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

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Good morning, everybody. I'd like to call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number five 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.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking.

Those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

Those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor audio, English or French. Those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. You will be asked questions in English and French, so make sure the interpretation devices are functioning accordingly.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. Those on Zoom, if you wish to speak, raise your hand. Members in the room, wave your hand.

I would like to now welcome our witnesses for today's first panel.

From Canada's Building Trades Unions, we have Sean Strickland, executive director. From the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, we have Caroline Senneville, president; Ioanna Egarhos, union adviser, legal services; and Jonathan Michaud, union adviser, health, safety and environment department. From the Conseil du patronat du Québec, we have Michelle LLambías Meunier, president and chief executive officer; and Norma Kozhaya, vice-president of research and chief economist.

Each organization will be given up to five minutes for an opening statement, and those will be followed by questions.

Mr. Strickland, I will start with you and yield the floor.

[Sean Strickland, Executive Director, Canada's Building Trades Unions]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to the committee for having me here today.

My name is Sean Strickland. I'm the executive director of Canada's Building Trades Unions. CBTU is the national voice for more than 500,000 skilled trades workers across Canada. Our 14 affiliated unions represent workers in more than 60 construction trades and occupations.

While most of our members do not work in federally regulated workplaces, we do welcome some important changes to the Canada Labour Code that are contemplated in this bill.

We called for and support stronger action on wage theft and worker misclassification, better protection when contracts change hands, more help for workers trying to get their first collective agreement, and faster grievance arbitration. We do, however, have some concerns.

First, we have concerns about the proposed changes to how workers are grouped for collective bargaining. Under the current law, a union or a council of unions can apply to establish a single geographic bargaining unit, covering employees at two or more employers. Bill C-39 would amend section 34 to expand that process, allowing the minister of labour, the board itself or even employers to initiate this even when no union has applied. We can't support giving employers a role in deciding how workers organize themselves. That decision belongs to workers and their unions, not to employers or the government.

We also have concerns with proposed changes to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. As part of the government's consultation process, we were clear that we stand with the broader labour movement in calling for section 107 to be repealed. Since that is not the path the government seems ready to take, we also offered an alternative proposal in our submission. We call for more time for bargaining, cooling-off periods, clear rules around worker misclassification, and a mediator.

However, the process needs to be stronger, with clearer limits on when the minister can intervene. The mediator needs to be independent. Both sides should agree on a mediator chosen from a roster they have agreed on in advance. If they can't agree to the mediator within five days, the CIRB should appoint someone from that same roster. If the minister disagrees with the mediator's advice on their review of the collective bargaining process and the minister decides to intervene, the minister should have to table written reasons in the House of Commons. Otherwise, instead of creating guardrails, the proposed process could ultimately be used by a minister as a justification to end a legal strike or lockout.

In our submission, we also said that the national interest needs to be clearly defined, with clear limits on when the government can intervene. CBTU believes the minister should be able to end a work stoppage in only two circumstances. The first is if there is a significant and imminent threat to public health, public safety or public security that cannot reasonably be dealt with without government intervention. The second is if there is a truly exceptional circumstance, and a negotiated settlement is not reasonably possible within a reasonable period.

Even when one of these conditions is met, intervention should be a last resort. The government should use the least intrusive measure to find a resolution. If workers are ordered back to work, the government must ensure a fair process to resolve outstanding issues. The goal should still be a negotiated agreement, not to automatically send the dispute to binding arbitration. Ending a work stoppage is not the same as reaching an agreement.

The bill clearly does not abolish the right to strike, but it does lay out under what conditions the government can limit that right and intervene to end a legal strike or lockout. This could affect 1.4 million workers in federally regulated industries. That is why CBTU is focused on the process and on putting genuine limits on a minister's power. Even though most construction workers will not be directly affected by the changes in Bill C-39, we know that changes at the federal level can influence how provinces approach their own labour laws.

Bill C-39 is a big bill. There are parts that we were happy to see, including some important steps toward getting more major projects moving in Canada. The government's one project, one review approach can help reduce delays, give investors more certainty and get projects built faster.

We welcome measures to improve transportation project coordination, expand trade corridors, modernize port governance and strengthen supply chains. These changes will help create more good-paying, unionized jobs and more opportunities for apprentices to learn a trade as we build the infrastructure Canada needs.

Mr. Chair, in closing, CBTU supports important parts of Bill C-39 that will get major projects moving, create good union jobs and strengthen protections for workers, subject to indigenous-provincial-territorial consultations.

We ask this committee to preserve those gains while making the necessary changes to protect meaningful collective bargaining, the right to strike and the right to organize.

Thank you, and I welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Strickland.

Ms. Senneville.

[Caroline Senneville, President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux]

Thank you for having us. The chair went through the introductions, so I'll get right to it.

I'll start with the positive aspects of the bill. In the view of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, or CSN, applying the arbitration mechanism to the first collective agreement really adds value. The CSN welcomes the transfer of certification and the requirement to abide by the collective agreement when a new contractor succeeds a previous contractor. We also appreciate the introduction of administrative monetary penalties for bad faith bargaining.

Nevertheless—and I want to stress this point—the CSN has called, and continues to call, for the repeal of section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. Why? In the CSN's view, the only limits on the right of association should be those provided for international law. What does international law say? It says that restricting the right to organize is warranted only to protect the health and safety of the public or to address an extreme national emergency. Just this spring, the International Court of Justice stated that striking is one of the main tools a union has to promote the interests of workers and improve their working conditions. The right to strike is necessary in order to effectively exercise freedom of association. The right is protected in convention No. 87 of the International Labour Organization, which was established in 1948 and signed by Canada in 1972.

This fall, Quebec's administrative labour tribunal, Tribunal administratif du travail, issued a decision on October 9 in a case involving early childhood centre Le Jardin de Robi. The tribunal determined that the system of service intended to ensure the public well-being and enshrined in Quebec law infringes on freedom of association, because it creates a power imbalance, hinders collective bargaining and impedes the effectiveness of striking. Accordingly, the tribunal deemed the provisions of the system inoperative in relation to the parties, because they were contrary to freedom of association and were not justifiable in a free and democratic society.

Of course, we want to see section 107 repealed, but we are pragmatic. The decision to maintain section 107 should not be made by the labour minister. It should come from the Canada Industrial Relations Board, a neutral body. The powers the minister is being given to suspend a strike and order arbitration are a serious infringement on freedom of association. Even when framed by the national interest, the decision is arbitrary, vague and unacceptable. Maintaining section 107 in the bill puts business economic interests above union rights of association, even though under Canada's normative order, freedom of association is constitutionally protected and the economic interests of businesses are not.

We recognize the good intentions in the bill: increasing bargaining resources, adding a special mediator, extending the conciliation period, establishing targeted preventive conciliation to bring the parties together and avoid a labour dispute, and moving the process up by six months. While they are all interesting measures, they won't have any real effect, in the CSN's view. If section 107 is maintained, what we will see most is a wait-and-see attitude from employers. They will always have reason to hope that the arbitrator will come in and declare a knockout win, and we are the ones who will be knocked out.

Now I'd like to say a few words about the environment. Although it may seem like a good idea to centralize environmental decision-making, environmental issues are complex and require expertise in different areas in order to protect natural environments and the public. Because of the expedited process, the CSN is of the view that centralized decision-making will prevent issues from being thoroughly examined. We take issue with the fact that the project work can begin before the impact assessment. The impact is often environmental damage, but projects are being allowed to move forward before the damage can be identified. Breaking up a project will likely lead to an artificial division of the work in order to bypass the law. In fishing, habitat credits are used to pay now for future destruction and pollution. There was a similar effort in Quebec, a similar provision, and it simply didn't work.

What's even worse, in our view, is that Bill C‑39 confirms that the Canadian economy is based precisely on the development and export of natural resources. In light of what's happening with the administration south of the border, I was under the impression that we wanted to transform the economy and thus transform materials here.

Focusing exclusively on natural resources keeps our economy vulnerable. We need to build a resilient economy and ensure the health of the environment for future generations.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

Last is Madame Kozhaya.

[Norma Kozhaya, Vice-President of Research and Chief Economist, Conseil du patronat du Québec]

It's going to be Madame LLambías Meunier.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Okay. Go ahead.

[Michelle LLambías Meunier, President and Chief Executive Officer, Conseil du patronat du Québec]

Good morning.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for having us today.

My name is Michelle LLambías Meunier, and I am the president and CEO of Conseil du patronat du Québec, or CPQ. We represent the interests of more than 70,000 employers of all sizes in every region of Quebec, in both the private and parapublic sectors.

I want to say from the outset that we welcome the study of Bill C‑39. In an uncertain global economy, it is essential to reverse Canada's low rates of productivity, investment and economic growth, all of which have been documented. Between 2015 and 2024, Canada ranked second-last among OECD countries in real per capita GDP growth.

In the CPQ's view, the bill proposes significant and necessary policy directions. My remarks this morning will focus on two things, first, regulatory efficiency and, second, stability in labour relations.

Regarding part 1 of the bill, we strongly support the government's commitment to streamline and expedite the federal regulatory process. Completing major projects in Canada has long been a complex and excessively lengthy undertaking. It often takes more than five years to obtain all the necessary federal decisions before construction can even begin. This delay is mainly due to administrative overlap, the lack of coordination and the large number of stakeholders. In the World Bank's ease of doing business index, Canada dropped from fourth place in 2006 to 23rd place in 2020.

Consequently, we welcome the introduction of the one-year timeline to review projects and make decisions, and the consolidation of impact assessment and permitting considerations into a single federal decision. Nevertheless, the timeline must be based on clear guidelines regarding the completeness of files. That requires a real cultural change within departments; their focus needs to shift from the pursuit of zero risk to sound risk management.

In addition, we want to stress the importance of finalizing the harmonization agreement with Quebec to make the one project, one evaluation, one decision principle a reality.

I will now turn to the proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code. The CPQ was actively involved in the consultations on the Canada Labour Code review. We applaud the inclusion of the national interest consideration, and the addition of the special mediation mechanism to increase opportunities to reach an agreement at the bargaining table and, in our view, improve labour relations. It's a step in the right direction.

Still, we feel that the bill is incomplete. The government has the ability to intervene only after a labour disruption has occurred. In key sectors, waiting until a strike or lockout is under way means accepting that significant and sometimes irreversible harm will be done to exporters, manufacturers, farmers and, above all, the public.

That is why the federal government needs to be able to act pre-emptively when an imminent work stoppage threatens the national interest. The code should also allow the government to appoint a special mediator well before the period specified in the collective bargaining process expires, to ensure that the process can be completed. Early intervention would help to resolve disputes before impasses arise and work stoppages likely to undermine the national interest are imminent.

In conclusion, streamlining the regulatory process does not mean circumventing social and environmental standards. Rather, it equates to improving efficiency, coordination and predictability. Bill C‑39 is vital to enhance the competitiveness of our businesses, but it must be implemented rigorously and include robust tools to pre-empt labour issues.

Thank you. I look forward to answering the committee's questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

We'll start the six-minute round with Mr. Seeback.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Strickland, I'm going to start with you, and I want to pick up on some of the conversations and comments you had with respect to the challenges in parts of Bill C-39, which are the changes to the Canada Labour Code. I want to give you some context.

Tom Doran from the ILWU said, “The importance of our work cannot justify stripping away our rights. Lasting labour peace comes from fair, negotiated agreements.”

Mark Hancock, national president of CUPE, said, “Bill C-39 is an unfair and unnecessary attack on Canadians' constitutional rights”. He also said, “It will make labour relations worse, not better.”

Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, said, “I don't believe for a minute that this legislation will improve the collective bargaining process. I think this will embolden employers to hold out for not getting to a deal.”

Yesterday, Lana Payne of Unifor said that the “explicit attack on the right to fair and free collective bargaining” was “the last thing the workers of Canada need right now”.

These are some pretty damning statements by the labour movement in Canada about the changes that are being made essentially to section 107. This committee is designed to try to make things better, so would you support amendments, or do you think the government should support amendments to this bill that would address the concerns that are being raised by unions across the country?

[Sean Strickland]

Thank you for the question, MP Seeback.

I don't know if the amendments that could potentially be proposed would address those concerns that you just illustrated. That's for those folks who made those comments to respond to. From our perspective, we submitted a brief during the consultation process, and we expressed some things that could be done to strengthen the bill. There's the special mediator, for example, chosen from a roster that's agreed to by both parties. If they can't agree on the mediator, the CIRB appoints one within five days. I also think that the definition of national interest....

Look, we stand with the labour movement in saying that section 107 should be repealed, but if the government's not going to repeal it, we have to have some practical considerations on how that could be amended. What we're saying is that, if you're going to invoke section 107, it has to be related to public health, public safety and/or imminent public threat.

There are all kinds of examples I can give you around that. Right now, “national interest” is fairly vague. How do you define national interest? One person's national interest is someone else's parochial interest. I think the concern that's expressed by my colleagues in the labour movement is that we don't want to see these changes to Bill C-39 continue to validate early intervention in the collective bargaining process. The guardrails that are put in right now are an improvement, like the mediator, for example, conciliation, longer time periods, reporting to Parliament, and more public discourse around whether or not the minister is going to intervene. I think there are some things that could reasonably be done to amend this bill to make it stronger.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

There could be things like defining what national interest means, for example.

[Sean Strickland]

That's correct.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

There could be things such as preserving the independence of the CIRB, meaning that, when there's a referral to the CIRB for a work stoppage, they don't automatically have to do what the minister says. If you remember, in the first Liberal section 107, they referred the WestJet dispute to the CIRB, but they didn't explicitly say that the strike had to be lifted. The CIRB, independent and impartial, used its discretion and didn't order the strike to end. Would those kinds of things be improvements?

I'm going to pass it on to Madame Senneville as well.

[Caroline Senneville]

Mr. Strickland and I see things the same way. I want to be clear: In our view, maintaining section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, even if it's improved, will lead to more disputes and challenges. In the meantime, then, are there improvements that can be made?

Yes, the definition of national interest is very vague. In our view, the minister's discretion politicizes labour relations. We see that as very harmful. National interest could mean anything. It's too bad because the bill seeks to bring stability to labour relations, but the vague language does the opposite by opening the door to arbitrary decisions. That is why, when it comes to using criteria that are more specific than just the national interest, we really want to see the decision in the hands of the Canada Industrial Relations Board, not a single person, the minister.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Strickland, I want to go back to what you said about geographic certification and how two employers can now apply for that geographic certification.

Do you think an amendment saying that two employers can apply, but only with the consent of the union, would make the geographic certification changes more palatable?

[Sean Strickland]

It would be subject to further review, but at first blush, that sounds very acceptable.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

That's great.

Madame...?

[Caroline Senneville]

I agree.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

That's it for me, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

That's very efficient. Thank you.

Dr. Martin, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing before the committee today.

Ms. LLambías Meunier, you said you welcomed the single window approach the bill proposes. What do you see as the main areas of federal overlap or duplication slowing down major projects in Canada? How will Bill C‑39 help?

[Michelle LLambías Meunier]

I'm going to let my colleague Norma Kozhaya, our chief economist, answer that.

[Norma Kozhaya]

Good morning. Thank you for your question.

Certainly, duplication is happening in a number of areas. One example is consultations. Various processes can be undertaken. That's particularly true when it comes to the period between permit applications and authorizations. Right now, we can't do that at the same time, but under the bill, we will be able to, even at the beginning of certain preparations. All of those elements will contribute to a more reasonable time frame than we have now and ideally an answer and decision in less than a year. Obviously, that doesn't include the federal-provincial duplication of processes, on top of the federal duplication I just mentioned.

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

Thank you.

The committee has heard from stakeholders who fear that a faster process will mean weaker project reviews, especially in relation to nature and the environment. Could you explain how it's possible to protect against that risk? What does the bill include to address that? How is it possible to move more quickly and predictably while being more thorough?