Bill C-39 Committee on Oct. 27th, 2026

[Caroline Senneville]

Yes, but we would like to see section 107 repealed.

Don't get me wrong. Yes, it can help if employers are acting in good faith. However, when the situation has become entrenched and employers are not acting in good faith, they simply have to wait for this process to run its course and sit on their hands, as we say back home.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

You mentioned monetary penalties. Is that a positive step? Will it help?

[Caroline Senneville]

It won't do any harm, but our experience shows that employers are sometimes prepared to spend millions of dollars on legal fees to prevent a trade union from being formed, to delay collective bargaining or to pay fines, rather than spending those millions on improving working conditions.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Ms. Larouche, go ahead.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much to the witnesses for joining us today.

As a member from Quebec, I will direct my first questions to Ms. Senneville and Mr. Michaud.

With regard to workers' rights, we fully understand that, as you said, the right of association is protected internationally. It has been a human rights issue for several decades now, as you pointed out.

Another right that is undermined by this bill, and which has not been discussed sufficiently, is the right to a healthy environment. Your brief also addresses the environmental aspect of this bill, however. I would like you to tell us about Bill C‑39's impact on the environment.

[Caroline Senneville]

I will ask Mr. Michaud to answer.

[Jonathan Michaud, Union Adviser, Health, Safety, and Environment Department, Confédération des syndicats nationaux]

The first consequence is the ability to circumvent most impact assessment and environmental laws. We also question the fact that, as we see with the right to strike, powers are centralized with the minister.

Therefore, this ability is problematic. Many provisions include the notion of a region of national interest, the definition of which is very unclear. There's being able to pre-approve projects or impose only a few conditions to enable projects to move forward before the impact assessment is even done. Also, new rights-of-way of under 300 kilometres may not be subject to an impact assessment process at all. Finally, as Ms. Senneville said in her opening remarks, there is the possibility of splitting up projects.

As far as the environment is concerned, we think that, even though the impact assessment laws will continue to exist, the current version of the bill will simply make it possible to circumvent them.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

We're hearing that the government doesn't want to remove the rules, that it just wants to provide a framework so everything flows more quickly and easily. However, regarding environmental assessments, it's simply about authorizing projects before an assessment has been conducted. Even then, the minister has the discretionary right to authorize the project to move forward.

Ms. Senneville, could you answer the question in 20 seconds?

[Caroline Senneville]

Damage to the environment causes damage to the public, and it is expensive. It also doesn't work well with a sustainable economy. We are already paying the costs associated with climate change. If we don't take preventive action with well-crafted projects, we'll continue to pay them very dearly in the years to come.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Larouche.

We have Mr. Gourde next, and then Dr. Martin.

I'll give you three minutes each.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will speak with you, Ms. Senneville, as well as the representatives of the Conseil du patronat du Québec.

We have two major players here with us. It is really rare for a committee to hear from the Conseil du patronat du Québec and the Confédération des syndicats nationaux at the same time. We might be making history today. During my first turn, there seemed to be some synergy between your two groups, which I've rarely seen.

Is there anything about the Conseil du patronat du Québec's positions regarding Bill C‑39 that bothers the CSN?

I will ask the same question to the Conseil du patronat du Québec, to find out if there's anything about the CSN's positions that bothers them.

[Caroline Senneville]

We might partially agree on a specific diagnosis, because unions support productivity.

Ms. LLambías Meunier and I believe this involves workforce training, among other things. A well-trained workforce helps increase productivity. We have also fallen behind in innovation. Quebec is one of the least innovative societies. No one wants inefficient regulations.

However, business productivity depends on investment. I am sorry, but there have been tax cuts. Since then, businesses' cash flow in Quebec has increased by $900 million. There is not enough investment, not enough innovation and not enough automation, even though there is a labour shortage. We need to focus on training. As I said, we want effective, well-designed regulations. However, it is false to say that simply reducing regulations and granting tax cuts will make businesses more productive if there's no training.

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

Thank you, Ms. Senneville.

Ms. LLambías Meunier, is the CSN right to criticize you for not investing enough? Do you also have anything to share with us about the CSN?

[Michelle LLambías Meunier]

We don't want to squabble. There is indeed an alignment with certain basic principles, including training. I'm going to stick to the bill we're talking about today.

For us, this is a positive bill. It's a step in the right direction. We agree that there needs to be a special mediator when it comes to the Canada Labour Code. Where we don't necessarily agree is on what this bill proposes as a check on the Canada Labour Code, with impact assessments and a mediator report to allow both workers and employers to have more predictability and, yes, ultimately find an agreement at the bargaining table. We recognize that the bill aims to improve the likelihood of reaching agreements at the bargaining table. I'm not going to talk about what the CSN doesn't agree with. Rather, I wanted to reiterate those points about what we support in the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

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

Oh, my time's up. We were having fun.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Dr. Martin, go ahead.

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Thank you.

I want to come back to Mr. Strickland, because we've been talking about predictability on this committee quite a bit. Of course, we all acknowledge that predictability is really important for investors and proponents who are thinking about building big projects, but we haven't talked that much about how it relates to the workers.

Regarding what we've just been talking about, in terms of the workforce and skilled trades, having a line of sight into what's coming and the projects that are coming is really important to help us build the apprenticeships and do the training of workers who are going to be necessary. These projects don't build themselves; we need workers to build them. I see that as being, in part, the government having done a lot of work around investing in Red Seal trades and around union-led training in a variety of different contexts.

There's also a conversation about immigration, the workforce of the future that Canada needs, and how we can continue to be a country that is supportive of and built by, among others, established Canadians and new Canadians.

Can you talk to us about skilled trades planning and how this bill and the ability to plan might help with the skilled trades?

[Sean Strickland]

I think the aspects of the bill related to one project, one review are directionally very positive, subject to language in the bill related to indigenous, territorial and provincial consultation.

The Canadian industrial landscape is littered with megaprojects to maximize the benefit of our natural resources that never made it to a final investment decision for a variety of reasons, many due to regulatory inefficiency. What this bill is setting out to do is achieve some regulatory efficiency. It's not about cutting corners. It's not about cutting standards on environmental assessments. It's about trying to achieve regulatory efficiencies.

The government has done that somewhat by delegating some approval authorities with different arrangements in British Columbia and Ontario, and with the creation of the Major Projects Office in Bill C-5. I was at the LNG announcement in Vancouver a couple of weeks ago. The CEO of LNG indicated that they advanced their final investment decision because of the expedited nature of the work they're able to do with the Major Projects Office.

Given the economic landscape and the issues we're having with our friends south of the border, it is imperative for us to get this right. Our skilled trades in Canada—I represent over 500,000 of them—are ready to build Canada. I think that we can do this, and this bill is very much a step in the right direction.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Dr. Martin.

Thank you to all of our witnesses. We very much appreciate your contributions.

Unfortunately, we're out of time for this panel, so we will suspend very briefly, ladies and gentlemen, to get ready for the next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Welcome back, everybody, to meeting number five of the House of Commons Legislative Committee on Bill C-39.

I want to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses.

Have you all appeared before a parliamentary committee before? Do you all know the rules? Do you know how it works? Okay, I'm going to skip over a lot of stuff.

All comments should come through me. You know how to work the translation, the headpieces, etc. There's nobody on Zoom.

I would like to welcome our second panel, then. From the Canadian Trucking Alliance, we have Jonathan Blackham, director of policy and public affairs. From the Federally Regulated Employers—Transportation and Communications, we have Derrick Hynes, president and chief executive officer; and Christopher Pigott, partner at Fasken Martineau DuMoulin. From the Railway Association of Canada, we have Eric Harvey, president and chief executive officer; and Nathan Cato, chair of the board of directors.

Each organization gets up to five minutes for opening remarks. That will be followed by questions, which will come in both official languages.

I will cede the floor to Mr. Blackham to start for five minutes.

[Jonathan Blackham, Director, Policy and Public Affairs, Canadian Trucking Alliance]

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today on behalf of the Canadian Trucking Alliance to discuss Bill C-39.

By way of background, the Canadian Trucking Alliance is a federation of the nation's provincial trucking associations, representing around 5,000 companies who collectively employ around 250,000 Canadians. Trucking is Canada's largest freight mode, carrying the majority of Canada's internal and cross-border trade. Virtually every sector of the economy depends on trucks to move raw materials, business inputs and final goods to market. It also plays a vital role in connecting all other freight modes.

CTA is cautiously optimistic about Bill C-39 and supports its overall objectives of accelerating infrastructure development, strengthening trade corridors, improving supply chain reliability and addressing serious labour non-compliance taking place in our sector.

I want to begin with this issue. It's one of particular significance to us and one that has not received much attention to date in committee—the government's continued commitment to strengthening enforcement against Driver Inc. For over eight years, CTA has sounded the alarm about the widespread non-compliance associated with this practice, including employee misclassification and wage theft. Driver Inc. undermines legitimate employers, denies workers important protections and creates an unfair competitive climate for legitimate businesses.

We were therefore very pleased to see the government commit additional resources for compliance and enforcement, along with digital tools to address wage theft and employee misclassification, with a specific focus on our sector. We appreciate Minister Hajdu's highlighting our industry in her testimony here and her continued leadership on this front.

However, we want to emphasize that the job is far from over. In particular, progress towards enhanced vetting for employers participating in programs such as immigration programs, along with sustained proactive enforcement by ESDC, is desperately needed.

Likewise, we do feel that there was one big missed opportunity in all of this, and that was to address the well-known challenges, abuses and misuse associated with paid medical leave. This is particularly frustrating for compliant companies in our industry, who continue to face skyrocketing costs—and I do mean skyrocketing—as well as widespread disruption within their business and within their customer base, while they also watch as businesses operating in the underground economy completely sidestep these obligations.

Turning to infrastructure and trade corridors, our industry has long called for greater coordination and investment in infrastructure, including highways, border crossings and port and intermodal connections. We therefore support measures to accelerate approvals and improve coordination for nationally significant transportation projects. In this, we encourage the government to ensure that trucking and highway infrastructure, of course, receive appropriate attention. We are very much interested in hearing more about the national trade corridors council and to ensure that our industry has a meaningful voice.

On reducing red tape and modernizing trade, we welcome measures to enable electronic trade documents to reduce paper-based requirements. This is something very good.

Finally, on supply chain stability, Canada's economic competitiveness depends in part on the reliable movement of goods. Therefore, we support efforts to improve coordination across our national transportation system and to strengthen mechanisms to resolve disruptions—and, indeed, to prevent them—including labour disruptions when the need is clear.

While it is true that some trucking companies do have unions, generally speaking, particularly in the long-haul segment, unionization is much lower in our industry than in others. With that said, when there are disruptions within the transportation system, be it in our industry or in other transportation modes, the effects are felt well beyond those two immediate parties and often extend to our industry and our customer base as well. Therefore, our primary interest in this topic is to see a greater stability maintained within the overall supply chain.

In closing, the trucking industry, once again, is cautiously optimistic about what we see here, but of course the ultimate results remain to be seen: if it does reduce border delays, if it creates more efficient highway corridors, if there are fewer supply chain disruptions and if it produces greater compliance within our industry.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

Next, we have Mr. Hynes, I believe.

[Derrick Hynes, President and Chief Executive Officer, Federally Regulated Employers—Transportation and Communications]

Thank you, Chair, and good morning, honourable members.

My name is Derrick Hynes, and I am the president and CEO of FETCO. I am pleased to be joined this morning by Christopher Pigott, who is a partner at the law firm Fasken and serves as external legal counsel to FETCO.

In my limited time, I will focus on two parts of Bill C-39. These are division 1, under industrial relations, and division 3, under paid medical leave.

First, I'll speak on industrial relations and the new framework established for collective bargaining. FETCO is encouraged that Bill C-39 recognizes that labour instability in Canada's transportation supply chains is a chronic problem that must be addressed. FETCO members are generally encouraged by the direction set via the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code in this bill.

Unfortunately, Bill C-39 falls short of achieving the government's objective of providing an effective and stabilizing solution to this pervasive labour instability problem. The bill introduces new tools for the minister of labour for dealing with challenging collective bargaining tables. The introduction of both a special mediator to assist with difficult negotiations and a national interest assessment to inform ministerial decision-making will prove useful in some circumstances. However, this will not be enough in others.

The ability for government to intervene to protect Canada's national interest only after a work stoppage has occurred will continue to permit broad damage and will not bring the stability intended by Bill C-39. Customers and investors around the world will continue to see Canadian supply chains as risky. We urge your committee to support an amendment to this bill that will give the minister the authority to act pre-emptively in highly extraordinary circumstances to stop a strike from occurring when meaningful collective bargaining is no longer possible and it is clear the national interest is at risk. We have specific text to recommend in this regard.

Our second area of concern relates to paid medical leave. We are encouraged that Bill C-39 recognizes that paid medical leave, as required under section 239 of the Canada Labour Code, is not functioning as it should. The changes introduced in this bill are welcome, but they are inadequate. This policy, introduced under the last government, requires all federally regulated employers to provide 10 days of paid medical leave to all employees. This leave was introduced during a global pandemic when 10 days of isolation were required when a person came into contact with the disease or someone carrying it.

Our members support providing employees with protections when they are unable to come to work due to illness. Most have a wide range of protections in corporate policies or within collective agreements, but this paid medical leave requirement has gone far beyond providing basic insurance for employees. There are three critical problems. First, the number of days is simply too high. We cannot find a single jurisdiction in Canada or even in North America that mandates 10 days of paid medical leave. Second, the leave stacks on top of similar leave protections embedded in corporate policies or within collective agreements. Many employers are on the hook for more than 10 days. Third, there is no recourse for employers to manage misuse. An employer can ask for medical certification only after an employee takes five consecutive days of sick leave.

What has been the impact of this policy? It has been recurring labour shortages during peak periods in critical supply chain industries. This has a direct impact on productivity, when organizations are forced to scale back on operations. It's been millions of dollars in new costs for medium-sized employers and tens of millions for large employers on an annual basis. Expenses include the cost of the leave, the cost of the replacement staff and the administrative burden to manage the process. Some employers are scaling back on capital investment, workforce development and employee hiring. We think it is accurate to describe all the paid leave provisions—and there are others—introduced under the last government as a government-imposed productivity crisis.

There are simple ways to fix this policy that maintain its primary objectives but make it more sustainable in the long term. We have recommended some amendments in our brief to you. These are, first, introduce language that addresses entitlement stacking and related problems; second, modify the restrictions on the right of employers to seek medical certification; and third, reduce the annual entitlement from 10 days to five days to bring it closer to other jurisdictions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Harvey, go ahead.