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

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Seeback, we'll go to you for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Madam Picard, I want to talk to you about a couple of things.

Number one, the Liberal government thinks the special mediator's report solves all the problems. Despite the fact that the special mediator has no special powers, they think the report will solve everything, but I asked the minister, what happens if the special mediator's report says that the employer was bargaining in bad faith? Is the use of section 107 then off the table? She did not really respond to that. She did not say that it's off the table.

What are your thoughts? Is this actually going to improve bargaining, as they say?

Also, would you support what I've been talking about? I've been talking about special powers for the special mediator: compelling attendance at meetings, being able to request evidence and documents, giving the special mediator power to assist the parties in getting closer to an agreement; and making sure they actually get into the room together, which is where they need to be to get an agreement.

[Magali Picard]

Thank you for the question. I will ask Ms. Genest to answer it, but I can tell you that the report will be made public. So I do have some confidence in the process.

[Jennifer Genest, Advisor, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec]

Thank you, Ms. Picard.

Thank you for the question, Mr. Seeback. I'll divide my answer into two parts.

First, the FTQ does indeed support the idea of granting additional powers that would allow witnesses to be subpoenaed, documents to be requested and people to be compelled to come to the table. The FTQ is in favour of this. However, we have reservations about creating a new mediator role. We already have conciliator-mediators who are well versed on the cases and who know the parties.

Second, therefore, the FTQ believes it would be advisable to grant those powers to the people already involved. In our view, bringing a new person into the process at the very end—someone who is unfamiliar with the parties or the case and who will have to make a decision quickly—is not the most efficient way to resolve the situation. Let's give those powers to conciliators at an earlier stage and shorten the conciliation period. That will energize the bargaining process and, in turn, facilitate reaching an agreement.

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

Thank you very much.

Do you have concerns that even if the special mediator gives a report that says the employer was bargaining in bad faith, the minister can still use section 107 to end a strike?

[Jennifer Genest]

Yes, I think that's the conclusion that can be reached. That is also why, in our view, the report should not be made public. Bargaining rests with the parties, and the parties must be able to work. Giving conciliators greater powers to issue orders encourages a negotiated settlement and, whatever happens, that process will be far more favourable than any other option.

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

Thanks very much.

Mr. Sobkowich, everybody wants to figure out how we eliminate the dispute in 5% of problems, especially the ones that deal with rail and ports. The issue that I seem to be coming up against is that the government keeps saying this is the solution, but every union that comes here says it's going to make things worse.

As I try to figure out that problem, I go back to the hope that a special mediator—because that's what's coming in the legislation—would have special powers to try to actually improve the bargaining of the parties. Sometimes the relationships are so toxic that they're actually not meeting.

I'm going to ask you the same question. Would you support amendments to the legislation that would put some teeth into the office of the special mediator, so that the special mediator could compel attendance at meetings, request documents and request evidence as a way to empower the special mediator to help the parties get to an agreement?

[Wade Sobkowich]

In short, the answer is yes. We would support that. We would be on board with bringing in more powers for the special mediator. In fact, one of the solutions that we advocated leading up to Bill C-39 was for the special mediator to control the timeline. In that way, nobody can be playing out the clock to a work stoppage.

If the special mediator sees progress being made or sees that the parties really are intransigent, they could control that timeline and compel the parties. The parties would therefore be motivated to come together and reach agreement, because there is no clock to play out. As to exactly how that all might manifest itself in amendments to the bill, I can't say for sure, but in principle, we'd be supportive.

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

Thank you very much.

I don't have a lot of time left, but I'm going to go back to Madame Picard.

Would you support some kind of review by Parliament if the minister uses section 107, so that the reasons for using section 107 would have to be tabled and reviewed by Parliament in the event that section 107 is used?

[Magali Picard]

Yes, we are in favour of that.

I repeat that, for us, what is important is that the Minister of Labour not have this extraordinary power to end a strike or lockout.

We hear the concerns of businesses and employers who say there are economic repercussions. Let me put it in very pragmatic terms: at the FTQ, we also put ourselves in the government's shoes. You cannot be the Government of Canada and have no means of intervening when there's a dispute in every port across Canada that won't end, or a dispute affecting transportation. What we're saying is that this can't be turned into a political issue. This must be taken out of the hands of the Minister of Labour—not because we don't trust her, but because it should never be handled within the political apparatus.

So, as soon as the Minister of Labour is called upon—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Picard.

Madame Desrochers, we'll go over to you.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to the witnesses for joining us today and for all the advance work they've done.

I especially want to thank the representatives of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec for their participation in the consultations that took place this summer, and for the work they do to protect workers' rights. I would like to take a few minutes to discuss Bill C‑39's provisions with them.

I think you said you were in favour of the additional measures we're proposing. Of course, these measures are informed by the consultations that took place, but also by all the efforts made in recent years to improve the process. That's why we want to ensure that bargaining can begin earlier. There is also the special mediator's role and the release of the report.

There has been a great deal of debate about section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. Unfortunately, it's often presented as though it were something newly added by this bill—whereas we are simply providing a framework for it, precisely because of everything that's been said. It forms part of a broader set of measures. What we are clarifying is that section 107 cannot be invoked until a report has been released and a national impact assessment has been carried out.

Earlier, we heard from grain producers' representatives and the Union des producteurs agricoles. Last week, we met with representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Work stoppages have had real consequences for families and farmers. You mentioned Air Canada and travellers, but when farmers lose their crops because of work stoppages, it affects people's ability to put food on the table.

Here is my first question: Even though we know this is not the approach you would advocate in an ideal world, would you agree that the safeguards we are putting in place regarding the use of section 107 truly make it a last-resort mechanism?

[Magali Picard]

To be perfectly frank, I think that, from the moment we met as a committee, the goal was to lower the 5% of cases involving disputes, to work proactively and to bring conciliators and mediators into the process. Discussions would then take place and are not meant to be public. My view is that, ultimately, any tools that can improve the situation are welcome. We have no problem with that. What we're saying is that there's a pitfall in the current approach. I've heard people testifying before you say that they wanted a proactive commitment from the minister. They want the minister to state from the outset that there can be no conflict. That's what makes no sense, and that's what runs counter to our Constitution.

The step in the right direction is ensuring that an impact assessment is carried out. We agree on that and on what you just mentioned. It must be done. What we're saying is that the committee tasked with reviewing this must ultimately be responsible for the decision. If you could at least amend the part stating that the minister will make the decision and allow an independent body to carry out that analysis, we could accept that. At worst, if we're not satisfied, we can challenge the decision.

However, one thing is clear: The danger here is that enormous pressure is being exerted on the Minister of Labour, who would become responsible for the life or death of a bargaining tool, when, ultimately, there is no need to politicize it. We can avoid any suspicion about how things are being handled and the reasons why the minister decided to take a particular course of action. Let us hand the responsibility over to an impartial committee whose aim is not to win an election or secure public support—and which is therefore not subject to such pressures—but instead will focus on the actual impact on the public.

In fact, if I were Minister of Labour, I would much prefer to be told that I have a mandate to refer the matter to a committee to carry out an impact assessment—and that, ultimately, that committee will make the decision.

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

Thank you very much, Ms. Picard.

In the time I have left, I would like to turn to the representatives of the Union des producteurs agricoles.

Mr. Caron, you talked about assessments related to regions of national interest and the need to ensure that those are done properly. I just want to clarify one thing.

Bill C‑39 in no way changes the public consultations that the government is committed to conducting on projects of national interest and on the definition of regions of national interest. Our consultation processes are among the most robust. They provide transparency and allow us to benefit from a range of perspectives. This includes, among other things, seeking feedback at the planning stage, requiring decision-makers to take these consultations into account, allowing participation in assessments and holding public hearings. We even make funding available to groups so they can take part in consultations.

Are there any further steps we could take to ensure adequate consultation not only with farmers, but also with all public stakeholders?

[Martin Caron]

Thank you for the question.

As we were saying, the regions are quite large, and there are already assessment systems in place. Indeed, in our brief, we refer to the Act Respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities and the government land-use planning guidelines it contains. Some organizations have already drawn up plans. We should therefore make use of these organizations and bring them forward, because soil and water management are vital for our ecosystems.

Furthermore, when you want to build permanent infrastructure, like it or not, development pressures or activities in the surrounding area may well jeopardize farmers or agricultural land, which are the very first requirements for feeding people. That means you need support from organizations, and you must take the time to do things properly. Some work is already being done—I think we should recognize that and make use of federal bodies. I am thinking, among others, of the Canada Energy Regulator and the Office of Transportation Projects. There already are federal organizations, so we should draw inspiration from them.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Ste-Marie.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening to all the witnesses—thank you very much for joining us.

My questions are for the FTQ representatives.

Ms. Picard, in your remarks, you talked about Quebec's Bill 14. You appeared before the Administrative Labour Tribunal. As you stated, giving the minister the power to end a labour dispute using vague criteria is unconstitutional.

Is that your understanding of Bill C‑39?

[Magali Picard]

It's exactly the same.

As I was saying, there was one ruling, because the law was used once. Can you see the danger? The act was sold to us on the basis that it would only be used in highly exceptional cases involving repercussions for the general public. Yet it was used during collective bargaining involving 12 day care workers who wanted two 30-minute breaks a day. Because they were demanding those and went on strike, that law was invoked.

The government's intentions must have been sincere in saying that the act would only be used in extreme cases. In practice, however, when we end up with legislation like this and say that a strike has repercussions for 12 families—as in the case of this day care centre—the government uses it. The Administrative Labour Tribunal said that it went against the Constitution and that the legislation did not hold water.

It's a shame, because I'm convinced the government's intentions are sincere, but what's being done is unconstitutional. This isn't the right way forward when other tools are available. We've already shown our flexibility by agreeing to a tribunal.

Mr. Plante, do you have anything to add on the tribunal's decision regarding the act?

[Renaud Plante, Chief of Staff, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec]

Yes.

The tribunal concluded that the very existence of this regime completely undermines the bargaining process. As Ms. Picard said earlier, it prevents people from bargaining. In fact, it means they no longer bargain at all.

We are proposing a solution, and I refer you to our brief. We're talking about the CIRB, the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, but it could be another mechanism that would determine which essential services need to be maintained to meet the public's needs. What we are suggesting is that you designate new essential services that are necessary precisely to ensure this.

First, we are reverting to the criterion of an acute national crisis, a criterion that was endorsed by the International Labour Organisation. Once the CIRB determines that the situation amounts to an acute national crisis, it would identify the essential services to be maintained, but the strike could continue. At that point, it would be up to the union to decide either to continue to strike, because it believes it is still effective, or to resort to arbitration, because it's concluded that the strike is no longer effective.

That removes the whole perverse aspect of the ministerial decision, which leads people to believe they don't need to bargain since they're expecting a decision from the minister anyway. The ball is back in the parties' court, and the union is asked—once the public has been safeguarded—whether it still considers its strike to be justified. If so, the dispute is referred to arbitration.

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

Thank you.

[Magali Picard]

Allow me to comment, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

We play fair. For me, it's not just about opposing employers; it's also about protecting us—the unions—from ourselves.

When it's time to present an agreement in principle to workers, you cannot imagine how hard we have to sell it. Particularly at a time when the high cost of living makes things extremely difficult, expectations run very high. Often, these are people who've made compromises from one round of bargaining to another. So we have to explain why this is the best deal on the table, because we need to reach an agreement. However, as soon as you say the minister will decide and there will be an arbitrator, there's no longer any need to reach an agreement.

So, it's a matter of protecting us—the unions—against this attitude that we're under no obligation to sell a contract that will be hard to swallow. The same holds true for employers—who tell themselves they have no reason to put a better offer on the table, since, in any case, an arbitrator will ultimately decide. That is the danger we face, and we know the rate will no longer be 5%.

If this goes forward, I guarantee that we will challenge it in every court, right up to the Supreme Court, and that we will end up winning. However, in the meantime, there will be an increase in the number of disputes, and expectations and frustrations will build. From a very pragmatic standpoint, I can tell you that nobody will benefit from this, least of all the Minister of Labour. I can guarantee that.

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

That is certainly quite clear. Thank you very much.

Indeed, the bill proposes to grant the minister a power that may be exercised if it is in the national interest. This criterion is vague and has not been defined. I would like to hear your comments on that.

I'll ask a second question straight away.

I would like to know whether you share the view of other witnesses and unions, particularly from English-speaking Canada, who came to tell us that Bill C‑39—if passed without amendment, given the power it grants the minister using these vague criteria—would contravene agreements that Canada signed with the International Labour Organisation. Furthermore, no G7 country would have such stringent anti-worker legislation. I would like to hear your views on this matter.

[Magali Picard]

We agree with that, absolutely. That's why I told you from the outset that if the bill were passed as is, we would have to challenge it in court, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, because it would indeed be the most restrictive legislation among G7 countries.

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

Do you have any comments on the issue of national interest?

[Magali Picard]

Regarding the national interest, as Mr. Plante said, we are prepared to review essential services in the event of a conclusive study. Today, in 2026, if we know that a port has a container with goods that are important for safety, health, food or pharmacies, we don't have to penalize the port as a whole. We're able to know everything that's there. The 75‑inch television that comes from Chinese dumping can stay there for a few more weeks. However, essential goods for the public must be transported.

We have no problem with the idea of national interest if it's framed intelligently, in a way that doesn't take away any fundamental rights and that does exclude all political pressure.