Bill C-39 Committee on Oct. 19th, 2026

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

The Canada Energy Regulator is what I'm talking about. If it's over 300 kilometres, cabinet will be making a decision on a pipeline. I'm asking you a very clear question: Will cabinet be taking downstream pipeline emissions into consideration when approving a pipeline?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

With our directives and the like, we do have to include our climate objectives in our analysis. We do include climate objectives. It's actually part of the previous bill we passed.

I'm also going to say that, within all of this, this legislation looks into a vast number of different kinds of projects that are very important to building our country. I'm hoping that it's going to have your support, because that's what I hear from people in my community. They want to see us building projects that improve our energy security and build up our energy sovereignty. Do you have a problem with that?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you. That's all of your time.

Ms. Harrison, I'll turn the floor over to you.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

That's an excellent question, Minister Dabrusin, for my colleague across the table.

Minister Hajdu, what is the higher threshold a minister would have to meet before intervening in a lawful strike or lockout? How does that represent an improvement over the existing section 107?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

The most important change is that section 107 cannot be used before a strike or lockout, so it actually strengthens workers' right to strike. It protects their right to strike. Section 107, if contemplated by a minister, also needs to have two important pieces in place.

One is the special mediator's report, which we've talked about quite a bit. It is a public report at that point, so not only will the minister have that special mediator's report but all of Canada will know exactly what's happening at that table. That will be very illuminating for union members, employer groups, customers and shareholders. Each dispute is very different, so it's hard to say how that will land. Ultimately, the transparent nature of that report will create pressure on parties to truly bargain in good faith, even if it's hard and even if they are far apart.

The second component that would need to be in place before a minister contemplated using section 107 to refer a dispute to the board for arbitration is the national interest assessment. That would require the contemplation of the impact of a prolonged labour disruption on the Canadian economy and on other stakeholders, including other unions and other union members, vulnerable communities, and a number of other perspectives. It would also need to make sure that we are contemplating protecting the right to strike, balancing all of that, which is truly, I think, a very important component.

In my mind—and I think in the minds of many—this actually now protects even more vigorously, in the Canada Labour Code, the right to strike by making sure that those guardrails are in place and that, importantly, it's not used pre-emptively before any labour disruption begins.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

Minister Dabrusin, you visited me in my riding of Peterborough, and you know how deeply we care about the environment. I would love it if you could explain the mitigation hierarchy and what ensures that the mitigation hierarchy remains a real environmental safeguard while projects are being accelerated.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Look, the mitigation hierarchy is well recognized as a part of the protections for nature. It includes four aspects: avoid harming the species, minimize damage, restore what you're doing in an area to restore it to where it was, and offset. You're working down from that, the top one being to avoid, and you're working down the....

The cabinet directive that went out accompanying this includes that we should be working on these projects to put in place a mitigation hierarchy. That's really important. It's also part of the nature strategy that we put out, “A Force of Nature”. We know that we need to build big projects in our country, but as we do it, how are we going to make sure that we are protecting and conserving our lands?

I'll say just one quick thing. It's a bit of a side piece, but it's just that, out of deep respect for the work that you and people in your community do, one of the things the nature strategy included was a piece about how we recognize the work that ranchers do on their lands through other effective conservation models, methods and measures. That is something where we get to respect the work that Canadians do every day to protect their lands and show love for their lands.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you for saying that. I think it's often overlooked, or maybe misunderstood, that farmers and ranchers are at the forefront of climate change and adaptation and mitigation, so thank you for that.

My colleague Dr. Martin already touched on this, but I would love for you to further explain how we need to build faster if we're going to compete in a net-zero global economy. How do we maintain strong environmental protections while we utilize Bill C-39 to achieve both objectives?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Can you answer that question in about 30 seconds, or less?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Yes.

Look, I will just say quickly that it comes down to two things. We need to build a strong electricity grid, an interconnected electricity grid, in order to make the switch that allows us to move to a low-carbon economy and to continue fighting climate change. We can do that. This bill helps us do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

That takes us to Mr. Ste-Marie.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ministers, thank you for being here, along with the entire team of officials accompanying you. I'm very grateful to you, even though I think both unions and environmental groups must be pulling their hair out hearing what you've been saying just now. We are told that the bill promotes renewable energy and that it will help workers, but we are hearing a different story.

Ms. Hajdu, 10 days ago in Quebec, the Tribunal administratif du travail struck down the Quebec legislation based on section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. It found that its provisions violated the charters of both Quebec and Canada by limiting the right to strike far too much. I think that Bill C‑39 provides much less certainty than the government claims. Ms. Hajdu, I would like to know if you are aware of the Tribunal administratif's decision.

Can you also guarantee that the new powers set out in Bill C‑39 will not unjustifiably infringe on the constitutional right to strike?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Thank you for the question.

The Quebec Labour Code is different from the Canada Labour Code. Quebec's Bill 14 and the new essential services regime it establishes differ from the proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code.

When it comes to Bill C‑39, the government aims to protect workers and the right to strike.

It's a very different code. It does not interplay with Bill C-39.

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

The Tribunal administratif said that it violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well. We also know that section 107 has been challenged in court.

Did you ask for a legal analysis of the implications of this decision for Bill C‑39? If so, can you submit it to us?

I'll take this opportunity to ask another question at the same time. When you invoke section 107 to break a strike, why not go through a vote in Parliament? Why is it only the minister's decision, with no referral to Parliament?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

In terms of the charter review and the legal assessment, that will be coming very soon. My understanding is that it's imminent. You will be able to see the assessment.

In terms of the different ways a government has to end a strike, there are different ways, absolutely. In the case where the House of Commons is sitting, back-to-work legislation has been used by governments of many different stripes to bring to end a prolonged strike. In some cases, the House is not sitting. In some cases, it is very urgent.

That is why section 107 exists in the code, for situations where back-to-work legislation is not feasible and not fast enough to provide the remedy to the other sectors of the Canadian economy that are deeply impacted by prolonged disputes and prolonged strikes without any resolution.

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

That seems to me to violate the Supreme Court ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

When both parties declare they're at an impasse and there is labour disruption going on, I have seen as labour minister, both times, the risk of a very long and protracted dispute that then spills over into the rights of other unionized workers, including in Quebec, including all across the country, who are relying on those services for their everyday work. These are some of the considerations a minister would take under section 107, using the national interest.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Mr. Lawrence, it's over to you.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, I like to think of myself as a supporter of direct democracy and hearing directly from the residents. I'm going to read you a question from one of the great residents of Northumberland—Clarke. Her name is Ms. Christina Wilson. She is the vice-president, female, for the local teachers union, district 14 of ETFO.

She and her affiliates are concerned about the proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code in section 107. They say that the amendment will give additional powers to the government in favour of the employer, and that when an agreement is forced on people who are using their last possible option in collective bargaining, the right to strike, the employer will almost always benefit more than the employees. They say the current wording is sufficient, as it has already allowed the government to mandate eight different unions back to work in the last two years.

Will the government consider an amendment that will prevent the government from using section 107 to abridge a worker's right to strike?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Thank you very much. Thank you for relaying your constituent's voice so clearly. I think that's a very important part of all our jobs.

For Christina, as a teacher this would not impact her whatsoever. She would be subject to her provincial labour code. This does not have any impact on her particular situation in her negotiations or even in any dispute.

In terms of her general question, we believe with this legislation that with those parties that have had in particular a history of conflicted relationships—the last negotiation resulted in a lockout or a strike and the collective agreement was very old and parties have not sat down together—this legislation will actually provide additional tools to those parties to get that deal at the table.

I agree with Christina that the best deal is the one that's made at the table. However, in some cases, parties have not been able to negotiate collective agreements together for multiple rounds of collective agreements, thereby weakening the ability and the muscle to bargain together.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Minister, I have a separate question now. I don't believe a charter statement has yet been tabled. Is that correct?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Not yet.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Given the—