Discussion · Government Orders
John Brassard Conservative
“I want the government to separate part 3 from this bill so we can vote on it on its own. Part 3 gives a single minister too much power to stop legal strikes. Labour unions oppose this, and many airline and airport workers live in my riding. We will try to change this bill in committee to protect workers' rights.”
“Madam Speaker, before I begin talking about Bill C-39, I want to wish my mom, Doreen, a very happy 80th birthday today. Earlier this evening, she was celebrating with family in Barrie. We do not have to sing happy birthday to her, because I know she will get embarrassed by it. She is a terrific lady, and I want to tell my mom I love her. The second thing I would like to say tonight before I begin is that on this day, the third anniversary of October 7 and the massacre in Israel by Hamas, I want our Jewish community in Barrie South—Innisfil to know that I am here in Ottawa thinking about them today. To the members of the Am Shalom congregation, the Chabad Jewish Centre of Barrie and Chabad Innisfil with Rabbi Kaplan, we are all thinking about them today. I know this is a difficult day for our Jewish community. I know the thoughts of all parliamentarians are with our Jewish friends all across Canada today, not just in Barrie South—Innisfil. In the time that I have, I want to focus on a couple of areas in Bill C-39. In particular, I want to focus on part 3, and I will explain what that is. I want to talk about the bureaucracy that would be created and the apparent lack of transparency and accountability that this bill would create, given the scope of ministerial power it allows. As I said in a previous intervention, all is not well in Oz. The Emerald City is restless; there are many people who are dissenting against what Bill C-39 represents. Among those dissenters are labour organizations that have fought for generations for the types of gains they have had through the collective bargaining process. As a proud former member and president of a firefighters association, the International Association of Fire Fighters, I believe in the collective bargaining process. I believe that negotiation is the best way to get a deal, not necessarily government intervention, which we have seen a lot of over the past several years with the Liberal government. There are many labour unions that have come out and spoken against what the bill represents. Bill C-39 is an omnibus bill. By bringing it forward in the way that the Liberals have, they are effectively trying to force the opposition to support the bill in an all-or-nothing scenario. Earlier, we called for the Liberals to separate out part 3 of Bill C-39 for obvious reasons, as it is the most contentious part of the legislation, so that it could be scrutinized and voted on separately and not be part of this omnibus piece of legislation. As I said earlier, there have been several labour organizations that have spoken out against the proposed changes in part 3, particularly those involved in federally regulated industries, including those of airline employees, airport workers, rail workers and dock workers. Many of them have spoken out about this. The charge has really been led by the Canadian Labour Congress. In a document that it produced, it said that Bill C-39 would effectively give the Canadian government the broadest strike intervention powers in the entire G7. Not only has the Canadian Labour Congress come out but so too has the International Trade Union Confederation; United Steelworkers; CUPE; Unifor; OPSEU; the International Association of Fire Fighters, of which I was a member; and the Air Line Pilots Association of Canada. They have all come out and opposed this piece of legislation, particularly as it relates to part 3. Here is what the Canadian Labour Congress said: If passed, Bill C-39 would give the Canadian government broader unilateral power to end a legal strike than exists in any other G7 country, according to a comparative legal analysis commissioned by the Canadian Labour Congress.... That includes Donald Trump’s United States, where even the President cannot unilaterally end a national-emergency strike and impose a binding settlement. U.S. law requires a threat to national health or safety, court approval and a temporary limit on intervention. “Canada should be setting the standard for workers’ rights, not falling behind every other G7 country.... If passed, Section 107 would give one minister extraordinary power to shut down a legal strike, with no parliamentary oversight and no one with the power to stop them.” There are many unions, as I said, that are speaking out against this, including the Air Line Pilots Association. I bring that up because the riding I live in, Barrie South—Innisfil, is also known as “terminal 4”. There are two terminals at Pearson airport, 1 and 3, and Barrie South—Innisfil is known as terminal 4 for obvious reasons: because there is a large proportion of airline employees, pilots, flight attendants and airport workers who live there. They would be significantly impacted by the legislation and, in particular, the ministerial power that the legislation would grant to effectively end strikes or lockouts or actually preclude the negotiation process in a way that undermines workers’ rights. I talked about the G7 powers to intervene in legal strikes, and from the most limited to the broadest, if we compare France, for example, what triggers intervention is an urgent threat to public health or safety. In Germany, it is life or health risks. In Italy, it is serious and imminent harm to protected rights. In Japan, it is emergency adjustments. In the United Kingdom, there are none. In the United States, it is threats to national health and safety, as I said earlier. In Canada, if Bill C-39 is passed as is, it would be the minister’s view of national interest. In that case, the minister could order work to be resumed and order binding resolution. The minister would retain the final decision, with no emergency threshold or fixed time limits. Bill C-39 would effectively limit the ability of workers and unions to negotiate fair collective agreements and basically bring a sledgehammer to the negotiation process in an “either take it or leave it” offer. Worse yet, under the threat or guise of ministerial power, the bill could force those workers to accept a deal because the minister says it is in the national interest. That is quite concerning. Look, there are good parts of the bill that we can support, but the omnibus nature of the bill really causes me concern as the MP for Barrie South—Innisfil, for the reasons I stated earlier, like having a lot of federally regulated employees who live in my riding. I know Conservatives will be seeking amendments at committee to ensure that the issues that have been addressed by these labour groups are thoughtfully considered when the bill gets to committee. I hope, given the newfound manufactured majority at committees, that Liberal members will understand the broad concern that has been brought up by labour groups and will have those labour groups at the table so we can fully understand the impact of what Bill C-39 represents and make the appropriate amendments to the bill to ensure that labour rights and the collective bargaining process are protected in this country. As I mentioned earlier, there are also concerns within the Liberal caucus. We heard a member earlier today speak about his concern in relation to the bill, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. I will repeat what he said. He spoke about there being “too much discretion for ministers to exempt projects from environmental regulations, compressed timelines which may prevent Indigenous communities and NGOs from giving meaningful input and allowing construction to begin before an environmental assessment is complete.” The other concern I have, and it is a significant one, is oversight, transparency and accountability on many of these decisions that would be made. When decisions are made in closed quarters, made by ministers or perhaps in backrooms, this prevents Canadians and MPs from ensuring that money is being spent and decisions are being made in the interests of our country, not in the interests of big business. As chair of the ethics committee, I will be keeping a very close eye on all of this to ensure that Canadians are getting the best bang for their buck.”
Madam Speaker, before I begin talking about Bill C-39, I want to wish my mom, Doreen, a very happy 80th birthday today. Earlier this evening, she was celebrating with family in Barrie. We do not have to sing happy birthday to her, because I know she will get embarrassed by it. She is a terrific lady, and I want to tell my mom I love her. The second thing I would like to say tonight before I begin is that on this day, the third anniversary of October 7 and the massacre in Israel by Hamas, I want our Jewish community in Barrie South—Innisfil to know that I am here in Ottawa thinking about them today. To the members of the Am Shalom congregation, the Chabad Jewish Centre of Barrie and Chabad Innisfil with Rabbi Kaplan, we are all thinking about them today. I know this is a difficult day for our Jewish community. I know the thoughts of all parliamentarians are with our Jewish friends all across Canada today, not just in Barrie South—Innisfil. In the time that I have, I want to focus on a couple of areas in Bill C-39. In particular, I want to focus on part 3, and I will explain what that is. I want to talk about the bureaucracy that would be created and the apparent lack of transparency and accountability that this bill would create, given the scope of ministerial power it allows. As I said in a previous intervention, all is not well in Oz. The Emerald City is restless; there are many people who are dissenting against what Bill C-39 represents. Among those dissenters are labour organizations that have fought for generations for the types of gains they have had through the collective bargaining process. As a proud former member and president of a firefighters association, the International Association of Fire Fighters, I believe in the collective bargaining process. I believe that negotiation is the best way to get a deal, not necessarily government intervention, which we have seen a lot of over the past several years with the Liberal government. There are many labour unions that have come out and spoken against what the bill represents. Bill C-39 is an omnibus bill. By bringing it forward in the way that the Liberals have, they are effectively trying to force the opposition to support the bill in an all-or-nothing scenario. Earlier, we called for the Liberals to separate out part 3 of Bill C-39 for obvious reasons, as it is the most contentious part of the legislation, so that it could be scrutinized and voted on separately and not be part of this omnibus piece of legislation. As I said earlier, there have been several labour organizations that have spoken out against the proposed changes in part 3, particularly those involved in federally regulated industries, including those of airline employees, airport workers, rail workers and dock workers. Many of them have spoken out about this. The charge has really been led by the Canadian Labour Congress. In a document that it produced, it said that Bill C-39 would effectively give the Canadian government the broadest strike intervention powers in the entire G7. Not only has the Canadian Labour Congress come out but so too has the International Trade Union Confederation; United Steelworkers; CUPE; Unifor; OPSEU; the International Association of Fire Fighters, of which I was a member; and the Air Line Pilots Association of Canada. They have all come out and opposed this piece of legislation, particularly as it relates to part 3. Here is what the Canadian Labour Congress said: If passed, Bill C-39 would give the Canadian government broader unilateral power to end a legal strike than exists in any other G7 country, according to a comparative legal analysis commissioned by the Canadian Labour Congress.... That includes Donald Trump’s United States, where even the President cannot unilaterally end a national-emergency strike and impose a binding settlement. U.S. law requires a threat to national health or safety, court approval and a temporary limit on intervention. “Canada should be setting the standard for workers’ rights, not falling behind every other G7 country.... If passed, Section 107 would give one minister extraordinary power to shut down a legal strike, with no parliamentary oversight and no one with the power to stop them.” There are many unions, as I said, that are speaking out against this, including the Air Line Pilots Association. I bring that up because the riding I live in, Barrie South—Innisfil, is also known as “terminal 4”. There are two terminals at Pearson airport, 1 and 3, and Barrie South—Innisfil is known as terminal 4 for obvious reasons: because there is a large proportion of airline employees, pilots, flight attendants and airport workers who live there. They would be significantly impacted by the legislation and, in particular, the ministerial power that the legislation would grant to effectively end strikes or lockouts or actually preclude the negotiation process in a way that undermines workers’ rights. I talked about the G7 powers to intervene in legal strikes, and from the most limited to the broadest, if we compare France, for example, what triggers intervention is an urgent threat to public health or safety. In Germany, it is life or health risks. In Italy, it is serious and imminent harm to protected rights. In Japan, it is emergency adjustments. In the United Kingdom, there are none. In the United States, it is threats to national health and safety, as I said earlier. In Canada, if Bill C-39 is passed as is, it would be the minister’s view of national interest. In that case, the minister could order work to be resumed and order binding resolution. The minister would retain the final decision, with no emergency threshold or fixed time limits. Bill C-39 would effectively limit the ability of workers and unions to negotiate fair collective agreements and basically bring a sledgehammer to the negotiation process in an “either take it or leave it” offer. Worse yet, under the threat or guise of ministerial power, the bill could force those workers to accept a deal because the minister says it is in the national interest. That is quite concerning. Look, there are good parts of the bill that we can support, but the omnibus nature of the bill really causes me concern as the MP for Barrie South—Innisfil, for the reasons I stated earlier, like having a lot of federally regulated employees who live in my riding. I know Conservatives will be seeking amendments at committee to ensure that the issues that have been addressed by these labour groups are thoughtfully considered when the bill gets to committee. I hope, given the newfound manufactured majority at committees, that Liberal members will understand the broad concern that has been brought up by labour groups and will have those labour groups at the table so we can fully understand the impact of what Bill C-39 represents and make the appropriate amendments to the bill to ensure that labour rights and the collective bargaining process are protected in this country. As I mentioned earlier, there are also concerns within the Liberal caucus. We heard a member earlier today speak about his concern in relation to the bill, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. I will repeat what he said. He spoke about there being “too much discretion for ministers to exempt projects from environmental regulations, compressed timelines which may prevent Indigenous communities and NGOs from giving meaningful input and allowing construction to begin before an environmental assessment is complete.” The other concern I have, and it is a significant one, is oversight, transparency and accountability on many of these decisions that would be made. When decisions are made in closed quarters, made by ministers or perhaps in backrooms, this prevents Canadians and MPs from ensuring that money is being spent and decisions are being made in the interests of our country, not in the interests of big business. As chair of the ethics committee, I will be keeping a very close eye on all of this to ensure that Canadians are getting the best bang for their buck.