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

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Good afternoon. We're running a bit late. We had a vote in the House of Commons. I apologize to our witnesses for that.

I'd like to call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number four of the House of Commons Legislative Committee on Bill C-39.

The committee is meeting today pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, October 8, 2026.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and the members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic. Please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. I'd like to remind the witnesses that the 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 allocated for questions and answers.

All comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. I will manage the speaking order as best I can with the assistance and patience of the clerk.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses for today's first panel. As an individual, we have Maxime St-Hilaire, professor, faculty of law, Université de Sherbrooke. From the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, we have Brodie Berrigan, senior director of government relations and farm policy, and Scott Ross, executive director. From the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, we have Véronique Proulx, chief executive officer, and Miriane Bouthillier, vice-president, labour and labour relations.

Each organization or individual, as the case may be, will be given up to five minutes for opening remarks.

I believe, Mr. St-Hilaire, that we're starting with you.

You have five minutes, and the floor is yours.

[Maxime St-Hilaire, Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Sherbrooke, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the invitation. I will focus my remarks today on the amendments proposed to the Building Canada Act.

In June 2025, when the government moved Bill C‑5 under time allocation, I appeared before the committee studying the bill. At that time, I argued that the bill was designed, without saying so openly, to grant emergency powers to the executive. Had the government followed the transparency required by rule-of-law principles, it would have acknowledged that openly. I warned the committee against making those powers permanent. Consistent with constitutional rule-of-law best practices, I proposed that those powers expire after five years, that they not be used when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved, and that they be reviewed by the parliamentary review committee established under the Emergencies Act. I also stressed that the legislation should not be assessed solely through the lens of economic development, but rather against the public interest, taking into account the respective objectives of the statutes from which exemptions might be granted. Put simply, we need to determine whether setting aside those laws in the name of economic efficiency is actually justified.

The committee adopted those amendments, virtually word for word, at the opposition's request. As a result, the legislation was forced to acknowledge its true nature as emergency legislation, even though, I would note, the word “urgent” appeared in the preamble from the very first version of the bill. The bill before us today, Bill C‑39, undoes most of the safeguards those amendments put in place.

The issue is not whether Canada is in an emergency situation as a matter of fact. The issue is whether we understand or are prepared to acknowledge what it means in law to grant the executive the power to exempt projects of its choosing from public-interest laws that would otherwise apply. Legally speaking, I emphasize, these are emergency powers or exceptional powers, regardless of how they're packaged.

Contemporary international best practices, including those promoted by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Venice Commission, of which Canada is a member, I remind you, require that emergency powers, first, be declared with full transparency; second, be temporary; and third, be subject to robust and ongoing parliamentary oversight. These practices are designed to guard against a danger facing all constitutional democracies governed by the rule of law today: that of the exceptional becoming the norm, and emergency powers becoming permanent.

Today, 15 months after the passage of Bill C‑5, the government is back for more. Bill C‑39 removes the five-year sunset clause. It extends the exceptional regime to entire regions and categories of projects. It creates new powers that may be exercised when Parliament is not sitting. The very normalization of emergency powers that I warned against is now taking shape.

There is something even more troubling. This significant step is not being taken openly through a stand-alone bill that would clearly acknowledge its implications. Instead, it's buried in a 243‑page omnibus bill. That is not an accident. It is a method. In March, under the reassuring label of a “regulatory sandbox”, Bill C‑15 gave ministers the authority to exempt businesses from federal statutes through amendments to the Red Tape Reduction Act, the very title of which conceals its true effect. There's a difference between cutting red tape and exempting compliance with the law. In short, the use of omnibus legislation is compounded here by the gradual dispersal of exceptional powers that, scattered in this way, make the law increasingly difficult for parliamentarians and the public alike to understand. However, best practices require that exceptional legislation remain clearly separate from ordinary legislation.

I therefore address all members of this committee. You face a simple choice: Either you uphold the transparency and safeguards that were ultimately built into the original bill in 2025, or you remove them and, in doing so, turn away from established rule-of-law principles.

In conclusion, let us be clear: If Parliament believes that its laws governing assessments and administrative approvals are genuinely too burdensome, then it should amend them openly through the normal legislative process and debate those changes accordingly.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, sir.

We will go over to the CFA.

Mr. Ross, go ahead.

[Scott Ross, Executive Director, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear today.

My name is Scott Ross. I'm the executive director of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which is Canada's largest general farm organization, representing approximately 190,000 farmers and farm families across the country. I'm joined here today by Brodie Berrigan, our senior director of government relations and farm policy.

Canadian producers depend on reliable rail and marine transportation to receive essential inputs and move their products to domestic and international markets. Disruptions affect far more than the parties directly involved in a labour dispute. Farmers face delayed payments, higher costs and lost market opportunities. Repeated disruptions also undermine Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier, particularly as we work to diversify our export markets. That is why CFA welcomes the government's efforts through Bill C-39 to strengthen collective bargaining in Canada's transportation system.

We believe the special mediator is one of the most promising provisions in the bill. A dedicated mediation process supported by clear timelines and public reporting when parties are unable to reach an agreement can improve transparency and accountability, while encouraging timely negotiated outcomes.

However, we believe there is an important opportunity to make this provision more effective. The bill creates the special mediator process we have advocated for, but leaves appointment entirely to the minister's discretion. Neither party can require an appointment, and if no special mediator is appointed, there is no report. Without that report, the minister may be unable to exercise certain powers to direct binding dispute resolution. CFA recommends making that appointment automatic for disputes that remain unresolved by day 75 of conciliation.

Our goal has been the same from the beginning, which is to resolve disputes before they become disruptions. The economic consequences of labour disruptions for Canadian agriculture can be substantial. The supply chain task force noted that “rotating strikes at the Port of Montreal in 2020 led to 21 container ships diverting elsewhere, which cost businesses an estimated $600 million in lost sales.”

A February 2026 study by Anderson Economic Group estimated that a combined rail and port work stoppage lasting just one week during peak export season could cost Canada's grain industry nearly $540 million in lost earnings. Importantly, that same study estimates that up to $112 million in grain sales could be lost before a work stoppage even begins, as transportation networks slow in anticipation of a potential disruption. These impacts can continue after service resumes, as backlogs take time to clear and international customers may turn to alternative suppliers.

These findings underscore the importance of addressing disputes as early as possible and taking proactive steps to prevent disruptions, particularly given that significant economic harm can occur well before a work stoppage begins.

Beyond the labour provisions, Bill C-39 also includes an important measure related to rail competition, which is the proposed restoration of extended interswitching in the prairie provinces. CFA welcomes this measure. However, we would encourage the committee to make extended interswitching permanent rather than introducing another temporary pilot. We also believe the measure should be brought into force as soon as possible. The government's stated intention to delay implementation until there is a reliable trading relationship with the United States creates unnecessary uncertainty for agricultural shippers, who need greater competition and more reliable transportation options today.

Bill C-39 represents meaningful progress. We encourage the committee to build on that progress by strengthening the special mediator process and advancing greater competition and resilience across Canada's transportation system.

Thank you and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Madame Proulx.

[Véronique Proulx, Chief Executive Officer, Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you to the committee for giving us the opportunity to share the perspective of the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec.

I'm joined today by my colleague Miriane Bouthillier, vice-president, labour and labour relations.

The Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec brings together 120 chambers of commerce across Quebec, from Montreal to Matane. It is therefore a network firmly rooted in communities throughout the province. The federation also includes 1,000 member businesses, ranging from large corporations to small and medium-sized enterprises, representing all sectors of activity across Quebec. As you can appreciate, this gives us a broad perspective on the challenges and realities facing each region of Quebec.

The federation has four key priorities, which reflect those of Quebec businesses: workforce issues, which remain the number one challenge for small and medium-sized enterprises; competitiveness from a tax, regulatory and administrative standpoint, an area that is addressed in part by this bill; market access, particularly access to the U.S. market but also to public procurement opportunities; and, finally, regional vitality, which means ensuring that our regions remain dynamic and contribute to the economies of Quebec and Canada.

We are appearing before you today against the backdrop of a particularly challenging economic environment. As you know, Quebec has been hit harder than any other province by tariffs and the trade dispute. In practical terms, this has resulted in a decline in exports, the loss of nearly 100,000 manufacturing jobs and a 19% decrease in investment intentions over the past year.

I often say that there is very little we can do about the decisions President Trump chooses to make. What we can do, however, is make sure we are using the tools that are within our control, those over which governments have influence. I'm referring here to creating a predictable, efficient and attractive business environment.

For that reason, we support Bill C‑39. However, three conditions must be met if we are to see tangible results. First, we must continue investing in transportation infrastructure. Second, approval processes must become more predictable. Third, we need to reduce the frequency of labour disputes and ensure that the government can step in when circumstances warrant.

I will now briefly outline some of our recommendations and will be pleased to discuss them further with you during questions.

Our first recommendation is to continue investing in major strategic projects and transportation infrastructure that support regional growth, particularly through the national trade corridors fund. Why is this important? Our ports, railways, airports and highways are what allow Canadian products to reach markets across the country, in the United States and around the world. The Prime Minister has identified market diversification as a priority. We must therefore ensure that we have world-class transportation infrastructure.

We also have two recommendations related to the approvals process. Recommendation 5 in our brief is that the agreement between Quebec and Canada on environmental approvals be finalized as quickly as possible. Recommendation 7 is that the federal government draw inspiration from Alberta's “Automatic Yes” model, a deemed approval regime, by attaching enforceable mechanisms to approval timelines in order to strengthen the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada's accountability obligations.

Having a single decision-making authority is an excellent step. The government has committed to providing a decision within 12 months, which is very positive. We want to ensure that the government meets its own commitments in order to provide predictability for businesses. Whether or not the federal government adopts Alberta's model outright, it could certainly draw inspiration from the deemed approval model to ensure that administrative delays have consequences and that meaningful corrective measures are available when deadlines are missed.

I will now turn to labour disputes.

We have three recommendations in this area.

Recommendation 9 is to provide for government intervention in exceptional situations where a labour dispute threatens the viability of businesses.

Recommendation 10 is to clarify that the minister may begin assessing the relevant criteria immediately upon receipt of the special mediator's report.

The Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec fully supports collective bargaining and respects workers' right to strike. Only 6% of labour disputes result in work stoppages, but those disputes can have a devastating impact on the economy. We saw that with Canada Post, the Port of Montreal, CN, CP and the Port of Vancouver, among others.

As it stands, the Canada Labour Code leaves uncertainty about when government intervention to limit the right to strike may be warranted. We support the proposed amendment to section 107 and agree that the minister should have the ability to intervene. That said, the conditions governing ministerial intervention should be more clearly defined rather than left entirely to ministerial discretion. More clarity would provide greater predictability for all parties involved.

Finally, I'd like to touch on strike notice periods. Currently, the notice period is 72 hours. In some countries, it is as long as 14 days. The bill should allow the minister to require longer notice periods when circumstances justify it, particularly in sectors such as rail transportation and ports.

I will conclude there. I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

We'll move into the six-minute round, starting with Mr. Gourde.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Ms. Proulx.

You talked about worthwhile transportation infrastructure. One major project currently on the table is Alto, the high-speed rail line, with a price tag of $130 billion.

Is that project worthwhile enough to justify a $130‑billion investment? Would that $130 billion be better invested in rail infrastructure for moving freight or in ports for shipping goods?

Sooner or later, choices will have to be made. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[Véronique Proulx]

We have come out in support of the Alto project because it's expected to generate significant economic benefits. We're talking about $40 billion to $60 billion in economic spinoffs for Quebec.

In the current environment, we need major projects that will facilitate the movement of people and goods while generating economic activity. As I mentioned earlier, we're dealing with the effects of the tariff war. Our exports are down. We must ensure that our businesses have opportunities if we want them to stay and invest in Quebec. High-speed rail is one of the projects that could generate economic benefits for locally based businesses.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Help me understand how a project with such a hefty price tag, designed primarily to move people faster, is going to boost Canadian exports.

[Véronique Proulx]

I was referring to the mobility of people and workers. Let me draw a parallel with regional transportation. We're calling on the government to invest in regional transit so that workers, visitors and tourists can travel throughout Quebec's regions. This project will facilitate the mobility of workers, tourists and other travellers.

Returning to this particular project, what interests me most is ensuring that there is local content in the contracts awarded. That would create opportunities for businesses in the construction and manufacturing sectors, both of which have been hit hard by the tariff war.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Do you really think workers are going to take the train morning and night to work at a manufacturing plant and produce goods? Most workers live fairly close to where they work.

[Véronique Proulx]

That's a fair point. I'm referring more to people who travel for business to Ontario or who move between provinces. That's the context in which I was presenting our position. Again, the most important consideration for us is the business opportunities and economic benefits it could generate for our companies.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Your microphone isn't on. Please repeat your answer; otherwise, it may not make it into the record.

[Véronique Proulx]

Are we good?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Yes, but just let the technical people control the microphone.

[Véronique Proulx]

I didn't touch it, though.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

There was a glitch. It's okay. It's not your fault.

[Véronique Proulx]

Do you want me to restart my answer?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Yes, please.

[Véronique Proulx]

Certainly.

As I was saying, the most important aspect of the Alto project, and one of the main reasons we support it, is the economic benefits it is expected to generate for Quebec businesses.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

You've just confirmed my point: It won't benefit people who live near where they work.

[Véronique Proulx]

No, people commuting to and from work will not necessarily use high-speed rail. However, many people travel for business. We do a great deal of business with Toronto and with companies in Ontario.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Do you really think people will start holding more meetings in person simply because there's a high-speed train, instead of using Zoom? The reality today is that people can hold three meetings a day on Zoom rather than spend two days travelling for a single in-person meeting.

[Véronique Proulx]

What I'm saying is that it improves mobility, but I will return to the point that matters most to us. In the context of the tariff war, we want businesses to remain in Quebec and continue investing here. They need projects, and they need to know that they'll be able to compete for contracts with a degree of predictability. In that respect, the project is worthwhile.