It was about constitutional risks.
Evidence of meeting #4 for Bill C-39 in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was nature.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #4 for Bill C-39 in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was nature.
A video is available from Parliament.
Legislative Staff Representative, United Steelworkers
Yes. I think there are examples of that. One of them is a poorly drafted piece of Quebec legislation, Bill 89, later known as Bill 14, which was recently overturned in court two weeks ago. As it happens, the concept on which ministerial intervention was based was too broad and not clear enough. The bill would have violated the right to strike by giving the minister too much power.
There is something that also needs to be taken into account, and I think it has been raised in other meetings by other stakeholders. The power the government is trying to give the minister here doesn't exist in other G7 countries. Even in the United States, under the very authoritarian Donald Trump, they don't have the power to force an end to a strike and force employees back to work. I think this is something that should send a signal. There are a lot of red flags being raised, and we hope that this committee will take them into account.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC
Thank you.
I have 20 seconds. Ms. Payne, do you want to add a very quick comment?
National President, Unifor
I think that you will have a constitutional challenge as soon as this law...or “the rubber hits the road”, as we say. That's likely to happen around the next dispute that could occur or when you have an example of something not working.
This could be avoided. I think we have to take into account here that Canada has been a beacon of labour rights for the world, and this infringes on that. We have to do everything we can to make sure that we're living up to the things that we've agreed to—ILO standards—and that is a minimum standard around the world. As a country, we've tried to raise the bar in that regard, so—
Liberal
National President, Unifor
—sober second thought is required here. That's what I'm saying.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
You just happen to get the last question every time. It's not you.
We'll start the five-minute round. We go back to Mr. Seeback.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Payne, I want to go back to talk what I didn't get to last time: the changes to geographic certification. Again, this is a massive expansion. Now, any two employers can apply to geographically certify any union in any industry, in any place in the country. Talk about a massive expansion. It used to be very different.
In fact, I put this to the minister: If you look at the port of Montreal, for example, there are CUPE 375, CUPE 5598 and ILA 1657. What would happen if two employers there decided that they should all be merged into one union? They are two completely different unions. She seemed to say, “Yes, the CIRB will sort it out.” To me, this seems really bad.
National President, Unifor
It can cause a fair bit of disruption. We have seen this happen in jurisdictions around the world, not necessarily around geographic certification. I think it's still very unclear how this is going to play out.
We don't operate in ports. I think the idea was that this would be something for ports, but the way it's worded in the legislation is that it could actually be wide open. We have to take that into account. If there is a common workplace in which you have multiple unions, there are many examples of how those unions will come together and bargain as a council, bargain together. There are lots of examples like that in health care and in other places. There's a way to get around this without creating what will end up being disputes among unions as well, because they'll each want to be protecting their own membership.
Conservative
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Thank you very much.
Mr. Warren, you said in your opening that Bill C-39 crosses a red line. I guess that has to do with the changes to section 107 coming up against the right to strike. I've been asking the same questions: Do you think these changes are going to create more stability or less stability, build better relationships between employers or make those relationships worse?
National Director, United Steelworkers
I believe they'll make them worse, with less stability. I'll explain why.
It's really troubling. At a time when we talk about team Canada and the threats we face with tariffs coming from the U.S., this is just a reach too far. There is no reason to split up team Canada and go against labour when we're trying to come together to move forward, build big projects and get things done. That's one thing I'll say. It's just the wrong time. This is just totally wrong for team Canada.
As far as the relationship with employers goes, as was said, they'll sit by the side and they'll wait for somebody to come in and settle their disputes. In terms of labour relations, a lot of people forget that labour relations isn't only at the bargaining table. Lana spoke to this. It's the time between each collective agreement that needs to be worked on.
My point is that if you leave... If you don't feel your employer has heard you, you haven't had the ability to work through and resolve those problems with them and you're forced back to work under certain conditions, I think that rot, if I can call it that, will continue to grow and grow.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
There's been an unprecedented use of section 107 in the last two years. I don't have the number anymore—I used to know it. It was 13 times over 12 months or something like that. Has that frequent use of section 107 helped labour relations in the country, or do you think it's leading to more instability?
Ms. Payne, if you want, you can answer that as well.
National Director, United Steelworkers
I'll just go. I don't think it has helped at all.
However, even more importantly, when you look at democracy, who we are as Canadians and what Canadians expect out of their elected MPs, anything like that should be debated. It's taking away somebody's right to strike. It should go to Parliament. It should be debated, and each MP should have to stand up and voice their yea or nay so their constituents can see how they voted.
I'll turn it over to Lana.
October 26th, 2026 / 5:15 p.m.
Conservative
National Director, United Steelworkers
Yes...as opposed to the non-transparency of standing behind a minister's signature.
National President, Unifor
What I also worry about here is that there is, I would say, a lack of understanding of how collective bargaining can transform not just workplaces but society. An arbitrator is not going to transform a workplace or a society. He's just going to split things down the middle and figure out all of these things.
The new, modern challenges that we're faced with now in our workplaces, whether it's AI or whether it's automation, all of these things are very difficult issues for an arbitrator to tackle. You would have to have very strong expertise in these areas. If you look at the history of labour relations and collective bargaining in our country, you will find that—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Ms. Payne, I think somebody's doing this on purpose. I'm going to have to do it again.
Conservative
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Richmond East—Steveston, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today. Thank you all for your leadership and work on behalf of Canadian workers.
Canada is set to build major projects in my home province. I believe that over 40% of the projects are set to be built there. From the perspective of skilled trades and stability for skilled trades workers, my question to you, Mr. Schumann, is this: How important is it that employers and unions begin meaningful discussions earlier in the bargaining process and have access to the tools and supports they need to build positive labour-management relationships from the outset?
Canadian Government Affairs Director, International Union of Operating Engineers
You first hit the nail on the head with “discussions” with unions. We need to make sure that these major projects are built by unions.
As you know, in your province, there were some issues around TMX and how it was going to originally be built. Union construction members were originally left out of it. We worked with the federal government and pushed hard and got nearly 50% of the work. We did some of the hardest and most necessary work to get it done.
It's very important. If you want to ensure stability, project labour agreements—or community benefit agreements, as they are in your province—show that they work. They create labour stability, ensure disenfranchised folks have an opportunity to work in these jobs—indigenous, women or other groups. The numbers speak for themselves. If you look at British Columbia, there was an increase in the number of indigenous workers who are there and the number of women in the trades. I would love to see more women in the trades, but we need some stability to get them into the workforce. Project labour agreements allow that opportunity to bring women into the trades.
I do think that, in negotiations at the beginning, getting a project labour agreement or a community benefit agreement would be essential to benefit not only the province but the citizens and the workers who are involved in those projects.
