I'm satisfied at zero right now: LeBlanc faces intense grilling on Building Canada Act 🇨🇦

Ajouté : 2026-05-07

[00:00:00]And uh meeting number four, special joint committee in the exercise of powers under the Building Canada Act.

[00:00:05]Pursuant to the motion adopted on Tuesday, April 14th, the committee is meeting to commence a study on an update of the government's work under the Building Canada Act. Today's meeting will be taking place in the hybrid format. Before we begin, I would ask all in-person participants to read the guidelines and make sure that they are abiding by those rules to help prevent feedback for our interpreters that do such a great job. I'd also like to remind the participants of the following points. For those of you on Zoom, we have a couple witnesses there. At the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation, either floor, English or French. And for those in your room, you can use the earpiece for the desired channel. Before speaking, please wait until the joint chair recognizes you by name. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those in the room, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. For those on Zoom, please use the raised hand function. We'll do our best to maintain a consolidated speaking order, which by the way, we already have, and I know that everyone has submitted their name, so we're good to go there. Uh, and just a reminder that all comments should be addressed to the joint chairs. So, from 6:30 to 8:30, I'd like to welcome our witnesses. We've got the Honorable Dominic Leblanc, the Minister of International Trade. Welcome her. And from the major projects office, we've got Don Ferrell, who's the CEO. We've got Lewis Baird, who's a VP of strategic policy and coordination, Peter Felberg, who's the VP of regulatory affairs, and Robert Van Wall Walligam who's a general counsel and vice president. I understand that uh Mr. Leblanc would be free at 8:00, but the rest of you are going to be stuck here with us until 9:30. So, we appreciate you spending our Tuesday evening with us. All right. I uh will now invite Minister LeBlanc to give us his opening statement.

[00:02:00]>> Thank you uh Mr. Chair, Madame Co-chair, members of the committee, honorable senators, my colleagues in the House of Commons. Thank you for the invitation.

[00:02:09]Uh it's a great opportunity for me and Don Farrell and her colleagues at the major projects office to talk about the work that the government of Canada is doing uh focused obviously in the major projects office but under legislation that our parliament adopted uh in June last year.

[00:02:32]Facing uncertainty, global uncertainty, Canada must focus on what we can control and we can control what happens here on our own soil. We want to create an environment conducive to investment, to job creation, and ultimately the success of projects that hold promise for Canada's future. And that's exactly what the bill that we've passed in June is aiming to do.

[00:03:03]>> Efforts the government has undertaken shifts the perspective of federal reviews. Shifts the perspective of federal reviews from whether a project should go ahead to how best to advance the project. Obviously in consultation with indigenous peoples. As the prime minister said, we used to build big things in this country and we were confident in our ability to do so. So the government is rekindling that ambition and is giving itself the tools necessary to do so. That's why we created the major projects office, a new agency tasked tasked with advancing the major projects and transformative strategies that we as a government have formally referred to them while looking at what we must do to be able to get a a two-year timeline for all project uh decisions in place as well.

[00:03:58]project >> 15 projects and six six strategies currently being worked on by the major projects office which include ports, mines, roads and hydroele electric power stations will strengthen our economic resilience.

[00:04:18]I'm very pleased to be joined by Don.

[00:04:20]It's the first time Don and I I think are together before in this case a special joint committee of parliament.

[00:04:27]Uh as the chief executive officer of the major projects office, the prime minister asked her to assume this function. She will be able to speak about the work that she and her team, remarkable group of women and men that I've had the privilege of meeting in Ottawa and in Calgary. um and she can talk about the work they're doing on approvals, the financing necessary to get investment decisions done as quickly as possible. Mr. Chair, that being said, as we accelerate our decision making timelines, we continue to uphold, of course, our responsibilities around environmental standards and the constitutionally protected duty to consult indigenous people's, indigenous rights holders. Mr. President, >> Mr. Mr. Chair, I will conclude. You're looking at the time, so I would like to highlight a few achievement of the major projects office. Recently, the prime minister launched um work on the contra container terminal in Montreal, which will increase the capacity of the port of Montreal by approximately 60%.

[00:05:33]This is a project that has been under discussion for decades having been proposed for the first time nearly 40 years ago and now in less than seven months after it was referred to the major projects office construction work is beginning. We could also mention of we could also mention the new grait mines in Sel Desai north of Montreal.

[00:06:00]Over the past few months, the company has secured its financing and is now in an excellent position to move to the final investment decision stage.

[00:06:13]However, despite uh all that we've achieved, there's still a great deal of work to be done and I look forward to be working with the members of this committee to move things forward. And that being said, Mr. chair. You cannot imagine how um much I look forward to answering your questions and getting my colleagues suggestions whether it be from the House of Commons or from the Senate >> together for over a decade. It's a privilege to be with you and our colleagues tonight. Thank you.

[00:06:43]>> Uh thank you, Minister. Uh so all the parties have agreed that we're going to have one round five minutes for everybody. So we're going to start on my left hand side with Miss Tub's five minutes.

[00:06:53]>> Thank you, chair. Thank you minister for being here and uh don for your presence as well. Minister, the major projects office has staff who get topups from the private sectors. It must oversee and it must protect Canada's public interest.

[00:07:06]Is this a conflict?

[00:07:08]>> Um I don't believe Mr. Chair through you obviously uh to Miss Stubs. I don't believe so. It's a long-standing practice where um the public service has been able to recruit people from the private sector. I Don can perhaps speak to the mechanics of it, but certainly the advice we received, No, it's not.

[00:07:25]>> Okay. Do you yourself know uh which sectors staff have been secounded from while they're receiving pay topups for sectors they must regulate? No.

[00:07:34]>> Uh regulates a big word. They're not a regulator. I don't want to be lawyer.

[00:07:39]>> You have passed a law and created an office to help proponents navigate the broken permitting system that you yourself acknowledged. um you said broken but but but so no I'm not trying to be but Miss Dubs I do not know the answer uh which sectors and which people receive what topups I don't >> I'll ask some more questions about that later and we I'm sure we can get that from the MO for transparency and accountability so uh Minister also LG Canada outsourced fabrication of 35 modules to China the lead contractor already has proposed fabrication yards in China for LG Canada phase 2 um so I've asked the energy minister this question he uh he evaded So will you confirm that projects referred to the NO will not outsource vital Canadian steel fab and fabrication jobs to a regime that the prime minister and every expert knows is Canada's biggest security threat?

[00:08:27]>> That is a very good question, Miss Stubs. And I have been uh in conversations and discussions with some of my cabinet colleagues, Don and her colleagues from the major projects office. Our direction as a government has been clear in terms of federal procurement. I do I am aware of that specific circumstance uh and other projects but to be honest the details of what these proponents agreed with the major projects office to do or not in that regard some decisions investment decisions or procurement decisions had been advanced quite uh quite a bit in terms of being able to cancel or or change but I'm I'm sure that Don could give you the example or give you uh precision with respect to the one example you raised Uh thank you and and we'll uh talk about that later. But but Minister, in terms of your job and the exchanges that we had when Conservatives helped fix and pass Bill C5 because we've been urging you for 11 years to get projects built and to accelerate timelines. Bill C5 itself said the minister must undertake a national security review for all stateowned or foreign investments from hostile countries in any national interest project. Now, I know there's confusion over what's actually being designated or how and when that happens, but of course you know that stateowned Petrochina owns 15% of LG Canada. So, have you done that national security review or which minister is responsible for it to protect Canadian sovereignty?

[00:09:51]>> Because Bill C5 says the minister must undertake the review.

[00:09:54]>> Absolutely. and and so I am briefed regularly by senior officials both of the major projects office uh but of Canada's national security agencies with respect um to all of these in investment uh in circumstances in major projects.

[00:10:11]So I I'm happy to confirm to you that that work is done in a robust way. It's obviously led by uh experts professionals in the security services.

[00:10:20]I'm given access to that information and I'm confident that those reviews are done.

[00:10:26]>> Okay. So, you're just saying trust us while um the government makes clear uh actions to get closer and closer to Beijing and your answer on the security reviews where the legislation says it's the minister's job is to trust us. So um we we >> I know you're short of time and I wouldn't want to but obviously I don't accept the premise of that sort of rebuttal but I'm happy to answer another question.

[00:10:51]>> Okay. So then why can't you answer clearly whether or not you as minister or which minister has done a security review on the projects that have been referred that have major ownership.

[00:10:59]>> Perhaps I perhaps I wasn't clear. I I am responsible for that. I am satisfied after the briefings I received that that review is done. So you check the box.

[00:11:08]It's done.

[00:11:09]>> Okay. So, um I think we'll follow up in a little bit more in that in future exchanges. Um so, back to what we were talking about about what actually you did say, um when we worked collaboratively to help fix and then pass bill C5 for your objectives, which of course the entire legislation, the creation of the NO is an indictment on the last 11 years of the regulatory and fiscal framework in Canada because by your own admission, the bill is called building Canada. the laws been passed to help projects get built. And in fact, we were talking about what it was that you said earlier. So the bill was passed in June. In February, you said this. Your government quote has quote an incoherent permitting system with deadlines that constantly shift.

[00:11:52]>> Thank you, Mr. Tubs. Sorry, that's all the time we have. We have to pick you up for the next round.

[00:11:56]>> Okay, great.

[00:11:57]>> Mr. Beach, uh I know you're going to join our committee. You haven't officially joined us yet, but we're glad to have you here. You got you have five minutes.

[00:12:04]>> Thank you, Mr. Chair, and uh hello to everyone. take this opportunity to introduce myself. I also let you know, Mr. Chair, that I'm going be splitting my time with Mr. Dollywal since I am a a late addition, which gives me time for maybe one or two questions. Uh, minister, thank you for being here. Um, coincidentally, the spring economic statement came out today. Uh, showed that Canada has the highest level of direct investment per capita in the G7.

[00:12:28]>> Pretty significant feat given the economic climate. My understanding is that's the highest it's ever been in just uh a little under two decades. Uh when I talk to proponents that are trying to get big projects through. Uh there's a normal discussion that comes up which is you know yes is the best answer. No is the second best answer but the worst answer is maybe we'll see things are continuing and then we see these processes that take a very long time. So could you talk about uh if the MO is successful in getting these projects through the effect that that will have on attracting more investment into Canada and how that will affect jobs and economic growth?

[00:13:10]Excuse me. Um Mr. Chair, Madame Chair, so through you uh Mr. Beach, thank you for the question. uh totally share the view terms of what's the best answer.

[00:13:22]What's the second best answer is a no and the worst answer is a process that goes around and around and doesn't actually land at a decision within a reasonable time. I think you and I and I've know your past work and environmental protection uh fisheries and oceans other uh work you've done. If you want to get to the yes, you've got to get to the yes in the right way with the right consultations and environmental reviews. I I you and I know I know you believe that. I just wanted to reiterate that if we're going to get to yes, um it's in the right way.

[00:13:54]Uh and I know you share that view. Um but you're right, uh Mr. beach if uh we have an opportunity to attract foreign direct investment and your uh Don again could speak to the specific uh percentages of of potential foreign direct investment but it's also true of domestic investment. It's true of in institutional investors in our country.

[00:14:19]um they want to know that there is a group of people accompanying them through a regulatory process that has to be rigorous and and proper but can be expedited. We can do things uh at the same time. We don't have to wait sequentially for different approvals.

[00:14:37]The other thing Mr. beach that I think the major projects office been hugely helpful in is working with the privy council office uh uh to get provinces to agree to uh one project one review I hope we can talk about that for us that's also very much part of bringing to pick up on Miss Stub's uh previous question more coherence to this process which will attract investment and I don't want to go on because I'm dying to hear Sou Dollywal's question >> Mr. Jolly go ahead two minutes sir.

[00:15:07]>> Thank you uh Mr. Minister u in British Columbia we got our our fair share when it comes to major projects. Given your responsibility uh for one Canadian economy how are you working with provinces and territories to reduce internal trade and regulatory barriers that could otherwise delay significant projects referred to uh MO.

[00:15:31]>> So uh I'll say Mr. chair but with respect madam co-chair as well but since your colleague opened the conversation Mr. Chair uh to through you to uh our friend Mr. Dollywal you're right uh Mr. Dollywal your province uh because of its geography because of the minerals the renewable energy uh the willingness to build big projects. The government of uh British Columbia um has been very active in this space for some time will do very well as we advance a major projects agenda particularly in uh some LNG projects, port infrastructures, you know the list as well as I do. The government of British Columbia was the first government to sign an agreement for one project, one review. um very much focused on how we can getting how we can get to a yes in the right way. Province of British Columbia with respect to indigenous nations uh has for some time also been a leader in having them be full participants in many of these projects. Um, so I'm confident that with the government of British Columbia, but particularly proponents as well who want to invest in your province who see critical mineral projects uh the potential to export uh energy resources uh to Asia uh British Columbia will do very well uh as as this work uh continues.

[00:17:01]>> Time we have we're going to move over to Mr. Bon for five minutes. Sir, >> Mr. President, >> thank you chair. Thank you minister.

[00:17:11]I would like to know did you assess the major projects and there are 15 of them currently. Will we be increasing GHDs in the country or lowering it? That's a great question Mr. Bernet.

[00:17:29]I know that my colleague, the environment, the the environment and climate change minister spoke at length with the major projects office.

[00:17:42]I know that you're an expert and so I don't want to give a percentage. I could commit and say that environment and climate change Canada will share that analysis with you. This is a frequent topic of discussion. I know Senator I see Senator Karin looking at me and I don't want to make up an answer. I want to be very specific. Would you be able to submit those evaluations?

[00:18:08]We Yes. I will ensure that you will receive the technical and exact answer.

[00:18:13]The government decided not to define a nation building project.

[00:18:21]How do you define what a nation building project is?

[00:18:29]That's a good question.

[00:18:33]I understand the obligations towards transparency. I don't disagree. I'm not hesitant.

[00:18:42]For now, we have decided not to have a decree to define a nation building project. We base ourselves on section five of the act. There are five criteria that are defined in section five of the legislation. I could read them, but I don't want us to run out of time. I know that the major projects office following the government's decision to refer a project will assess a project according to those five criteria.

[00:19:20]Do you look at those five factors?

[00:19:23]Yes. Do you have a table with that allows you to analyze projects? Can you share that with us?

[00:19:34]And can you share with us the analyses for all of the projects that you consider to be nation building projects?

[00:19:43]That is a good technical question.

[00:19:46]Again, I don't want to commit to any answer that might be potentially problematic for confidentiality. I agree with sharing what we can share with you. The government uses those five criteria that criteria that are in the act. So we look at those five criteria before sending a project to the major projects office. But regarding a table on some of those different elements that could be subject to litigation or that might um speak to confidentiality. Yes, I understand that.

[00:20:37]But I would like to see the table and the assessments for each individual project. And these are optional factors.

[00:20:45]You're saying that you assess each one of those criteria in referring a major project.

[00:20:56]Assessing table.

[00:21:01]Yes, we include those five elements. Is it in a table? Is it a document?

[00:21:08]Is it a briefing? Yes or no? The act includes these five elements that are optional. Do you assess those five elements in each decision? Yes, we consider assess table. We consider them. Yes.

[00:21:26]You're not assessing them. We consider them. My question is a yes or no. Do you assess them or no? I answered you. Every time a decision is made, we consider those five factors. But the five factors, the interpreter cannot interpret when two people are speaking at the same time.

[00:21:47]What happens with an assessment, for example, the highspeed rail with Alto? Would it be the Quebec Environment Office that would be looking into this project?

[00:22:00]I hope that we will have an agreement with the Quebec government. I am still optimistic.

[00:22:09]Thank Thank you very much. We'll have to catch you next next time around. Senator Kjin, uh, five minutes.

[00:22:17]>> Senator Car your your time. Five minutes.

[00:22:21]>> Thank you. I'll continue on that line of questioning.

[00:22:26]Where are you at with the potential environmental assessment for the Alto project?

[00:22:35]As you know, we are trying to work with all of the provinces to have one project, one uh assessment.

[00:22:48]I have participated in meetings. We are trying to work with the Quebec government. I can't speak on their behalf. I know that we are having ongoing discussions with the Quebec government and I'm not pessimistic.

[00:23:01]I think that we can get to that uh joint assessment, but we are ready to do our part for an assessment if the project makes it that far.

[00:23:15]When we ask questions to the Federal Environmental Agency at the finance committee, they said that they will be doing the assessment because it's a federal matter.

[00:23:28]That's because we have not concluded the agreement with the Quebec government.

[00:23:33]If we arrive at an agreement, it is possible that we could refer certain assessments.

[00:23:42]We'll examine the details, but we don't want to double these assessments.

[00:23:52]My writing is Mabel and people are concerned with the organizational chart.

[00:23:58]Some might think that you're both judge and jury. And I look at the organizational chart of the major projects office on the management team.

[00:24:05]There's you and there's Miss Frell and I hear you.

[00:24:11]And I haven't seen you hesitate so much.

[00:24:15]I've asked you questions many times and you are two people at the head of this project at the head of this office and people are concerned that there are only two of you taking the making these decisions. What would you have to say to the people of Mabel?

[00:24:36]I understand your question. That's not the case. Yes, on the organizational chart you might see Miss Frell and I at the top and the federal departments.

[00:24:46]There are hundred people who work with Miss Frell at the major projects office.

[00:24:52]It's not just her and I in a Harvey's doing these assessments.

[00:24:59]We are very aware of the concerns. My colleague, the Minister for Transport spoke about this many times. I support it. We think it's important for the Canadian economy, but I trust that this project will be well done.

[00:25:19]We're not changing our minds. We need to do this project right. We need to factor in all concerns and I'm confident that we can do that.

[00:25:30]>> Thank you.

[00:25:36]>> Thank you. And uh thank you Minister for appearing this evening for this important conversation. Uh Minister Resource Works has uh in 2025 has documented massive losses in canceled resource projects across Canada to the tune of $670 billion. With that scale of missed opportunity, why is the government prioritizing a major projects office approach that hasn't yet put anything on the uh on the designated list rather than addressing the systematic regulatory delays and anti-development laws that are affecting our ability to grow our economy in a meaningful way?

[00:26:12]>> Excuse me. So, um, Mr. chair through you. Um I you you mentioned uh Miss Anste the designation uh under the law of a project. Uh the good news is uh we haven't yet yet uh had recourse to that legal instrument.

[00:26:34]The major projects office has been able to work with uh with proponents with provinces and territories uh to bring a number of projects further along at a speed we haven't seen in a long time. Um and we work with provinces and territories. I participated in conversations with the premier of your province about a resource project very important to Atlantic Canada. You know, of course, I'm referring to bed as another example.

[00:27:00]>> Yeah, sure. So, but I'm just talking about your approach like you're zeroing in on specific projects as opposed to just removing barriers for a bunch of projects that would seem to have a more meaningful impact especially if we're going to grow the economy at speeds not ever seen. So, I'm talking about the approach and the perspective from the government.

[00:27:17]So uh you're right. We're starting with uh major projects of national interest with legislation that parliament adopted uh which will give us the ability to expedite uh those projects. Uh but at the same time um I know Ms. Frell and my colleagues uh in cabinet are working on um how we can look at because the 2-year timeline for designated projects should apply it's a maximum and it should apply to all projects. It shouldn't only apply to those designated. It should apply to a small craft harbor's dredging project in my writing that takes too long to permit as well. So, the good news, good news is on its way. Um, and we are looking at a series of regulatory and potentially legislative changes which would I hope answer your very real concern.

[00:28:12]>> Okay. I'm glad that you mentioned the Beta Nord project. Just curious, under the current framework, is there anything being discussed where the government would place a project on the list even if the proponent didn't want to be on that list?

[00:28:25]>> No. Uh, no. If the proponent, but again um if and this is hypothetical, if the proponent uh decided that the major projects office and some of the experience they have at bringing together different financing elements, um it's possible that that project may benefit from some support from the major projects office, but we wouldn't refer it or certainly designate it over the objections of a proponent. No.

[00:28:54]>> Okay. So I'm I'm glad that you mentioned the financing component because I know one of the the functions of the major projects office is to ensure that financing moves forward. So within that context, is the government thinking about uh potentially using loan guarantees or any other financing back stops in the event that these projects run into financial risk or trouble?

[00:29:14]>> Well, these projects is you you started talking about beor and then you ended up with these projects. So um you can I'm referencing the the the projects that the government has announced or is eyeing or interested in or any of these projects that you're helping facilitate financing for. I'm sorry. I probably should have been a little >> No, I I just wanted to be careful because the the major projects office is not a federal infrastructure program.

[00:29:43]They don't have grants and contributions money. They It's a coordinating function. Miss Frell and her colleagues have a lot of experience in putting together mixes of different financial instruments that can get these projects done. So that's the work that they're doing very well. Um some projects at some point uh and I'm thinking of public infrastructure projects that the government may own or may have an equity position in. Um there is theoretically uh a chance where the government of Canada uh could be a funer of some of these projects but the major projects office and certainly not in the Bayor context because that's where I thought where we started is the government of Canada looking at equity positions or loan guarantees not not at all in those context >> very much uh Mr. >> Yeah thank you Mr. chair. Thank you, Minister, uh for your leadership and your work. Thank you, Miss Pharaoh and Miss Baird uh at the MO. Minister, uh obviously in addition to this uh responsibility that you have in terms of working and having oversight of the MO, you're also the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Uh and it was mentioned about the one window, one review in terms of being able to work with provinces. I believe there are about seven provinces that have come on with this concept and are working through. wondering if you could give this committee a bit of update about how that's going and and some of the work of the provinces where I think that work is still undertaken or being undertaken right now.

[00:31:09]>> Um so Mr. Blo or through you Mr. Chair uh thanks for the question. Uh Louise will find the exact list of seven. I think there are seven most recently your province uh no most recently Manitoba but your province was an early adopter uh Mr. Bliss of one project one review.

[00:31:27]I've been, you're right, as the intergovernmental affairs minister with the prime minister on a number of occasions um including in the end of January with the premers uh at a first minister's meeting. Um there is a lot of uh desire including from the province of Quebec and others to figure out how to do this properly. I'm confident that we're going to get uh more than seven.

[00:31:51]Um you could see the benefit you could see the benefit in some jurisdictions where this is the case. Proponents are saying this to provincial governments and to the government of Canada. Um so it has been a signature commitment of our government. Um the province of Ontario was one of the most enthusiastic participants. I had spoken to Premier Ford uh on a number of occasions about this. uh he was very effective in talking to his other first minister colleagues about the importance of getting this done.

[00:32:22]>> Good. Well, look, we appreciate and we uh certainly I can speak uh on on my behalf. I think the more that we can continue to support and I know you're doing that work and you alluded to with Miss Anste, but I was at the Calgary Chamber of Commerce a couple weeks ago and folks are very enthused about the work uh of Miss Frell of the MO and the way the government is talking about major projects in the country. Uh Minister, you kind of talked about what I would call that mid-tier regulatory reform projects that may not actually eventually end up being on the MO list.

[00:32:52]Uh but some work that we can do whether it is one window or otherwise. You you kind of referenced it to with Miss Anste. Stakeholders are certainly talking in this regard. Um it sounds as though the government understands that this is a priority. Anything else you'd like to elaborate that that you know that you recognize or in the conversations you're having with stakeholders uh we may see something down the road? Um, so Mr. Chair, uh, Cody, thanks for that question. Um, and you're right, it's the major projects office, bill C5 has specific provisions for those, uh, major national projects.

[00:33:29]Um but there is uh a growing sense that the short but effective experience of the major projects office the one project one review federal provincial dynamic gives us an opportunity um and I've had this conversation with my colleague the minister of transport many of these projects if you think of port projects bridges roads uh other trade infrastructure um would benefit from an expedited regulatory process. Again, not cutting corners, not taking shortcuts, but compressing the timeline. So, you do things um not sequentially, but you do things concurrently. Uh you find a way to uh ensure that the indigenous consultations are done properly, but again at a stage in the process where you can have an outcome that follows our obligations. Um and that work is underway and I think uh in the coming weeks or months um we may have something more to say about regulatory and potentially I say potentially legislative changes. Mr. Chair, I know that people were on on the edge of their seats. Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Ontario um have signed one project, one review agreements. Um, and we're making progress with a number uh a draft agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador has been posted and we're making progress with the other jurisdictions.

[00:34:55]>> I know that excites you, Mr. >> I very very much so. Uh, Minister, we got about 40 seconds left. You're an Atlantic Canadian. We're both Atlantic Canadians. Uh, any, you know, you've got 30 seconds. Anything you want to talk about whether it is Beta Nord, Wind West, CIS and mine in your home province, these are important. Uh, the work that you're doing with NO to advance Atlantic Canada's uh, energy and critical mineral future. Um so uh Mr. Chair uh and I hope in the remainder of the meeting uh Miss Farrell and others could give you details on those specific projects Mr. employees. But there is always a desire to ensure that every region of the country can benefit from the work of the major projects office or as we look or receive suggestions because it's people proponents come to the major projects office to the government to provincial governments there's a real effort to ensure that we have a regional balance. 275 projects have been submitted to the major projects office. I saw the list. Some are very small and some are huge.

[00:35:55]>> That's all the time we have. Thank you.

[00:35:56]>> So I I'm sure people would like me to talk about that after.

[00:35:59]>> We'll have to pick it up the next round.

[00:36:00]That's perfect. Senator Rec.

[00:36:07]>> Thank you, Chair Minister. First of all, I have to say that we have to welcome the measures that were announced today um in the economic statement u we're helping a lot of uh of workers on five years where we talk about investment investment investments funds it's uh it but we have to say that we need workers to build these projects so it's a good thing that we have this announcement in uh the economic statement of Today I'd like us to talk about investments and funding for major projects. I know that we have the growth fund of Canada, different um other funds and in today's statement we learned that we would create a sovereign fund for uh strong Canada and you mentioned that you had a role of coordination within the major projects.

[00:37:08]So could you tell me if this fund for a strong Canada is also going to be part of the toolbox to use your words as a coordination tool in the major projects office Mr. chair. Thank you, Senator, for the question. At the end of your question, you talked about the toolbox and I was also very happy with the economic statement. I'm from a small region of Atlantic Canada. There's a lot of very qualified workers working in Western Canada and on other projects.

[00:37:52]And while we're moving forward, I agree with you, we need to work with our um provincial and territorial partners to make sure that we have skilled workers.

[00:38:01]And so I share your enthusiasm for sure.

[00:38:09]You talked about trying to attract investments from Canada or from foreign countries.

[00:38:22]and the prime minister signed agreement with def agreements with defense for defense investments and other so that they would come and invest in Canada. So to your question regarding a strong Canada fund, it really came out yesterday as a good news. So it's still in its beginnings.

[00:38:50]So without having the details on how ultimately the fund will be defined, logically it should be a tool that we can use without seeing the having seen the the really the document saying what the decision of the minister of finance is. I would expect it to be a clear example of another tool that we can use for the in this important work to make sure that Canadians can profit from these major projects and that Canadians can willingly take part in these projects.

[00:39:32]So over the next couple of weeks and months, the structure and the definitions of this fund um will certainly make sure that in the end it's going to be a tool for us.

[00:39:45]That was my question. Thank you, chair.

[00:39:47]I will seed my time to my colleagues.

[00:39:49]>> Here to Mr. Gund 5 minutes.

[00:39:52]>> Thank you, chair. Uh minister, as of today, it's been one year since the last election. It's been 10 months since the passing of Bill C5, the Building Canada Act. Uh, how many projects to date have been designated by the major projects office as in the national interest?

[00:40:09]>> Um, so the short I know the answer you're looking for is as of tonight, we have not designated under the law uh a project yet.

[00:40:20]>> Are you satisfied with that? Uh yes, because there has been a lot of good work done, a lot of projects have advanced and we're obviously prepared to use that authority at the appropriate time. So yes, I'm satisfied.

[00:40:32]>> Okay. My understanding was that was the primary purpose or or one of the primary purposes of Bill C5 was to get these project designated as in the national interest, but yet it's been almost a year since the passing of the law. We're sitting at zero. Um, if you're satisfied with that, will you be satisfied in six more months if that number is still zero or six more months after that? And when are you expecting the first project to be designated by the major project office as in the national interest, if ever?

[00:41:02]>> Well, so you've asked four or five loaded questions there at the end, and that's that's fine. Um, if ever, I don't share your pessimism. Um, not to get technical with you. It's not the major projects office that does the designation. It's the governor and councel. It's cabinet based on my recommendation having received the advice from Miss Frell. Um you also said in your question that it's one of the important instruments of Bill C5. I would agree with that. It's not the only one and the good news is the other ones are working very effectively and so will that when the government has recourse to it as well.

[00:41:37]>> Okay. So, but you're satisfied at zero right now. So it it's conceivable that in a couple years if the answer was still zero, you'd still be satisfied.

[00:41:45]That is not a that is not a metrics by which you are gauging the success of this committee of that of that office.

[00:41:51]Sorry.

[00:41:52]>> Well, the hypothetical scenario of two years again I I'm not going to respond >> like I'm not very satisfied. I mean this is >> I'm satisfied with the work. I'm satisfied with the 15 projects that have been referred to the major projects office. I'm satisfied with the six transformative strategies. I'm lucky enough to participate every week in a meeting with Miss Farrell and a couple of my cabinet colleagues and very senior officials in the government of Canada and we're updated on the work they're doing.

[00:42:17]>> Do you feel that I remain very satisfied?

[00:42:19]>> Do you feel that the government is is currently building at at speeds not seen before in Canada?

[00:42:25]>> Absolutely.

[00:42:25]>> You you think is is you know John A.

[00:42:28]McDonald and Wilfford Laurier looking down on us saying these guys know how to build things now this government >> I don't purport to imagine what >> you said Wilford Laurier are thinking but >> speed's never seen before I believe that was the words of your >> and Mr. gun. In my opening comments, I used the example of the Contra Caro port uh in Montreal that was first contemplated and talked about publicly 40 years ago and construction has begun this spring in 7 months from the referral to the major projects office.

[00:42:58]So, that would be one significant example of those speeds that we haven't seen before. You talk a lot about the MO uh office supporting and encouraging projects deemed to be in the national interest, which of course begs the obvious question, what does the government believe is in Canada's national interest? Uh do you believe expanding oil and gas production in Canada is in our national interest?

[00:43:20]>> Um I certainly believe that getting uh Canadian oil and gas resources, renewable energy resources and other resources to global markets is absolutely >> ending production But if we're going to increase our exports, I'm not a engineer in this space, but if we're looking at infrastructure to increase oil and gas exports, I would assume that comes with an increase in production.

[00:43:47]>> So, so you Okay, so you would agree that it is in Canada's national interest to increase our oil and gas production.

[00:43:53]>> It's in Canada's national interest, and I I look, I I get the clip you're trying to get, but I get where you're zeroing in. That's all fine. The answer you're going to get is it's in Canada's national interest to diversify our trading relationships and to get the world wants a great deal of what Canada has including those oil and gas resources. So we want to work with um provinces and territories, indigenous groups to get these projects built properly. Do you believe that it is in the national interest of Canada to make it easier for state-owned companies from other countries to invest in critical resource projects?

[00:44:34]>> Is it in can stateowned?

[00:44:37]Canada is not looking for stateowned companies from >> Are there stateowned companies that have a stake in projects that have been referred to the major projects office?

[00:44:49]>> Again, Very good question. Technical question. I don't Don perhaps could give an answer. Mr. Chair.

[00:44:54]>> Yeah. Ju just a very quick response.

[00:44:56]We're a time.

[00:44:56]>> Yeah.

[00:44:58]>> If you look at all LNG uh Canada too, there would be some stateowned companies there.

[00:45:05]>> Which states? Just if we >> like >> which countries?

[00:45:10]>> Well, I I'll I'll get back to you with that.

[00:45:11]>> Okay. That's that's all the time we have. We're going to move back across the side here to Mr. Hogan. Five minutes, sir.

[00:45:17]>> Okay. Well, thank you, chair, and and through you. Welcome to all of our witnesses. Welcome, Minister. Welcome, Miss Frell. Welcome, Miss Bair and all, uh, who are joining us online as well. I am always happy on any committee I'm on when Calgarians are present. I I just think it enriches the entire experience personally. So, uh, Minister Leon, >> your colleagues on the committee share that view with your president.

[00:45:38]>> You know what? I heard Cody talk about um about Calgary earlier, so I think so.

[00:45:42]I think that's a common view. Uh, Minister Lebanon, you talked in your opening statements about focusing on what we can control. uh you know what's happening on our own soil, wanting to create an environment conducive to investment, job creation, projects that hold promise for Canada's future. And I think that's fantastic. Building big things, getting it done a pragmatic way while being stewards of land, air, water, resources, being community-minded. I think that's also very much in Alberta's DNA, Calgary's DNA. And uh many of the questions I wanted to ask uh about timelines I think have been addressed by others. So I want to jump into some things that I think would be helpful as we write our report uh to parliament here. And you'd mentioned that uh there were 275 submissions, some very small and some are huge. And I'm wondering if you can expand on the nature of those projects and what it tells us about the opportunity that is in front of Canada uh and where we might be able to lean in as a country.

[00:46:32]>> So uh Mr. Chair, uh through you, Mr. Hogan, thank you for the question. I share your views about the entrepreneurial spirit of uh the people of the great city of Calgary. I've uh seen it myself on many occasions and Miss Frell with whom I've had the privilege of working uh these last number of months is a great example of that. Though thank you for saying that.

[00:46:53]I'll leave it up to colleagues on the committee to decide if you put yourselves in that bucket. Uh uh I wouldn't propose to do that. Um but Mr. chair. So you your question I I think it's I just said to Dawn I at one point asked uh her I was curious because people self refer to the major projects office a project and some would be regional infrastructure for some educational institution and some would be major projects that provinces uh and big private sector proponents So I I looked at the list of 275 because I was interested in seeing Don and her colleagues do obviously the triage and refer a number of the major projects offices. I say is that people thought it was a federal funding agency or thought that if they could get Don and her colleagues to pick up a particular project um it it would somehow rise to the top of everybody's priority lists. That's not the way this particular process works. But she and her staff have referred many of these projects to other federal departments uh to infrastructure Canada, Transport Canada, pick the federal department that has perhaps in some cases funding opportunities or regulatory authorities and many of them of course fall entirely within provincial or territorial jurisdiction and those provinces have been uh those uh they've been referred there. Um Mr. Chair, with your indulgence, I'll I'll ask Don. I'm happy to undertake uh to share with the committee um as much as we can on the list of 275. I just don't want to commit to every single project a proponent the amount of money but perhaps there are categories or examples but I'll ask Don to work with her colleagues uh to make public the enthusiasm that Canadians had for the major projects office uh and their enthusiasm to refer uh things to the major projects office but I want to do it in the way that respects what might have been people's assumption when they sent Dawn a particular project I I think that's perfect and it also uh respects their privacy and considerations. Nobody wants to see their book on the front page of the Globe and Mail. Absolutely. I've got a couple of questions here. Uh can you confirm that when it comes to foreign acquisition or foreign investment, Canada has a robust regulatory regime, including the Investment Canada Act to ensure foreign investment provides net benefits to Canadian.

[00:49:26]>> Um so, Mr. Chair, through through you, uh Mr. Hogan, absolutely. My colleague, the Minister of Industry, does that analysis in uh response to a question of a colleague across the table from you.

[00:49:40]Obviously, there's a national security review um that's done as well. Um but the net benefit to Canadian uh Canadians under the investment Canada Act remains part of this work. Um the whole principle of having this legislation, having the major projects office is precisely to maxifi maximize the net benefits to Canadians. Um so that is the very core of everything that Dawn and her colleagues do.

[00:50:06]>> Thank you. And I got one more quick one for you here. Uh very quick and Mr. Gun seem to be at cross purposes. Uh Miss Miss Anie wanted to see no projects on the major project list. Thought it would be irrelevant. Mr. gun wants to see more on the major project list, but I do think we need to reconcile this. Would you agree ultimate success of the work of the NO is because of the improvements they bring forward that the powers of C5 become irrelevant and that Canada as a whole is building faster.

[00:50:32]>> Quick quick response.

[00:50:34]>> I wouldn't presume, Mr. Chair, to say that legislation that this parliament adopted at speeds that we rarely see would be irrelevant. But but to your the designation function to your point, Mr. Hogan, if we uh across the government of Canada with the help of the major projects office, examples from provinces and territories are able to massively reduce the timelines to get the right outcomes, then perhaps I know it would be difficult for Mr. Gun, but perhaps we won't be designating as many projects as he might have hoped.

[00:51:04]>> Thank you, Minister. We're going to move over to Senator Quinn, please. Five minutes.

[00:51:08]>> Thank you, Chairi Sis.

[00:51:11]>> Thank you for being here tonight.

[00:51:13]My first question is a question that I've asked in question period at the Senate >> deal with projects that um may have um stranded assets if if it's not a completely built out project. What I mean by that is that if the MO is working with the government and feeding into the preparation of the OIC process, will the MO consider like uh stranded assets for example cis mine if we get the stuff out of the ground but we can't get it to market because there's no road or no rail. Would the MO make that recommendation to say that that project needs to be expanded to deal with that situation?

[00:51:58]>> Um so Mr. Mr. Chair, through you Senator Quinn, thank you for that very good question. You're right. I remember our exchange at the Senate question period in terms of the designation per se is for a proponent and a project um or the designation decision would would be specific to that. But your very good question around stranded assets or other infrastructure, the project you referred to in our province uh is an important example. Um because it's a very good technical question, I might ask Miss Farrell to answer how they in fact the answer is yes, those evaluations are done, but she could explain in more detail how good that yes is. I think Don >> Yeah, I would say that in every many times we're looking at a major project. It could be a mine. It could be um a port. It could be um a a pipeline, an LG project. And a lot of the issues are the surrounding infrastructure that are not there that need to be there in order for that project to really go along. So, we package the whole thing up and we start to figure out which pieces can go into which departments and how we can bring together a holistic solution to the resource development. If you look at the golden triangle has our copper and our nickel and on the other side in Quebec we have or in Labrador we have the Labrador trough which is our iron ore. They they need ports, roads and electricity and so we do that work as well.

[00:53:27]>> Thank you for that. And uh my next question is um it's really centered about the act itself. What I understand our role here is and that is to you know evaluate the performance of the minister and the the and cabinet with respect to the requirements of the bill itself.

[00:53:43]It's not to say yes or no to project it's to evaluate that. And so what I'm wondering is that there seems to be so many steps in the project uh process from the inception right through to designation and schedule one I guess.

[00:53:56]Um, so I'm wondering if we can just have a little clarity of those steps and then I'd ask how can this committee do its work in a way that evaluates in a way that helps government achieve what it's trying to achieve. Um, I' I'd like to just get a little clarity on that because there's been some suggestion that we come in at the end and yet I know you're being briefed. You just said you're being briefed throughout the piece to see how things are going. Is that something that we should be doing in terms of leading up to an evaluation that's going to be in our report? So basically uh what are your thoughts on that?

[00:54:29]>> Um so uh Mr. Chair, Senator Quinn, again a very good question. Um I the committee in its own wisdom will decide how and what work it does. Um and we will always be happy to work with and provide what information you do and benefit from the advice and the work you'll do. So I think that goes without saying, but I just wanted to reiterate that. Um your point I think Senator Quinn is is a good one in the sense that a whole series of projects come to the major projects office in a different way. We in response to Mr. Hogan we talked about potential examples of those projects. Um obviously if we have provincial uh partners who work with us uh work with the government of Canada and the major projects office you can imagine the rigor that that would bring to a particular uh proponent or the particular work that we would want to do collaboratively with them. and some proponents uh and the kind of projects that they would bring forward um are better equipped and and at a different level of preparedness than others. That that's a normal thing. Um the major projects office has the skill skilled people to work with every one of those proponents to really shrink down what is remaining to get them uh to a final investment decision with the appropriate obviously environmental and indigenous work done. Um I think if if this committee wanted to and again I'm I'm not a member of this committee and you'll decide how you want to do uh your work but your chair has just I was just about to make a really incisive suggestion but no no Mr. Chair I'm out of time. Sorry I want to respect your time.

[00:56:17]>> Thank thank you very much Senator Quinn and we're going to move on to Mr. Hardy.

[00:56:21]Five minutes >> thank you chair. Thank you for being with us Minister Miss Frell. Yesterday the prime minister announced a new sovereign fund. We know that this exists in other countries. In Singapore, for example, in Kuwait, but this is what is extracted. It's savings. It's not additional debt. And here we're trying to call it the same thing while using a different formula.

[00:56:58]The National Wealth Fund in the UK was created in 2024. It's an identical structure funded by debt.

[00:57:07]Britain's parliament refused to call it a sovereign fund. Why have you decided to use a terminology in in Canada does that does not reflect what you're doing?

[00:57:18]Well, you're teaching me something, Mr. Hardy. I was not aware of what was happening in the British Parliament and so I won't comment on it.

[00:57:31]It's a great question.

[00:57:33]We called it the Build Canada Strong Fund.

[00:57:39]Nobody believes that it's a sovereign fund. You've never used that wording in private and in public com public comments. I've heard it called that way and I understand the distinction that you're trying to make. The government made a decision and did details will be shared in the coming weeks and months following consultations, but we are seeing that Canadians and individuals are interested in participating in creating these nation building projects.

[00:58:16]Apologies for cutting you off. I really want to focus on the terminology being used. I understand that Canadians are excited. They see that things are working in Canada, but we're not doing things the same way. In 2024, Brookfield raised $10 million for the Global Transition Fund, too. And the prime minister still has assets there. By the way, the mandate is similar with the sovereign wealth fund. It's the same sectors as what we have with the with Brookfield here with And so was the prime minister's ethics screen in place when you created this new sovereign debt?

[00:58:57]I'm not an an administrator of the prime minister's ethics screen.

[00:59:04]However, I was a part of discussions where in the clerk of the privy council who is one of the administrators of the screen decided that certain decisions would be made by someone else because of the prime minister's ethics screen needing to be used.

[00:59:28]I did not participate in the Build Canada Strong Fund. Did you know that we'll be invi investing in critical minerals and and that's part of Brookfield as well, but you're unaware of that? So, we can move on to the next question. You can't put words in my mouth in your reply. You just said you were not aware. Will you ask me whether or not the screen which is of PCO was used for that decision? I don't know.

[00:59:58]inaudible. And then you continued, you talked about the fund that was the same goals as Brookfield.

[01:00:06]That's what you're alleging. I'm not looking into the details of Brookfield's investments, but I am very proud of yesterday's announcement regarding the fund, and I'm quite excited for it to be shared in Parliament.

[01:00:24]Mr. Minister, your prime minister yesterday stated >> is not the issue we have.

[01:00:33]>> We don't have any issues here with capital investment. That's what he said.

[01:00:37]So why have $25 billion? Why create that debt to create a fund if we're having no issues with or rather is the private sector not wanting to invest? The finance minister in the house said that the government is eliminating barriers barriers. But in the financial post, a industry group said that barriers are more problematic than tariffs.

[01:01:08]If they're not investing, why create debt in order to create a new program?

[01:01:14]15 seconds.

[01:01:17]It's not as linear as you're saying.

[01:01:20]There was a fund announced yesterday in order to give the opportunity to Canadians to participate.

[01:01:29]I am reassured that you're saying that the private sector is ready to invest. I also believe it, but we also want to give Canadians the opportunity to participate. And so that's what yesterday's good news was about.

[01:01:45]>> Mr. Lewis, five minutes.

[01:01:47]>> Thank you very much, chairs. Uh, and I appreciate everyone being here, Minister LeBlanc, Miss Farrell, and Miss Bert.

[01:01:53]It's uh, good to have you here. Um, it's important work that we're doing here.

[01:01:56]It's important work that you're doing at the major projects office. Um, and we're examining the major projects office and the building Canada act. It's important to understand how the government intends to balance speed, uh, transparency, indigenous accountability, uh, the consult, sorry, indigenous consultation and accountability at the same time. Um, Minister, you you mentioned a number of times that there have been 15 projects referred to the uh to the major projects office and also six strategies, the six transformative strategies. Mostly people are when they think about major projects are thinking about those identified proponents, the concrete projects, but I wondered if you could expand and talk a bit more about trans uh transformative strategies. Um, these are early stage initiatives or concepts. often they're regional based or sector based. I know in my travels talking across the country and yours as well um these are important precursors to some of the major projects. So I wondered if you can make those distinctions between projects and transformative strategies and why those transformative strategies are equally important.

[01:03:03]>> Um so Mr. Chair through you Mr. Lewis, very good question and as you know the six transformative strategies that Don and her colleagues of the major projects are working on um are exactly as you said Mr. Lewis the idea is their early stage initiatives uh or concepts specific to a region or a sector. They have the potential obviously to significantly strengthen the Canadian economy but require uh more work before specific projects uh discrete projects might sort of come out uh from that work. They the major projects office and Don I'm sure can fill in the details work to develop these strategies for example critical mineral development wind energy very important to Mr. Loices in my province into Atlantic Canada. Critical infrastructure in the north uh is a good example. Um ports, transportation, infrastructure. So those are examples.

[01:04:03]Um a recent example might be what they were major projects office was referred a northern strategy which turned into some concrete projects very quickly. Uh roads, port expansion, hydro capacity uh to communities in the north. These open up commercial opportunities and investment opportunities. Some are dual civilian and potential military use as well. Um so that's the idea. It gives Don and her colleagues a chance to work with provinces, indigenous governments, territorial governments uh to put together the component pieces.

[01:04:40]But you should ask Don when she's here after I sadly have to excuse myself. uh you should ask her that question because you'll get a I think a very compelling answer >> compelling to me. So um but I al I've al heard from um stakeholders too that that can also help resolve policy issues uh ahead of other projects. Uh it can build the infrastructure needed and also work on the regulatory bottlenecks that might exist before projects are fully proposed. Can you expand on that and also um explain the signal that that would send as a federal commitment to to investors to provinces that uh that projects can move forward?

[01:05:21]>> So Mr. Chair, Don can I it's a very good question but Don I think has some some precision she can bring.

[01:05:27]>> Yeah, I'll I'll just give one quick example. So if you look at uh northwestern British Columbia, we have what's called the Golden Triangle which is where our copper and gold and many critical min mineral projects are. It's about uh$800 billion dollars worth of revenue to Canada to develop out that resource. Um and currently we don't have a way to get uh you know electricity there for the miners. Uh so in working with BC Hydro to see how we'd fund stage three of NCTL which normally would not happen. Normally a province is responsible for its own transmission infrastructure. But the value of moving those resources at this time in the global economy where we see a lot of stresses in terms of getting these kinds of minerals to the market is so high that we're working with BC Hydro to see if there's a way to finance and and accelerate that transmission line so that it can be built earlier. Um so what our office does is works with BC Hydro to see how to do that and at the same time we work with the miners who have stakes in those areas to say okay if we get the transmission line to this stage will you see that as the signal to now start to put your development money into the golden triangle and the clear answer from them is yes and so that's an opportunity to do infrastructure now there's a lot more complicated stuff going on in that strategy we are also working with some of the first nations there and there's issues there with roads and houses for them. There's lots of things to do, but the main game is to get that transmission line built and to get those investments from the private sector into the mining.

[01:07:06]>> Thank Thank you very much and thank you for that round. We're going to now move over to Senator White. Welcome. And the floor is yours. Five minutes.

[01:07:13]>> Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Minister. It's a pleasure to uh see you and and your presentation. I'm here representing Senator Peter Harter tonight. Uh Minister, my question is uh given that cabinet can modify or exempt projects from certain federal laws, my concern is around section 35 rights.

[01:07:31]Will there be explicit limits preventing the use of exemption powers where indigenous rights or treaty obligations may be at risk?

[01:07:41]>> Sorry, I was hoping senators to stuff that cookie into my I saw Mr. Hogan stuffing his face with all that cheese. And I thought I um I don't look like I missed too many meals and it's supper time. Um so um your your question is is a very good one.

[01:08:00]Your question is a very good one. Um the major projects office. So nothing that they do or that the government does under a bill C5 uh or uh or a designation uh circumstance would of course uh affect the constitutional obligations in terms of respecting section 35 treaty rights. So I think it again it's stating the obvious but I think it's important to reassure uh indigenous rights holders that that is the case. Um the major projects office has and again I'm hoping at some point you can ask Don uh or her colleagues that are on the screen. Uh I can see Rob there. Yeah, there has been a great deal of work done in terms of the advisory group that works with the major projects office regional consultation sessions. I sat in on one uh in Atlantic Canada. I think Mr. Hogan participated in one as well. Um, so I'm confident that that important work is being done. Um, we understand that if we're going to successfully get these projects built, it is because indigenous peoples are full partners, rights holders are full partners in these projects. You know, and your colleagues have done a lot of good work on this in the Senate. Um the uh loan guarantee program we've made money available and in my conversations with indigenous groups. Um there's a real interest in so the loan guarantee allows them to take equity positions. We've also made money available so they can participate meaningfully in these consultations. Um there's such an enthusiasm to do so um that the government will look at ways to ensure that we continue to have those resources available and necessary.

[01:09:52]>> Thank you for that. Uh, I'm also wondering, you know, is there a role for indigenous governments in determining whether a project's designated as national interests?

[01:10:04]>> Um, the law gives that authority to the governor and council.

[01:10:12]Um we would exercise that authority having uh fully discharged our obligations to work with indigenous rights holders and in the case of indigenous governments obviously indigenous governments as well. So um you'll understand that I won't answer the hypothetical question because I can't imagine a scenario where that would would be necessary. We would work in partnership with those indigenous governments >> and we have to do a consultation first >> and and sorry and Don is right there before any designation decision uh were taken there of course would be uh a a consultation op before that and then of course the consultations that would flow during the period to determine the appropriate uh conditions which would form the approval permit.

[01:11:04]Thank you.

[01:11:06]>> Minutes, please.

[01:11:08]>> Thank you, Chair. Actually, just following up on what the the senator's line of questioning has. I I don't think your answer has given any clarity at all. Um, in fact, it's the federal crown's duty to consult on indigenous uh consult indigenous communities. You're using this word like in partnership with indigenous people. Of course, private sector proponents and governments in Canada have long history of doing that.

[01:11:29]But the primary job for indigenous consultation falls on the federal ground. That is your duty. So I would say that you need to provide real clarity on uh exactly what the federal crown itself, the decision makers um are doing sooner than later because this was a part of the debate. Um, but related to that, just minister, I'm curious. Has the prime minister ever said to you that the pipeline to the Pacific is critical for Canada's national interests for affordability, for security, to get beyond the US is the primary market for Canada's most value valuable exports and for Canadian national unity?

[01:12:03]>> Um, so, uh, >> has the prime minister told you directly a pipeline to the Pacific is in Canada's national interest?

[01:12:09]>> Mr. chair the uh the preface of Miss Stub's question was so good and I want to agree with her the preface of the question in terms of the crown obligation to consult indigenous people and re >> well I certainly tried to clarify and change that in the legislation with amendments in C5 but the Liberals defeated it so if you could just answer the question has the prime minister told you that a pipeline to the Pacific is in Canada's national interest directly has he told you that >> you're I speak to the prime minister about this and a bunch of other issues all the time and I'm not going to talk about private conversations I've had with him. So, you can't get a yes or no from me on that.

[01:12:44]>> Okay. Well, it's not a private conversation since he's made the promise to all of Can all of Canada.

[01:12:49]>> You said that to me, yes or no? I talked to >> Is your minister responsible for the national interest designation, but as has been established in this meeting because I asked in amendments for your government to clearly define the national interest beyond the five principles that most Canadians would agree with, your government refused to do that. I asked again in the fall for your government to define the national interest clearly so that proponents and everybody involved in this process can actually know what will make your government's cut. But you're not providing any clarity on that.

[01:13:17]>> I would have thought you would have found a lot of clarity in that memorandum of understanding we signed with your province of Alberta. That would have been perhaps after your comments in the fall about further defining the national interest. But that I think show >> So you're not going to answer the question. So let's move on. Um as as uh we've all discussed here of course in the back of B in the back of Bill C5 there are 12 laws and there five and there are five regulations that you the prime minister the minister of energy have at various times said need to be fixed or need to be repealed in order for private sector proponents to be able to see clearly through as you rightly characterized it this uh incoherent system with shifting deadlines. So, um, I would just suggest to you that 275 project proponents of all different jurisdictions of all different sizes applying to the office for the last year actually shows the utter chaos and uncertainty and lack of clarity around what projects and what proponents will actually make your cut because you haven't defined the national interest clearly. Yet, there are three regulators. There's 71 projects in front of all of those three regulators right now. So, here's the deal. of the 15 projects that you've referred to the MO, two are already being built, two already had their joint approvals or uh several were already several already had their joint approvals and then we have these this other last batch of five projects.

[01:14:45]When is it because you seem unclear in this meeting exactly that your government will actually fix the laws and the regulations to provide clarity for proponents and regulatory clarity so that proponents can invest and actually get projects built.

[01:14:59]>> So um Mr. Chair through you to Miss Stubs again the pre the premise or the preface of the question I thought was so good. Um you'll allow me just to comment very briefly on that. The fact that 275 proponents came forward at the major projects office, you characterize it in a way that I with which I wouldn't agree. I characterize it as a great example of the enthusiasm Canadians have to build these projects.

[01:15:25]>> I think people are very enthusiastic and what they're looking for were for is your government to deliver an action on your words and your promise promises. So it it's a year after these 15 referrals and I've got it now. the two that were already being built before you announced them. The seven that were already approved by joint regulators before you in announced them, you've admitted zero designations of any projects in the national interest so far. 24 projects are in front of the Canadian energy regulator right now. 40 are in the impact assessment, including only one of your announced referrals and seven are at the nuclear regulator. So, what on earth is taking so long to actually fix the laws and the regulations at the back of this bill? And how can it be that a year in you can't define the national interest? Two-year timelines aren't actually in the law anywhere. And you're actually slipping and sliding on it in this meeting. And there is no clarity for proponents or investors about how on earth the project can actually make a cut with your government. That's why 275 projects of all scale, scope, size, jurisdiction, and kind have come to the office. But what has to happen is you got to fix the laws and the regulations so Canada can be a place where investors can invest and then know they're going to get the green light to build. So I I'm sorry we're we're we're over time here. So >> we're >> okay. Uh thank you Miss Stubs. We're going to move on to uh Miss Biden. Five minutes.

[01:16:44]>> Thank you Mr. Cochair. Thank you Minister. I'd like to come back to the on the Alto project. First of all, I'd like to talk about what's been said before. I think it is important to state again that project designation depends on the governor and council of course on the council and recommendation of the MPO and of course projects must undergo environmental assessment as well as u first nations consultations however you don't wake up in the morning and designate project Mr. Minister, I think it's it's important to to clarify that.

[01:17:27]That being said, let me come back to the Alto project. I'd like to say that as a me member for Montreal, I am a fierce defensor of this project. I think that uh high-speed rail linking connecting about 20 million of Canadians. It is a transforming project that the country needs. Even if I don't look at surveys very often, I've seen that a large majority of Canadians agree to this project, especially in and that's um mostly three 3 to one in a majority of three people to one that agree to this project. So a simple question, will we really be able to uh get with this project and see it through? What do you tell Canadians who wonder if uh we will be able to bring it to an end through you chair?

[01:18:29]Two questions, two topics that you've talked about. You're right. I I'd like to agree with you. Ultimately, the designation of a project according to the law goes through indigenous consultations, environmental assessment.

[01:18:54]So, you have very well described this process very well. And as I've said before, the good news is that Madame Frell and her colleagues could help proponents to bring them forward fast enough that right now the decision of designated them doesn't need to be made.

[01:19:22]In your second question, you've mentioned a project and I'm I I share your enthusiasm.

[01:19:32]New Brunswick is not going to be on the path of this project that is so important for our nation, for the environment. It's such an obvious project for me. However, I cannot wait to board that train and I hope I'll do the so many times.

[01:19:50]I have all confidence that this project can that we can see through this project.

[01:19:57]My colleague the minister of transport of transportation will give you more details on how this project can go forward and to conclude my answer to your excellent question I'm very enthusiastic I'm very confident just as you are and you can't look at examples of 50 years ago by a prime minister who are no longer with us unfortunately to talk about a high-speed rail project linking essential centers in the country and the decisions that were made even before you were born, Madame Benian.

[01:20:41]So, I understand politics. I was in in the opposition as well. It's not a very hard work.

[01:20:47]We criticize people. We bug people.

[01:20:51]We're against every bad ideas. We are in favor of every of every good idea. So I understand that reality, but I think that the country I share your opinion the the country is in favor of this project of Alto if it's well made and carried out and that's exactly what we're going to do.

[01:21:13]>> Time left for one more question. This clearly a moment where Canadians are ready uh to build and to build big. I know uh that we need projects that will strengthen our economy and strengthen our country for generations to come. If I can uh for a moment, I'd like to be the voice of many of the progressive constituents that I represent who are wondering how we can ensure that the nation building projects that we are uh foreseeing and that we will move forward with um and with urgency will fully respect our environmental and climate commitments.

[01:21:42]>> Uh I'm sorry. I got to be fair to everybody. That's all the time. So, we're gonna It was a good qu It was a great question. Thank you, uh, Miss Beddine. Uh, we're gonna finish off with, uh, Mr. Bonai.

[01:21:57]>> Thank you, chair. Minister, it was going well, but I thought you weren't doing so well when you were describing the the opposition's work. It seems easy and that your work is harder. So, I would like I I would like some quick answers because my my work is difficult. So you've talked about the analysis grid of projects.

[01:22:18]I don't want you to put words in my mouth. Mr. Chair, the grid was tabled for every of this project. The analysis for each project, the GHS uh analysis, it's what I understood and it's what I'm expecting. Mr. Minister, we were talking my colleague mentioned an article of the Glo in the Glob and Mail where the MO would have asked private companies to top up employees salaries. And we're talking about business leaders, bankers.

[01:22:55]I'm giving you the English words that might be easier for you. And you say it's common practice. That doesn't concern you at all. Mr. chair.

[01:23:07]I understand Mr. Bonai and and the first part of his question saying that I uh committed to analysis grids. I I understand, but you can't you can't say that I'm going to do something that it's not true. We'll let the chair decide.

[01:23:25]Well, I can I'm happy to tell you what I've committed to.

[01:23:31]What you're saying is incorrect.

[01:23:34]So potential conflict of interest. Can you answer the question?

[01:23:39]>> You're using the the words potential conflict of interest. You've talked to me about an exchange project between people from the the private sector, but you say it's common practice for uh priv for the private sector to top up uh the sal the wages of government employees.

[01:23:57]Madame Ferrell will answer for you.

[01:24:01]This is not a new practice, madame practice.

[01:24:06]Where do where else is that being done?

[01:24:09]You say it's a common practice. So where else in the government is that being done? So you can't answer.

[01:24:15]We'll talk to madam to Madame Frell later. You say you said it's a common practice. I'm trying to She can answer.

[01:24:23]Would you like the answer? My question is to you. I will talk to Madame Ferrell later.

[01:24:28]So, where else in the government is that being done? I'd be happy for you to get the these answers through Miss Frell, but we'll talk to Miss Frell later.

[01:24:39]You're here right now, but I'm telling you to ask the question to Miss Frell.

[01:24:43]Unbelievable. Can you give us a list of those people and uh uh the the their level of wage and who funds it?

[01:24:53]I'm not an expert in these rules. Are you responsible for anything, Mr. Minister? Are you responsible for the the MOO? Answer. Absolutely. So, do we have this list of people who are have their wages topped up by banks and other companies while they're working for the no? I'm asking you for this list.

[01:25:15]I will answer if the act allows me to give you those example. I will do it.

[01:25:20]However, you've asked for their wage and I don't want you to put words in my mouth. I didn't commit to give you these data. I committed to give you as far as I can these uh these these data that data for designated project for a GNL project for example what guarantee do we have that this project is not going to go through if there's no social acceptable acceptance that's a very good question the prime minister and I have said several times that it would be very hard for us to impose u a major project to a community that doesn't want it.

[01:26:08]So it is possible you're not guar you're not giving us a guarantee here that you would not impose a a project for example uh liqufied natural gas in Quebec. I don't share your pessimism.

[01:26:23]So for you it's it is an option for you.

[01:26:26]So it it is an option. That's what I'm I understand you. You could impose a pipeline in Quebec. You You're inventing stuff. It's unbelievable. You're making up stuff. But you're not answering, Mr. Minister. Just give me a clear answer.

[01:26:41]I'm giving you an answer that you don't like, and then you're putting words in my mouth. But will you um commit not to force a pipeline down the throat of Quebecers?

[01:26:53]Inaudible.

[01:26:55]That is all the >> minister, I want to thank you for taking the time to be here. We're going to suspend in a second. Uh just for the some that don't know that was maybe going on both both of the chairs had designated our time to other people, but normally the chairs would have a chance to speak. We did that this time just for the sake of uh of harmony and trying to move this thing forward and have some uh some uh great continuity and speaking time. So, Minister, thanks once again.

[01:27:21]We're going to suspend for five minutes and then we'll be back. Can I say on record, thank you to the chairs for that?

[01:27:27]>> Sure, why not? That's great. All right.

[01:27:29]>> Thank you. Thank you, Dominic. Okay.

[01:27:31]Thanks.