Yes.
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.
Conservative
Executive Director, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
As I said earlier, as this has been an issue for years now, we've advocated that it should be extended to British Columbia as well.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
My understanding is that the shippers have been very hesitant to use these pilot programs for fear of potential repercussions later when it's expiring. Four years is longer than these past ones. I assume four years isn't enough.
Should this just be permanent?
Executive Director, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
Yes. Since day one, we've believed extended interswitching should be an ever-present reality for Canadian farmers to ensure the competition they need to be able to ship products effectively.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I believe you've mentioned it, but could you reiterate the concerns of the coming into force of this? It's one thing to say we're going to do it, but to wait for some unknown, ubiquitous change in international relations as the reason....
Do you think this should come into force as soon as this bill comes into law?
Executive Director, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
Yes, we've been looking to see this maintained permanently—
Liberal
Caroline Desrochers Liberal Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Proulx and Ms. Bouthillier, I'd like to come back to what we were discussing earlier, namely, the conditions relating to feasibility.
Could you tell us a bit about the potential risks if conditions are imposed for the bill to proceed without taking into account the economic, technical and practical feasibility of projects? What are the risks for businesses?
Chief Executive Officer, Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec
In fact, businesses need to be able to plan and anticipate the materials, labour and investments they will require. When it comes time to bid on a project or secure a contract, those elements are essential to ensuring feasibility. For businesses, it affects both their reputation and their costs. In fact, the entire supply chain is affected.
I think that, if we want to be able to carry out major projects and ensure that investors, both foreign and domestic, are at the table—I'm thinking of our companies that produce local content and employ people here—we need the right conditions in place.
Chief Executive Officer, Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you very much.
Thank you to our witnesses on that first panel. We really appreciate your contribution. It's very valuable.
We're going to suspend for a very brief moment to get the second panel ready to go.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Welcome back to meeting number four of the House of Commons Legislative Committee on Bill C-39.
I have a few comments for the benefit of our new witnesses. Members can ignore us because they know it off by heart.
Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. I will remind witnesses that committee members may ask questions in English or French. 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. As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.
I'd like to welcome our witnesses for this second panel.
We have, from the International Union of Operating Engineers, Mr. Steven Schumann, Canadian government affairs director; from Unifor, Ms. Lana Payne, national president, and Jean-Stéphane Mayer, assistant to the national president; and from the United Steelworkers, Marty Warren, national director, and François Soucy, legislative staff representative.
Each organization will be given up to five minutes for opening remarks, which will be followed by a question and answer session.
Mr. Schumann, I will start with you.
Steven Schumann Canadian Government Affairs Director, International Union of Operating Engineers
Good afternoon. On behalf of the International Union of Operating Engineers, I'm honoured to appear before the committee today.
Across Canada, we represent nearly 65,000 members building and maintaining the infrastructure our country relies on. Our members operate cranes and heavy equipment, work as mechanics and apprentices and are often the first on the project and the last to leave. Our local unions run not-for-profit training centres nationwide, preparing the next generation of skilled trade workers.
We are here today to support Bill C-39's efforts to accelerate the major projects Canada needs: new energy infrastructure, transportation corridors and investments that strengthen our economy and create good-paying jobs. The proposed one project, one review approach is welcome. Better federal coordination, clearer timelines and less duplication can help move projects from the drawing board to the job site without compromising necessary standards.
Approving projects is only part of the equation. We also need to ensure that Canada engages in the skilled workforce and the stable labour relations necessary to build them. That's why we believe project labour agreements between project proponents and building trade unions should be a requirement for major projects benefiting from federal support and streamlined approvals.
These agreements standardize labour terms and conditions, coordinate trades and contractors, improve scheduling and workforce planning and provide clear ways to resolve disputes with no strike or lockout provisions during the construction of the projects. They reduce disruptions and give owners greater confidence that the projects will be completed safely, efficiently and on schedule.
A recent study by Independent Project Analysis examined 140 completed projects in B.C. and Alberta, primarily at existing industrial sites. It found that union labour was 17% more productive than open shop labour, with 16% lower construction labour costs and 7% lower total project costs on average.
British Columbia Infrastructure Benefits offers another example. On its community benefits agreement projects—PLAs, by a different name—workers have logged 13.7 million hours, apprentices or trainees have been at 24%, and residents within 100 kilometres of the job performed 83% of the hours worked. A separate study, covering 2019 to 2024, found that 14% of those workers were indigenous—more than twice the provincial construction average—and 9% were women, at about 50% above the average. A quarter of the women hired were indigenous. None of these outcomes would have been possible without the enforcement provisions set out in the body of a project labour agreement.
This also presents an opportunity for economic reconciliation. Research by economist Jim Stanford finds that indigenous workers covered by union agreements earn, on average, 20% more than indigenous workers without union coverage.
Project labour agreements, together with our union's training centres, can help deliver these benefits across Canada. We encourage the committee to make them central to the major project framework.
Turning to the labour provisions of Bill C-39, we acknowledge the government's efforts to address concerns related to first contracts, contract flipping and other issues that have affected workers in Canada.
Regarding section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, the vast majority of our union membership is employed in workplaces that are governed by provincial labour codes. Therefore, we are not impacted by the changes to section 107. We acknowledge the government's efforts to introduce clearer guardrails and hope this committee will work closely with directly affected unions to address their concerns and develop acceptable amendments.
We recognize the importance of stability in federally regulated industries. However, the right to strike is a fundamental in meaningful collective bargaining. Government intervention when negotiations become difficult can reduce employers' incentive to reach agreements at the bargaining table, risk prolonged disputes and undermine collective bargaining. We urge the committee to address these concerns and protect free collective bargaining and the constitutionally protected right to strike.
In conclusion, Canada has no shortage of infrastructure needs, and our members have the skills to meet them. We hope Bill C-39 helps more projects move forward, creating lasting opportunities for Canadians, workers and communities. We also hope that the federal government will ensure this work is performed by the highly skilled, well-trained workers of Canada's unionized sector.
I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you to the committee.
Lana Payne National President, Unifor
Thank you, Chair and members of the committee, for this invitation. I'm very appreciative of that.
I'm here today, as you know, as the national president of Unifor, Canada's largest private sector union, with 320,000 members working across every major sector of the economy.
The past two years have been extremely challenging for our members in many industries, with plant closures, mill curtailments, layoffs and widespread uncertainty caused by a punishing trade war. We are fighting everywhere right now—from Nackawic, New Brunswick, to Howe Sound, British Columbia—to save jobs, plants, workplaces and communities. We take the economy of this country very seriously, and we use collective bargaining as a powerful tool for investment in our workplaces.
Bill C-39 and its explicit attack on the right to fair and free collective bargaining is the last thing the workers of Canada need right now. The proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code will impact the bargaining tables of nearly 70,000 Unifor members in every major federal sector, including rail, road, aviation, marine, telecommunications, broadcast media and aerospace.
As a union, we're responsible for bargaining over 2,600 collective agreements. We know something about collective bargaining. We know how to get deals. We know how to use the power of collective bargaining to change conditions of work, address issues of inequality, raise living standards and fight for safe workplaces. We see collective bargaining not as a transaction but rather as a powerful tool to transform.
When collective bargaining is undermined because the right to strike is no longer an effective tool, it changes workers' ability to defend their workplace gains or advance new ones. Let's face it. Big federal employers have not been shy about their demands to weaken the very rights that workers depend on to improve their livelihoods, make their workplaces safer or advance equality.
Collective bargaining behaviour is very much dictated by the rules of bargaining. For example, if employers believe the government will intervene on their behalf, it changes their bargaining tactics and strategy. We have seen this numerous times. This has an impact on worker behaviour too. Workers become conditioned to believe their employers are not coming to the table to bargain fairly. These two things together result in a breakdown in trust in the bargaining process and a lack of confidence in the rules of bargaining. As we all know, trust is critical to getting deals at the table. Without it, you will get more labour strife, not less.
The bill is proposing to give the minister responsible for labour a superpower: the power to override rights, stop legal strikes and direct the CIRB to end a labour dispute and impose an agreement, not through Parliament but through a single minister. There are those who think these changes would result in less conflict and fewer disputes. I disagree. I'm here to say that it's time to pump the brakes, because this is going to cause a major problem.
Before I get into our issues with the labour section of the bill, let me state clearly that we think Bill C-39 gets some things right.
The first is making sure that, in airports, if contracts are flipped to another company, workers get to take their collective agreement with them. Currently, they do not. This is especially important in today's context, when we are talking about the privatization of airports in Canada.
The second is support for a union's first collective agreement. Newly organized workers should be able to get a first collective agreement in a timely fashion. Employers should not be able to circumvent their right to a union by using egregious stalling tactics, which happens a fair bit.
Where BillC-39 gets it wrong is its assault on the right to strike.
First, in our opinion, what the government has proposed by amending section 107 is a direct violation of international and Canadian law. Even the government's own lawyers agree that Bill C-39's proposed amendments potentially engage section 2(d) of the Charter of Rights, which guarantees freedom of association. Nowhere does that analysis state that the legislation would not infringe on the right of freedom of association.
Liberal
National President, Unifor
Okay, I will get the rest in during questions, if that's okay.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
You certainly will.
Mr. Warren, we'll go over to you for five minutes.
Marty Warren National Director, United Steelworkers
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear today.
I'm here with my legislative staff representative, François Soucy, who will be able to answer any questions in French if need be.
I am the Canadian national director of the United Steelworkers union, which represents 225,000 members across Canada, including around 20,000 in federally regulated sectors like rail, transportation and telecommunications.
We understand the importance of building a strong Canadian economy as workers and industries face the consequences of Trump's trade war. However, let me be clear: We cannot build a strong Canada by weakening the rights of workers who keep the economy running.
For steelworkers, the right to strike is a red line, and Bill C-39 crossed it. The right to strike is not an obstacle to collective bargaining. It's what makes meaningful bargaining possible. Employers control investment, operations and jobs. All workers have is their collective strength, which, as a last resort, includes the ability to withdraw their labour. Nobody makes that decision lightly. Strikers lose their paycheques, and their families make enormous sacrifices. They only strike when they believe they have no other choice.
Unions know that strikes have an economic consequence. That's the point. The pressure gives workers leverage to reach a fair agreement, yet Bill C-39 would allow those very consequences to become grounds for government intervention. The proposed changes to section 107 would explicitly authorize the minister to direct the CIRB to order back-to-work legislation and impose binding dispute resolutions when a strike is considered harmful, potentially harmful or in the national interest—whatever the definition of that may be, and by whom.
The bill doesn't define, as I've just said, the national interest or establish a clear objective threshold at which to intervene. The minister could consider actual and potential economic impacts, social disruptions and other relevant factors, all of which give the minister extraordinarily broad direction to end a legal strike.
The government says that it's putting guardrails around section 107, but the current legislation doesn't explicitly authorize the minister to end legal strikes through binding arbitration Nevertheless, that's how the government has interpreted it, and the interpretation is being challenged in court. Instead of addressing the concerns, Bill C-39 would write the power directly into law.
Yes, the bill introduces procedural requirements. The ministry must consider a special mediator report, but it isn't obligated to follow its recommendations. The minister still makes decisions without independent approval or a vote in Parliament—democracy. Even the government's own charter statement acknowledges that the proposed powers under section 107 could interfere with the constitutional right to strike that is protected by the charter. That should be a serious warning to this committee.
Our government cannot claim to strengthen collective bargaining while giving itself the power to take away workers' most effective bargaining tool. The consequences extend well beyond any individual strike. If employers believe the government will intervene once the strike becomes economically significant, why would companies bargain to reach an agreement? This is particularly concerning for workers in strategic sectors under federal jurisdiction, like rail, ports, transportation and telecommunications. Their work is essential to Canada's economy, but should that mean they have less bargaining power than other workers? The economic importance of their work should not become a justification for taking away their fundamental right to strike.
There is a positive measure in this bill, including improvements to first-contract arbitration, successor rights and enforcement against bad-faith bargaining. These reforms should have been been considered as stand-alone legislation.
We support the measures that strengthen workers' rights, but those improvements cannot justify undermining the right to strike. The government already has the tools to address truly exceptional situations. If it believes a legal strike must end, it should make that case publicly before Parliament and let the MPs vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Mr. Warren. I'm going to have to stop you there.
Mr. Seeback, we'll go over to you for six minutes.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Payne, I'm going to start with you. The minister seems to think that the new changes in this bill to section 107 are guardrails. She also believes that the changes she's made will lead to less labour disruption.
What do you think of that? Do you agree with what she's had to say on that?