Andréanne Larouche

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 10 wordsI rise again this evening to speak to Bill C‑39, ProcedureClaims · 34 wordswhich, I would remind the House, represents a crushing setback for workers’ rights, the environment and democracy. In short, it weakens workers’ rights, limits the right to strike and represents a major step backwards, Procedure · 6 wordsas I said, for workers’ rights.Procedure Claims · 61 wordsIt pre-approves projects by turning the environmental assessment process for pipelines and nuclear power into a mere afterthought.¹ It centralizes more powers in the hands of the executive branch, that is, ministers, while diminishing the role of Parliament. In addition, regardless of what some people might say, this is a mammoth bill, a nearly 250-page omnibus bill that further weakens democracy.² Positioning · 19 wordsIt feels like the Liberals are using the tariff crisis to pursue an agenda that sets society back significantly.Positioning Claims · 21 wordsWhen it comes to the environment, it is clear that these are setbacks that we will never be able to undo.Unearned certainty Positioning · 6 wordsHowever, the Bloc Québécois is resilient, PositioningPromise · 21 wordsand we will continue to fight for workers’ rights and ensure we can leave behind a healthy environment for future generations.Vague promise Procedure · 31 wordsI will speak more specifically about the setbacks to workers’ rights, then the environmental setbacks and, lastly, the democratic setbacks. First, I want to talk about the issue of workers’ rights, ProcedureClaims · 508 wordsas a number of trade unions have expressed concerns. Last week, I received a letter of objection by email from the Seafarers’ International Union of Canada.³ Just yesterday, I met with representatives from the Progressive Contractors Association of Canada, the United Steelworkers and the Canadian Labour Congress, who are deeply concerned about workers’ rights.⁴ Today, I received confirmation that members of the Centrale des syndicats du Québec are concerned and are therefore keen to participate in the work on Bill C-39.⁵ The Liberals deny it, but a red line has been crossed regarding workers’ rights to strike and to collective bargaining. There is, in fact, a consensus among the country’s trade unions that this is an affront to workers’ rights. If the amendments set out in part 3 of Bill C-39 are implemented, the proposed section 107 of the Canada Labour Code would allow the minister to consider potential economic or even social impacts when deciding whether to intervene under a vague and unrestricted criterion known as the “national interest”.⁶ This is an entirely subjective criterion. It is worth noting that, under this bill, we would be the only G7 country in which the executive branch could bring an end to the entirely legal right to strike.⁷ For example, according to the proposed section 107 set out in Bill C-39, the same general power to encourage understanding and conflict resolution is there, but it is framed by the new subsection 107(2) for ending a work stoppage. It gives the minister the express power to make an order providing for the resumption or continuation of operations, extending the term of the collective agreement, ⁸or imposing a binding method of resolving the issues in dispute.⁹ As a trigger, yes, a legal strike or lockout in progress requires a special mediator’s report to be considered, but only the minister’s opinion of the national interest counts. The problem is that the concept of the national interest has not been defined, and certain factors are not exhaustive. There is still no prior vote, but the administrative route is now explicitly codified. Concerning any potential disputes, the text would provide an express statutory basis that could undermine challenges that are based on the current interpretation. In short, this weakens the right to settlement, and the mediator is not independent, because they are appointed by the minister.¹⁰ The unions have a few questions. They want to know where the balance of power is in Bill C-39 because, no, it does not contribute to social peace and economic security. Unlike in other countries, there is no longer any accountability to the House of Commons or to elected officials. The United States was even cited as an example, where Congress has a say in a strike. Basically, the bill does not abolish section 107, ¹¹but it does sharpen the government’s weapon. The Minister of Jobs, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and all the Liberal members keep saying that the bill does not weaken the right to strike, but that is not true. Positioning · 7 wordsNothing could be further from the truth.Positioning Claims · 17 wordsThe unions are confirming that the opposite is true and maintain that, no, there are no safeguards. Procedure · 12 wordsI would also like to return to one provision regarding section 107, ProcedureClaims · 94 wordswhich is the worst attack on the right to strike and to bargain collectively. It is one of the most serious attempts to roll back decades of labour struggles in this country’s history. The right to strike is a fundamental right that is recognized by the courts and protected by freedom of association.¹² The Bloc Québécois believes that this right must never depend on the political goodwill of a federal government. In May, I spoke about Bill C‑247, ¹³which would repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code.¹⁴ We thought that bill was interesting. Procedure · 14 wordsI would like to quote a few of the things we said about it.Procedure Claims · 135 wordsWe said that section 107 “gives the Minister of Labour extremely broad powers to intervene in labour disputes in the federal jurisdiction.¹⁵ The minister can go so far as to ask the Canada Industrial Relations Board to intervene or impose any measures the minister considers necessary”.¹⁶ We also said that “the existence of section 107 directly alters the balance of power between employers and workers. It encourages employers to stick to their guns rather than bargaining in good faith. The Bloc Québécois believes that disputes should be resolved at the bargaining table first, not in ministerial offices”. That is what we said about the bill in May. We did not want premature political intervention. We also said that, since 2024 alone, “Ottawa has used section 107 to intervene in at least seven major labour disputes.”¹⁷ Procedure · 6 wordsI will give some recent examples: ProcedureClaims · 123 wordsWestJet, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific Kansas City, Air Canada, the Port of Montreal, the Port of Québec, the Port of Vancouver and Canada Post.¹⁸ What was supposed to be an exceptional power has effectively become a standard tool for managing labour disputes. More than 55,000 workers were affected by the dispute at Canada Post.¹⁹ Lastly, we said that “when a government limits a fundamental right, it should always do so openly, in front of Parliament. For a long time, when a government wanted to end a strike, it had to introduce special back-to-work legislation. This entailed a public debate, a vote by elected officials and political accountability. Section 107 circumvents this debate, this democratic process, by employing a much more low-key administrative mechanism.” Reasoning · 10 wordsA right that cannot be exercised is not a right. Procedure · 7 wordsLet us get back to Bill C‑39.Procedure Claims · 41 wordsWe said, “If the bill remains unchanged, it will harm non-unionized workers.²⁰ Compromises between employers and unions establish acceptable norms and standards across many economic sectors. Stifling the unions’ right to strike is tantamount to stifling negotiated agreements and reasonable compromises”. Positioning · 20 wordsIn short, it is more of the same. All the government is doing is releasing the minister from his responsibilities.Positioning Procedure · 5 wordsMy time is running out, ProcedureAside · 8 wordsbut I could go on for a while.Aside Procedure · 17 wordsI want to touch on the fact that this bill is a brutal setback for the environment.Procedure Claims · 58 wordsGreenpeace is even accusing the Liberal government of bulldozing nature.²¹ Last week, I attended the general meeting of Appalachian Corridor, an organization with many environmental concerns. This group needs renewed funding for land protection organizations, not a law that could lead to long-term ecological damage, higher rehabilitation costs or literally impossible repairs, and irreparable damage to our land. The ask · 6 wordsThe government needs to stop greenwashing. Claims · 27 wordsIf the mandatory deadline for environmental assessments is shortened to one year, it will not be possible to guarantee the quality and scientific integrity of the assessments.²² Positioning · 7 wordsThis is a disaster for the environment.Positioning Claims · 7 wordsThis bill is a setback for democracy. Reasoning · 26 wordsIn a liberal democracy under the rule of law, laws passed by Parliament and elected officials are essential, particularly for determining what the national interest is. Claims · 12 wordsIn Canada, laws will now be made to be suspended and circumvented. Positioning · 27 wordsAs my colleague asked earlier, what is the national interest?Positioning We get the impression that this has become more of a personal interest for the Prime Minister.Motive imputed Procedure · 3 wordsWith Bill C-39, ProcedureClaims · 60 wordsas with Bill C-5, the laws passed by Parliament over the past decades will no longer apply equally to everyone. While some development projects may continue to be subject to formal environmental assessments conducted by the Impact Assessment Agency in accordance with the Impact Assessment Act, others, such as oil, gas, ²³or nuclear projects, will be exempt from these assessments.²⁴ The ask · 14 wordsIn conclusion, I would like those affected by the bill to have a say. Claims · 32 wordsSeveral environmental groups feel that the government has not taken their comments into account. For example, the Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement is calling for Bill C-39 to be scrapped entirely.²⁵ Procedure · 9 wordsHere are a few questions that organizations are asking.Procedure The question · 22 wordsWill the one-year environmental assessments examine the impact these projects will have on greenhouse gas emissions? Will they really address climate change? Claims · 46 wordsI doubt it. The west coast oil pipeline could affect over 100 indigenous communities.²⁶ Fourteen indigenous communities, the Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement and several unions are challenging the legislation in court because they believe that the government is infringing on the right to strike.²⁷ Procedure · 10 wordsI would like to say one last thing about democracy.Procedure Claims · 33 wordsThe Canadian Civil Liberties Association has criticized the Liberals for stripping my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères’ amendment out of Bill C-39 to get rid of the five-year sunset clause on the minister’s powers.²⁸ Positioning · 18 wordsThis is starting to be a bit much. The alternative facts, disinformation and misinformation have got to stop.Positioning