Federal government reserves right to block major projects if conditions not met: LeBlanc

OTTAWA — Major natural resource or infrastructure projects deemed to be in the national interest will not automatically move ahead if the proponent of the project refuses to abide by a set of binding conditions, said Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc.

LeBlanc made those comments during his appearance at the Senate on Tuesday, where he was testifying on the internal trade and major projects bill, known as C-5, that his government is fast-tracking with the support of the Conservatives before Canada Day.

Paula Simons, an independent Senator from Alberta, shared her concern that the federal government may be seeking to frontload the consultation period and designate projects in the national interest without benefitting from a full environmental assessment.

Simons gave the example of a project that has the support of provinces, municipalities, First Nations and other stakeholders, but an environmental assessment finds it to have a “detrimental impact” on nesting sites, breeding grounds or groundwater supplies.

“I fear that, by putting the cart before the horse, you’ve gotten the agreement before you’ve gotten the information,” she said.

LeBlanc said he wanted to be “clear” that if a project meets all the conditions, that does not mean an “automatic approval or the issuance of a conditions document, and said the government will have the final word on whether the project can go ahead or not.

“Hypothetically, as we work through a project… if we concluded that the proponent was unwilling or unable to meet the reasonable conditions that we worked on together, then that project might not receive the final approval from the government,” he said.

C-5 would give the federal government sweeping powers for five years to quickly approve natural resource and infrastructure projects once they are deemed to be in the national interest, as well as break down internal trade barriers and labour mobility issues.

The federal government has consistently said that the question they would ask themselves would no longer be “why” a national interest project should go ahead, but “how.”

LeBlanc’s response suggests that the government would be willing to impose a veto on a major project, even after it is approved and is subject to a set of binding conditions.

LeBlanc was also asked about the extraordinary powers that he, or any minister in his position, would have on giving a green light to projects that are in the national interest and the idea that another individual could block projects for “ideological reasons.”

“What happens if the minister is someone, for example, like the Honourable Steven Guilbeault, known for opposing oil and gas?” asked Leo Housakos, the leader of the Conservatives in the Senate.

“Inherently, doesn’t this bill risk enabling politically motivated decisions that quietly block strategic projects and harm the Canadian objective?”

LeBlanc said he was not going to comment on that hypothetical scenario and said the “good news” for Housakos is that he will be the minister responsible for those decisions.

“We’ve known each other for a long time. I’m not an ideological person,” said LeBlanc.

“I’m pragmatic, and I believe very much that the moment in our country’s history lends itself to this kind of expedited, balanced and thoughtful process, and it’s in that spirit that I would seek to exercise that authority, should this legislation, of course, be adopted.”

In parallel to the Senate pre-study, C-5 was being studied in the House of Commons committee on transport, infrastructure and communities after the Conservatives voted to fast-track the legislation and for it to pass second reading late Monday evening.

The committee’s report is set to be presented to the House on Thursday and the vote at third and final reading will likely happen on the last day of the spring sitting, this Friday.

The Senate would ensure a final vote on C-5 takes place on June 27, at the latest.

The fast-tracking of the legislation has sparked fierce criticism from the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Green Party, but also First Nations chiefs and environmental groups.

On Tuesday, the Chiefs of Ontario held a protest on Parliament Hill to decry the government’s decision to rush through the bill without sufficient Indigenous consultation.

“Today, our rights holders have been very clear. C-5 is a direct attack against the sovereignty, the jurisdiction of every First Nation in Ontario,” said Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict, who represents 133 First Nations across the province.

In committee, Assembly of First Nations (AFN) National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak said chiefs across the country have been given “an unreasonably tiny window” to provide their views, especially when many of them are still fighting wildfires in their communities.

Woodhouse Nepinak echoed the Bloc Québécois’ proposition that it would be best to split the bill in two, to pass the less contentious section on internal trade, and take the summer to allow for proper consultation with First Nations on the fast-tracking of major projects. The government rejected the Bloc’s proposition last week.

“Let’s not start this session off like this,” Woodhouse Nepinak told MPs. “Let’s start it off on a better way, by respecting each other and working together more closely, rather than dividing and having a very divided Canada in a moment when we need to be together.”

Prime Minister Mark Carney had committed to meeting with the AFN in July. However, the AFN’s annual general assembly, which was scheduled to be held in Winnipeg in July, has been postponed to September because of the wildfires affecting First Nations.

Committee hearings will also take place on Wednesday afternoon and into the evening.

National Post
calevesque@postmedia.com

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.