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

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Thank you.

I'm going to move to the Chamber of Commerce for my next question. Bill C-39 proposes a national trade corridors council to monitor the movement of goods and analyze disruptions. What information would businesses want the council to examine so that government can identify vulnerabilities before they become major disruptions?

[Pascal Chan]

On the question of the council, it's not something we've received a lot of feedback on from members, from that perspective. We have a diversity of interests there. Some have concerns about additional direction from an appointed council going out, and others feel that this would set better guardrails for progress in certain projects.

We don't have a comment on that right at this moment.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Sure.

I'll stay with you. From your members' perspective, how much does our ability to access new international markets depend on having reliable domestic transportation corridors connecting producers to ports, airports and border crossings?

[Pascal Chan]

It's critical. If you can't move it, you can't sell it. If they don't believe they're going to be able to do business with us, they're not going to do business with us.

I've mentioned the efforts whereby we're going to have to diversify our trade, but if we're not able to expand our capacity through building projects more quickly and getting shovels in the ground, or ensure that there's labour stability to allow us to move these products, we're not going to re-establish this reputation.

I mentioned that since 2023, we've seen many labour disruptions. These include having the ports in British Columbia shut down twice, the second time at the same time as the port of Montreal. We saw the entire rail network shutting down, the St. Lawrence Seaway shutting down and strike mandates with a number of the CBSA agents. We've seen it with our airlines as well. All of this is critical to our reputation. We don't just hear about this domestically. We hear it internationally, when we do missions abroad.

Also, if you look at some of the statements we've made, they've been in collaboration with, for example, the U.S. chamber, because even when politicians aren't necessarily talking to each other, businesses continue to work together and to look to improve our economic circumstances. We have been very much on the same page about what these labour disruptions are doing to our ability to grow our economies.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

You feel that—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Bains. I'm sorry.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for your contribution.

That brings us to the conclusion of this panel. We will suspend for a few moments to bring in the next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Welcome back to meeting number three of the House of Commons Legislative Committee on Bill C-39.

I have a few comments for the benefit of the new witnesses. Please wait until I recognize you by name before you speak. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic. Please mute yourself when not speaking.

There's an interpretation function at the bottom of your screen that you can use. I want to remind witnesses that committee members may ask questions in either French or English, so please have your interpretation device at the ready. All comments should be addressed through the chair.

I'd like now to welcome our new panel of witnesses. From the Air Line Pilots Association, International, we have Tim Perry, the president of ALPA Canada. From the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies - Canada, we have John Gamble, chief executive officer. On Zoom, from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, we have David Chartrand, Canadian general vice-president.

Each group will have up to five minutes for their presentation, following which we will have rounds of questions.

Mr. Perry, I will start with you.

[Captain Tim Perry, President, ALPA Canada, Air Line Pilots Association, International]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today on behalf of Canada's professional airline pilots. ALPA Canada represents more than 95% of Canada's unionized professional pilots, employed at 22 Canadian airlines.

The government has characterized Bill C-39 as an effort to modernize and strengthen collective bargaining. These are objectives ALPA Canada supports, but unfortunately, we believe this legislation misses the mark.

ALPA Canada has consistently advocated for the removal of section 107 from the Canada Labour Code. Let's not forget what the Supreme Court of Canada has told us: “The right to strike is...an indispensable component of [the] right” to meaningful collective bargaining. Ministerial intervention to end lawful strikes and lockouts violates that right.

Moreover, the bill's proposed amendments to section 107 and ending strikes will lead to behaviour not conducive to concluding collective agreements. In fact, it will encourage employers to adapt their behaviour at the bargaining table in ways that will lead to the increased invocation of section 107, discouraging good-faith bargaining and further deteriorating labour relations in this country.

ALPA Canada's recommendation from the outset has been to improve the front end of the bargaining process by giving unions and employers the structure and tools they need to reach collective agreements prior to a notice of dispute having been filed. Instead, Bill C-39 focuses heavily on what happens at the end of the process: more conciliation, more mediators and additional intervention mechanisms. The priority should be to proactively prevent bargaining breakdowns and not, quite simply, to manage them.

Let me suggest some practical amendments to the code that we believe should have been included in this bill. First, ALPA Canada recommends that the code include an expedited CIRB process to resolve information disclosure disputes while bargaining is still under way. When employers delay or refuse to provide information, meaningful negotiations can and do stall. The current process is slow, and by the time a decision is reached, the damage is generally already done.

Second, ALPA Canada recommends that the code include clear and effective provisions for the expedited arbitration of grievances. Section 49 of Ontario's Labour Relations Act provides a clear example of how such a mechanism can work. The stagnation in resolving grievances plays a major role in the deterioration of labour relations, and it cannot be ignored when analyzing outcomes in collective bargaining. Bill C-39 misses an opportunity to address this gap and help parties promptly resolve disputes before they escalate.

Third, ALPA recommends that the code permit all notices of bargain to be issued six months prior to the expiration of a collective agreement. If the government wants to encourage better bargaining outcomes, why not let all bargaining begin earlier? Contracts can be complex, and bargaining takes time. If the code better reflects these realities, better bargaining outcomes could be reached.

Finally, when it comes to Bill C-39's proposed changes to the conciliation process, the settlement of first collective agreements and the introduction of special mediators, ALPA asserts that the rules should not change midway through the process. Unions and employers presently engaged in collective bargaining have developed strategies and negotiated under the existing legislative framework. Changing the rules upon royal assent risks upsetting the balance between the parties, creating uncertainty and encouraging procedural manoeuvres that do little to support constructive negotiations, even in advance of this legislation.

If the government's objective is a bargaining process that works, that provides timely access to information, that resolves disputes sufficiently, that allows sufficient time to negotiate and that protects constitutionally protected rights, it has missed the mark. It overlooks the hard-earned lessons of Canadian labour relations, and it ignores the wisdom that lasting labour relations and peace are achieved through meaningful collective bargaining, not government intervention. In other words, this legislation is penny-wise and pound foolish.

We urge the committee to address the bill's noted shortcomings and adopt amendments that genuinely strengthen the collective bargaining process and protect workers' constitutional rights.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Perry.

We move to Mr. Gamble.

[John Gamble, Chief Executive Officer, Association of Consulting Engineering Companies – Canada]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you.

I am John Gamble, president and CEO of the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies of Canada. Our 400-plus members assess, plan, design and deliver projects Canadians depend on, from water and transportation to energy and resource development.

My testimony today will concern the project assessment and approval provisions, which we broadly support. ACEC takes no position on the Canada Labour Code provisions of Bill C-39.

Across successive governments, ACEC has advocated for timely, coordinated and transparent regulatory decisions. We believe the bill offers an opportunity to advance that objective. Canada does not just need to build faster; we need to decide faster.

While a regulatory process should not guarantee an approval or outcome, it should provide clear requirements, transparent decisions and confidence in rigorous assessment within a credible time frame. That allows investors, proponents and communities to make informed decisions.

Canada has strategic resources, skilled people and opportunities to strengthen our economy while supporting a global transition to lower emissions. A resource is not a project, and a project does not proceed simply because we call it strategic. It must also be investable. Capital has choices. If proponents cannot assess a project's time, cost and requirements here, opportunities can move elsewhere.

Canada has a world-class consulting engineering industry that implements major projects nationally and internationally. Creating the opportunities to invest here will unlock even more opportunities right here at home. We can start by recognizing that individual projects are often part of a larger infrastructure ecosystem. The bill correctly recognizes this.

The “regions of national interest” offer an opportunity to plan related infrastructure and projects together at a regional scale. Planning at this scale can identify shared infrastructure needs, cumulative impacts and development requirements earlier, supporting investment and coordinated approvals for related projects.

ACEC has long advocated for a national infrastructure corridor, a network of strategically planned multi-use rights-of-way, paired with predictable planning. This is similar to the proposed trade corridors. These should also reflect the same multi-use approach and extend beyond transportation alone.

Even as Canada faces urgent challenges, more efficient approvals must come with a clear commitment to public protection. Risk-based regional assessments can consider related projects together, identify common risks, establish appropriate conditions up front, and let proponents and agencies focus resources on material risks associated with each project's nature and location.

Our professional engineers are accountable under provincial and territorial law. They are required to protect public safety, health, welfare and the environment and to comply with all applicable codes, standards and laws, as the architects and other regulated professionals within our industry do.

These responsibilities complement, but do not replace, public oversight. This matters when the bill potentially permits preparatory work before a decision or allows developments identified through a completed regional assessment to be considered pre-approved, subject to conditions and mitigation.

However, professional oversight must continue. Efficient approvals and strong protections are not competing objectives. Meaningful indigenous consultation, respect for constitutional rights and credible scientific assessment are essential to durable decisions. Bill C-39 offers a framework for progress, but work remains.

ACEC has three recommendations we believe will support the successful implementation of the bill.

First, coordination must work in practice. Responsibilities and requirements must be clear and mutually understood by proponents, regulators and stakeholders. Federal departments must work together with provincial, territorial, municipal and indigenous governments so that delays are resolved rather than transferred elsewhere. In the past, we've recommended a single agency for projects requiring multiple federal approvals. For projects assessed under the Impact Assessment Act, the bill's proposed decision document should identify who is accountable for the federal decision.

Second, credible timelines require capacity across all sectors. With increased investments, both proponents and regulators will need to invest in people, expertise and resources to ensure that the requirements for a complete application—which starts the one-year clock—are understood and agreed upon by all parties. Canada's infrastructure workforce strategy must include engineers, technologists, environmental professionals and project managers. Shorter deadlines alone will not address our challenges.

Third, engineers and other designers must be engaged early. Their expertise helps identify risks, evaluate alternatives, and address technical and environmental challenges early, de-risking projects before problems can become costly to resolve. This includes the regional assessments that must precede setting any region of national interest. Early planning and design help establish realistic scopes, schedules and budgets, reducing costly changes and delays.

Ultimately, the success of Bill C-39 will not be measured simply by whether decisions are made faster but whether those decisions translate into projects' being built. Our industry is here, and we're ready to contribute to Canada's success.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Gamble.

It's over to you, Mr. Chartrand.

[David Chartrand, Canadian General Vice-President, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you.

My name is David Chartrand. I serve as the general vice-president for Canada for the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. We represent thousands of workers in federally regulated industries, particularly air transportation and airports. Approximately 16,000 federally regulated workers work within Canada's airports.

I'd like to begin with why the right to strike matters. The federal government itself has acknowledged that approximately 95% of collective agreements are reached without a work stoppage. Strikes are rare because both sides know there are dire consequences if they cannot agree. That is what brings employers to the table and keeps them there. The Supreme Court of Canada recognized in 2015 that this right is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Bill C-39 goes too far. Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code was written as a general power to promote industrial peace. It says nothing about ending strikes. However, in 2024 and 2025, the federal government used it to order an end to strikes and lockouts at CN and CPKC, at ports in British Columbia and Quebec, at Canada Post and at Air Canada without a single vote in Parliament.

Rather than repealing this power, as the IAM and other labour movements have called for, this bill writes it into the code. Once a strike or lockout begins, one minister could direct the Canada Industrial Relations Board to order a return to work, extend the existing collective agreement or impose binding arbitration. The federal government calls the new conditions guardrails, but the deciding test is whether the Minister of Labour forms the opinion that a stoppage would have a significant adverse national impact. The minister must consider a special mediator's report, but is not bound by it. Economic harm is one of the factors to be weighed, even though economic pressure is the very purpose of a strike. That is far too much power to place in the hands of one individual.

Mr. Chair, this is not only a question of principle, because it changes behaviour at the bargaining table. If an employer knows that a minister can end a strike and send the dispute to binding arbitration, it has far less reason to negotiate in good faith and every reason to wait for the federal government to step in. In August 2024, CN and CPKC locked out their employees. The dispute was referred to the CIRB that same day. When intervention becomes the expected outcome, the workers who keep our airports, railways and ports running are left with the weakest voice at the table, precisely because their work matters so much.

I want to be clear that there is a good deal in this bill that the IAM does welcome. Successor rights for airport and air transportation contract workers will help prevent contract flipping from erasing their collective agreements. First-contract arbitration will help newly organized workers whose employers try to drag out negotiations. Stronger enforcement against bad-faith bargaining, wage theft and misclassification is long overdue, and we want to see these measures passed. However, none of these improvements require weakening the right to strike. Our members are not prepared to give up that right in exchange for them. Good measures should stand on their own merits and not be used to carry provisions that take away the most important tool workers have.

We therefore ask the committee to amend Bill C-39 in four ways.

First, amend section 107 so that it cannot be used to end a legal strike or lockout. If a strike ever creates a national emergency causing serious, irreparable harm to the economy, an independent expert body should assess it first. Only Parliament should decide whether to end it through legislation, and this should be debated and voted on in the open.

Second, make the special mediator independent and expert so that it helps the party settle rather than serving as a step towards intervention.

Third, keep the right to apply for geographic certification with unions rather than allowing employers, the minister or the CIRB to start that process.

Fourth, keep the measures that help workers: successor rights for airport and air transportation contract workers, first-contract arbitration and stronger enforcement against bad-faith bargaining, wage theft and misclassification.

Mr. Chair, building Canada strong must also mean strong collective agreements and strong protections for the people who do the work. A stronger and more independent Canada has to be built with workers, not at the expense of rights that generations of Canadians fought to establish.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chartrand.

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Perry, we've had conversations on better bargaining. The minister thinks this legislation improves bargaining. I think you probably disagree that the legislation before us is actually going to improve bargaining.

[Capt Tim Perry]

I agree with your statement. This is not going to improve bargaining outcomes, because it doesn't improve the bargaining process.

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

I know you had some ideas and proposed amendments, but it looks as though they're moving with a special mediator.

Earlier, I put this question to Mr. Doran from the ILWU. If we're going to have a special mediator, would you support special powers for the special mediator?

For example, these are powers so that the special mediator can set times and dates for when the parties have to get in a room and talk to each other. Also, the special mediator could compel attendance at those sessions for anyone they believe would be useful in resolving the dispute and would have powers like the things you've talked about, such as powers to order disclosure of documents to help with the bargaining.

Should the special mediator have special powers that would actually help the bargaining process to get to a negotiated collective agreement?

[Capt Tim Perry]

Yes, I think that's a good question.

I'll answer it in this way: As unions, we've never missed a bargaining date and we are available 24-7 in that period of time. There's certainly no issue with being compelled to be there or to have dates scheduled. We want to bargain, and we want everyone to be there who needs to be there.

As for compelling the exchange of information, we think good bargaining depends on the exchange of information. If you value a healthy industry, as we do at ALPA Canada, it makes sense that you would want to make proposals that reflect the nature of the employer's business. This depends on the exchange of information.

I would say that the mediator is not without power. They're there at the behest of the minister. That is implicit power, and the report empowers them to a large degree.

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

The minister was here yesterday, and she said that she believes the new things they're adding to section 107—the national interest and various other tests—put guardrails around the use of section 107.

I probed a little further and asked her if the government wouldn't have considered all these things when it used section 107 an unprecedented number of times in the last number of years. She didn't really answer, but she sort of indicated that those are the things they take into consideration.

Are there actually any guardrails on section 107 that they've put forward in this legislation?

[Capt Tim Perry]

The national interest guardrail is far too broad, and the social disruption guardrail is just as broad and enormously subjective. Therefore, I would say that they're not effective guardrails. Furthermore, it's a focus on the wrong part of the code, and it will not prevent section 107 from being used.

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

Thanks very much.

Mr. Chartrand, I found it interesting that in your statement, you said the minister is not bound by the special mediator's report. In fact, I asked the minister yesterday what happens if the special mediator gives a report that says the employer was not bargaining or was bargaining in bad faith. I said that surely, then, the use of section 107 is off the table. She did not agree that this is the case. She didn't really answer, but she didn't say, “No, of course, section 107 is then off the table.”

What are your thoughts on that in those circumstances? There seems to be no real limit in this at all on the minister's use of section 107, and we know how often the Liberals have used it in the last couple of years.

[David Chartrand]

My thoughts on this are that the conversation you had with the minister just confirms what every one of the labour unions and the representatives of workers thought. That was our belief: that it didn't have any teeth and that the minister was not bound by this report.

You've confirmed it, in a way, to us: Regardless of what's in the report and how transparent it may be, the decision remains in the hands of the minister—one individual.

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

You mentioned geographic certification. I'm going to quickly touch on that.

For example, at the port of Montreal, there are CUPE 375, CUPE 5598 and ILA 1657. Theoretically, two employers at that port could apply for geographic certification of those unions, and they're actually two completely different unions. The minister didn't seem to indicate that was a problem. She said the board would deal with it. What are your thoughts on that?

[David Chartrand]

I'm sorry. I didn't hear if the question is for me or for Mr. Perry.

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

It is for you, Mr. Chartrand. I'm sorry. My mic has been cutting in and out. It is for you.

[David Chartrand]

Okay.

The concern we have is that it should be up to the union to decide if there should be a merge like that. The membership, when they're certified, should make a decision as to which union they want to go with. It shouldn't be left in the hands of the government, the minister or the employer to make this decision.

These members want to be represented by a certain labour union, and there's a reason for that. This should be left in the hands of the members, not in the hands of the employers.

What would happen, as we have seen provincially in other jurisdictions, is that you would end up having a vote between unions. You then end up having members who wanted to be represented by a specific union but who now have to join a union they did not vote on and did not want to have.