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.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Richmond East—Steveston, BC
Thank you.
I'll share the rest of my time with my colleague Ms. Church.
Liberal
Leslie Church Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Chair.
To the witnesses, thank you for a very good and in-depth discussion of a number of the elements of this bill.
Ms. Payne, you mentioned the need for more trained mediators. I just want to make sure that we have it here on the record that part of this is also about boosting the resources for the federal mediation and conciliation service, which I've also heard, across the country, is an important set of supports that we need to have in place.
I want to ask you—and maybe, subsequently, Mr. Warren—about that special mediator process, that period of time before parties are at the edge of a lockout. If part of the objective here is to reduce brinkmanship and to address challenges early in the process, can you just talk a bit about the measures in this bill that lay the groundwork to get to a deal earlier?
You mentioned a few of them in your opening remarks. Can you just touch on those leading into that special mediator process, the earlier conciliation period? Are those helpful, in your experience?
National President, Unifor
Special mediators are very helpful when you're dealing with contentious issues. I would say that we often bargain collective agreements, by the way, when we don't take a strike vote. It can depend on the relationship with the employer. We just bargained a beautiful collective agreement with Air Canada. We didn't take a strike vote because it wasn't necessary.
If there's respect, then you can get to a good place. The challenges come in those rare occasions when there are contentious relationships. A special mediator can pressure both sides to try to come together.
I would say that the other thing that would be very helpful in that regard is making sure that we're not actually dragging the process out too long. We have an added time frame because we are bringing the special mediator into this now. We have another 21 days of, basically, conciliation that's been added to the period. We have another timeline in which we have to get maintenance of activities in place. In federal bargaining, it is already a prescribed, quite lengthy period of time. My concern would be that we don't get to a place where we're making it any longer, for sure.
The skills of the special mediator are obviously going to be needed, but we have this other issue. We're now going to give more decision-making and requirements to the CIRB. That means we have to consider the resources that will be required there in order for this to happen. We just had an unfair labour practice complaint that we launched in 2024 against a company here in Ottawa. The strike was seven months long. We got the decision on the unfair labour practice two weeks ago, so—
Liberal
October 26th, 2026 / 5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
No, no. I don't make the rules. I just enforce them. That's the problem.
Ms. Larouche, the last word goes to you.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for coming today for this important committee on this very major bill.
As the Bloc Québécois critic for employment and labour, I will put my first questions to Mr. Soucy.
You have, in fact, already raised a number of concerns about the powers that Bill C‑39 would grant to the minister and their impact on collective bargaining. In concrete terms, then, what amendments is United Steelworkers asking the committee for to protect the right to strike?
Legislative Staff Representative, United Steelworkers
We'll start with the first one: We call for the complete repeal of section 107. We think there may not be consensus around the table, so we're going to propose other things. We want to limit this section, which allows the minister to end a legal strike or lockout on her own. We propose three basic tiers.
We propose independent special mediators with genuine expertise in labour relations.
In addition, we propose adding an independent committee of experts to examine the concept of a national emergency, which could be better formulated or better defined and may look more like what we see for essential services or for the continuation of operations in the Canada Labour Code. That would be something more objective than the minister's opinion.
We also propose parliamentary oversight. After the matter has been reviewed by an independent panel of experts, what we propose is that the minister look at the independent panel's report and decide whether to introduce back-to-work legislation. The bill will be transparently debated by parliamentarians, which will force every member to rise in the House to speak out on behalf of or against workers.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
I don't have much time left, so I'll continue quickly.
You said earlier that it would be an unfortunate first in the G7, particularly in terms of parliamentary accountability, to have something as major as this. That's not how it works elsewhere, either.
Legislative Staff Representative, United Steelworkers
That's not how it works elsewhere. The Canadian Labour Congress published a comparative document that looks at the powers given to labour ministers in G7 countries. There is no other country where the Minister of Labour has such powers.
Legislative Staff Representative, United Steelworkers
It's too bad. We wouldn't want to go down that road in Canada.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
In a twisted sort of way, I take pleasure in having to cut somebody else off.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Ms. Larouche.
That's all the time we have for this panel. Thank you all very much. I very much appreciate your contribution.
We'll suspend for a few moments.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Welcome back to meeting number four of the House of Commons Legislative Committee on Bill C-39.
I'd like to take a few moments...for the benefit of the witnesses and members.
Please wait until I recognize you 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. At the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you know how to use your earpiece. I would like to remind witnesses that committee members may ask questions in either French or English. If you need interpretation, please take a moment now to prepare your earpiece and select the listening channel you need in advance in order to take full advantage of the time allotted for questions and answers. I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.
I would now like to welcome our witnesses for today's third panel.
From Electricity Canada, we have Josée Guibord, president and chief executive officer. From the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, we have Heather Exner-Pirot, director of energy, natural resources and environment. From the Québec Mining Association, we have Emmanuelle Toussaint, president and chief executive officer, and Stéphanie Tremblay, lead, sustainability.
Each organization will have up to five minutes for their opening remarks, followed by questions.
I will start with Ms. Guibord.
Josée Guibord President and Chief Executive Officer, Electricity Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting me to appear today to talk about this important bill.
My name is Josée Guibord. I am the president and CEO of Electricity Canada. We are the national voice for electricity in Canada. Our members generate, transmit and distribute power to homes and businesses in every province and territory.
I'm relatively new to this role. Before joining Electricity Canada, I spent many years working in the electricity industry on the generation side as an investor-owned producer—the side that develops, builds and operates projects. That gives me first-hand experience with the process issues that this bill aims to fix: overlapping reviews, permits issued one after another and timelines no one can predict that can add cost and risk to projects.
Canada's affordable, reliable and clean electricity system is a key strategic advantage. Our grid is a foundation that drives growth across the economy. It is 2% of our GDP, but that's the first 2% that enables the rest. Our electricity system is also a climate success story. Canada has one of the cleanest grids in the world, with more than 80% of electricity produced by non-emitting sources. We've reduced emissions by nearly 60% since 2005.
This clean energy advantage will drive emissions reductions across the economy, but we can't take it for granted. Canada must continue to grow the grid to keep this advantage. As outlined in the national electricity strategy, we need to double our electricity supply over the next 25 years to meet new demand from electrification, new technologies and population growth. This means building more generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure at pace and at scale. This is a $1-trillion opportunity for Canada, one that we have to get right.
Bill C-39 helps advance this objective. It simplifies decision-making processes and accelerates permits and approvals for the electricity projects that Canada needs.
The electricity sector is ready to build. The challenge is no longer a lack of ambition. It's the need for regulatory systems that can match the pace, scale and urgency of the required investment. Permitting delays are not cost-neutral. Excessive delays can create uncertainty and discourage investment. Every additional month of uncertainty increases development risk and ultimately raises costs for Canadians.
The building Canada strong act responds to this challenge. It would create a one-year federal review and decision timeline that would give utilities, investors, indigenous partners and governments the regulatory certainty they need to commit capital. Importantly, the bill and accompanying cabinet directive would extend this one-year commitment beyond major projects. This is essential. We can't double the grid through major projects alone. It will take thousands of smaller community-level investments.
We are also pleased to see the government move forward with the principle of one project, one review. Creating a single authority for nuclear projects and interjurisdictional transmission lines, as well as reducing duplication for offshore wind projects, would reduce the complexity of building the next wave of electricity infrastructure. The federal decision statement and a more coordinated federal approach to Crown consultations would further improve clarity for proponents.
Another important element of Bill C-39 is the requirement for decision-makers to consider whether permitting conditions are technically, economically and practically feasible.
All that being said, there are also opportunities to strengthen Bill C-39 with targeted amendments to streamline electricity permitting, especially under the Fisheries Act. At present, that act is a barrier to the efficient operations of existing electricity infrastructure, primarily the hydro facilities that are the backbone of our clean energy supply. Amending the Fisheries Act to allow for a significance-based authorization regime that focuses on protecting fisheries and fish populations is needed to provide regulatory certainty for the hydro sector.
Right now, the sector is ready. Investors are ready. Communities and indigenous partners are increasingly ready to move projects forward. What we need now are regulatory certainty and timely decision-making. Bill C-39 provides an important foundation for this to happen. With continued investments and improvements, it could help ensure that Canada seizes this once-in-a-generation opportunity.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with the committee.
I look forward to your questions.
Heather Exner-Pirot Director of Energy, Natural Resources and Environment, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation to appear today.
I want to begin by expressing my strong support for the overall direction of Bill C-39. In my view, this legislation is necessary, long overdue and an important step toward restoring Canada's economic competitiveness.
There are three reasons I believe these reforms are so important.
First, Canada still needs to improve its ability to get things built and shipped. We are blessed with extraordinary natural resources, abundant energy, a skilled workforce, sophisticated industries and unhindered access to American, Asian and European markets, yet we have made it unnecessarily difficult, expensive and unpredictable to invest in major projects. Our regulatory system has been our Achilles heel. The problem has not been a lack of opportunities or international demand for what Canada produces; it has been our inability to translate those advantages into financeable projects, adequate infrastructure and exportable products quickly enough.
Meanwhile, the world has undergone dramatic changes recently. Geopolitical instability, trade tensions and concerns about supply chain security have made countries interested in diversifying their sources of energy, minerals and other strategic commodities. Canada should be an obvious beneficiary of these developments, but we cannot take the opportunity for granted. Investment capital is mobile, and our competitors are not standing still.
The proposed one-year timeline for federal decisions is therefore admirable. It establishes a much-needed expectation that government decisions should be timely, coordinated and predictable. I would encourage the committee to ensure that this ambition is fully reflected in the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's directives as well, in particular with regard to uranium and the additional hurdles it must overcome.
Second, I want to address the alarmist opposition to this legislation.
Some of the reactions to Bill C-39 would have Canadians believe that streamlining regulatory processes will inevitably lead to environmental destruction or the abandonment of indigenous rights. I reject that characterization. Canada has one of the most sophisticated systems of environmental regulation in the world. Our mining, energy and infrastructure industries operate under demanding environmental, safety and consultation requirements. Canadian companies have also developed considerable expertise in indigenous partnerships, impact benefit agreements and, increasingly, indigenous equity ownership.
These are strengths we should be proud of, not obstacles that we need to dismantle, but we must distinguish between maintaining high standards and maintaining unnecessarily burdensome processes. More paperwork does not produce better environmental outcomes. Multiple overlapping reviews do not produce better decisions. Taking three years to reach a decision does not necessarily make that decision more scientifically sound or socially legitimate than reaching it in one year.
The duty to consult indigenous peoples remains and environmental laws remain. Regulators retain their responsibilities. While the details of implementation matter, the suggestion that faster, better-coordinated decisions are inherently incompatible with environmental protection or indigenous rights is simply not credible. We cannot continue to allow the loudest opponents of development to exercise a disproportionate influence over Canada's economic future. There are broader public interests at stake: jobs, investment, government revenues, energy security and the prosperity of future generations.
Third, Canada must become a more reliable and trusted international trading partner.
In today's geopolitical environment, reliability is an increasingly valuable economic asset. Countries are looking for suppliers they can trust, politically stable jurisdictions, strong institutions and dependable access to commodities. Canada possesses these advantages in principle, but we have not always delivered them in practice.
Repeated labour disruptions at our ports and railways, transportation bottlenecks and inadequate export infrastructure have undermined our reputation for reliability. They have imposed costs on Canadian farmers, miners, manufacturers and energy producers while creating uncertainty for international customers. If we want to diversify our trade beyond the United States, particularly toward Asian and European markets, we must be able to deliver what we sell consistently and competitively.
The proposed changes to collective bargaining and dispute resolution recognize that disruptions to nationally significant transportation infrastructure have consequences extending far beyond the immediate parties to a labour dispute. While the rights of workers and the importance of collective bargaining must be respected, so too must the interests of the thousands of businesses, workers and communities whose livelihoods depend on functioning labour supply chains.
I'll conclude with this: Canada has spent too many years debating whether we should develop our resources, expand our infrastructure and compete more effectively in international markets. I am relieved that this debate is over. The question now is whether we can actually deliver. While Bill C-39 will not solve every problem, I believe it goes pretty far in addressing some of those things.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you. You are right on time.
We'll go over to you, Ms. Toussaint, for five minutes.
