Bill C-39

Building Canada Strong Act

An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy

Part 1 implements certain measures in relation to project evaluations.
Division 1 of Part 1 amends the Impact Assessment Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is to conduct the impact assessment of a designated project that includes activities that are regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act ;
(b) authorize the Minister of the Environment to grant certain federal authorizations that are required in respect of a designated project at the same time that the Minister issues a decision statement in respect of the project;
(c) ensure that a decision statement in respect of a designated project for which the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada conducts the impact assessment is issued within one year after the proponent provides the required information or studies;
(d) provide for the coordination of the impact assessment of designated projects and the review processes for certain federal authorizations that are required in respect of those projects; and
(e) provide for the coordination of consultations with Indigenous groups.
Division 2 of Part 1 amends the Building Canada Act to, among other things,
(a) establish, for certain types of projects located within a region of national interest, a similar framework to the one applicable to national interest projects;
(b) allow the minister designated under that Act to add, remove or amend any condition in respect of an authorization that was granted for a national interest project before the name of that project was added to Schedule 1 to that Act;
(c) ensure that obligations to make information public associated with decisions made under that Act are administratively feasible; and
(d) authorize the Governor in Council to add the name of a region to a new schedule to that Act if the Governor in Council is of the opinion, having regard to certain factors, that the designation of that region is in the national interest.
Division 3 of Part 1 amends the Canadian Energy Regulator Act to, among other things,
(a) ensure decisions in respect of pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects are issued within one year of receiving the required information and studies;
(b) provide for the coordination of consultations with Indigenous peoples of Canada in respect of pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects;
(c) provide for the coordination of federal authorizations in respect of pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects with federal authorities;
(d) provide that the Commission is the sole assessor of applications in respect of pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects;
(e) provide authority for the Commission to
(i) make decisions in respect of applications relating to pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects, unless otherwise specified in the Act,
(ii) exempt certain pipelines or branches of or extensions to pipelines from the application of certain provisions, and
(iii) integrate a detailed route hearing into an ongoing hearing; and
(f) provide that the Governor in Council is to determine whether certain pipelines and designated power lines are in the public interest.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Federal Courts Act and the Northern Pipeline Act .
Division 4 of Part 1 amends the Canadian Navigable Waters Act to require the Minister of Transport to, among other things, take into account the feasibility of the terms and conditions in respect of an approval relating to certain works. It also transfers to that Minister the power to exempt bodies of water from the application of certain provisions of the Act if that Minister is satisfied that it would be in the public interest. Finally, it allows the Governor in Council to make regulations to exclude structures, devices or other things from the definition “work” to avoid duplication with other Acts and regulations.
Division 5 of Part 1 amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to, among other things,
(a) ensure that environmental protection compliance orders may be issued with respect to any thing to which that Act applies and to non-continuing offences, including with respect to contravening imports;
(b) broaden the scope of such orders by permitting an enforcement officer to direct a person to take additional measures, such as managing contravening imports in the manner specified in the order, returning them to their place of origin or removing them from Canada; and
(c) provide that certain permits issued under that Act may, in certain circumstances, be valid for more than one year.
Division 6 of Part 1 amends the Species at Risk Act to, among other things, require the competent minister to take into account the feasibility of the terms and conditions in respect of certain agreements and permits.
Division 7 of Part 1 amends the Fisheries Act to, among other things,
(a) modify the fish habitat bank regime to allow for the use of habitat credits by third parties;
(b) authorize the making of regulations respecting the circumstances in which a person who is authorized to carry on a work, undertaking or activity may pay a fee to offset adverse effects on fish and fish habitat and provide for these fees to be credited to the Environmental Damages Fund; and
(c) transfer certain regulation-making powers from the Governor in Council to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Part 2 implements certain measures in relation to supply chains.
Division 1 of Part 2 amends the Department of Transport Act to provide the Minister of Transport with the power to establish a transportation project office that coordinates review processes for federal authorizations and consultations with respect to transportation projects.
Division 2 of Part 2 amends the Canada Transportation Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the Minister of Transport may designate geographic areas as trade corridors and establish the National Trade Corridors Council, whose mandate is to monitor the movement of goods in trade corridors, analyze disruptions that may affect trade corridors and make recommendations and provide advice to that Minister;
(b) provide that Minister with the authority to make regulations to give effect to international standards or ensure compliance with Canada’s international obligations;
(c) expand the purposes for which that Minister may request that federal departments and agencies provide information that has already been provided by regulated entities to those federal departments and agencies;
(d) clarify the application of the requirement to notify that Minister of proposed transactions involving transportation undertakings;
(e) reduce the threshold for the requirement to notify that Minister and the Commissioner of Competition of proposed transactions involving transportation undertakings situated in a “port”, as defined in section 5 of the Canada Marine Act ;
(f) provide that that Minister may, for any purpose related to transportation security or safety, to the integrity of the national transportation system or to public safety or for any purpose specified by order, grant, suspend or cancel security clearances;
(g) authorize, for the purposes of administering and enforcing the security clearances regime, certain individuals or entities to collect information from and disclose information to each other;
(h) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting security clearances;
(i) expand the exceptions to the requirement to obtain the Canadian Transportation Agency’s approval for the construction of railway lines; and
(j) establish, for a period of four years, a zone in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta in which any interswitching that occurs is subject to the rate determined by the Canadian Transportation Agency.
Division 3 of Part 2 amends the Canada Marine Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Governor in Council to allow a port authority to enter into joint-liability arrangements and to create entities other than wholly-owned subsidiaries to undertake activities within or outside the limits of the port;
(b) authorize the Minister of Transport to appoint certain directors of a port authority;
(c) add principles that a port authority must observe when fixing port fees and expand the grounds on which a fee-related complaint may be filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency;
(d) authorize the Governor in Council to appoint, in certain circumstances, an administrator for a not-for-profit corporation that has entered into an agreement in respect of the St. Lawrence Seaway;
(e) authorize that Minister to terminate such an agreement or any part of one and provide for a dispute resolution process to deal with any disputes arising from the termination; and
(f) authorize that Minister to require that any of the following persons take measures to prevent or mitigate certain threats or stop any activity that would contribute to such threats:
(i) a port authority,
(ii) a person in charge of a port facility,
(iii) a person responsible for the management and operation of all or part of the St. Lawrence Seaway or for any works, undertakings or property used in the operation of the Seaway,
(iv) an occupier or person in charge of any federal real property, or any federal immovable, that is subject to being administered under Part 3 of that Act.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Port Authorities Operations Regulations .
Division 4 of Part 2 amends the Marine Liability Act to, among other things,
(a) modify the definition “receiver” to refer to the person who physically receives bulk hazardous and noxious substances carried by sea as cargo and discharged at a port or terminal in Canada; and
(b) harmonize the inspection and enforcement provisions relating to that person.
It also makes related amendments to the Safeguarding Canada’s Seas and Skies Act .
Division 5 of Part 2 amends the Coasting Trade Act to allow foreign ships or non-duty paid ships to engage, without a licence, in activities in response to a declared emergency.
Division 6 of Part 2 repeals the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987 and makes a consequential amendment to the Access to Information Act .
Division 7 of Part 2 amends the International Bridges and Tunnels Act to allow the Minister of Transport to make certain decisions that were previously made exclusively by the Governor in Council.
Division 8 of Part 2 enacts the Enabling Digital Trade Act which, among other things,
(a) sets out the rules for the use of electronic trade documents as the functional equivalents to paper trade documents that are related to trade in goods;
(b) eliminates the requirement to provide information to the Government of Canada in physical form in relation to the importation or exportation of goods; and
(c) permits a federal minister, or an officer or employee of a department or agency of the Government of Canada, to disclose information that is related to the importation or exportation of goods if the receiving minister, department or agency of the government is permitted by law to collect that information.
Part 3 implements certain measures related to the work force.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) establish new requirements and timelines related to collective bargaining;
(b) provide for the transfer of certain rights in the context of certain contractors being replaced by new contractors;
(c) establish new requirements and authorities in relation to entering into first collective agreements;
(d) provide that the Canada Industrial Relations Board may certify a trade union as the bargaining agent for existing bargaining units in certain industries in certain geographic areas on application of two or more employers, on referral of the Minister of Labour or on that Board’s initiative;
(e) confer on the Minister of Labour the power to appoint a special mediator to assist parties in settling a dispute that arises in connection with the entering into, renewal or revision of a collective agreement; and
(f) establish new requirements for that Minister to direct the Canada Industrial Relations Board to take measures under section 107 of that Act.
It also makes consequential amendments to certain regulations.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Head of Compliance and Enforcement to issue a settlement enforcement order requiring an employer or director of a corporation to pay any outstanding amounts that are to be paid under a settlement with an employee; and
(b) permit an order to debtor to be issued, in certain circumstances, before a settlement enforcement order or payment order has been issued.
Division 3 of Part 3 provides that Division XIII of Part III of the Canada Labour Code does not apply to an employer and employees who are parties to a collective agreement that confers rights and benefits at least as favourable as those conferred by that Division XIII with respect to medical leave of absence with pay.
Division 4 of Part 3 amends the Wage Earner Protection Program Act to, among other things, define the term “former employer” for the purposes of that Act and to specify that the Minister may confirm, vary or rescind a determination of eligibility even without a request for review.

Building Canada Strong Act

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. There is much to discuss. This bill has been subject to a wild disinformation campaign, some of which has been perpetrated by members of this House. Therefore, I want to begin today by saying something that should not be controversial in this place. Members of Parliament are allowed to disagree. We can oppose and even criticize legislation. We can believe that government has gotten something wrong. That is democracy and that is our job. However, there is a difference between opposing legislation and telling Canadians that legislation says something it does not say. Unfortunately, we have heard quite a bit of the latter when it comes to Bill C-39. We have heard claims that this bill would eliminate environmental assessments. It would not. We have heard that it would eliminate indigenous consultation. It would not. We have heard that it would eliminate workers' right to strike. It would not do that either.

With the rise of social media and short-form content, Canadians are less likely to get the full story. Complex legislation cannot be reduced to a viral slogan or a social media post, yet in an era when many Canadians get their news online, we have a responsibility to ensure that what we share is rooted in facts and not in fear. Therefore, let us separate the facts from the fiction when it comes to Bill C-39, and let us start with the environment.

I have spent my entire career fighting for the environment, and I would never support something that would weaken environmental protections. The building Canada strong act would make no changes to the federal environmental standards. This would be a change in process. Regardless of what kind of project is reviewed, all factors would need to be taken into consideration, including climate impacts, species at risk, ecological and nature implications, navigation, navigable waters and much more. Bill C-39 does not say to forget the environment and build whatever someone wants. Nothing in the 244 pages of this piece of legislation says that we would bulldoze nature, yet those are the things that are being said outside of this House and in this House.

When multiple government agencies are asking the same questions, running the same assessments and coming to the same conclusion, there is a serious opportunity to streamline processes. We can do that by changing who is leading these assessments and how departments coordinate their decisions.

The projects moving through these new processes would still undergo rigorous assessment. This would not suddenly allow more environmentally sensitive projects to come to fruition. What it would do is make approvals happen faster, reduce the strain on the federal bureaucracy and speed up the economic benefits of major projects. If members opposite believe the bill would not provide adequate environmental protection, then they can make that argument and tell Canadians which standard they think would be inadequate and which safeguards they want strengthened. They can put forward an amendment and present a true alternative. That is what Parliament is for. However, standing in the House and telling Canadians that Bill C-39 would simply abolish environmental assessments is not a policy argument and it is not rooted in fact.

Long regulatory processes have a cost. It costs the government when federal employees are tasked with duplicate efforts. It costs communities that are waiting to see investment come to fruition. It costs workers who are awaiting new opportunities. It comes at a cost to Canada's economic prosperity, which is something we have to be very focused on at this time.

My question to those who oppose this bill is as follows: Why should a federal regulatory process take longer than necessary once all of the information is on the table? I am open to hearing feedback on this topic from my colleagues across the aisle, from my constituents and from Canadians at large, but when this feedback is rooted in disinformation rather than fact, it is the duty of all members of this House to correct the record.

Another section of this bill that has seen significant controversy relates to workers' rights. I took time to study these provisions carefully and meet with my constituents and stakeholders who raised concerns, because it is my responsibility to understand the legislation before us and to provide clear information to Canadians. As I stand here and debate this bill, I want to make it clear that I am not dismissing concerns about the legislation in front of us. My job is to seek clarity on these concerns and bring this information back to my constituents.

What I have been seeing online is that Bill C-39 would eliminate a worker's right to strike, but this could not be further from the truth. For years, there have been concerns about the use of section 107. Right now, the minister can use it where the minister deems it expedient. Bill C-39 would put clear limits on that power. A prescribed process must occur, and intervention must be tied to a strike or lockout that could have a significant adverse national impact. While we are seeing social media posts saying that this government would be eliminating workers' rights, the reality is that Bill C-39 would put clear guardrails around ministerial intervention. That is why, when I hear the member for Edmonton Strathcona say that this legislation would give the minister extraordinary new powers to intervene in a legal strike, I take issue with that characterization, because this bill would do the opposite.

As we continue to discuss the implications of this new legislation, I invite all members of the House to ensure that we are telling the whole story. Bill C-39 is a transformative piece of legislation that would keep Canada moving. It would unlock economic growth by reducing red tape and providing regulatory certainty, accelerating significant national infrastructure development while improving the labour relations framework and strengthening supply chain efficiency.

We are facing an uncertain world, and Canada needs to build greater economic resilience at home while diversifying our trade relationships abroad. U.S. tariffs have only heightened the urgency of addressing the structural barriers to investment, productivity and trade that are limiting our country's prosperity. This work can be done, and it can be done safely. Through Bill C-39, we can get back into the business of building big things while maintaining strong environmental, social and labour protections, because this bill would not remove protections, but it would remove duplication.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague. Her notes were very well prepared, but I wonder if she is aware that division 3 of this bill will dramatically accelerate pipeline construction.

I would like to know if she is aware that 91% of our oil exports go directly to the United States. We are told it is in the public interest to build pipelines, but that only serves the interests of Americans and their energy security. We know that 60% of major oil companies are American-owned, so I find it quite surprising that we are scrapping our environmental laws to serve American interests in the context of a trade war. I wonder if my colleague is aware of that.

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with my hon. colleague's framing. The pipeline, the Pacific link, is a major project. It is designated as a major project, but its purpose is not to serve the United States. It is to diversify our trade relationships internationally and to reduce our reliance on the United States of America. That has been made very clear, and it is something that we absolutely must do to build our economic resilience and provide what we can offer to the world, which is low-carbon fuel, at this time of transition to a clean economy. Bill C-39 has pieces in place that would ensure environmental assessment is rigorous in that process.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was looking up things that had to do with Bill C-5, and I am wondering if there is any change here. Things that were built in 18 months are the Space Needle in 1962, the Empire State Building in 1930, the Pentagon in 1941, the Alaska Highway and the Crystal Palace in 1851. I am wondering if my colleague can tell me what has been built in the 18 months since Bill C-5 was passed.

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting history lesson. I appreciate that. We are laying the foundation for transformation in this country. We have shovels in the ground across this country, which has been said in question period all of this week, on major projects, and more are to come. It does take a bit of time to get it all in place, but I think we are proving that we are acting on our commitments in good faith in trying to urgently transform our economy to address the crisis with the United States.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her extraordinary work on the Liberal environment caucus. I urge her not to give up. Interestingly, when I was in Halifax, I saw that bus systems are now being electrified.

How can our government help our SMEs invest in cleaner technologies while boosting competitiveness, creating jobs and strengthening environmental protection?

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is the work I did for a very long time in my past life. I am very excited about our new national electricity strategy. This is going to unlock our ability to double our electricity capacity while cleaning our grid and adhering to our climate targets. Electric buses are one piece. Electrifying our building energy systems is another and fuelling our economy at large. I think that a lot of good work has already been done across this country by local governments, provinces and territories, and this federal government. We are going to keep on working towards that objective.

We just had Energy Efficiency Day nationally. Colleagues may not know that. Today, we had experts from across every sector here on the Hill, from the steel industry to the wind industry, buildings, efficiency and clean fuels. Everyone is pulling in the same direction to drive this clean economy of the future. I am really excited about it.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-39. To begin, I want to point out to Canadians that the Liberal government has once again introduced an omnibus bill of some 246 pages that inappropriately combines measures that do not belong in the same legislation. This ploy is an attempt to blur issues and blunt criticism. It disrespects Parliament and the voters who send us here to properly scrutinize bills and hold government accountable. It directly contradicts previous promises by Liberals not to use this odious practice inappropriately. Unfortunately, this is not surprising. Liberals are infamous for saying one thing at election time and doing the opposite once elected.

As labour critic for the New Democratic Party, I will focus on the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code contained in part 3 of this bill. Let there be no doubt that this bill contains one of the most serious attacks on workers' rights in a generation: the entrenchment of the harmful misuse of section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. These changes would expand the federal government's unilateral authority to terminate a legal strike in a manner more broadly than exists in any G7 country, including Donald Trump's United States.

At its core, this bill would prevent Canadian workers from meaningfully exercising their constitutionally protected freedoms of association and expression. It would restrict their charter right to withdraw their services. It would fundamentally alter the balance of power in collective bargaining in Canada, and the way it would do so is deeply troubling to anyone who supports transparency and accountability. Once again, it reveals a disturbing trend by the Liberal government of concentrating power in the hands of cabinet ministers to avoid being responsible to Parliament. That is the approach of authoritarian rulers, not democratic ones.

Let me start by pointing out that ending lawful strikes was never the purpose of section 107. Since its inclusion in the code in 1984, this provision was always understood as an exceptional administrative power, not a weapon to violate workers' rights. In fact, there have been previous attempts to stretch that authority in the past, including by the Harper government in 2011. Former Conservative labour minister Lisa Raitt has publicly stated that Conservatives contemplated the use of section 107 to end strikes, but decided against it based on legal advice that this was not a proper use of that provision. However, the Liberal government has ignored that history and taken the use of section 107 to an unprecedented extreme.

In the last three years alone, Liberals have used section 107 10 times to intervene in labour disputes, most recently involving rail workers, port workers, postal workers and airline workers. In many cases, Liberals used this section to break strikes just hours after they began. Why is this objectionable? It is because the freedoms of association and expression have been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada to include the rights of workers to bargain collectively and withdraw their services in concert to advance their interests, so using the law in this way violates workers' constitutional rights. Because corporate management has disproportionate power in the workplace with unilateral rights to manage and vastly superior financial resources, workers' only way to counterbalance these is through withdrawing their services. Interfering with this strips workers of the only real power they have because this legislation undermines the collective bargaining process.

If employers know that government will intervene on their behalf to end a strike, they have reduced incentive to bargain seriously and come to an agreement themselves. Members should not take my word for it. Employers like Air Canada have publicly admitted this. It is unnecessary. The federal government and employers already have the tools they need to protect the health and safety of the public or intervene if the Canadian economy is truly imperilled by a protracted labour dispute. Governments always have the power to bring in back-to-work legislation where the issues can be fully debated in public in this chamber and elected representatives are held accountable to their voters by voting in their seats. This has been done numerous times when the national interest requires it.

Every labour code in the country, including the Canada Labour Code, has essential services provisions that allow any employer to make a case before an impartial adjudicator that a strike ought to be limited to preserve the health and safety of Canadians. These are routinely used in the cases of bargaining units like those of nurses, police officers and longshore workers.

Now, in this legislation, the Liberals want the ability to violate workers' rights even more easily. Far from containing any guardrails or government right to break strikes, this is a road map for how to do it. Bill C-39 would codify the minister's unilateral power to end a legal strike and would make the minister's own opinion the sole test for exercising that power. It would require the minister only to consider the report of a special mediator. This is someone, by the way, whom they appoint and whose recommendations they are entirely free to disregard.

It states that the minister may consider any relevant issue they wish, with no benchmarks or limits expressed in the legislation. It would require the minister only to consider the impact of their decision on freedom of association, merely making them think about workers' rights before violating them. In other words, federal workers can have their rights to take job action taken away by the sole opinion of a single cabinet minister for any reason they find convenient.

The legislation is also counterproductive, and I believe it would harm the public's interest. Undermining the right to strike is more likely to fuel conflict than prevent it. When workers are denied a legal means to withdraw their labour, disputes do not disappear; they risk becoming more confrontational and difficult to resolve. The history of labour relations and market economies makes this clear. When workers' rights were suppressed, strikes did not disappear: They were frequent, protracted and often violent, and they tore communities apart.

The facts prove that the legislation is not even necessary. The truth is that the current system of counterbalanced collective bargaining in this country works. About 95% of all collective agreements in Canada are successfully negotiated at the bargaining table by the parties themselves, with no job action. Canada is on track this year to have the fewest days lost to strikes in the federal sector since 1954. This is why unions across the country have warned against these provisions: They understand that Bill C-39 would fundamentally change the balance of power in labour relations and harm the Canadian economy by fuelling uncertainty and instability.

Bea Bruske, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, has been clear: Unions across this country are united. From coast to coast, across every sector, they are delivering the same message that unconstitutional restrictions on the right to strike are unacceptable and will be fought.

The right to strike is not a privilege. It is protected by the charter and recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is not a right to be respected only when it is ineffective.

Strikes can disrupt. They can cause discomfort. They can cause economic consequences to employers and sometimes sections of the public. However, that is the very point of a strike. It is the most impactful, and frankly the only, way workers can demonstrate the value of their labour in the marketplace. By showing the effect the withdrawal of their labour has on society and on their employer, they make the case that they should be compensated accordingly.

Let us all acknowledge in this place that labour rights have had and do have a very positive impact on Canadian society. Through the struggle and sacrifice of working people for the last 160 years, as well as the many men and women who took job action for fair wages, safer working conditions and a better life for their families, all Canadians have benefited. We all enjoy a standard of living that economies with no labour rights look on with envy.

This debate is ultimately about more than labour law. It is about what kind of country we want to build and whose interests we seek to defend. New Democrats believe that strong countries are built by empowered workers. Strong economies are built through free and fair bargaining. Strong democracies respect constitutional rights.

The legislation is built on the view that workers' rights are an obstacle to nation building. That is wrong. Workers are the people who literally build this nation. New Democrats believe that if we want to build a stronger Canada, we must respect workers' rights, value their voices and raise their standard of living, yet—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member would apply the very same principles he just spoke about to the Province of Manitoba, in which one minister went to the Manitoba Labour Board and forced 350 health care workers back to work. The member knows that it was Wab Kinew's New Democratic government.

The changes being made to section 107 would put in safeguards to ensure more accountability and more transparency. However, as one of my colleagues talked about, it is easy to get a quick social clip that spreads misinformation.

Can the member provide his thoughts, on principle, in terms of what the Manitoba government has done with the health care workers?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny that whenever this member and the current government want to deflect attention from their own actions, they point to someone else. It reminds me of my mother when I was in grade 3, when she asked me, “If Johnny jumped off the bridge, would you?”

It is a ridiculous argument, but I want to address the misinformation embedded in the member's question.

There is not a single guardrail in the legislation, not one. We can read it. It says that it is through the sole opinion of the minister, taking into account any relevant consideration they want, that they may order the end of a strike. There is not a guardrail in the legislation. One person can end a strike based on no evidence whatsoever after a special mediator issues a report.

The only misinformation is spread by the government in trying to tell Canadians that they put guardrails in this. There are no guardrails at all. This is a road map to violate Canadian workers' constitutional right to strike, and that member knows it or he has not read the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know this is an issue that the member cares deeply about, and so should we all, because we are talking about workers' rights. Last I checked, workers' rights fall under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in section 2(d).

Another section that is particularly relevant to this conversation tonight is section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act, which says that the Minister of Justice is legally required to table a charter statement for every single government bill. Liberals like to say they are the party of the charter. So many Liberal members have said they are all about workers' rights, yet the House and the special legislative committee that is going to be set up to examine Bill C-39 have not yet seen this.

Does the member believe that the government has the obligation to give the people that charter statement before we start deliberating this at committee, yes or no?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is clearly no. In fact, I believe the real reason the legislation has been brought forth here in the House is that 12 hours after the flight attendants of Air Canada walked off the job, the Liberal government ordered them back to work. It was 12 hours after the rail workers went on strike that the government ordered them back to work. Do members know what happened? The Teamsters and CUPE filed court challenges saying that the government violated their charter rights. This case is before the courts right now, and in the government, the Liberals know they are going to lose, because the right to strike and the right to collectively bargain are respected charter rights recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Liberals have attempted to charter-proof themselves by bringing in the legislation, but it will not work.

By the way, this gives me a chance to point out that this is the first Liberal government in over 100 years not to have a minister of labour. If we want a signal of what the government thinks about workers, it is that it does not even think they deserve their own minister of labour. The Liberals have a Minister of Jobs and Families. Now, that is a big slap in the face to organized labour in this country, and I can tell members that it is noticed.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague has had a long day and that he may be tired at this hour, but I would like to ask him this question: Does he really think that the right to strike in Canada will be suppressed by any government?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of thinking; it is a matter of observing. I have watched workers in this country in the last 36 months have their rights violated 10 times by the Liberals, including by the member across from me. Of course, they have violated strike rights, and every time they take away a worker's right to strike hours after they began. They did not even wait until there was any impact on the public or on the employer. In fact, that is why Air Canada said it was not bargaining seriously at the table: It knew that the government was going to order the workers back to work before the strike even started, and that is what the Liberals did. They are doing the bidding of management. They are tipping the scales in favour of management. They are interfering with collective bargaining and violating workers' constitutional rights. Workers know it and unions know it; that member should also know it.