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

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you for the question.

As a starting point, I would say that there is nothing in the bill before your committee that diminishes either the government's obligation or commitment to work with indigenous peoples and respect their rights. The same is true with respect to environmental assessments.

You referred to the “What We Heard” reports that followed the consultations, which were quite extensive. Mr. MacKinnon may wish to add comments from the perspective of his portfolio. Two messages came through very clearly.

First, Canadians want a process for advancing major projects that is faster, more efficient and more predictable. Second, they made it equally clear to the government that this must not come at the expense of indigenous rights or our obligations with respect to environmental assessment and protection.

The purpose of Bill C‑39, which is before you, is precisely to meet both of those obligations. It does not in any way diminish, and this is important to emphasize, the Crown's duty to consult rights-holding indigenous peoples. The government remains bound by its duty to consult indigenous peoples where appropriate, and to accommodate them. We have also included measures that reflect the desire expressed by many indigenous peoples to participate in projects and benefit from them economically. That is fully consistent with our process.

In addition, there will now be a federal assessments coordinator who will work with the responsible departments to ensure that the assessment component of the process is more integrated and consistent. This bill is really directed at federal authorities and imposes an obligation on them to be more disciplined with respect to timelines, not with respect to the standards governing their work or their obligations. Instead of doing things one after another, we can do them concurrently, share data and work with the provinces and territories. That's an important aspect that I hope we'll have an opportunity to discuss further shortly.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you very much.

If I understand correctly, the idea is that by the time the one-year deadline is set, a great deal of work will already have been done upstream. There will already have been extensive consultations. Is that correct? The expectation is that proponents will bring forward well-developed projects.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Yes.

As my colleague has just said, we have well-established criteria, assessment processes and requirements. Naturally, we will expect project proponents to submit well-developed proposals and very clear applications for approval. We will expect project descriptions that answer the necessary questions and are ready for assessment.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

My next question is for you, Mr. MacKinnon.

We have, of course, spent a great deal of time discussing the state of our transportation infrastructure and the productivity, or lack thereof, of that infrastructure.

In your view, how will this legislation help advance the work we're doing to diversify our markets and reduce our dependence on the U.S. market?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

That's one of the fundamental objectives of this legislation. It stems from the need to diversify our trade and commercial relationships with the rest of the world and to achieve the goal of doubling Canada's non-U.S. exports within 10 years. We're on track to do so, but we cannot realistically assure Canadians that we can achieve that objective with the infrastructure we currently have. That's why expansion is required, including in Montreal. You're familiar with the St. Lawrence River, which is why we moved quickly to begin work in Contrecoeur.

We therefore need to expand our infrastructure, but it's not simply a matter of infrastructure. We must also improve the efficiency, predictability and reliability of our trade corridors and supply chains to optimize their performance. Canada's geography is a blessing, but that geography also presents significant challenges. Ours is the second-largest country in the world by area, and we have considerable work to do to improve the fluidity of our transportation systems.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Monsieur Ste-Marie, we go over to you for six minutes.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome both ministers and all the officials accompanying them.

I'd also like to welcome the members of the committee and the entire team supporting us.

I would, of course, like to recognize my colleagues Mario Simard and Sébastien Lemire, who are joining us today, as well as Elizabeth May. I also see Patrick Weiler attending the committee's proceedings. It's truly a pleasure to begin this study here today.

My first question is somewhat technical. When I served on the Standing Committee on Finance, it was customary when studying a budget implementation bill for the department to provide us with an explanatory document setting out each division of the bill along with plain-language explanations. I don't know whether it would be possible to make the same request here.

I see Mr. Vandergrift nodding. That's excellent, thank you.

Since this is an omnibus bill, we have many questions. I will also be forwarding a series of written questions to the witnesses through the clerk.

I will now put my first question to the ministers. It's a technical one.

In my view, this bill has constitutional implications. However, your colleague the Minister of Justice doesn't appear to have produced or tabled a constitutional analysis with the bill. Do you expect one to be provided?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

That will be done in the coming days.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Okay. Thank you.

For example, 10 days ago, on Friday, October 9, Quebec's administrative labour tribunal, the Tribunal administratif du travail, handed down a strongly worded decision regarding the Quebec legislation that had incorporated section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. It found that provision to be contrary to both the Quebec and Canadian charters. Section 107 is therefore being challenged. In 2015, the Supreme Court also held that workers have a fundamental right to strike.

In this case, a great deal of discretionary authority is being conferred, and that appears to run counter to the charters. You're telling us that this bill will create greater stability for economic development, yet at first glance there appears to be a problem. I look forward to reviewing the opinion, because it doesn't seem to provide greater legal certainty.

Do you intend to invoke the notwithstanding clause for Bill C‑39?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

No.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Usually, ministers' answers are longer than the questions we ask here.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

We're just warming up.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

We're just getting going. MacKinnon is a windbag.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Yes, we know that.

You're proposing a “one project, one environmental assessment, one year” approach. If a project goes through Quebec, what happens with the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, or BAPE?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

We are currently in discussions with Quebec regarding the same type of process we have established with many other provinces, namely the “one project, one assessment” approach. The bill is quite clear that it applies to projects that fall within federal jurisdiction or have a federal dimension and are assessed by the federal government. Where Quebec environmental legislation is involved, we generally seek to reach an agreement on a project-by-project basis. However, this bill deals only with federal legislation.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Allow me to respond, Mr. Ste‑Marie, because your question is a very important one.

I am also the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, so I'm very conscious of what you correctly described as the need to work with the provinces. Frankly, for many years, Quebec's BAPE has carried out important and widely recognized expert work. Under the previous government, we had made considerable progress toward reaching agreements with eight other provinces so that there would be one assessment and one decision for each project, as Mr. MacKinnon mentioned.

We would very much like access to the work carried out by the Government of Quebec and by the BAPE. We therefore look forward to finding common ground with representatives of the new government once they have been sworn in, so that we can advance precisely in that direction.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you very much.

Therefore, if there's an incidence on Quebec legislation, it would be the BAPE that conducts the assessment, and there would be no one-year time limit. The BAPE is not accountable to the federal government, of course.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Exactly. The bill operates within areas of federal jurisdiction. Nothing in this legislation would require Quebec's National Assembly to amend its laws or change the way assessments are conducted in Quebec. Naturally, we want to work with the Government of Quebec and the BAPE to provide greater predictability. We're looking forward to the new government's ministers being sworn in so that we can begin those discussions with them.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. MacKinnon, there's a question that has been bugging me. It's about the use of declaratory power. We were talking about jurisdictions, but that's an old provision from the British North America Act.

Bill C‑39 basically uses the declaratory power to say that a project is in the national interest, at which point it becomes federal. Bill C‑39 seems to make such a constitutional amendment for all sea terminals. With Bill C‑39, you are using declaratory power to federalize all infrastructure, to which Quebec laws would no longer apply. For example, I'm thinking of the red dust at the port of Quebec. Quebec's environmental laws would no longer apply in such a case, because you're going to federalize ports through the declaratory power.

Is that correct?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Ports and port authorities operate within exclusively federal jurisdiction. Obviously, we ask all port authorities to be good neighbours and to ensure that any potential disruption to the local community is mitigated or minimized. I'm not familiar with the specific situation you mentioned, but the Quebec Port Authority would be expected to work on that with the regulators in Quebec City or the Province of Quebec.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Okay, we'll move into the five-minute round, starting again with Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and ministers.

I'll start with Minister MacKinnon this time.

Minister, obviously you're sponsoring the bill in the House, so I'm expecting you to answer to all of it. In part 1 of the bill, you have proposed subsection 19(4). Essentially, it says that a “responsible authority” must receive “all of the information” before it can deem a project complete and begin the process of starting the one-year clock.

Minister, I call that the Groundhog Day clause, because a regulator could ask for another study and another study and another study. There's nothing in here building the certainty and the predictability that if someone comes to invest in Canada, they can get their project on that starting clock, so what do you have to say about proposed subsection 19(4) being Groundhog Day?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Well, it's clearly meant to be the complete opposite of that, on the one hand. On the other hand, Canadians expect us to have fully compliant applications made when someone applies for a federal program or a federal regulatory process. We expect them to have completed their due diligence—the work, the analysis, the data and whatever is required in a given federal regulatory process. That's how you have a compliant application that can be studied with great efficiency and great speed.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Minister, again, there's no predictability or certainty. Especially if a project is controversial, another study and another study could be asked for. Why shouldn't proponents be entitled to know, within a defined period, what government actually needs in order to start the review? Why not make a simple rule?

For example, it could be one complete list within 45 days. Essentially, within 45 days of receiving it, they'll say they have received it. If not, they would have 15 days to say what is deficient, and then the clock would start. That would put the onus on the proponent to come ready to work, but it would also require the government to start the clock.

Why is it missing this? Why do you have a Groundhog Day clause instead of a starting line?