Bill C-39 Committee on Oct. 26th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Desrochers.

Mr. Albas, the last five minutes go to you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to speak in terms of certainty after approval. Conservatives support rigorous review before a project is approved, but once government has approved a project and investment begins in reliance on its conditions, those rules should not simply change because political preferences change. Government would still need to respond to material new information, non-compliance or serious risk, but in part 1, division 2 of Bill C-39, there is an issue where the minister can unilaterally amend a project, surprising everyone.

Would you support an amendment allowing established project conditions to be reopened only for an objective reason such as material new information, non-compliance or serious new risk with reasons required for the changes?

I'll start with Ms. Guibord.

[Josée Guibord]

Our industry's primary need is certainty and predictability. We want a transparent and well-defined process and decision-making criteria for investor confidence. That's what investors require. That's how I viewed it as an investor. We support those clear rules. We support predictable timelines with stable regulatory frameworks across the governments.

The long-term electricity infrastructure requires investments measured in decades, not in electoral cycles. Whatever mechanism Parliament adopts should provide the confidence that project requirements will remain clear and predictable throughout the development.

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

Ms. Toussaint, what are your thoughts on this?

[Emmanuelle Toussaint]

In the mining sector, it's exactly the same. We need predictability and clarity. We don't want a series of requests. Ideally, a single consultation will take place. The proponents will then know exactly what's expected of them.

Once again, in a competitive environment, multiple jurisdictions have already adopted various pieces of legislation or different regulations. We must be able to ensure that everything remains as predictable as possible for investors and proponents.

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

Ms. Exner-Pirot, I have the same question for you.

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

I have never considered your amendment but, in principle, it sounds very good to me. In our federal regulatory system, we have a bad habit of turning a blind eye to ministerial overreach when we think it's a government that's conducive to that overreach and then having to pay the price when maybe it's a government where the overreach goes against projects. Like I said, depoliticizing things to the extent possible and introducing accountability to the extent possible sound very good. Having a reason why a minister might make a new decision or intervene in the process sounds like sound policy.

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

Ms. Guibord, in regard to east-west transmission, one of the other members mentioned the importance of that.

At some point with electrical projects and transmission, there is a marginal utility function where the further out you go, the less power you can share. This is typically why we have north-south energy transmission, which is partly addressed here in Bill C-39, to coordinate with a regulatory agency outside of Canada.

Just how realistic is east-west transmission? Is it case-specific, where there are certain projects where it makes absolute sense? What are the physics behind longer transmission?

[Josée Guibord]

There are definitely physics behind longer transmission. Our members are keen on evaluating those as they come, and they're specific to regions. They're not something that we can just blanket opine on. They will be specific. They will be at the provincial level, and they will be something that each proponent and the various utilities will address.

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

I don't think we're going to be going anywhere outside of Canada except the United States. Bill C-39 seems to specifically have that in mind. Do you get that same intention?

[Josée Guibord]

I'm sorry. Do you mean that we're not going to go anywhere but the United States?

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

No, it's just that it makes changes to allow the Canada Energy Regulator to work with a foreign jurisdiction. To me, that's the United States.

[Josée Guibord]

You mean when they're talking about international.... When we're speaking about electricity, that's our closest jurisdiction, yes.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thanks, Mr. Albas.

We do have a couple of minutes left.

Mr. Louis, I'll give you two or three minutes.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you.

Maybe I'll turn to Ms. Exner-Pirot.

We talked about timelines and investments. Can you speak from, let's say, an investor perspective? Can a timely no be sometimes preferable to spending years without knowing the decision on a project? Can you tell us about that certainty for investments' sake?

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

I would think so. I said that every project is in the national interest but, of course, it's only those that pass our regulations and can meet our standards. One of the problems in the past was that there was not a willingness to make a hard political decision, or maybe there was not the justification to make a hard political decision. If there is a project that clearly won't be passing standards and clearly won't be getting social licence, then I think to be able to justify a no early on is much preferable to dragging it out.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Toussaint, I didn't get a chance to ask you about those regions of national interest. You mentioned the need to sometimes study an area before. Can you explain the importance of that to your industry, how those cumulative effects work and the regional assessments that work ahead of time so that, when a project comes, there's more certainty as to what they need to do to continue to get that work done?

[Emmanuelle Toussaint]

Exactly, it is really important to de-risk those projects because, as I mentioned at the beginning, the investment for a mining project, from the discovery of a deposit until the opening of a new mine, is $1 billion to $4 billion. It's also somewhere between 15 to 20 years. There's a lot of risk for investors. Anything that can be done to help and support is important. For an investor, knowing that there will be electricity, a road, a port or a railroad is extremely important. One thing, also, is for the local communities.... It's not only to look at one project. The ask is really to make sure to look at the different projects and make sure that we are able to plan all together.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, all.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

That's all the time we have for this panel.

Thank you very much to our witnesses. We appreciate your contribution.

We will suspend now and get set up for our next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I call the meeting back to order.

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

I would like to take a few moments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of the screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. I'd like to remind the witnesses that committee members may ask questions in either French or English. If you will 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.

Please direct all questions and comments through the chair.

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

As individuals, we have Mr. Stewart Elgie, the Jarislowsky chair in clean economy at the University of Ottawa, and Brian Hong, a member of the federal government's expert task force on natural capital accounting and nature financing. From Ecojustice, we have Isabel McMurray, government relations and campaign specialist. From the Nature Conservancy of Canada, we have Lisa McLaughlin, vice-president of conservation strategy.

Each organization will have up to five minutes for their opening statements, followed by questions.

We're starting with Mr. Elgie.

[Stewart Elgie, Jarislowsky Chair in Clean Economy, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

I'll speak in English today.

I've had the privilege of helping to build many of Canada's environmental laws over the past 35 years, as my grey hair shows, and working with governments of all stripes. I'm the co-chair of the Prime Minister's task force on nature financing, together with Brian.

I'm here today to say we support the goals of this bill. Canada needs to attract investment and build faster. We also need to build well. That's the commitment in the Prime Minister's recent nature strategy. It says, “Canada will integrate its nature and economic agendas to support timely development decisions while protecting nature.” To do that, the government will encourage and “drive private investment in nature positive outcomes”.

This bill can deliver on that commitment. It requires just one modest change.

Project approvals must ensure positive outcomes for nature. That means they must mitigate and use offsets to address environmental impacts to leave nature better off. Our written submission gives detailed suggestions for how to do that, but let me briefly explain why I think this makes sense for the economy and the environment.

First, our three major competitors for investment—the U.K., the U.S. and Australia—all do exactly what we're proposing already. They legally require all major projects to offset their impacts and achieve net gain for nature or, at least, no net loss.

Second, there's wide support among business for this goal. All of Canada's major banks have committed to it, as have most major mining companies and many resource and pipeline companies, including Pembina Pipeline, the Pacific link partner. That's a lot of Ps.

Third, well-designed offset systems are also good for proponents. They speed up approval by about 50%, based on 30 years of U.S. evidence. The key is having efficient offset options, like habitat banks and conservation funds. Canada already requires offsets for some projects, but our approach is fragmented and unpredictable. Proponents often don't know until the last minute what's required, and they're left scrambling to find suitable conservation instead of focusing on their core business. Setting clear requirements up front provides certainty, reduces delays and attracts investment.

Fourth, that certainty also gives better outcomes for nature. It gives time up front to identify large, high-quality habitat areas in priority places instead of small, last-minute offsets where they happen to be available, which often happens today.

Fifth, private investment is vital to meeting our biodiversity commitments, such as protecting 30% of Canada. That's why the Prime Minister created the nature financing task force. It's to grow investment in nature-smart farming, forestry, restoration and conservation. What we've learned is that regulated offset systems mobilize far more investment than voluntary ones. It's about 500 times more. The U.S. habitat offset market generates about $5 billion a year. It's the world's largest single source of private finance for nature and it attracts large institutional investors. Many international investors, like the European Investment Bank, require all of their projects to achieve net gain for biodiversity.

Sixth, offsets can also build indigenous partnerships. They can provide significant funding for indigenous-led restoration, conservation, stewardship and guardians and build alignment with nations around responsible development.

Seventh, it can also help build a strong brand for Canada as being “nature strong”, which can be a competitive advantage for us. With our strong resource sectors and our vast intact areas, we can show the world how to deliver nature-positive growth and strengthen demand for our products and investment.

Nature is a deep source of pride for Canadians. It brings us together. The bottom line is that we can build fast and we can build well by embedding nature-positive offsets in this bill.

I'll turn it over to Brian for the rest of my time.

[Brian Hong, Member of Federal Government Expert Taskforce, Natural Capital Accounting and Nature Financing, As an Individual]

Thanks, everyone, for the time today.

First off, I agree with all the points provided by Stewart. I've seen those become growing trends during my career in banking.

I want to add one additional remark. Nature risk is financial risk. When nature is degraded, it increasingly shows up on the balance sheets of corporations, investors and governments. We've seen this play out in Canada with wildfires that shut down Fort McMurray or burned down entire towns, and flooding that paralyzes our big cities. These aren't just environmental events. They're economic disruptions with real costs to infrastructure, supply chains, workers and communities.

That's why protecting nature is also a matter of national security. The World Economic Forum ranks ecosystem harm and biodiversity loss as the second-greatest global risk over the next decade. Adding nature-positive outcomes in our project approvals ensures that we don't add further risk to our country, infrastructure and economy, and that the major projects we build can stand the test of time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Ms. McMurray, you have the floor.