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

[Emmanuelle Toussaint]

Yes. We're not asking for a new organization to conduct these analyses. The processes already in place work well. We also remind you that this must be done in compliance with existing agreements on territories where there are indigenous communities.

Ultimately, once a proponent's project has passed the BAPE stage and so forth, Canada needs to quickly approve the project afterwards.

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

Okay. Thank you.

For my next question, I'll give a long introduction. This question is for you and Ms. Guibord.

During the first hour of today's meeting, we were joined by constitutional expert Maxime St‑Hilaire. He expressed concern about the path that the government is taking to speed up projects. The Barreau du Québec has just submitted a brief on Bill C‑39 that makes the same point. Mr. St‑Hilaire told us that Bill C‑39 is basically emergency legislation, just like Bill C‑5. Yet if we want to uphold the rule of law, emergency legislation must be temporary and subject to strict parliamentary oversight. This isn't happening here. He told us that speeding up assessments and reducing paperwork is different from overriding the legislation. These are two different things. He reminded us of the need to uphold the rule of law.

I'll now quote two excerpts from the Barreau du Québec's brief. It states the following:

The Barreau du Québec's main concern regarding the bill lies less in the one‑time acceleration of certain projects than in the establishment of permanent and exceptional mechanisms that would exempt these projects from legal regimes specifically designed to ensure the legitimacy, transparency and legality of government action.

The bottom line is that legislation exists and must be adhered to.

I'll quote the end of the introduction:

The Barreau du Québec believes that, if environmental assessment processes or mechanisms for consulting indigenous communities do indeed contain shortcomings that cause delays or leave blind spots, the appropriate response is to reform these regimes rather than to create parallel workarounds.

The constitutional expert Maxime St‑Hilaire and the Barreau du Québec argue that, if problems arise with the current legislation and it's too long or too difficult to uphold, it would be better to amend the legislation rather than to enact emergency legislation—as we're doing here—that circumvents the legislation.

I wanted to hear what you both think about this.

Ms. Guibord, let's take the example of Hydro‑Québec and the Fisheries Act. Hydro‑Québec was told that it couldn’t change the water levels in its dams because doing so would harm the fish. Yet the whole point of a dam is to vary the water level. Wouldn't it be better to amend the legislation on this matter and make the change permanent, rather than talking about circumventing the current legislation and creating two regimes for temporary projects?

Ms. Guibord, please go first. Ms. Toussaint can speak next. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

[Josée Guibord]

I won't comment on the constitutionality of this matter. In short, the bill amends a number of pieces of legislation, including the Fisheries Act. The bill, as currently drafted, doesn't change this concept. However, we recommend that this aspect be changed in the Fisheries Act.

Now let's talk about the environment and indigenous communities.

In terms of the environment, we can see that the goal is to make it easier to obtain approvals. This doesn't necessarily mean that the processes or standards will be changed.

Regarding the goal related to indigenous people, we can see that indigenous people are increasingly participating in our projects and becoming owners more often, for example. Generally speaking, simplifying and speeding up the processes also benefits them. The bill won't affect the involvement of indigenous people or the consultation process with them.

When it comes to the Fisheries Act, once again, the goal concerns the current assets and hydroelectric facilities. This legislation applies to hydroelectric facilities built at a time when the legislation allowed for certain regimes. The impact of rectifying the permitted practices at these hydroelectric facilities would be astronomical.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Toussaint, you have one minute left.

[Emmanuelle Toussaint]

As I said at the start, we have no intention of circumventing any legislation or regulations. The mining industry is truly responsible. We believe that all environmental legislation matters, as do the relationships with indigenous communities. The consultation and accommodation processes are in place and they matter. However, there are ways to speed up the process by changing the method for handling cases and by designating regions of national interest. The goal is to better align infrastructure needs with the existing communities. Multiple mining projects could benefit from this improved alignment.

We have no intention of circumventing any legislation. We really want to work together more effectively and to collaborate better.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Mr. Lawrence, we'll go to you for five minutes.

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

I'm going to go to Ms. Exner-Pirot from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute first.

In my riding is Wesleyville, which will be the largest new nuclear facility built in North America, if in fact it goes forward.

You had mentioned in your earlier statement that you'd like to see greater streamlining when it comes to the nuclear approval process. I was wondering if you could expand upon that.

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

It is primarily to do with uranium mining. Obviously, nuclear needs a lot of social licence to survive, so there's maybe more of a process. For nuclear projects, that makes sense. I think everyone's very pleased that the Impact Assessment Act has been taken out of the CNSC. That's very good streamlining.

In terms of uranium mining, if you're a uranium miner, you think you're just a miner. Of course, then you have the CNSC overlay. In terms of some of the additional burdens, I think of public hearings, for example. Normally a mine would not have to do public hearings, but it has to do CNSC public hearings. To the extent possible, treat uranium mining as mining and then treat nuclear projects as nuclear projects. Don't impose all the CNSC requirements onto mining that rewire them for nuclear projects.

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

Thank you very much.

This is for the same witness but on a slightly different topic.

In my seven years here, and I'm now approaching 50 years old, I've become a little skeptical. I've seen that all that glitters is not gold, it turns out. Unlike my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are a little more optimistic, I'm a bit of a stick-in-the-mud.

Specifically, I'm talking about the accountability under this act. Could you tell me what consequences the government or any regulator would face if, in fact, they don't meet the 300-day standard?

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

I think it's difficult to hold them accountable, and I think there are some loopholes. I like the legislation because it would create an expectation of one project, one review, one year. It's a strong political signal to the bureaucracy. For a lot of industry, there is skepticism, like you have, of the willingness or the ability of the bureaucracy to do things faster. With that expectation of a year, if you go over a year, people will be asking questions and pointing at it. Even a dashboard....

There is some transparency, if you look now, on projects going through and the stage that they're at. That's very helpful. Having more metrics to show people how long it takes to go through the IAA process or the CER,, for example, would help to enhance that accountability.

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

I think those are all fine points, but here is my fear. I've been at the public accounts committee and I've heard senior government officials say, “Yes, I failed to deliver, but we have a plan.” They come back a year later and say, yes, they failed again, but now they have a plan to get on the plan again.

Here's what I think will happen. I hope I'm wrong, I really do. I think they will fail consistently to meet this standard. We'll be back again in a year or two, and we'll have the “building Canada stronger” plan, which once again will fail to get projects built, and we won't see shovels go into the ground.

Would you support, for example, an amendment highlighting that where regulators or the government fails, they'd have to publish or, in other words, name and shame those regulators, agencies or government officials who are failing to meet these deadlines?

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

I would resist using the word “shame”, but I think, like I said, that having a dashboard.... There are many regulatory agencies that are looking at improving permitting and that have introduced the concept of dashboards, or maybe something even more transparent or more accessible to the average Canadian, showing how long it takes projects to get through each stage and where maybe there are some agencies or some regulators that are taking a lot longer than others. I always think that sunshine is the best form of accountability.

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

I agree that sunshine is the best disinfectant. Once again, my fear is that if we don't really shine this light and we don't put in law the requirement to highlight the facts to the public.... Most folks are busy trying to get their kids to school, trying to get to work and back, and trying to earn a living. It won't come to their attention that regulator X23 has missed project 456. I think we really need to shine a light on that. Don't you think that's a reasonable approach?

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

I think it's reasonable to ask for accountability from the regulators on the amount of time it takes them to grant permits and approve projects.

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

Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.

Ms. Desrochers is next.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for joining us today to continue this discussion.

I'll start with the Québec Mining Association.

You already spoke briefly earlier about how Bill C‑39 will truly help Quebec's industry improve its competitiveness. I believe that we were discussing a loss of competitiveness that mainly stems from the bureaucratic burden.

Of course, the Prime Minister has pledged to make Canada an energy superpower, both in the traditional energy sector and in the clean energy sector.

Can you talk about the role that Quebec's critical minerals can play in this energy transition? You touched on this earlier, but I would like you to elaborate on it. How can this help move projects forward more quickly?

[Emmanuelle Toussaint]

Yes. Absolutely.

Critical and strategic minerals are important for the energy transition, particularly in the transportation sector. We aren't just talking about the electrification of transportation. All vehicles require various components that contain critical and strategic minerals. These minerals are also important for renewable energy. For example, to transmit electricity and build distribution lines, we need critical and strategic minerals, particularly copper. To use solar or wind energy, we need batteries to store the energy. All these batteries require critical and strategic minerals.

One other thing is worth mentioning. We talk a great deal about the energy transition, and rightly so. However, there are also all the important national security considerations. We really need these minerals in our daily lives. We can also talk about the medical field. We can really talk about all the aspects of our lives that depend on these minerals.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I gather that we're in a race and we need to catch up given our lag in resource development. However, we need to do this properly. We must do it the right way.

I think that a historic meeting took place today involving the Prime Minister, the provincial and territorial premiers and the first nations chiefs. I think that this shows that we're listening.

I would like you to talk a bit about your members' experience and how the bill will make it possible to carry out coordinated federal consultations with the first nations and the Innu people. Do you think that this is a positive development?

[Emmanuelle Toussaint]

Yes, it's definitely a positive development. The crown already has an obligation to consult and accommodate. We at the Québec Mining Association really hope to be able to fully uphold this commitment. Our members consistently recommend and adhere to the practice of ensuring that consultations take place from the outset.

My colleague, Ms. Tremblay, may want to weigh in.

[Stéphanie Tremblay, Lead, Sustainability, Québec Mining Association]

Yes. We also need a consultation plan that aligns with Quebec's procedures in order to avoid duplication in consultations with indigenous people. We know about consultation fatigue. The process will be much easier if we can avoid asking the same question multiple times or repeatedly asking communities about the same issues.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

I'll now turn to Ms. Guibord.

Our government is also committed to doubling Canada's electricity capacity by 2050. This is absolutely vital to attracting investment. We're seeing this in Quebec, where some projects are stalling or falling behind schedule given the lack of electricity capacity. The interconnection between provinces will obviously play a key role in this.

Can you give us a little insight into how having a single assessment by the Canada Energy Regulator will help us speed up the completion of this east‑west connection that my colleague brought up earlier?

[Josée Guibord]

Yes. I'll respond in English, if you don't mind.

Making the Canada Energy Regulator the single assessor for international and designated interprovincial lines is really important. That the decisions are due within one year of a complete application is important. As your colleague mentioned, what we saw with our studies and how that coordination would facilitate a reduction of outages, etc. is really important. Again, our members believe that additional transmission across our sector would allow for better energy security and achieve better reliability and integration of renewables over time.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.