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

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I'd like to call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number six 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, 2026. I would like to take a few moments to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor audio, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I would like to remind the witnesses that committee members may ask questions in either French or English. If you will need interpretation, please take a moment now to prepare your earpiece and select the listening channel you need in advance. In order to take full advantage of the time allocated for questions and answers, I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the raise hand function. We will manage the speaking list as best we can.

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

From the BC Marine Terminal Operators Association, we have Alicia Peters, president. From the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association, we have Mike Leonard, president and chief executive officer; and from the Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition, we have Warren Lee, president.

Each organization will be given up to five minutes for their opening statement, following which you will be asked questions by members of the committee.

Ms. Peters, we will start with you. The floor is yours.

[Alicia Peters, President, BC Marine Terminal Operators Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear today to discuss Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act.

My name is Alicia Peters. I am president of the BC Marine Terminal Operators Association, which represents the majority of private sector marine terminals on British Columbia's west coast. Collectively, our members help move approximately $1.1 billion in goods every day, including agricultural products, potash, energy products, containers and vehicles.

Our members welcome the introduction of Bill C-39. As the culmination of years of extensive consultations and advocacy by BCMTOA and our members, we strongly support the bill's ambition and holistic view of Canada's supply chain. This consequential bill represents a vital opportunity to modernize port governance, protect labour stability and enhance Canada's competitiveness as a global trading nation.

I will focus my remarks on port governance, because port authority decisions directly affect our members' costs, competitiveness and ability to invest.

Bill C-39 has taken strides to align increased commercial flexibility of port authorities with stronger governance frameworks. Bill C-39 provides an opportunity to further enhance governance by prioritizing port board nominees with deep marine expertise via a competency matrix and including metrics around operational efficiency, cost competitiveness, throughput reliability, permitting times and responsiveness to user input in board performance reviews.

To ensure that private sector users of ports have meaningful input into decisions affecting terminal operators, we ask that tenants of the port be included for consultation on port business plans and land use plans.

We applaud the government for the bill's new fee transparency, consultation and notice requirements. We view these as meaningful safeguards against the risk that tenants could face due to the port authorities' expanded borrowing limits and commercial flexibility.

Empowering the Canadian Transportation Agency, or the CTA, to overturn unjustified fees strengthens accountability and reduces reliance on the courts. We thank the government for giving the CTA real teeth, but it will be important to resource the CTA sufficiently to fulfill its new mandate.

While Bill C-39 has taken significant steps forward in dispute resolution, we call on the government to amend the legislation to allow for a pause of new fees while a filed CTA dispute is under review. As currently drafted, operators must pay disputed fees while awaiting a CTA ruling. Closing this gap would strengthen the legislation.

Bill C-39 expands the commercial powers of port authorities and their ability to participate in new business activities. While we support the flexibility of ports to raise funds and build trade-enabling infrastructure, and we are pleased that the bill requires a port's business plan to clearly isolate core port activities from secondary commercial activities, the unprecedented expansion of authority must be matched with transparency and accountability.

Ports already have a problematic trichotomy as landlord, developer and regulator. Adding “business owner” to the mandate increases the risk of a conflict of interest. Expanded borrowing authority must not create incentives for investments that undermine private sector operators that deploy their own capital. Port authorities cannot act as commercial competitors to their own revenue-generating tenants, using the rents and fees collected from terminal operators to subsidize their own ventures. As noted earlier, to ensure accountability, the bill's requirement to consult the national trade corridors council on land use and business plans must be expanded to include formal mandatory consultation with terminal tenants to prevent scope creep.

Further, terminal members must be consulted on the creation of the national trade corridors council, and industry must be adequately represented in its membership.

In conclusion, modernizing port governance and reducing regulatory barriers will support investment, strengthen supply chains and grow Canada's economy. Clear rules, predictable processes and appropriate commercial flexibility help marine terminals make the long-term investments that Canada needs.

The BC Marine Terminal Operators Association supports the bill's overall direction and calls for minor amendments, which are noted in our submission. Our members look forward to working with Parliament as regulations are developed and implemented.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Leonard.

[Mike Leonard, President and Chief Executive Officer, British Columbia Maritime Employers Association]

Good afternoon. It's my pleasure to be here today, Mr. Chair and committee.

I'm Mike Leonard, president of the BC Maritime Employers Association. For nearly 40 years, I've helped negotiate or led negotiations for major agreements in the public and private sectors. These include 10 coast-wide agreements during my tenure at the BCMEA, including the eight-year agreements reached in 2011. I'm proud that, despite some difficult rounds of bargaining, each agreement was reached at the bargaining table and not through imposed arbitration.

We represent 48 private sector waterfront employers and operators across B.C. that move $1.1 billion in cargo through Canada's west coast ports every day. Canada's west coast ports are part of the nation's economic infrastructure. They connect Canadian workers, businesses and resources to global markets. If Canada is serious about diversifying trade, strengthening supply chains and building a stronger economy, the Pacific gateway has to be able to deliver. To deliver, it needs to be reliable.

Bill C-39 takes an important step to improve the reliability of Canada's supply chains. The BCMEA's position in this regard is straightforward: The best agreements are reached at the bargaining table. Our priorities are fair, durable settlements with our labour partners. Successful bargaining requires a stable framework and effective tools. Bill C-39 offers some important improvements in that regard. I'll focus on three today.

The first is geographic certification. Canada's west coast ports operate as an integrated system with a shared labour pool of over 7,000 highly skilled workers moving across multiple terminal and vessel operations daily and throughout the year. However, industry-wide bargaining remains voluntary. This voluntary nature leads to ongoing exposure to fragmentation of the existing industry bargaining structure, which can occur if either party chooses to give notice to end the decades-long pattern of bargaining on an industry basis. This current structure creates uncertainty and does not provide the necessary reliability required by Canada's national supply chain, nor is it consistent with the certification framework in place at all major ports in Canada.

After the unfortunate labour disruption across B.C.'s ports in 2023, the government initiated a west coast ports industrial inquiry commission, led by veteran labour relations experts Vincent Ready and Amanda Rogers. This was the second time in 30 years that a government had created an IIC to study the structure of bargaining at B.C. ports. What Ready and Rogers found was a bargaining system that was “broken but not beyond repair”. One of the top recommendations they made was province-wide geographic certification, with specified exceptions.

Bill C-39 would allow an employer-initiated application to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, thereby creating a pathway to a more stable bargaining structure. It is important to note that this would not automatically impose a bargaining framework on the parties. Importantly, it would fulfill the IIC's primary objective, which is to inquire into the underlying nature of this gateway's historical disruptions and provide recommendations that squarely address the causes of unreliability and instability associated with the current voluntary bargaining structure.

I'll now speak to the inclusion of a special mediator.

The process, as proposed in Bill C-39, would give parties another opportunity to resolve difficult issues before a strike or lockout occurs. The possibility of producing a public report would bring greater transparency to unresolved disputes and increased accountability and commitment among both employers and unions in the bargaining process. In turn, this would increase the possible path to settlement and align with the purpose of the review, which is focused on strengthening the process of bargaining, not replacing it.

I'll now briefly turn to the changes proposed for section 107 of the Canada Labour Code.

The changes outlined would require the minister to consider a special mediator's report and determine whether a dispute adversely affects, or may adversely affect, the national interest before directing the end to a lawful strike or lockout. These new powers would apply once a stoppage is under way. We support and applaud the added transparency and rigour, but we ask the committee to ensure that the government could also respond proactively when meaningful bargaining has been exhausted and the national interest is at risk—not only after a disruption begins.

Canada needs reliable gateways to diversify trade and reach new markets. Workers, employers and customers all benefit when agreements are reached without disruption. I urge the committee to advance these reforms in the amendment to section 107 in order to stabilize the bargaining framework and protect the national interest when meaningful bargaining is no longer possible.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Leonard.

Mr. Lee, it's over to you.

[Warren Lee, President, Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee, for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Warren Lee. I serve as the president of the Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition.

Our membership spans sectors such as mining, potash, forest products and energy, as well as the industry supporting the movement of these commodities. Collectively, our members represent more than 100,000 jobs, $160 billion in annual trade and approximately 35% of all rail movements across Canada. It's these industries and their economic interests that I represent today.

Prior to assuming this role, I spent 15 years with Canada's largest class one railway, concluding my tenure less than a year ago. It's this experience that gives me a unique perspective on both sides of the rail industry relationship and the operational challenges facing Canada's transportation system today.

During my railway career, I saw first-hand how infrastructure reliability, labour uncertainty and successive governments' unwillingness to address chronic labour stoppages created significant uncertainty for Canadian industry. Some companies reconsidered investments in Canada or moved operations and investments abroad because of concerns around the ability to move Canadian products to international markets.

This is particularly concerning as Canada pursues trade diversification. Market access has limited value if we cannot reliably deliver. Our members report that following repeated disruptions, customers are shortening contracts, shifting to spot purchases, seeking alternative producers and considering foreign suppliers now more than ever. These are warning signs of eroding competitiveness, declining investment confidence and potential long-term losses in Canadian global market share.

Our members are especially vulnerable, as many operate in remote locations, depend almost entirely on federally regulated railways, ports and terminals and have no practical alternative to rail. They cannot simply divert shipments to other modes of conveyance or choose other terminals. They are exposed to disruptions over which they have no control.

Consider the current circumstances. While the Government of Canada actively pursues new trade and investment opportunities abroad, the labour stoppage initiated by the ILWU at Trigon Pacific Terminals at Prince Rupert has been ongoing since October 2, costing tens of millions of dollars a day.

The international message is deeply concerning. Canada's ability to honour commercial commitments and serve trading partners can be compromised by labour disruptions, no matter what the duration. A few days or a few weeks have the same impact, with thousands of workers, businesses, producers and end-users bearing the consequences. It continues to create the perception that the interests of a few take precedence over the economic well-being of the many and, secondly, that Canada is unable and unwilling to protect the reliability of the trade infrastructure on which its reputation depends.

For international investors and customers, this is not just a labour dispute. It is a question of whether Canada can be counted on as a dependable source of critical raw materials and industrial exports. Trigon is a warning sign of broader vulnerabilities in our transportation and supply chain system. If Canada is serious about attracting investment, diversifying trade and strengthening its position in global markets, it must also demonstrate that it can protect the reliability of the supply chains that make those ambitions possible.

This concern is compounded by several upcoming labour agreement expirations: CN on December 31, ILWU on March 31 and CPKC on December 31. We cannot pursue the expanded trade relationships while overlooking the vulnerabilities of the infrastructure and labour framework on which they depend.

These realities inform WCSC's principal amendment to Bill C-39. We recognize the constructive provisions for earlier bargaining, special mediation and a national interest test. However, the specified powers under section 107 remain available only after a lawful strike or lockout has commenced. We believe this leaves a critical gap.

Bill C-39 must provide government with the authority to implement a proactive remedy before a work stoppage, allowing it to address foreseeable nationally significant supply chain disruptions before they inflict lasting economic damage on Canadian industry, Canadian workers and our international trading relationships. The legislation must recognize that the economic impacts of transportation work actions start well in advance of a disruption and extend well beyond the actual outage. Significant costs arise in the lead-up to disruption and continue long after service resumes.

Bill C-39 must provide proactive measures that give domestic and international business confidence in Canada's ability to protect the supply chains on which they depend. This would send a clear signal to global markets that Canada takes its role as a reliable supplier seriously and is committed to protecting the commercial relationships and investment underpinning its long-term competitiveness.

Turning to major projects, WCSC supports the proposed one-year federal direction, coordinated reviews, single assessor treatment for certain energy and nuclear projects, and the early works provisions as well. However, speed on paper must translate into predictable delivery. This requires significant agency capacity, coordinated permitting, alignment with provincial processes, reasonable limits on pauses and extensions, the designation of western Canadian trade corridors and transparent reporting.

To summarize, these address the four broader concerns for WCSC, and we recommend four measures.

The four measures are a proactive remedy ahead of a work stoppage, permanent and effective interswitching provisions within 160 kilometres that apply across Canada and take effect immediately, formal shipper representation on the national trade corridors council, and a transparent corridor performance dashboard.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Albas, I'm glad you're here. You have the floor first.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm glad you're here too. It's quality time.

I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. I'll start first with Ms. Peters.

Ms. Peters, you said specifically in your opening statement that you would like to see more inclusions of tenants' viewpoints in land use. Could you maybe say what you would see in an amendment to Bill C-39 that would allow your group to have more say?

[Alicia Peters]

It's a pretty easy amendment there. Bill C-39 requires the port to consult with the National Trade Corridors Council. We're asking that you just add “and port tenants” into that language. There are two provisions. One is for the business plan, and the other is for the land use plan. As tenants of the port who use those lands and operate on those lands, we believe that consultation is important.

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

When it comes to fee setting and dispute mechanisms, obviously C-39 does have some modernized elements. The CTA will have some authority, but I believe you mentioned that one of the challenges is that if there's a dispute, those fees can be collected, sometimes wrongly, for an extended period of time while the CTA figures out its lunch money.

Could you please just tell us what you'd like to see in there that would offer a little more protection for your members?

[Alicia Peters]

We'd like to see the ability for there to be a pause while a dispute is ongoing. We know that there are timelines that the CTA has, but of course sometimes those go beyond. Right now, without Bill C-39, disputes end up in the courts, and that can take some time. If you're looking at a disputed fee, you have to pay it for the duration, and if you are successful it gets paid retroactively. We would rather there be a pause while a dispute is being filed, so that our members don't have to incur that cost up front.

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

The Roberts Bank terminal 2 project is something that's been in discussion in British Columbia recently. Obviously, it's been said that it's been designated under schedule 1. I'm not going to get into that, but I did note that that particular project, as of October 30, had an outstanding permit for species at risk. It just shows how difficult it is that even after 10-plus years of processes, the port was unable to get a SARA permit through ECCC—or the Impact Assessment Agency—on time.

The point is that under this bill, Bill C-39, in part 2, the transportation projects office would be toothless. It would not have the authority to force even divisions within Transport Canada, let alone outside departments such as ECCC or others. Do you believe that the office should be given the authority to coordinate and to name and shame any particular agency or department that has not provided a permit within the recorded amount of time?

[Alicia Peters]

We all like to work collaboratively, so hopefully there's no naming and shaming. Certainly, if you can have a process that creates a predictability that the timelines are in place, and where there is a clear chain of command.... We've heard you speak before on this piece and certainly looking at the transportation projects office, if you could have a similar structure to the Major Projects Office, then it creates that predictability and it gives it better adherence to that single window.

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

I think that, towards part 1—the responsible authorities—because the Major Projects Office actually has no authority whatsoever, it can't approve anything.

We'll move on.

In this bill, the minister has incredible powers to appoint board members. I don't think you dispute that. I think, in this case, you're just asking them to have a review with some criteria that actually show that they're making the system better. Is that something that you think should be done? Is that an amendment you're pushing forward?

[Alicia Peters]

Yes. The bill takes steps, but we're asking for it to go a little further. It's one thing to have a review; it's another to say what's in the review. We're asking for a bit more substance in that.

It's also that there's a competency matrix in board appointments to make sure that those appointments are really grounded in folks who have deep industry experience and supply chain expertise.

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

That makes a lot of sense.

Lastly, I'll just talk about the Groundhog Day clause, which applies to part 1 and parts of part 2. The responsible authority can ask for another report and another report before it actually deems the commencement clock to start. It has a one-year part, which of course has further suspensions.

Do you believe that the Groundhog Day clause should be addressed, so that if someone wants to do a major project, they have that certainty?

[Alicia Peters]

I can get back to you on that. I don't want to address that one specifically.

Again, when we can have reliability and predictability, those are good things, especially when you're looking at significant investments.

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

You can write to the committee clerk, because he—I mean she—likes getting mail.

[Alicia Peters]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Albas.

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

When I get the gender right....

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

That's important.

Mr. Bains, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for joining us here today.

Just a few days ago, I had the opportunity to join the Tsawwassen First Nation, the transport minister, my Pacific caucus colleagues and ILWU members to officially list the Roberts Bank terminal 2 project as a project of national interest. We were able to talk about the significance. I had an opportunity to make some remarks and talk about its importance.

I want to go to Mr. Leonard first.

You noted that the government appointed two highly respected labour relations experts, Vince Ready and Amanda Rogers, to examine the challenges facing collective bargaining at west coast ports. Can you speak to the significance of their work and how Bill C-39 responds to some of the recommendations they put forward? We want to make sure that by listing this as nationally important, we can maximize its benefits for Canadians and work forward in a good way.

[Mike Leonard]

Thank you for the question.

Vince Ready, as many may know, is an incredible, well-reputed independent third party who's been the go-to for various labour disputes across the country and internationally, I believe. He was tapped on the shoulder for the IIC that was commissioned by the then minister of labour in the summer of 2023, after the longshore strike. Their work effectively began in earnest in early 2024, and the process took about 12 months to complete.

The recommendations were thorough. The examination, research and interview processes were extensive. There were upwards of, I think, 24 different, separate parties, including various stakeholders, including the primary parties—the BCMEA and the ILWU—that were part of their process and review. The pathway that came out of it, in the form of recommendations, was a stronger bargaining structure and better tools to reach agreements.

I have to say that the BCMEA, ILWU and affected stakeholders worked incredibly hard to ensure that the IIC had the information and perspectives needed to make the best possible recommendations. From my perspective, the recommendations were based on robust consultation.

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

Okay.

In your experience, could the additional transparency and accountability from a special mediator report help motivate both sides to find common ground and avoid work stoppage?