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

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

As you would know, the minister was excited about the idea when she appeared at our committee but was unable to explain much. Would you support amendments of some specific sort of criteria to rein in the potential of controls that cabinet would have in that designation? Where exactly do you see the abuse possibilities of the national designation, certainly as written in this law, without any guardrails whatsoever, it seems?

[Julia Levin]

We do have amendments to try to rein in the regions of national interest, but again, that's harm reduction. To withdraw the bill is our primary ask.

The second ask, if the bill is not withdrawn, is to delete the power to allow cabinet to designate areas of our country as regions of national interest and turn them into rubber-stamping zones.

Absent that, it's striking to me how devoid the bill is of any kind of limits to that power or factors that must be considered. I can provide the committee with some language that environmental lawyers have put together to restrict that power in a way that's slightly less alarming, but again, that's harm reduction.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Leslie.

Ms. Harrison, it's over to you for six minutes.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Ms. Levin, you've raised concerns about indigenous participation under Bill C-39. I would like to draw your attention to some of the consultation and collaboration mechanisms already provided under our federal legislation.

Section 93 of the Impact Assessment Act allows the minister to enter into agreements with various jurisdictions and bodies and jointly establish a committee responsible for conducting a regional assessment. These entities may include provincial government, federal authorities and co-management bodies established under land claim agreements, as well as indigenous governing bodies that have responsibility for assessing environmental effects under land claim agreements or self-government agreements.

Furthermore, proposed section 8.2 in clause 7 of Bill C-39 requires the minister to ensure that adequate consultations have been conducted with indigenous people whose section 35 rights may be affected before recommending the designation of a natural interest region. In addition, proposed paragraph 8.4(2)(d) provides for consultation with affected indigenous people before the issuance of the document establishing the authorization and conditions applicable to a project within a designated region.

In this context, would you agree that this legislative framework provides indigenous people with several opportunities to participate directly in the decision-making process, not only through consultation but also by taking part in committees responsible for conducting regional assessments?

[Julia Levin]

No, but you don't have to take my word for it. We've heard from first nations that this is legislative coercion.

The nations who are involved in the regional assessment for the ring of fire, who in good faith engaged in that process for years, have sent a clear warning, a public warning, that this bill could take all of that work and still undermine all of their inherent rights.

The chiefs I spent last week with have said they have not even had the chance to look at this bill, let alone fully understand its impacts. That includes the chief of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. I know that the committee has heard from the Chiefs of Ontario, but there are many other important bodies that deserve a chance to present to this committee and to be able to more fulsomely answer your question.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Certainly tomorrow we have several attending, including a chief from my riding, Chief Carr from Hiawatha First Nation.

I'd like to ask all the witnesses about one advantage of the regional assessments. They can examine the cumulative effects of multiple projects rather than looking at each development in isolation. Would you agree that identifying sensitive ecosystems, cumulative effects and mitigation requirements before individual projects proceed actually could improve environmental planning?

That's for all of you and whoever would like to go first.

[Marie-Claude Bellemare]

I would say yes. Having to look in a designated area to assess and identify sensitive areas would allow for adequate land planification and land management. Instead of it being on a case-by-case basis, you look at it globally, and that allows for a better insertion of projects into communities.

[Geneviève Paul]

Indeed, one of the objectives of using regional impact assessment is to gather data in a way that allows for a better understanding of the impact on the region and looking at the cumulative effects, but we should specify that this tool isn't supposed to be used to fast-track individual impact assessments afterwards. That's not at all how it's being used in other jurisdictions.

The best practice around regional assessment is that it helps to gather some important data, so that we have a better picture when it comes to time to individually assess projects, and that's not what Bill C-39 is suggesting.

[Julia Levin]

Every regional assessment is very important. Cumulative effects are incredibly important. We haven't done a good job of understanding them, but they're not supposed to replace individual project assessments. They shouldn't be used to do an end run over environmental legislation.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

The Impact Assessment Act continues to require meaningful public participation in regional assessments. It provides participants' funding and requires assessment findings and recommendations to be made public. Given those requirements, where, specifically, Ms. Levin, do you see that Bill C-39 reduces the public ability to participate?

[Julia Levin]

The bill itself is just very broad and vague when it comes to setting out the type of participation. It has no factors that are necessary in determining and assessing these regions of national interest. Once those regions have been established, then individual projects essentially get pre-approved. For those individual projects, yes, in the regional assessment there is some role for public consultation, but there is not in the individual project decision-making.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

Would you agree that regulatory efficiency and strong environmental protection do not have to inherently conflict?

[Julia Levin]

I would agree.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Perfect.

If so, what specific amendment would you all like to see in Bill C-39?

[Marie-Claude Bellemare]

I'll dive in first. I think the notion of what is a complete application is the one that would need to be clarified. It would allow them to figure out when those timers kick in.

[Geneviève Paul]

Unfortunately, for the Quebec Environmental Law Centre, it is not possible to suggest any amendments that would make this bill acceptable. It is not justified or necessary to take that route. Because of the threat to the rule of law, the protection of the environment and the protection of Canadians' rights, we cannot….

I say “unfortunately”, because we have often come here before Parliament. We do the same in Quebec. We like to engage in a constructive manner. With this specific bill, unfortunately, we believe there are ways to achieve the objective that is stated without sacrificing the general legal framework in Canada.

This bill should be withdrawn. That's our position.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much, Ms. Harrison.

It's over to you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening to all three of you. Thank you for being here. We really appreciate it.

My questions are for Ms. Paul.

You spoke about the environment but also the erosion of the rule of law. Ordinary laws are being circumvented. No limits are being set. Everything is being concentrated in the hands of the government, ministers and the executive branch, while elected officials and legislators are sidelines. As you mentioned, the consideration of scientific evidence in assessments is also being weakened.

It is for all these reasons that you say the rule of law is eroding. Is that correct?

[Geneviève Paul]

Yes, that's correct.

It's really important for us, and that's why we're here in person.

There are several elements that make Bill C‑39 absolutely unjustifiable. I don't think anyone, any of the stakeholders, or even the business community, should be happy with a bill that gives the executive branch such broad and insufficiently circumscribed discretionary powers.

That's why I was saying that, for us, this is a way for the legislator to relinquish its role, its powers and its responsibility.

There are various elements in the bill, whether it be the exorbitant powers given to the executive branch, the lack of definitions or the lack of binding and defined criteria, that really weaken the legal framework.

In addition, as has been said, this is an omnibus bill. Therefore, we are not going through the normal legislative process; an omnibus bill is being used to directly amend various laws that are essential to protecting Canada's environment, particularly when it comes to biodiversity.

So there is this whole logic behind the bill, which is ultimately a logic of presumption in favour of project approval. From a democratic standpoint, it is extremely concerning that the executive branch is being given such broad powers, which are not sufficiently limited, but also, as we were saying, undermine the consideration of science in decision-making.

These are high-risk projects, but they're also high-cost projects. I think we all want to make sure that decisions are informed. However, that's not what Bill C‑39 proposes, and that's why we're concerned. I don't think anyone here wants to end up with projects whose costs were not sufficiently considered and whose risks were not adequately assessed to protect the public. Ultimately, investors and developers are not going to win either.

That's why it's important to have a real assessment and a real consultation at the front end to ensure that projects are successful.

We don't need to chip away at the rule of law. I think it's important to remember that. As I said, laws remain, governments change. I don't think anyone here wants to write a blank cheque. However, that's what Bill C‑39 looks like.

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

Of course. Thank you.

I would like to hear your thoughts on the shorter time frames for conducting impact studies, the start of preliminary work even before a decision has been made and the single decision‑making process, which concentrates the assessment authority. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

[Geneviève Paul]

We would certainly like to emphasize the risks associated with shorter assessments. Various parts of Bill C‑39 shorten the time frames for impact assessments. We often hear about the provisions that would reduce the time frame for impact assessments from three years to one year. As many experts—particularly experts in impact assessment—have pointed out, this could lower the quality of impact studies, of course, but also undermine public consultation on these issues. Ironically, this could actually lead to longer time frames, because it may result in requests for additional information.

In general, as Ms. Bellemare pointed out, certain solutions are already on the table. These solutions don't involve Bill C‑39 at all. For example, we could have better‑targeted impact assessments. This would ensure better studies from project proponents and also avoid some back and forth. Measures that don't require the legislative framework at all could have been implemented to streamline the impact assessment process.

In this case, Bill C‑39 takes us in a completely different direction. Not only does this affect the Impact Assessment Act, but it also introduces changes to the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, as you know. These changes seek to reduce the time frames and even grant the authority to outright exempt pipeline projects from assessment. In 2026, I find it incomprehensible to consider these changes.

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

Thank you.

Another issue that I wanted to discuss with you concerned the concentration of power and decision‑making. You also touched on this topic.

I would like to hear your opinion on the expansion of discretionary powers after the approval of a project.

[Geneviève Paul]

Our point was that Bill C‑39 gives the executive branch the authority to remove or amend the conditions of a previously authorized project if the project is subsequently designated of national interest. The connection here to the erosion of the rule of law and legal predictability strikes me as quite obvious.

One of the criteria discussed by the Barreau du Québec—and brought up by others as well—is public trust in institutions. This plays a key role in a democracy. When we see public trust in institutions declining, it's actually one of the signs of erosion. Bill C‑39 opens the door to this in a number of ways. We're talking about the executive branch's power to ultimately amend the conditions for authorization. However, there's also the power, for example, to authorize preliminary work even before before we fully understand what we're getting into. When you look at this from the public's perspective, multiple factors raise serious concerns. So—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Ms. Paul, I'm going to have to stop you there. Thank you.

[Geneviève Paul]

—how can we trust the credibility of institutions under these circumstances?