constitution and is embedded throughout the legislation.

Thanks to the efforts of Indigenous leaders, governments and representative organizations, and the important work done in this chamber, Bill S-13 passed last year, which amended the Interpretation Act to ensure that all legislation — including new legislation like the one Canadian economy act — is interpreted in a way that upholds and does not diminish the Aboriginal and treaty rights recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution.

I wish to thank senators here for working to pass this bill. It is important to note that the act includes specific provisions regarding the consultations required to implement it.

We also have legal obligations under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, as well as our modern treaties and self-government agreements, to ensure that the duty to consult and accommodate is honoured and honoured in full. As we undertake this nation-building effort, the principle of free, prior and informed consent must, and will, guide every project.

As mentioned, this legislation mandates that there must be meaningful consultation and accommodation with Indigenous peoples during both the process of determining which projects are in the national interest and the development of the rigorous conditions for each project.

In determining which projects proposed by Indigenous peoples, provinces and territories are in the national interest, we’ll be evaluating them based on whether they do the following: (a) strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience and security; (b) provide economic or other benefits to Canada; (c) have a high likelihood of successful execution; (d) advance the interests of Indigenous peoples; and (e) contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada objectives with respect to climate change.

The legislation is incentivizing early engagement with Indigenous peoples. Proponents who don’t engage with Indigenous peoples before bringing their projects forward for consideration under the legislation will be given a lower evaluation.

The intent of the legislation is to streamline the approvals process to advance major projects. We know that failing to uphold our legal responsibilities around consultation and accommodation will only lead to costly and time-consuming delays in the courts.

This legislation is about supporting projects that are not only shovel-ready but shovel-worthy projects that respect Indigenous knowledge and uphold Aboriginal and treaty rights. We’ll be looking for projects that have Indigenous support and — better yet — Indigenous equity in the projects.

To ensure things are done properly, this historic bill provides for the creation of a new federal major projects office that will bring together all the relevant federal ministers and be tasked with establishing a single set of conditions that have to be met for the project to be approved. At the centre of this new office will be an Indigenous advisory council.

We will also be providing funding for Indigenous participation in this new process from start to finish.

At the same time, being a reliable partner to Indigenous peoples is not just about upholding the duty to consult and accommodate. Enabling the creation of long-term wealth and prosperity for Indigenous peoples through equity ownership is central to building Canada strong. That is why we doubled the Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program from $5 billion to $10 billion, enabling more Indigenous communities to become owners of major projects.

Just this year, 36 First Nations in British Columbia used this program to secure a 12.5% equity share in a major pipeline, generating long-term income and economic power for their communities.

The truth is, our economy can only be strong when it benefits everyone. We know that investing in Indigenous communities and economies benefits the entire country.

Together let’s move this bill forward so we can begin the vital work of building Canada’s future economy — one that includes, and is built with, Indigenous people.

Thank you. Mahsi’cho.

Thank you, Minister Alty.

We’ll now move on to questions. The list of senators who wish to speak is very long. Ministers, I respectfully request that you provide concise answers to the senators’ questions. That would be appreciated.

I apologize if I have to interrupt you.

Thank you, ministers, for being here with us today.

Ministers, this bill gives unprecedented power to a single minister to decide which projects are of national interest, granting them fast-tracked approvals. But if the minister refuses — perhaps for ideological reasons — to give that designation, the project defaults to the old, slow regime your government admits is not working.

What happens if the minister is someone, for example, like the Honourable Steven Guilbeault, known for opposing oil and gas inherently. Doesn’t this bill risk enabling politically motivated decisions that quietly block strategic projects and harm the Canadian objective?

Senator Housakos, through the chair to you, thank you for the question.

We think this bill strikes the right balance in terms of providing proponents — whether they are Indigenous governments, provincial and territorial governments or, we hope, many private sector proponents — with greater certainty and investor confidence in a process that will lead to an approval from the Government of Canada, obviously with the appropriate conditions around those approvals, and done in an expedited way.

Regarding the hypothetical, you chose a Liberal MP, gave him a new cabinet job and want me to comment on that. Senator Housakos, I’m not going to do that.

The good news for you, sir, is that for the moment, I will be the minister responsible for those decisions. We have known each other for a long time. I’m not an ideological person; I’m pragmatic, and I very much believe that this moment in our country’s history lends itself to this kind of expedited, balanced and thoughtful process. It is in that spirit that I would seek to exercise that authority should this legislation be adopted.

Minister, I’m not talking about this moment; I’m talking about a couple of weeks ago. And I’m not talking about just any random member of Parliament; I’m talking about your political minister from Quebec, who has a track record of being excessively radical when it comes to putting up roadblocks to energy development in this country.

I think it is a valid question. Cabinet members must be aligned with the Prime Minister and his objectives — and you and your objectives — especially those who, if you listen to what they have been saying in the media, currently are not.

There are currently 28 projects related to energy and critical minerals stalled in the federal approval process. My simple question is this: Why not accelerate them immediately if we’re facing such an existential crisis?

Through you, Mr. Chair, to Senator Housakos, the objective of this bill is to provide that expedited process that would apply to projects that the Governor-in-Council — the cabinet — decides to designate as being in the national interest.

I cannot speak to a list of projects that have different approval processes. However, if one of those proponents — for example, my colleague mentioned benefiting from Indigenous equity participation and the support of provincial and territorial governments — were to decide to ask our government to consider designating one of those projects, then it is hypothetically conceivable that one of those projects could be put to the government as being in the national interest. Politicians should not answer hypothetical questions, but you asked two or three, so I answered one of them.

The first ministers’ meeting in Saskatoon gave us an opportunity to hear from all of the premiers about a vast list of really interesting projects that they are hoping to work on, in many cases with a number of jurisdictions working together. I’m therefore very encouraged that — you will forgive the pun — the pipeline of projects may offer us a real opportunity to do something important in the national interest.

Minister, you know that we are giving the government the benefit of the doubt. We support this bill in the other house and will support it in this place, but we have concerns. The responsibilities entrusted to the designated minister are extensive: centralized authorization, intradepartmental coordination, Indigenous consultation and power to amend project conditions. You are asking us to quickly adopt this bill, but you have not been able to provide a clear budget envelope for this new office.

Tell us frankly — what is the planned budget for the single window, how many public servants will staff it and how quickly will this funding become available?

Through you, Mr. Chair, to Senator Housakos — those are very good questions. I know that the Privy Council Office is in the process of establishing precisely that office — provisional upon the legislation passing, obviously. The government has not hired people, reassigned public servants or spent money and will not do so before we see if Parliament adopts this legislation.

I totally share your view regarding the urgency of the moment and the need to move quickly, and I am happy to ensure and to commit that the Privy Council Office will share — through your chair — all of the information as we stand up this office.

My colleague mentioned a number of commitments we have made, for example, to increase to $10 billion a loan guarantee program for Indigenous equity and capacity building in terms of consultation. Perhaps in subsequent questions, we can talk about those investments as well.

I totally share your view that the moment is urgent. I certainly appreciate your colleagues in the other place and the support they have shown us, and we look forward to working with all senators here as you study this legislation.

Minister, as you can appreciate, those of us who have been in this place for a very long time have seen this movie before. A government comes, well intentioned, with an existential crisis. We have to move with urgency. You ask us to speed through a bill, as we are doing in this particular instance, but we cannot get a precise answer regarding what this new public servant operation will cost. More importantly, we’re speeding this bill through without any clear picture of what administrative capacity will be in place, not only to evaluate the projects, but to see them through and give us benchmarks as we go through the process — to give the government benchmarks so we can at least be accountable to the taxpayers and the public.

Don’t you think we must ramp up that aspect of this bill?

Mr. Chair, Senator Housakos, I absolutely agree with the premise of your question in terms of the importance of transparency around the use of public money.

As I say, the government is being careful. We hope this legislation can be adopted expeditiously. Once it is, and to ensure that we go above the normal estimates process in a transparent way, senator, I’m happy to commit that the Privy Council will share their financial planning in terms of that work.

One way we hope to control some of the costs — and maybe we can talk about this, Mr. Chair, in other questions — is through the ability to have one project, one review, and to benefit from a lot of the good work that is done at provincial and territorial orders of government.

For example, senator, in your province of Quebec, the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement, or BAPE, does a lot of good work. If we’re able to quickly sign agreements with provinces and territories to avoid duplication and overlapping requirements, we think it will be in the interests of investors and expeditious project approvals, but also those of taxpayers, both at the provincial and federal orders of government. There is only one taxpayer in the country. We think that would also be effective from a financial management point of view but clearly in terms of expediting things as well.

I have one last question, minister.

Prime Minister Carney says that a national consensus is needed to build a pipeline. Can you tell us what that actually means, in real terms? What is a consensus? What will happen if a premier says, “No, that’s enough”?

Thank you for the question.

You’re right. I was with Prime Minister Carney when he was asked the question. Clearly, the bill is not being considered by the Senate, by Parliament, with a view to imposing any kind of project on Indigenous people or on a province or territory.

I was very encouraged by the consensus among the premiers when they heard the remarks made by Manitoba’s NDP premier and some of the comments made both privately and publicly by Mr. Legault, the premier of your province. They all talked about the importance of being open to projects that will make our economy more competitive and ensure that we are not dependent on one market to sell our products.

However, you’re absolutely right. This is all very difficult to define in precise terms, and everyone has their own theories. The Prime Minister has been very clear that we’re not going to impose a project on a province or territory. This is a way to build a more effective consensus.

Thank you, minister.

Good afternoon, minister.

As you mentioned, this bill is extremely important to Canada’s economic future at a time of major turbulence. I’m sure no one will deny that we are all feeling a bit queasy at the moment. We hope this bill will propel our industries forward, provided, of course, that tenders follow the trend, if not lead the way. Canadian businesses need to be prioritized more.

Even if we take that as read, I see labour as another challenge. We all know that building infrastructure takes workers. It takes a lot of workers. The labour mobility bill is part of the answer, but another part relates to immigration.

How is the government going to reconcile Bill C-5’s objectives with immigration policies that could affect access to labour in several of the key sectors targeted by Bill C-5?

Thank you for your question. You’re absolutely right. Tenders and investments from private companies, and perhaps even from different levels of government, will only achieve the economic objective that we have set if we are truly able to build the projects that we will designate as being in the national interest. I know that this part of the bill falls under the jurisdiction of Ms. Freeland, who appeared before you yesterday.

The provinces have worked together extensively to increase labour mobility, but you’re right. We need to support the provinces in training young people. I’m thinking of my province, your Speaker’s province, New Brunswick, where there are more and more programs in public and community colleges specifically designed to teach young people a trade. That is just one small example of a provincial government that decided to take matters into its own hands, but there are similar examples all across Canada.

Immigration is also part of this challenge. The provinces and territories are eager to work with us. They, too, have nominee programs that target certain categories of people to help achieve the goal of access to skilled labour. We are determined to ensure that access to labour does not undermine the goal that you have so clearly described.

I think it’s important with this bill that it’s a two-step process. The first step is about engaging with Indigenous rights holders to determine whether the project should be added to Schedule 1. Then it is moving into the conditions, so that’s the second round of consultations, as well as the environmental assessment. It’s through that second part that those conditions will be added, and the proponents will have to adhere to them.

It is important to understand that two-step process. Again, it is continuing to uphold the Constitution and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The other thing is the part outside of this bill about capacity building and providing funding to Indigenous rights holders from the start to the finish of the process. That was something that the department heard in its engagement on consultation last year: the need for continuous funding and not application-based funding, so that Indigenous rights holders are able to effectively participate in the whole process.

It is important to recognize the two-part consultation, and then those conditions would be added to the final document for the minister’s approval.

Senator, thank you for the question. As my colleague described, it’s deliberately designed to have this two-step process. We are confident after having spoken to a number of premiers since the first ministers’ meeting — I sat with Premier Smith in Calgary at the Governor General’s dinner last evening — that there is a great deal of enthusiasm from all the first ministers, obviously, if the legislation passes, to start to define what might be projects for the government to designate, as Ms. Alty indicated.

Your question, senator, is important. I wouldn’t want people to have an impression that the environmental assessments, our responsibility under various statutes, such as the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Canadian Navigable Waters Act — those are just a few, but the list is imposing and appropriate in terms of the government’s responsibility to ensure that those assessments are rigorous. All of those assessments would feed into the conditions document, which would constitute the approval.

I think we should be clear: Just because there’s a designation does not mean that there is an automatic approval or the issuance of a conditions document. Again, I’m doing what I said I wouldn’t do, but, hypothetically, if as we work through a project, the Department of Environment or Fisheries and Oceans, providing advice, working with the proponent — if we concluded that the proponent was unwilling or unable to meet the reasonable conditions that we had worked on together, then that project might not receive the final approval from the government.

It’s important to understand that those environmental assessments will absolutely form part of the conditions document that we hope will be the approval.

Thank you, minister.

Thank you, ministers, for your presence here today. Most of the witnesses have told us that this bill is an answer to the situation with respect to what is going on in the south with the tariffs.

Bill C-5 gives the Governor-in-Council the ability to exempt a national interest project from the application of important laws that protect the environment, like the ones my colleague and you mentioned: the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Species at Risk Act. Can you tell me if any other federal law gives this much power to the executive branch? And would this have a beginning and an end date? I ask because the threat in the south will not be there forever.

Thank you, senator, for the question. There were two or three very good questions in what you just posed.

In terms of a time period, we’re proposing that the ability for the Governor-in-Council, the cabinet, to designate a project as being in the national interest would not exceed five years. The reason is as follows: Let’s say in year 2 or year 3, a project is proposed. If a province or territory brought forward an Indigenous-led project, if in a maximum of two years we were working on those conditions, we think that is a reasonable time frame in light of the economic threat that the country faces from the United States — our neighbours to the south. You said it, senator.

I participated in the Prime Minister’s bilateral meeting with President Trump yesterday in Kananaskis. I will be talking to the U.S. Trade Representative again later this week. Whatever the ultimate deal or arrangement Canada comes to, we hope to remove all of the tariffs that the United States has imposed illegally and inappropriately on Canada, but the economic uncertainty and instability are not going to disappear right away. What President Trump is doing — and the Prime Minister said this in the election campaign — is he’s seeking to redefine many of the modern global trading relationships.

I met the Mexican minister of the economy, Minister Ebrard, yesterday afternoon in Calgary. We talked about exactly the trilateral context. He’s in Washington almost every week. He tells me that this is not a short-term challenge to the global economy. That’s why we think the time frame is appropriate.

I know, senator; I saw Minister Freeland, chair, and I won’t do that.

With respect to the power given to the Governor-in-Council, I’m sure that your colleagues might give us an opportunity to address that.

Thank you, minister. I just want to remind honourable senators that when you’re sharing your time, you have 10 minutes altogether, the three of you, with the questions and answers. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Minister LeBlanc. One of the recurring barriers to labour mobility is the recognition of professional qualifications from one province to another. Given the importance of community colleges, such as Nova Scotia Community College, what commitments is the government making or what commitments will it make in this bill to harmonize training standards and ensure speedy and equitable recognition of qualifications, particularly for young graduates and locally trained newcomers? This applies to all provinces.

Thank you for the question, Senator Aucoin. I don’t wish to offend in any way, but as you are well aware, the government has no way to impose or harmonize standards for certain trades and professions. That is under provincial jurisdiction, so the provinces set the standards.

I completely agree with you. Community colleges are doing important work in both our provinces. We are trying to work with the provinces and territories to help them harmonize their worker and labour force mobility. I am very encouraged by what I’m seeing. I shared an example involving the provincial premiers. The four Atlantic premiers decided to create a partnership for health care workers. For example, if you’re an occupational therapist in Moncton and you want to work in Chéticamp, you can be an occupational therapist whether you’re in Chéticamp or in Summerside, P.E.I. We found that inspiring. Other provinces are adopting the same model. I’m sure Ms. Freeland talked to you about this yesterday, but we’re going to remove all federal obstacles and barriers. We will encourage and support our provincial and territorial friends, who all say, both publicly and privately, that they’re grappling with the challenge you described.

My second question relates to a subject very close to my heart. Proposed section 21 in Part 2 of Bill C-5 raises serious concerns about the protection of language rights in the workplace. In fact, in a press release issued just yesterday, the Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick, or SANB, expressed concern regarding proposed section 21 in the bill. My fear is that it could provide a way to get around laws such as the Official Languages Act and the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act. For example, an investor involved in a federal project in a predominantly francophone region, or elsewhere, could make their project conditional on the federal government’s authorization to circumvent language requirements.

Minister, how does the government plan to address this concern, this threat to the language rights of workers in New Brunswick, Quebec, Acadia and francophone communities across Canada?

Senator Aucoin, I completely share the concern that you just raised. You used a still hypothetical example where a person involved in a project could be exempted from certain obligations under the Official Languages Act or under the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act.

I will never approve a condition like that — to return to Senator Housakos’ question — not as long as I’m fortunate enough to be the designated minister. If the bill passes, I’ll never accept a condition like that. We know that exemptions like this will never be allowed, not while I’m the minister responsible.

However, you are right to raise the concern that, in other circumstances or under a different government, the bill could be used to weaken these obligations. I personally can’t imagine such a scenario. During the election campaign, we discussed this with Mr. Carney and the provincial premiers; the need for urgent action is real, and we believe it, but never once did we consider a scenario like that one reasonable. I will work with you and other colleagues to stop such a thing from ever happening. I share your concern entirely.

Thank you.

Thank you, ministers and your teams, for being with us here today. My question is to you, Minister LeBlanc.

Given your role as Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, do you foresee this bill being a point of tension or cooperation in our cross-border economic relationship, particularly where provincial preferences may diverge from federal priorities?

Mr. Chair, through you — senator, thank you for the question. You started off on the Canada-U.S. context. By a point of contention, do you mean with our friends in the United States? I just want to make sure I understood your question.

Yes, I mean on both — points of contention or cooperation on both fronts, among our provinces, with our provinces as well as across the board.

Senator, I think you’ve identified precisely a very important opportunity for collaboration at both the federal-provincial-territorial level and with respect to our most important economic partner, the United States. The United States is Canada’s most important security and economic partner and will be for a very long time. We’re redefining our ability to have a reliable trading relationship. That’s a separate subject.

I had conversations with Secretary Lutnick and with Ambassador Greer as recently as yesterday in Kananaskis. Secretary Bessent, the United States Secretary of the Treasury, was there. In the President’s conversations with the Prime Minister, we’re talking about redefining a relationship with the United States, an economic partnership that would include Canada’s ability to do major projects. For example, think of the critical minerals space. Premier Smith was speaking to me last night, with Premier Moe from Saskatchewan, about potential mineral mining projects that would very much answer the challenge we have not only with the United States but with other allies in terms of our dependency on countries like China or Russia.

The South African minister was sitting next to me at the dinner last night and talking about Canada and South Africa in terms of being critical mineral giants and what that could mean to global security if we do that properly.

I think there’s a big opportunity — done properly — in the Canada-U.S. relationship. Just going by, senator, the conversations with premiers in Saskatoon, if you think that all 13 provincial and territorial governments arrived at the meeting with examples of the kinds of projects that they hoped could be developed to the point that the government would consider them, as Ms. Alty said, for that designation. Many provinces and territories are working together.

If you take the Western provinces and the territorial and Northern premiers, they are speaking. The Atlantic premiers are working together.

The Government of Canada is committing to one project, one review; to no duplication or overlap; and to working with them to expedite the projects.

I think therein lies a huge opportunity for our federation as well. I’m quite encouraged — and think all Canadians should be — by the action we’re seeing from provinces and territories and their leaders.

Minister LeBlanc, do you have any concerns that streamlining approval for major projects under the building Canada act could be challenged by the U.S. as inconsistent with trade obligations under CUSMA? How is this being addressed?

Senator, the short answer is no, I don’t have any concerns. If we want to strengthen our economic relationship with the United States, our ability to build big projects in Canada and increase the GDP of our country will be positive elements in that relationship. They certainly haven’t raised any concerns with me, but they talk to me about big projects that perhaps we could do jointly, with United States investors, for example. That will be a work in progress.

Welcome, ministers. Yesterday, we heard from national Indigenous leaders that there has been rushed and insignificant consultation on Part 2 of Bill C-5. I want to thank you for recognizing consultation and free, prior and informed consent, or FPIC, in your opening remarks. You’re recognizing with conviction the duty to consult, UNDRIP law and section 35.

Minister, we’ve heard about a so-called “Henry VIII” clause contained in clauses 21, 22 and 23 in Part 2 of this bill. Purportedly, these clauses give cabinet an unconstrained ability to alter the operation of virtually all laws passed by Parliament.

Minister, if environmental and Indigenous rights statutes can be exempted, what might that mean for the environment and Indigenous people?

Thank you, senator, for the question. Yes, as I outlined in my opening comments, consultation is legally required. It’s under the Constitution. The rights are affirmed by the Constitution, and the duty to consult and accommodate has been set out in a series of Supreme Court of Canada decisions, so this bill cannot supersede the Constitution. Projects will only be designated following full consultation with affected Indigenous rights holders.

The key is that the duty to consult and accommodate is in the Constitution, as well as the amended Interpretation Act, which this bill must follow. Perhaps I will leave it at that in order to leave you more time in your 10 minutes of questions.

So the “Henry VIII” clause has no impact.

Correct.

Ministers, if a project causes serious and unanticipated harm after it has been approved, it is critical that Indigenous peoples and other affected communities have meaningful opportunities for redress. Even before that, however, there must be strong procedural safeguards to ensure that the delegated minister will not abuse the sweeping powers they are granted under this bill.

Currently, Bill C-5 would allow them to override existing federal laws and regulations, including, potentially, the Indian Act. Could you explain why the Indian Act has been included in Schedule 2 of Bill C-5, and should First Nations be concerned that the current or future governments may override the provisions of the Indian Act that deal with their land rights?

Thank you, senator. I appreciate the question.

When moving forward with projects, some communities are subject to archaic provisions under the Indian Act. We will be engaging with First Nation partners on each project. If we need to suspend some provision of the act, we will do so in consultation with the First Nation to ensure that the development will respect cultural practices and environmental standards. But one of the things, in discussions with Indigenous leaders, was the challenges with the Indian Act when it comes to the financial. If there is that opportunity to make some provisions to alter that, that could be considered through this legislation.

Again, we want to retain the option for it to advance a project, but it must be with First Nations. Again, that’s why we decided to include sections of the Indian Act in this legislation.

Minister, thank you for being here. One of the ways this bill supersedes and overrides legislation is in how it deals with the Statutory Instruments Act. One specific override it has is over the ability of Parliament to review regulations through its Scrutiny of Regulations Committee, which I understand I will be back on soon enough and which I had the honour of chairing the last two Parliaments.

I understand the need to perhaps override certain statutes in the interest of speeding up an approval process, but the scrutiny job happens well after a project has been undertaken and well after the bill has been put in place. It’s a way to ensure that regulations are consistent with the law that we pass.

Why was it necessary to take this quite extraordinary step with respect to the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee?

Mr. Chair, through you to Senator Woo, thank you for that question. I have been hanging around Parliament long enough to know — and have colleagues who have served a number of years on the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations — that you’re absolutely right. You described it, senator, very well, and for Canadians who might be watching us. I think that is an important parliamentary responsibility that has been exercised over a long period of time by both chambers.

I absolutely subscribe to the work that is often done out of the glare of the public light but which contributes to governments being responsible and the executive branch enacting regulations that, as you described very well, respect the legislation that was adopted by Parliament.

Again, I’m doing this the third time: I said I wouldn’t think of hypothetical examples.

For the fourth time, senator, my goodness. We have lots of time left, and you still don’t have enough questions for my colleague.

Senator, our objective here is to say to proponents of projects — to provinces and territories and to Indigenous proponents — that we’re prepared to act swiftly, responsibly and in a balanced way. I would be happy to work with that committee and others to ensure — to not use the hypothetical example of an extreme outcome — that is done in a responsible way.

Can you think of any other statutory instrument that has been exempt from the review and purview of the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee? Even if you don’t have an answer to that, can you find a way to preserve Parliament’s right to at least look at the regulations after the fact so that we’re not totally in the dark?

Senator, I’m not aware of other examples, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any. It’s such a technical point of law, but I’d be happy to ask the Privy Council officials here with me to answer that precise question and get you that precise answer.

I don’t know it myself, but it’s a very good question. I’ll get you the answer in terms of whether there are other precedents. I’d be happy to work with your committee to ensure, as you said, that fundamental respect for Parliament is preserved.

Senators, I want to be transparent. The government wants to encourage investors to come forward and encourage provinces and territories to put forward major projects because of the economic and geopolitical urgency of the moment. We want to tell those proponents and their partners — including Indigenous peoples, as my colleague said — that we’re prepared to do this work in a responsible, expeditious way, but I wouldn’t purport to take away that important role of Parliament. Senator, thank you for raising that.

Thank you to both ministers.

Minister Alty, you and I have both been mayors. I have long admired your work when you were dealing with the impact of wildfires on your community. I admired your leadership style. I was on a municipal panel with you organized by Senator Simons at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, or FCM. Mayors understand relationship building. We see our constituents, our neighbours on the street. They know us by name. I know that you bring relationship-building skills to this job. You mentioned meaningful consultation in your opening statement. I want to speak about that, not just in the legal requirement piece but in the relationship-building piece.

In Ontario, communities have been upset by our own Bill 5 here, which was passed. Today, the Chiefs of Ontario have organized a rally right here on Parliament Hill in response to Bill C-5. In fact, the former grand Chief of Akwesasne, now Regional Chief Abram Benedict, spoke moments ago. In our conversations with them earlier this week, they sent us some of their questions. I want to relay their concerns here.

Given the speed at which cabinet can move under Bill C-5 with emergency-like power to override legislation and regulation, does the government anticipate repercussions like demonstrations and protests that would result in delaying projects? How, more specifically, does the government intend to mitigate those risks? What does the government say in response to the Chiefs of Ontario gathering on the Hill today?

Thank you, senator, for the questions. The point I will speak to is the idea that this bill is proposing accelerating Indigenous consultation. What I think is important is the opportunity to streamline, to create that major projects office.

Over the last year, Crown-Indigenous Relations has conducted engagement sessions with Indigenous peoples via our existing forums and tables on a proposed Crown consultation coordinator function. These sessions revealed several reoccurring concerns related to all federal consultations.

Some of the themes were insufficient coordination; difficulty navigating consultation processes, especially for smaller communities with limited capacity; fragmented and inadequate funding for participation in consultations; and growing consultation fatigue, exasperated by overlapping and duplicative processes.

Without new coordinated mechanisms to navigate these complexities, we do risk the judicial reviews of consultation adequacy, delaying projects and diminishing the confidence in the Crown’s ability to lead a fair and effective process.

That is why I think it is important to have the establishment of the major projects office that would be leading the work on this legislation. Because through the proposed major projects office, we will be centralizing knowledge and tracking of consultation activities; developing a centralized approach to identifying impacted Indigenous communities to consult; clearly identifying rights holders early in the process to reduce uncertainty and avoid delays in project timelines; serving as a point of contact for escalating consultation issues and ensuring timely access to senior decision makers; providing project-specific information on asserted or established Aboriginal and treaty rights, including unresolved or historic claims within project corridors; and providing project-specific information in a modern treaty and self-government agreement, obligations and commitments within project corridors —

Thank you, minister.

Ministers, welcome, especially to you, Minister Alty, on your first time here in the Senate.

Minister LeBlanc, one of the reasons that barriers to interprovincial trade have developed over time has been regional protectionism. Although economy should be top of mind, we know that our culture, our communities and our economies are all tied together. No Canadian wants to see communities suffer because jobs are moving to other areas of the country.

Minister, clarify for us today what efforts are being made, working with the provinces and territories, to find a healthy balance between protecting smaller, more vulnerable communities while growing and integrating Canada’s economy.

Mr. Chair, through you, thank you for the question. You have identified, I think, the reasons over a number of decades why, provincially, territorially and federally, a series of barriers — “barriers” is a dramatic word, but a series of policies, regulations, requirements — have built up over time — a friend of mine in New Brunswick said, “We just accumulate more snow in front of the plow” — as we try and build one Canadian economy. The regional politics and the local politics are very complex.

I have heard premiers of smaller provinces — I am sure Minister Alty — the territorial premiers, you are right. The economy of Nunavut is different than the economy of the province of Ontario. Small provinces like New Brunswick worry that in some circumstances their local economies may be affected.

What is encouraging, though, is that experts and analysis from economists, from global institutions and Canadian think tanks have all said that, done properly, the removal of these barriers and the creation of one Canadian economy, not 13 — to pick up a phrase that the Prime Minister used every day in the election campaign — will add up to 4% to Canada’s GDP. That will create jobs in communities all across the country.

To bridge from removing the interprovincial and territorial barriers to the second part of the legislation, the major projects, many of these projects will bring immediate economic benefit to some of the smaller jurisdictions. If you think of the Indigenous proponents that are suggesting a potential project at Grays Bay or if you think of the Atlantic provinces coming together with the Province of Quebec to do interesting things on an energy partnership, done properly, those national projects will also contribute economic activity.

I’m encouraged by the premiers themselves, the business communities and organizations representing workers asking all governments — every order of government — to do what the moment requires, both in terms of eliminating those interprovincial barriers but also on national projects. I see your chair is about to apply the Freeland rule.

Thank you, minister.

Thank you both for being here, but let’s begin with the criticism of this bill in general that we hear from members of your own party on the floor, that your approach to this particular bill has usurped the rights and obligations of parliamentarians. Debate has been stymied in your house. This is not our general procedure here. We would usually send a bill to committee. We would have witnesses, we would take testimony and we would apply sober second thought to that bill. Because of the time pressures that you have put on, we are now in this particular process.

Can you explain why you think this is so necessary at this moment? We have talked a little bit about what the crisis is. I am not sure that with you and the Prime Minister actively engaged in the trade negotiations and our security and trade relationship with the U.S. that they have — the two leaders have put a 30-day timeline on there. Why would we not subject this legislation, which is so crucial domestically — really not that central to the trade relationship with the U.S.; these rules are domestic that we are talking about — why you would not give this the proper scrutiny that it needs to resolve the critics who are making the case about the powers of declaring a national interest project?

Through you, Mr. Chair, to Senator Wallin, I think the Prime Minister and our government made a compelling case to Canadians that this particular piece of legislation was what the moment required.

Every day of the election campaign, the Prime Minister spoke about building big projects in the national interest. It is on page 1 of our election platform. None of this should surprise Canadians, as we think — and this view is shared by all 13 premiers, both before and after the election within the meetings that I attended — the moment has arrived where we must have an expedited process, but not for all projects. Senator, this is a piece of legislation that applies to domestic law in Canada. It is related only in terms of the discussions with the United States because the economic risk of the United States being an unreliable trading partner means that — again, to pick up a phrase we used in the election campaign — we have to give ourselves more than somebody else can take away.

We believe that this legislation is urgent in terms of giving the opportunity to build projects in the national interest — not every myriad of projects. Last night, I had a discussion at dinner in Calgary with the premier of your province, Senator Wallin, who was all excited about the projects in Saskatchewan that may give this urgent opportunity when he is facing tariff challenges, some with the United States and some with respect to China.

We don’t have a definition from you regarding what is in the national interest. It seems to me that will be a decision that you, in consultation with the Prime Minister, may make. However, there is not a clear set of criteria. I am thinking in this case and in this country about the constitutional rights of the very premiers who want to develop resources and develop oil and gas, and then we have provinces that say they also have the constitutional right to say “no” to those very projects that might cross their provincial borders.

It comes down to this question, and I know that you have been asked this on many other occasions: Will you grant — I can only use that word because of the powers you have given yourself in this bill — provinces a veto over other projects?

Senator Wallin, you asked two good questions. The first one is around the criteria of determining what a project in the national interest might be, and we have been quite clear. It is in the legislation: strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience and security; provide economic or other benefits to Canada; have a high likelihood of successful execution — that picks up on a question from your colleague earlier — advance the interests of Indigenous peoples; and contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change. These are the five criteria in law that we would propose to exercise in terms of that designation.

The second part of your question is around whether we give a veto to a particular province. I get that people are looking for absolutes; they want absolute answers to hypothetical questions. I will be governed by what the Prime Minister said in his news conference when we tabled this legislation in the House of Commons. He does not see a circumstance where the government would impose a project over a province —

Is that a veto?

“Veto” is an aggressive word you could use. It is also a restaurant on Mountain Road in Moncton — it’s Vito’s as well. The former mayor and my university friend, Senator Arnold, knows Vito’s restaurant. We have to be careful.

Senator, if you have 13 premiers coming to us with lists of dozens and dozens of projects, and they are meeting together to come up with ideas of how they can collaborate, it doesn’t feel to me like that hypothetical question is one we are about to cross in the short term.

Thank you, Minister Alty, for appearing before the Senate today. My question is for Minister Alty.

Yesterday, Natan Obed, President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, appeared before the Senate and said:

Inuit are concerned with the intersection between the rights of Inuit and this proposed legislation, including the risk that it creates the conditions for Inuit-Crown treaties to be infringed upon. . . .

National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak said:

The powers of Bill C-5 are significant and present substantial risk to many collective rights of First Nations under our own laws, under the Constitution and under international law. . . .

Given the significant concerns of Indigenous peoples and how this legislation can infringe upon their rights, how will the government protect the rights of Indigenous peoples — which are recognized and affirmed by section 35 — and uphold the government’s obligation to ensure that all laws are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, namely Articles 18, 19 and 32(2)?

Thank you. Hearing two parts to your question, I will touch on Nunavut. Canada does have obligations in modern treaties and self-government agreements, including those in relation to co-management, environmental assessments, consultations and procurement. Those are legal obligations enshrined on par with the Constitution. Those are continuing to be respected and be implemented. This bill can’t infringe on those.

When it comes to First Nations, that is where the legislation is incentivizing early engagement with Indigenous peoples, and proponents who don’t engage with Indigenous peoples before bringing their projects forward for consideration under the legislation would be given a lower evaluation.

On the legal points, it is still a two-part process. Indigenous rights holders would be consulted to add a project to Schedule 1. Once a project is being reviewed, it is also undergoing the consultation process.

To zoom out, in the preamble, the bill is talking about looking to urgently advance projects that are in the national interest, including projects that blah blah blah, as well as economic and trade. Projects that don’t have Indigenous support will not urgently advance. We’re looking for projects that can get going.

Regarding the points and the concerns that Mr. LeBlanc and the Prime Minister have outlined, we are looking with this legislation. We can’t put every project under. If every project is a priority, nothing is a priority. If we have too many projects in this pipeline, we’re not able to provide the white-glove service we’re actually looking to have to advance these projects.

It is important to remember that we’re looking to urgently advance, and it really is about those factors: the high likelihood of successful execution and advancing the interests of Indigenous peoples being the key.

I have people texting me from home, saying, “I hope I see this project.” This isn’t a funding pot either. The project that you are talking about has a low likelihood of success because it doesn’t have any money.

It’s really about making sure we are taking a look at not only this legislation but also those other pieces too, including Indigenous capacity building, Indigenous loan guarantees, et cetera.

Thank you for taking the time to come and meet with us.

These questions come from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. You answered the first one, or I don’t know if you answered enough for them. It was about including the Indian Act in Schedule 1. These are not hypothetical situations or questions.

When you look at these acts in Schedule 1, as well as some provincial laws, they were not enforced which led to a lack of mitigation. Polluters didn’t pay but taxpayers did, like the orphan wells. It led to concentrated dumping of toxins in First Nation lands and waterways, resulting in premature morbidity and mortality, hence the passing of the Environmental Racism Act.

With the increase in critical minerals mining, the simultaneous increase in toxins and the fast-tracking of major energy projects, should First Nations expect more of the same and an increase in the toxins that are left at their doorstep?

Thank you, senator, for the question. I can appreciate where people are coming from because to say, “Trust us; here is the legislation” — there has been a lot of broken trust over the years. From that, I would say we know that failing to uphold our legal responsibilities stopped and delayed projects, and we’re looking to advance them.

I know there are also many questions about why consultation isn’t defined. The thing about defining consultation is it is hard to have a single definition for Indigenous consultation. We want to ensure it is meaningful and adequate. It is a very fact-specific situation. We have also seen the definition of consultation evolve a lot over time and I’m sure it will continue to do so. We have seen that coming out of a series of Supreme Court of Canada decisions. We want to ensure that rights are affirmed by the Constitution and the duty to consult and accommodate. We are committed.

The other point I would make is, in the federal major projects office, having the Indigenous advisory council looking to develop the terms of reference and the composition over the summer with Indigenous rights holders will help provide guidance to ensure that consultation — when it comes to adding a project to Schedule 1 or once we get to setting those conditions — is done right. Thank you.

Minister Alty, in your recent public remarks, you have stated that First Nations infrastructure is “critical” but clarified that it does not fall under the scope of Canada’s proposed nation-building legislation Bill C-5. This bill aims to fast-track major infrastructure projects deemed in the national interest. However, for many First Nations, access to clean water, safe housing, all-season roads and broadband is not only critical, but the foundation of nationhood, treaty implementation and economic self-sufficiency.

Can you please clarify how your government justifies excluding First Nations infrastructure from the definition of “nation building” under Bill C-5 and what message this sends to First Nations, who continue to face systemic underinvestment and inequality? How will your government ensure that First Nations are not sidelined once again in decisions about the future of their lands, economies and basic human rights?

Thank you for the question and the opportunity to clarify. I’m sure folks here have been misquoted in the media, too. It is really important to clarify this.

With this bill, as noted in the bill’s preamble, we’re looking to advance projects, develop economic and trade corridors, connect different parts of the country to get goods to market, strengthen Canada’s ability to trade and enhance the development of Canada’s natural resources.

With that, then, it is about the evaluation, the five parts, strengthening Canada’s autonomy and so on. So Indigenous proponents and provinces and territories are able to bring any projects that meet those conditions forward for consideration.

This bill isn’t a magic bullet to solve all of the infrastructure deficits we have in this country. It will help some projects that need that regulatory support. But other projects need funding support; it is not a case of regulatory challenges. So really, we must ensure that we don’t put all our eggs into this basket and think that our infrastructure deficits will go away in this country. This is about addressing the regulatory challenges of megaprojects.

Thank you, ministers, for being here.

Minister LeBlanc, I saw you on TV this morning, and here you are right in front of me.

I hope you are excited about that.

I am very excited, sir.

It must have been yesterday’s TV, because I left Calgary at 5 a.m.

My question is in a similar vein. I really want this bill to go through, and I was an opponent of Bill C-69. Yesterday, we were visited by the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations as well as Natan Obed and the President of the Manitoba Métis Federation. Only the Métis president was hopeful and optimistic about Bill C-5. The National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations and Mr. Obed were highly critical because of feelings of neglect and disrespect to their people. It does seem — after all this time and no matter how much we want projects to go forward — we might be back at the same impasse, with groups having the exact same concerns.

How might this work against the timely certification of many needed projects if projects are to be challenged by interested groups, such as environmental groups and First Nations, via litigation? How will this differ from Bill C-69 in moving projects forward in a timely fashion?

Thank you for the question. If this bill is passed — hopefully, it will be — then it is engaging with provinces, territories and Indigenous proponents over the summer to solicit projects that meet the criteria of the act. A fair amount of homework needs to be done regarding projects. You cannot just say, “I thought of this idea this morning; we should make this a national project.” These megaprojects need pre-feasibility studies and feasibility studies. You must have a fair amount of your homework done before you come to the federal government and say, “I want to add it to Schedule 1.”

One of the big things is engaging with impacted First Nations, Inuit or Métis if the project is in their area. There are a number of megaprojects across the country that have Indigenous proponents who would like to have their project considered under this bill, and we would go through that process.

Again, in the second step of this legislation, if a project makes it into Schedule 1, the consultation with impacted Indigenous peoples then goes through to make sure that the conditions are right — the duty to consult as well as accommodate if need be.

So it would be less draconian than Bill C-69.

Minister LeBlanc, do you wish to take that part?

I’m glad I skated by King Henry VIII. “Draconian” feels less threatening.

Senator Richards, I appreciate your comments from the opening of your question. We have taken note. We do think, as I said previously, that this is an important moment where the country can come together, as I think Rebecca said, in the right way, with respect for constitutional obligations to Indigenous peoples and our environmental protection legislation, but in an expedited, thoughtful way that avoids duplication and overlap and says as much, as Rebecca properly said, to private investors who come forward with these projects, ideally with the participation of Indigenous peoples and the support of provincial and territorial governments. I say “governments” plural because it would be great if there were more than one. In many cases, there may be a number.

The idea is to say that for that narrow category of projects that will significantly impact the GDP of our country, deal with trade diversification or open new markets — my conversation with Premier Smith and Premier Moe last evening was around the discount we inevitably give on Canadian resources when we have a captive client base. If you have a business where you are overwhelmingly selling your production or what you are making to one particular client, you probably do not do as well on the price as you would if it were diversified. All of these factors give us an opportunity to do this.

We also recognize, as Rebecca Alty said, that it is for a narrow group of projects that are thoughtfully identified and not on a whim, as Rebecca said, without all of the due diligence that would be required in that context. That’s the sort of spirit in which we think, Senator Richards; this is a way to move forward on those projects.

Minister LeBlanc, thanks for sharing your “26-hour day” with us. I know it has been a busy time.

As the government works to identify Schedule 1 projects and build a more ambitious, unified “One Canada,” sport is a proven and often overlooked tool to help achieve that vision. Major events like the Montreal Olympics delivered infrastructure, including the Olympic Stadium, the Claude Robillard Centre and the Olympic Basin, that is still used by millions annually. The Vancouver 2010 games led to the completion of the Sea-to-Sky Highway, the Canada Line and a new residential community in False Creek, which is home to thousands of Vancouverites in an area that was previously an industrial brownfield.

The Toronto 2015 Pan Am Games brought the UP Express and multi-sport facilities in Scarborough, Milton and Oshawa, many of which continue to serve both high-performance and community athletes. It also led to the development of the West Don Lands neighbourhood of Toronto, a neighbourhood that includes the YMCA, student residences, below-market housing, parks and green spaces that were also industrial brownfield lands.

Investments like those in sports created tens of thousands of jobs and added billions to our GDP. They were Indigenous-led and inspired national pride. They’ve also left a legacy of accessible facilities that get more kids and families moving, which supports healthier, more active communities at a time when physical inactivity is a growing public health concern.

While other G7 nations are investing and bidding for single- and multi-sport international events, Canada risks falling behind and is leaving money and opportunities on the table. Also, provinces and National Sport Organizations are calling for renewed federal leadership. Our sports infrastructure is dated, and perhaps it’s time to have a vision — a new version of 1967’s Canadian centennial projects. Hundreds of pools, arenas and field houses from coast to coast to coast sound like something of national significance to me.

My question is this: Does the government recognize sport and activity as more than recreation? Does it recognize them as nation-building investment tools that support physical activity, build lasting infrastructure, create jobs, plant flags firmly in our sovereignty and inspire the next generation? How can Bill C-5 be used to support that vision?

Senator, thank you for the question.

I absolutely agree with the premise of the question. You used examples that are inspiring, which all Canadians — certainly of my generation or older — will remember of when the country did those big projects in the proper way, with those partnerships that Rebecca Alty and your colleagues have referred to. They have left a lasting economic and social legacy for the country. So I totally subscribe to that, if I understood or if I’m properly articulating the premise of your question.

Again, we’re back in the hypothetical space, I think, the fifth time now. And I think Rebecca said something interesting: This is not a federal funding program; it’s not the infrastructure program or the Canada Infrastructure Bank. There are ways that the federal government could partner. If we talk about building a high-speed rail from Quebec City to Windsor, Ontario, therein might be a federal project of national significance, to use a hypothetical example, where the Government of Canada would be a funding partner.

This is not about opening up a federal funding stream, but some projects may very well attract federal investment for the reasons you enunciated. If a province or territory with Indigenous partners and municipalities came forward with a proposal for some Olympic Games, for example, therein may lie an opportunity. Again, there’s a reason why provinces and municipalities hesitate — because of the costs and the undertakings those represent — but I had not thought of that example, and I appreciate you raising it. Therein may lie an example where proponents — plural — with the right partnerships may seek to have an expedited process that would give greater certainty to those projects, which is one of the reasons why, perhaps, many of them have not been brought forward. You see the vicious circle there.

Thank you, minister. You have been hearing a lot about what my colleagues are worried about. I’m interested in what you have been worrying about.

Inevitably, as you work through this legislation with officials over a considerable period of time, you will have identified key success factors and potential failure factors. Can you share one or two of those with us and tell us how you thought about ameliorating them?

Those are good questions, senator. I’ll try and give a quick answer, then maybe Rebecca will add something.

The success factors would be the expeditious execution of the projects. Studying ad nauseam something that discourages investor confidence and leads to a disinterest from proponents in submitting is obviously one of the challenges we’re seeking to address. The ability to quickly execute a project with all of the partnerships and other elements that my colleague and I have discussed would be, for us, an example of a successful metric.

Senator Housakos talked about benchmarking some of this. Assuming Parliament adopts this legislation, and assuming the premiers and Indigenous partners are as quick as they say they will be in submitting these projects and doing the due diligence that Rebecca talked about, I think it will become real for Canadians when they see the inspiring examples of real projects going through an evaluation process that is, perhaps, more effective than it has been in the past.

Rebecca, did you want to add something in terms of examples of success?

Yes. I’m a nerd; I love process improvements, and I love looking at stuff from start to finish — from “I have an idea” to “We’re cutting the ribbon.”

Where can we do stuff to accelerate without an impact on the quality? Because we’ve been doing stuff sequentially — or the left hand has been doing something and the right hand has been doing something — I think we lose time. We take more time and we end up at the same place.

With this, I’m hoping we’ll be able to find those process improvements that will benefit just the projects in Schedule 1 for now but where we’ll be able to really make those more substantial improvements to benefit any project. If it is a sports centre, it will also benefit from this, even if it doesn’t happen to make it into Schedule 1.

Then, with my ministerial hat on, the other thing is the work of the major projects and really working through this gold standard of consultation to be able to get that centralized knowledge and tracking of consultation, and just being able to show how we can do it better to get to the finish line more quickly but without impacting the product along the way.

Thank you both for being here. I’m really excited about what the potential is, but I want to come back to something. As others have noticed, Bill C-5 is unlike any other legislation that we have seen and that Parliament has studied. It would allow the cabinet to greenlight massive resource projects before economic, social, health, environmental and the possible impacts on Indigenous peoples are considered.

Granting cabinet the power to ignore laws that are meant to apply to all of us and protect the health and well-being of Canadians — none of us takes that lightly, including you, as I hear from both of you.

Indigenous peoples have already asserted, as you’ve heard, that giving some seven days to comment on Bill C-5 does not meet legal obligations under section 5 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Many are questioning the logic of rapidly passing a law that could be immediately challenged in court and lead to conflicts on the grounds that it will result in greater efficiency and certainty for economic development and yet obviate the responsibilities of Parliament.

I would like to know from both of you what concrete measures each of you will personally take to ensure your government does not compromise the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, First Nations, Inuit and Métis governance and environmental commitments.

Thank you. Those rights are enshrined in the Constitution, and this law doesn’t supersede it. I think that’s the key. There is the consultation and accommodation to add a project to Schedule 1. Then, there’s the consultation and accommodation while developing the conditions for the project. That’s the key part.

If the consultation and accommodation during those two parts aren’t done right, it does delay the project, which truly defeats this bill. At the end of the day, in the Canadian Constitution — the Supreme Court has shown it — there is a requirement of the duty to consult and accommodate, and projects will be required to do that.

My colleague answered the question with respect to Indigenous rights and the obligation in terms of consultation. Our preference, of course, would be for the Indigenous participation and for it to be of benefit economically to Indigenous peoples. That would be the gold standard. That’s what we’re hoping that many of these proponents will suggest.

Regarding the premise of your question, the approval, assuming there’s a designation in Schedule 1, the major projects office works with the proponent. There’s one project and one review. We eliminate the duplication. We would not get to an approval — the conditions document set out by regulation, for example — without having done those environmental assessments in the broad sense of the term. Those will form part of the conditions that will be the approval of the project. They’re very much informed by the work of Environment and Climate Change Canada as well as by the work of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, scientists and Natural Resources Canada. In one particular project a premier talked to me about, there would be the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission if we’re talking about a uranium mine, for example.

All of that work will very much be part of the approval process. I don’t want people to think because there’s a designation that important work mandated by statute is not being done. That would be a misapprehension of the facts, to use a law school term. I just want it to be clear that in any decision to ultimately grant the approval in the form of conditions, all of that work will be rigorously done. Then the Governor-in-Council makes a decision that we believe is in the national interest. It’s a cabinet decision, an order-in-council process with all of the outcomes that would follow a cabinet decision, a Governor-in-Council decision.

Thank you, minister. Senator Prosper and Senator Osler from the Canadian Senators Group.

Welcome, ministers. My question is for Minister Alty. It’s good to see you again.

Earlier, in response to a question from Senator Clement, you provided a number of examples with respect to issues regarding consultations that Indigenous peoples face. My question focuses on meaningful consultation. It’s the basic requirement for consultation to be meaningful. In certain instances, it allows for oral submissions, language considerations and the incorporation of traditional knowledge. It’s more than just talking to leadership. It allows First Nations to be well resourced and given time to digest information before it is fed into a process and a decision is made.

Do you feel this meaningful consultation can be achieved with compressed timelines within this bill? If so, how?

Thank you for the question and the opportunity to meet the other day. It offers me the opportunity to conclude what I was talking about before.

To summarize, the major projects office will be leading projects and coordinating the federal decisions, providing that single window for project proponents, coordinating Crown consultation and providing that policy, legislative and regulatory advice.

I do think we lose a lot of time. In my previous role as mayor, I would hear from both proponents as well as Chiefs of the frustration when proponents were engaged with everybody but missed one Indigenous rights holder, so we’re back to the beginning again. Again, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the quality of engagement suffers when we try to have those shorter time frames. It does require the government to invest in resources to create this major projects office right so that we can be effectively engaging.

To your point — because I think you were mentioning some quality engagement protocols in your province. I know in the Northwest Territories, we have great co-management and great projects — for the proponents, traditional knowledge is valued in closure plans, for example. One thing our office is doing is working with a steering committee that is made up of Indigenous partners to develop, hopefully in the coming year, new guidelines for federal officials on consultation and accommodation so that we are getting better and better and, again, using best practices from across the country. As you say, it’s not just letters; meaningful consultation is so much more.

Thank you for that. Along the lines of meaningful consultation, although one can say there’s no one definition of consultation, one can look at the best practices and certainly at Supreme Court decisions and incorporate those minimal benchmarks, basic benchmarks, for good consultative practices within legislation itself. This was a prime opportunity to do that.

But getting back to the point you mentioned, Minister Alty, with respect to the two-step process for consultation, one being the consideration of a project within Schedule 1, and if so, we get into conditions within certain authorizations to provide that mechanism for full consultation with Indigenous rights holders.

My question is this: Why not codify basic best practices for consultation, which exist readily throughout, within the legislation at the front end so we can ensure that considering the narrow timeline this is all facing with the extraordinary powers this bill grants, it’s not on the backs of Indigenous people?

Thank you. We didn’t go with the single definition because it’s a very specific situation. We looked at the nature of the project, which section 35 rights holders may be impacted and to what degree, the nature of the section 35 rights that may be adversely affected and there are a number of other variables. At the end of the day, the Constitution does protect the duty to consult and accommodate. The Supreme Court of Canada has decisions on this. We will be working with the major national projects office as well as the Indigenous Advisory Council to ensure that the consultation is meaningful and robust. Again, we hope to be able to replicate that and to share that knowledge so that it’s not just the projects in Schedule 1 that are going through great consultation but that we’re seeing that throughout the country.

Thank you, ministers, for being here today. My question is for Minister Alty. It’s actually a question about consultation, and it’s the same question I asked our Indigenous panel yesterday. One of the potential issues around the concept of consultation is: What defines an impacted community?

For instance, if there are concerns regarding impacts to migratory herds such as caribou or the disruption of the summer habitat of beluga whales, the term “impacted communities” should include communities beyond those that would be traditionally chosen for consultation. If you look at my home province of Manitoba, the port in Churchill has been identified as a potential nation-building project. Given Churchill’s location and proximity to Nunavut, one could say that the Inuit as well as the Dene should be consulted.

As minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, how will the government determine who should be consulted and who should be considered an impacted community?

I don’t have the exact information, so I will come back to you on that question. It’s not just that we decide that today it’s this group and tomorrow it’s that one. There is a more robust process involved. I will ask my staff to follow up with you — as well as the other senators — with a more fulsome answer.

Thank you, minister. Having that answer for the communities and the rights holders is far more important than following up with us, but thank you.

Yes. Thank you.

Welcome, ministers. My question is about labour mobility and the recognition of workers’ credentials. Are you expecting to have more mutual recognition between provinces of credentials, or do you foresee a standardization of certification?

I ask that in the context that this is a federal law. Are there limitations on what you can do? Is this more of a symbolic act, and you’re trying to set the table for what you expect the provinces to do — if I can use the Prime Minister’s term — to “catalyze” action in this area?

Senator Cardozo, your question is a good one. Nothing in this legislation impacts the jurisdiction of provinces and territories. I think that’s also a fundamental thing that goes without saying, but we should say it so there is no ambiguity in that regard. The example you properly used — and I know you yourself studied this issue in a policy context — mutual recognition, in many of the examples that Canadians think about, is properly in the hands of provinces and territories.

Not to duck the question — I’m happy to answer it — but in her fulsome answers yesterday, I’m sure that my colleague Chrystia Freeland, who has the carriage of the responsibility has been drilling down with provinces and territories on this issue of mutual recognition. We wanted to start by bringing the Government of Canada to the conversation with the cleanest hands possible. For example, the deputy clerk and I, before we came here, were talking about how if you’re a land surveyor in the province of New Brunswick. Chrystia used this example yesterday, so Chris Fox is cheating and giving it to two of us. There are examples where the Government of Canada had regulatory requirements that don’t make sense and were, in fact, barriers to labour mobility. If a land surveyor in our province of New Brunswick is working on a military base or doing a project under federal jurisdiction, or if they’re a certified land surveyor in Nova Scotia, I’d be quite happy to see them working on a project in Manitoba. There are other examples.

I want to be careful because the Government of Canada is not playing Big Brother in a patronizing way to the provinces. The provinces are themselves leading by example in this area. The provinces are coming together with one another and in small regional groups and saying, “We’re prepared.” The Province of Alberta has been a leader in this space. Former premier Jason Kenney was doing great work, as was former Premier Pallister of Manitoba. Some former premiers have been leading this conversation. The Premier of Nova Scotia has been a great leader in this regard, in terms of asking their first minister colleagues, “How can we collectively do that work?”

The Government of Canada wants to enable it in the sense that we don’t have federal barriers. “Catalyze” is a good word, but I’m encouraged by their desire to do that work themselves in a very effective way.

Minister, on behalf of your citizens, you’re also the lead minister in terms of Canada-U.S. relations. Do you see this act as arming ourselves against the United States, or is it separate because of the tariff threats and we’re putting our house in order in a different way because we can’t trust that we can work with them anymore?

Yes. “Arming ourselves” against the United States is not the phrase I would have used. You used that phrase, senator, but I take your point entirely.

We think that this legislation is part of Canada’s response to the economic uncertainty created by President Trump’s tariffs. I exchanged messages with Premier Ford today. Imagine what it means for the steel industry in his province and right across the country. That economic uncertainty is affecting workers and businesses in an acute way every day, and in some sectors it’s becoming worse day by day.

This is part of a united Canada’s response to give ourselves the economic instruments to grow our economy, diversify our trade and inspire Canadians to build big nation projects that are in the national interests. It’s part of an answer, but Canadians are coming up with all kinds of very inspiring ways to meet the challenge of having an unreliable trading partner with the United States. This is our government’s clearly stated objective in the election campaign as part of the response, but we continue to look at other ways to make the economy more resilient.

I wouldn’t want to cut off Senator Cuzner’s time. I know everybody has been looking forward to that, so I’ll stop speaking now and let Rodger have a run.

Nice to see you both, ministers — to a lesser extent Minister LeBlanc. Minister LeBlanc, I just can’t get over how much you enjoy coming to this chamber.

Minister, one thing about mobility, rebounding off my colleague’s questions about credentialing and the recognition of interprovincial credentials, the big challenge of mobility will be the cost. We know that with the drop in the price of oil, for many of the companies in the West that for a long time relied on labour from Atlantic and Central Canada, those kinds of opportunities have ceased to exist.

The past government recognized this and put in some provisions for tax incentives for mobility. Do you see that continuing? We want to match job opportunities with people who have those skills. Do you see this being expanded upon in light of this challenge you have?

Senator, your question is bang on. In the part of the country you represent, like mine, we see at the airports — whether it’s Halifax or Moncton — many hard-working women and men going to other parts of the country to earn good wages in sectors of the economy that end up driving the regional economies in our part of the country.

I’ve said before that every Canadian should be interested in this success. I said this to Premier Smith last night: The resource economies of the country create employment in every part of the country and add economic value. You’re right, for many reasons — global markets, other factors — there are some challenges.

A tax credit to incentivize that labour mobility I think was an idea that our Conservative colleagues in the other place had been proposing: a series of measures around tools for tradespeople and labour mobility. I think there’s a lot of merit — in my own view — in those ideas. I know the Minister of Finance is looking at ways to help the work with the unions and representatives of many of these workers. How can we have fiscal instruments that would encourage and support that mobility? To your colleague’s question earlier, senator, how can we also incentivize some of the training opportunities that would exist? Obviously, the provinces have a critical role to play on the training side, but we want to be a partner for them as well.

Thank you very much. We’ve seen in this country sporadic attempts at breaking down interprovincial barriers in the past. The actions by the current president have really galvanized Canadians, and it seems to be that everyone sees it is imperative now.

You have been up close and personal with and you understand the spontaneity of this current president. Should we land a trade deal with him? Do you think that you take the foot off the gas pedal? Will that degree of urgency the government has right now continue even if we do land a trade deal with the U.S.?

Senator, thank you for the question. The short answer is no. The importance of giving ourselves the ability to properly but expeditiously work with partners to approve projects in the national interest will exist whether or not we’re successful in securing a trade deal with the United States.

You saw yesterday — and I was in that meeting yesterday morning in Kananaskis with the Prime Minister and the president — they have given us again a mandate with a shortened “up to,” hopefully less than 30 days, to see if we can hammer out the remaining elements of that deal, but the economic uncertainty will not be lifted if we’re successful.

If we’re not successful, then we really have to double down on ways to support workers and businesses and sectors in our economy. Imagine, for steel producers, if we’re building big national projects, there is an opportunity therein immediately for some of the great workers and businesses that produce some of Canada’s steel. That is just one example amongst many.

The other thing, Senator Cuzner, which I think is instructive is that there is built into the CUSMA, that is, the Canada-United States-Mexico trade agreement, a review in 2026. To your point about the unpredictability of the American administration, President Trump will be the American president when that review comes up. I spoke to the Mexican economy minister yesterday about how we can work with our partners in Mexico when that review ultimately comes upon us. That uncertainty, sadly, will not dissipate if we get, as we hope we can, in the short term a deal.

There still is, I think, the urgency of giving ourselves the right instruments to build big nation-building projects again.

Welcome, ministers. Thank you for being with us. Time is short. I have two brief questions to ask Minister LeBlanc. The first is this: In developing Bill C-5, the building Canada act in particular, did the government take on any analysis in terms of similar nation-building initiatives that may have taken place in other countries around the world? I’m thinking in particular of Germany after the Berlin Wall came down — it was a pretty big nation-building experiment and project that is still going on — or countries similar to ours that are federations, like Australia. You mentioned you were talking to many people at Kananaskis, and you can do that sort of thing at summits.

My second question, I will put it straightforwardly: In many of my travels around the world, I have looked at projects built. It turns out that much of the investment came from Canadian pension funds. Is the government looking at drawing in Canadian pension funds as partners in these projects that you are going to approve?

Senator Boehm, those are two excellent questions. Your experience in those summit contexts — I thought of you yesterday when our old friend Peter McGovern was in Calgary. He and I spoke of the work that you and he and I had done in previous iterations around some of those summits. You are absolutely right; there is an opportunity to talk to partners.

Australia’s current ambassador to the United States is the former prime minister of Australia Kevin Rudd. He asked me about this legislation. He had taken note of it. You are right. If we’re looking to examples, you named two, senator: Germany and Australia. We have to look to federations. It is different in a unitary state. The regulatory or approval barriers would be necessarily different. The two examples you used are very good.

The former prime minister, now Ambassador Rudd, talked to me about how in different parts of different states in Australia the national government had sought to incentivize these projects, including with Indigenous proponents. I was inspired by his interest in and knowledge of our circumstance and the comparators.

I know our colleagues at the Privy Council Office working with Global Affairs Canada are exactly looking at examples of other federations. The two countries you mentioned, senator, I know are places where the Privy Council Office is interested in looking for best practices.

As to the other part of your question, senator, our view has always been that the best way to incentivize these kinds of projects is to look at private capital and to see how private investors are able to work in different regulatory contexts to identify opportunities and make those investments with greater certainty. We are going to be drawing in a series of partnerships that, in our view, will give Canada an opportunity we haven’t had previously.

Thank you, Minister LeBlanc. Welcome. Thank you, Minister Alty.

Mr. LeBlanc, you’ve talked a lot about projects that inspire Canadians. One of the big projects that gets a lot of air time is pipelines to transport Canadian oil, a major source of pollution due to greenhouse gas emissions. Are these really 21st-century projects, projects of the future, considering the fate of our planet, forest fires and our children? This is a more philosophical question. I get the sense we’re moving backward. We talked about big post-war projects. Let’s not forget that it’s 2025.

Thank you, senator. You’re right about pipelines getting a lot of air time. I said as much to reporters on the record a few times, even on the air. I would say that, at the first ministers’ meeting in Saskatoon, less than 5% of the conversations were about pipeline projects.

I was inspired by the Premier of Quebec’s discussion of his collaboration with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to develop phase two of the Churchill River green energy project in Labrador. I was also inspired when the Premier of Manitoba talked about how we may be able to diversify our exports thanks to the seaport in Churchill.

There are certainly examples, as you said. I’m glad you asked the question because people might think that we’re looking to take swift action in just one sector or with just one kind of project. I’m also thinking of the Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia, who talked about a clean energy project involving offshore wind farms and explained how this project could connect to transmission lines in the Atlantic provinces.

Will you prioritize green projects over fossil fuel projects?

We are not opposed to that, but we will study all projects that are presented. When I listed the five criteria that will be used to analyze whether a project is in the national interest, compliance with our climate change goals was specifically included.

Since we are talking about energy transition, I want to mention that investors from private companies have come forward with hydrogen and clean energy projects. These are business people coming to us with inspiring ideas, backed by their province or territory. If you want to talk about Canada’s sovereignty and Arctic sovereignty, the Grays Bay project in Nunavut was proposed by Inuit representatives.

You’re quite right. We’ll look at all projects when they’re presented. There could be a mix of projects, but this can’t be defined as part of a component. I’m glad you allowed me more time to speak, despite a look from your Chair.

Welcome, ministers.

As you have articulated earlier today, and as we see in the bill, Part 2 sets out the factors that the government may consider when determining whether a project is in the national interest and if it will be included in the fast-track process.

It seems pretty clear to me that there will be competition for projects to be chosen. There will be projects, and their backers will be hoping to be on the list and be picked. Therefore, given that there will be a competition, the government needs a rigorous, fair and transparent process for choosing the projects.

I want to drill down a little bit. Can you be more specific on how the five criteria that you have identified will be applied? Are they given equal weight in the consideration of projects? Are some criteria more important than others? What is the process? Is it possible for a project, for example, to be strongly related to economic growth but not be so good at meeting another criteria, such as having clean growth potential? Perhaps there is a project that can spur growth, but it is not very good for clean energy or for clean growth potential.

I want to get a sense of how you are going to deal with the process because, of course, Canadians will want a process that is fair and transparent when you are choosing projects.

Senator, to answer your question, the five criteria — and I enumerated them, so I will not reread them — are the factors that the government will consider when deciding whether we make that designation, as Minister Alty described that process.

It is hard to do it in the absence of a specific set of facts.

This will be the sixth time, but I will go back to the hypothetical: When we see a province, territory or Indigenous organization come forward with a project, the government will use the five criteria enumerated in the law, if the law is adopted by Parliament.

This is not going to be done in a steak house at night or in some restaurant. You will have premiers, you will have Indigenous leaders and — you are right — there is a healthy competition. The premiers are talking to each other and to us about ideas they have. When a group of politicians get together, it is often not done quietly. In our view, there is a merit in having these premiers and Indigenous partners use examples.

At the end of the day, there has to be a proponent, and there has to be an amount of money that private investors and public investors are prepared to put forward. One of the reasons we want to do this is to incentivize that very investment. Then I hope you will see — to your colleague’s question — a series of inspiring examples in different sectors, some of which people are perhaps not thinking of when they look at this particular bill right now.

Thank you, ministers.

My questions are for Minister Alty. Bill C-5 proposes an Indigenous advisory council within the federal major projects office. Yesterday, the Indigenous leaders in this chamber said they did not know any details about the makeup and the process to form the Indigenous advisory council.

Can you provide some details on how the members of this council will be selected to ensure balanced representation of First Nations, Inuit and Métis voices?

Additionally, what formal mechanisms will be in place to ensure the council’s advice carries real weight in project decision making rather than being a check mark in the process?

Thank you for the question.

There is not only this bill but also standing up the national major projects office as well as the capacity funding for Indigenous rights holders and the Indigenous loan guarantees. There are many moving parts all at once.

The terms of reference for the Indigenous advisory council will be drafted. We are not presupposing what the composition will look like, but we are looking to develop that over the summer, with it getting up in the fall.

Regarding how the council will engage with the major projects office, do you wish to speak about that, Minister LeBlanc?

The question is a good one, and perhaps it picks up on Senator Housakos’ initial question.

The federal major projects office is designed to be a small group of experts in supply chains, trade diversification, Indigenous consultation, equity, the Arctic and the North. It is not creating a big new bureaucracy. The idea is to take much of that expertise from existing departments and supplement it where necessary.

The Indigenous advisory council will be a key part of that evaluation. To Minister Alty’s point, I saw some public commentary around whether the Prime Minister would meet with Indigenous leaders this summer before the council is stood up. He has made that commitment. The Prime Minister will be having those series of meetings with rights holders and Indigenous organizations, precisely to ensure that those decisions reflect our desire to collaborate and integrate that work in the real decision making and the advice that would come to me, which I would then give to my cabinet colleagues.

We still don’t know the details, but that was a burning question. There is a desire for the leaders to understand what that will look like.

Given the council’s input may influence projects deemed to be in the national interest, will the government commit to making the council’s recommendations and rationale publicly available to ensure transparency and to demonstrate how Indigenous perspectives directly inform project outcomes?

I would clarify an important part: The Indigenous advisory council isn’t an Indigenous rights holder. When we are talking about consultation to add a project to Schedule 1, or when we are talking about consultation on a project to set conditions, that consultation — the legal requirement — would be with the rights holder impacted.

The Indigenous advisory council would be that higher level providing recommendations to the national major projects office. I am making sure there is a distinction there.

I have one more question in relation to the projects.

Given the emphasis of Bill C-5 on advancing projects of national interest, how will your government ensure that Indigenous-led resource and infrastructure projects — like those already mired in federal regulatory delays — are prioritized and supported through this streamlined process, especially when some already meet the government’s criteria for economic benefits and likelihood of successful execution?

Projects that will be coming forward have done much of that homework already — the engagement with impacted Indigenous rights holders — and then some actually have Indigenous equity in those projects. That would score better, and that is more favourable.

We are looking for those projects that can hit the ground running. If you can show that you have Indigenous support of a project and it does have Indigenous equity, then it comes to the top more than a project that doesn’t have the support of the local communities or doesn’t have Indigenous support and still has to do a lot of that homework.

Again, this legislation is also time-limited with those five years. Recognizing the challenges that the country is facing, such as the steel and aluminum tariffs, we want to get these projects going sooner rather than later, and projects that have that support would come up higher.

Thank you, ministers, for being with us.

My question is for you, Minister LeBlanc. The bill states that the purpose of the act is to promote free trade and labour mobility within Canada while continuing to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

The Canadian Cancer Society has cautioned that Bill C-5 could unintentionally weaken public health and safety protections by enabling less stringent provincial health standards to become the default if the federal standards were removed in certain cases.

Is there a safeguard in this bill to ensure that this does not happen?

Senator, your question is a good one in the sense that if we’re talking about either coming to cooperation agreements with provinces and territories in terms of reviewing projects or in the case of labour standards, which would be the first part of the legislation. The idea is absolutely not to drive it to the lowest common denominator, but to be inspired by best practices and to avoid duplication and overlap.

Therein lies the authority to come to cooperation agreements with provinces and territories with regard to approvals and review processes, but I certainly share your view that Canadians would not be forgiving of governments, federal or provincial or territorial, that — to use your example — would seek to undermine health and safety standards essential to the fight against cancer.

That was the example you used and it is one in which I — obviously — have a keen personal interest. However, there are examples in other sectors where governments can be inspired by best practices, avoiding delay, overlap and duplication, while maintaining high standards that Canadians rightfully expect.

Thank you. Does the bill allow for a specific exemption for health issues using the regulations after the bill is passed, for example?

Please give me an example, senator, of a health issue.

For example, the Canadian Cancer Society talked about asbestos. Asbestos is absolutely not permitted by Canadian standards and regulations, but there are provinces that still permit a certain amount of asbestos in buildings. That is an example that has been used.

Again, that’s a good example. I’m not a scientific expert on those standards, but as the minister who would oversee the process by which we would sign cooperation agreements with provinces and territories, I know that my colleague Chrystia Freeland would certainly have carriage of the responsibilities pertaining to those standards. Again, I understand the concern, but it is extremely hypothetical to say that the Government of Canada would seek to weaken standards that protect people from potential cancer-causing circumstances like that.

I understand the concern, but our objective will be to be inspired by some of the best practices used by the different jurisdictions and to find a way to have a common, high standard in terms of protecting Canadians rather than to allow this to reduce the standard across the country. That would be an outcome that is absolutely unacceptable to us.

Honourable senators, the committee has been hearing from the ministers for 130 minutes. In conformity with the order adopted by the Senate, I am obliged to interrupt proceedings in order to proceed with the second panel.

Ministers, on behalf of all senators, thank you for joining us today to assist us with our work on the bill. I would also like to thank your officials.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Honourable senators, we will suspend for 10 minutes to prepare for the second panel. We will resume at 4:32 p.m.

(The committee was suspended.)

Honourable senators, the Senate is resuming in Committee of the Whole to continue its consideration of the subject matter of Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act.

The committee will now hear from Joshua Ginsberg, Director, Ecojustice; Sean Southey, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wildlife Federation; and as an individual, Martin Olszynski, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary.

I would like to thank you for being with us today. I would ask you to make your opening remarks.

Thank you very much for the invitation. Meegwetch. I wish to acknowledge that we are gathered here today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people, with much gratitude.

I am a lawyer with Ecojustice, and my remarks are supported by many of Canada’s leading environmental organizations, including Nature Canada, WWF-Canada, West Coast Environmental Law, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Sierra Club Canada Foundation, Équiterre, David Suzuki Foundation and Environmental Defence.

I would like to begin, senators, by underscoring a point already raised by Indigenous organizations yesterday, including the Assembly of First Nations, that deep consultation and the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous peoples must be a prerequisite, not only to decisions to be made under this bill but to the legislative initiative itself.

If more time is needed to fulfill that obligation, then I respectfully submit to you that Parliament should prioritize getting it right and taking the time that is necessary.

As His Majesty noted when he gave the Speech from the Throne in this very chamber just days ago, Canada faces an urgent and interwoven set of challenges, from global instability to economic uncertainty, from worsening wildfires to the alarming decline of species like caribou and killer whales. We agree that to meet the moment, Canada must build infrastructure faster, but we must also build wisely and uphold the environmental and democratic safeguards that make progress both possible and lasting.

Bill C-5’s building Canada act proposes two major shifts to how major projects are approved. First, it would allow cabinet to override entire federal environmental laws, without returning to Parliament, through mechanisms known as “Henry VIII clauses.” These extraordinary powers would concentrate significant authority in the executive.

Among the statutes listed in Schedule 2 to the bill is the entire Species at Risk Act. We urge this chamber to reflect carefully on the precedent that sets and the threat it poses to Parliament’s role in our democracy.

Second, the bill allows the government to deem projects to meet environmental standards, even if those standards are, on the facts, clearly not met. That raises serious legal and scientific concerns, particularly in relation to the Species at Risk Act and its permitting provisions.

Section 73 of that act is a cornerstone of species protection. It prohibits issuing permits for activities that would jeopardize the survival or recovery of a threatened or endangered species. Including that section, in particular, in the schedule of exempt acts raises a dangerous possibility that decision makers could be required to deem that no jeopardy exists, even when scientific evidence shows otherwise. Put plainly, this could force the government to authorize a project that may kill the last remaining members of a species. That is not just legally and ethically troubling; it is, in my submission, ecologically reckless.

We, therefore, urge this committee to recommend that the permitting sections of the Species at Risk Act, that is 73, 74 and 77, be removed from Schedule 2. These are core science-based protections and should not be subject to override.

More broadly, the bill does not currently require that these new powers be used only for projects that align with climate targets or other environmental goals, nor does it require respect for the long-established legal and scientific factors that have guided environmental decision making for decades.

To conclude my opening remarks, we respectfully recommend five improvements. First, remove these “Henry VIII clauses.” The other tools in the bill already provide flexibility to accelerate project approvals without granting sweeping legislative authority to cabinet.

Second, require that all conditions and decisions, including deemed decisions, meet or exceed the standards of existing environmental laws.

Third, remove the permitting provisions of the Species at Risk Act from Schedule 2 to preserve the integrity of science-based species protection.

Fourth, limit the use of national interest designations to projects that demonstrably support Canada’s climate, clean growth and biodiversity commitments.

Finally, ensure that transparency, Indigenous consultation and public participation remain central to any fast-tracked approval process.

These changes, senators, would not undermine the government’s ambition to build faster; they would strengthen it by ensuring that accelerated development does not come at the cost of environmental integrity or legal credibility.

We believe it is possible and necessary to build infrastructure that serves both the people and the planet. We stand ready to work with Parliament to make that a reality. Thank you.

Good afternoon, senators.

My name is Martin Olszynski, and I am an Associate Professor and the current Chair in Energy, Resources and Sustainability at the University of Calgary, Faculty of Law. I want to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today.

Briefly, by way of background, I have spent almost 20 years in the major project review space: as a lawyer for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO; as an academic; as an expert witness in regulatory hearings; and, for the past four years, as a member of MINAC, the Minister’s Advisory Council on impact assessment of the federal Minister of Environment.

I want to preface my remarks by saying that, like my colleagues here and most Canadians, I support the advancement of projects in the national interest. Further, I would support a law that accelerates their review and enhances regulatory certainty while also upholding rigorous standards of environmental protection.

As drafted, however, the building Canada act won’t accomplish these important goals. First, it goes beyond accelerating processes towards negating existing environmental laws. Second, it circumvents the normal checks and balances that are the hallmarks of functioning democracies. Finally, all of this actually invites uncertainty and delay in the project review process.

I am going to skip over listing because the looseness of that seems well understood, and I will focus on two other elements of the act: section 7’s deeming provision and the so-called “Henry VIII” clauses that my colleague referred to already.

As I’ll explain, section 7’s deeming provision effectively ousts applicable federal environmental laws and the Canadian court’s role in upholding them while the “Henry VIII” provisions represent a staggering intrusion on Parliament’s fundamental role in making, amending and repealing laws.

In both cases, the unquestionable winner is a barely constrained executive branch.

Beginning with section 7, once a national interest project is listed and the proponent has done what they need to do subject to the laws that would normally apply to their project, the minister will at some point issue a master authorization document that will stand in place for all the federal authorizations and permits that would otherwise have been required.

There is no harm in consolidating the necessary authorizations and permits in one place. But here’s the kicker: subsection 7(3) deems that master authorization as meeting the requirements of all those other enactments.

The use of the term “deem” is critical here. The federal Department of Justice’s website helpfully explains that you use the term “deem” to create a legal fiction.

To understand why this fiction is problematic, you have to appreciate that modern environmental laws are both outward and inward facing — they constrain individuals and corporations, yes, but those constraints are rarely absolute; they’re an opening bid.

And it’s at that point, recognizing governments’ prior miserable track record in dealing with environmental concerns, that environmental laws seek to constrain the executive branch too.

For example, if a national interest project is going to impact fish habitat, then the Fisheries Act requires Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, to consider several factors, including the potential for cumulative effects. These constraints are essentially guideposts. They don’t dictate a particular outcome but help to guide decision making, to varying degrees, towards more sustainable development.

Subsection 7(3) steamrolls this part of the federal environmental regime. It creates the legal fiction that the designated minister has complied with all these guideposts, even if it hasn’t. This is essentially a blank cheque for the executive branch, subject only to some consultation with the relevant minister.

And because it’s a legal fiction explicitly created by statute, the Canadian judiciary’s supervisory role is also negated, a role that has proven critical in securing at least some semblance of implementation of Canada’s environmental laws.

This is a radical departure from the status quo. There are ways to limit judicial intervention without eliminating it altogether.

This brings me, finally, to sections 21, 22 and 23 — the act’s “Henry VIII” clauses — pursuant to which cabinet will have the authority to make regulations to not merely flesh out the provisions of this act — which is, of course, normal — but to modify and even exempt the application of any law in the federal statute book.

This is a staggering power, even by today’s standards. I asked my research assistant to collect and compare the “Henry VIII” provisions of all similar bills. We’ve seen Alberta’s Bill 1; British Columbia’s Bill 7 and Bill 15; and Ontario’s own Bill 5.

Bill C-5 is only matched by Premier Ford’s in terms of the breadth of the power here. To their credit, both Premier Smith and Premier Eby have scaled back their own versions in the face of public opposition. The Prime Minister should do the same.

This is not a partisan issue. I am not implying bad faith or malice. Rather, to paraphrase Yale historian and now Munk Professor Timothy Snyder, history instructs that the separation of powers matters fundamentally.

If history and democratic norms are insufficient, I’ll conclude with a very pragmatic argument. Instead of accelerating reviews, both section 7 and the “Henry VIII” clauses have the potential to bog down reviews because they invite endless lobbying and renegotiation of standards that are clearly set now but which will be open to renegotiation.

I saw it all the time in my prior time as a lawyer for DFO. Instead of getting on with reviews, proponents would argue about whether the act applies or not.

I think I’m now out of time. I want to thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have, including how we might improve this bill.

Honourable senators, my name is Sean Southey, and I am the CEO of the Canadian Wildlife Federation, or CWF. I am joined by Nick Lapointe, our senior conservation biologist. We are honoured to be here today to speak about Bill C-5.

In the spirit of pragmatism and partnership, CWF is committed to constructive engagement with the federal government. As articulated in our five-year strategic plan, our mission is to conserve and inspire the conservation of Canada’s wildlife and habitats for the benefit of all Canadians.

We recognize and appreciate the concerns on the bill raised by our non-governmental organization, or NGO, colleagues in the news, the press and with us today. Our response needs to be grounded in our collective and shared responsibility to ensure that environmental, social and economic reforms are advanced with rigour, transparency and accountability.

CWF acknowledges the spirit of Bill C-5 and the process the government is undertaking to address the current constellation of national crises, including the environmental emergency that continues to threaten our ecosystems, wildlife and our future well-being.

As the bill is being implemented, we need to foster meaningful collaboration with local communities, Indigenous partners and NGO allies while ensuring we obtain the consent from Indigenous rights holders. Fast is good; fast and sustainable is better; fast, sustainable and beneficial for all, including wildlife, is what we all seek for Canada.

We need to balance progress with environmental stewardship. CWF and other experienced NGOs can play a key role in helping the federal government broker these important trade-offs.

Streamlining environmental regulations under the bill does risk sidelining biodiversity safeguards. We need to get ahead of this and innovate at the scale of our national ambitions.

We need new tools that have been proven to work in other jurisdictions, that are based on excellent science and can ensure engagement and benefits to Indigenous peoples and local communities. Therefore, we strongly encourage the government — and hope you will champion this with us — to launch certain new ideas as we roll out the bill. We encourage you to consider a third-party habitat banking scheme and what is called an in-lieu fee offset program to complement the bill.

First, I think it’s important to articulate what an offset is. It is a conservation action that’s designed to compensate for the impact of the development projects. This bill focuses on development projects. Putting it simply, if there’s a negative environmental impact over here, we have to ensure an equal or better environmental improvement somewhere else. Luckily, there are tools to do that.

Our Fisheries Act already requires proponent-led offsetting, but we do not believe this is sufficient. For starters, it frankly adds years to project approvals. Proponents must find offsets, get support from Indigenous rights holders and obtain authorization from DFO.

Often after the offset is done, it takes a long time for the restoration to happen, so there’s a gap between harm and recovery. Sadly, at the end of the day, often these offsets don’t work. We need to ensure, as we roll this bill forward, that things are in place to make it work.

We encourage the federal government to allow this remedy by enabling third-party habitat banking under the Fisheries Act. This is a win-win-win. Conservation benefits arise from restoring habitats in advance and confirming the effectiveness before selling credits. Proponents, the champions of these projects, can benefit from streamlined regulatory approvals while we recognize the environmental benefits for all Canadians.

However, it takes a while to put third-party habitat banking into place, and we need those tools right now to move these projects forward.

We are recommending that the government allow proponents to do what’s called a pay in-lieu fee program. Therefore, they can pay as they go with offsets happening. We see in these proven approaches ways to reduce delays and allow projects to get built while ensuring that Canadian conservation and restoration efforts flourish.

We at CWF and our colleagues are here to help. We have worked on these issues for years and we have shovels and wildlife ready. Thank you for your time and for your commitment to working to create a culture of conservation in Canada. Nick and I remain available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you for your opening remarks. We will now move on to questions.

Thank you all for being here and for your testimony. My first question is to Mr. Ginsberg of Ecojustice, although I know that Mr. Olszynski also mentioned this in his opening remarks.

Ecojustice has flagged the potential for Bill C-5 to backfire, exposing Canadians to lawsuits, remediation costs and degraded ecosystems. You mentioned the example of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or DFO, and the delays and, in the end, the cost to taxpayers.

From a taxpayer standpoint, does this legislation represent responsible government? Could this not open the door to major legal liabilities for taxpayers?

Thank you, senator. First, I hope you will not object if I mention that I neglected in my opening statement to acknowledge my colleague appearing here with me, Charles Hatt, Program Director, Climate, Ecojustice, who may also interject. Thank you.

To your question, Ecojustice does not object to responsible development that is efficient. We certainly acknowledge there are ways to more efficiently use, as you suggest, taxpayer dollars in order to get projects built that we will need for our sustainable future. We are concerned that this bill does not represent fully that ambition because it allows cabinet decisions to overwhelm public and Indigenous consultations.

Certainly, taxpayers who fund projects also wish to have a say in how they are developed, and we would like to see the bill amended to provide more room for both Indigenous and public consultation.

On that note, the list of national interest projects is not yet public, and so far, the government has been very vague in their examples of potential national interest projects. As stakeholders — and this could be a question to any one of you — how important is it to see a potential list or at least a concrete example of what would be deemed a national interest project before Parliament proceeds with the bill? What level of detail should be required for projects to be evaluated meaningfully?

I can begin. Senator, there are two things that are important here. First, we need to understand the who, the what and the why of a project before it can even be considered for these extraordinary powers. It is critical — and I believe that during his appearance, Minister LeBlanc confirmed that we will need sufficient information. But the bill does not speak to that. It doesn’t require any threshold for information before a project is a candidate for scheduling. That is one very important improvement that could and should be made.

The second issue is the matter of the criteria that are applied to that question. Right now, as the bill is drafted, it’s quite open-ended. It could be anything. Yes, there is a list of considerations that may be taken into account. We believe the “may” should turn into a “must,” so that it is clear what is necessary, and that it be a requirement for such an extraordinary power that any project considered for listing actually advances Canada’s biodiversity and climate goals.

Right, because clause 5 allows cabinet to designate projects as being in the national interest based on “. . . any factor . . .” You see a lot of risks. Do you want to expand on why that is a concern to you?

I’ll defer to my colleagues.

It is interesting. That clause is basically worded as if you can consider any colour, including red, orange, yellow and blue. That is, essentially, the effect of that provision.

I would probably agree. It might be helpful to have a list of projects that are contenders, if you will, in this space, but it doesn’t change the language of the act. In that sense, it is very open-ended. So even if you had a first vintage of projects and they had a certain sort of flavour, there’s nothing in the act that would bind the government to keep moving those kinds of projects forward. They could easily pivot and start focusing on different factors, and the act would allow that.

At the Canadian Wildlife Federation, or CWF, we’re not as much in the environmental law space as our colleagues. We work across Canada with other NGOs, local communities and Indigenous peoples to implement projects. We know that when you implement a project, in almost any circumstance, there are environmental implications. We believe that the bill must be prepared from top to bottom to ensure that those processes are done. That means we have a duty to consult on what projects go into that schedule and seek consent on the schedule list. It also means that once projects get on that list, we are prepared to move at the speed and with the professionalism required to ensure that those implications, those environmental consequences, are managed to the extent possible.

In the environmental world, we say that it’s best to avoid a problem. We shouldn’t ever build if there’s a unique or endemic species at risk. But if it’s a manageable problem, we can move to a mitigation regime where we take care of it the best way possible.

Sometimes we need to offset. That’s where we take the consequences and ensure that at the end of the day, Canada is better due to these big investments. If we’re smart and we work together, we can ensure that the follow-up, once things are listed, is done well. Many of us in the environmental movement are willing to work on ensuring that the delivery at the tail end is commensurate with the ambition.

The government claims this legislation supports clean growth, yet you argue that it would allow the government to issue project approval even in the face of significant environmental harm.

From your perspective, is this consistent with Canada’s domestic and international climate commitments? Do you think this bill could ultimately undermine potential trade agreements between Canada and more climate-activist countries?

To respond briefly, I would say that depends, senator, on how it is applied. There is a lot of discretion as to how precisely these tools are going to be used, and more direction in the legislation itself regarding these factors and the manner in which these extraordinary powers are to be deployed would be very helpful.

Does anyone else wish to add to that?

We would hope that anything that has profound environmental consequences or doesn’t advance our climate agenda will not be scheduled on this list. The soft preamble text of the bill does call for that attention. We hope that as things become scheduled, that level of scrutiny is brought to bear so that this makes a better, greener Canada, not just a faster Canada.

I’m a lawyer with Ecojustice and a colleague of Mr. Ginsberg. I would simply add that, as my colleague said, it depends on implementation. Parliament shouldn’t let it depend on implementation. The criteria for designating a project as a national interest should include a requirement that the project advance Canada’s climate commitments, whether that be in the context of trade — as the senator remarked — our international climate commitments or our domestic legislated greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. That’s the best way to ensure that national interest projects will be win-win for our climate and our economy.

More broadly, Mr. Olszynski, you talked about how this bill shifts too much power to ministers and cabinet and away from the established regulatory and legislated processes. Do you have any suggestions for oversight mechanisms that Parliament should introduce to restore that balance?

It would be a fairly simple change that you would make to subclause 7(3). I can see why it might seem attractive to the government — that they want to have the ability to rearrange all these environmental laws. They’ll consult with the minister but then essentially re-establish conditions and standards.

The reality is that this is a hard job that we’ve been doing for 50 years. The calibration is not perfect. We can always think about changing how strict some of these laws are, but generally speaking there is a consensus. I know that law; regulatory lawyers know that law; First Nations understand those laws.

The idea that all of that would suddenly just be set aside and that this new designated minister would have, essentially, an unfettered ability to decide what those standards should be in every given instance — whether it’s impacts to species at risk, impacts to fish habitat, impacts to migratory birds or transboundary water pollution — and that all of that would suddenly become ad hoc will create confusion and will bog down the system.

When projects have undergone a quick approval process like this in the past, we have often seen them go without proper consultation or assessment for risks, they are challenged in court, they antagonize local communities and cause environmental disaster.

Mr. Ginsberg, what makes a set of project conditions effective from an environmental protection standpoint?

Mr. Olszynski, as it is, what is the risk of litigation?

Thank you, senator, for that question. To answer, I will pick up on a point that my panellist, Mr. Southey, made regarding mitigation versus offsets.

An effective set of project conditions follows a clear hierarchy. You begin by trying to avoid environmental damage wherever possible. If that is not feasible, then you move to minimizing effects, then restoring the status quo and, finally, only as a last resort, to offsets. That sequence ensures the least possible harm to ecosystems and species. If you don’t have that structure in place, there is a risk that we could go directly to compensating for damage before we’ve considered whether that damage is actually necessary in the first place, and compensation rarely works as well as prevention.

Including the principle of a mitigation hierarchy in the bill within the section that talks about implementing conditions would ensure a consistent and science-based approach to that exercise of condition setting. That is our strong recommendation.

In terms of litigation risk, do you mean to the bill? Yes. In some respects, the bill is fairly conventional.

As Mr. Ginsberg and I have said, these “Henry VIII” clauses have been upheld by the courts in other contexts, but not — to my knowledge — a clause that is as wide-ranging as this one. For instance, under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, the Governor-in-Council had the ability to modify the statute through regulation, but it was just that statute.

We’ve looked around, and other than some of these other bills such as Premier Ford’s bill now, generally speaking, we have not allowed the executive to amend any and all laws through executive power. There is a question mark there.

I will note that Justice Côté did dissent strongly in the GGPPA reference, saying that she thought these clauses were problematic from a separation-of-powers perspective. So there is a risk there.

Then there is the section 35 Aboriginal rights risk. There is some litigation and case law around whether legislation like this engages the honour of the Crown in that process. I am certainly not an expert on that side of things, but there is a risk there as well.

Thank you to our witnesses for being with us. Welcome back to you, Professor Olszynski. My question is for you.

I am sure that, like all Canadians, you agree that it is important to build a strong, resilient and sustainable Canadian economy. We can all agree on that much. In your recent article with David Wright entitled “Bill C-5: Move Fast and Make Things, or Move Fast and Break Things?” you indicate that for the small number of projects in the national interest that this bill will deal with as this process unfolds, the “move fast and make things” one, which we, of course, all wish for, or the “move fast and break things” one, which no one wants, still remains to be seen.

You mentioned cautionary tales — and you have addressed a little of that earlier on — from past situations in Canada in which past processes were rushed or narrowed and then the results were backlash, cost overruns, lengthy legal battles and, in worst-case scenarios, damage to our human health or to our environment.

Professor Olszynski, I know it is too early to tell what the outcome will be, even though we all want to make things move fast and we want good things to come from that. That is the scenario we want. Could you tell us if there are types of projects, or projects with certain types of characteristics, that you believe would have a greater potential for success given all considerations?

That is not a small question, senator. Thank you for that.

One of the things that my colleague and I, David Wright in particular — this was his theme here — realized was that, for this regime to function, consent from Indigenous nations was a prerequisite for all these projects. Fundamentally, going to the back end and seeing how this plays out, I said that because of the suspected “deeming” that happens, an organization like Mr. Ginsberg’s would be hard-pressed to mount a successful challenge to one of these authorizations. That is because you would go into court and say, “You haven’t met the requirements of section 7,” and the court would say, “But Parliament deemed them to have been met,” and that’s it. But, of course, Parliament cannot deem away the Constitution.

I want to be careful how I express this, but it seems problematic to me that, in a sense, what happens is that First Nations are being placed in a difficult position, because they have their own aspirations. We are in the midst of a reconciliation project in this country. Whether intentionally or not, this bill places them right in front of what, presumably, the government of the day will say are projects in the national interest. That is a very difficult position to be placed in.

As I say, the only way to avoid that difficult position is to focus on projects for which there is First Nation support.

Thank you for being here, gentlemen. Like others in the Senate, I worked for a long time on Bill C-48, which prohibited oil tankers from docking along British Columbia’s north coast. The bill was presented for environmental reasons, essentially to protect fisheries and at the request of certain Indigenous groups. I’m sure everyone would agree that, back then, the bill revealed a deep divide between Indigenous groups and non-Indigenous groups, although it was ultimately passed.

The Premier of Alberta recently said she was interested in shipping her oil to the port of Prince Rupert, so it could get to Asian markets faster. You mentioned that Bill C-5 allows the suspension of any law. That is what I understood.

Any law in the federal statute.

Does that mean that Bill C-48 could be suspended, if this is considered a bill of national interest? I don’t know how long we worked on it, but that bill was a choice made by the previous government on behalf of our society.

The answer is yes, that is definitely the case. There will always be the constitutional imperative regarding Indigenous people and their section 35 rights, but to answer your question about Bill C-48, yes, that is exactly right.

I would like to discuss the issue of provincial environmental assessments with you, because it has been suggested that the federal environmental assessment could be eliminated and only the provincial assessments would be conducted. I am thinking, for example, of those that exist in Quebec and Alberta. What can you tell us about provincial assessments compared to the federal assessment?

Thank you for your question. Federal and provincial environmental assessments have different goals because there are different divisions and jurisdictions between the provinces and the federal government. However, cooperative initiatives can be developed between these levels of government. I think there is room for improvement when it comes to cooperation.

We would be concerned about any attempt to abdicate the proper federal role because there are certain things that only the federal government can evaluate under its jurisdiction. We can cooperate while we each maintain our proper jurisdiction, as the Constitution requires.

Thank you to the panellists. My first question will go to Professor Olszynski.

You wrote a blog post about Bill C-5 and stated:

How can the Crown fulfill its consultation obligations (let alone obtain consent) with respect to a large-scale nation-building project within the short timelines that seem to be envisioned by government and proponents? The answer is not entirely clear. . . .

Can you advise us if there is any way this bill can be improved to better ensure that meaningful consultation is undertaken with Indigenous peoples?

Thank you, senator, for that question.

Again, it is difficult. I recognize that I cannot speak on behalf of any Indigenous nation, of course, but I have had the privilege and good fortune of working alongside them from time to time. What we are talking about here is free, prior and informed consent. We are talking about an ethical standard.

The reality is that we have laws, of course. We now have a law in Canada that moves us in the direction that endorses the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I actually happened to catch your remarks in the chamber earlier today, and I would echo back to you the things that you said: This is not actually a mystery; we have a track record and developed processes in place for doing this work. We could be doing that work here.

Thank you. My next question is for Mr. Ginsberg.

We were at a press conference yesterday, and it was nice to see you there. Could you speak about the “Henry VIII clause” with respect to greater detail and share how you would like to see that amended to better constrain the broad, sweeping powers that the government is seeking through that clause?

Thank you, senator.

In terms of amendments to the “Henry VIII clause,” as I said, the best course of action, in our view, would be to delete it. I say that because there is already a very significant and sweeping power contained in the bill, which is the deeming clause that I have spoken about and which Professor Olszynski elaborated upon in some detail. It is very powerful and accomplishes all of the things that the “Henry VIII clause” can in terms of allowing projects to proceed on a very expedited timeline.

The “Henry VIII clause” is dangerous because it allows cabinet to exempt entire projects wholesale from the application of federal law. That includes the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and, as I have said, the Species at Risk Act. These are not just mere procedural statutes or roadblocks on the way to development; they contain substantive provisions meant to prevent irreversible harm, such as driving species to extinction or polluting air and water in ways that threaten human and ecosystem health. They are not meant to be waved away.

Like Professor Olszynski, I do not impart any malice to the government in suggesting that, but I do suggest that in its zeal to ensure important projects proceed quickly, perhaps it has included a little bit too much and proposes to tread on Parliament too much, and that should be scaled back.

I have a quick addition, senators.

If the government is seeking such an extraordinary power, it should justify the request, and we are not yet aware of any justification advanced by the government for why this extraordinary power is needed on top of the other processes in the proposed legislation.

Thank you. This question is for all three of you. I will give you a few minutes to think about your answer while I give you my preamble.

I was hoping for examples from each of you regarding projects that you have participated in that led to great mitigation, as well as projects that went forward and were very successful. Here’s my own history with large projects in the Ontario government: The largest and the latest was bringing Highway 401 right to the new Gordie Howe International Bridge. It started as an impossible task and took my entire career there to finally get through the processes — we ended up with more naturalized space, more wildlife, more preserved species and more fencing for snakes that are travelling around my region more than we had before we started. Frankly, it is a fantastic example of how groups came together in the absence of laws that told us we needed to, but rather through an awareness that exists in our communities around big projects, especially in the middle of an urban centre like mine that’s at the heart of the trade corridor for the continent.

I’m feeling really hopeful that with these big projects — despite the laws or anything written — we are doing the right thing and we have been doing the right thing in better ways for a long time.

Unfortunately, we do not have a lot of examples of big projects in Canada. That is why I think timing matters here and why the three of you might agree — especially me, coming from Windsor with over 10% unemployment — we are in an economic crisis already. We need to see projects the size of the Gordie Howe International Bridge and more of them so that we can actually keep those jobs going and bring those exports to the border in an easier fashion. We need to know that environmental groups that do fantastic work can help us get there.

After that preamble, please give me your best examples of where it has worked and the mitigation that you have helped to achieve to make those projects move forward.

I can give examples of projects that I have participated in as an expert witness. Unfortunately, I will have to modify your question a little bit, senator, with your permission. They speak to the other side, but I think I can bring it back, and, hopefully, you will indulge me a bit.

I was an expert witness in the Grassy Mountain coal project proposal in the southwestern slopes of Alberta. That project was ultimately rejected by the regulator. One of the things that I thought was problematic was a significant gap in information that was required in order to be able to make determinations about the effects that project would have.

I hesitated to bring this up, but this is as good a moment as any to explain why we’re all here: Fundamentally, there is what seems like an intractable problem in terms of the level and sufficiency of information that is used to make decisions about projects. Proponents and proponents’ consultants generally take the view that governments ask for too much information, and then we receive rounds of information requests. Those are the things that delay projects. The proponent has done, let’s say, one year of baseline studies, but the government or stakeholder — maybe it’s a First Nation — will say they need three years of baseline studies, because one year is just one year. They are not wrong; it is hard to base the effects of a project on one year of studies.

That is actually the problem at the root of all of this. I sit on the Minister’s Advisory Council on impact assessment, where we are aware that this whole debate about project review for the past five years has been happening in a fact-free vacuum. There are a lot of good things that can happen, and a lot of innovations are being done at the project level to move these projects along, like tailoring impact assessments and trying to bring in more standard mitigation measures, but all of that is happening in the background. The loud voices are saying, “faster, faster, faster.”

One of the reasons I am concerned is that issue right there.

I know you were going to give me your example next once you were done, but maybe your colleagues will have examples for the record.

I wish we did have a clear example to provide here. There are a couple of reasons why we don’t. In part, it is not our true business to be working on development projects and the mitigation and avoidance there. Those are typically done by industry and government.

I have a small example where the Canadian Wildlife Federation worked with the Takla Nation and CN Rail together on a restoration project where we removed an abandoned rail crossing that was blocking access for kokanee salmon and other fish species to a great deal of their habitat upstream, and that collaboration was a great success.

We could talk of a lot of large-scale ecological restoration projects that would be in the national interest that we could collaborate on. However, I appreciate your question is of a different nature. One of the big reasons we struggle to find examples is that, to date, the objective that we have strived for is no net loss. A project, after applying the avoidance, then mitigation, then offsetting measures, has tried to achieve no net loss of environmental benefits and attributes. To date, we have, on average, failed to do that.

If we can shift that to an objective of net gain where we are delivering these projects and investing, while delivering those projects, in sufficient restoration to provide that net benefit that you have seen in that project —

Thank you, sir.

This question is for Mr. Olszynski. I’m concerned that Bill C-5 does not include any mechanism to pause or revoke a project once the single authorization document has been issued, even if new evidence later reveals that the project creates significant unintended social or environmental consequences. In your opinion, should the bill include a mandatory review mechanism or revocation clause to allow for reassessment and corrective action after approval?

It is true that a project can be deleted from the list but only until the section 7 authorization is issued. It is hard to imagine in a bill like this, where the whole point is to create certainty or an early green light, having a provision that revokes that green light. I imagine that it would be hard to reconcile those two imperatives.

However, there is a power to change the conditions of a project as time goes on. That power is explicitly there. It is important that it is there. Then the question becomes in a sense, what can you do with the breadth of that condition changing? It might mean that, ultimately, if you have decided that some effect or impact is not actually okay, you could change the conditions to try to minimize or even eliminate it. But to your first question, I think in the context of the bill that says yes right out of the gate, it would be hard to include something like that.

My question is for Mr. Southey. You specifically referenced third-party habitat banking in your comments. I am a big fan of this. I think it is a great way to make sure that a habitat is up and operating before it’s used as an offset against a project. I’m continually frustrated by how this is not used more widely. Can you give us your thoughts on why that is and what needs to be done to make that happen more generally, not just in relation to this bill?

We can see multiple jurisdictions around the world where you have robust restoration economies created because there are provisions for third-party habitat banking. Our friends to the south of us have a very rigorous system. There is no reason Canada cannot have the same.

It is a matter of just putting the proper tools into the legislative array. It does mean creating new capacities in Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, to know how to handle these if it is a fisheries offset. There is no reason those capacities cannot be built quickly. It does demand that the interlocutors, whether it be an NGO, an Indigenous group or a consulting firm, understand the rules of the game and can put those mechanisms in place quickly. We believe that this is not a big lift.

For 5 or 10 years, we have been looking at this issue in Canada. We have many allies. We believe it could be put into place quickly. Even if it were put into place quickly, it still takes a while to implement, but the long-term benefit is an economy and culture of restoration — led by Indigenous peoples, local NGOs and local governments — that can lift communities and lift the economy. We would join you in celebrating it as a mechanism.

Gentlemen, in 2022, RBC released a report entitled 92 to Zero: How economic reconciliation can power Canada’s climate goals. The report noted that achieving net zero:

. . . will rely heavily on vital sources of capital held by Indigenous nations. RBC estimates Canada needs roughly $2 trillion in capital over the next 25 years, much of it from Indigenous sources—or unlocked by Indigenous partnerships, including ownership.

The report notes that the Indigenous lands hold vast resources essential to green energy systems, including 56% of advanced critical mineral projects.

With the urgency of economic development, if the government looks at prioritizing some critical minerals projects involving Indigenous lands, can you please walk us through what the consultations and decision making would look like with Bill C-5 compared to without it?

I can certainly begin. One of our main concerns about the bill, which has been echoed by the Indigenous groups who have come before you, is that there is no explicit reference to the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous nations to the types of projects that you mention.

There may indeed be vast wealth stored in Indigenous lands, and Indigenous people may indeed wish to exploit that, but those decisions must be made with them, by them and not over their heads. That is our clear position.

What we are concerned about, having looked at the bill, is that now — to highlight your question about the differences between before and after — getting to a possible yes is a process that happens during the environmental assessment because that is when we understand what the real impacts and benefits are to Indigenous nations. The environmental assessment is an essential element of the consultation process. This bill includes it. Environmental assessment still happens, but the outcome is preordained. There will always be a yes in any event of the environmental assessment, and that cannot be true consultation. Because if the answer is given before the debate occurs, then the debate has meant nothing; the consultation exercise has meant nothing.

So we say the bill should be revised such that Indigenous nations always have a say in both the whether and the how.

This gets back to Senator Wilson’s questions and to some of your opening remarks, but Part 2 of Bill C-5 would allow cabinet to exempt a national interest project from the application of Canada’s environmental laws. To name a few examples, Schedule 2 of the bill contemplates cabinet making regulations to exempt projects from the Fisheries Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Species at Risk Act.

Canadians may have concerns about what such exemptions could mean for, for example, fish habitat, migratory birds, toxic pollution entering the environment and communities or protections for endangered species. Are you concerned that such exemptions could harm the environment, wildlife and people? What advice would you offer to the senators in this chamber?

Yes, I’m concerned. This is the tricky part about this bill, of course. The government will say, “We’re not going to use it that way,” but the power is there and it will be sought. Someone will want it because their project will be cheaper if they don’t have to worry about fish habitat or migratory birds or toxic substances. It will be the case that proponents will seek to have this power exercised.

The question is this: If the government doesn’t want to use it, then why would it give it to itself? In a sense that’s perhaps harmless because you’d say, “Well, the government will say no,” but it will require bureaucracy. It will require this new office that will be created to implement this bill. It will require a small army of bureaucrats to deal with all the requests to change or waive the standards that currently apply to projects.

As Mr. Ginsberg expressed with respect to the community that he represents, close that gap. Close that ability. Just get on with it. We have standards that are not particularly onerous anyway, frankly. Just keep the standards as they are, require the government and proponents to meet them and then move forward. Just move on and get it done, instead of constantly relitigating this or that law and whether it should or shouldn’t apply.

Thank you.

Thank you, senator, for that question. I wondered about how much I wanted to emphasize this, but I guess you’ve forced my hand.

I will say very clearly that once a clause 7 authorization is issued, it would appear to me to be immune from any kind of legal challenge that could be mounted on normal environmental grounds.

Again, it’s this idea that environmental laws are inward and outward facing. They bind the government — again, these aren’t hard constraints, but consider this and apply the precautionary principle; adhere to the principle of scientific integrity. Let’s just say that one of these authorizations comes out and it’s clear that none of those requirements are met. You would try to file a judicial review with the courts, and the courts would say it doesn’t matter because Parliament has already deemed that the requirements have been met.

In a sense this is the separation of powers now operating, but in a really perverse way in that the legislature — this place — will have precluded the courts from ascertaining the facts, which are replaced with these legal fictions. That is as best as I can tell.

That might sound alarming. We see a lot of examples to the south of us with respect to the important role of the courts in supervising the executive when it’s doing things. Yet other than with the important exception of section 35, Aboriginal rights, and litigation that can be brought — an allegation, for instance, of insufficient consultation or accommodation — it is my reading that without any kind of privative clause — in the past, we had limited judicial intervention. We said you can only review on a question of law or you have to apply reasonableness or patent unreasonableness. Without engaging any of that language, the machinery of clause 7, to my understanding — and I’m quite confident about this — essentially precludes challenging projects other than on constitutional grounds.

Thank you.

Thank you to all of you for being here. My question is first for you, professor, but I’d love for all of you to weigh in.

You and many others have described Bill C-5 as tantamount to a power grab. It would give cabinet the power to ignore laws that are meant to apply to all of us to protect the health and well-being of Canadians, safeguard the environment and fulfill Canada’s obligations to Indigenous peoples — First Nations, Inuit and Métis. It would, in effect, put cabinet and the massive resource projects this bill aims to advance above the law.

I’m not aware of any other laws — you mentioned Bill 5 in Ontario — that give cabinet the power to pass regulations exempting projects from environmental or other laws and safeguards. Are you?

I’m glad you asked that question. There’s Bill 5 in Ontario. Bill 15 in British Columbia does something like this, but it’s much more detailed. It has three or four provisions. I have a copy of it and would be happy to follow up and provide you with the language in that bill. I did refer to it but have to emphasize this: In my home province of Alberta, Premier Danielle Smith did seek an incredibly broad “Henry VIII” power, and she backed down from it in the face of public opposition. It was constrained to passing regulations that, yes, can amend other regulations, but without access to the statute book and the laws that it is your job in this place and in the other place to pass.

And Premier Eby, in an earlier bill — a tariff response bill, in a sense — invoked that emergency power, saying, “I need these powers.” They were summarily sought. The Conservative opposition and other groups there were very critical, and Premier Eby also backed down and constrained those provisions.

There’s a clear precedent for not going this far. Currently, it is just this bill and Bill 5 in Ontario.

Maybe I’ll add very briefly that there’s an important difference between that and an exception to a rule that’s contained in a statute — so environmental lawyers often say, “Here’s the rule and here are the exceptions.” That’s normal. We might debate whether those exceptions are appropriate, but in any event, that’s common. And then there is the “Henry VIII” mechanism, which says that it’s cabinet — the executive — that decides when laws apply. Normally, that’s Parliament’s job, not the executive’s job, especially when it is so broad as to say not just a provision of a law but an act does not apply or can be changed wholesale. The power here is actually to amend laws, not simply apply them, at will. That is what is so concerning and unprecedented about this bill.

My question is for Mr. Southey. I want to talk a bit about environmental mitigation, if you will.

The Prime Minister seems to support carbon capture technology and sees it as part of a climate mitigation approach that would potentially be paired with resource development. Do you support this view? And perhaps you could comment on how you might view nation-building projects that attempt to use this technology as their mitigation.

Thank you, senator. As a biodiversity and nature NGO, we recognize the incredible consequences that climate change will have on our wildlife. We seek to help mitigate and alleviate climate risks and challenges as much as possible.

As my colleagues have mentioned, good process brings good results. As we look to these technologies, we just need to ensure that they are honestly living up to expectations — that they are tested, validated and effective in their aspirations. We believe carbon capture is essential in an environment of climate change. We believe much of that can be natural — that is to say, in nature — through reforestation and keeping our pristine forests robust and healthy, but it may also mean we need to look to technological solutions that could be an integral part of our development paradigm.

Senator, I would just like to add that there is no reason why carbon capture technology — especially if it’s employed on a large scale — should not be subject to the same assessment and informational proof that we would expect of other technologies, and be subject to meaningful constitutional consultation with Indigenous stakeholders and the free, prior and informed consent of those Indigenous nations.

The final thing I would like to say is that, substantively, it can only ever be a minority of the solution space in the climate change problem because the problem is driven by the use of fossil fuels and their combustion. We cannot escape that central fact.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. My question is for Professor Olszynski.

The legislation states that one of its goals is to contribute to clean growth and meet Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change. It goes on to say that the approved document will be issued once both the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the Canada Energy Regulator are satisfied that issuing the document will not compromise the health or safety of persons.

As you may know, this chamber recently passed Bill C-49, which amended the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Accord Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Accord Act to allow for offshore renewable energy projects. I’m a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador, and I’m curious what positive impacts you see Bill C-5 having on the Atlantic provinces’ clean energy projects, including Newfoundland and Labrador.

I’ll just reiterate what I said. I support the idea of the bill. I recognize the idea that things are very weird, frankly, down south and that we need to shore up our sovereignty and economic security — and all of that work. It’s interesting that, as problematic as certain parts of this bill are, you don’t need massive amendments to make it more consistent in terms of both democratic and environmental norms.

Speaking to the potential you described, it may be the case that, as currently written, this bill wouldn’t be bad for that development. But I also think that a tighter bill, strengthened by ensuring that those basic environmental laws and conditions are respected, would also work. In fact, great work was done in regional assessments recently in offshore wind power. I understand that there’s a lot of enthusiasm. Absolutely, the basic idea of the bill can do it. My comments and suggestions here are that we can make this bill better, and it would still achieve great things for those kinds of projects.

We had a good discussion about clauses 21, 22 and 23 — the “Henry VIII” clauses. In some ways, they’re “notwithstanding” clauses. They say that the government can go ahead and do this notwithstanding this list of acts that are listed in schedule 2. Is there a way to constrain the use of that, other than dropping it, as you suggest? I’m thinking either a sunset clause or perhaps a requirement that the invocation of that section be placed before Parliament for information purposes.

We haven’t talked about the process here, but time is running out. The House is rising at the end of this week. We will be voting on this next week. If we could have the House make these amendments this week, it would be much easier to make this happen. Do you have any suggestions about how we could constrain these clauses?

We could simply remove the reference to enactments in clause 22. So the power could be there to amend regulations, flesh out the act itself or amend regulations even under other statutes. That’s fine.

If you think about it, this chamber and the other place are the primary bodies for law making, and the executive makes subordinate legislation. Regulations are subordinate legislation. I have no problem with subordinate legislation amending subordinate legislation. It becomes weird when subordinate legislation can amend primary laws that you folks have debated and passed. You could simply remove the references to enactments, and then it becomes a power to amend regulations, and that’s essentially fine.

It’s interesting, although I haven’t heard that other version. Yes, the other version would be to seek consent, essentially, from this place and the other place when you want to change a law. Again, it brings you and this process back and it brings transparency to this system, which is so important for accountability. So I think there are ways to do it.

Where are the words enacted? Is that in clause 21?

It’s in clause 22, actually.

So how would it read? Instead of, “The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the minister responsible . . . .”

Yes, “The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation . . . make regulations . . . .” and here it says, “. . . exempting one or more national interest projects from the application of any provision of that enactment . . . .” I would remove “. . . of any provision of that enactment . . . . ” and simply say, “. . . from the application of any provision of regulations made under an enactment.”

So then we wouldn’t be touching the acts as listed in the first list in part 1 of schedule 2; we would just be touching the regulations in part 2 of schedule 2?

Yes, that’s correct.

That is a significant change.

It’s just four words.

What about a sunset clause?

The act does have a sunset clause.

It just has a review clause.

The power to list projects expires after five years, and then there is a review clause in clause 24. There has been some discussion about that because five years seems like a very long time. Three years might be better.

What kinds of projects would you suggest that would be sustainable and yet economically beneficial?

I don’t know if my colleagues want to jump in, but there is obviously a lot of excitement around east-west transmission lines. I think that is critically important. Those are outside my wheelhouse, but they are something we should be driving for, especially when you look at the fact that most of our electricity trading is actually north-south. That doesn’t make sense; we should have a national grid. I like trains. We’re in a train station, so some high-speed rail would be great. I don’t know if my colleagues have anything to add.

Without naming a specific project, as the minister said, proponents have to come forward with them. In terms of what’s appropriate for this legislation, I would go back to my comment about the criteria, which is that they have to be not only economic accelerators but also accelerators of our environmental ambitions and goals, because those two things go together and cannot be decoupled.

Honourable senators, the committee has been hearing from the witnesses for 75 minutes, and I regret to have to interrupt proceedings.

On behalf of all senators, thank you for joining us today to assist us with our work on this bill.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Honourable senators, is it agreed that I report that the committee has completed its business for today?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Honourable senators, the sitting of the Senate is resumed.