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

[Isabel McMurray, Government Relations and Campaign Specialist, Ecojustice Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, honourable committee members. My name is Isabel McMurray. I am a lawyer and government relations and campaign specialist at Ecojustice. Ecojustice is Canada's largest environmental law charity.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to share our concerns about part 1 of Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act.

Our environmental laws are a safety net that protect Canadians from the harmful impacts of industrial development. They prevent and reduce pollution of our lands, waters and air to keep us healthy. They work to keep the species we love, like the orca, safe for generations to come. They are not red tape.

Despite what you have heard in this chamber, the bill as proposed would fundamentally weaken environmental laws and protections in Canada. It would drastically reduce their application. It would change how decisions are made and by whom. It would turn predictable, transparent, science-based reviews into selectively applied permitting processes. Our written submissions offer more detail.

Here I will direct your attention to three key changes. The first is that Bill C-39 would remove the sunset clauses in the Building Canada Act, making it permanent. The second is that it would allow cabinet to pre-approve projects in regions of national interest without assessment under the Building Canada Act. Third, it would allow ministers to remove or alter project conditions under the Impact Assessment Act and the Building Canada Act, even if doing so would make the project's impact on the environment worse or threaten species at risk.

Let me explain.

First, Bill C-39 would make the extraordinary, undemocratic powers under the Building Canada Act permanent. As you know, the BCA gives cabinet unprecedented discretionary powers. Cabinet may pre-approve a project before assessment by designating it as being in the national interest. This designation allows cabinet to choose which environmental laws the project is subject to and to exempt it from others.

At the committee stage, some parliamentarians in this room amended the BCA to include a five-year sunset clause on these powers. The intention was to limit their use to respond to the extraordinary times that we find ourselves in today. Bill C-39 deliberately ignores parliamentary intention and would remove these sunset clauses. This would permanently grant the government of the day the ability to circumvent the laws of Parliament for any project it deems to be in the national interest, regardless of the environmental cost.

Second, Bill C-39 would give cabinet the ability to pre-approve projects within regions of national interest. If a regional assessment has been conducted in an area, cabinet would be able to designate that region as being in the national interest and could name types of projects that are eligible within that region. If your project is eligible, it is deemed to have met all requirements necessary. It is issued an approval document without thorough assessment, and it may proceed.

Our main concern is that this power allows for the blanket pre-approval of projects without adequate environmental assessment, public oversight or ongoing evaluation of cumulative effects within the region.

Last, Bill C-39 expands the ability to amend conditions. When government issues a permit for a major project, it issues conditions that a proponent must meet. These conditions are not arbitrary. They are based in rigorous science and indigenous knowledge. They strive to mitigate the worst impacts of the project.

As proposed, Bill C-39 would expand the power to amend conditions. It would allow conditions under the Impact Assessment Act to be amended, even if that would make the impact of the project on the environment worse. It allows the President of the King's Privy Council to amend authorizations granted to a project before it is listed in schedule 1 of the Building Canada Act, which is an order of operations problem. These powers allow governments to weaken the protections deliberately put in place to ensure that major projects do not, for example, make a species go extinct.

Ecojustice urges this committee to reject Bill C-39. It is irredeemable and will eviscerate the environmental legislative framework that governs major projects. The bill enacts environmental review processes that risk causing irreversible environmental harm. Canada can build a strong economy without sacrificing our natural heritage. Faster project approvals should not come at the expense of environmental safeguards, wildlife or public participation in a healthy democracy.

Should the committee choose to move Bill C-39 forward, we ask that you amend the legislation to delete the clauses that I have described above—reintroduce the sunset clause in the Building Canada Act, remove the ability to create regions of national interest and limit the ability to amend conditions.

Environmental laws are not red tape. They are the means by which we protect our shared natural heritage and our ecological future.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

Ms. McLaughlin is next.

[Lisa McLaughlin, Vice-President, Conservation Strategy, Nature Conservancy of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear here today.

My name is Lisa McLaughlin. I'm the vice-president of conservation strategy with the Nature Conservancy of Canada. Since 1962, NCC and our partners have helped conserve more than 20 million hectares of ecologically important lands across Canada for nature and for people.

I'll open today by reflecting on that and noting that my comments are to be taken within the context of the federal jurisdictions and the authorities. In that regard, NCC supports the objectives of Bill C-39, but we recommend one integrated change delivered through two linked elements: first, a net positive outcome for nature as an explicit objective of streamlining the federal project pathway; and second, to enable a broader approach to addressing unavoidable residual impacts, including proponent-led offsets, habitat banking and in-lieu fee mechanisms.

A net gain for nature positioning matters because it defines where we want to end up, not simply how we manage the impacts along the way. The mitigation hierarchy is an important method for addressing the project impacts, but assessments, permits and conditions do not on their own guarantee an overall positive outcome for nature.

An explicit nature-positive objective would establish that expectation: As Canada builds more and faster, development should contribute to reversing nature loss rather than adding to it. It would also strengthen confidence amongst stakeholders and rights holders that accelerating development will not accelerate nature loss.

The second element provides practical pathways. Today, addressing residual-impact requirements is handled differently across federal statutes and authorities, and important costs may be negotiated after project design and capital planning are well under way. Clearer pathways with a broader suite of qualified offsetting tools, including third-party habitat banking and fee-in-lieu mechanisms, provide development proponents with more ways to meet their regulatory responsibilities, increasing the opportunity to address those residual impacts with the best available conservation solution rather than the solution that can be assembled in the moment.

Normalizing a broader suite of tools can reduce bespoke negotiations and late-stage redesign schedule risks, while also connecting projects with land conservation specialists and stewardship and land management capacity. It's also an opportunity to leverage development-related funding into a much larger conservation investment. Rather than a proponent's offset dollars funding stand-alone projects, mechanisms like habitat banking and in-lieu funds can allow dollars to become the foundation of a larger conservation project. The required funding can be combined with philanthropic, private and other public dollars to expand the scale of land protection and restoration. The proponent would still meet its regulatory obligations, but the investment can help unlock conservation outcomes at a significantly larger scale than the offset alone.

We have seen this in action. We have done many of these projects across the country with development and industry partners. I'll provide an example for you here today from working with Elk Valley Resources. They contributed $20 million towards NCC's $90-million conservation project, with a pathway for their investment to potentially address their company's future regulatory offset needs. The company's regulatory offset obligations are not being displaced. Rather, the investment became a part of a larger conservation initiative, alongside funding from other sources, enabling a nature-positive outcome at a scale that neither the offset investment nor the conservation funding alone could achieve by themselves.

The opportunity within Bill C-39 is to make pathways like this more routine, rather than more exceptional. In that project, nature really did get a positive outcome. This project has protected more than 450 square kilometres in southeastern British Columbia, further connecting a network of 7,000 square kilometres of protected areas linking Alberta, B.C. and Montana. These lands have provided habitat for grizzly bears, wolves, wolverines and lynx and protect critical habitat for two federally listed species at risk.

This is what a nature-positive objective could look like if we were using all the tools on the ground. In taking this approach, Canada would not be starting from scratch. As the panellists already mentioned, England, the United States and Australia have already adopted different forms of reaching net-positive outcomes for nature.

Canada could build on this experience while designing a system suited to our regulatory framework, our landscapes, our nature and our business needs. We believe Bill C-39 could help Canada build these projects while also creating conditions for better outcomes for nature, which leads to better outcomes for people.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Leslie, I understand you're going to start us off for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to start with you, Ms. McMurray.

If Parliament were to pass Bill C-39 unchanged, what specific environmental consequences are you most concerned about over the next five or 10 years?

[Isabel McMurray]

Thank you for the question.

I'm particularly concerned about the pre-approval powers that would be granted to the Canada Energy Regulator.

Section 214 is being amended so that the Canada Energy Regulator can pre-approve a pipeline of any length—or, more specifically, it can exempt a pipeline of any length from the need to obtain a certificate. Due to changes made to fiscal activities regulations by cabinet in September 2026, this means that a pipeline would not undergo an impact assessment at all, and an exempted pipeline would not undergo an evaluation by the Canada Energy Regulator. A pipeline could be approved without any rigorous environmental assessment.

There are other pre-approval powers that I'm concerned about as well, but I'll focus specifically on that.

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

Thank you for that.

Minister Dabrusin told this committee that Bill C-39 only changes the approval process, not environmental protections. However, clause 5 allows certain work to begin before final approval, as you just outlined, while clause 100 and clause 101 expand ministerial powers to change conditions attached to major projects.

In your view, aren't those conditions and approval requirements part of what is, in fact, aimed at protecting our environment?

[Isabel McMurray]

Absolutely. The ability to start construction before the full impacts of the project are understood, before consultation is completed and before indigenous communities may have disclosed impacts on their rights.... We'd get ahead of ourselves.

The precautionary principle guides environmental legislation internationally and in Canada. It says that we must look before we leap. We must understand what we're doing before we do it. By authorizing early construction, we'd permit environmental consequences without fully understanding the scale and scope of what they would mean for us in the future.

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

The minister has made these assurances on the record before this committee. I would make the assumption that you and your organization are not exactly believing her in that.

[Isabel McMurray]

We certainly disagree.

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

Okay.

Is there anything in this legislation that could prevent the government from using these new powers to weaken some of these protections, in practice?

[Isabel McMurray]

I think things could be added to early construction, for example. A requirement to issue reasons would be very important. That particular guiding context, in which early construction could or couldn't be permitted, would be very helpful. The ability to amend conditions issued under the Impact Assessment Act, even if it would increase adverse effects on areas of federal jurisdiction, is particularly concerning. Introducing a requirement that this cannot specifically be done in a way that would lead to a jeopardy finding under section 73 of the Species at Risk Act would be helpful.

There's an immense amount of discretion in the legislation. I think you are well placed in this committee to recommend guardrails on the use of that discretion to ensure that environmental standards can be maintained.

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

What are your thoughts about the minister's expanded powers of permitting, beyond what would typically fall under the environment department's purview? This is proposed schedule 5, specifically.

[Isabel McMurray]

It's difficult. As you know, the Impact Assessment Act was passed with the goal of one review, one assessment. Failures of implementation have led us to a multiplicity of reviews and a multiplicity of assessments.

The problem with the process within proposed schedule 5 is that the proponent is not obliged to provide the agency with all the information. There's an exemption in section 20-something, I believe, where the proponent could issue a notice to the agency saying, “We will not provide all the information required to receive all these federal authorizations”, and that would be permitted to proceed. There's a concern that permitting could go ahead without fully understanding what the impacts would be on particular areas of federal jurisdiction—fish and fish habitat, migratory birds, species at risk and those things.

The other difficulty is that these things are done sequentially for a reason. We need to understand the impacts of a project on the environment before we can decide whether or not these impacts on a fish-bearing stream can be justified or mitigated. Any part of the mitigation hierarchy can be applied. It's concerning.

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

Thank you for that.

Your organization, Ecojustice, has been.... We've received hundreds of emails, or at least I have. I'm sure everybody on this committee has received hundreds of emails in the past number of hours with the subject line “Bulldoze Nature Bill”, which is how your organization has described the legislation. Ecojustice said that “extinction could be the price” for passing this legislation. I assume you mean the extinction of a certain species and maybe not the entirety of humanity.

You're clearly a technical expert. Have you addressed these concerns directly with the government, or is this the first opportunity? In your view, assuming you've done so over the past number of days and weeks since the bill was tabled, are the Liberals taking the concerns that you're outlining today seriously?

[Isabel McMurray]

Since the discussion paper was tabled in the spring that outlined the proposal in this legislation, the government has taken the key message to not give the ability to amend the Species at Risk Act or issue exemptions to the jeopardy clause quite seriously. They've removed that from the proposal.

The legislation as written would still allow a project listed under the building Canada strong act to lead to a jeopardy finding with no restraint. The project could still go ahead even if it would cause the extinction of a species.

The government has attempted to assuage these concerns, but I'm not feeling particularly comforted that the way this bill is being passed will protect, for example, the southern resident killer whale or, in Manitoba, the woodland caribou, which are being protected through impact assessment conditions issued to the Lynn Lake gold project.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you. We're out of time in that round. I'm sorry.

Dr. Martin, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses.

I'll start with a question for either Mr. Elgie or Mr. Hong.

Mr. Hong, you're a leader at RBC. You're the head of capital markets or something like that. This is a bit of a banking type of question.

Is the notion of nature positivity...? I think we're all positive about nature. You've told us, though, that Canadian banks already endorse this concept. We heard, I think, from Mr. Elgie that resource companies already support the notion of nature positivity and offsets, and that, in fact, government often requires it.

This is for either of you. Why is it necessary to put those into law? What's the purpose of that?

[Stewart Elgie]

Brian, why don't I lead off and you can chime in?

[Brian Hong]

Sure. Go ahead, Stewart.

[Stewart Elgie]

Obviously, nobody wants to see us weakening environmental laws here. The real issue is whether we can strengthen them. Can we strengthen our laws and also build faster at the same time? That's what this is about.

The reason that it's important to put this into law is that, first of all, Canada does not consistently require environmental offsets right now, and we do not consistently require that projects do no net harm to nature. We do that sometimes, but you don't know as a proponent when you start what the requirement is going to be.

The previous panel talked about the need for certainty and predictability to attract investment. We don't have that right now. The U.S., the U.K. and Australia do have it. They have clear rules up front, which is why they have billions of dollars flowing into offsets and conservation, and their projects are achieving net-positive outcomes for nature. Really, this is a chance to show that we can have faster economic development and better economic development and lead the world in doing that.

I'll turn it over to Brian, because he knows more about this from the banking and investment side than I do.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Hong. Because I have a few questions, I'm going to barrel ahead here, so to speak.

This bill uses the concept of regions of national interest to better coordinate major project development. How do you see the parameters used in this concept, like regional assessments, for example, as beneficial or potentially beneficial to the preservation of nature?

That's for either Mr. Hong or Mr. Elgie.

[Stewart Elgie]

I'm probably better placed to handle that one. You don't know a lot about regional assessments as a banker, probably.

Regional assessments are critical to good development. In the same way as urban planning is critical to urban development, regional planning is critical to regional development. We don't have it right now. Right now, it means that every project approval has to figure out all the cumulative landscape issues in that whole region, and it's really hard on a proponent. They can't do it. Getting ahead of that by looking at the landscape-level questions, to me, is one of the things I'm most excited about in this bill.

The problem is that, right now, it only talks about the economic side of that planning. It only talks about planning for economic development. A true integrated plan would look at what the conservation, infrastructure and social needs are. If you had that, it would give you the certainty for investment to know where the best places are for development and where the best places are for infrastructure.

If these regions of national interest and the assessments that go into them incorporated all parts of good planning, it would be a huge advantage for development and investment, and it would really speed things up.

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

Thank you.

My next questions are for Ms. McLaughlin.

I want to focus on this notion of keeping our standards high and moving quickly, which we acknowledge are shared joint goals, though at times they can be in tension. Our goal here is to accelerate and to coordinate, importantly, because I think we all can acknowledge that we don't always coordinate our assessments as well as we could in government.

What tools do you think are in place now or could be in place under Bill C-39 to ensure that high-value habitats are protected when we look ahead, for example, through this process of regional planning that we were just discussing? When you look ahead at something far into the future, is that an opportunity, for example, to make sure that we route projects away from high-value habitats where species might be at risk, etc.? Can you talk about that?

[Lisa McLaughlin]

Yes, certainly.

Those regional planning zones provide that opportunity if, as Stewart mentioned, we bring the conservation angle into it. Not only can we be looking today at where the species are and what their habitat needs are for their whole life cycle; we also have, in Canada, the ability to project out even further. We can be looking 80 to 100 years into the future as we look at the effects of a changing climate and as we look at the effects of where development and infrastructure are going today and into the future. We can then use many of our conservation planning tools, which my organization uses, to optimize both where nature can be held and any offsetting might be able to be done.