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

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Dr. Martin.

Mr. Ste-Marie, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to the witnesses, and thank you all for being with us.

Mr. Doran, could you explain the difference between a collective agreement that is the result of bargaining and one that's imposed?

[Tom Doran]

Thank you for your question.

A collective agreement that is bargained allows the parties to deal with very substantive issues that may go beyond, let's say, wages and monetary items, and maybe the term of the collective agreement. For example, some of those substantive items that we are facing have to do with technological change, artificial intelligence, automation and contracting out of our work, which is continuing to occur on the waterfront.

If a dispute is referred to a third party to resolve, mediators are not well suited to delve into those very important substantive issues, beyond money and the term of collective agreement. We believe that these substantive issues will be left unresolved if the collective bargaining process is interrupted and handed to a third party. Our workers will be left without the ability to negotiate such things as the changes to our industry through automation and artificial intelligence.

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

Thank you.

The mediator, then, resolves wage and monetary issues and such, but substantive issues, such as health and safety or the use of new technologies, aren't dealt with. You just told us that those issues and disputes go unresolved. They're still there the next time bargaining comes around. The problem remains, and the imposed agreement hasn't resolved the issues. All it's done is delay resolution of a problem that will have to be dealt with eventually. Is that correct?

[Tom Doran]

That's correct. This is how we see it, and in fact, it is our lived reality. These issues continue to exist, regardless of whether they're legislated away. These pressures exist and continue to mount, agreement after agreement, without resolve. This leads to greater instability on the waterfront.

It's only through effective collective bargaining that we can get these issues resolved. That's why we criticize this bill: It effectively removes the right to strike, which undermines the entire apparatus, the entire premise on which collective bargaining is built—having that economic power. It's the only time we can balance against the economic power that the employer inherently has on a day-to-day basis.

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

Thank you for your answer.

As you told us, employers know the special legislation exists and thus have no reason to negotiate in good faith—even though they're supposed to under the law. The employer knows that eventually a mediator will be appointed and an agreement will be imposed. That signals to the employer from the get-go that it's not in their interest to bargain. Instead, they have an incentive to let the dispute drag on, exacerbating the problem and damaging labour relations. Would you agree?

[Tom Doran]

Yes, we agree. We have already seen that section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, in its current form, was used 10 times in a period of 18 months by this government. That undermines the collective bargaining process and gives employers a clear signal that there is an off-ramp. You don't have to bargain. Eventually, whether it's in a matter of hours, days or weeks, there will be an intervention, and collective bargaining will be interrupted by this government. A legal strike will be ended by this government. We have no reason to believe that section 107 will be used any less frequently if this bill is passed.

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

A few years ago, in its decision in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan, the Supreme Court of Canada made clear that the charter-protected right to strike can be limited to protect the lives or safety of the public, but cannot be limited to protect a company's profits or an economic activity. Do you think the way section 107 is being defined here respects the court's decision and the charter?

[Tom Doran]

No, we believe the changes to this bill undermine the charter-protected right to strike, which is included in the right to freedom of association. We believe it undermines that right because it renders the effectiveness of a strike.... It renders a strike nearly useless. If a strike occurs and the minister has the authority, under this bill, to end that strike within hours, minutes or days, it renders it useless. A right that cannot be effectively exercised is not a right at all.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

We'll go to the five-minute round, starting with Mr. Albas.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for coming today.

I'm going to start first with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and then move to Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters.

Thank you for your submission today.

One thing that was common to both of your testimonies was the concern around the precommencement, the front-end completeness process. Proposed subsection 19(4)—we have affectionately called it the Groundhog Day clause—allows for a responsible authority or head to request another report endlessly because a project may be controversial or they may believe that more information is needed.

Is not having a front-end process a concern? Further to that, would requiring the responsible authority to determine completeness—let's say within a reasonable time of 45 days—and issue either a completeness determination or one consolidated deficiency notice identifying every reasonable, discoverable deficiency and its legal basis, and pause the clock...? They would start the clock but pause it while the company or proponent responds. This would allow there to be a hard set time to begin. If a company has not come with its ducks in a row, that puts the onus on the company. What do you think of a potential amendment to effectively cause the clock to start?

[Bryan Detchou]

I'm happy to go first.

This is something we identified as one potential weakness. We know that the preapplication phase has no statutory limit, so that's something we have concerns about. Of course, the bill does not accomplish its intended goal if all the delays just move to a different phase. That is not something we want.

With regard to your recommendation, I think that would be a welcome amendment. We did, in our submission during the consultation process over the summer, talk about having clear, published criteria and clear deadlines in that regard. This is something we would generally support.

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

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Darby.

[Dennis Darby]

Likewise, we would say that the idea that the timelines could be...and that all of these were artificially stretched because of these multiple interventions or the movement of the yardsticks is a concern, and it was a concern in our submission. We would be supportive of an amendment to that effect.

Thank you.

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

Yesterday I highlighted a real and glaring gap between the Building Canada Act in Bill C-5 and the established framework in Bill C-39. Every project deserves a fair hearing, so Bill C-39 is welcome on that, but if we can amend it so that the clock actually starts, that would be a good thing.

Essentially, I'm proposing that once the commencement has happened and a 45-day notice has been given, the use of the Building Canada Act can be modified. Instead of relying on the Major Projects Office, which doesn't have a mandate and often may not have the same expertise as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the CER or the IAAC, if there's a project that has a real case as a project of national interest, why not refer it at that point to the Building Canada Act minister, Minister LeBlanc? With that, they could identify which parts of it could be safely streamlined, using the exemptions and the incredible powers given to them under the act. This would then allow expertise to make the recommendation and the government to make the final decision and show leadership.

This would create a pipeline for pipelines. It would create a pipeline or a bridge that would allow for more projects to be considered fairly, rather than just those proposed by whichever lobbyist or premier has the minister's ear.

How do you respond to that? Maybe Mr. Chan could respond.

[Bryan Detchou]

I'll do this.

I think it is an amendment we would be open to exploring. I'd have to look at some of the fine print of it.

Generally speaking, our position is that we believe Bill C-39 builds on some of what we saw in Bill C-5. We were supportive of Bill C-5, but one of our recommendations at the time was that its scope should be widened. Bill C-5 certainly focused on projects that were deemed of national interest, whereas Bill C-39 projects do not necessarily have to meet that threshold. They just have to be major projects.

Your specific amendment is something that we'd be open to reviewing.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

You're done. I'm sorry. You're way over time.

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

I will send you the information, and maybe you can respond to the committee.

[Bryan Detchou]

Absolutely. Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Mr. Louis is next.

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

Thank you, Chair. Thank you to the witnesses here today.

We're hearing that the challenges Canadians are facing with protectionism, tariff risks and broader geopolitical uncertainty are increasing costs, disrupting supply chains and making it harder for businesses to plan and invest with confidence. The word “confidence” is very important. Building resilience is going to mean expanding those trade opportunities and strengthening those supply chains to make it easier for businesses to operate across Canada.

I'll start my questions with the chamber. We've worked together, and we met over the summer in the consultation periods. It's been very helpful. I've also met with a number of the provincial chambers of commerce and then locally with chambers of commerce right down to the small town BIAs and boards of trade. It's a very good way of finding out what's going on with businesses.

It's important for me to ask you this. You're saying that exporter optimism is not there right now, but how would the building Canada strong act's measures to strengthen coordination among ports, railways and road infrastructure, along with clearer timelines, improve our reliability and competitiveness as a trading partner, and what would that do for confidence for Canadian businesses?

[Pascal Chan]

On the first piece, as I said, the spirit of the legislation in bringing in a special mediator and looking to get to better collective bargaining outcomes are definitely steps in the right direction. We have significant concerns about this when we're looking to pivot some of that trade and expand. I think it was mentioned earlier that we have 15 free trade agreements granting us access to 50 countries, but we need to show that we are able to reliably deliver the goods.

Unfortunately, I think the reason we're having the discussion about this bill right now is that if you look at the data from ESDC over the last three years, you see a significant increase in the number of person-days lost to labour disruptions. Starting in 2023, I think we hit the highest mark since 1986, and then in 2025, we were at the highest days again. That's significantly concerning. Without saying names, at the end of last year we saw a significant Canadian company opt to build their export terminal in the U.S. rather than here in Canada, and one thing they cited was labour disruption.

Businesses are taking note, and if Canadian companies are not convinced to spend their capital here, how are we going to attract the capital we need from elsewhere?

It's very important to address those provisions to ensure that there's stability and that our international trading partners believe that Canada can reliably deliver the goods. This is why we raised the concern about when the minister is able to intervene, especially in the context of the time it takes before we get to a strike, the need to organize an orderly shutdown and the time it takes to get back up and running. From ports to rail, we've seen estimates in various situations that for every day of work stoppage, it takes three to five or four to six days to get back on track. That's one of our major concerns.

If you like, we can go over to some of the other....

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

That's on the international part. What about Canada's being its own best trading partner and working within Canada and on trade? How can this legislation help to work on those supply chains?

[Pascal Chan]

We're happy to say that, especially with Bill C-5, we were immensely supportive of the work done to remove the internal trade barriers. We would note that a lot of the work still to be done is at the provincial level, but I think the leadership we've seen and the progress we've seen in terms of getting the provincial ministers focused on internal trade to the table and discussing how they need to change things, putting in understandings and removing barriers themselves—especially eliminating all the exemptions in the Canadian Free Trade Agreement—are things that we were immensely supportive of and that our network of chambers was incredibly pleased to see.