Bill C-39 Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2026

[Mike Leonard]

Absolutely.

What it does is basically provide additional forms of pressure on the parties at various stages of bargaining. When the special mediator becomes involved in [Technical difficulty—Editor] the ability to make comments and recommendations on areas of settlement and the parties' conduct, they've positioned themselves to engage in bargaining. They've engaged in meaningful bargaining, or short thereof. All of those things come out in a public report.

The parties then have to account for their conduct with respect, obviously, to their respective principals. That's the membership in the case of the union, and the membership of the BCMEA—the board of directors—in my case. It basically provides an initiative and a nudge to do your best. The best deals are reached at the table. It gives the parties incentive to do that on a consistent basis.

It's just an additional tool—

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

I'm going to jump in on that. You've been involved in negotiating nearly a dozen collective agreements on the west coast waterfront. Drawing on your experience, maybe you can talk a bit about the dynamics at the bargaining table and encouraging both parties to get to an agreement before a labour disruption can occur.

[Mike Leonard]

Sure. These parties have a long history. We have an incredibly skilled workforce. They work their way up through the ranks and become membership representatives for the ILWU. The issues that the parties have to deal with are fairly complex. One of them is technology. It's very complex and can be a highly emotional and contentious issue between the parties. I believe the processes that the IIC has come up with in terms of recommending a way forward, in particular on the special mediator, would help the parties get to a better place in that regard.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Thank you.

I'm going to switch to you, Ms. Peters, if I can. BCMTOA has expressed strong support for the overall direction. You mentioned that earlier in your opening remarks. From the perspective of marine terminal operators, how will legislation help support growth, competitiveness and private sector investment in Canada's trade infrastructure? What barriers still need to be addressed to unlock additional investment and capacity at the marine terminals?

[Alicia Peters]

Thank you for the question.

The bill is very broad. It looks at many different items that impact the supply chain and the reliability of Canada's trade and supply chain. That will, of course, support greater trade.

It also creates confidence for private sector investment. For our members to make investments in the terminals, that predictability of fees when you look at the ports but also major projects and greater confidence overall will make a difference. The governance provisions we have recommended will also strengthen the predictability and reliability for our members as well.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Thank you.

Finally, perhaps I can get this question in to Mr. Lee.

Mr. Leonard mentioned that technology is changing how ports operate around the world. Can you tell us a bit more about how the industry balances technological change with job growth and ensuring that workers are brought along in that process?

[Warren Lee]

I'll start my answer by saying that I'm not a labour expert, but around the technology piece, from what our members tell us, it's been one of the big challenges in getting a deal put forward between the longshoremen and the ports. We support technology, but we also support the workers and their ability to negotiate.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thanks, Mr. Bains.

Mr. Ste-Marie.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome all the witnesses and thank them for joining us.

Mr. Chair, before I ask my questions, I'd like to raise a point with my committee colleagues.

As you know, we received a number of briefs and, so far, they haven't all been translated. According to the ground rules we established at the first meeting, we have until Wednesday, November 4, to submit our amendments. However, before that deadline, it would be appropriate for all of us to have had access to the briefs.

I've spoken with the clerk and I understand that we will have access to all the briefs—which will have been translated—on Monday, November 9. I think we can unanimously agree to extend the deadline for submitting our amendments from Wednesday, November 4, to Tuesday, November 10, at 4:00 p.m. Does that suit everyone?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

I'll let the committee members weigh in on it. I know that everybody agrees that we need to have the benefit of the translation of all the briefs. What I might suggest as a compromise to get us through is that we stick to the deadline of this Wednesday, based on the evidence we've heard and the briefs we've received so far. Again, it's up to the will of the committee, but perhaps we set another deadline of Monday after, because I understand that the remaining briefs can be translated by Monday. If there are any further amendments arising out of that, or changes to the amendments that have already been submitted, that's the deadline for that.

I don't want to lose the time between Wednesday and Monday. I think that's probably a fair compromise, but I'm happy to hear from you on this.

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

If we could agree to send the amendments that are already drafted on Wednesday and then send the others before Tuesday, November 10, at 4:00 p.m., that would suit me.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

That sounds like an excellent idea.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Ms. Desrochers, did you want to speak?

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

I'd just like to say that I support my colleague's proposal. We've also discussed it among ourselves. It's good to have the opportunity to read the briefs in French. At the same time, we want to speed up the work.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I think we have consensus on that.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Can you repeat it, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

There's concern, because there are about 100 briefs that have not yet been translated. They won't be translated by the Wednesday deadline to submit amendments. Mr. Ste-Marie is proposing that we extend the deadline.

What I am suggesting is that we maintain the deadline we have for this Wednesday, and that available proposed amendments be submitted at that time. We will have a separate deadline on Monday for any amendments arising out of the translated briefs or for changes to the amendments that have already been submitted.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Maybe we could leave this to later in the meeting to discuss. We're eating up witness time.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Ste-Marie.

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

I just want to clarify something. I invite Mr. Albas to listen to what I have to say.

If we receive a hundred briefs on Monday and Monday is the deadline for submitting amendments, time will be too short. That's why I suggested Tuesday, November 10, at 4:00 p.m. That would give us 24 hours to read around a hundred briefs.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I see an agreement brewing here. Why don't we defer this until later in the meeting? We can revisit it.

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

Excellent. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I apologize to the witnesses. We had a few things to discuss to ensure that the committee's work runs smoothly.

I have a question for all three witnesses.

I would like to know whether, within your organizations, you have business or other dealings with first nations. So far, this committee has only met with a few first nations groups. We will certainly hear from others in the future. These groups had, in particular, raised concerns about the fact that consultation on the designation of a national interest project must be completed within a year.

For example, the Ontario regional chief for the Chiefs of Ontario, Abram Benedict, who represents 133 first nations, said that, sometimes, consultations could take less than a year, but that, at other times, they could take over a year. He said it was up to them to carry out their consultations to secure consent in relation to their rights. He therefore seemed to be saying that imposing a one-year deadline for consultations relating to respecting first nations' rights might not be acceptable.

I would like to hear your thoughts on that, if your organizations have relationships with first nations or do business with them.

Mr. Lee, you can start.

[Warren Lee]

I'll start.

As an association, we don't have direct dealings with first nations, but all our members do. On that point, it would probably be most appropriate for them to comment individually.

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

Mr. Leonard or Ms. Peters, would you like to respond?