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

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to start by thanking you, the witnesses who have appeared before the committee. This is, as has been mentioned, a very important piece of legislation for this government and Canada, one that will have impacts across the country. We want to make sure we hear that testimony from all of you and that we get this bill right.

It's fascinating to sit here on this committee and listen to the members of the opposition pretend to care about labour, environmental protections and climate change. Just last week, their members asked for the repeal of the Impact Assessment Act. I've heard non-stop calls for pipelines in the House of Commons. There was a private member's bill to repeal the tanker moratorium on the northern B.C. coast, along with repeated calls for federal authorities to override indigenous objections to pipeline projects. They've been asking the government to capitulate to U.S. interests on trade irritants to basically subjugate Canadian sovereignty to Donald Trump's government. That's not to mention their decades of opposition...with Conservative anti-union policies. Just recently, there have been these delay, stall and obfuscate tactics we're seeing at committee. In public, in the House, they complain that the government isn't acting fast enough.

I'm not sure which it is.

I want to remind the committee and all the witnesses that we are having this discussion in the context of the illegal and unnecessary American tariffs, and that the American president has threatened to make Canada the 51st state and destroy Canada's economy in order to subjugate our sovereignty.

I say this as a member from Hamilton, which has a legacy of 100 years of heavy industry, the environmental repercussions of that and a proud history of labour rights. I'm reminded of the 1981 Stelco strike. The two sides were so entrenched that there were 12,500 workers on strike, out of work, for 125 days. Stelco never really recovered from that. It was devastating for the workers. It was devastating for the city's economy. It was devastating for the ownership. That's what we're trying to avoid by moving forward with this legislation.

We talked about weakening protections and regulations. It's really important that we understand we're streamlining, not weakening, approvals and trying to bring some certainty to them.

My first question will be on the labour side, since I mentioned Hamilton having a very strong tradition of labour rights.

I will start off with Mr. Lesosky.

I listened closely to your comments. Could you confirm for the committee that what we're talking about regarding section 107 and Bill C-39 specifically applies to federally regulated industries? It's not for all unions. It's just for federally regulated industries.

[Wesley Lesosky]

Thank you for the question.

Are you asking me to confirm that it applies only to federally regulated industries?

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Yes.

[Wesley Lesosky]

Yes, that's correct.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you.

I was a city councillor in Hamilton for seven years. In that time, we settled, I think, 10 collective agreements with our various public sector unions. We had one union that went on strike for about a month—the Amalgamated Transit Union. We were able to settle all those other agreements at the negotiating table and did not go to binding arbitrations or strikes.

I wonder if you can comment on how beneficial it is to have both parties at the table in good faith. That is ideally where we want to be for all labour negotiations.

[Wesley Lesosky]

I think that's the biggest thing. Both tables have to be there. They have to be engaged, and they have to want to see something come forward that both sides will be able to live with.

It's just like when we were going through bargaining. Our union's goal—what we shared with the employer at the beginning—was that we at least wanted to be able to take this back and ratify it. In order to do that, both sides had to be able to give a little, but they also had to be able to put the gains in place so members would ratify it.

Obviously, that can be a bit more challenging for the union side, but that's ultimately the goal, yes. It's to work in a partnership, per se, and come to a conclusion.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you.

I certainly understand your perspective and that of many unions on the amendments to section 107 ordering any workers back to work and how serious of a tool that is to apply.

I also wanted to ask you about the federal mediators, which you talked about. I think one of the big differences is that they were not reporting publicly, and there was no public transparency to that mediation, whereas in Bill C-39 there is a public component to that. They will be sharing the results, so that there's transparency and so that if it does escalate, the public will be brought along in that conversation.

Is it important to have that transparency?

[Wesley Lesosky]

We would definitely welcome Canadians having a better understanding of what goes on behind closed doors during collective bargaining, but what's the consequence if that report identifies an employer that's refusing to bargain seriously?

Under Bill C-39, the minister could still intervene and impose arbitration. The employer might suffer some public embarrassment, but it could still get exactly what it was counting on, and that's an end to the strike without having to negotiate an agreement. It's just another circle.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Danko.

Mr. Ste-Marie, it's over to you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to turn to Mr. Lesosky.

A few years ago, in its decision in the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour case, the Supreme Court pointed out that the right to strike is a constitutionally protected right that can be restricted to, for instance, ensure people's safety, if their lives are in danger. However, the Supreme Court stated that profits are not a sufficient reason to prevent workers from exercising this fundamental right.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, or CUPE, and other unions have taken legal action because of the government's use of section 107, or its interpretation of the section, for the purpose of ending labour disputes. CUPE's president told the committee he would do the same if Bill C‑39 is passed as is.

A few weeks ago in Quebec, its administrative labour tribunal struck down Bill 14, which was basically the same as what the federal government is doing here with section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. It was struck down; it didn't survive the first decision.

If the Canada Labour Code amendments to section 107 proposed in Bill C‑39 are passed unamended, do you think those provisions will be struck down in court challenges because they violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the fundamental right to strike?

[Wesley Lesosky]

Yes, I think that will happen and continue to happen with this, for sure.

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

Thank you for that short answer.

Ms. Johnston, we have just under a minute left. Do you have any last comments you'd like to make?

[Anna Johnston]

I'm sorry. My translation didn't come on.

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

We have 30 seconds left. Is there anything you'd like to tell us?

[Anna Johnston]

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there are known ways to enhance the efficiency of environmental decision-making. They include things like bringing all parties to the table really early on in project planning cycles; making sure that federal, provincial and indigenous governments are co-operating meaningfully and not substituting each other's assessments; and doing that big-picture work ahead of time.

I don't see any of that in Bill C-39. What I see is cutting corners. We know from experience that when governments try to cut corners, it backfires. It leads to environmental disasters like the Mount Polley mine tailings disaster of 2014 in British Columbia, and it leads to the Sydney tar ponds. These environmental disasters end up being borne and paid for by taxpayers. They undermine certainty, and they're not good for Canadians' public health and safety.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

That's our last round, so we're going to stop there.

There is one thing, though. I want to revisit the issue that Mr. Ste-Marie brought up earlier today.

The amendment submission deadline remains November 4, which is this Wednesday, at 5:00 p.m., although, based on the discussion around the table earlier this evening, we will have a second deadline of November 10 at 4 p.m. for amendments based on the documents that were translated subsequent to Wednesday.

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

Mr. Chair, when would the cut-off be for that? We are going to be doing three hours tomorrow. Theoretically, if those individuals submitted amendments tomorrow, how long would it take for them to be translated? Some of them have highly technical amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I don't think that changes what I just said. The deadline is Wednesday at five o'clock. Anything that's not translated by Wednesday at five o'clock will be subsequently translated. I'm told that it will be done by Monday, so we have a second deadline of Tuesday at four o'clock.

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

Okay. I'm just making sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

It's a fair question. Thank you.

Thanks, everybody.

The meeting is adjourned.