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

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Levin, I'm not sure if it's your organization. I saw some posters recently, just outside of the Hill, regarding the southern resident killer whales. I'm just curious if there is a very real concern that this whale population will not survive. Is that the impetus of that movement?

[Julia Levin]

We joined with other organizations to launch the save endangered whales campaign and highlight the risks that this population is facing.

There's a culmination of different pieces. There's Bill C-5, the project designations and this legislation. The project designations, as I said—the pipeline and the Roberts Bank terminal 2, which just came late last Friday—are incredibly devastating blows to this really iconic and beloved wildlife.

Then this new bill, in these regions of national interest and through other proposals, gives ministers the discretion to do a complete end run around SARA, which, as a result of the push-back we saw after the discussion papers came out.... Cabinet ministers very clearly promised Canadians they would withdraw the worst parts of the discussion paper when it comes to impacts on wildlife and vulnerable populations like the southern residents.

I would say that there's a lack of honesty there, because a lot of the conditions being proposed in the bill will be detrimental to wildlife like the southern residents. The regions of national interest.... If the Fraser River delta becomes a region of national interest, then SARA no longer applies for projects in that area.

By requiring the Minister of Environment to put economic feasibility on par with species' survivability, species are furthermore at harm.

By giving ministers discretion to remove or weaken project conditions, which have been attached to projects to mitigate harm on wildlife like the southern residents, this bill is still a disaster for wildlife.

We're in a biodiversity crisis. There are over 2,000 species at risk of extinction in this country, and Minister Dabrusin just finished up at COP17, the biodiversity COP, where she promised to do everything in her power to halt the loss of biodiversity. This bill does the opposite.

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

Thank you.

You mentioned honesty in there, and you mentioned the previous COP. There's an upcoming COP, and I just saw a news article. The headline said, “presenting [themselves] as climate leader[s] at COP31, despite policy rollbacks”, and that was by The Canadian Press.

I'll highlight what Minister Dabrusin said in Parliament not that long ago: “There will be no lowering of environmental standards or indigenous consultation requirements.”

Can Canadians rely on that promise? Secondarily, how do you reconcile this legislation with the government's claims on environmental leadership on the world stage?

[Julia Levin]

This bill quite clearly lowers environmental standards by giving discretionary power to the government to decide when those laws are applied and when they aren't. That is clearly a weakening of environmental standards.

As a climate organization, I am also very concerned by the rolling back of climate policy. The Canadian Climate Institute said that because of the rollbacks that have happened in the last year and a half, Canada is now “20 years behind schedule” on meeting its 2030 climate targets.

Climate targets are not abstract. They are what protect your constituents from wildfires, droughts, flooded basements, lost livelihoods and lost lives.

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

Thank you, Ms. Levin.

I have a little over a minute left here. I'd like to offer you the chance to give an elevator pitch.

If the Prime Minister were watching, if you had a minute or a minute and a half alone with him, away from all of his advisers, to appeal to perhaps the man that many thought he was at one point, what would you say to him about this legislation and the last 18 months of environmental policy?

[Julia Levin]

Stepping back from this legislation and looking at the priorities of this government, I would ask anyone in a decision-making role where Canada sees the world going. We are clearly in an energy transition. That is evident if we look outside our borders and maybe the borders to the south of us. Even there, they are doing more in clean energy than we are here.

China's oil demand plateaued this year. Where are the markets that we are fast-tracking risky projects to fill? China's the only other market, other than the United States, where we can export our oil. Other markets do not have the refining capacity. If China's oil has plateaued because half of the vehicles are now EVs, why are we fast-tracking? Why are we gutting environmental protections to fast-track risky fossil fuel infrastructure that will not have a market in the next 10 to 15 years, according to all of the world's foremost international energy experts?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

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

Do you think he's convinced?

[Julia Levin]

We'll see.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Dr. Martin, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all the witnesses. I appreciate their work, which matters a great deal to Canadians.

I would like to start with a question for Marie‑Claude Bellemare regarding the overall purpose of this bill.

Although we may not always agree on how to do things, I believe that we all agree that striving to find an environmentally rigorous, effective and predictable regulatory balance or framework is a worthy goal.

In your opinion, what factors will play a key role in implementing the bill to ensure this balance? If any factors are missing, what are they?

[Marie-Claude Bellemare]

I'll go step by step.

First, I want to point out that, when we talk about an impact assessment submitted to government authorities, the work leading up to it takes years. When I hear people saying left and right that all this will take a year, that isn't true. This amounts to overlooking the work accomplished. The same applies to consultations and the work carried out in the communities. If we wait until government consultations are over to begin consultations with indigenous people, we're already behind schedule on a project. In reality, these consultations take place in advance. We mustn't forget that.

With regard to the important factors, I think that the time frame is one of them. The time frame provides predictability. A proponent can control the time spent on studies. However, once the proponent hands the baby over, it no longer has any control over the time. The proponent also lacks predictability. This provides a clearer picture in that area.

The other factor is ensuring that federal authorities communicate with one another and coordinate their efforts rather than working in silos. In this area, we stand to gain a great deal, not just in terms of time, but also in terms of acceptance within the communities. We can look at the conditions as a whole, in their entirety.

There's also another factor. For some time now, I've been hearing claims that Bill C‑39 eliminates all applicable environmental regulations. I would like to clarify a few points.

First, we mustn't confuse the provisions that amend what was adopted in Bill C‑5 with the amendments to the Impact Assessment Act. Whether we have the provisions of Bill C‑5 or amendments to those provisions, we still need clarity regarding impact assessments. We need predictability. We need to speed up the process so that projects can move forward with predictability.

Furthermore, when we look at Bill C‑5 and the amendments made to Bill C‑5, we can see that the bill doesn't say that the legislation won't apply in the first place. It says that a permit will ultimately be granted, but there may still be conditions attached to the permits. I think that we also need to keep in mind an important point in this area concerning the conditions for implementation.

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

Thank you.

I have a question for Geneviève Paul.

We briefly spoke earlier about the concept of regional assessments. I understood, and I think that we're in agreement. In my view, the bill doesn't state that, in the case of a regional assessment, a project will never be assessed. If the project is part of the regional assessment, that's a different matter.

Tell us a bit about the principle of a regional assessment. Explain how it can help, for example, species at risk, or help us understand how projects in general can be planned for an entire region.

[Geneviève Paul]

Thank you for your question.

As I was saying, the Canadian Environmental Law Association and others have been recommending this tool for a number of years. However, we mustn't misrepresent its use or its purpose. This tool typically provides a better understanding of the territory and the cumulative impact on that territory, particularly when guided by the principle of ecosystem carrying capacity.

In this case, Bill C‑39 opens the door to exempting projects located in a region of national interest from an impact assessment following a regional assessment. This is a major issue and runs counter to the spirit of impact assessments and the precautionary principle. That addresses the first part of your question.

In the second part of your question, you asked me how this could improve biodiversity protection legislation. My answer is simple. Yes, Bill C‑39 addresses the duration of impact assessments. However, it does much more than this. It actually weakens the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Impact Assessment Act, to name a few. These provisions weaken absolutely essential protections—including the Species at Risk Act, which serves as the last line of defence—and seem incompatible with the purpose of a regional assessment.

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

Thank you.

I have just a brief question for you, Ms. Levin. I'm short on time. I'm sorry.

Is it your view that it would be a great idea if it were proposed by a political party or a parliamentarian that we repeal the Impact Assessment Act in its entirety?

[Julia Levin]

No. I think the Impact Assessment Act is incredibly important and should be protected.

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

Great. We agree. Many sections in the Impact Assessment Act are not touched by this legislation. I think we can all agree that this is the case, including the many sections that my colleague began to refer to around public participation.

What is your concern around public participation, given that this legislation doesn't touch, as far as I can tell, any of the provisions in the act that speak to the importance of public participation? In fact, the act quite clearly lays out all the ways in which that's critically important and, as we agree, is very important for the democratic process.

[Julia Levin]

I think the issue is that the Impact Assessment Act will be used on fewer and fewer projects. If we remember back 15 years ago, we had the federal government involved in thousands of projects each year in a helpful way, to make sure good projects were going ahead to avoid costly environmental disasters. Now we've seen that reduced, with the Impact Assessment Act, to dozens, and with this project, we're going to see the impact assessment being applied to less than a handful of projects. The impact assessment is incredibly useful. We have to make sure it continues to be applied to projects.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Dr. Martin.

Thanks, Ms. Levin.

Mr. Ste-Marie, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Ms. Levin.

We hear people say that no projects are being carried out in Canada anymore, that nothing is moving forward and that this is why we need legislative measures such as the ones set out in Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑39.

Can you comment on this?

[Julia Levin]

As I was saying before, if you look at government data from Natural Resources Canada from just 2024, before this agenda started to be proposed, there were 504 energy, mining and forestry projects worth a combined $630 billion planned or under construction. Projects were going ahead even as we strengthened our environmental rules and as we passed the Impact Assessment Act. Projects were going ahead. There's no evidence of the need for massive deregulation on the scale being proposed.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Paul, let's talk about the fact that the Canadian Energy Regulator is carrying out the assessments. When I look at this from Quebec's perspective, it seems that basically former employees of the oil and gas industry will be carrying out the assessments, rather than scientists.

What's your perspective or analysis of the situation?