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

[Lana Payne]

What I can tell you is what I know happens at bargaining tables. The rules of bargaining, as I said in my opening, will change the behaviour of bargaining. If employers believe they're going to get to a place where there's a special mediator's report or where the minister can intervene very quickly after a dispute starts, that will start changing how they act at the bargaining table.

We have a perfect example of this. It's called DHL. In 2024 there was a dispute, and they firmly expected the minister to use section 107 the way it had been used previously. I guarantee you that we ended up in that dispute because they thought.... By the way, it was a lockout by then. They applied to the minister to get him to use section 107 to put our members back to work after they locked them out.

This is what happens when employers get conditioned to believe that someone is going to help them get to an agreement, rather than having to bargain fairly and freely with the union at the table.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

These changes won't affect that at all.

[Lana Payne]

No. It will make it worse because the minister will be able to intervene at any time there's a challenging moment.

I ask you to consider the fact that multiple airlines operate in the Canadian economy. What happens if you get into a situation where you're intervening on behalf of one and not the others? That creates a dilemma. You will get more of this intervention from the minister occurring over time.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

It's not guardrails, and it won't lead to more labour stability. I think that's the summary of what you're saying.

[Lana Payne]

Yes...because people won't trust the rules or that people are acting in a way to get a collective agreement.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

One thing I noticed that doesn't get talked about a lot is the changes to the language of section 107. The original section says, “The Minister, where the Minister deems it expedient, may do such things as to the Minister seem likely to maintain or secure industrial peace”. That's the old section 107.

New section 107 is, “The Minister may take any measure that, in the Minister's opinion, is likely to maintain or secure industrial peace”. To me, this is a massive expansion of the minister's discretionary power.

Do you agree? What do you think of that?

[Lana Payne]

I believe the minister has a lot of power under this proposed legislation. I would add that we already have a test in the code. The code has a lot of tools. It's how they get used or don't get used.

There is already a test that has to be met under section 87.4, which means you have to develop maintenance of activities agreements with the employer. Lots of times no one agrees to maintenance of activities, because you want to bring it to a crisis period rather than having the service maintained during a dispute. We have tools that can help in the event of a strike, where some of the services—those things that are deemed essential—carry on. We actually beefed up that section of the code when the anti-scab legislation was introduced. We made that stronger.

There are already tools, I would say, within the code to address some of these things. This new test of “national interest”—and, on top of that, “social disruption”—is vague, ambiguous and left to someone's opinion about what those things are. That's why we're all having quite a bit of a challenge with this part of the code.

Other changes that have been made there, like getting parties together early if they have a difficult relationship, are very good things. A special mediator in itself can be a very good thing; we used them in the province of British Columbia. It's what happens after that. It's the powers that are given to the minister that are problematic here.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

That's correct.

I put this to the minister when she was here: What happens if your special mediator delivers a report that says the employer wasn't bargaining or was bargaining in bad faith? Surely then section 107 is off the table and cannot be used. She wouldn't answer the question, which, to me, means of course it can be used.

What's the point of the special mediator's report if it doesn't take something like that off the table?

[Lana Payne]

You lose both ways—workers do. You lose because an employer behaved unfairly, and then there's no repercussion for that.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I think the special mediator should have special powers to help the parties get to a settlement. For example, would you agree that the special mediator should be able to set some times where the parties should sit down together? Would it be useful if the special mediator could bring anyone to the table who they think could end the dispute, for example, if the ILWU said it wanted the employer at the table and not some employer's group?

Do you think those powers would be useful in helping the special mediator?

[Lana Payne]

First of all, you have to have really good skills as a special mediator. Let's be clear about this. There are very few of these people in Canada right now, and they have a very long list of interventions that they've been working on.

I would have to see what you would add to his list of abilities, but for sure we don't want disputes. We want to be able to have the power of what comes with that. It's a hammer, for sure, but the reality is that workers don't want to be on strike. They want to be able to make improvements to their workplaces.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Harrison.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first time speaking in the House of Commons was in response to the Speech from the Throne, and it was in regard to major projects and how we have this really ambitious plan. More important to me was how skilled tradespeople will play a role in the building of these major projects.

My dad, before he passed in 2010, was a very proud member of the International Union of Operating Engineers. My childhood was shaped by travelling a lot of Canada to see him at his job sites. I wanted to talk a little bit about how much that and union jobs mean to me. My brother is actually in the same union, which is a story that I'm sure you hear a lot, Mr. Schumann.

I'd like to talk about not only the economic benefits of a major project, which we often focus on, but your members' experience. What is the broader impact of creating sustained, well-paying skilled trades employment in communities across Canada?

[Steven Schumann]

I think you answered my own question for me: It is a livelihood. It is an opportunity. It is to allow your kids to have jobs.

My former Canadian director, his family is fourth generation now with his son. One of my colleagues is fourth generation. It is an opportunity to give careers. Well-paying jobs, highly skilled jobs, give you the opportunity for your kids to go to university and other opportunities, but it is the long-term, big projects that make them.

As you mentioned, our members travel throughout the province and through the country. If you look at our pipeliners.... I know one pipeliner who worked on five projects in four provinces last summer. That's a lot of travel, but he loved it. It is his life. It provides for his family. The pride they take in their work is the pride you see when people come by and say to their kids, “I built that” or “Look at what we built.”

If you look at the human rights museum in Winnipeg, on the top floor, they actually have in the bricks the names of every person who worked to build that building. I was there with a colleague. He pointed out, “There's my name, right there. I get to show my family I built that.” It is a pride thing. We just need the opportunity to build things.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

One of my dad's telltale signs that he had gotten a call to head off to another project was that he would get a single cigar and he would smoke it while he packed his truck and got ready to leave. Even when I was little, I didn't know what was happening, but I knew that my dad was really excited.

Bill C-39 includes measures related to successor rights. From the perspective of workers in construction, infrastructure and other federally regulated sectors, why are strong successor right protections important?

[Steven Schumann]

It's certainty. As Lana touched on earlier, these people have contracts through collective bargaining. It's there. It's continuous. It allows the workers to know that they're going to be treated with respect and dignity, get the fair wages they deserve and be compensated for the hard work they do. It's not easy work, and it's not for everybody.

We have a great relationship with most of our employers. It is important that they respect us as workers and we respect them to build these projects. I think it is a respect thing.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Ms. Payne, Unifor has often emphasized the importance of meaningful collective bargaining. Would you agree that measures encouraging parties to engage earlier in negotiations can improve the likelihood of reaching agreements without labour disruptions?

I'd like to touch on the transparency piece of the special mediator's report. I think, from the outside looking in, there's a lot of power in naming and shaming. People on the outside of these negotiations don't know what's happening. It's a really powerful tool to be able to name and shame someone who's not acting in good faith.

I'd love to know your opinion on that.

[Lana Payne]

We're actually in favour of all of that. We've expressed that we think the special mediator publishing the report is important.

On early intervention, I'll give you an example of when we did this on our own. We didn't wait for the government to introduce a piece of legislation.

In 2023, we had the first dispute in the seaway in 55 years. I could tell you a lot about what caused that eight-day dispute. When it was over, the CEO who was in charge at that time—they're no longer there—would not return the minister's phone call, would not return my phone call and was not involved in bargaining in any way. This will tell you why we ended up in a dispute. It was that we had many issues in that workplace. Once it was over, as a union, we told the federal government we would like to use its mediation services and make sure that when we go back into the workplace, we have a party from the government's labour program that meets with our union and the employer on an ongoing basis so that we can get this relationship back on track.

I think that tool has always been there to be used, and we have used it many times as a responsible union to say, yes, when you have a dispute, you still have to carry on. You have to have a relationship after that dispute. How do you make sure that can happen so that when the next round of bargaining occurs, you're not in a challenging spot?

Having these tools in the code, having early intervention and having a special mediator's report that is transparent are all good additions in Bill C-39.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Ste-Marie.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My greetings to all the witnesses, and thank you for being here. This is very helpful.

My questions will first be for the representatives of United Steelworkers.

The government says it wants to strengthen collective bargaining, but it is amending section 107 of the Canada Labour Code in such a way that an employer could conclude, in the event of a strike, that the government will probably intervene to put an end to it once the economic consequences become more significant.

Therefore, my question is this: Wouldn't the new powers encourage employers to wait for the government to intervene rather than make the compromises necessary to reach an agreement?

[François Soucy, Legislative Staff Representative, United Steelworkers]

Thank you for the question. That's a really important question.

You're absolutely right. We think that's really the problem. Collective bargaining is built on a balance of power. If the employer doesn't feel that there are consequences for refusing to negotiate or if it expects the government to intervene, it has much less incentive to make concessions at the bargaining table.

Employers already control investment and production. They have the final say over our jobs. They effectively have the power of life and death over our jobs. We're seeing that at Stelco right now.

The main source of leverage that workers have—in fact, the only source of leverage—is to go on strike when they don't get what they're seeking at the bargaining table.

I think there's also an argument to the contrary. In 2024, Air Canada was negotiating with its pilots and asked the government to intervene to force arbitration. The government refused to do so. By refusing, it said that it was up to the parties to negotiate. Once the parties returned to the bargaining table, it took two days for them to reach an agreement in principle and ultimately reach a collective agreement. That is the purpose of collective bargaining.

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

Thank you very much.

The minister says that the new powers set out in section 107 will help ensure greater stability in labour relations.

Does ending a strike through government intervention actually ensure that the dispute is resolved? Could these powers not instead create more instability and undermine workers' confidence in collective bargaining?

[François Soucy]

Once again, that is definitely a risk. There are a lot of issues that can't be resolved through binding arbitration. Today's fundamental problems are having our jobs replaced by automation or artificial intelligence. These are not taken into consideration during arbitration outside a collective agreement. Problems that are not included in the new collective agreement that becomes binding or in the arbitrator's ruling will persist and be passed on to the next collective bargaining process.

If these issues aren't resolved at the bargaining table, because they require a lot more negotiation and trade-offs on both sides of the table, employees will absolutely lose faith in the bargaining process and wonder what the point is of negotiating. The actual problems that they want to resolve are not resolved and are postponed once again.

Yes, we agree with your statement.

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

Great, thank you.

The government says that the new guarantees set out in Bill C‑39 will better regulate its powers to intervene in labour disputes. However, the minister would still have the power to end a legal strike by invoking the very broad and ill-defined concept of national interest.

Do these new powers raise constitutional risks, particularly with respect to the right to strike, which is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[François Soucy]

That's not something I can comment on. I'm not a judge. The courts will decide on the constitutionality of the legislation.

There are definite risks. I think the charter statement, which my union colleagues and I have read, mentions that there are risks associated with contravening paragraph 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which includes the right to strike.

What was the second part of your question again? I'm sorry, I've lost track a bit.