Okay.
Evidence of meeting #4 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 nature.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #4 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 nature.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Sydney—Glace Bay, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to the witnesses for being here today.
I'm going to try to get to everyone, but I only have five minutes, I believe. I'm going to get right to it.
Mr. Elgie, your work has examined how environmental policy and economic competitiveness can be tied together. You talked about seeking investment in major projects, and that the investors—I'm paraphrasing—need it to be predictable and have a line of sight on that, while at the same time meeting environmental standards. I think everyone agrees with that.
I'm wondering if you can unpack, in the short period of time that we have, the elements of a regulatory framework that are most important to attracting investment while maintaining those environmental standards. Can you provide an example or the top-tier items that would need to be in there to suffice and to focus on the investment piece and the environment piece?
Jarislowsky Chair in Clean Economy, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
That's a really critical question. You want to have both. What you need are stringency, predictability and speed. If you have those three ingredients, you can actually get to a win-win outcome.
This bill is mainly about the speed aspect, and that's part of the equation. We also need the predictability and the stringency part in there. We've talked a lot about this bill giving more flexibility and more discretion, and it does. The key safeguard on that discretion is ensuring the outcome. If the outcome has to be a net gain for nature, then the flexibility is still going to end up with a good result. That's why this, to us, is zeroing in on how you marry stringency with speed. Yes, you can go faster, as long as the law says you have to end up with a good outcome. If that outcome is a project that's developed quickly, this is where the certainty part comes in.
These three countries—the ones that are listed as our major competitors for capital in the discussion paper on this bill—all have exactly what we're looking for. They already have it. We're not doing anything new. We're just raising ourselves to their level to get the stringency part to go with the speed.
Does that help? I would say to look at what the U.S., the U.K. and Australia already do. That is the answer to your question.
October 26th, 2026 / 7:20 p.m.
Liberal
Member of Federal Government Expert Taskforce, Natural Capital Accounting and Nature Financing, As an Individual
Can I add on one point there?
Member of Federal Government Expert Taskforce, Natural Capital Accounting and Nature Financing, As an Individual
It's just that one missing element on that is long-term clarity on that legislation.
One of the challenges we faced in the OBPS and the industrial carbon pricing system is that there have been a lot of changes, which reduces investability. Making that very clear over the long term is what investors want to see before putting dollars into these projects.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Sydney—Glace Bay, NS
Mr. Hong, I want to stay with you, actually, because I wanted you to just unpack these words for me if you could: natural capital accounting. You highlighted it in your opening statement, but can you unpack what that is? It does tie into what Mr. Elgie was talking about in terms of that greater integration of the economy and the environment.
I'm wondering about it both for me and for people at home. We're introducing—I think to a large number of people—some new concepts that need to be unpacked in terms of the definition and the intent. Can you provide that for us and maybe shed some light on it?
Member of Federal Government Expert Taskforce, Natural Capital Accounting and Nature Financing, As an Individual
Sure. The simplest way is that nature provides value. It holds value for communities, businesses and government. It's simply accounting for the value it provides and trying to protect it or increase it over time. If you're able to put nature on the balance sheet through natural capital accounting, it would actually increase the assets you have.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Sydney—Glace Bay, NS
That's very helpful.
Maybe I'll go to Ms. McLaughlin.
Your organization has extensive experience working with landowners, businesses, indigenous communities and different levels of government to protect ecologically significant areas.
In the same vein as my first two questions, can you talk a bit about the conservation planning and how that docks up to the economic development side and the environment side, or the environment side to the economic development side?
Vice-President, Conservation Strategy, Nature Conservancy of Canada
Absolutely. It's where, actually, the magic can happen.
My organization uses all the available information to look at where the most important places are to do conservation work for the outcomes we want. When we work with our industry partners, we already know that they also want to have good outcomes in the communities they're working in. They have some financial requirements that they're going to have to invest in offsetting in some cases, and in other cases, they just know it's good business sense. They're actually going above regulatory requirements in order to make sure they're doing the right thing in their communities.
What we can do together, though, is to take that and blend financing. This is something that we really have not unlocked in this country: being able to take philanthropic dollars from private donors who want conservation outcomes. If they can get it through blending finance of public dollars and other private investments, and having a big conservation outcome, that is a fabulous way to leverage financing.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
You're in the negative, but nevertheless....
Mr. Ste-Marie, you have two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC
Ms. McMurray, I'd like to talk about the Species at Risk Act. Bill C‑39 is an extension of Bill C‑5, and the laws Bill C‑5 enacted allow nation-building projects to bypass the Species at Risk Act.
Do you think the national interest regions that will be established by Bill C‑39 will endanger species such as the beluga whale, killer whale, copper redhorse and the 300 or so other endangered species listed in schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act? My question is about regions of national interest.
Government Relations and Campaign Specialist, Ecojustice Canada
I would say mostly yes.
The legislation as proposed would allow the creation of regions of national interest and would exempt eligible projects from assessment. This means that there could be projects in place.
There's a study right now, a regional assessment, of the St. Lawrence River. It is assessing the region. If a regional assessment leads to a region of national interest on the St. Lawrence River, there could be negative consequences for the copper redhorse, which is endemic to Quebec. That could lead to the extinction of the species in the world, so yes, to answer your question.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC
That's very concerning. Thank you very much.
You talked about it, but I would like more details about the five-year sunset clause. The final version of Bill C‑5 provided that, given these were extraordinary powers conferred on the government, they absolutely had to be limited in time. In Bill C‑39, that has been removed.
Could you tell us more about the importance of putting a time limit on these extraordinary powers that make it possible to circumvent the laws?
Government Relations and Campaign Specialist, Ecojustice Canada
You heard from an earlier panel that these laws are enacting emergency powers. These are extraordinary measures to circumvent the laws of Parliament and to usurp decision-making from elected officials to public servants. These must necessarily be temporary. We have a democracy in place that is elected, and this legislation prevents our democracy from operating as such because it removes power from elected officials. It allows government to circumvent laws that have been put in place by generations of parliamentarians.
When Bill C-5 was enacted, we were assured that these powers were temporary, but these powers were necessary to address the economic issues in place given the trade war with the U.S. By making these permanent, we admit either that there is no emergency or that the emergency is ongoing and our tools are inadequate.
If our tools are inadequate, then let us not amend the laws piecemeal. Let us introduce a new law. Let us repeal and introduce new laws that address the problem in a way that allows us to build sustainably so that we can still have the copper redhorse in the St. Lawrence River.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you to our witnesses. I appreciate the time and the contribution. It's very valuable, but we just don't have enough time. It's a commodity we could use more of around here.
We will suspend and get ready for the next panel.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
For the last time, welcome back to the Legislative Committee on Bill C-39.
I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.
Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating.... No, we don't have anybody on video conference. Okay.
Please make sure that your earpiece is available to you. If you need interpretation, make sure that you're comfortable with the settings. People will be speaking both French and English and could be asking you questions in either official language. I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.
Now I would like to welcome our three panellists for our last panel.
From the Chiefs of Ontario, we have Abram Benedict, Ontario regional chief. From Liard First Nation, we have Chief Harlan Schilling. From First Nations Summit, we have Robert Phillips, political executive.
Thank you, all. Each of you will be given up to five minutes for an opening statement. Those will be followed by questions.
Chief Benedict, I will start with you.
Regional Chief Abram Benedict Ontario Regional Chief, Chiefs of Ontario
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good evening to all of you. Aanii. Boozhoo.Shé:kon. Watkwanonweraton.
I hope that this committee is saving the best for last in the work that everybody's been doing. Yes, I got the notification from the chair. It's like presenting before lunch, between you and the end of the evening or between you and your dinner.
I'm Abram Benedict, the Ontario regional chief, a position that supports the 133 first nations across this great region. I have the pleasure of supporting them and advocating for them.
Today, with my colleague here, I participated in the first ministers meeting with all of the premiers—or many of the premiers—and the Prime Minister, talking about some important matters that impact our nations across Canada, including ours in this region. Much of that discussion focused around the current changes that are happening in the economy and around the geopolitical situation in which we find ourselves in this country. More importantly, it focused around a call for constitutional conversations, on defining the relationship between first nations and the Government of Canada, and also the UNDRIP legislation and the government upholding the United Nations declaration as well as free, prior and informed consent.
Today is a fitting conversation to continue that conversation, which is so fundamentally important to us. The Chiefs of Ontario are asking this committee to support our call to slow this bill down and have its parts studied by the relevant committees. As we know, in the process that it's going through, there are many changes in the legislation that impact us and that through a normal legislative process would be studied by a number of committees. We are asking that this bill be diverted into that democratic process.
Fundamentally important, it gives first nations, not only across my region but also all across Canada, the opportunity to voice their justifiable concerns and to participate in meaningful consultation. We believe that for any legislation brought forward pertaining to major projects, we must have equal consideration in the legislation, including the economic benefits, the impacts of that legislation and the environmental sustainability of any legislation—and also around protecting first nations protocol, respecting our decision-making and respecting the treaty and inherent rights that our nations have across the region I represent.
As it currently stands, Bill C-39 does not provide adequate consideration for any of these matters. We are aware of the growing economic and trade uncertainty this country is facing, and this is something that's not lost on us. These changes in the economy impact all of our nations.
However, Canada's using this backdrop to introduce vast changes to federal project assessments and authorization systems cannot be taken lightly or without extreme caution. Regional or economic development designations must never be interpreted as blanket consent by first nations for projects within their territories. Every project carries distinct potential impacts, and the impact on first nations must remain at the centre of every decision taken. We cannot legislate these responsibilities away.
We have also submitted a written piece to the supplementary verbal presentation that I am doing, a written piece in which we have many specific current concerns within the legislation outlined in greater detail.
However, most fundamentally, I'll be speaking today about the lack of the alignment with UNDRIP and free, prior and informed consent, and about the risk that Bill C-39 imposes not only to Canada but also to us as a nation and potentially to others.
Bill C-39 was introduced the minute the federal government returned this fall. Now it's being rushed through the concurrent legislative and Senate committees at extreme speeds, with extraordinarily limited opportunities for all of us to make our cases. Bill C-39 as it stands right now makes absolutely no mention of compliance with UNDRIP or FPIC, in direct contravention of Canada's commitment, which they have continued to publicly state. This is not respectful of the Crown's duty to consult and Canada's requirement to align the bill with the United Nations declaration act.
As well, the bill provides little opportunity for first nations to actually say no to a project or to a region being deemed of interest. Instead, the focus is on how this project will proceed—whether or not. It entirely undermines the principle of free, prior and informed consent.
While Bill C-39 tends to further expedite the approval process of major projects, in reality it makes it harder to build these projects in Canada. Bill C-39 has the potential to erode first nations' certainty and trust by circumventing processes that already exist with first nations—I must underline that: these already exist—and that first nations, Canada and proponents have historically used to create trust and advance mutually beneficial outcomes. There are a number of processes that exist in project development already that work well.
The bill makes enforceable project conditions arbitrary and subject to the whims of government, even though those conditions are critical for first nations to make informed decisions that impact their territories and their rights. As the federal government attempts to attract investments on major projects, Bill C-39 will create uncertainty for all. If Canada continues to pursue this legislation in the manner in which it currently stands, there is imminent risk that respectful development will not move towards harmony and a balanced approach.
While there still remains time to present amendments to this bill, we believe that Bill C-39 presents far too many risks to proceed towards royal assent. We're asking that this committee consider and recommend that its legislative pathway be altered as I have described and that a new process be enacted where first nations are involved from the very beginning.
Our communities are not barriers to this economy that Canada is looking for—
Ontario Regional Chief, Chiefs of Ontario
I appreciate the opportunity. I must reiterate that first nations are rights holders, governments, title holders and treaty partners, and are essential to building a strong, sustainable economy in this country.
Niawen'kó:wa.
Liberal