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

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

It was made very clear that there would be no pre-emptive use of this section. It isn't going to be used.

[Renaud Plante]

Proposed subsection 107(1) currently doesn't prevent the government from doing what it has done over the past five or six years, which is to use section 107. A second subsection is being added—

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

That's what we're doing with Bill C‑39: setting out conditions to use that section.

[Renaud Plante]

As it currently stands, subsection 107(1) still allows the government to refer any matter to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. That's exactly what it can do in this situation. Once the strike begins, yes, there are certain criteria. However, there is still a period before the strike begins where subsection 107(1) stands on its own and allows the minister to refer the matter to the CIRB for a decision.

First, it's important not to frame this by saying that section 107's power is being limited, since, as you know, this is before the courts, and we have always contested the very fact that section 107 has this power. We still contest that, by the way.

Second, with subsection 107(1), which is still there at the moment, the minister still has the pre-emptive power to refer a matter to the CIRB.

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

We agree that what is being included in Bill C‑39 limits the use of section 107. We can't say otherwise.

[Renaud Plante]

It opens up a new avenue for use, but it doesn't completely limit—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, sir. We have to stop there.

Mr. Lemire, I believe you're going next.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Caron, I'm pleased to see you again.

In the context of this study, people can't help but fear that Bill C‑39 will grant additional powers to Alto, which already has disproportionate powers.

I would like to ask you a question to complement those of my virtuous colleague.

Do you have any concerns about the fact that, apart from a brief five-minute presentation to the committee, you have no forum to represent agricultural producers, to find out Alto's actual route, which has been expected since August, and to express your concerns?

I'm thinking of compensation mechanisms, land assessment mechanisms, development issues and so on. It seems that all of that is being set aside.

Do you have any more concerns about Bill C‑39?

[Martin Caron]

Thank you for the question.

First, is it a good project? That's the question. Where are the studies that show that this is the project we need right now to improve mobility in Canada?

It starts with that, and then there are the other requests. I will let Mr. Ross round out the answer.

[Charles-Félix Ross, General Manager, Union des producteurs agricoles]

In fact, Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑39 enable the government to move faster. They give extraordinary powers to public servants and ministers.

What we are wondering, as Mr. Caron was saying, is whether the Alto high-speed rail project is a good project. It's going to cost taxpayers over $125 billion. Some top researchers are telling us that it would be possible to set up a high-frequency train on Montreal's south shore and that it would cost 10 times less, that is, under $20 billion. Why, then, grant themselves extraordinary powers to push ahead with a project that makes no financial sense?

There are other priorities in Quebec. We have a $45‑billion infrastructure deficit. These are our roads, our schools and our water systems. Now, the government is going to invest in a train that will cost us $125 billion to get to Toronto faster, when there are projects that would go almost as fast and would cost 10 times less.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Ross.

There is the Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec, or CPTAQ, whose powers to protect farmland could be undermined. For example, I'm concerned that a gas pipeline might be set up across farmland and woodland in my region for the sake of exporting natural gas.

How do you react to the fact that the Liberals are refusing to carry out a study on Alto, both at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

You have time for a very short answer, sir.

[Martin Caron]

As we said about Bill C‑39, right now, it's important to acquire tools and use them. These elements are being trampled on. I think it's necessary to seek out that expertise.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you. Your voice is heard.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Thank you to our witnesses.

That brings us to the end of this panel. We'll suspend for a few moments to get ready for the next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Welcome back, everybody. Meeting number six is continuing.

Speakers and witnesses, wait until I recognize you before speaking, please. If you're on video conference like George, you know how to push the buttons and work the translation; you've done this before. It's the same for the witnesses in the room.

Direct your questions through me, please. You'll be asked questions in French and English, so make sure you have your headset functioning properly.

You will each be given five minutes to make opening statements, and then you'll be asked questions by committee members.

I'd like to welcome our third panel. As an individual, we have George Vegh, senior fellow and adjunct professor, University of Toronto, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. From the Canadian Nuclear Association, we have George Christidis, president and chief executive officer. From the Mining Association of Canada, we have Geoff Smith, vice-president of government relations; and Tara Shea, vice-president of regulatory and indigenous affairs.

Thank you all for being here.

Mr. Vegh, I will start with you for up to five minutes for your opening remarks.

[George Vegh, Senior Fellow, Adjunct Professor, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-39, as you mentioned.

I'm currently at the Munk School. I'm also the former chair of the Canada Energy Regulator, so I'm going to confine my comments to the impact of Bill C-39 on the Canadian Energy Regulator Act. On the whole, I think the impacts of the act are more incremental and transformational with respect to the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, and I think that's a good thing. I don't think the regulatory system is broken, but I think it can be improved. Bill C-39 does have some areas for improvement, and I'll just address them quickly and also identify some areas where I do have some concerns.

I think the first improvement from Bill C-39 compared to the status quo is with respect to returning authority for pipelines from the Impact Assessment Agency to the Canada Energy Regulator. It's a mandate that the CER's predecessor, the national energy board, had for years, and I think it did a pretty good job of it. Handing back the authority, I think, is important, because the CER does have a lot of expertise on linear infrastructure and has done a good job of that.

The other reason that I think Bill C-39 is an improvement to the status quo is that, for some pipelines at least, the CER is given final decision-making authority, and under the Canada Energy Regulator Act, as it is now, the decision-making authority is left with the executive branch. I think the decisions do become more political that way, so this is more technical expertise making the final decisions.

The third area that I'd comment on, and this is where I think there's some more upside even than the other areas, is with respect to indigenous consultation and the CER's taking on a role of coordinating indigenous consultation. I think that's less important for the CER than it is for indigenous leadership. There's a lot of experience in dealing with CER pipelines, particularly in western Canada. Consultation is very difficult when you consider the range of indigenous governments and communities that participate in consultation. I think, if there could be indigenous leadership of this consultation coordination, particularly from west coast indigenous governments and people, that could really provide support to other communities and build some trust.

The two areas that I have concerns with are that this legislation doesn't fix what I consider to be a fatal flaw with the current Canadian Energy Regulator Act, and that's the consideration of a number of policy factors that really have very little to do with pipelines. Those would include the intersection of sex and gender with identity factors and the government's commitment to climate change. I think these are very important issues, but they really can't be addressed properly in a pipeline hearing. They don't have much to do with a pipeline that's in front of the regulators, so I think it's good to take that out of consideration in hearings.

The other concern I have, and this is a more serious one, is that Bill C-39 takes away the temporary nature of Bill C-5. I think that Bill C-5 is more fundamentally flawed. It was going to be in place for only one year, and now it will be in place indefinitely until replaced. My concern with that is that Bill C-5 isn't really a regulatory system; it's just a granting of executive power to determine, in an unconstrained way, which projects should go forward and the process for evaluating them. I think that's a more fundamentally flawed legislation, and it's unfortunate, I think, that Bill C-39 extends its life.

Thank you very much. Those are my opening comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

We're moving on to Mr. Christidis.

[George Christidis, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear today.

My name is George Christidis, and I'm president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association. The CNA represents over 200 organizations across Canada's nuclear industry, including uranium producers, electricity generators, technology developers, engineering firms, manufacturers and the broad supply chain.

Canada's nuclear industry provides roughly 14% of the country's electricity and supports over 89,000 jobs directly and indirectly, which contribute to energy security and economic competitiveness. It produces medical isotopes that play an essential role in diagnosing and treating cancer. Canada is also a global uranium powerhouse and the world's second-largest uranium producer, supplying fuel for our domestic nuclear fleet and countries around the world.

Canada is pivotal at this moment. Electricity demand is growing, energy security has become a national priority, and governments across the country are looking to build the infrastructure needed to support economic growth and decarbonization. To deliver these ambitions, Canada needs a regulatory framework that is rigorous, predictable and efficient.

In this context, the CNA supports Bill C-39 and welcomes the government's decision to make the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission the lead authority for nuclear project reviews. This is a reform that the nuclear industry has been advocating for many years. It advances the principle of one project, one review and recognizes the CNSC's unique expertise as Canada's independent, internationally respected nuclear regulator.

Importantly, we believe this can be achieved without compromising safety and environmental protection. The CNSC is a full life cycle regulator, overseeing nuclear projects from planning through decommissioning. Integrating impact assessment into the existing licensing framework can reduce duplication while ensuring that environmental requirements and monitoring measures remain enforceable throughout a project's life.

While we strongly support the direction of Bill C-39, its success will depend on effective implementation. I would like to highlight four key priorities.

First, predictable timelines must be supported by clear rules. The proposed one-year decision timeline is a positive step and will improve the certainty for investors and project proponents. However, the legislation does not clearly define when an application is considered complete or under what circumstances timelines can be paused. Without that clarity, there's a risk that uncertainty shifts from the front end of the process and undermines the benefits of the legislated timeline. Industry needs transparency expectations regarding information requirements, completeness, determination and interdepartmental coordination.

Second, an integrated review process must function effectively in practice. The CNSC should be empowered not only to lead the impact assessments and licensing decisions but also to coordinate federal permitting requirements and information requests from other departments in a way that ensures clear accountability across the government, limits duplication and delivers timely decisions.

Third, the proposed approach to indigenous consultation is a positive development, but additional clarity is needed. Having the CNSC coordinate consultation should improve consistency, reduce duplication and create clear processes for both indigenous communities and project proponents. However, recent court decisions have highlighted the continuing uncertainty regarding when the duty to consult is triggered, the scope of the consultation required and how early engagement activities are recognized. Greater clarity in these areas would benefit all parties and support meaningful consultation while improving project certainty.

Finally, our industry remains concerned about the overall regulatory burden. While Bill C-39 represents meaningful progress, there's significant work to be done to ensure that regulatory requirements are proportionate to the project risks, particularly for projects located in existing sites or using proven technologies. Regulatory resources should be focused on matters that contribute most directly to safety, environmental protection and informed decision-making.

In conclusion, the CNA supports Bill C-39 as an important step toward a more efficient and coordinated regulatory framework for nuclear projects. With clear timelines, integrated permitting, effective indigenous consultation and continued focus on reducing unnecessary duplication, the legislation could help enable investment and build infrastructure, while maintaining the highest safety and environmental protection.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Shea, the last word goes to you.

[Tara Shea, Vice-President, Regulatory and Indigenous Affairs, Mining Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation to be here.

I'm Tara Shea, vice-president of regulatory and indigenous affairs with the Mining Association of Canada. I'm joined by my colleague Geoff Smith, our vice-president of government relations.

I want to begin by recognizing that we are gathered today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Mining is a cornerstone of Canada's economy, and global demand for Canadian minerals and metals continues to grow. To meet this demand, we need timely permitting approvals for new mines and existing operations.

We also need reliable rail, port and marine networks that are protected from prolonged work stoppages. The Canadian mining sector is the largest industrial customer of Canada's railways and the largest shipper by volume in both rail and marine.

Our sector has a stake in all three parts of Bill C-39.

MAC views Bill C-39 as another step in the right direction. The changes to the Fisheries Act to enable third party habitat banking and fee-in-lieu alternatives, as well as the reforms under the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, are particularly welcome, but legislation alone will not deliver the efficiency Canada needs. Implementation is critical.

We have provided the committee with a detailed brief, and we'll use our time today to highlight a few of our key recommendations.

Starting with the Impact Assessment Act, we acknowledge the agency's ongoing work to focus assessments on issues within federal jurisdiction. Even so, a federal impact assessment remains a substantial undertaking, and there's opportunity for further improvements. Shorter timelines are achievable. Realizing them in practice will require pairing the timeline reforms with a recalibrated scope of study and information requirements, so that what proponents must produce matches what decision-makers actually need. Without this, we are compressing timelines on paper, not in practice.

Next, most provinces have now signed impact assessment co-operation agreements. We would like to see clearer recognition of these agreements in the legislation itself. We recommend amending section 16 of the Impact Assessment Act to screen out projects where an agreement is in place and where the province confirms that its processes, together with federal permitting, will address effects within federal jurisdiction. Where a federal assessment is nonetheless required, the agency should publish its reasons for requiring a federal assessment.

Finally on the Impact Assessment Act, the physical activities regulations—the project list—should be amended to focus on projects that have the potential for significant adverse effects within federal jurisdiction. For mining, that means, at a minimum, excluding mine and mill expansions, raising production thresholds for new mines and mills, and excluding small-footprint projects like electrified underground mines.

Moving to part 2 of Bill C-39, we support the government's ambition to improve supply chain efficiency, the new transportation projects office, the national trade corridors councils, the tell-us-once approach under the Canada Transportation Act and more flexibility for ports. Their effectiveness will depend on implementation, including a clear scope for new powers and adequate federal resources.

Beyond Bill C-39, Canada needs a broader review of the Canada Transportation Act to address the market power of the two class I railways.

Finally, on labour, Bill C-39 includes important amendments to the Canada Labour Code. However, under the proposed framework, the minister can intervene only once the strike or lockout has begun. By then, mines have likely already cut production and, potentially, jobs. These disruptions also damage customer relationships and Canada's reputation with trading partners and investors. We recommend amending section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to allow intervention before a stoppage in exceptional circumstances only: where bargaining has failed, where the special mediator says a stoppage is imminent and where the harm to the national interest would be significant.

In closing, investors look at the whole picture, including how long it takes to get a project approved and whether they can reliably get their product to market once it's built. To attract the investment, we need assessment and permitting information requirements to be scoped to what is actually needed to make decisions; processes that deliver on legislated timelines; early, coordinated and meaningful indigenous consultation; and sustained federal, provincial and territorial co-operation. We also need a resilient transportation system with the tools to prevent costly disruptions before they start.

Thank you. We'll be happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thanks very much, all of you.

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

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

Thank you.

I'll start with the Canadian Nuclear Association.

First of all, thank you for keeping Canadians safe. I think Canada has one of the best nuclear safety records in the entire world. I appreciate the work you are doing, sir.

I'm going to go through your four implementation points, because I think they provide some excellent structure for my questions.

We'll go through, first of all, your concern with the starting point. We on this side share that concern. You can picture someone saying, “You have five minutes to complete this test,” but that same person then gives the stopwatch to the person writing the exam, and they can decide when to start it and when not to. That's exactly our concern. It's that there is no clarity as to when the stopwatch starts.

A regulator could, ad infinitum, forever, continue to put new studies out there and say that you need this study, you need that study and you need this study, and never ever stop the clock. I believe you had comments on a similar line. Perhaps you could comment on my thoughts there.

[George Christidis]

Yes. That captures, I guess, the questions we have. It really is about defining what that process is. To your point, it's very much identifying in that one-year process what is required, what the information is and what the definition of the stoppage is. Therefore, it's providing that clarity so that all involved—the industry, but also the government side—have that understanding of what is needed.

I can't add much more insight into that, but it's very much that the need to define that part of the legislation is correct.

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

Thank you very much.

In my riding, in Wesleyville, there will be one of Canada's largest new nuclear projects. In fact, I think it's one of the largest in North America. With that, I'm already aware that many organizations are being reached out to, so I'll transition to your second point, which is federal permitting and coordination.

One of the concerns I have is that your organization may be responsible for hitting this one year, but you're dependent on other organizations. When there is a new nuclear reactor—a small modular one or a traditional one—how many organizations would be responsible, in your estimation, for permitting or licensing?