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

[Jennifer Genest]

May I add something?

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

Yes.

[Jennifer Genest]

National interest is a vague concept that doesn't exist. That means a precedent would have to be created. In our opinion, this doesn't comply with the Saskatchewan decision, which established that the right to bargaining is inflexible in Canada. In addition, if this right is violated, it must be done as minimally as possible. In our opinion, the concept of national interest does not respect that at all. That's why Mr. Plante mentioned the International Labour Organization's criterion of an acute national crisis. That criterion has been used and defined, and it is met when used in the appropriate sectors.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Genest.

We'll move to the five-minute round, with Mr. Gourde.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

I'll start with you, Mr. Caron.

In your opening remarks, you talked about clause 5, which would enable the minister, in relation to an environmental study, for example, to authorize work to begin a little more quickly, within one year.

For example, Alto launched environmental studies, but it decided to do the route without waiting for the report from those studies. It's going to go ahead, because it has to move very quickly.

Before you answer, Mr. Caron, I'd like to ask you another question.

I'm having trouble getting clear answers, because Alto has signed confidentiality agreements with the Government of Quebec and law firms. It's even trying to sign agreements with agricultural producers.

Do you currently have freedom of speech? Have you signed an agreement with Alto?

[Martin Caron]

No, we haven't signed any agreements with Alto.

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

You're free to answer me about Alto, then. I wouldn't want to put you in an awkward position.

Does clause 5 of Bill C‑39 put agricultural producers at a disadvantage in the Alto file?

[Martin Caron]

Yes, absolutely. If we look at the Alto file as an example of what the government would like to do with Bill C‑39, I would say that it's currently the example of what not to do. People are saying that the Alto file needs more transparency and independent studies, and it's a long way from having that. There are also requests to discuss the documents, but people don't have access to them.

Right now, it's the example of what not to do. If anyone is thinking they can speed things up a bit with Bill C‑39, they need only look at what's currently happening with the Alto file to understand that they're shooting themselves in the foot.

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

Bill C‑39, combined with the legislative measures resulting from Bill C‑5 and other legislation, grants additional powers to the executive branch. That means that as long as the laws that have been passed guarantee those powers to the executive branch, if it decides to go ahead, we will no longer have much power to help you.

Do you think it's normal for Canada's public servants to have more power than legislators?

[Martin Caron]

It's not normal, right now, for a project of this scale. As we mentioned in our brief, democracy is a significant issue. There's a desire to move quickly, but it's necessary to take the time to have discussions with the public, obtain social acceptability and ensure transparency when it comes to documents. It isn't an option to grant these powers, move quickly and develop projects that don't prioritize such things, whether on the federal or provincial side.

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

The agricultural producers who will be affected by the high-speed rail project deserve to be heard, but we're having trouble inviting them right now. You're the only person I can speak to in public.

What's the current feeling from the producers who will be affected by the route?

[Martin Caron]

There's a lot of anxiety. When Alto is discussing sections, it's talking about areas such as Outaouais and the Laurentians. It's also important to remember the Mirabel file, which has left a scar on the agricultural producers in that region. That very large project led to expropriations. It didn't go ahead in the end, but it took two generations to recover the land.

As we said, when it comes to this bill, it's important to take the time to do things correctly, to have all the studies and to have an independent study to reassure people. Right now, there isn't any of that, so there's concern among agricultural producers.

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

On the weekend, through former environment minister Steven Guilbeault, we learned that compensation for the affected lands would be equivalent to 350% of the land's value. That means that if a plot of land is worth $20,000 per hectare and a hectare is cut, the owner will receive $75,000. However, if the land covers 75 hectares, will the entire land, the block, lose more value than its owner will have received in compensation from the government?

According to Steven Guilbeault, it's the cure-all: Producers are going to become millionaires as a result of the high-speed rail route.

[Martin Caron]

Producers have studied and are trained to do one thing: feed people and farm. It isn't about selling their land like that. That aspect is of little interest to producers. A producer's land is a part of their family. There's a reason it's passed down from generation to generation. It isn't the purchase price that producers are concerned about. That's why people get emotional when it comes to these decisions and the route. They're living in uncertainty. These are human beings, men and women who get up every morning and are already thinking about a transition and the next generation.

It's vital to shed light on this and ensure the transparency we have been calling for since over a year ago.

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

Thank you, Mr. Caron.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

Go ahead, Ms. Harrison.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be sharing my time with Ms. Desrochers.

Mr. Sobkowich, could you walk us through how extended interswitching creates a net positive economic effect by creating competition in the rail sector? How does this measure affect your members?

[Wade Sobkowich]

If you are a grain elevator and you're planted in the middle of Saskatchewan and you have a rail line running past you, you're not beholden to a duopoly; you're beholden to a monopoly. You have only one option, and that's to ship product on the rail line that's running past your facility.

Regarding interswitching itself, the Canada Transportation Act talks about being able to interswitch traffic to a competing railway as long as that interchange is within 30 kilometres of your shipping site. When that was written, it envisioned the metropolitan areas, like the GTA, where things are more congested. It didn't envision the expanse of the Prairies, where you really don't have an elevator that's 30 kilometres away from an interchange point.

The idea behind extending it to 160 kilometres is to turn your monopoly situation into a duopoly situation as an elevator, which still isn't that great, but it's better than a monopoly. At least you have two choices instead of one.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

If Bill C-39 succeeds in reducing the frequency or duration of disruptions in Canada's transportation system, what difference would that make for grain producers in Saskatchewan, Alberta or Manitoba when trying to get crops to international customers?

[Wade Sobkowich]

It's huge. It's nearly unquantifiable, but we did commission a study. The cost to farmers and the grain industry as a whole was in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The grain sector is a major economic driver. It has impacts on all Canadians. It has impacts on Canada's reputation as an international supplier of goods. Keeping the supply chain fluid and open and moving and predictable, so that we can honour our contracts with our customers and return as much value from the international marketplace...and that our arbitrage to the farmer is in a competitive environment—that's the way to go. That's extremely important. Labour is a big component of that.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Would you agree that for Canada to grow agricultural exports, it isn't enough to just produce more grain? We also have to demonstrate to international customers that Canada can reliably get that grain from the farm through the elevator and rail system and onto a vessel when we say we will.

[Wade Sobkowich]

Definitely. Let's say we're talking about a flour mill in Indonesia. They don't buy exclusively from Canada. They buy from an array of suppliers across the world. When we continue to make headlines about another strike or another lockout or another work stoppage and it's, oh no, Canadians may not be able to honour their contracts yet again, then the next time they're making purchasing decisions, they're looking at countries other than Canada. Perhaps they're not locking us out entirely, but it's a blend. They will buy from multiple suppliers. They may increase their purchase from our competing grain-producing nations, such as Argentina or the United States or Australia. It has a very big impact that evolves over the years.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you so much.

I will cede my time.

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

Thank you very much.

Earlier, my colleagues raised the issue of Quebec's Bill 89. I would like to clarify something for those listening to us. Bill 89 and Bill C‑39 are complete opposites. First, there is no classification of essential services. Second, section 107 of the Canada Labour Code will not be used pre-emptively because, in any case, there has to be a report and a study.

I'd just like to know whether you agree that these two things are opposed. The two bills don't do the same thing at all.

[Renaud Plante]

To reframe what was being said earlier, yes, criteria related to section 107 are currently being put in place, but—