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

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

You're part of the process of working through that. I appreciate that.

Turning to the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, I note that this bill introduces a “tell us once” approach and expands on the use of electronic trade documents. What practical benefits can that have to reduce duplication in paperwork and administrative delays? How can this help exporters, importers and small businesses? How can it help Canadian firms?

[Dennis Darby]

This bill in its intent does exactly that. It removes the potential for duplication and the potential for delay. Canada's problem for manufacturers, aside from the tariffs we're facing from the U.S., is the predictability and ability to get things from coast to coast and the ability to move across the country and out of the country.

One thing this bill does, among many other things, is to add the potential to streamline what is typically now a rather cumbersome process. Aside from the fact that this bill can create a lot of demand for manufactured goods, it also creates the conditions to move things more quickly on a more timely basis. We think that's a very important part.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Great. Thank you.

I believe that's my time, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Louis.

Mr. Ste-Marie, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Doran, we talked about the Supreme Court's decision. A week and a half ago in Quebec, the administrative labour tribunal struck down Quebec legislation modelled on section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to end labour disputes. The tribunal determined that the legislation did not respect the Quebec charter or the Canadian charter and that it put excessive limits on the right to strike.

Bill C‑39 seems to do the same. As we were discussing earlier, this legislation could be unconstitutional. Since the provisions in question are potentially unconstitutional, does Bill C‑39 increase labour market instability and uncertainty, rather than the opposite?

[Tom Doran]

Thank you for your question.

Yes, we believe this bill will lead to greater instability. This is not only because it weakens the collective bargaining process; it's also because we see that this bill is undermining that charter right of freedom of association, which includes the right to strike.

There is certainly the possibility that this bill would be left open to court challenges. There are currently, I believe, four or five challenges at the Federal Court on the government's use of section 107 already. Those will be heard at the Supreme Court. We are already challenging this government's ability to use section 107 in its current form as being unconstitutional. We don't see that these changes make it any less unconstitutional. We believe that for this reason, on the legal front and on the labour relations front, this will bring much greater instability rather than the opposite.

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

I have 15 seconds left.

Do you want to follow up on the issue of forcing workers within a geographic area to bargain as one under clause 307 of the bill? Could you say a bit more on that? Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Be very quick, Mr. Doran.

[Tom Doran]

Just briefly, currently employers or the government do not have the ability to go to the board to ask for a geographical certification. How workers choose to organize themselves in a way that they see fit to collectively bargain with their employers is up to them. We believe the government should not change that. It should be in the hands of the workers, not the government or employers, to choose their bargaining representation.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Doran.

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

Mr. Leslie, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to start with the Chamber of Commerce, and likely with Mr. Chan.

During Mr. Doran's exchange with my colleague, he stated that he and his members wanted better bargaining, something we should all support. He seemed supportive of the special mediator's being given tools beyond a public reporting mechanism to help on that front—such as setting times for bargaining—to ensure that both parties stay at the table until they can reach a deal.

Would you support the special mediator's being given real tools to ensure better bargaining and reduce work stoppages before they start?

[Pascal Chan]

We would support the special mediator provision. Looking at other things that would enhance their role in getting to better negotiated outcomes is always positive. If you look at the public report, this is something we've supported as well.

What we're looking at and talking about on behalf of our members, businesses and all sectors in every area of the country is wanting fewer work stoppages. In most situations, we get to a bargained and negotiated agreement, which is preferable, but we've seen this trend, especially in transportation, toward a lot more stoppages in recent years. That is the concerning piece for us and for Canada's reputation internationally.

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

I'll switch over to your colleague.

The government keeps bragging about faster project approvals, or at least that is the intention in this legislation, but when it misses its own deadlines, there are absolutely no consequences built into this legislation. If the government does miss its own timeline, what sort of consequences should be considered for insertion into this legislation? Let's face it: It's the government, so it's most likely to do that.

[Bryan Detchou]

That's a very good question. I think there are provisions in the legislation in which a report would need to be published if an extension were requested or necessary. In terms of punishments, that's something we can provide in the brief that we will submit to the committee.

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

Please do that.

To increase transparency and boost investor confidence, would you support a mechanism to require the government to report the actual time from the first application until every federal approval needed to begin construction is issued rather than just how well it meets its own statutory deadlines?

[Bryan Detchou]

That is something I believe we would generally support. In our opening statement, we said that we urge this committee not to pass any legislation that would weaken this bill. Some of the things that you and your colleague Mr. Albas have mentioned are provisions that would strengthen the bill.

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

Would the witnesses from the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters agree with that?

[Dennis Darby]

Yes, thank you. The idea that we would put more provisions in this bill to hold people's feet to the fire for completion and move things ahead is really important. For us, there's no joy in having a delay, because that means capital isn't invested and foreign investment stays away. I'd rather put in more provisions to try to force it to get things done on time rather than have a series of penalties—“Look at that, you didn't meet your timeline.” That doesn't matter for manufacturers, because it means things aren't being built.

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

I appreciate that both of you, the manufacturers and exporters group and the Chamber of Commerce, mentioned this in your opening remarks and responded positively to the idea of ensuring a reasonable time frame for completeness of the application on the front side.

Once the clock starts, there are still many options for the government to hit pause on the clock. We heard last night the idea of perhaps putting a cap on the number of pauses. There are a number of days built into some of the pause mechanisms, but beyond the front-loading of obligations and the delays being built in on the front end, as one of you said in your opening remarks, I think there's a legitimate concern about stopping and starting the clock lengthening things.

Should we look at amending the bill so that there is a cap on the number of pauses available to the government throughout the process?

[Dennis Darby]

I feel this is about scoring on our own net. Every time we do this, basically every time we delay, we are effectively missing an opportunity to build manufacturing, to build transportation and to build our ability to get our resources to market.

If there was something in there to basically put in place a cap to hold everyone's feet to the fire.... We said earlier that it's all about implementation. This is a great bill that's all about the implementation. If the implementation results in multiple delays, then we're not any further ahead than we are today, sir.

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

I'm in the same boat. That's why we're trying to enhance this bill and enhance accountability.

I'll ask the Chamber of Commerce the same question before we wrap up.

[Bryan Detchou]

Our position is generally similar. We'd be open to exploring that. Anything that strengthens this bill is something that we would support.

What's important.... A gap, perhaps, is that we should require reporting to be public. It's less about the number of caps. Again, we can explore this internally with our membership and see if that would be constructive. Every time the government presses pause, it needs to have a legitimate reason and to be able to explain the reasons for the pause. Public reporting and transparency would perhaps be more key than a set cap.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Leslie.

The last round goes to Mr. Bains.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for joining us today.

My hometown of Richmond in my home province of British Columbia is home to the largest port network in the country, moving $1.1 billion in goods every day—roughly 40% of Canada's trade—yet our global efficiency ranks near the bottom, which negatively impacts our reliability and our reputation. Much of this is due to the labour disruptions we've had in the past.

My question is for Mr. Doran. During testimony at the Senate committee on transport, the ILWU said that before a minister ends a lawful strike or lockout, there should be a higher threshold, an explanation of why mediation wasn't enough and more transparency. Additionally, you recommended early mediation and structured bargaining supports.

Bill C-39 requires a special mediator to go first to produce a report that can be made public, and it sets the national interest test. With these new section 107 criteria and guardrails, do you agree that the bill is moving in a better direction to improve those disruptions we've seen in the port and to improve our efficiencies on how the port works, something that the ILWU has previously called for?

[Tom Doran]

Thank you for the question.

Unfortunately, we don't see this bill and the changes introduced to section 107 as improving the bargaining process. The special mediator, as we said earlier, lacks new special powers to assist the parties in bargaining. There is no early engagement of the special mediator. The special mediator comes in no later than 75 days after conciliation has begun, presumably to allow the conciliation process to play out.

We do not see these changes as improving the collective bargaining process, which we believe will improve the efficiency of the ports when real substantive issues can be dealt with at the table, rather than kicking the can down the road to successive rounds of bargaining and leaving major issues unresolved.