TRAN Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
Conservative
Bloc Québécois
The Ministers made statements and, with Sarah Jackson, Daniel Morin, Jeannine R. Ritchot, Christiane Fox, Valerie Gideon and Bruno Steinke, answered questions.
At 5:30 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 5:50 p.m., the meeting resumed.
Rob Cunningham, Helena Sonea, Sabaa Ahmad Khan, David Chartrand and Trevor Mercredi made statements and answered questions.
At 6:18 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 6:22 p.m., the meeting resumed.
Questioning of the witnesses resumed.
At 7:07 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 7:20 p.m., the meeting resumed.
Finn Johnson, Steven Schumann, Jeffrey Cyr and Sheldon Sunshine made statements and answered questions.
At 8:27 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 8:49 p.m., the meeting resumed.
Michael Hatch, Lauren Martin, Lance Haymond and Heather Exner-Pirot made statements and answered questions.
At 9:50 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 10:19 p.m., the meeting resumed.
The committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1 (short title) was postponed.
The Chair called Clause 2.
On Clause 2,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the committee on Monday, June 16, 2025, the following amendment, submitted by Leah Gazan for the consideration of the committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-5, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 1 with the following:
“tinue to work with provinces, territories and Indigenous governing bodies towards”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 2, be amended
(a) by replacing line 5 on page 2 with the following:
“improving labour mobility and the safety of work within Canada, and”
(b) by replacing line 10 on page 2 with the following:
“while using the best standards to protect the health, safety and”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 2 the following:
“And whereas the government of Canada has committed to upholding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples to maintain and develop their own institutions, laws and economic systems, and ensuring that their free, prior and informed consent is obtained in matters that may affect them;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 3 the following:
“Indigenous governing body means an entity that is authorized to act on behalf of Indigenous peoples that hold rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. (corps dirigeant autochtone)”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 2.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 2, be amended
(a) by replacing line 6 on page 3 with the following:
“provincial, territorial or Indigenous regulatory body means”
(b) by replacing line 9 on page 3 with the following:
“legislature of a province or territory or of an Indigenous governing body to regulate the”
(c) by replacing line 15 on page 3 with the following:
“legislature of a province or territory or of an Indigenous governing body to issue autho‐”
(d) by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 3 with the following:
“nisme de réglementation provincial, territorial ou autochtone)”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 2.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 2, be amended
(a) by replacing line 21 on page 3 with the following:
“provincial, territorial or Indigenous governing body requirement means a require‐”
(b) by replacing lines 23 and 24 on page 3 with the following:
“province, territory, or Indigenous governing body, or by a provincial, territorial or Indigenous regulatory body. (exigence provinciale, territoriale ou d'un corps dirigeant autochtone)”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 2, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 4 with the following:
“(a) a good or service that is also subject to a provincial, territorial or Indigenous governing body requirement; and”
(b) by replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 4 with the following:
“or distributed in accordance with a provincial, territorial or Indigenous governing body requirement is considered to meet any comparable”
(c) by replacing lines 15 and 16 on page 4 with the following:
“(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a provincial, territorial or Indigenous governing body requirement is considered to be comparable to”
(d) by replacing line 26 on page 4 with the following:
“provincial, territorial or Indigenous governing body requirement is comparable to the”
(e) by replacing line 2 on page 5 with the following:
“cordance with a provincial, territorial or Indigenous governing body requirement is”
(f) by replacing line 4 on page 5 with the following:
“so long as the provincial, territorial or Indigenous governing body requirement con‐”
(g) by replacing lines 6 and 7 on page 5 with the following:
“(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a provincial, territorial or Indigenous governing body requirement is considered to be comparable to”
(h) by replacing line 17 on page 5 with the following:
“provincial, territorial or Indigenous governing body requirement is comparable to the”
(i) by replacing line 29 on page 6 with the following:
“tion to whether provincial, territorial or Indigenous governing body requirements are”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 4 the following:
“(c) a matter other than health or the environment.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 5.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 5 with the following:
“tion issued by a provincial, territorial or Indigenous regulatory”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 3.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 6 the following:
“(1.1) Regulations made under subsection (1) cannot reduce the occupational health and safety protections afforded to workers.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 21 on page 6 the following:
“(3) Before recommending a regulation to the Governor in Council under subsection (1) in relation to matters that concern the rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the Minister must consult the relevant Indigenous governing bodies.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 7 with the following:
“this Act and its operation, including its effects on the rights of Indigenous peoples, and cause a report on the re‐”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
Clause 2 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
Clause 3 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
On Clause 4,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the committee on Monday, June 16, 2025, the following amendment, submitted by Leah Gazan for the consideration of the committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 7 the following:
“create good-paying, unionized jobs, and”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 7 the following:
“Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to the advancement of such projects in a manner that upholds the rights of Canadians, including Indigenous peoples;”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended
(a) by replacing line 30 on page 7 with the following:
“building relationships with Indigenous governing bodies and upholding the rights of Indigenous peoples recog‐”
(b) by replacing lines 32 and 33 on page 7 with the following:
“Act, 1982 and the rights affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act;”
(c) by replacing, in the French version, line 5 on page 8 with the following:
“des peuples autochtones et par la Loi sur la Déclaration des Nations Unies sur les droits des peuples autochtones;”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 7 with the following:
“Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as regulatory processes set out in land claim agreements or in Acts or regulations implementing a land claim agreement or a self-government agreement;”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 8 the following:
“Whereas the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act aims to create and protect sustainable jobs, which strengthen Canada's economic sovereignty and, in particular, its energy sovereignty, and help build an economy ready for the future;”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 5.
“national interest project means a project that strengthens Canada's autonomy, resilience and security, that provides economic or other benefits to Canada, that has a high likelihood of successful execution, that advances the interests of Indigenous peoples, that contributes to clean growth and to meeting Canada's objectives with respect to climate change and that is named in”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
“Parliamentary Review Committee means the committee referred to in subsection 62(1) of the Emergencies Act. (comité d'examen parlementaire)”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
“accelerated process.”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 9 and 10 on page 9 with the following:
“and investor confidence, while creating good-paying unionized jobs, protecting the environment and respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by adding before line 11 on page 9 the following:
“4.1 The Minister must ensure that the public is given the opportunity to meaningfully participate in consultations on the exercise of any power under subsection 5(1), 5(3), 7(1), 8(1) or 8(2) in respect of a national interest project.”
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
“4.1 (1) The Governor in Council may, by order, for the purposes of section 5, define national interest.
(2) In order to promote transparency and predictability, an order made under subsection (1) must set out specific criteria that must be met by the proponent of a project in order for the project to be found to be in the national interest.
(3) If an order is not made within 15 days after the day on which this Act comes into force, the Minister must, within five sitting days of the end of that period, cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament a report that sets out the reasons for the delay and the expected timeline for the making of the order.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Shannon Stubbs and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 9 with the following:
“5 (1) If the Governor in Council decides in accordance with subsection (6) that a”
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 9 with the following:
“cil may, on the recommendation of the Minister after consultation by the Minister of Indigenous peoples who may be affected by the project, by or‐”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 9 with the following:
“and a detailed description of it, including the location where”
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
“it is to be carried out and its potential impacts and repercussions.”
Debate arose thereon.
By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the committee allow Elizabeth May to speak on the amendment PV-2.
“it is to be carried out and its potential impacts and repercussions.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
“(1.1) Before adding the name of a project to Schedule 1, the Governor in Council must cause a notice of 30 days, that includes the name and description of the project, to be published in the Canada Gazette and must consult with the government of the province in which the project will be carried out, and obtain its written consent if the project falls within areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
“(1.1) Every project must be consistent with provincial laws, including those relating to natural resources, the environment and property and civil rights.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
“(1.1) Within 90 days after the day on which the Minister makes a recommendation that the name of a project be added to Schedule 1, the Governor in Council must make a final decision on whether to make an order under subsection (1) in respect of the project.
(1.2) If a final decision is not made within the required period, the Minister must, within five days of the end of that period, cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament a report that sets out the reasons for the delay and the expected timeline for the making of a decision.”
The question was put on the amendment of Shannon Stubbs and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 9 with the following:
“order under subsection (1) after the second anniversary of”
Debate arose thereon.
Stéphane Lauzon moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “second anniversary” with the words “fourth anniversary”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Stéphane Lauzon and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 9.
“order under subsection (1) while Parliament is prorogued or dissolved or after the fifth anniversary of”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 9 the following:
“(2.1) The Governor in Council is not authorized to make an order under subsection (1) in respect of a project if carrying out that project may adversely affect the rights of Indigenous peoples, recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, unless the Indigenous peoples whose rights may be adversely affected give free, prior and informed consent.”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
“project to the extent that the amendments do not change the nature of the project.”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
“(4) If the House of Commons adopts a resolution finding that a project named in Schedule 1 is no longer in the national interest or has breached the consultation duties set out in this Act, the House of Commons may amend that Schedule to”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
(a) by deleting line 24 on page 9 to line 2 on page 10.
(b) by replacing line 4 on page 10 with the following:
“tion (1) in respect of a project, the Governor in”
(c) by replacing line 16 on page 10 with the following:
“subsection (1) or (3), the Minister must con‐”
(d) by replacing lines 24 and 25 on page 10 with the following:
“order made under subsection (1) or (3).
(9) An order made under subsection (1) or (3), and”
The question was put on the amendment of Shannon Stubbs and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
“(5.1) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (1) in respect of a project, the Governor in Council must take into consideration whether the project would be funded through private-sector investment or public-private partnerships that would reduce any impact on public finances.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Shannon Stubbs and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 3 to 7 on page 10 with the following:
“(6) The Governor in Council may make an order under subsection (1) in respect of a project only after considering the results of the governmental, Indigenous and public consultations required under subsection (7) and only if the Governor in Council determines that carrying out the project will”
(b) by replacing lines 11 to 14 on page 10 with the following:
“(c) likely be successfully executed and likely be an economically viable undertaking;
(d) advance reconciliation and the general interests of Indigenous peoples, protect the constitutionally protected interests of Indigenous peoples, and be consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the principle of free, prior, and informed consent;
(e) contribute to clean growth and meet Canada’s environmental obligations and its commitments with respect to climate change;
(f) comply with rigorous standards with respect to environmental protection during the carrying out of the project;
(g) contribute to sustainability; and
(h) avoid significant adverse environmental effects.
(6.1) The Governor in Council must provide written reasons justifying the Governor in Council's determination under subsection (6).”
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
(a) by replacing line 3 on page 10 with the following:
“(6) In deciding whether to adopt a resolution under subsec‐”
(b) by adding after line 14 on page 10 the following:
“(f) promote compliance with the Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982 in respect of the legislative jurisdiction of the federal government and the provincial legislatures.”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
(a) by replacing lines 5 to 7 on page 10 with the following:
“Council must ensure the project conforms, at minimum and before the project has been designated as being in the national interest, to the factors that the Governor in Council considers relevant, including the extent to which the project will”
(b) by replacing line 12 on page 10 with the following:
“(d) be consistent with the rights of Indigenous peoples; and”
(c) by replacing line 14 on page 10 with the following:
“Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change, taking into account the potential environmental impacts that fall within federal jurisdiction.”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
(a) by replacing line 5 on page 10 with the following:
“Council must consider any factor that the Governor in”
(b) by adding after line 14 on page 10 the following:
“(6.1) The Governor in Council must provide a detailed analysis of the extent to which the project conforms to the factors set out in paragraphs (6)(a) to (e).”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended
(a) by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“Council considers relevant, and must consider the extent to which”
(b) by adding after line 14 on page 10 the following:
“(f) implement Calls for Justice numbers 13.1 to 13.5 of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. ”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended
(a) by replacing line 10 on page 10 with the following:
“(b) provide economic or other benefits to Canada, such as the creation of good-paying unionized jobs;
(b.1) contribute to the Canadian economy by being carried out in Canada and utilizing Canadian resources and labour;”
(b) by replacing line 12 on page 10 with the following:
“(d) advance the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples; and”
(c) by replacing line 13 on page 10 with the following:
“(e) contribute to clean growth, to creating and protecting sustainable jobs and to meeting”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 10 with the following:
“Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change and biodiversity.”
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
“(f) be consistent with the rights of the provinces and territories.”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 14 on page 10 the following:
“(6.1) For the purposes of paragraph (6)(e), clean growth means growth attained through renewable energy sources, including solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, hydroelectric, district energy, storage, and thermal exchange, and other low- or zero-carbon energy projects, but excluding nuclear power projects, fossil fuel projects and fossil fuel pipeline infrastructure.”
At 11:12 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 11:16 p.m., the meeting resumed.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 14 on page 10 the following:
“(6.1) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (1) or (4) in respect of a project that is not a federal project, the Governor in Council must consider
(a) the extent to which the project is carried out in Canada and utilizes Canadian resources and labour;
(b) the labour standards under which the project will be carried out, including the adequacy of wages paid to workers; and
(c) any other benefits to local economies and communities, including community benefit agreements and skills development programs such as apprenticeships.”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
“(6.1) Before recommending that an order be made under subsection (1), the Minister must be satisfied that
(a) the proponent of the project, or any director, officer or significant shareholder of the proponent, has not been found to have committed a violation under the Conflict of Interest Act and is not the subject of an ongoing proceeding in respect of a violation under that Act; and
(b) every reporting public office holder, as defined in section 2 of that Act, who could be in a conflict of interest in relation to the proponent of the project has recused themselves under that Act to avoid the conflict.”
Debate arose thereon.
At 11:22 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 11:23 p.m., the meeting resumed.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Shannon Stubbs and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
“(7) Before recommending that a resolution be adopted under any of subsections (1), (3) and (4), the Minister must obtain the approval of any federal minister that it considers appropriate, any provincial or territorial government that is directly or indirectly affected by the project and Indigenous peoples whose rights recog‐”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 21 on page 10 with the following:
“any of subsections (1), (3) and (4), the Minister must meaningfully consult with
(a) any other federal minister and any provincial or territorial government that the Minister considers appropriate;
(b) Indigenous peoples whose rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 may be adversely affected by the carrying out of the project to which the order relates; and
(c) members of the public, including persons who reside in Canada, non-governmental organizations and other persons who may be interested in or affected by the carrying out of the”
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 4.
“any of subsections (1), (3) and (4), the Minister must obtain the approval of any other federal minister that the Minister considers appropriate, any provincial or territorial government that is directly or indirectly affected by the project and Indigenous peoples whose rights recog‐”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
“any of subsections (1), (3) and (4), the Minister must obtain the approval of any other federal minister that the Minister considers appropriate, any provincial or territorial government that is affected by the project and Indigenous peoples whose rights recog‐”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 19 on page 10 with the following:
“sult with any other federal minister, any provincial or territorial government or Indigenous governing body that the Minister considers appropriate, the Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council and unions, and obtain the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous peoples whose rights recog‐”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 10 with the following:
“the reasons for it, including specific reasons for each of the factors considered under subsection (6), must be published in the Canada”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
“(10) Within 30 days after an order is made under subsection (1), details of the project in respect of which the order is made must be published in the registry established under section 5.1.
5.1 (1) The Minister must establish and maintain a public registry of national interest projects that is made accessible to the public through the Internet.
(2) The Minister must include in the registry in respect of each project
(a) a detailed description of the project and the reasons why it is in the national interest;
(b) the extent to which the project is expected to meet the outcomes set out in paragraphs 5(6)(a) to (d);
(c) detailed cost estimates; and
(d) the estimated timelines for completion of the project.”
Debate arose thereon.
Mike Kelloway moved, — That the amendment be amended
(a) by deleting subparagraph 5.1(2)(c)
(b) by renumbering subparagraph 5.1(2)(d) as subparagraph 5.1(2)(c).
The question was put on the subamendment of Mike Kelloway and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Shannon Stubbs and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
“(1.1) The document must be issued no later than one year after the day on which an order is made under subsection 5(1) in respect of the national interest project.
(1.2) If the document is not issued within the required period, the Minister must, within 30 days of the end of that period, cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament a report that sets out the reasons for the delay and the expected timeline for the issuing of the document.”
The question was put on the amendment of Shannon Stubbs and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 20 on page 11 the following:
“(b.1) the Minister must be satisfied that the conditions set out in the document will ensure that the proponent will take all measures necessary to first avoid and then minimize any effects of the project on biodiversity, then to restore biodiversity and, only if necessary and possible as a final step, to offset any effects on biodiversity;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
“(b.1) the Minister must have obtained the consent of the province in which the project will be carried out in whole or in part; and”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
“(b.1) the Minister must undertake a national security review for all state-owned or foreign investments from hostile countries in any national interest project;”
The question was put on the amendment of Shannon Stubbs and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended
(a) by replacing line 25 on page 11 with the following:
“sulted and an Indigenous governing body may establish the conditions that should be set out in the document to avoid or mitigate those adverse effects;
(d) the Minister must consult unions with respect to the conditions that should be set out in the document respecting workers; and
(e) the Minister must be satisfied that the conditions set out will ensure that the proponent will take measures, first, to avoid effects on biodiversity, then to minimize those effects, then to reverse them and, finally, only if necessary and possible, to offset them.”
(b) by replacing line 3 on page 12 with the following:
“With the exception of conditions referred to in paragraphs (2)(c) to (e), the conditions set out in the document with respect to”
(c) by replacing line 7 on page 12 with the following:
“(6) With the exception of conditions referred to in paragraphs (2)(c) to (e), the conditions set out in the document with respect”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 11 the following:
“(d) the Minister must make available to the public all information that is relevant to the project and that can reasonably be publicly disclosed, including a detailed description of the project, any information received from a proponent or any other federal minister, any information received from a regulator described in sections 9(1), 10(1), 11 or 15, any comments received from the public, and any knowledge or information received from Indigenous peoples that the person providing that knowledge or information has not identified as confidential.”
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
“(d) the Minister must be satisfied that the conditions set out in the document will ensure that all possible measures will be taken to avoid the project's negative effects on biodiversity.”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
“(d) the Minister must be satisfied that, with regard to any foreign investments in the project, all necessary measures have been taken to protect national security interests."
The question was put on the amendment of Shannon Stubbs and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 11 the following:
“(d) the Minister must, in relation to a body including a co-management body or an Indigenous governing body established under a land claim agreement within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and that is vested with powers, duties, or functions in relation to impact assessment:
(i) confirm that the applicable processes and authorities of the body have been completed and upheld in accordance with that land claim agreement, and
(ii) confirm that any condition resulting from such processes or authorities is integrated into the document, as a condition that applies under subsection (5), following the consultation under paragraph (b).”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 4.
(a) by replacing line 27 on page 15 with the following:
“21 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Governor in Council may, by order, amend”
(b) by adding after line 30 on page 15 the following:
“(2) The Governor in Council is not authorized to amend Schedule 2 to add the name of any of the following Acts of Parliament or of any regulation made under any of those Acts, or a reference to a portion of any of those Acts or regulations:
(a) the Access to Information Act;
(b) the Canada Elections Act;
(c) the Conflict of Interest Act;
(d) the Criminal Code;
(e) the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act;
(f) the Investment Canada Act; and
(g) the Lobbying Act.”
Xavier Barsalou-Duval moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding after the letter (g) the following:
“(h) the Official Languages Act;
(i) the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act;
(j) the Indian Act.”.
At 11:48 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 11:52 p.m., the meeting resumed.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.
Philip Lawrence moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding after the letter (g) the following:
“(h) the Auditor General Act;
(i) the Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act;
(j) the Railway Safety Act;
(k) the Trade Unions Act;
(l) the Explosives Act;
(m) the Hazardous Products Act.”.
At 11:53 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 11:57 p.m., the meeting resumed.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Philip Lawrence and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Philip Lawrence, as amended, and it was agreed to.
“(2.1) For the purposes of consultations required under paragraph (2)(c), the Minister must ensure that a process is established that allows for the active and meaningful participation of the affected Indigenous peoples and that a report of the consultation process and results is made available to the public within 60 days after the day on which a document is issued under subsection (1).”
The question was put on the amendment of Shannon Stubbs and it was agreed to.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 11 with the following:
“quired, provided that it meets all of the requirements, under any en‐”
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 29 and 30 on page 11 with the following:
“quired.”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
“quired and must meet all of the requirements, under any en‐”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 16 on page 12 with the following:
“(8) The Minister must make available to the public
(a) the document, including any amendments to it; and
(b) all relevant information, including a detailed description of the project, any information received from a proponent, from any other federal minister, from a regulator or commission under subsections 9(1) and 10(1) and sections 11 and 15, any comments received from the public and any knowledge or information received from Indigenous peoples that the person providing that knowledge or information has not identified as confidential.”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 12 the following:
“(9) The document expires five years after the day on which it is issued under subsection (1) if the project is not substantially commenced within that period.”
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 12 the following:
“(9) If the national interest project has not been substantially started within five years of the issuance of the document, the document expires.”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 4.
“(9) If the national interest project has not been substantially started within five years of the issuance of the document, the document expires.”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was agreed to.
“(9) All documents and information used to issue the document must also be made public.”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 24 and 25 on page 12 with the following:
“subsection (1) or (2), the Minister must
(a) consult with the minister who is responsible for the enactment”
(b) by replacing line 28 on page 12 with the following:
“(b) obtain the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous peoples whose rights recognized and”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
“(4) The Minister is not authorized to amend a condition under subsection (1) while Parliament is prorogued or dissolved or after the fifth anniversary of the day on which this section comes into force.”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 30 on page 12 the following:
“(4) Before amending a condition or document under subsection (1) or (2) in a manner that would affect a body including a co-management body or an Indigenous governing body established under a land claim agreement within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and that is vested with powers, duties, or functions in relation to impact assessment, the Minister must
(a) confirm that amendments to conditions have been provided to that body for reconsideration and review in accordance with the applicable process and authorities under the land claims agreement; and
(b) confirm that the resulting conditions are integrated into the document, following the consultation under paragraph (3)(a). ”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
“8.1 (1) When the Minister establishes the conditions for issuing the document that is deemed to be each authorization that is specified in the document in respect of a national interest project under section 7, the Minister must make public
(a) all the conditions that apply to the project;
(b) the full contents of the studies and impact assessments conducted regarding the project;
(c) all the recommendations received from federal departments and agencies, provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples regarding the project;
(d) in an accessible written document, the reasons some of the recommendations were not accepted; and
(e) a description of the normal regulatory process that would have been followed if the project had not been designated as a national interest project.
(2) The document referred to in paragraph (1)(d) must include
(a) a comparative analysis of the conditions imposed and the recommendations received;
(b) an assessment of the risks of disregarding the recommendations that were not accepted; and
(c) any alternative mitigation measures implemented.
(3) The Minister must, not later than 30 days after the document referred to in section 7 is issued, make public the information set out in paragraphs 1(a) to (e).
(4) The Minister must table a report containing the information set out in paragraphs 1(a) to (e) in the House of Commons and, at the request of 10 or more members of the House, must appear, to explain their decisions in establishing the conditions, before the committee of Parliament designated or established for that purpose.”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
“8.1 (1) The Minister must
(a) ensure that the public is provided with an opportunity to participate meaningfully in any decision made under subsection 5(1) or (3), 7(1) or 8(1) or (2); and
(b) make all relevant information available to the public, including a detailed description of the project, any information received from a proponent, any other federal minister, or a regulator referred to in subsection 9(1), 10(1) or 15 or the Commission referred to in section 11, any comments received from the public and any knowledge or information received from Indigenous peoples that the person who provided that knowledge or information has not designated as confidential.
(2) The Minister must, at the request of a province in which a national interest project will be carried out or at the request of Indigenous peoples whose rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 may be adversely affected by the carrying out of the project, review the addition of the name of the project to Schedule 1 if circumstances have substantially changed.
(3) If the review establishes that the project is no longer in the national interest, because it no longer conforms to the factors set out in subsection 5(6) or it would cause significant harm to provincial jurisdiction or the rights of Indigenous peoples, the Governor in Council must, on the recommendation of the Minister, amend Schedule 1 to delete the name and the description of the project.”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 15 the following:
“(2) Despite subsection (1), if the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 may be adversely affected by the carrying out of a project, any environemental or impact assessment process of an Indigenous governing body of those Indigenous peoples must be followed.”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
“nents of those projects, as well as for the public and stakeholders. If an office is established, the”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 15 the following:
“20.1 (1) If an office is established under section 20, an Indigenous Advisory Council must also be established to provide guidance, oversight and recommendations on the office’s operations and decisions.
(2) The Indigenous Advisory Council must include representatives appointed by First Nations, Inuit, and Métis governments, selected through a distinctions-based process.
(3) The Indigenous Advisory Council must be engaged on an ongoing basis in the development of guidance, procedures and decision-making frameworks related to national interest projects, including the criteria for project designation, regulatory coordination and decision-making under this Act.
(4) The representatives appointed to the Indigenous Advisory Council hold office without remuneration and must not be reimbursed for expenses incurred in the course of their duties.
20.2 (1) If an office is established under section 20, a Union Advisory Council must also be established to provide guidance, oversight and recommendations on the office’s operations and decisions.
(2) The representatives appointed to the Union Advisory Council hold office without remuneration and must not be reimbursed for expenses incurred in the course of their duties.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
“Schedule 2 to delete the name of an Act of”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 30 on page 15 the following:
“(2) However, before an order may be made under subsection (1) in respect of an Act of Parliament that implements a land claim agreement within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or a self-government agreement, the Minister must consult with any other federal minister and any provincial or territorial government that the Minister considers appropriate and with Indigenous peoples whose rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 may be adversely affected.”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
“(2) The Governor in Council is not authorized to make an order under subsection (1) while Parliament is prorogued or dissolved or after the fifth anniversary of the day on which this section comes into force.”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 10 on page 16.
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
“22 (1) Any exemption of a national interest project from the application of an enactment or its regulations must be granted by a resolution adopted by the House of Commons.
(2) Before a motion for a resolution under subsection (1) is introduced, the minister responsible for the enactment must
(a) publish a public notice about the exemption not less than 90 days before the motion is introduced; and
(b) table in the House of Commons a detailed policy document explaining the exemption, its rationale and its necessity for the national interest.”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
“(2) The Governor in Council is not authorized to make regulations under subsection (1) while Parliament is prorogued or dissolved or after the fifth anniversary of the day on which this section comes into force.”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
“23 (1) Any amendment to the application of this Act to a national interest project must be made by a resolution adopted by the House of Commons.
(2) Before a motion for a resolution under subsection (1) is introduced, the Minister must
(a) publish a public notice about the amendment not less than 90 days before the motion is introduced; and
(b) table in the House of Commons a detailed policy document explaining the amendment, its rationale and its necessity for the national interest.”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
“23 The Governor in Council may make regulations generally for carrying out the purposes and provi‐”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
“(2) The Governor in Council is not authorized to make regulations under subsection (1) while Parliament is prorogued or dissolved or after the fifth anniversary of the day on which this section comes into force.”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
“Annual Report
23.1 (1) Within 90 days after the end of each financial year, the Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the status of each national interest project that, in respect of each project, provides an assessment of the progress made on measurable outcomes, including in relation to timelines and budgets.
(2) The Minister must cause a report of the review to be tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the review is completed.
(3) The Minister must publish the report on an Internet site that is available to the public within 10 days after the day on which it has been tabled in both Houses of Parliament.”
The question was put on the amendment of Shannon Stubbs and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
“24.01 (1) No later than March 31 of each year, the Minister must table in Parliament a detailed report on the administration of this Act that includes
(a) the list of national interest projects added to or deleted from Schedule 1;
(b) the status of each national interest project;
(c) a report on the consultations held with the provinces and Indigenous peoples;
(d) the concerns raised by the public and the measures taken to address them;
(e) the studies, impact assessments and recommendations of federal departments and agencies concerning the national interest projects and the measures taken to address them;
(f) the effects of the national interest projects on provincial jurisdiction and the rights of Indigenous peoples; and
(g) the details of the mitigation measures developed to address the various concerns raised.
(2) The report must be referred for review and recommendations to the committee of Parliament that is designated or established for that purpose.”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 16 with the following:
“24 (1) Within two years after the day on which this Act comes into force, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development must examine and report on”
(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 22 on page 16 with the following:
“section 5(2), and on the efficacy of the federal regulatory”
(c) by replacing lines 24 and 25 on page 16 with the following:
“terest.
(2) The report may include any recommendations that the Commissioner considers relevant.
(3) The report is to be submitted as part of the next annual report the Commissioner makes under subsection 23(2) of the Auditor General Act.”
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 16 with the following:
“24 (1) Within two years after the day on which this Act comes into force, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development must complete a review of”
(b) by adding after line 25 on page 16 the following:
“(2) The report may include any recommendations that the Commissioner considers relevant.”
The question was put on the amendment of Leah Gazan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
(a) by replacing line 19 on page 16 with the following:
“24 (1) The Parliamentary Review Committee is to review the Governor in Council's and the Minister's exercise of their powers and performance of their duties and functions under this Act and to report to each House of Parliament the results of its review at least once every 180 days while Parliament is neither prorogued nor dissolved.
(2) Within five years after the day on which this Act”
(b) by replacing lines 21 to 25 on page 16 with the following:
“the provisions and operation of this Act and must cause a report on the review to be laid before the Parliamentary Review Committee and each House of Parliament.
(3) The review is to be based on the common good of Canada, assured in part by the pursuit of the objectives set out in section 4 relating to shared jurisdiction, public safety, national and international security, the quality of the environment, public health, transparency, public participation and the protection of the rights of Indigenous peoples and linguistic communities.”
The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
Clause 4, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 1.
On new Clause 5,
Philip Lawrence moved, — That Bill C-5 be amended by adding after line 25 on page 16 the following new clause:“PART 3
Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act
5 The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, section 186 of chapter 12 of the Statutes of Canada, 2018, is repealed.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Philip Lawrence appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
On Schedule 1,
Xavier Barsalou-Duval moved, — That Bill C-5, in the schedule, be amended by deleting item 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 on page 17.The question was put on the amendment of Xavier Barsalou-Duval and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
Schedule 1, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 1.
Clause 1, Short Title, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
The Title carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
The Bill, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 1.
It was agreed – That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 1.
ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
It was agreed – That Bill C-5, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House of Commons at report stage by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 1.
ORDERED, — That Bill C-5, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House of Commons at report stage.
It was agreed, — That the proposed budget in the amount of $19,450, for the study of Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, be adopted.
By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the motions pertaining to the following reports: “Towards Accessible Air Transportation in Canada”, “Issues and Opportunities: High Frequency Rail in the Toronto to Quebec City Corridor”, and “The Role of McKinsey & Company in the Creation and the Beginnings of the Canada Infrastructure Bank”, adopted by the committee on Monday, June 16, 2025, be rescinded and replaced with the following:
That the reports entitled “Towards Accessible Air Transportation in Canada”, “Issues and Opportunities: High Frequency Rail in the Toronto to Quebec City Corridor”, and “The Role of McKinsey & Company in the Creation and the Beginnings of the Canada Infrastructure Bank”, be adopted; that the aforementioned reports include only the supplementary and dissenting opinions submitted in the 44th Parliament, 1st session, from those parties that are recognized parties in the current session; that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to these reports; and that the Chair present these reports to the House.
ORDERED, — That the Chair present the report to the House.
ORDERED, — That the Chair present the report to the House.
ORDERED, — That the Chair present the report to the House.
At 12:18 a.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.