This House of Commons committee meeting was convened to study Bill C-5, an act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act. Witnesses included Francis Bradley (Electricity Canada), Yiota Kokkinos (Public Policy Forum), David Robitaille (University of Ottawa), Chief Ted Williams (Chippewas of Rama First Nation), Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak (Assembly of First Nations), Maxime St-Hilaire (Université de Sherbrooke), Catherine Swift (Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada), and Julie McGregor (Assembly of First Nations).
Francis Bradley, representing the electricity sector, stated that Bill C-5 is an important step toward accelerating major project approvals, which is critical as electricity demand is expected to double by 2050. He advocated for a two-year time limit on approvals, a "one project, one review" approach, and a central major projects office, but noted the bill does not address fundamental problems with other federal laws like the Fisheries Act and clean electricity regulations, and that schedule 1 is blank, creating uncertainty.
Yiota Kokkinos, from the Public Policy Forum, described the bill as a vital first step aligned with her organization's "Build Big Things" report, which recommends a coordinated strategy for nation-building projects. She emphasized the need for strong governance, a single front door for federal funding programs, and a strategic investment office that aligns financing, regulatory approvals, and indigenous participation, warning that implementation will determine the bill's success.
David Robitaille, a constitutional law professor, argued that the Building Canada Act could significantly encroach on provincial jurisdictions, as the definition of "national interest" is broad enough to include projects under provincial authority. He noted that the bill does not require provincial consent for designating national interest projects and that the national interest doctrine in constitutional law is narrowly defined, making the bill vulnerable to being struck down by the courts, similar to the Impact Assessment Act.
Chief Ted Williams opened with a prayer and did not provide substantive testimony on the bill.
Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, stated that Bill C-5 presents substantial risks to first nations' collective rights and that the Crown has not fulfilled its duty of deep consultation or obtained free, prior, and informed consent. She called for the bill to be split and held over the summer for proper consultation, and recommended that the Indian Act be removed from schedule 2 and that free, prior, and informed consent be made mandatory in the bill's provisions.
Maxime St-Hilaire, a law professor, characterized the bill as granting the executive emergency-like powers to circumvent ordinary federal legislation without transparently acknowledging it as an emergency measure. He argued that the bill lacks robust parliamentary oversight and a cost-benefit analysis of the costs to environmental protection, public health, and indigenous rights, and warned that the exception could become the norm.
Catherine Swift, representing manufacturers and businesses, criticized the bill for being too vague and hastily drafted, arguing that it gives the government poorly defined powers to override problematic legislation rather than fixing it. She recommended splitting the bill, prioritizing oil and gas pipelines for rapid economic impact, and expressed distrust in the government's ability to implement the bill efficiently given past spending scandals.
Julie McGregor, legal counsel for the Assembly of First Nations, echoed concerns about the "Henry VIII clauses" in proposed sections 19 to 21, which allow cabinet to override legislation including the Indian Act without consultation. She stated that the bill does not operationalize free, prior, and informed consent as required by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The committee also heard a point of order and agreed to add time for an NDP member to ask questions. No procedural debate, motions, or votes were recorded.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.