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

[Geneviève Paul]

The Québec Environmental Law Centre, along with many other environmental groups, is indeed concerned.

As I said earlier, Bill C‑39 must be read in light of other changes that took place. A few weeks before the tabling of Bill C‑39, the Physical Activities Regulations were amended in connection with the Impact Assessment Act. The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada was excluded from reviewing certain projects, which also made an impact.

The integrated review panels were established specifically to ensure an independent external perspective in the assessment of projects, particularly by fully taking into account the rights of indigenous people and environmental protections. This principle is often applied in other areas as well. In other words, this independent external perspective is crucial.

In addition, a number of years ago, people criticized the fact that the public had trouble gaining access to and participating in the regulator's reviews.

In short, the integrated review panels were in place for many reasons. I emphasize the word “integrated” because this wasn't a duplication of efforts. It was truly done in an integrated manner, specifically to ensure better impact assessments. Once again, the better the work is done in advance, the stronger the likelihood of success later on.

We're concerned about the loss of this independent external perspective. We're now moving toward a more technical review. However—and I consider this a key point—it prevents us, if nothing else, from looking at the relevance of the projects submitted. Not every project is a good one. An impact assessment serves this purpose as well. It also helps to assess the relevance of projects and to determine whether Canadians will benefit from them, particularly in light of environmental crises.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Paul.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thanks, Mr. Ste-Marie.

Thanks to our witnesses. We appreciate your taking the time to be here and sharing your insights, but that's all the time we have for this panel, so we'll suspend and get ready for the next one.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Welcome back to meeting number six.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before you speak. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic. 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 have an earpiece. You can select the desired channel. You will be asked questions in French and English. If you need interpretation, please take a moment now to get the device set up to your satisfaction. Just as a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I'd like to welcome our last panel for today's meeting.

From the Air Canada Component of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, we have Wesley Lesosky, president.

From the Georgia Strait Alliance, we have Beatrice Frank, executive director.

From the West Coast Environmental Law Association, we have Anna Johnston, staff lawyer.

Thank you for taking the time to be with us today. Each organization will be given up to five minutes for opening remarks. Following the conclusion of all the opening remarks, I will open the floor to questions from the members.

I will start with Mr. Lesosky.

[Wesley Lesosky, President, Air Canada Component, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Excellent. Thank you, Chair.

My name is Wesley Lesosky. I'm proud to represent over 10,000 flight attendants at Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge. I'm also the president of CUPE's airline division, representing 20,000 flight attendants at 11 airlines across Canada. I've been a flight attendant for more than 25 years. I'm here today because I've seen first-hand what happens when the federal government interferes with our right to bargain collectively.

For years our union has been fighting to end the use of unpaid work in the airline industry. Flight attendants are highly trained safety professionals. We're responsible for keeping passengers safe long before they board and long after the last passenger leaves the aircraft. For decades, however, airlines have expected us to perform much of that work for free, for dozens of hours every month.

Let me tell you what that looks like in real life for one of my members at Air Canada. She works full-time but earns just $2,500 a month. She lives in Vancouver, which means almost everything she earns goes straight to paying her rent. To put food on the table, she has had to rely on food banks. Think about that.

She is far from alone. That's why we launched our “Unpaid work won't fly” campaign in 2023. We held days of action at airports across Canada and met with MPs, senators and ministers. What did the government tell us? Three consecutive labour ministers, O'Regan, MacKinnon and Hajdu, told us the same thing: Take it to the bargaining table. So we did. We brought forward proposals and made compromises with Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge, determined to fix unpaid work in the industry, but when the moment came, Air Canada simply stopped negotiating and waited out the clock.

Here's what I want this committee to understand. We had four federal mediators—four—assisting us during bargaining. None of that stopped a labour disruption. Why? Because Air Canada knew it had the federal government and section 107 in its back pocket. The CEO acknowledged on national television that the company hadn't prepared for a strike because it expected the government to use section 107 against us. The minister proved them right less than 12 hours into our strike.

Our members refused to surrender their rights. They stood their ground. Air Canada came back to the bargaining table. Within hours, we had a negotiated agreement. We made important gains on unpaid work despite government interference, not because of it, because section 107 had already tilted the scales in the employer's favour.

That's why I find the government's proposed changes in Bill C-39 so troubling. The government says it's putting guardrails around section 107. Respectfully, that's an insult to our intelligence. The bill weaponizes section 107 and makes government intervention a routine feature of collective bargaining. A mediator's report wouldn't have shamed Air Canada into bargaining in good faith if they could still count on section 107.

By contrast, at WestJet this summer, the government stayed out of the dispute. Flight attendants exercised their right to strike. Within a day, the parties reached an agreement that made real progress on unpaid work. That's how collective bargaining is supposed to work.

Mr. Chair, think again about that young flight attendant relying on a food bank to get by. For her, the right to strike for better wages isn't some abstract constitutional principle; it's the difference between living in poverty and living a life of dignity. How is she supposed to bargain for a better life when her employer knows that the government will step in to take that right away? No worker should have to fight their own government to exercise that right.

I'm asking this committee to reject the changes to section 107 in Bill C-39 and recommend its repeal. Don't make it easier for employers to avoid their responsibilities at the bargaining table. Give working people a fighting chance to build a life of dignity.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

We'll move on to Ms. Frank.

[Dr. Beatrice Frank, Executive Director, Georgia Strait Alliance]

Hi. Thank you for having me.

My name is Beatrice Frank, and I'm the executive director of the Georgia Strait Alliance. The Georgia Strait Alliance has been working over the past 35 years to protect the Salish Sea and its communities, wildlife and ecosystems. I'm here today to be the voice of the Salish Sea and what is really at stake with Bill C-39.

With the coastal link and Roberts Bank terminal 2 already approved as projects of national interest, the decisions made today will affect us on the ground.

The Salish Sea is one of the most ecologically significant and biodiverse marine ecosystems on the Pacific coast of North America. Its interconnected waters, islands, estuaries, kelp forests and eelgrass meadows create an extraordinary web of life, from plankton, forage fish and salmon to the iconic southern resident killer whales. They also support vital nutrient cycling, carbon storage and climate regulation.

However, the Salish Sea is not just an ecological treasure. For many first nations, it's central to their cultural identity, food sovereignty and traditional knowledge. It's also really important from a blue economy standpoint, as coastal communities rely on fisheries, tourism and recreation. I want to point out how it is a treasure for the environment, culture and economy. Protecting it should be in our national interest, yet we have seen over the years that the health of the Salish Sea has continued to decline. This is really visible through southern resident killer whales, which are really a warning.

Some of you may remember Tahlequah, who had a tour of grief a couple of years ago, bringing her offspring around. For sure, species may not always succeed in their reproduction, but with Tahlequah we witnessed that they are currently struggling because of the pressure that exists in the Salish Sea from a declining salmon population, underwater noise, contaminants, vessel strikes and so on. For decades, Canada has been addressing these threats but not the main cause, which is all the cumulative impacts that come through developing such a unique place like the Salish Sea.

Bill C-39 would make this a lot worse, mostly because it would recognize, for example, the Salish Sea as a region of exemption and allow for more development and more impacts, not looking at cumulative effects. It could allow for financial payments to replace project-specific fish habitat offsetting. The Salish Sea and the Fraser River estuary could be offset, but do they have monetary value, and can they be offset? Existing approvals could allow work to start before assessment is finalized, and could even take away some conditions. We have, for example, an assessment for RBT2, but will it still be valid?

Finally, Bill C-39 would make some powers last forever. We don't know what will happen in our generation, not even what will happen in the next. This bill will make these powers permanent and remove power from the next government for change.

To be clear, I'm not opposed to streamlining. I see a legitimate case for making better approval processes, yet they should not be coming with shortcuts. I would say also that it's disheartening to see that this bill doesn't consider a mitigation hierarchy that really talks about how we should look at developing and making Canada strong. We should avoid impacts, minimize unavoidable impacts, restore affected ecosystems and allow offsets as a last resort.

Today, I'm the voice of the Salish Sea, but I could be the voice of many other places across Canada that are really concerned about unique places that have made Canadians proud and that make us who we are. We have here the opportunity to shape the legacy that future generations can be proud of and that we'll inherit. I'm really hoping that you will look at what your responsibility is today and take the opportunity to reject this bill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Ms. Johnston, we'll finish with you.

[Anna Johnston, Staff Lawyer, West Coast Environmental Law Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable committee members.

I appreciate the invitation to appear this evening.

I have heard repeated claims that Bill C-39 does not lower environmental standards. With the utmost respect, I disagree.

Allowing ministers to weaken or remove conditions of approval that previous counterparts deemed necessary to protect the environment from significant harm or to safeguard public health and safety is a lowering of an environmental standard.

Permitting the Canada Energy Regulator to bypass cabinet approvals by exempting pipelines of any length from environmental and safety reviews and the need to seek cabinet approval opens the door to risky pipelines receiving rubber stamps, and that is a lower environmental standard.

Shortening decision timelines to one year undermines the ability to gather and analyze information about projects' effects, offer the public the chance to have a meaningful say and ensure the Crown is respecting and upholding indigenous rights, and that is a lower standard.

Allowing the minister to withhold relevant information about conditions documents for 30 days after issuing them could interfere with the ability to seek judicial review of those documents, because the Federal Courts Act establishes a 30-day time limit on applications for judicial review, and those applications must set out the grounds for the review. Undermining the ability to hold governments to account in the courts significantly lowers the standard, both for environmental protection and for democracy.

Authorizing pay-to-slay schemes and tipping the scales further in favour of proponent convenience and cost savings lowers the standard.

Also, allowing the minister to delegate his power to issue and amend conditions documents to public servants will take what is already a tremendous concentration of power and undermine the public's ability to hold elected officials to account. That, too, lowers the standard.

Finally, giving cabinet the power to designate entire zones of any size in which any and all projects could be automatically approved and their permits guaranteed even if they have not met legal requirements is not just a lowering of environmental standards; it's an abdication of them.

In the ring of fire, every mine, transmission line, road and other project in a 5,000-square-kilometre expanse could be eligible for automatic approval, even if they will cause effects so significant that they are banned by law.

The act will require the minister to issue all permits in the form of conditions documents, which will be deemed to meet legal standards, effectively circumventing the court's ability to review the reasonableness of decisions and the triggers for the duty to consult.

Bill C-39 will bring in an unprecedented dismantling of our environmental law safety net and is on dubious constitutional ground. What is more, it flies in the face of known ways to improve the efficiency of environmental decision-making while maintaining environmental standards. It's all but guaranteed to stoke civil unrest and tie projects up in the courts.

Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act, is already the subject of two lawsuits challenging its constitutionality. Just on Friday, the Pacific link pipeline and tankers project was challenged by nine first nations, joining a 10th first nation challenging it on section 35 grounds.

Environmental laws aren't red tape. They are a safety net. They're also a foundation of democratic decision-making and an integral means of helping fulfill the Crown's duty to consult and uphold the rights of indigenous peoples.

Bill C-39 shreds that safety net. It's at odds with the principles of informed decision-making, the need for precaution and Canada's commitments to reconciliation. For these reasons, it is unsalvageable, and I urge this committee to delete all of part 1.

If that option is not on the table, we have identified amendments, as my colleague Ms. Levin at Environmental Defence said, to mitigate some of the worst harms the bill will bring in. We've included these in our written brief, and I would be happy to speak to them in response to questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

We will now open the floor to questions, starting with Mr. Seeback for six minutes.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lesosky, it's nice to see you again.

I thought I'd start by briefly talking about.... You talked about your fight for unpaid work. When Minister Hajdu was here last week, I questioned her about it, and she was very happy to let me know that the first government investigation into this concluded that there was no unpaid work. She said that there might have been underpaid work. I thought I'd pass that answer on to you.

What I think is particularly important for the committee to hear, though, is that you were able to get an agreement not because of section 107 but despite section 107. You actually had to defy the order of the minister to end your strike in order to get Air Canada back to the bargaining table to get a deal. Is that correct?

[Wesley Lesosky]

Yes, that is correct.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

When you look at what is happening with this legislation, the government seems to think that this special mediator delivering a report will suddenly create this wave of good-faith bargaining, and I know you're suspicious of that, as have been many unions who have come. I'm suspicious of it as well.

I think the most troubling part for me was when I asked her what would happen if the special mediator delivered a report saying the employer was bargaining in bad faith, that surely then the use of section 107 would be off the table. She did not agree with that statement. An employer could just bargain in bad faith and then continue to rely on the government to use section 107. There would be no guardrail on the use of section 107. What are your thoughts on that?

[Wesley Lesosky]

I think that's our biggest concern. Having section 107 lingering in the background means it's still going to be used or still available to be used, which allows the employer to not bargain in good faith or take the necessary steps to come to the table in good faith. I think you've hit the nail on the head.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

They try to say that this new national interest test and various other things are guardrails, but when I asked the minister, I said that it sounds like these are the things you would have looked at before you used section 107. It doesn't seem to me that it's really any improvement. It's sort of like writing down that this is the process we went through when we decided to use section 107. That's not a guardrail; that's just putting in some explanatory notes. That's what it seems like to me.

[Wesley Lesosky]

To answer that, it's just delaying in the process to get to the end. You're correct. It's a whole bunch of hurdles that you can get through just to get to the end result of a minister's possibly using section 107, again interfering with the process of free collective bargaining.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I've been talking to a number of unions that have come here. I think there is a role for a special mediator, but I think that the special mediator has to have special powers other than just putting together a report. Would you be interested in a special mediator having some additional powers, for example, setting times when the parties have to sit down and bargain, being able to call evidence, asking for documents and compelling anyone to attend the mediation who they think would be helpful in getting to a collective agreement? What would your thoughts be on those?

[Wesley Lesosky]

I think we'd be open to any possibilities when it comes to mediation, but we have to remember that we had four federally appointed mediators assisting us at Air Canada. We weren't necessarily lacking mediation resources or opportunities to negotiate.

The problem was that the employer believed that the government would interfere before it had to make the compromise necessary to reach an agreement. Mediation works only when both sides have a reason to reach a deal. When Air Canada knew that the government would eventually impose one.... You can put as many mediators in a room as you want and have all different reflections on that, but it just won't change the fundamental imbalance.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Let's talk a bit about section 107. If you were to think about some guardrails on section 107, and I can think of a couple.... You probably remember that the original section 107 referral by the Liberal government was by the WestJet mechanics. This was, I think, in 2023 or 2022. The referral didn't explicitly require the CIRB to end the strike. The CIRB exercised their discretion not to do that. In fact, they ended up getting a deal.

It's a little bit similar to your circumstance. Would you support an amendment that would give the CIRB the discretion to not enforce the back-to-work order if they didn't think it was justified?

[Wesley Lesosky]

That's a hard question for me to answer. I know that, from my position and what I went through, I don't support having section 107 as an available tool.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

That's right, but if you added an independent body that could look into it in addition to the minister, don't you think that would be useful?

[Wesley Lesosky]

You're saying to open it up so that it's not just the minister who is the sole person—

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Yes, the CIRB could say, “Thank you for the referral, minister, but I don't think it's met any kind of test that would require an end to the strike, and therefore we're not going to follow that part of the order.”

[Wesley Lesosky]

I'm sure it's something we would be interested in reviewing and looking through, depending on what the parameters would be. It would definitely have to be something that would be a stopgap and not just, again, a process that one could go through that could be overruled. You know what I'm getting at there.