Bill C-39 Committee on Oct. 26th, 2026

Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Sherbrooke, As an Individual

That's exactly what I said today and exactly what I said in 2025. That's what I had argued: that it was necessary to recognize that these were emergency measures and that the government had to act accordingly. I was the one who insisted that these measures be made temporary.

Everything the Barreau du Québec is saying is consistent with what I just told you and what I said in 2025.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC

This is an act that introduces emergency measures. What you said in your presentation is that this must be declared with full transparency, it must be temporary and it must be subject to stricter parliamentary oversight.

Does Bill C‑39 meet those three criteria?

Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Sherbrooke, As an Individual

No, absolutely not.

We managed to ensure that Bill C‑5, which sought to enact the Building Canada Act, did actually include those safeguards. However, all these guardrails are now being blown up. Right now, there's a push to really normalize the exception and make the emergency permanent, and that's a global phenomenon.

For that reason, I'm a bit astonished at the direction this discussion is taking. I hear about a need for predictability, but the law is much more predictable than executive and administrative government. I'm having a bit of trouble piecing things together.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC

You said that this wasn't temporary and that it was becoming permanent. You also said that when the law is circumvented, stricter parliamentary oversight is required. Here, however, the legislative branch and elected officials seem to have been set aside, and full powers are being given to the government, which governs without having to be accountable to the House. Is that correct?

Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Sherbrooke, As an Individual

The amendments that I had proposed and that the opposition passed set out that the exceptional powers granted by Bill C‑5, under the Building Canada Act, could not be exercised when Parliament was prorogued or dissolved. The essence of that guardrail is now being ditched. Powers will be able to be exercised even when Parliament can't provide oversight.

During the COVID‑19 pandemic, Canada was a laughingstock for this way of doing things. Parliament should have been summoned, for example. There was governance by decree, without parliamentary oversight. Everyone understands that emergency powers must exist, but they must be subject to certain controls. This is now a case of normalizing the emergency. It seems that the distinction isn't even made anymore between what is normal and what is exceptional, between what is permanent and what is not. There's absolutely no understanding of how things should be done.

I want to emphasize that this is not about opposing the substance of the measures. I'm not talking about the substance. I'm the first to be concerned about Canada's economic situation. That isn't what this is about. The two shouldn't be confused.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC

Yes, thank you.

If the government wants to speed up project processes, it should reform the ordinary law instead of setting up alternative workarounds, as you said and as the Barreau du Québec said.

Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Sherbrooke, As an Individual

There are two options. Option one is that the government does indeed consider there to be an emergency; it uses exceptional means and it does so under the conditions I have indicated. Option two is that it thinks it isn't responding to an emergency; it respects the separation of powers; it respects the difference between the government and Parliament, and between the parliamentary system and the rule of law; it stops using sleight of hand and secrecy; and it permanently amends the laws accordingly.

What is currently being attempted for economic purposes could be done. There are at least two ways to go about it. In this case, the government has found a way to avoid both of the right ways to do it. Well done.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC

Yes, it's very worrisome. Thank you.

In Bill C‑39, declaratory power is invoked in the amendments to the Canada Marine Act. Have you had time to look at that? Do you have any comments on that?

Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Sherbrooke, As an Individual

No, I'm going to refrain from commenting on that. It's really quite difficult to control declaratory power. It still takes a degree of unity. There has to be a connection and there has to be a coherent whole. I haven't been able to go through the details to see whether the requirements are being met. There's a great deal of vagueness in the case law in this regard.

However, we should keep in mind that this is a fairly controversial power. This is a legal power that exists and that has been used much more in the past than it has recently. There isn't exactly a constitutional convention, but we can say that it has been used far less often in recent times, because it's recognized as being completely excessive.

That said, I'm not going to comment on the constitutionality of what is proposed.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal James Maloney

Thank you, sir. I'm going to have to stop you there. We're a little bit over time.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC

Thank you very much.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal James Maloney

Mr. Gourde, it's over to you for five minutes.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have one last question for you, Mr. St‑Hilaire.

Bill C‑39 will give more power to the executive branch and less power to parliamentarians, because it simply won't be possible to come back to Parliament in cases where a state of emergency has been declared. Is that correct?

Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Sherbrooke, As an Individual

Yes, there is that.

There's also the fact that the laws that Parliament has passed that are supposed to apply to the executive branch to control security, the environment or health—in short, the common good and the public interest—will not apply.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC

Checks and balances are being removed, just like that. Powers will just stay in the same place.

Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Sherbrooke, As an Individual

Yes, that's right. If the government continues thinking like that, it may as well shut down Parliament. I don't know what you're going to do, but forget it; there will be a normal executive government.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC

Have we reached the point where we have a totalitarian government?

Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Sherbrooke, As an Individual

That's not what I'm saying, but there is a global trend toward making emergencies permanent. Yes, I have seen a few totalitarian deviations from the current government, but I don't think that's why I was invited today.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC

Thank you, Mr. St‑Hilaire.

My next question is for the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

You talked about rail capacity and how difficult it is sometimes to deliver goods. I have been here for 20 years, and I often hear Canadian agriculture federations say that rail capacity has already hit its maximum. It's a struggle to deliver any more, and the slightest issue of time or the slightest work stoppage turns it into a disaster.

While the government is investing in transportation infrastructure, should it focus on rail infrastructure or make it essential for freight transportation, whether that's for grain, oil or the manufacturing sector, among others?

Brodie Berrigan Senior Director, Government Relations and Farm Policy, Canadian Federation of Agriculture

Thank you for the question.

Some agricultural goods are already covered under the Canada Labour Code and must be moved. I think there is a considerable number of other products, though, that are not necessarily considered under the Canada Labour Code and, therefore, absolutely should be considered priorities.

Our main concern is that we have Labour Code provisions that are going to see a more efficient dispute resolution process. We've outlined a couple of measures already today that I think would go a long way in supporting a more efficient process, including the special mediator.

October 26th, 2026 / 4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC

There must have been a problem with the interpretation. I'm talking about the capacity of the rail system to move agricultural goods: grain, livestock and so on. Whenever there's a work stoppage, there seems to be an inability to get those goods to port for export to customers. If the ship is sitting in port waiting for the grain, it's not going to work. The goods have to be there already.

Do we have an infrastructure deficit when it comes to moving our agricultural products? I've been here for 20 years, and for 20 years, I've been hearing that things are very tight. A work stoppage of just a few days breaks the whole chain.

Should we be investing in our freight infrastructure?

Senior Director, Government Relations and Farm Policy, Canadian Federation of Agriculture

Brodie Berrigan

Certainly, we have a real deficit. There's no doubt. In Canada, we have, effectively, a duopoly in our rail system, which makes it very difficult for shippers to have competition when they're shipping their goods across the country. This is part of the reason we were encouraged by the four-year pilot around the interswitching provisions in Bill C-39.

However, we feel those provisions should be made permanent on an ongoing basis, and we should remove the stipulation that they would only come into force when we have a more reliable trading relationship with the United States. This measure alone would create more competition in the marketplace for the transportation of agricultural goods, and it would support a more efficient and effective transportation system in Canada.