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

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

I think you mentioned transparency a few times in your opening remarks. To me, that looks like not just reporting internally but publicly reporting the actual totality of the application process, from when it starts to when you have all the permits to start construction.

Is that a good insertion into this legislation to ensure accountability and transparency?

[John Gamble]

I would be inclined to say yes, without knowing exactly what information.

It's not just about transparency. Data is very important in decision-making. It's important to continuous improvement. It's important for investors making informed decisions. I think transparency is more effective than some punitive measure.

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

I understand that you, personally and as part of the association, have supported for a while now the idea of creating regions of national interest, which this legislation is aiming to do. When I read it, there's really no clear definition of what that means. The minister really was very unclear yesterday in her conversations about it. We don't know the process for how cabinet would go about designating a geographic area.

I'd like to ask you a few questions.

Shouldn't legislation granting these extraordinary powers define what qualifies a national interest to begin with?

[John Gamble]

Any information that gives the investors and the stakeholder community better insight into whether this is a reasonable investment and whether there's a prospect of going forward is helpful. Whether it should be in the legislation or by regulation...I will let the wise minds around this table make that determination. Clarity is always better.

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

We've seen this with the MPO. Whoever has the best lobbyist is going to potentially get to the front of the line.

To me, it would make sense that if a province, municipality, industry association or group of businesses believes it has a region in which this broad-based definition we're trying to legislate today makes sense, it would be good for it to know how to apply and if it needs the best lobbyist to get to the top of the list. Is that a fair imposition within this legislation?

[John Gamble]

I'm not going to quite let you put words in my mouth, but criteria are very important for informed decision-making by proponents, the government and government agencies. They certainly de-risk the likelihood of even a legitimate decision being viewed suspiciously or people simply not understanding it.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Leslie.

Go ahead, Mr. Kelloway.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses who are here, and to Mr. Chartrand on Zoom. I really appreciate the testimony so far today. It's been very illuminating.

I'm going to try to get three questions to the three of you. I'm going to start with Mr. Gamble. It's more general. I'll have more specific questions for the other two witnesses.

Major projects that are happening and major projects that will happen are a pretty big deal for Canadian workers, unionized workers, companies and communities. I'm wondering if we could distill—because you've given some really good testimony—what you see the top five impacts of this bill will be in relation to the workers and industries in comparison to what we have now.

[John Gamble]

First of all, I'm not going to stray into the labour provisions, because that's just not my lane.

It's certainty. I think we've had complacency in this country. We had a very reliable trade partner. It's nothing new to talk about how long it takes to get an approval in this country. This has gone on for decades, and we all have some shared responsibility on this. We have an opportunity to move the needle in creating that business certainty to also create clarity for the stakeholders, and this is often forgotten about. The clarity is also beneficial to the stakeholders, because some of the delays that were talked about earlier happen because someone all of a sudden at the last minute realizes, “My gosh, this is going to affect us. I need to get involved.” The more information everyone has up front, the better.

It's good for, first of all, the proponents, the people who finance these projects. They're looking for a return on investment, as they should. Then workers, suppliers, professionals, construction workers and the people who mill steel and do all these other things want the confidence that their jobs are not going to be here just next month or next year: They want the confidence that there will be demand for their services and products going forward.

That will put a little swagger back in this country. It will make Canada a desired place to come. With the chill in the United States, we have an enormous opportunity to bring the best and the brightest minds here. I think we have a real opportunity to build out.

Canada is already an engineering superpower. We're already a mining superpower. Let's see if we can leverage some of those superpowers here at home.

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

Thank you very much for that answer.

I'm going to pivot to Mr. Chartrand.

Good morning, Mr. Chartrand.

I don't want to repeat the questions from my esteemed colleagues, so I'll focus on something specific in relation to the increased resources of the CIRB. There's a reason I'm asking this.

How important is doubling down on resources to deal with capacity issues in relation to complaints, applications and disputes in a timely manner? Clearly, that's not happening now, so I'm wondering how important it is.

I'll wait for your answer, and then I have a follow-up question for you, sir.

[David Chartrand]

It's extremely important to add resources to the CIRB. Decisions are taking a very long time to be handed out because of the lack of resources and the lack of personnel at the CIRB right now. Cases that should receive decisions within two to three months—three months, usually—sometimes take much longer than that. When you're trying to organize and certify a group, sometimes it takes a very long time to get decisions from the CIRB on certification. That gives time to employers to intimidate workers if they want to.

It's extremely important for the CIRB to get more resources.

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

Thank you for that.

My follow-up question is something that someone mentioned just moments ago about labour relations and behaviours. I think Mr. Perry mentioned it. He was talking about how behaviours form a discussion and its success or failure, whatever the case may be.

In terms of building a stronger relationship between employer and employee, would it be safe to say that investments in this particular piece of the legislation would be your desired outcome and give a possibility of a desired outcome of building stronger relations between employer and employee?

[David Chartrand]

Sure. In consequence, if there is investment and decisions are made faster and all that, there's less frustration from the employees and from our members, so I would think that yes, any investment would be good at the level of the CIRB to help settle disputes.

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

Thank you very much. I think I have only about 20 seconds left.

Mr. Perry, I want to make sure I understand correctly, because I appreciate your testimony.

In terms of this legislation, when a collective agreement ends, the focus is to get people to the table before that happens, six months prior, to discuss the topics and the issues that need to be resolved. I want to make sure of this. Is that something that you see as a positive attribute in the proposed legislation?

[Capt Tim Perry]

Yes. With more time there would be a more nuanced answer, but yes, the time does help.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Kelloway.

Mr. Ste-Marie, we'll go to you, and then we're going to end after you're done.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Perry, I was wondering whether you wanted to tell us more about what you think of the requirement to issue the notice to commence collective bargaining six months prior to the expiration of the collective agreement. If not, let's talk about strengthening the bargaining process. Are there any specific legislative amendments you see as priorities, to help employers and unions reach agreements before disputes arise?

[Capt Tim Perry]

Collective bargaining is really a method of problem-solving. Problem-solving takes time. It benefits from the time, attention and energy it's been given. With an opportunity for more time, attention and energy to be given, the process would benefit, and therefore the outcomes would benefit.

In addition, if we're going to talk about process and what can happen in that period of time, we want a meaningful exchange of information. Prior to that, we want a healthy, expedited grievance arbitration process so that problems don't build up and you're not trying to deal with an accumulation of problems when you commence bargaining. Let's focus that bargaining time on the contract that should follow.

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

Thank you very much.

There's a minute left, Mr. Chartrand. You can have the last word.

[David Chartrand]

When the relationship between an employer and a union is good and the working relation with workers is good, there is no need to wait until the end of a collective agreement to start negotiations. Very often, we sit down, agree with the employer and draft letters of agreement. That has happened to me on multiple occasions in 35 years. The process always works much better at the expiration of a collective agreement when you have that kind of relationship, because there are no accumulated frustrations on the part of the employer, the union and the workers.

If there is a healthy relationship between the two parties, where both want to negotiate and there are situations where everyone wins, there is not need for section 107 or to try to restrict workers' right to strike. A lot of people seem to forget that, at the federal level, 95% of collective agreement negotiations are settled without any conflict and with a good agreement, where everyone comes out a winner and thinks there was something in it for them. This is extremely important.

There are provisions in the act. We have seen the application of back-to-work legislation, but only after they were debated in the House and as part of existing legislation. We went through that at Air Canada, with postal workers and many others. Therefore, section 107 is not necessary; it could be removed.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Chartrand.

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

Thank you to our witnesses. Unfortunately, this brings us to the end of the discussion on this panel. We all appreciate your contribution and your taking the time to be with us today.

We'll suspend for a couple of minutes until the next panel starts.

[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 witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking.

For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, French or English. For those in the room, you know how to use the earpieces—or you should by now.

I would like to remind the witnesses that committee members may ask you questions in either French or English. If you need interpretation, please take a moment now to prepare your earpiece and select the listening channel.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses for today's last panel.

From the Canadian Labour Congress, we have Bea Bruske, president.

Thank you for being here.

From the Canadian Union of Public Employees, we have Mr. Mark Hancock, national president, who is joining us by video conference.

Each of you will be given up to five minutes for opening remarks, followed by questions.

Ms. Bruske, I'll start with you.

[Bea Bruske, President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee.

You've heard from a number of business leaders about the importance of economic stability, and I want to start by saying that Canada's unions share this goal. We want a strong Canadian economy. We want businesses to succeed. We want reliable supply chains, good jobs and stable labour relations.

We know how to achieve stability: It's by making sure that both sides have a reason to bargain and to reach a collective agreement.

Approximately 95% of federally regulated disputes are settled without a work stoppage. That is a simply remarkable record and one that we should be working to strengthen. It works because employers know that workers can withdraw their labour and stop operations. Workers know that striking comes at a significant cost to themselves and their families. Both sides have something at stake. Both sides have a reason to reach a deal.

The proposed changes to section 107 would upset this balance. They would give the minister unfettered power to end a legal strike and to suspend workers' constitutional rights based solely on a minister's opinion that a strike has or could have an adverse effect on the “national interest”, defined as virtually whatever the minister believes it to be.

Far from creating guardrails, we believe that Bill C-39 would entrench a controversial interpretation of existing powers that is currently facing four constitutional challenges.

In its current form, Bill C-39 would give employers a reason to hold out instead of reaching a deal, putting decades of labour stability at risk. Workers will lose faith in a legal process and may take action outside that legal process, increasing the risk of illegal strikes and more serious labour conflicts.

There's a longer history here that we need to remember.

In Atlantic Canada, generations of coal miners fought for the right to organize, to bargain collectively and to improve workplace conditions. In Cape Breton in 1925, a striking miner, William Davis, was killed by company police during a bitter labour dispute.

Those struggles helped to shape the labour relations system we have today: a system that recognizes that workers must have meaningful rights and the ability to actually exercise those rights.

To be clear, the Canada Labour Code did not create the concept of strikes. It created a system by which unions and employers agreed to the rules of engagement in resolving labour disagreements.

Labour peace is fragile, and the proposed new powers for the minister effectively remove the right to strike from workers. Taking away the right to strike is not going to eliminate labour conflict. It takes away the legal framework for resolving it, and what looks like greater stability on paper is going to create more instability.

The CLC has put forward practical alternatives. We have provided our amendments directly to the labour minister. Our central proposal is to explicitly clarify that section 107 does not empower the minister to end legal strikes.

We propose creating an independent panel of experts to assess whether ongoing strikes have created a genuine national economic emergency. The threshold would be exceptionally high, requiring serious, widespread and irreparable harm to the national economy. The panel would advise government, and if intervention were necessary, government would have to introduce legislation and make its case in Parliament.

We also propose that special mediators be independent of government, be experienced in labour relations and be trusted by both parties. Our experience under the public service labour relations act raises some concerns that the proposed special mediator process could delay settlements rather than help achieve them.

These are not untested ideas that we've put forward. Independent reviews of Canada's labour laws, including the Woods and Sims reports, recommended similar approaches decades ago.

Members of the committee, we share the government's interest in a strong and stable economy, but stability cannot be achieved by giving employers a reason to avoid reaching collective agreements. Certainty for businesses cannot mean that workers are certain to lose the right to strike based on the opinion of the minister of the day.

The overwhelming majority of collective agreements are reached without a strike because the system gives both parties a reason to negotiate. Weakening that incentive puts the entire system's success at risk.

We have given the government a clear path to protect workers' rights, support stable labour relations and respond to genuine national emergencies. I urge this committee to look at our proposed amendments and to protect the right to strike.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

It's over to you, Mr. Hancock.