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

[Norma Kozhaya]

It's definitely possible to go faster while being thorough. That's the purpose of the bill. That's also my wish. It simply comes down to eliminating the overlap and duplication, in other words, establishing a single window. Other countries have done the same thing while being just as thorough, including Australia and Europe, especially Denmark, which is a unique case. It simply means centralizing processes and allowing them to be carried out simultaneously. It also means coordinating processes early where possible, so that the work isn't being done twice by two separate bodies. That is how environmental and other standards can be respected within shorter time frames.

[Michelle LLambías Meunier]

I just want to add one thing.

I want to be clear that, at no time, has the CPQ called for the removal of requirements. We are asking for better coordination, a review and elimination of duplication, greater transparency and greater predictability to carry out projects in a more timely way.

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

We, in government, do not want these important regulations to be watered down either.

Mr. Strickland, I come from the health care sector, where binding arbitration is the norm. As we know, under the terms of Bill C-39, in exceptional cases—and they will be exceptional cases—the minister can direct the end of a lockout or a strike due to the severity of its impact. The law goes through, in considerable detail, all of the hurdles that you've described that need to be met before that's even considered. Then, once a legal strike is under way, there is the option to....

I don't think we have discussed very much at this committee what happens after that. What happens after that, according to the law, is not that employers just get their way; rather, the dispute goes to binding arbitration with an independent arbitrator.

You can't draw a complete parallel to the universe of essential work, and I understand the difference, but I found it interesting to hear some witnesses come forward and speak as though binding arbitration is not a fair process that is used in labour disputes all the time. In fact, it's used all over the place. Maybe you could help us understand a little about how binding arbitration works in the instance of an independent arbitrator. Help us to understand how putting something before an independent third party might not be perceived by some as an adequate last resort.

[Sean Strickland]

The issue that has created some concern with this latest iteration around section 107 is how, in the past, the intervention by the minister has been used by mostly employers in the collective bargaining process, rather than them actually rolling up their sleeves and getting down with their employee counterparts to negotiating an agreement. They know, rightly or wrongly, that the government has their back. There are some examples that demonstrate this, such as Air Canada, where they move it to binding arbitration right away and let the arbitrator figure it out. The employers use that to their advantage. I think that's statistically proven.

The concern is that, when we go forward, the binding arbitration process should not be tainted by the fact that parties in the dispute will use that without actually doing the hard work of bargaining.

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

To be clear, we're talking about an independent arbitration process. We're not talking about—

[Sean Strickland]

I'm absolutely talking about an independent arbitration process.

What I'm saying is, in the previous iteration, when it moved to binding arbitration, it was too quick, and it didn't allow the parties to actually roll up their sleeves and go to work to get an agreement. That's why having a mediator in place first is a good step. That will better inform the binding arbitration process, if the minister decides to use that.

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

It's a very important distinction. Thank you.

[Sean Strickland]

You're welcome.

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

I think I'm out of time, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

You're done. You're right on time.

Mr. Ste-Marie, go ahead.

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

Welcome to all the witnesses and thank you for being here.

My questions are for the CSN representatives.

Ms. Senneville, in your opening remarks, you referred to Quebec's administrative labour tribunal and its decision in the matter involving the early childhood centre Le Jardin de Robi. You pointed to the connection between the decision and section 107 of the Canada Labour Code mentioned in the bill. At this committee, I have heard certain people say the two weren't connected at all, so could you please explain the connection to us?

[Caroline Senneville]

In our view, Quebec's former labour minister drew on section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to design legislation allowing the government to, on one hand, make unions provide vital services, in other words, essential services, and on the other, impose mandatory arbitration to end a strike or lockout. There is a lot of similarity here.

When we read the new version of section 107, we see the national interest as similar to the rights and needs of the public. Although the jurisdictions are different, we do see the connection and similarity.

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

Thank you.

Another case we could refer to is the Supreme Court's decision regarding the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour. As you said in your opening remarks, the right of association, the right to strike, is a fundamental right that must be—

[Caroline Senneville]

It's a constitutional right.

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

Sorry, it's a constitutional right that is internationally recognized. However, the right must be limited so as not to endanger a person's life, for instance, so there is a value hierarchy.

You said a business's economic interests should not take precedence over a constitutional right. Can you elaborate on that?

[Caroline Senneville]

After the Second World War, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was proclaimed in 1948, and it includes the right of association. That is part of a free and democratic society. It means we have the right to organize to defend our interests. That's significant. Nowhere does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights mention protecting corporate profits.

Of course, we're in favour of economic prosperity. Going on strike is never fun, and the first economic impact is felt by workers, who lose income. They decide whether or not to strike by secret ballot. They know when they're going to go on strike, but they certainly don't know when they're going to go back to work or how much it's going to cost them. In that regard, international law and the Supreme Court's decisions align. It's protected in Canadian constitutional law.

I repeat, the right to strike should be subject to as few limits as possible in any free and democratic society. I think all of us here want to live in a free and democratic society.

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

Thank you for that.

Like several others, you spoke about the ambiguity surrounding the invoked national interest. We also heard from other witnesses that Bill C‑39 would roll back labour rights, which would be unique among G7 countries. No other country would roll them back to that extent—for example by giving the minister the discretionary power to end a labour dispute without a vote or debate in the House before elected members.

Do you share that opinion?

[Caroline Senneville]

Yes, and I would remind you that few G7 countries require a strike to be called solely in the context of a collective agreement. In most other G7 countries, wildcat strikes may occur, but not in Canada. The right to strike here is already restricted. It forms part of our industrial relations framework. I would point out that there are other options when it comes to strikes.

I might add a few words about arbitration. You know, when workers unionize, their goal is to have a say in their working conditions. When workers aren't unionized, the employer offers a contract and it's a take-it-or-leave-it situation. When workers are unionized, they vote on demands, they vote on industrial action and they vote on the draft collective agreement. Arbitration takes that away. Voting is no longer part of the process; someone else decides, so the very reason for unionizing—to have a say in one's working conditions—is lost. That is the first point.

The second point is that often the arbitrator will also make decisions of a financial nature. However, when it comes to making decisions about work organization—which has a real impact on workers—the arbitrator is not a workplace expert. There are workplace experts on both sides of the bargaining table—on the workers' side and on the employers' side. Solutions to improve the workplace must emerge from that discussion. Often, the arbitrator does not get involved. The situation drags on, and as a result, labour relations, rather than improving, will deteriorate because those issues remain unresolved.

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

Thank you very much.

In this regard, the government says that this bill will increase stability in the economy and in society. Would you agree that the bill will improve stability in the workplace?

[Caroline Senneville]

No, and this is mainly due to its vagueness and arbitrariness. As I said, in our view, there will be more disputes and challenges, and conflicts will drag on for longer. If one of the parties thinks it can sit back and do nothing—as Mr. Strickland put it—to resolve the collective agreement, conflicts will last longer and be more challenging. It is important to understand that too.

There are some interesting provisions in the bill in this regard, but when a dispute arises and is poorly resolved—particularly through arbitration—labour relations become strained. The next round of negotiations will therefore be even more difficult. I think we've witnessed that in several sectors where, ultimately, section 107 of the Canada Labour Code was invoked because the parties' positions were so far apart. There is a culture of industrial relations that means people no longer negotiate because someone else will decide. The result is not greater stability; quite the opposite.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

We'll start the five-minute round with Mr. Gourde.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for joining us. This is truly quite important.

Was the Confédération des syndicats nationaux consulted before the bill was introduced?

[Ioanna Egarhos, Union Adviser, Legal Services, Confédération des syndicats nationaux]

Yes, the CSN took part in consultations in the spring. The consultations did not focus on this bill, but rather, generally speaking, on the limitations posed by section 107 as it is currently drafted.

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

Was the Quebec Employers' Council consulted on Bill C‑39?