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

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thanks, Mr. Kelloway.

Mr. Ste-Marie is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome all the witnesses and thank them for being here at this late hour.

My first questions concern the Montreal Port Authority.

Mr. Bird, like your colleague Mr. Gooch, you mentioned that more commercial and financial flexibility is needed. Does that refer to the possibility of entering into joint and several liability agreements with special purpose entities or not? Can you expand on that a bit?

[Paul Bird]

What is important for us, in terms of flexibility, is to have the opportunity to create subsidiaries within the port, which makes it possible to pursue development through joint development ventures. We have limited financial capacity, but if we set up joint ventures with companies within a subsidiary of the Port of Montreal or other ports, it allows us more flexibility in terms of investment capacity and how we can expand the ecosystem around the port, which obviously makes us more attractive. I'm talking about everything that comes to us from the ecosystem around the port. That allows us to develop, with joint ventures and third parties, by following financial models that we can now develop with subsidiaries within the company. It enables us now, today, to develop this ecosystem, which we were previously unable to do ourselves through our revenues.

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

Okay, thank you.

This way of doing things, with associated businesses, does not exist in any port in Canada. That's what would change here. You would be able to get the cash flow to further develop your activities. Is that correct?

[Paul Bird]

That's correct.

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

Okay.

What activities involving buildings and property not adjacent to navigable waters could be carried out by such an entity? You named them. Can you come back to that and provide a bit more detail?

[Paul Bird]

It's not complicated. If we look at the various models south of the border or the European models, we see that there is infrastructure on port territory that is not necessarily directly affiliated. These are what we call inland ports. This allows us to develop smart logistics chains that are much more fluid. When we have infrastructure downstream or upstream of existing infrastructure, it helps support a better integrated logistics chain. Through this type of agreement, the port now has greater responsibility for a door-to-door or end-to-end supply chain. We are able to integrate or affiliate with international, national or regional players to develop supply chains.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to change topic.

According to Bill C‑39, each port authority must establish an indigenous advisory committee, which must be consulted at least once a year on port activities. Do you have any comments on that?

[Paul Bird]

As part of our Contrecoeur port expansion project, we went through the process before Bill C‑5 was passed. I think it took us six to seven years to complete the process.

Consultations with first nations began upstream of the project and have always been part of Port of Montreal operations. The important thing is that the annual consultation be rigorous, that it be an obligation for the port authority, but also that it involve a continuity in following up on files concerning the port's activities in which first nations are indirectly or directly involved.

In the permit application process, there are consultations, but in the port administration process, there is also an annual consultation and follow-up of not only environmental, but also financial or technical issues, in terms of the port's operation and activities. It's a matter of understanding the ecosystem and, above all, understanding the port model and port traffic. You know, ports handle rivers and water intakes that affect the territories of indigenous peoples. There's a lot of transparency required and explanations to be given on the increase in volume and on how the flow is increasing and impacting their environment.

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

There is an annual follow-up meeting. Is that frequent enough? Do you have time to go over everything?

[Paul Bird]

I would say that, in general, we need more than one meeting a year. We set themes, based on first nations experts and the number of first nations that are there. It also depends on that. These are annual meetings with a number of themes and sequences.

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

Okay.

I have one last question. My time is running out.

What issues do you think affect the cohabitation between port activities and neighbouring communities, including indigenous and non-indigenous communities?

[Paul Bird]

I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question.

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

I'm talking about the relationship between your operations and the people who live nearby, whether they're indigenous or non-indigenous. What are the main issues in your view?

[Paul Bird]

We don't really have any issues with first nations, because we built the port infrastructure in collaboration with them. We've been transparent from day one. We sought their input on the measures we're taking to mitigate noise, light, dust and traffic. This transparency and the long-standing relationship with the Montreal Port Authority go way back. They've been working with us for more than 15 years. This relationship of trust and the discipline of holding annual meetings focused on specific issues and follow-up actions have made this approach successful for the first nations partners involved and the Montreal Port Authority.

That's how we were able to navigate the permitting process with Fisheries and Oceans Canada for work in the water and on the land. This successful approach has become the model we use at the port. It was a lengthy process, however. It didn't happen quickly. It took a very long time—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I'm going to have to stop you there.

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

Mr. Lawrence is next.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Thank you.

My questions will be for you, Mr. Legge.

I want to get a little context as to what happened before Bill C-39. Could you perhaps briefly tell us the impact on Alberta of the Trudeau era tanker ban and other regulations from this federal government?

[Adam Legge]

Well, a combination of policies has made it difficult to attract investment for the resource sector. There's a whole host of things, whether that was the original version of the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69, or Bill C-48, which made it so that oil tankers can't come off the north coast. Also, there is a significant amount of concern around the oil and gas emissions cap and the clean electricity regulations.

With the exception of Bill C-48, we're very pleased to see that those policies have been unwound. I think we're on the cusp of a significant renaissance of the oil and gas sector here in Canada to make Canada able to take advantage of the opportunities globally to get our product to international markets.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Legge.

I would be absolutely delighted if we did see a renaissance of the Alberta oil industry.

I don't know, but maybe you could enlighten me: Did your organization support Bill C-5?

[Adam Legge]

Yes, we did.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Okay. Our party did as well.

I'm wondering if you share our disappointment that only one project has been listed so far in 15 months.

[Adam Legge]

It's a complicated process to coordinate all of the input and the reviews from a host of different departments across government, so there is opportunity to accelerate.

We're also talking about this time last year, when the organization was stood up. I don't think we should underestimate the amount of effort it takes to get all of that brand new set-up, to get the teams working together and to have the power to review a whole host of projects.

Obviously, speed is both the objective and the ambition. We're delighted to see that Pacific link is the first project that's come through designated as a project of national interest. Through continued operation, I think the team will be able to designate more in the coming days and weeks.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

I'll tell you my concern. Perhaps you can say whether you agree or disagree with it.

With Bill C-39, there are absolutely zero consequences if in fact timelines are not met by the regulators. I mean zero. They have to go back, create a new plan and then do it again, and just explain why they didn't. If your members don't abide by the law, they face fines, penalties and even incarceration if they don't do what the laws of the land say, the laws of what the government says, but in ultimate hypocrisy, the regulator, the actual government, which is supposed to be overseeing this, faces no consequences if it doesn't abide by the law.

Do you have any of these same concerns?

[Adam Legge]

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we do feel that the timeline should be binding on the government. You have to factor in whether it's a government or a proponent stopping the clock. That should be a factor in the consideration, but there should be firm timelines and commitments. One of the ultimate potential options is that if a project is not approved within the one-year timeline, it is deemed approved as of right. Of course, you'd have to factor in the circumstances around that, but we do think there should be a binding time commitment with some sort of consequence or, conversely, that it's deemed approved if the timeline isn't hit.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

I think that is an excellent suggestion. It's one that merits research in terms of the approval, as you say, by right. In other words, if in fact it is approved until it's not approved, and if in fact the regulators.... It has to be the regulators, not the proponent. The proponent is responsible for slowing the progress. They bear that responsibility, but if in fact it's the regulators who flout the law and fail to meet timelines, it is approved. I think that's very much worth a discussion going forward.

I want to go back, though, to one of the reasons Bill C-5 and Bill C-39 were put in place. It was because of some of the disruptions that occurred. Could you describe the chaotic business environment that was created by this government's failure to manage certainty in the economy?