Bill C-39 Committee on Oct. 19th, 2026

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister Dabrusin, your one-year review clock doesn't start until the Impact Assessment Agency accepts all of the required studies. Why is it that you haven't put a deadline on how long the agency can take to determine if everything has in fact been submitted?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

The way the system is set up in this bill is to make sure to actually work with the proponents to have the full information at the outset, so that we can work through the system. That's to the benefit of the proponent, because when they get to the point where the clock starts, they know they have had the questions asked, they have the information ready and they've started with consultations. They have actually set themselves up for success in working through the system.

I'm not saying that's a guarantee of success, but they have set themselves up to have all the information. I think that is more helpful than having a system where they answer a little bit, and then we go back and ask another question and follow up, and they get strung along.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Could we not have both? Could we not lock in a cap, a required period of time in which, if that hand-in-hand relationship didn't work leading into it, there were 45 days in which the agency has to say, “These are all of the documents that are missing”? It is like putting a timetable on the government's side. Why can't we put that in the legislation?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

What we're doing is putting a timeline once the documents are complete. If a proponent, once that clock starts, feels that they actually need to stop the clock to get more information, they can do that.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Sure. I—

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

We're setting up what I would say is a very responsible system. I don't think I've heard from proponents that they're upset about the idea that we are actually making sure they get all the questions up front.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I would love to talk more about that exactly. You have your up front. I am a bit concerned that there's not an immediate requirement for a certain number of days to provide that information. Once the government does decide that enough information is required, the government can decide to start and stop that clock.

What's stopping the government from creating more reasons above and beyond any constitutional requirements and in fact delaying those projects beyond that one-year calendar that it's advertising?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I don't actually see anything in the work we've done and are putting forward in this bill that would ever indicate that we're trying to slow down the process. We're trying to do it responsibly. That means making sure that we're putting forward for the proponents the information they will need. If they want to get all of their permits decided at once rather than sequentially, we give them that as well. They can opt out of that if they don't want to do it that way, but we tell them this: If you want to get it all done, then you'll have to get us the information. How else are we supposed to make a decision?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I'm sorry, Minister. I'm talking about the fact that, once we start that clock, you have the one-year timeline. Let's say there are legitimate circumstances where the government thinks it needs to pause the clock. Why not put clear restrictions on that ability to stop the clock directly in the legislation? This is about gaining certainty for investors and proponents. Why not provide a transparent legal justification to be included as part of that? Why not put a cap on the length of the pause—not the starting point, but once it's started? The government could pause for an extended period of time. There's really no transparency for the proponent once that pause has started. Why not build in these measures that are meant to try to enhance certainty for proponents?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

The way it is in the legislation is that there can be a pause to work with jurisdictions. That's 90 days. That's the timeline. The other one is for consultations with indigenous peoples to be completed. I am sure you are not suggesting to us that we should not actually have proper consultation included with that.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

No, Minister, I'm not suggesting that. You have a one-year deadline. If your department misses the one-year deadline that the law you're proposing lays out, you must explain why and provide another timeline. Why isn't there a stronger consequence for the government's not meeting its own mandated timeline?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

As I said, we have the one-year timeline that we've built in. It's kind of divided into two. There are 300 days for the assessment by IAAC. Then there are 65 days for the minister and the Governor in Council to make their decision. That's the way the timeline for the one year is set up.

The pause is, as I said, 90 days. We have to work with provinces to make these things work, so—

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Minister, if you don't hit within 365 days of those two combined splits, there is no consequence. You have to say, “We didn't make the cut. Here's why.” That's not exactly a consequence. Why wouldn't you force the department to ensure that it's actually providing timely services to the proponents of these projects?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

We are providing timely services to the proponents—

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Well, not currently. That's why we have this legislation before us.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I apologize. I didn't catch that.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

We are not currently doing that. That's why you're trying to put forward this legislation—after 10 years of lengthy delays for all applicants. That's why we're here today, actually.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

What you have in this bill is actually our proposal for how we will work with proponents but also with indigenous partners and other jurisdictions to get things right. That means, yes, working through this to avoid duplication. As I mentioned, I actually think the idea of being able to do all of the permits together at the same time rather than sequentially makes sense. It actually makes sure that the Impact Assessment Agency would have more information to have a more holistic view of things when they're making that decision. We're improving the way this works so that we have better information to make the decision at an earlier stage.

I'll also add that the Impact Assessment Agency will work with a proponent at the front end to help ensure that they have the information they require.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Leslie.

Dr. Martin, it's over to you for five minutes.

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hope to be able to ask each of the ministers a question, but I'll start with Ms. Dabrusin.

I have a question about clean energy and the electricity grid.

I think we all hear from our constituents across Canada about the need to move quickly on our acceleration towards a green economy. We cannot talk seriously about getting rid of fossil fuels in this country if we are not building the infrastructure for the electrical grid. I think there is concern among some Canadians that this bill may represent a doubling down by our government on major projects that are primarily extractive.

I don't think that's the intent, but I'd love to hear more about how you see Bill C-39 allowing us to accelerate in the universe of clean energy and particularly the electrical grid, which to me is such a critical part of moving Canada towards net zero.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I really appreciate that question, because the thing is, in order to electrify our economy, we need to double our grid. The goal is to change how we heat and cool our homes, how we power our vehicles and how we power our industries. To do that, we need energy.

Canada is already in a great place, because we have one of the cleanest grids in the world. It's just over 80% clean, so we're starting from a great place. However, what I also hear when I'm talking with provinces and territories is that they're “grid-constrained”, so we need to build a stronger grid.

The electricity strategy that we released earlier this year goes exactly to that point. We need to double the grid, and that will allow us to make that switch to cleaner, more energy-efficient ways of moving around and, as I said, powering our homes and our businesses. That's the piece that we need to do. This bill fits directly into that, because it allows us to have the processes to make it easier for us to move some of these projects forward.

I mentioned earlier one project that I'm very excited about, which is Churchill Falls, because that is a massive amount of electricity. It will generate enough electricity to power every home in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver combined. That is a massive amount of energy. The other piece I mentioned was that it's the largest clean-energy investment in North American history, and that's happening here at home.

I'll say one more thing about that, and then I would like to talk about a couple more.

The other thing about building all of this clean energy at home is that we control it. For instance, if we're in a moment where Canada wants to be strong, sovereign and energy-secure with people in homes that are being powered by electricity, we control that electricity. It's not open to global variances out there. I think that's a very important piece.

I'll add something quickly, because I know you have more questions. There are other things. Just in the past week, for example, there was further investment in wind west, and that's offshore wind. As somebody who lives in Toronto like you, I'm also really excited about Alto; I'm excited about high-speed rail that can connect communities. I'm also excited about building interties between provinces, so that we can share in our system and make it more effective.

I could probably go on for longer, but I see that you have something else you want to ask.

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

I do, and I'm grateful, because I think, for all of us, those projects can't come fast enough.

I want to turn to Minister Hajdu and come back to section 107 of the Labour Code, which we all know is a really important part of this bill.

In the past, it's been used to end labour disputes in a way that has brought the entire section under criticism, from the labour movement in particular. I'm hoping that you can say a little about what feedback you have heard from the labour movement about why the use of section 107 in the past felt so egregious to Canadian workers and how you feel that this bill addresses those important concerns.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Certainly, I think the first perspective around egregious use of section 107 would be using it pre-emptively. We heard a lot about that from consultations with unions and the tripartite council.

What we also heard about, though, was the lack of transparency in particular and the feeling that one party was doing everything right, staying at the table and trying to be productive, but the other party was not. Then, when the momentum towards a strike or a lockout has accelerated, the aggrieved party, or the perceived aggrieved party, has felt even worse that section 107 has been used, in particular for a union, especially if they felt that they were really putting their best foot forward at the table and giving their best effort.

That's why I think the package of reforms is so important and that it's not just about the guardrails. The guardrails come at a very late stage of a very conflicted relationship in a very rare circumstance. These are parties that will have had previous lockouts and disputes and will have been unable to negotiate their collective agreements without government intervention for multiple rounds in some cases.

What I love about the proposal is that it sets people up to start changing those relationships. Ultimately, I hear a lot of conversations in which someone says, “Well, why not force them to do this, and force the guy to come, etc.?” This is human nature. You can force a whole bunch of people to come sit in a room, and they can stare at the wall and refuse to talk to each other. In theory, you've done your job forcing people to the table, but they're not actually doing it. You can't force people to be collaborative. You can't force people to be creative or innovative. That's why we have the federal mediation service. They help people look around corners for new ways of looking at old problems. They help make relationship repairs.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Minister. I'm going to have to stop you there.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

I could go on.