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

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

What I would say, though, is that they are responsible for the Crown consultation hub, and actually, that is an area of their expertise. As far as the CER goes, though, I don't believe it to be leading that part.

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

It's not actually a one-off. The CER will do its own consultation separately if a project is going to be regulated by it, rather than IAAC.

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

That's correct.

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

Is there a first nations-related department that has any role, or is it just the regulators who are in charge of that?

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

Is it just CER?

[Terence Hubbard, President, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada]

There is a governance body that's been established—a deputy minister-level committee—that will provide coordination and ensure consistency across all of these regulators.

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

Okay.

I do want to quickly go back to the national interest portion, because I think it is interesting, but there's no real legal definition in this bill determining what that actually is. Do you see the benefit of defining more specific language in the bill as to what a “region of national interest” is?

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

I think I've spent quite a bit of time explaining what a region of national interest is—

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

I want a more specific example. You keep saying “a big area”, but it's not defined. I could name Manitoba as a region of national interest, because there are a whole bunch of mining projects.

Neither the bill nor you today have been very specific. Are you saying that a certain section in central northern Manitoba that has a bunch of critical minerals could be designated?

You've been very vague in your language, much like the legislation, so I'm curious as to why there isn't something more specific in this bill, identifying what that could be. Are we just waiting to guess what might happen down the road?

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

Let me take a step back on that, because 76% of the lands across Canada are provincial, so obviously, we have to work with provinces as well when we're working on this. I'm worried about the way you're describing it, like “all of a province”. That is not—

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

Well, I don't know, because the legislation doesn't tell me what it could or could not be.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Leslie. You're over your time.

Dr. Martin is next.

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

Thank you.

I want to ask Minister Dabrusin about dialogue with indigenous communities and with communities in general.

I think we all know that in order to move projects quickly, there's going to be a need for both government and proponents to engage with communities that may be at differing levels of capacity to engage with us. In order to move quickly and have that engagement be authentic and real, we may need to support some communities in the process of building that capacity.

I'm speaking, of course, particularly about our duty to consult with and accommodate indigenous communities, but also communities more generally. There may be communities out there that are concerned about the potential impact of a project on the environment but that don't have the experience, the legal capacity, the environmental assessment capacity or the organizational and institutional capacity to be able to engage on a tight timeline.

Can you talk a bit about how our government—either in the legislation itself or probably in the regulatory and policy process that flows from the legislation—can build that capacity among those communities, so that when an engagement is required, it can be authentic?

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

Thank you. I appreciate that question.

I would say that there are two parts to it. If you are talking about indigenous people, there's the Crown consultation hub that I've talked about, which, to me, makes a lot of sense. I see that, in the past, for each specific permit for one project, there would be a different consultation, so you would end up in a situation in which one community faced multiple consultations, but it was all about the same project. Actually, it makes it harder to have a holistic view if you're slicing it through the vision of many different ones at the same time, so a big part of doing the Crown consultation hub is to simplify the process and to allow people to have a more holistic view.

The other piece is that the cabinet directive also includes that IAAC, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, would also work on coordinating funding for indigenous peoples. There are a couple of different places where that comes in, because that goes to the capacity piece too. One piece is funding to allow for the development of capacity. The other piece is just not overwhelming people with many small, disparate things and then having them try to stitch together all those pieces.

On the part about local communities, I think that's where regions and national interests can really come into play, because there is, as part of that, an investigation. I've talked about the environmental pieces. I've talked about the nature piece. There's also the part about culturally significant areas. There are public consultations, by the way, that follow a lot of the process as well, so there are chances for people to share their views.

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

Thank you.

I know that the legislation contemplates the ability for some work to be done pre-approval. I'm wondering whether you can break that down for us a bit. It could create, understandably, a little nervousness that we might reach a point at which a project...the wheels are already turning, yet we haven't made a determination about whether the project is a good idea. What do we intend by that pre-approval work? How can we provide Canadians with confidence that a decision isn't being made until a decision is made?

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

Thank you. That's an important question, actually, because I've seen and heard questions about that.

To be really clear, even if there were permits allowed for early works, that wouldn't be a guarantee that the project would actually be successful and approved. I just want that piece to be clear. I also want to be really clear that early works doesn't mean you get to do the whole project and call it an “early works”, which is the other piece. It's circumscribed. That's the second part.

I'll say that early work can be exercised only if it's in the public interest. However, also, to be clear, it still requires permits and conditions along with those permits. It isn't a blank cheque to get started on the project and, “Oops, while we were in that one year, we pretty much completed most of it.” It's circumscribed. It will have to have permits. It will have to have conditions. It's not a guarantee that there's going to be a positive outcome in the evaluation.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Dr. Martin.

Ministers, thank you both very much for giving us so much of your time. It was very generous of you, especially in the evening.

That ends this segment. We'll suspend for a few minutes and get our next panel in.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Welcome back to meeting number two of the House of Commons Legislative Committee on Bill C-39.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the new witnesses.

First of all, thank you very much for coming.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking.

Those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. Those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor audio, English or French.

Those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I would like to remind witnesses that committee members may ask questions in French or English. If you need interpretation, please take a moment now to prepare your earpiece and select the listening channel you need in advance in order to take full advantage of the time allotted for questions and answers.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses for today's last panel.

From the Association of Canadian Port Authorities, we have Daniel-Robert Gooch, president and chief executive officer, who I believe is appearing via video conference.

There you are.

[Daniel-Robert Gooch, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Port Authorities]

Good evening.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

From the Business Council of Alberta, we have Adam Legge, president, who is also online.

In person, from the Montreal Port Authority, we have Paul Bird, president and chief executive officer; and Julien Baudry, vice-president, strategic affairs and communications.

Thank you for joining us, especially since it's a late time in the evening. However, it's important, so we are incredibly grateful.

Each group will have up to five minutes for opening remarks, and then we'll take questions from the floor.

I'll start with you, Mr. Bird and Mr. Baudry.

[Paul Bird, President and Chief Executive Officer, Montreal Port Authority]

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your work on Bill C‑39.

The current framework still limits the agility of port authorities when they want to collaborate, coordinate their investments, diversify their operations and revenues or finance their growth. A number of policies in Bill C‑39 are a step in the right direction in providing more commercial and financial flexibility.

Ports are not just dock and land managers. They are drivers of economic development that must be able to invest, establish new partnerships and contribute to the performance of the entire supply chain.

However, to do that, we need a stable work environment that can provide good working conditions, but also maintain business confidence.

The Port of Montreal welcomes the government's intention to modernize the framework governing Canada's strategic infrastructure. We support the objectives of this initiative—greater port agility, stronger collaboration and more reliable supply chains—without offering blanket support for every provision of the bill.

Canadian ports need the tools to maintain and develop efficient infrastructure that serves Canadians, businesses and the economy.

This modernization comes at an important time for Canada's economic sovereignty. Our trade with the world starts at our ports, and as the country strengthens its trade ties with Europe, the Port of Montreal is a strategic gateway to that market, as it already is for Asia, but also for Africa.

It is important to remember that the Montreal Port Authority is neither the employer nor the employee representative, and it is not a party to collective bargaining. What we do is non-partisan. Its purpose is to ensure stable and predictable port operations for the benefit of Canada.

In the maritime sector, the mere threat of a shutdown can divert goods, as trade routes are chosen weeks or months in advance. Early intervention and proactive mediation can foster lasting negotiated settlements.

Our position remains balanced. The idea is not to reduce the negotiating power of either party, but to take maritime reality into account. A 72-hour notice provides little visibility when a ship from Europe can take about 14 days to reach Montreal. The mechanisms chosen must preserve healthy labour relations while giving businesses the predictability they need to continue choosing Canadian routes.

In marine transportation, reliability is a competitive advantage. When uncertainty persists, cargo is often redirected to U.S. ports. Once those volumes move to reliable alternatives, they are extremely difficult to recover. As Canada diversifies its international markets, success will depend on reliable, efficient and competitive Canadian trade corridors.

Lastly, the objectives of the reform must translate into a real ability to act. The changes set out in the bill will have to be reflected in the tools that govern port authorities, especially our letters patent.

New opportunities for collaboration will only fully take effect if these tools are adapted. The same goes for trade and financial agility: Ports must be able to diversify their revenues, invest and develop more integrated models. The modernization and harmonization of the letters patent will therefore be very critical.

To maximize the benefits of the expansion in Contrecoeur, but also to generate the revenue needed to maintain the infrastructure, as requested in our letters patent, we need to be able to diversify our revenues and think like a company that needs to secure its future.

The challenge will be to turn Bill C‑39 from legislation into action quickly and in a manner adapted to port realities. The world is changing, and ports also need to be able to adapt.

This reform is an opportunity to strengthen port agility, supply chain reliability and Canada's competitiveness. Its implementation must deliver concrete, practical tools.

The Port of Montreal stands ready to contribute constructively. This is primarily the message we wanted to get across today, so we're open to any questions going forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Legge, I'll go to you next.

[Adam Legge, President, Business Council of Alberta]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Adam Legge. I'm the president of the Business Council of Alberta. I represent over 130 CEOs of Alberta's largest companies.

The Business Council of Alberta supports Bill C-39. I rarely present to parliamentary committees about how much a bill gets right, but this one does get it right. Canada's government has taken big and bold steps here, and we applaud you for doing so.

Thank you. You've listened to the feedback and input from industry. You've adopted many of the recommendations from our “From Barriers to Breakthroughs” report, issued earlier this year. Our support is representative of a broad base of industries beyond the resources sector.

Let me start with what the bill gets right: the one-year federal review and decision timeline for major projects; concurrent federal and impact assessment permitting; making the Canada Energy Regulator the single federal body responsible for reviewing pipeline, power line and energy projects, as well as shortening their timelines for reviews; amending the regulatory thresholds for different levels of review within the CER; making project conditions more practical by ensuring that decision-makers consider whether those conditions are technically, economically and practically feasible; meaningful support for labour stability through early action on expiring collective agreements and other disputes; and improving transportation and trade performance through a transportation project office, corridor-level planning and the designation of regions of national interest.

There are areas in the legislation that could be enhanced.

First, make the one-year timeline binding, with meaningful accountability. Set a clear deadline for deciding whether an application is complete, and require public reporting on any clock extensions or suspensions, as well as on the total time each review takes. There should be a limit to the number of times the clock can be stopped or the number of extensions granted, and the regulator should not be permitted to ask for additional studies due to a proponent's extension.

Second, define public interest and set clear safeguards for changing project approval conditions. As written, Bill C-39 gives the federal government discretion to add or amend conditions on that basis, but it does not define the term. In the Business Council of Alberta's view, safe and responsible projects that, among other things, create jobs, increase productivity, attract investment, diversify trade and improve affordability are all in the public interest. A clear definition would also reduce the risk that a decision changes with a new government.

Third, we strongly recommend that political decision-making move to the front of the review process, so that investors know early whether a project can proceed. It would then be up to the life-cycle regulator conducting the review to determine how it can proceed.

Finally, we believe that the bill should introduce the concept of standing to ensure that any party wishing to speak or submit evidence at a project review is a legitimate rights holder or is directly impacted by the project.

Before I wrap up, I would like to reinforce where it will be important for the government to stand firm in the face of criticism of the bill. Bill C-39 does not erode environmental standards. It changes who leads reviews and how long decisions take. Longer doesn't necessarily mean better, more thorough or higher standards. Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Impact Assessment Act and their lengthy processes, we created a false sense that longer meant more rigorous. Older processes were repetitive, duplicative and inefficient. We can protect the environment and make decisions more quickly.

Additionally, Bill C-39 does not weaken the right to strike. There are, in fact, more safeguards in place now before the minister can invoke section 107. Strikes and lockouts should be viewed as failures, not ambition. Any competitive country's ambition should be to ensure uninterrupted work activity for the benefit of workers and the economy overall. Bill C-39 works to do just that.

To conclude, Bill C-39 is an important and welcome step towards addressing many of the barriers that have stifled investment and economic growth and stood in the way of Canada building things. The Business Council of Alberta endorses this bill, asks parliamentarians to support its speedy passage with the proposed amendments I mentioned a minute ago, and cautions the committee to not adopt amendments that undo the important progress it makes.

Thank you. I look forward to any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Legge.

I'll turn the floor over to you, Mr. Gooch.