House of Commons Hansard #146 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was project.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Opposition Motion—Diesel Prices Members debate a Conservative motion for emergency diesel tax relief, faster approvals for fuel infrastructure, and a goal of producing one million barrels of diesel daily. Conservatives argue high fuel costs burden farmers, truckers and consumers, while greater domestic production would improve affordability and energy security. Liberals cite existing temporary tax relief and long-term infrastructure plans, cautioning that global markets shape prices and refineries cannot provide immediate relief. Bloc members favour targeted assistance and question whether broad tax cuts benefit consumers or oil companies. 50600 words, 6 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Alleged Premature Disclosure of Information Concerning Bill C-39 Members debate whether government briefings on a west coast pipeline update and Bill C-39 raise a question of privilege, with the government arguing established precedents show MPs were not obstructed in their duties. 800 words.
Youth Criminal Justice Act Report stage of Bill C-231. The bill amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act to let authorities refer young people facing criminal proceedings to treatment, and allow courts in some cases to defer sentencing or make treatment a condition of an order. Its scope includes problematic substance use and other treatment, such as mental health programs, to support rehabilitation and reintegration. 7900 words, 1 hour.
Building Canada Strong Act Second reading of Bill C-39. The bill proposes to coordinate and accelerate major-project reviews, strengthen trade corridors and ports, digitize trade processes, and amend federal labour rules. Supporters say it can reduce duplication and attract investment while maintaining safeguards; critics question the one-year timeline, expanded cabinet discretion and exemptions for regions of national interest, and warn of risks to environmental protections, Indigenous rights, workers’ strike rights and parliamentary scrutiny. 44000 words, 5 hours.
Alleged Premature Disclosure of Bill C-40 Andrew Scheer alleges that media reports disclose specific provisions of Bill C-40 before its introduction, breaching members’ parliamentary privileges, and asks the Speaker to find a prima facie contempt of the House. 1200 words.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, so many of these large projects actually benefit U.S. companies and continue to send Canadian products to the U.S. I am wondering if there is any screen or filter of which the member is aware within government that ensures that before projects of national interest are announced, there is an analysis of this in advance.
Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, ON
Mr. Speaker, projects will be analyzed, and it is important that we use Canadian materials to build, because that is what is going to help build a stronger Canada. We must build faster and build with Canadian products. That is of the utmost importance, and we will make sure that these projects involve Canadian products.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39 is a 231-page omnibus bill. It is legislation that claims to build Canada faster, but beneath the language are serious questions about who gets power, who gets certainty and who bears the risk. The government says this bill respects indigenous rights, protects workers and maintains environmental standards, but the details tell a different story.
On indigenous rights, consultation is being compressed into a process designed to meet the government's one-year timeline, as though section 35 rights and treaty obligations can simply be fit into a project management schedule. On the environment, economic development is being prioritized in the name of speed, while safeguards are being weakened. On workers' rights, the bill preserves significant federal power to unfairly intervene in labour disputes after workers have exercised their constitutionally protected right to strike.
We have to ask ourselves a simple question: For whom is it faster, and who benefits from that speed? This legislation is about much more than construction timelines. It is about power: power for corporations, power for investors, power for government ministers and increasingly power over workers.
Let me begin with workers. The government says this bill would provide greater protection for workers, yet section 107 of the Labour Code preserves a significant federal power to intervene in labour disputes after workers have exercised their right to strike. The government describes the changes in Bill C-39 as putting guardrails around that power, but organized labour condemns the legislation and has described it as trampling on the rights of workers.
CUPE national president Mark Hancock put it plainly: Gutting hard-won rights and protections for workers will not create certainty; it will do the opposite. Workers are not an obstacle to building Canada. Workers are team Canada. The people who operate our ports are team Canada. The people who move our railways are team Canada. Flight attendants, pilots, mechanics, telecommunications workers, postal workers and countless others are team Canada. They are the people who make our economy possible.
The right to strike exists because workers need leverage. An individual worker cannot negotiate with a multinational corporation on equal terms. Collective bargaining changes that balance, and the right to strike gives collective bargaining real economic force. Most workers do not strike because it is convenient. They lose wages. They put pressure on their families. They take real economic risks. A strike is generally a last resort, and that is precisely why it is effective.
The government's own briefing says that approximately 95% of labour disputes in federally regulated sectors are resolved without a work stoppage. If the system already resolves the overwhelming majority of disputes without strikes, why should the answer be to expand extraordinary government intervention for the remaining 5%? The government has already used section 107 in disputes involving Air Canada, WestJet, ports, rail and postal workers.
This bill risks turning exceptional government intervention into an increasingly normalized part of collective bargaining, and that changes the bargaining relationship. If an employer knows that the government may intervene when a strike creates significant economic pressure, the employer has less incentive to reach a deal at the bargaining table. That weakens workers' leverage, and it raises a fundamental question about the phrase “national interest”.
A strike at a port disrupts cargo. A railway strike may disrupt supply chains. An airline strike may disrupt travel. Economic disruption is also the mechanism through which workers gain bargaining leverage. If economic disruption becomes the basis for the government's intervention, then the more effective a strike is, the greater the pressure to intervene. That is precisely why this provision would remove the incentive for management to bargain fairly at the negotiating table. This supposed safeguard would not eliminate the underlying power.
This is not simply a labour issue. It is a question about democracy, because democracy does not stop at the door of the workplace. Workers deserve rights and meaningful power at the bargaining table. They deserve safe workplaces, protection from misclassification and wage theft, strong labour standards and a properly resourced Canada Industrial Relations Board. They also deserve a right to strike that is meaningful in practice, not simply protected in principle.
No union leader called for this. In fact, they are demanding that the government repeal section 107. Instead of moving forward with this, the government should support the member for Winnipeg Centre's private member's bill, Bill C-247, to repeal section 107.
Let me now turn to the environment. The government says Canada needs to build faster. We agree. Canada needs housing, renewable energy, transmission and grid infrastructure, public transit and clean manufacturing, but environmental laws are not red tape. They are the safeguards that allow governments to determine whether a project is actually in the public interest before irreversible damage occurs. An impact assessment asks basic questions: What happens to the water? What happens to wildlife? What happens to communities? What happens to indigenous rights? What happens to human health? What happens to the climate? Those are not bureaucratic obstacles. They are the due diligence of a responsible government.
Bill C-39 would impose a one-year timeline on major project approvals, create regions of national interest, shift responsibility for pipeline assessments to the Canada Energy Regulator, allow certain preparatory construction activities before final approval and give ministers a greater ability to amend project conditions. The government says environmental standards would remain in place, but a complex project does not become less complex because the government puts a 12-month deadline on it, and an environmental risk does not disappear because the approval process has been pushed through a 12-month deadline. The government cannot make nature move faster. It cannot make a damaged ecosystem recover faster, and it cannot reverse ecological destruction once it happens. There is no undo button for extinction, contaminated water or a destroyed ecosystem. That is why the precautionary principle matters.
Consider the Roberts Bank terminal 2 example. The project went through a federal review with conditions intended to mitigate impacts on the southern resident killer whale. Environmental organizations have raised concerns that the new framework could permit conditions on projects of national interest to be modified or removed. That should make every member of the House ask this: If a condition was imposed to protect an endangered population, under what circumstances should a minister be able to remove it after approval? Who bears the risk if that protection is weakened? It would not be the minister or the corporation sitting in the boardroom. The risk would be borne by ecosystems, communities and future generations. This is not responsible nation building. It is transferring risk from powerful economic actors to the public. The same concern applies to allowing certain preparatory work before the final project decision.
Why begin altering the landscape before we have determined whether the project should proceed? Once construction begins, the political and economic pressure to finish becomes enormous. An assessment that is supposed to determine whether a project should proceed risks becoming an exercise in managing a project that has already begun. That is not simply speeding up decision-making. It risks changing the nature of the decision itself.
Then there are indigenous rights. The government says consultation requirements remain in place and that a Crown consultation hub would coordinate the process, but there is an enormous difference between streamlining administration and compressing rights. Indigenous rights cannot be reduced to another item on a project management timeline. Free, prior and informed consent cannot mean that we have 12 months, so please get on with it. Consultation must be meaningful, must be informed and must happen before decisions are locked in. Indigenous nations must have a meaningful role in decisions affecting their lands, rights and territories. This is not an obstacle to building Canada. It is part of building Canada properly. If the government is serious about reconciliation, indigenous consultation cannot be treated as another regulatory hurdle that gets in the way and is called red tape.
Kody Blois LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Madam Speaker, obviously, there would be areas where my hon. colleague and I would disagree, and that is part of a democracy. The member talked about the importance, which the NDP recognized, that we have to move faster, yet she really did not identify any elements of the bill that she thought might actually be helpful in doing that in this really important moment for the country.
The member talked a lot about labour. I see elements that I think are important: allowing collective bargaining, and really requiring it under the Labour Code, to start after six months, as opposed to four months, where parties could not have an agreement, and additional federal resources.
I understand that broadly she does not seem to be supportive on this bill. Is there something she can identify objectively, to tell Canadians and her own constituents, that she does agree with in this bill? Is there anything that she can actually point to and say she thinks is a good idea?
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Madam Speaker, what I said was that Canada does need to build infrastructure, and what I said was that we need to build infrastructure that benefits the people. I asked a question about who has the power, who benefits and who takes the risks. This bill would put all the risks on the community, on the environment and on indigenous people, and at the expense of the government saying that it wants to build faster. However, we cannot undo extinction. When we take away labour rights, constitutionally protected rights in our charter, and when the government wields its power under this bill to override people's right to strike, it tells employers everything they need to know, which is that they do not need to bargain fairly at the negotiating table, and that is wrong.
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the member for Vancouver East for her presentation today, being from British Columbia. She is always a thoughtful member.
The Minister of Justice and the justice department have a mandatory requirement to table a charter statement on every piece of government legislation. We have seen it with other major bills, and obviously this touches on freedom of association and workers' rights. Does the member believe that, before the special legislative committee is formed for Bill C-39, the Minister of Justice must ensure that there is tabled in the House a charter statement so we can see what the justice department believes in terms of the balance of Bill C-39, particularly when it comes to section 107?
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Madam Speaker, indeed the government should be tabling that important information pertaining to Bill C-39, but not just to Bill C-39. There have been many occasions when parliamentarians and Canadians have the right to know what sorts of legal assessments have been undertaken. With section 107, when the government puts a provision in Bill C-39 that is basically to override workers' constitutional right to strike, what does that mean in the courts? What is the government's legal analysis? In the same vein, has there been legal analysis done with respect to indigenous rights?
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Madam Speaker, we can understand the need to sometimes conduct multiple simultaneous reviews to speed up projects, as long as the reviews are being done. However, that is not what we are seeing with this bill. Instead, the government can pre-approve a project, and the project can move forward while the reviews are being carried out, which means that a pipeline can be built even though the reviews have not been completed. That is crazy.
How can the government tell us that it is important for reviews to be done more efficiently, while at the same time pre-approving projects that will cause significant harm to health, human safety and the environment, and allowing the project to go ahead without a review?
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Madam Speaker, that is exactly the point that I had raised in my speech. The government is saying that it is building faster, that this is all in the national interest and that somehow magically it will protect the environment, yet it would do preemptive approvals before the work is done. As indicated, we cannot actually undo the damage. The ecosystem will not fix itself. Extinction will not disappear, because the government violated that provision in safeguarding the environment.
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Madam Speaker, as fall sets in here in the House of Commons, one bill is set to authorize the destruction of the environment in Quebec and Canada, at the whim of 28 people, namely, the Carney government's cabinet. Bill C-39 does a lot of things, but I will focus on what I think is the most dangerous one: From now on, authorization will be given to destroy the environment not only for projects of national interest, but also for entire regions, regions of national interest.
Some might say that I am exaggerating, but I am not. I will give some examples of what Bill C‑39 will do. Let us say that the government wants to launch a nickel mining project, a project that will destroy fish habitat. Destroying fish habitat is prohibited under section 35 of the Fisheries Act. However, if the government decides that the nickel mining project is in a region of national interest, there will be no problem, and the nickel mining project can proceed. Authorization under section 35 of the Fisheries Act will no longer be required. That is what Bill C‑39 proposes.
I will give another example. Let us say that there is a proposal to launch an electricity transmission line project. The problem is that the line will jeopardize species that are already at risk. Take, for example, the Gaspé caribou, the warbler, the red knot, the lark and the plover. All of these species are currently on the list of species at risk set out in the Species at Risk Act. Well, if the electricity transmission line is located in a region of national interest, as determined by the 28 members of the Carney government's cabinet, then there is no problem. Normally, a proponent would not be permitted to move forward with such a project under the Species at Risk Act—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
I would remind the member that he cannot refer to members, including the Prime Minister, by name.
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Madam Speaker, thank you for calling me to order. You were quite right to do so.
If the current government decides that this electricity transmission line project is located in a region of national interest, then itcan go ahead under Bill C-39, even if the project will jeopardize a species at risk or lead to that species' extinction and would have normally been prohibited.
Let us look at another example. Let us say that someone wants to build a liquefied gas terminal, but the construction plans involve dumping waste into the ocean. Normally, that would be prohibited under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, part of which prohibits the disposal of certain substances at sea. However, if the government of the day decides that this liquefied gas terminal is located in a region of national interest, then there is no problem. The proponent would not need to get any authorization and would be exempt from these environmental protection laws.
I have one last example to illustrate my point. Let us consider a pipeline project. Unfortunately, the construction of the pipeline would release substances that are harmful to migratory birds. Normally, this is prohibited under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994. That act prohibits the release of substances harmful to migratory birds, but if the pipeline is in a region of national interest, as defined by the current government, there will be no problem. Before, there were projects of national interest, and now regions of national interest have been added. Anything inside these regions will be exempt from obtaining authorizations under the Migratory Birds Convention Act. That is a radical departure.
That is why I am saying today that Bill C-39 seeks to authorize the destruction of the environment in Quebec and Canada, at cabinet's discretion. The next question is about what constitutes a region of national interest. I have read Bill C-39, and I saw that clause 96(2) defines a region of national interest as “a region named in Schedule 3”. I found Schedule 3. It exists, but there is nothing about that in it. There is nothing in Schedule 3. There is just the heading “Regions of National Interest”. The regions have not been identified yet because the government, meaning cabinet, will decide later which regions are of national interest. Twenty-eight people will decide that in Canada, and especially in Quebec in my case, there are sectors where people will be able to do all the things I just criticized.
Some people will tell me that they have to base it on something. That is sort of true, because there are some factors in the bill. The government's ability to allow itself flexibility and discretion on a scale bigger than this chamber is admirable. The bill says that to establish whether a region is a region of national interest, the government may consider any factor it deems relevant. I want to emphasize the word “may”. It is not even required to do that. That is a loophole as big as the Earth. Still, the government is kind enough to give us certain guidelines and include certain criteria in the bill, including the one I am going to talk about because it is unbelievably broad. It is the condition requiring the project to provide economic or other benefits.
The discretion this government is getting, allowing it to authorize the destruction of the environment, is mind-boggling. It is mind-boggling and disturbing.
What will happen when the government decides that a region is a region of national interest? I want to point out that it is not clear what criteria the government plans to use. I also look forward to hearing government members explain why their region should be a region of national interest.
I want to come back to the fact that several laws no longer apply. I mentioned the Fisheries Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, and the Canada Transportation Act, for example. It used to be that an application for authorization was necessary to build a railway, but that will no longer be the case. I talked about the Canada Marine Act, which governs public ports and the St. Lawrence Seaway. It will no longer be necessary in regions of national interest. Part 7, Division 3 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which deals with disposal at sea, is being set aside. The Species at Risk Act is being disregarded because development is the priority. The Impact Assessment Act and relevant regulations, like the migratory bird sanctuary regulations, the wildlife area regulations and the marine mammal regulations, are also being shoved aside. Clearly, these laws must have been completely useless. That is what Bill C‑39 does.
We do not know what constitutes a region of national interest. What we do know is that, once a region is designated as being of national interest, all of those laws, and several others I have not mentioned, cease to apply. The bill effectively assumes that all necessary approvals and authorizations are already in place for projects located in such regions.
I will conclude by saying that the irony is that 28 people will define what constitutes the national interest of Quebec and Canada, even though it will result in the destruction of the environment. I believe that Quebec's national interest lies in ensuring that economic development does not come at the expense of the environment. We can grow our economy without compromising our habitats, fish habitats and endangered species. We can develop our economy while keeping future generations in mind. Unfortunately, Bill C-39 deviates from that. We are heading towards destructive economic development. That is why we will be voting against the bill.
Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Madam Chair, my colleague is painting a rather alarmist picture. Looking at the bill, we see that the designation of regions of national interest will not be as broad as he says. When a new region of national interest is to be established, a study has to be conducted under the Impact Assessment Act. This study will be used to clearly delineate the geographic area and determine what types of projects can be pre-approved.
There is a duty to consult with indigenous communities. There are environmental impact assessments. Once the region is identified, pre-approved projects can be rolled out. If new projects that could have an impact on the environment are proposed, they will have to go through an assessment process. I think the existing process shows that we can do two things at once: develop the economy and conitnue to conduct thorough assessments.
I would like to ask my colleague whether he read the clause that clearly states that additional projects not addressed in the initial assessment must undergo environmental impact assessments.
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who represents a riding next to mine, for his well-researched question.
Environmental assessments will have to be done beforehand, but it is up to cabinet to designate a region as being of national interest. The legislation says it may do so based on whatever factors it considers useful or relevant. A token assessment will be done beforehand, but ultimately, cabinet will act as it sees fit in determining what is in the national interest and what a region of national interest is. What is likely to happen is that projects, perhaps situated between our two ridings in our magnificent Chaleur Bay, could move forward with no consideration of the impact on fish habitat. As everyone knows, industrial development projects are in the works for Belledune. There are fishers in my riding, and I want to protect them.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with the speech from the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj.
Bill C-39, and also part of the first Bill C-5, destroyed environmental laws and indigenous rights. There is currently no definition of what constitutes a region of national interest or a project of national interest.
Does my colleague have any comment about that?
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that excellent question. I have no comment. I am simply overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of this discretionary power.
Section 4.1 of Bill C-5 states that cabinet will, by order, define what is in the national interest. Those 28 cabinet ministers were going to tell us that. However, that order was never issued. Before even defining what the national interest is, the government is going even further by telling us, in Bill C-39, that it used to be projects of national interest, but now it will be regions of national interest.
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech made it clear what is happening. The government is going to select a project. Evidently, the project will create a lot of pollution, exceeding the levels set out in environmental laws. The government will then decide to designate a region around it to exempt that project from environmental laws.
I think my colleague is being very kind to the government. I think he is being magnanimous toward the government. He is talking about a 28‑person cabinet. Since the arrival of the new Prime Minister, we have seen that this government is a one-man show. We are talking about 28 ministers whom the Prime Minister can fire at will.
Does my colleague really think that 28 ministers will be consulted, or does he think that, at the end of the day, it will be the private interests that have a voice in the Prime Minister's Office that will ultimately get projects approved?
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Madam Speaker, I believe my colleague has a lot of political experience, and his comment is informed by his observations of what is going on.
The Prime Minister will define what is in the national interest and what constitutes a region of national interest. Those that gain his favour, if I may put it that way, will enjoy a special legislative regime that requires relatively few approvals. Meanwhile—and this is something the Conservatives do not talk about much—all other individuals and businesses in Canada will have to continue to undergo assessments that, in my opinion, are justified, though not without room for improvement.
Colin Reynolds Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Madam Speaker, it is with great honour that I rise in the House today to speak on behalf of the hard-working people of Elmwood—Transcona. Before I was elected as a member of Parliament, I was a construction electrician for 20 years. I hung up my tools a few days before the election, but I have not left that world behind. To this day, I am proud to serve as the sitting vice-president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2085 in Manitoba. As I speak in the House today, I bring the perspective of someone who has spent my life putting on my boots and picking up my tools every day to earn a living and support my family.
Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, is a large, omnibus-style bill. The Liberal government says the goal is to speed up projects in major infrastructure, natural resources and transportation, but buried inside this large bill are proposed major changes to the Canada Labour Code. The Liberal government has brought together many policy updates and put them all into one bill that would affect the relationship among workers, employers and the federal government.
Canada needs to build. We need more infrastructure, more investments and more well-paying jobs, but how we treat the people who are actually behind building this country matters a lot and should be a priority.
Bill C-39 would make many changes to the federal labour law. The Liberal government says these changes are meant to modernize the Canada Labour Code, strengthen collective bargaining and help employers and employees find solutions to disagreements before they become major labour conflicts.
The changes that are part of the bill include proposing a new position for a special mediator who would step in during hard negotiations and report directly to the minister, which would create more opportunities for the government to become involved earlier in difficult bargaining relationships instead of letting employees and employers work out their disagreements together. This would open up another opportunity for the government to become involved in the bargaining process. The bill would add more access to federal involvement when workers and employers are trying to negotiate their first agreement.
There would also be changes dealing with multi-employer bargaining and expedited grievances. This would add more processes and responsibility to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. The bill also proposes a modification to paid medical leave, adding 100 health and safety officers and increasing the CIRB capacity by adding 26 staff members.
These would be significant changes. However, proposed alterations in the bill to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, and what effect these would have on employee and employer relationships, deserve special attention. Section 107 is not new. It has been part of the Canada Labour Code for decades, since 1984. Right now, section 107 gives the minister very broad authority in decision-making. It lets the minister, when they consider it necessary, take steps to maintain or secure industrial peace and promote conditions to help solve disagreements. The minister can also direct the CIRB to take the measures the minister considers necessary. The new proposed changes continue to make vague statements about the situations and power the minister holds.
With the proposed implementation of Bill C-39, these are the steps that would have to take place when a disagreement happens between employees and employers. A special mediator would have to be appointed and complete their work within 21 days. The mediator would write a report to the minister. The minister would then have to give an opinion on whether a strike or a work stoppage would be a significant worry to the national interest. The minister could then direct the CIRB to order workers back to work, extend an existing collective agreement or establish a binding dispute resolution.
However, the minister would still be the one deciding what the national interest is. The minister should not be given any more power to intervene in a lawful dispute. This is because the power would affect and change collective bargaining directly. The right to strike is one of the main forms of leverage that workers have during negotiations and it is a constitutional right. If this is taken away, the balance of bargaining changes. The “What We Heard—Building Canada Strong for All” report explains that collective bargaining works in most cases, saying that 95% of the time, “collective agreements are reached without a work stoppage.”
The Conservative Party supports workers' rights to organize democratically by bargaining collectively and peacefully withdrawing their services if necessary. Section 107, with and without the changes proposed by Bill C-39, allows the government to step in and stop lawful strikes. This directly affects workers' right to strike and to negotiate a fair agreement.
The Liberal government claims that section 107 would only be used in exceptional circumstances. While section 107 of the Canada Labour Code has been implemented for over 40 years, it was not normally used as a mechanism for ending lawful strikes. Since 2024, the Liberal government has used section 107 routinely to end major strikes and impose arbitration. The Liberals have involved themselves with WestJet, the Canadian National Railway, CPKC, the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, west coast ports, the Port of Montreal, the Port of Quebec, Canada Post, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and most recently Air Canada. Many of these interventions were challenged by unions in court.
The Canadian Labour Congress and other organizations have argued that the recent use of section 107 undermines the workers' right to strike and weakens collective bargaining in good faith. Many unions and organizations have spoken about the restrictions on the right to strike and wanting these restrictions removed. The Canadian Union of Public Employees recently made a claim against the Liberal government's Bill C-39, highlighting that the right to strike is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bill would attack Canadian workers' ability to negotiate by taking away the right to fair collective bargaining.
Section 107 causes issues in the bargaining and negotiation process. Without a proper collective bargaining process, employers do not take bargaining seriously because they know the government will step in during a work stoppage. Government intervention can remove the leverage workers have at the bargaining table and encourage employers to wait for the government to intervene instead of reaching an agreement fairly. These are serious consequences that are possible with implementing this bill. Continuing to make significant Labour Code changes in a large bill without properly considering the negative impacts would have a negative effect on Canadian workers and their rights. The government should create conditions for workers to negotiate, not become the negotiator.
Bill C-39 is not just about labour. It would also make substantial changes to Canada's project approval and environmental framework. Bill C-39 would change how environmental decisions are made under federal law. The bill proposes one single federal project decision where there are currently separate federal decisions. It would create a one-year federal review timeline. It would give certain agencies, like the Canada Energy Regulator and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, a larger role in leading reviews for projects in their field. It would also give the environment minister new authority to allow prep work to begin before a final decision if the minister considers it in the public interest and follows certain conditions. The Liberal government does not have the best track record of picking winners and losers.
Additionally, there would be changes to the Species at Risk Act, the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Navigable Waters Act. The Liberal government argues that environmental assessment requirements would remain in place and would respect indigenous rights. However, environmental organizations have raised concerns. World Wildlife Fund Canada, Canada's largest international conservation organization, explains that faster approvals must still be able to provide safeguards for species and ecosystems, and that the proposed changes could weaken environmental protections.
Bill C-39 contains many objectives that Canadians understand. We do need a labour relations system that lets employers and employees reach sustainable agreements. The government should create a system that encourages bargaining instead of encouraging the parties to depend on the government when negotiations become difficult. The government should propose a national interest test that is objective and should listen to workers and employers who are actually living under these rules. Collective bargaining is not the enemy of economic growth. It is part of a working labour market. Workers have a right to bargain and employers have a right to negotiate. The government's role should be to establish fair rules.
I leave members with this question: Is an omnibus bill really the right tool we want to use to make so many significant changes without proper consideration and consultation?
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I have a couple of points, followed by a question.
If we take a look at my home province of Manitoba, the Government of Manitoba, through the Manitoba Labour Board, has instructed health care workers to go back to work. That is happening because Manitoba deemed those workers as essential services.
If we take a look at section 107, which the member made reference to, what I do not fully understand is what in section 107 has changed that would prevent the minister from doing something now. When I look at it, it seems to me that there is more accountability with the changes in the legislation, because the minister can do the things through section 107 today that the member is making reference to.
Can the member provide some clarification on why he feels more threatened now under section 107? What has changed?
Colin Reynolds Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Madam Speaker, I do not think it is more of a threat. It is about the Liberals' use of section 107, which has been in place for 40 years. It was not used by previous governments, but over the last two years, it has been used seven or eight times.
The issue is not about being more accountable. The issue is that one person gets to decide, and it is not an act of Parliament that would put workers back to work. I think most Canadians respect that process, but that process has not been used by the government in the last several years.
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to take a brief step back and remind my colleague that Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney, who was considered one of the most pro-environment prime ministers, signed the Convention on Biological Diversity on Canada's behalf.
What does my colleague think of Bill C‑39, which will allow projects located in regions of national interest to move forward even if they put species at risk?
Colin Reynolds Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Madam Speaker, I think the biggest issue we are discussing is the fact that the major changes in approving national interest projects are all going to be made at the hands of a minister and at one person's discretion. I think having all of these major changes coming forward in an omnibus bill is not the right approach to making such critical changes to our country's legislation.
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's intervention here today. He has brought a perspective that is rather refreshing.
The other member from Winnipeg, on the Liberal side, was talking about section 107. In particular, he was asking what Conservatives might take issue with, saying there are lots of limiting factors. In that provision, essentially, the government gets to decide what is in the national interest without actually defining what it is.
The issue I wanted to bring up is under section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act. The Minister of Justice is legally required to table a charter statement for every single government bill. I have looked on the website, and it is not there. Does the member believe the government should table it before the special legislative committee begins its work on Bill C-39 so that all Canadians can see what the justice department thinks of the changes proposed in Bill C-39 when it comes to labour?
Colin Reynolds Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree with my colleague.