Bill C-39 Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2026

[Tara Shea]

One of our biggest challenges over the last few decades was the complexity of mining—primarily a provincially regulated activity—also being subject to federal environmental assessment or impact assessment processes. We saw, with the early implementation of the Impact Assessment Act, that there really was a lot of duplication. There were multiple years of baseline studies for no real purpose other than maybe a research study.

With these co-operation agreements that have been signed over the last year, I'm hopeful that we will see greater provincial-federal co-operation on impact assessment. I see a really big opportunity to amend section 16 of the Impact Assessment Act—I'll reiterate that from my opening remarks—to recognize the co-operation agreements in the legislation and put the onus on the agency to justify why a federal impact assessment is required when you're going through a provincial EA.

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

This is my very last minute.

We're talking about the federal government and provinces working together. Can you give us an example of when something like this worked and how that benefited everyone?

[Tara Shea]

We don't have the experience of the implementation of these agreements beyond British Columbia yet.

However, we did see an example over the last couple of years, outside of a co-operation agreement, when the federal government, through the Impact Assessment Agency, was leveraging the provincial process for a project in Quebec. We saw more of a hybrid set of guidelines for the project. That project is meeting milestones in the impact assessment process quicker than projects that entered the process in, say, 2021.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Ste-Marie.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Mr. Christidis from the Canadian Nuclear Association. This concerns first nations.

We had Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict here, who represents 133 first nations in Ontario. He said that his organization had concerns and did not support the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission conducting the single assessment because it is inadequate. That is what happened, for example, in the case of the Chalk River radioactive waste dump.

He said that this commission had never conducted adequate consultations with first nations nor shown any interest in this issue. Furthermore, more broadly speaking, he said that the consultation period with first nations could not be limited to one year. In any case, that would not provide sufficient time to conduct consultations and obtain the informed consent of first nations in accordance with their rights.

Do you have any comments or thoughts for the committee?

[George Christidis]

I don't have a very firm comment, other than, of course, to say that indigenous communities have the constitutional right to consultation. Regarding how that consultation occurs, again, we see it as a nation-to-nation discussion, and the federal government needs to provide clarity.

You are aware, I'm sure, of the current court cases that have identified, in terms of some of those projects, that, again, the CNSC, in this particular case—and I cannot speak to it, as I'm not a lawyer—is in the scoping of those consultations, etc.

We're saying there must be a much more efficient means, without deferring to the courts, of making it clear there's an understanding of the scoping of those relationships and the communities involved, and that the consultation process is clearly defined. We're all concerned, but certainly, as a government-led discussion with first nations themselves....

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

Thank you very much for your answer, Mr. Christidis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

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

Thank you to our witnesses. We very much appreciate it.

We'll suspend to get ready for the next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

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

I'm going to ask all the witnesses a question: Have all of you testified before a parliamentary committee before?

Not all of you have. All right. There are some basic rules you need to adhere to.

Please wait until you're recognized before speaking; make sure your translation device works, if you need it, as you will be asked questions in both official languages; and all comments and answers should be addressed through me, as the chair.

Those are basically the rules of the road, so thank you.

I would like to welcome our witnesses for the fourth panel.

From Environmental Defence Canada, we have Julia Levin, associate director, national climate.

From the Quebec Business Council on the Environment, we have Marie-Claude Bellemare, president and chief executive officer.

From the Quebec Environmental Law Centre, we have Geneviève Paul, the executive director.

Each of you will be given up to five minutes for opening remarks. Once all three of you are finished, we will then open the floor to questions.

I will start with Ms. Levin.

[Julia Levin, Associate Director, National Climate, Environmental Defence Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, honourable committee members.

Environmental Defence Canada is extremely concerned about Bill C-39, which hands ministers sweeping new powers at the expense of nature, health and safety, workers' right to strike and indigenous rights. If passed, Bill C-39 will implement the single worst weakening of Canada's environmental safety net in history.

We share the goal of ensuring that good projects get built. However, the approach set out in Bill C-39 won't achieve that objective. The bill is not simply a proposal to make environmental reviews faster. It is a proposal to change when appropriate environmental scrutiny happens, which projects receive it, and who controls the outcome. By drastically limiting public participation and undermining the role of science, project decision-making will become less evidence-based, less transparent and more politicized. The bill will, in fact, fundamentally weaken environmental laws and protections by drastically reducing their application.

Impact assessment is not red tape. It's one of the government's best tools for deciding how, when and whether major projects get built. It's not just about the ability to say no. Impact assessments are critical to ensure that the best projects move forward in a way that benefits Canadians.

Bill C-39 is premised on the long-discredited jobs versus the environment argument. Canadians know better. Harming nature is not in the public interest. Most Canadians view nature as central to their national identity and oppose the weakening of environmental protections. Polling that we commissioned in September revealed that a majority of respondents would be less likely to vote for an MP who supported the approach in this bill. According to a recent Leger poll, nearly 70% of Canadians and 80% of Liberal voters want Canada's environmental requirements maintained or strengthened, despite the trade war with the United States.

Bill C-39 will enable harmful projects to proceed without understanding the risks, in particular in areas designated as regions of national interest. Projects in these areas would essentially be pre-approved without project-specific environmental assessment or public oversight. This approach represents an end run around environmental laws and would significantly undermine indigenous rights and jurisdictional authority, as well as putting endangered wildlife at grave risk.

To date, the government has not disclosed which areas could become regions of national interest. Will it be the ring of fire, B.C.'s golden triangle, the St. Lawrence River area or the Fraser River delta, which is the habitat of endangered southern resident killer whales? The whales have already been dealt devastating blows by the designation of both the Pacific link pipeline and Roberts Bank terminal 2.

This bill gives immense discretionary power to specific ministers to bypass environmental laws. It would allow ministers to remove or alter project conditions, even if doing so would make the project's impact on the environment worse or threaten vulnerable species. Project conditions are not arbitrary; they serve to protect against harm.

We are also extremely concerned that Bill C-39 would make the extraordinary powers under the Building Canada Act permanent by removing the sunset clauses. Removing these clauses undermines Parliament's legislative intention in passing Bill C-5 and allows the government of the day unfettered use of powers to choose which major projects are subject to which laws of Parliament and which are exempt.

Indigenous opposition to this bill has been forceful. That is no surprise, given that the bill undermines indigenous rights and makes it practically impossible for the government to meaningfully consult indigenous communities, as is constitutionally required. In fact, nowhere does Bill C-39 reference the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples or free, prior and informed consent.

Overall, the proposed changes make project decisions less transparent, more political, and therefore more vulnerable to legal risk and public opposition.

In addition to the content of the bill, the process being used to move the legislation forward is alarming. Cabinet has called Bill C-39 one of the most consequential pieces of legislation. Meaningful parliamentary review is critical. The breakneck speed at which the bill is moving through Parliament makes that impossible.

In closing, Environmental Defence Canada is calling on the Government of Canada to withdraw this dangerous bill. There are no amendments that can fix Bill C-39.

That being said, if the bill is allowed to proceed, some harm reduction amendments are critical and a necessary part of this committee's work. I've shared our priority amendments with members of the committee.

Canada can build a strong economy without sacrificing our natural heritage. That's why Canadians across the country are asking their members of Parliament to vote against the bill at third reading.

People will be watching to see whether their representatives did everything in their power to protect water, healthy communities and wildlife for our generation and generations to come.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much, Ms. Levin.

It's over to you, Ms. Bellemare.

[Marie-Claude Bellemare, President and Chief Executive Officer, Quebec Business Council on the Environment]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for giving the Conseil patronal de l'environnement du Québec, or CPEQ, the opportunity to contribute to your work on Bill C‑39. However, our remarks will be limited to part 1 of this bill.

Founded in 1992, the CPEQ is the umbrella organization representing Quebec's business sector on the issues of the environment and sustainable development. It brings together more than 350 of Quebec's largest companies and associations, which generate more than 300,000 direct jobs and have combined revenues of more than $45 billion.

I am testifying today not only as the recently appointed president and CEO of the CPEQ, but also from the perspective of an environmental lawyer who has worked with the business community for 25 years. This experience has shown me that rigorous environmental regulation is entirely compatible with more predictable, better coordinated and more efficient processes.

The CPEQ supports the general direction of Bill C‑39, which is to improve regulatory predictability, reduce administrative duplication and accelerate the execution of structuring projects.

For the industry, a number of measures represent significant steps forward. These include the coordination of impact assessments and federal permitting, the consideration of practical, technical and economic factors, the possibility of a single federal decision, and the use of regional assessments in areas of national interest.

However, to ensure that this ambition yields concrete results, we have about 10 implementation recommendations, which are described in our brief and summarized here today in five points.

First, real time frames must be established for the entire permitting process. A maximum time frame will have only a limited effect if deadlines are moved before the submission of a complete application or after the decision is made. We therefore recommend clear time frames for each of the main stages, as well as a clear definition of what constitutes a complete application. Criteria must also be established to determine what preparatory work can be done before a permit is issued, without compromising the integrity of the assessment or environmental protection. These time frames must also take into account the realities on the ground, including environmental inventories, which can only be completed at certain times of the year.

Second, permit coordination must start at project design and apply to all federal departments and agencies that may issue authorizations, not just some of them. The required information, analytical sequences and decision criteria should be established early so that, to the extent possible, decisions are made concurrently. A quick decision on the impact assessment is of little real benefit if the proponent must then wait years to get the other necessary permits.

In the same vein, we urge the governments of Canada and Quebec to finalize a collaborative agreement on environmental assessment as soon as possible in order to implement the “one project, one assessment” approach, reduce duplication and increase predictability, while maintaining high standards of environmental protection and respecting the rights of indigenous communities.

Third, we recommend establishing a team for each project, bringing together the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, the permitting authorities, the Major Projects Office, indigenous consultation experts and the proponent. A kick-off meeting and regular follow-ups would make it possible to quickly identify the necessary studies, limit successive requests for information and resolve problems before they become sources of delay. The government should also publish an administrative document explaining how the agency and other federal authorities will take economic, technical and practical considerations into account in their analysis. This transparency would promote consistent and predictable application of the new framework.

Fourth, implementation must preserve the quality of consultation with indigenous peoples and ensure clarity of the conditions. The rules for calculating and suspending time limits must balance predictability with full respect for ancestral and treaty rights, as well as the Crown's duty to consult. Furthermore, the conditions attached to decisions and permits must be rigorous, but above all clear, enforceable and sufficiently detailed. We also recommend the development of an administrative document to guide the agency's analysts in drafting conditions.

Fifth, the concept of a region of national interest is promising, particularly for better addressing cumulative effects and avoiding the duplication of studies on the same issues. Its implementation should, however, be based on objective technical and scientific criteria, consultation with indigenous communities, local populations and stakeholders, including potential proponents, as well as clear guidance on the use of regional assessments in the analysis of specific projects.

In conclusion, the CPEQ shares the objective of an overall framework that is both environmentally rigorous, effective and predictable. Bill C‑39 is a step in the right direction. Its success, however, will depend on implementation that truly coordinates actors, frames each step and fosters early and ongoing dialogue.

CPEQ offers its full collaboration to the government and parliamentarians to contribute to this implementation.

Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Paul, we'll go over to you.

[Geneviève Paul, Executive Director, Québec Environmental Law Centre]

Good evening.

I want to thank you for the invitation to appear today.

Canada presents itself abroad as a reliable partner that respects the rule of law. A country with a strong rule of law is a country that places limits on the executive branch's discretionary power and respects the legislative processes established by elected officials. It is a guarantee of stability, especially for the business community.

In our view, Bill C‑39 does exactly the opposite. It is a dangerous bill that marks an unprecedented step backward in Canada's contemporary history and undermines legal predictability, a principle lies at the heart of the rule of law. This bill must be viewed within an already advanced context of environmental deregulation. The Centre québécois du droit de l'environnement, or CQDE, is already challenging the constitutionality of the act respecting projects of national interest in court. Bill C‑39 goes even further.

In our view, the very fact that the government has opted for an omnibus bill prevents legislators—and even more so the public—from fully grasping the consequences of Bill C‑39. Rather than following the normal legislative process, the government is creating parallel workarounds. This is problematic from the perspective of the rule of law. Moreover, the Barreau du Québec has also expressed its concern in this regard in a brief that was submitted to you.

Bill C‑39 does not modernize procedures or reduce duplication; it is a clear weakening of the applicable laws. I'll quickly touch on that. This weakening had already been made possible by Bill C‑5. Bill C‑39 continues in the same vein by, among other things, granting the executive branch the power to designate regions of national interest, within which the executive branch may itself determine the types of eligible projects and the criteria applicable to those projects, all without this new category being defined in the bill or adequately delineated. Furthermore, projects eligible within these regions of national interest will benefit from a presumption of a favourable decision.

We're being told that Bill C‑39 doesn't weaken the laws. I won't hide the fact that I find this argument very troubling. The provisions are very clear. It weakens the applicable framework, but it does so permanently for this government and future governments. As you know, governments come and go, but laws remain.

Bill C‑39 directly undermines a series of laws necessary to protect our environment. It weakens impact assessments and even allows pipeline projects, for example, to be exempted from such assessments altogether. These laws are not mere bureaucratic constraints; they are in place to protect the public, ecosystems, and—need we remind you—the economy, because the economy also depends on this biodiversity and this environment.

With this presumption in favour of approving projects, there is a tendency to roll out the red carpet for these projects. In our view, this weakens the role of science in decision-making, and that should concern us.

Bill C‑39 also opens the door to disclosing key information to the public, such as all permits issued for a project, only 30 days after a project is authorized, rather than beforehand.

Finally, Bill C‑39 gives the executive branch the power to remove or modify the conditions of a project that has already authorized when it is subsequently designated as being of national interest.

The bill repeatedly states, for example by allowing preliminary work to begin before a project's impacts have been fully considered, that it is possible to bend from existing rules if it is in the public interest. What public interest are we talking about here? As Ms. Levin pointed out, 70% of Canadians polled recently said that they do not want standards to be weakened.

I say this with all due respect: If you, as members of the legislative branch, support Bill C‑39, in our opinion, you are relinquishing your powers and responsibilities by granting the executive branch excessively broad and inadequately defined discretionary powers and by endorsing governance by decree, a practice observed south of the border that we continually decry.

Evaluation experts are clear: The most successful projects are those that take the time to consult with communities, understand the local context and integrate environmental and social issues early in their design, and those that include targeted studies. There are other possible ways to support Canada's economy and respond to the current geopolitical context, and they do not involve Bill C‑39, which we believe should be rejected.

History teaches us that we are capable of detecting the signs of the erosion of a rule of law and democracy. For us, the signs are clear, and they are there. This is a pivotal moment for Canada. It's easier to recognize when the rule of law begins to erode than to know when it will stop. I don't think anyone can regret taking action to protect the law and democracy, nor can anyone be blamed for doing so.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

We'll start the six-minute round with Mr. Leslie.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will direct my questions to Ms. Levin to begin.

From your discussions with other environmental organizations—there's obviously one beside us here from the Quebec law society—and given the limited number of witnesses we're going to have at this committee, how widespread is the view across environmental organizations in Canada that this bill should be rejected or substantially amended?

[Julia Levin]

I'd say, across most of civil society, there's quite a unanimous position that this bill should be withdrawn.

The groups that are putting in amendments.... As I said before, it's a harm reduction strategy. It's not to fix the bill, and it's not to get a good bill. It's to do harm reduction on a dangerous bill.

Across the environmental movement, as I also mentioned, there's strong indigenous opposition. Obviously, across labour, there's a lot of opposition.

To answer your question, there's quite a lot of consensus among civil society.

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

I believe the quote was, roughly, the “single worst weakening” of environmental law in history. It seems as though environmental groups are increasingly at odds.

Is this what you expected 18 months ago, when the Prime Minister came in? Did you expect to be saying, 18 months later, that you're seeing the single worst weakening of environmental law in Canadian history?

[Julia Levin]

I think Canadians have the right to feel betrayed. Nowhere in this government's platform was there a gutting of environmental protections or a dismantling of climate policies. It was quite the opposite.

That's what we're hearing. There were 26,000 people who wrote in over the summer to oppose this, and 3,000 of our supporters wrote to your committee in the last 10 days to oppose this.

There's an unprecedented level of push-back, and it's reminiscent of what we saw a decade ago.

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

I'm sure that Minister Dabrusin is aware of the concerns your organization and many others have raised about Bill C-39, but obviously, the government doesn't seem super keen to accept them.

What has your organization's engagement been like with the minister's office? Has the government offered any sort of response or arguments that have caused you to take pause and question your own initial opinions of the bill?

[Julia Levin]

We've had some engagement with some of the key ministers—I'd say there's been less with Minister Dabrusin's office—and no, throughout the last six months, the government has not offered anything to assuage our concerns or even to justify why this bill is necessary.

Part of the supposed rationale is certainty for projects. We know this bill and the legal challenges it will inevitably lead to do not provide certainty.

We've been told Canada wasn't building, but if you look at NRCan data from 2024, there were 500 projects worth $650 billion in progress, under construction or about to be under construction.

There's no evidence of the myths that keep being used to justify this extraordinary piece of legislation.

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

In that vein, you mentioned your engagement with the environment minister, and it seems odd that your group, Environmental Defence, would have lower or poor engagement with the environment minister.

There are colleagues from across the way who could have asked her a question. If they are going to dismiss your concerns....

What is the one question you would like Minister Dabrusin to answer here on the record, if she was sitting in your chair?

[Julia Levin]

I don't know if I have one question for her. There is a legacy piece around being the minister who's going to be presiding over the single most devastating bill dismantling environmental protections that this country has seen.

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

You mentioned the extraordinary new powers. In your view, what is the most concerning new power that Bill C-39 would give the government?

[Julia Levin]

It's hard to pick just one. Removing the sunset clauses definitely makes these extraordinary powers permanent. Something that has not been adequately answered is why that is necessary.

One of our top concerns is around the regions of national interest. We've seen how Bill C-5 has now designated two very polemic and dangerous projects. The decision to designate the pipeline has now been challenged by 10 different first nations. This is the first decision to designate a project. This is more of what we can expect.

What Bill C-39 does is take that PONI process and apply it to undefined regions of our country. The government has not given any indication of whose territory will now become a rubber-stamping environmental deregulation zone.

The unfettered powers the cabinet is giving itself through the creation of regions of national interest.... Nowhere have I heard compelling justification about why those are necessary.