Bill C-39 Committee on Oct. 20th, 2026

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Okay.

Mr. Hancock, go ahead.

[Mark Hancock]

I agree. We've looked at this bill a lot, at section 107. I think that one thing this government's attempting to do is to shelter itself from court challenges. It's done a decent job of that, but at no point will we, as a union, give up our right to strike. No guardrails are going to take away our right to strike. I think the government has missed the ball completely in this case.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

We have talked about giving more powers to the special mediator. One thing I'd like to talk to you about is clause 322. It would establish a defined special mediator period. A mediation period that is demonstrably moving the parties towards agreement should not automatically terminate because the statutory period expires.

Ms. Bruske, would you support an extension of up to 14 days on a special mediator's written recommendation when meaningful bargaining is under way and additional time would materially help the prospect of a settlement?

[Bea Bruske]

What I'm concerned about is that when you're down to the last strokes of bargaining, extensions of time are not necessarily helpful. You need to be working towards a deadline, because extensions often mean that you're just ragging the puck, creating a bigger frustration and not necessarily finding those solutions.

We're always concerned when there are additional timelines being added. Everybody knows what the bottom line needs to be. Everybody's had months and weeks to prepare for this moment. Let's go.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

I really appreciate that.

Thank you to both witnesses.

I have one last statement. Conservatives believe that government should be limited. Unfortunately, it seems the government is giving itself unlimited discretion when it comes to workers' rights.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Albas.

Last in the batting order is Ms. Desrochers.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I really want to start by thanking the witnesses for joining us today, but also for all the work they do to protect and advance workers' rights across Canada. It's really important, and I know it's not always easy. I was a public service employee for over 20 years, so I saw first-hand the important work of unions, and it's very, very appreciated.

I will also take the opportunity to set the record straight on section 107. Contrary to what was said earlier, Bill C‑39 does not enshrine section 107 further, because it already exists. It is already being used. It is precisely because it has been used a number of times in recent years that the government and the minister have said they need to establish criteria and transparency mechanisms and codify the factors that will allow its use. In fact, that's what Bill C‑39 codifies and what it proposes to increase protection and accountability.

Ms. Bruske, Mr. Hancock, do you agree that the bill adds additional requirements to regulate when and how section 107 is used, but also on what has to happen before we get to that point, whereas we are not there at all at the moment?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

[Bea Bruske]

The fact that the government has used section 107 eight times in a two-year period does not mean that it should be enshrining the use of it. This is why there are four court challenges in play at this moment: Unions vehemently disagree that section 107 should be used that way at all.

As I noted earlier, if there is an economic emergency—

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

I'm going to interrupt you. My question is actually whether Bill C‑39 proposes anything to govern the use of section 107. Regardless of whether you think section 107 should exist, does the bill propose any anything?

Is this providing a better frame for the use of it?

[Bea Bruske]

I don't believe it provides any guardrails whatsoever. I believe it gives employers a free pass not to bargain.

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

Mr. Hancock, what do you think?

[Mark Hancock]

I'm not interested in any guardrails around something that's going to impact my members' ability to exercise constitutionally protected rights. We don't have guardrails around whether people have human rights in this country. Ultimately, at the end of the day, my members will continue to exercise their right to strike with section 107 as it is now or with section 107 as it is contained in Bill C-39. I have no interest in guardrails.

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

Perfect, thank you.

Let's get back to the other elements in Bill C‑39, especially the commitment. I'm referring here to my experience as a former public service employee. I spent several years without a collective agreement because negotiations for a new collective agreement often begin six months after the expiry of the old one.

Do you think codifying how negotiations should happen and putting deadlines on when they should start before the collective agreement expires will help negotiations and help workers get better results?

[Bea Bruske]

The best determinant of whether there's going to be successful bargaining is the parties' past behaviour at bargaining tables. When there's complex bargaining, parties will often, if they have a well-developed working relationship, start the bargaining process early, as we heard David Chartrand indicate earlier. However, removing leverage is not going to assist the parties in actually reaching a collective agreement.

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

Mr. Hancock, do you want to add anything?

[Mark Hancock]

As I said earlier, we have over 4,000 certifications. Every round of bargaining with different employers is different. I believe it's always best to start early and to meet often to talk about challenges that employers and workers face. I have no issue with that.

When progress is being made at the bargaining table, unions—and we showed this most recently with WestJet federally—are willing to go beyond the timelines as well. With as much time as possible spent at the bargaining table and both parties actively seeking a collective agreement, we're all better off.

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

That's perfect. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Desrochers.

Thank you to both of our witnesses for joining us today and for their valuable contributions to this very important piece of legislation.

Thank you to the members.

We've had two long days. I will see you next Monday. Notice will go out later this week about the next meeting.

Thank you.