Bill C-39 Committee on Oct. 19th, 2026

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Right. You're allowing two employers to effectively say they want these unions geographically merged without the consent of those unions, and if the CIRB agrees, that's that.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

The CIRB is an independent body, as you know, which will hear the arguments of both the—

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I understand that, but why are you giving employers the power to do that?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

It is important that the CIRB be there to help with questions of geographic certification. We are creating a level playing field whereby employers will also be able to apply for geographic certification.

The proposed change, as you point out, would need to be initiated by two or more employers in the same industry and geographical area. Obviously, the Canada Industrial Relations Board would then hear that appeal and make an appropriate decision.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

What happens if it's two unions that are not of the same union? Not all of the same unions work in ports and rail and other places where I assume this is going to happen. What happens if you're going to merge a CUPE union with an ILWU union? How does that work out?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

I think those will be really important questions for the board. I'm not a member or an adjudicator on the Canada Industrial Relations—

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

No, but you're allowing it to happen.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

I'm allowing applications. That's correct.

I would say that—

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I would think you would have thought about how to deal with that problem and not just say the board will deal with it.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

We certainly have thought about the situation, actually. In fact, it's our assessment that it would be highly unlikely, because the applicants would know that their appeal to the board would fail. Employers are smart people. They have a lot of wisdom in relationships, and they are, ultimately, not going to apply to the Canada Industrial Relations Board for something they know the board would reject out of hand.

We have confidence in both employers and unions to bring things to the board when they're reasonable and when they need adjudication from the Canada Industrial Relations Board and its professionals.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Seeback.

Thank you, Minister.

That takes us to Mr. Kelloway, I believe.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Yes, Mr. Chair, and I'll be sharing my time with MP Weiler.

Ministers, thank you for being here today. It's an important discussion on an important bill, and I think it's quite important for us to discuss it, as Canadians, and for Canadians to hear from you what is actually being proposed.

Minister Hajdu, I want to go back to section 107, if I could. Section 107 isn't new. It's been part of the labour legislation for decades. I think it's been close to 50 years, if I'm not mistaken.

In my discussions back home with folks, they highlighted some questions for me to ask you. I have a very active community. I wanted to get a sense from you, number one, of what the changes are specifically. Can you really drill down in succinct order into the legislation and the reason for the clearer rules? Why are they needed?

Most importantly, what protections are there for workers who are exercising their collective bargaining rights?

Thank you.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Ultimately, you're right. The use of section 107 has been criticized by labour organizations over the past number of years, particularly around its pre-emptive use—it was used twice pre-emptively. It is a tool that.... People often think about labour dispute, but it can also be used in ways to refer other things to the board. It is an important tool, in my opinion, that the government needs in order to help resolve labour disputes that are protracted and long. However, what we heard from unions in particular, and workers, is that there need to be better guardrails about when we use section 107.

This legislation puts into place important pieces of guardrail that unions and workers can feel confident protect and, in fact, strengthen their charter right to strike. First of all, it removes explicitly the ability to use section 107 pre-emptively. Section 107 can be used only when a strike or labour disruption has begun.

Second, importantly, the special mediator's report must be public. That, as I've explained in a number of questions, is a process to get to the publication of the special mediator's report.

Third, the national interest must also be assessed. How are that labour dispute and its nature disrupting the Canadian economy, other sectors, other unionized workers, vulnerable communities or a number of different contemplations? I was the labour minister before, so I've been involved in these kinds of conversations, and I can tell you that a labour disruption has a deep impact. It also, importantly, ensures that the minister takes into account the right to strike, and that is part of the national interest assessment.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

You're sharing your time with Mr. Weiler.

All right, go ahead.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Kelloway.

I want to thank the ministers and officials for being here.

I want to ask a question on the regional assessments and regions of national interest, because I think this is perhaps the most novel part of the first part of the bill. I think looking at regional assessments and moving planning upstream actually have a lot of potential benefits, particularly for proponents, by giving more certainty. Also, from an ecological basis, it allows you to look at a landscape, watershed or habitat level, and this is important when you're looking at environmental impacts.

To date, this tool has primarily been used under the Impact Assessment Act to situate and inform project-level assessments. This new shift in Bill C-39 really puts a lot of emphasis on getting those regional assessments to be very rigorous.

My question for you, Minister, is this: Can you explain the standards that the government expects those assessments to meet before a region of national interest can be designated?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you for that question, because the “regions of national interest” piece is one of the pieces that I am the most excited about when I look at the opportunities. I think it builds on what we had in our “A Force of Nature” strategy when we talked about building well, which was pillar two, and about mapping species at risk and mapping carbon-rich or carbon-dense areas. This next piece, “regions of national interest”, kind of takes the next step, building on that.

Regional assessments in the past—and Terry could go on quite a bit about some of the ones in the past, I'm sure—have been about the cumulative impacts, but they haven't been of the standard we're talking about when we're talking about regions of national interest. A region of national interest would go deeper. Part of it includes the importance of consultations. What we're looking at is for one project type....

Let's say that you're in an area, and you look at, if projects are to be built in this area, the following: What is the situation for species at risk? What is the situation for carbon-rich areas? Let's get a sense of this area. What would be the cumulative impacts if we built projects like that in this area? Then it is also the added piece of doing consultation with indigenous peoples to actually get a sense of what the pluses and minuses are to going ahead with a project in this region.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Once all of that has happened, then you can actually move to the next steps of making it a region of national interest.

I've been told to wrap up, but what I would say is that what's more important—and that maybe I can have a chance to talk about more—is what happens after that, because that's equally important.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Ms. Larouche, we'll go over to you for two and a half minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'll start with you, Minister Hajdu. I'll make a brief comment, and then I'll ask you my question.

I've been noticing for a while now that you've been arguing a lot about the special mediator. However, we know that the special mediator is appointed by your government. So you understand that the unions are questioning the objectivity of this special mediator. Then, we know that he will only make recommendations and that you will then decide, based on the very subjective criterion of national interest, whether the strike can take place.

So, Minister, you're saying that Bill C‑39 sets out guidelines for the use of section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. However, section 107 does not explicitly provide the power to order a return to work and mandatory arbitration. This is an interpretation that your government has made and that is being challenged in court. With Bill C‑39, you are expressly enshrining these powers in the act.

Isn't it more accurate to say that your government is seeking to legalize and legitimize a practice that is being challenged rather than truly limiting it?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

I disagree. On the contrary, I think the proposed legislation is intended to protect workers' right to strike.

We do that by actually changing section 107 and ensuring it's explicit that it cannot be used to prevent a worker's right to strike. In fact, it cannot be used pre-emptively. It must be contemplated only once a later dispute has begun.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

In any case, Minister, right now, unions are telling me more about Bill C‑247, which seeks to repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, but that's another debate.

Can you name a single substantial, objective restriction on your power to end a legal strike?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Well, for one, I think the CIRB is an independent body, and we need to have confidence first in the Canada Industrial Relations Board to do its work, and second in the work of the special mediator.

You asked a question about the confidence that parties would have in the special mediator. The labour department has a long history of ensuring that special mediators utilized in specific disputes are accepted by both parties. In fact, fundamentally, trust is the only way we're going to improve relationships that are so deeply distressed. The special mediator will be selected with both parties and ensuring that they have the confidence. Otherwise, you're right, that would not be an acceptable solution.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Ms. Larouche.

Mr. Leslie, it's over to you for five minutes.