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

[Michelle LLambías Meunier]

Yes, we participated in the work of the committee, which met a few times, to offer our recommendations following a number of consultations.

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

You mentioned special mediation in your earlier remarks. Could you expand on the importance you attached to it, given that you spoke about it at length?

[Michelle LLambías Meunier]

For us, the introduction of a special mediator is truly a positive aspect of the current bill. I must say that during the consultations and this committee's deliberations, there was consensus on the need for an integrated special mediation mechanism. We consider it a safeguard, much like the reports to be produced by the special mediator and the impact assessment. That said, what we find regrettable is that deadlines are not suspended during the special mediation process.

A process is being introduced in the belief that it will help reach an agreement at the bargaining table. However, there is no guarantee that this process can be completed before a decision is reached or before a labour dispute is triggered. We are therefore calling for a suspension of time limits during special mediation—or alternatively for the mediation process to be initiated as soon as it becomes apparent that negotiations are reaching an impasse.

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

Ms. Senneville, do you agree with the special mediation process requested by the Quebec Employers' Council?

[Caroline Senneville]

Yes.

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

That's good. That's common ground.

However, when it comes to arbitration, I think there is a certain reluctance on your part when it becomes mandatory.

[Caroline Senneville]

Absolutely, and I've explained that clearly. Arbitration means the parties don't sit down to resolve the issue. When someone else makes the decision, it always has a detrimental effect on the workplace, particularly on working conditions. Often, the issues we want to negotiate are working hours, the distribution of work or the definition of tasks. However, all of those require an understanding of the workplace, which arbitrators often lack.

As I was also saying, people don't unionize so that someone else can dictate their working conditions. People unionize because they want to have a say, whether through drawing up demands, through the whole bargaining process and, ultimately, through a secret ballot on the draft agreement-in-principle. The majority then prevails.

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

Do you think that, in terms of future bargaining, Bill C‑39 will give too much power to the minister or the executive?

[Caroline Senneville]

Absolutely—which is why we are proposing that the Canadian Industrial Relations Board should eventually conduct arbitration should this provision remain in the bill.

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

Witnesses have told us that the law will likely be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Could your organization be among those that might challenge the law?

[Caroline Senneville]

If the past is any indication, I would say yes.

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

Have you read the Quebec Bar Association's report, which set out certain benchmarks? It was released yesterday.

[Caroline Senneville]

No, I haven't. Had it been the day before yesterday, perhaps, but yesterday, no.

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

I believe it will be tabled here at our committee. It will be quite interesting.

[Caroline Senneville]

We'll read it.

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

In the event of a challenge, what will happen if the Supreme Court of Canada strikes down certain provisions of the act?

[Caroline Senneville]

Well, that will force the government to go back to the drawing board. It's happened before—it happened at the Superior Court of Quebec—when large sections of the Pay Equity Act were struck down, the government had to go back to the drawing board.

When the Saskatchewan ruling was handed down, it also forced a review of the essential services laws. Many provinces were forced to review those laws.

That is what the court does. No one is above the law.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Ms. Desrochers, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for joining us this morning. I know that a great deal of preparatory work has gone into this, and I thank them for examining this bill, which is very important.

Ms. LLambías Meunier, we discussed Quebec's and Canada's competitiveness and the impact of regulation. Given the current geopolitical context, I think we all agree that it is absolutely essential to carry out the economic transformation we are currently pursuing, and to equip ourselves with the tools to move forward more quickly, thereby attracting investment and supporting economic development.

I would like you to tell us what risks we face if we fail to equip ourselves with the tools to move forward, as set out in Bill C‑39. What is at risk? You said earlier that Quebec has fallen from fourth place to twenty-third. What impact does this have on families and small businesses?

[Michelle LLambías Meunier]

Well, as you said: It's not just our reputation as a business partner that's at risk, but also our ability to generate growth and achieve economic prosperity. Let us remind you that economic prosperity doesn't solely benefit businesses, but also our very ability to provide services to the public.

We must be very mindful of our current circumstances. The reality is that our business conditions are poor right now. Not a single entrepreneur we speak to nowadays—especially in the current geopolitical context—tells us that things are going well, that they have the workforce they need, that the regulatory framework is favourable to them, or that the tax system is favourable to them. In this highly competitive environment, we must therefore be able to attract investment, but above all to turn that investment into projects. This strategy of turning it into infrastructure projects is fundamental.

That said, we cannot take 20 years to complete projects. This is not about scaling back requirements, it's about ensuring that we proceed in a diligent, transparent and well-coordinated manner, and that we are able to deliver projects.

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

Thank you very much.

You said this wasn't just a matter of supporting businesses, because we know there are workers and families involved. Yesterday, we heard from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which has 190,000 members, most of whom run small farms. You represent 70,000 members. I'm sure they're not all large businesses and that many of them are small and medium-sized. For them, barriers to the movement of their goods and services affect their very survival.

So, in terms of the national interest, I would like you to tell us a little more about the impact of strikes that hinder the transportation of goods and services for your members.

[Michelle LLambías Meunier]

Consider a classic example: the shutdown of a port or railway. Such an event can result in losses of a billion dollars a day. Beyond the economic impact, however, it means goods do not reach their destination, whether in pharmacies or supermarkets. Ultimately, who are the people most impacted by such situations, apart from businesses? It is the general public.

Therefore, a prolonged strike or lockout with such damaging consequences does indeed have a major and disproportionate impact on the general public.

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

Thank you, Ms. LLambías Meunier.

Ms. Senneville, I would just like to clarify something you said earlier. This is not a new version of section 107. On the contrary—I believe the proposed measures actually restrict the use of section 107. Above all, I think we have been very clear on the issue of preventive use, which we do not wish to advance.

Would you agree that, when employers and unions have the tools to engage in dialogue sooner and maintain constructive conversations—as we propose in the bill—disputes can effectively be resolved before they escalate? How might this have had a positive impact on the events of recent years?

[Caroline Senneville]

It can't hurt. If the employer is acting in good faith, that will help. However, if there is an off-ramp, and if, in their mind—

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

The off-ramp already exists. We are limiting it.