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

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Albas's question is a good one. It's also quite technical.

I share Steven's view. There's no gotcha moment here. It's not a Groundhog Day clause.

Mr. Feldberg is prepared to briefly give you a very complete, technical answer on that very good question.

[Peter Feldberg, Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs, Major Projects Office]

If you look at the “Time limit for information or studies” proposed for section 19, you see that the information that is requested by the Impact Assessment Agency is requested earlier than that process. Then, on the “Notice of commencement”, that's the information requested of the proponent.

The proponent then has the time that the proponent needs to take. It's intentional, because not all proponents operate at the same speed, and not all projects operate at the same speed—

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

You're designing a system, sir, that believes that proponents don't have their ducks in a row. Why not design a system that says that if people come forward with a project, we will look at it within 45 days and outline the deficiencies, and then within 15 days after that, they have to respond? We start the clock.

They have to then get that information in, and they may end up with a no. Nothing that Mr. Feldberg has said says that the Groundhog Day clause is not a problem. Once the clock starts, Bill C-69 essentially lets the government suspend or extend the one-year clock without a narrow list of reasons, without limits on each pause or on an automatic restart.

Mr. Chair, legitimate pauses do need to happen, but why should the government get to referee its own deadline? Is this a real clock—a real hard stop of a year—or a hockey clock, with the final three minutes of a game lasting half an hour?

[Peter Feldberg]

The proposed bill restricts the government's ability to stop the clock or extend time to only a couple of situations: to coordinate with other jurisdictions, which is part of the one project, one review coordination process; to extend the time for indigenous consultation when that's required as well; or when the proponent requests it, to give the proponents time. We need flexibility for proponents, because they're not all in the same circumstances, and sometimes they do need more time.

Those are the circumstances.

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

I think some objective criteria would be helpful.

Now—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Albas.

We'll move on to Mr. Bains for five minutes.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Like you and our colleagues, I want to echo that my thoughts are with everyone impacted by the tragic events in Wainwright, including two families from British Columbia.

Ministers, thank you for your hard work on behalf of Canadians. I know that through your work and your engagements you've heard frustration about stalled projects and delayed projects ultimately impacting our growth. I was serving as a public relations officer in the B.C. government when we announced a new George Massey tunnel, which is an important corridor for supply chains from the largest port in Canada. That was announced in 2016, but we still have not seen anything done there, and it's now 2026, so I experience that frustration myself in a very important region for Canada.

My first question is for Minister LeBlanc.

Major projects have often involved several levels of government, each with its own responsibilities. From your perspective as the Minister responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy, how important is better federal-provincial coordination to getting major projects built faster?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Bains, thank you for the question. I know Steven will look forward to a chance to talk about the tunnel that you referred to. You're right; it's been announced and reannounced many times. The good news is that I think it's going to be built.

Mr. Bains, I think your question also picks up on a question from our colleague Mr. Ste-Marie. On federal-provincial coordination, we live in a federation, and different orders of government—they're not levels of government, they're orders of government—have their own sovereign jurisdiction or authority. It's important that if we share the objective, as most provincial governments have said publicly and privately to us, to move more quickly together, we do that work in partnership with provincial and territorial governments.

In many cases, proponents have to navigate a myriad...and maybe your example of the tunnel in your province is a good one, where there would be a series of provincial and federal reviews and permits that would be needed.

We're trying in this legislation, and internally with a cabinet directive and other steps, to streamline our own regulatory processes, but we are anxious to work with provinces to establish co-operation agreements to eliminate duplication of efforts between federal and provincial processes and build more projects under, as Steven said, a one project, one review framework.

We have to date signed agreements with eight provinces. We hope the remaining two.... The Quebec election obviously put that particular circumstance on pause, but as I said to our colleague Mr. Ste-Marie, our hope is to benefit from the great work that is done in Quebec and ensure that we don't have that duplication or delay with respect to projects in Quebec.

I'm confident, Mr. Bains, that what you identified as a challenge can be mitigated and managed. We're well on our way, and I hope we can bolt in the remaining work in the coming weeks or months.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Thank you.

To you, Minister MacKinnon, in your engagements with the transportation sector, what uncertainties persist in our current system that compromise investment and growth in Canada?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

There are several categories.

The first, obviously, is that people in world markets and world supply chains worry about labour stability. We've had a number of labour conflicts, in most cases short but nonetheless disruptive. A rail strike or a lockout of any length can set back supply chains by weeks and months.

Our supply chains are also fragile physically, and you have many single points of failure. I would point you to the Second Narrows Bridge in your part of the country, but there are many others. We need to be addressing those bottlenecks and those fragile parts of our supply chains if we are going to ensure that we can build the capacity, the trust, the stability and the reliability required to substantially increase our non-U.S. trade.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Bains.

It's over to you, Mr. Ste-Marie, for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ministers, I'm going to ask you two questions on two topics, back to back.

First, why are projects' environmental assessments, which used to be carried out by scientists and serious people, now being carried out by what appears to be lobbyists at the Canada Energy Regulator? Five of the six commissioners are oil industry alumni. The lead commissioner is from TC Energy, and others are from Royal Dutch Shell, the Pembina Pipeline Corporation, Shell Canada Limited, Imperial Oil, Canadian Oil Sands Limited and Cenovus Energy. They are the ones who will conduct environmental assessments. To me, that isn't serious. That's a huge step backward.

Second, you said that the first nations were consulted extensively and that everything would be guaranteed. However, they are all telling us that they don't currently feel like the Major Projects Office has consulted them properly. They all want to appear before the committee to tell us that what you're doing here makes no sense. What do you have to say to them?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

As for your first question, on the contrary, I think that it's a world-class regulator that relies on scientists and the specific provisions of the legislation. It assesses every project it receives according to very well-established legal criteria and processes.

For that reason, on the contrary, I think that a specialized regulator, in this case the Canada Energy Regulator, is perfectly suited.

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

What about first nations?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I completely agree with Mr. MacKinnon. What needs to be added is a comprehensive and very high-quality answer.

Agencies such as the Canada Energy Regulator and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, for example, will obviously work closely with scientists at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada and Natural Resources Canada. These are not silos. This is a way of having one entity responsible for the decision, but, all jokes aside, it in no way limits the ability to benefit from the scientific advice of federal or provincial agencies and the academic community.

As for indigenous peoples, we consulted them extensively in the spring and summer, when Mr. MacKinnon and I published a discussion paper. We have extended those consultations at the request of first nations, and we are continuing to work. I met with the Indigenous Advisory Council of the Major Projects Office today. We will continue to do this important work.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

Mr. Lawrence, it's over to you for five minutes.

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

Thank you.

This question will be for you, Minister LeBlanc.

Minister, as you noted with Bill C-5, Conservatives helped you get that bill passed, and we did so believing that it would help projects get built. The reality is that we've had only one project listed so far in 15 months. That's hardly the track record we were expecting or hoping for. That's why we come with some skepticism to this latest bill, Bill C-39.

Proposed section 19, which has been dubbed the Groundhog Day clause by my colleague, and rightly so, gives the ability to stop an application before it even starts. Could you explain to us who decides whether an application is actually complete?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

On the premise of your question or the preamble of your question, 27 projects and strategies have been referred to the Major Projects Office. I understand that you're focusing on one that has been added to the schedule.

More good news is on the way, and more is coming soon, but a number of projects have already begun construction, thanks to the work of the Major Projects Office in bringing a greater coherence to the federal approval process without needing to have recourse to the schedule. I think it's important to mention that.

Again, I understand that you're focusing on proposed section 19, but as Steven said, the intent and the plain reading of the language, from our perspective, is precisely the opposite: It's to bring greater certainty than there was before this legislation was introduced.

Let's assume that we're lucky, that Canada's lucky, and it is adopted. The ability to stop the clock, to have somebody go on holidays and say when they get back to some proponent, “You know what? Your project is missing schedule D,” and all of that has built a certain frustration and uncertainty that people have talked to us about across the country for projects big and small. We think this legislation is in fact a very appropriate answer to the exact concern that you've identified.

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

The question was.... I'll move on from here.

Maybe I can get an answer to this question: What consequences will occur for departments that continually delay by not green-lighting applications as they come in?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

There's no commitment to green-lighting. This is about getting a decision—

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

It's completeness. I'm sorry. My colleague says—

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

You said green-lighting, which would—

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

I apologize.

Will there be consequences for departments that don't grant completeness status to applications?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I don't presume that officials in departments don't follow the law. If this bill is adopted, it will become the law.

I have been with—