“The Supreme Court ruled that the right to strike is protected by the Charter. The government can only limit that right to protect public health and safety, not business interests. I believe the section of this bill on the right to strike violates the Constitution. I am asking my colleague if he agrees.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you in the chair. My question for my colleague has to do with labour law and the right to strike. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the right to strike as a fundamental right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan. The Bloc Québécois believes this proves that in order to infringe upon a protected right, there must be a valid reason, such as protecting the life, health or safety of the public. Serving corporate interests is not a valid reason. That is why the section of Bill C-39 dealing with the right to strike may be unconstitutional. What are my hon. colleague’s thoughts on that? Does he think, as I do, that the Liberals are going to tout the benefits of the notwithstanding clause to defend this part of Bill C-39?”

“Our labour laws are outdated because they still let employers use replacement workers during strikes. This drags disputes out instead of solving problems. Quebec banned replacement workers 50 years ago. Does the government agree we should ban them across Canada?”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for her speech. She spoke about the right to strike. Would she agree that the main problem is that the Canada Labour Code is outdated, especially since it allows the use of scabs during labour disputes? Quebec did away with that about 50 years ago. Because of that provision, labour disputes drag on. Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code and the amendments proposed by Bill C-39 send employers the message that if they let a labour dispute drag on, the government will step in and deal with the situation. When negotiations fail to result in new working conditions, issues that should have been resolved are instead pushed forward to the next round of bargaining, which undermines social cohesion. Does my colleague believe that we should remove the option of using scabs and modernize the Canada Labour Code?”

“I want the government to keep the five-year limit on its special powers. This bill makes those powers permanent. The government uses these powers to get around environmental rules, and making them permanent is a step backward.”

“Mr. Speaker, during question period, I had an opportunity to ask my colleague opposite about a provision in Bill C-5 that the government wants to remove using Bill C-39. This provision states that, after five years, the exceptional powers conferred by Bill C‑5 cease to apply. In answer to my question, she said that her government was not using Bill C‑39 to backtrack on environmental progress. I have a question for the government. If that is not backtracking, what is? A power that was supposed to be temporary and limited to five years is being made permanent and unlimited, and we know full well that this power is used precisely to get around environmental rules.”

“The interpreters say a phone is vibrating near the microphone.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just wanted to tell my hon. colleague that the interpreter has indicated that a cell phone is vibrating near the microphone.”

“This bill takes environmental reviews away from independent scientists and gives them to the Canada Energy Regulator. Many of the regulator's leaders used to work for big oil companies. The government should not let people with conflicts of interest do these reviews.”

“Mr. Speaker, why remove environmental assessment processes carried out by scientists and hand them over to the Canada Energy Regulator, which is essentially an oil lobby? The CER’s lead commissioner is the former senior legal counsel at TC Energy. The deputy lead commissioner is a former employee of Royal Dutch Shell. Another commissioner is a former legal adviser to Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada. Another one comes from Imperial Oil and Canadian Oil Sands Limited. Then there is one from Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada. Then, a fifth comes from Cenovus Energy. If that is not an oil lobby, what is it? Why take this away from scientists, impartial people who are carrying out a proper assessment, and hand it over to people who appear to have a conflict of interest?”