Evidence of meeting #2 for Bill C-39 in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was work.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Sydney—Glace Bay, NS
Thank you for that.
I'm wondering, for both of you, leading up to the bill, what the engagement was like with your stakeholders.
Minister Hajdu, for you, it would have been employers, unions and a variety of other stakeholders.
Minister Dabrusin, for you, it would have been environmental stewards, businesses, not-for-profits and NGOs.
I'm wondering, at the level of engagement leading up to and informing this bill, if you can unpack that for us as well.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
We had a moment of looking at each other. Who goes first?
I will say two things. There were conversations with many organizations leading into it. I think one of the most important pieces, too, is making sure that I highlight the fact that the consultation had 26,000 responses. We listened to what came in in those responses. In fact, we made some changes when we did this legislation, based on what had been proposed. That actually came out in this legislation.
I think the larger part about me consulting with groups.... I think 26,000 responses is an impressive number. We actually extended the time to allow for further consultations. Even more to the point, we listened, so that we could make this bill better.
Liberal
Patty Hajdu Liberal Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
On the labour side, we held two rounds of consultations in the spring and summer of 2026, and the participants were very broad. There were associations from the employers' perspective, union and employee representatives, indigenous partners and members of the tripartite advisory council for labour policy. That, by the way, is a new council that Secretary Zerucelli and I have set up, so that labour and employers can interact on a regular basis, together with the minister and secretary of state, so that we get a better relationship and have more frank conversations. I think the tripartite council was incredibly helpful, particularly in giving us, for example, the advice about making sure that the new measures don't impact already successful relationships and don't interfere with a process that was largely working for the majority of relationships.
We had 319 open written submissions. We held a number of targeted round tables, including with national unions, which were organized at their request, and we also had a minister's round table with both me and Secretary Zerucelli. We had engagement with more than 100 stakeholder organizations.
The second round of consultations was really focused on some of the key messages and themes we heard in round one. We went back, not with the same questions, but to do a deeper dive into some of those areas that people were talking about.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a question for Minister Dabrusin.
First of all, I'm going to make a comment. I was surprised earlier when you said that Bill C‑39 was a vote of confidence in the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and its scientists. In fact, Bill C‑39 removes the agency's ability to assess energy projects in favour of the Canada Energy Regulator, which is essentially made up of former oil industry lobbyists. I found that really odd.
I'll ask you my first question.
Every environmental group in Canada and environmental law experts say that Bill C‑39, not to mention Bill C‑5, is one of the biggest environmental setbacks in Canadian history.
Did even one independent environmental expert tell you that it was a good idea to move forward with this bill?
Also, can you provide us with a list of the environmental groups you consulted in connection with Bill C‑39?
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
First, I think the groups I consulted are already public, because our meetings are recorded.
I spoke with environmental groups and people who wanted to ensure that protection provisions were put in place, especially for species at risk. We also listened to them in that regard. We made changes based on what they said in my conversations with them, but also in broader consultations. As I said, 26,000 people took part in the consultations.
In terms of what we're doing for the environment, I'll tell you what I see. We talked about regions of national interest. This is something I talked about a bit earlier. In my opinion, this is an opportunity for us to conduct a deep dive, an in-depth analysis, and that's what the Impact Assessment Agency is going to do. For one type of project, it will look at the cumulative impact and species at risk, and it will conduct consultations with indigenous peoples.
I think this is a big vote of confidence in the agency and its ability to conduct these investigations. It's also a chance for us to get all the information in advance when we decide what we're going to do with a project.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC
Did even one independent environmental expert tell you that it was a good idea to move forward with Bill C‑39?
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I think that many people have shown that there are some worthwhile and significant things in this bill. I would also say that many people I've spoken with have told me that we need to do more to strengthen the electricity grid. They want to see that put forward. Many people say so, because if we want to have a net-zero economy, we need more electricity to be able to electrify our economy.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister Dabrusin, Environmental Defence calls your government's approach “an extinction agenda”. West Coast Environmental Law says, “This bill is slash and burn, not responsible development.” Greenpeace says your strategy is to “build at all costs, no matter the impacts on nature or communities.” Ecojustice warns about expanding extraordinary “Henry the VIII” powers.
Are all of these groups wrong?
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
What I have said is that, in my opinion, this bill actually maintains.... First of all, it's not just my opinion. When I look through it, it maintains environmental standards. Beyond that, there are changes to how things are processed. Having me make all permit decisions at the same time versus sequentially just makes sense, but that doesn't change the fact that I have to go through the process.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Let me ask you about that, because you don't, actually.
You identified four through schedule 5 of the bill, but the initial combined permit list leaves out migratory bird permits, leases and licences to use federal land, and permits for construction or vegetation clearing. Why did those ones get left out of the commonly used permits under projects like this?
Conservative
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I was saying I will defer to him in one second.
The way the process is set up is to simplify it but, again, as I said, without reducing environmental standards. I stand by that.
I've talked about regions of national interest—I think that's an important piece—but there are many other pieces in here at the same time. It's a change to the process of how we do things. There isn't a change that suddenly says what goes into the evaluation has been reduced.
October 19th, 2026 / 7:20 p.m.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I'll wait for the deferral. If you could send that information secondarily, from the department or the agency, that would be appreciated.
The Alberta Court of Appeal recently found that your amended Bill C-69 is still unconstitutional, as it allows federal decisions to be driven by matters outside of federal jurisdiction, yet clause 47 leaves those broad decision rules in place. I'm curious to know if you'd be open to amendments to fix that unconstitutionality once and for all while going through this legislation.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
That decision was recently released, and we're reviewing it to decide what next steps are, so—
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Can you try to fix the unconstitutionality while doing this bill?
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
What I've said is that we've received that court decision. It needs to be reviewed. We're in the process of reviewing it. That's how we'll guide what our next steps will be.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Earlier, you discussed that, in the legislation, IAAC would be doing the first nations consultation, and that prior to the one year they would be reaching out to impacted first nations and getting ahead of that.
The bill doesn't make clear to me what department or agency is actually in charge of first nations. It talks about a single kind of hub. Is IAAC going to be the one agency in charge of all first nations consultations for any project that falls under their jurisdiction and/or the CER's jurisdiction?
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Now we're getting a bit.... I'm sorry. I worry when we use words like “every project”, because that becomes a much broader thing that might not actually even fall within what IAAC would be involved in. I'm not going to go with the “every project”. The consultation hub—
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I'm just saying that it's not “every project” in all of Canada. There are many different projects across Canada.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Well, no, but the ones that are falling under their jurisdiction and/or the newly defined jurisdiction of the Canada Energy Regulator....
