“I oppose this bill. It hurts workers' right to strike and rushes environmental reviews of big projects. It also lets one minister ignore environmental rules and constitutional rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by sharing that I joined the PSAC security workers’ picket line at the Bank of Canada this morning. They are on day 105 of their strike as the government refuses to give them a fair deal and, meanwhile, enforce the NDP anti-scab legislation. It is essential, as I begin this debate, to remember that Bill C-39 seeks to undermine the rights of workers even further, like those who have been on strike for 105 days. It is a dangerous trend that the Liberal government has been participating in, violating the charter-protected right to strike at a time when workers need fair deals more than ever. I would like to tell members that Bill C-39 has drawn severe criticism from all over the country, including from indigenous peoples, environmental organizations, activists, unions and civil liberty groups. In fact, according to the Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement, Bill C-39 proposes to impose a fixed one-year deadline between the submission of studies by the project proponent and the final decision. Such a rigid timeline would be incompatible with the assessment of complex, large-scale projects, which often involve significant risks and which require studies spanning multiple seasons, analysis of cumulative impacts, meaningful public participation and genuine consultation with indigenous peoples. The NDP absolutely supports the need to build a strong economy, but we are very clear that this cannot be done by violating the constitutional rights of workers and indigenous peoples or violating the human right to a healthy environment, and that is exactly what Bill C-39 would do. Bill C-39 proposes sweeping changes to the federal review process, fast-tracking all processes of reviews and even letting one Liberal minister override these processes whenever they think it is inconvenient. Only one minister could make a decision, on a whim, without even consulting their colleagues, overriding any environmental assessment or constitutional obligation. I have to ask. Does the Liberal government think it is above our Constitution and rule of law? We already saw these violations of the Constitution and attacks on the democratic process in Bill C-5 last year, but Bill C-39 would eliminate even previous time limits on Bill C-5, making these constitutional violations permanent. I could not imagine anything worse than Bill C-5, but now we have permanent constitutional violations that this Carney Liberal government is trying to ram through.”

“I do not want this bill to pass. It rushes project reviews into just one year, which ignores our legal duty to consult Indigenous peoples. It also lets ministers ignore laws that protect endangered animals and clean water.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are not going to build Canada strong with this legislation. We would be building, in fact, a pipeline to the courts. For example, Bill C-39 would limit project review times to an arbitrary timeline of just one year, restricting time and resources for indigenous peoples to exercise their right to consultation and accommodation, as enshrined in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. As AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak has stated, “Any predetermined timeline principally designed to attract investment subordinates the honor of the Crown to commercial imperatives.” Moreover, in reaction to the publication of Bill C-39, vice-chief Michael Smithers of Coldwater Indian Band said, “There is anger in our community today, as we hear that Canada has given the green light to a third Trans Mountain pipeline through the Coldwater Valley.... The Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate Coldwater remains unfilled and Canada and Trans Mountain are not legally or respectfully operating in our reserve.” It is a pipeline to the courts. Nowhere in Bill C-39 is the right of accommodation mentioned, which would allow regulators to ignore what they learn in consultations about potential impacts to indigenous and first nations communities and to move forward. Bill C-39 also does not contain any reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, particularly the obligation to seek and obtain the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples. That is the right to say yes, no, yes with conditions or maybe later. This is despite, through Bill C-15, the government’s being legally obliged to align all past and future legislation with UNDRIP. I would like to remind the Liberal government that the critical purposes of UNDRIP are found in article 5, that the UN declaration is a human rights instrument with application in Canadian law and that the government must take all measures necessary to ensure its laws are consistent with UNDRIP. Moreover, as of right now, Bill C-39 repeatedly talks about indigenous groups while, in fact, “indigenous groups” is not defined within the legislation, nor in international law, which recognizes the rights of indigenous nations as “peoples”, not groups. The question can legitimately be asked: Is Bill C-39 consistent with UNDRIP? The answer is a very clear no. This raises the question of who exactly the bill is referring to, even in the case of indigenous peoples, when it talks about consultation with indigenous “groups” instead. Why is the government trying to use vague language to avoid the clear terminology in constitutional and international law? In November 2024, Bill S-13 was adopted to add to the federal Interpretation Act a safeguard provision, a non-derogation clause, to protect indigenous peoples’ section 35 constitutional rights. I question today whether any measures in Bill C-39 are inconsistent with this non-derogation clause of Bill S-13. If so, which would take precedent? Indigenous peoples’ constitutional rights are being attacked, a clear sign of the government once again ignoring the rule of law. Concerning these dangerous anti-indigenous measures in Bill C-39, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation said, “Our Chiefs are watching the Carney government’s legislative agenda with growing alarm. Bill C-5 was a direct attack on our rights, and Bill C-39 elevates this to an unprecedented level. This government is making clear and deliberate choices to accelerate development at the expense of the rights of our Nations and our leaders”. The bill would also establish whole so-called regions of national interest, which experts have likened to special economic zones in Doug Ford’s anti-indigenous, anti-environment Bill 5. Bill C-39 would also impose arbitrary review deadlines for complex, large-scale projects with multi-faceted environmental and species risks. In fact, it would give the minister of the One Canadian Economy Act the power to ignore critical species protection laws, and we know why. The government is trying to turn a blind eye to species at risk, like the southern resident orcas, whose population has been reduced to 73 adults and whose survival is jeopardized by the government’s careless plans for major projects. According to Charlie Hatt, the director of climate at Ecojustice, “The oil and gas lobby has gotten what it has long wanted, but it does not have to be this way. We can strengthen environmental safeguards while securing our economy by investing in clean energy”. Let us talk about water. Bill C-39 would allow ministers to exempt whole bodies of water from protective regulations and legislation, and to unilaterally permit companies to dump waste water. I am going to be keeping an eye out this Friday, when the government introduces Bill C-37, which would take away the human right to clean drinking water for first nations. The NDP is watching this bill closely. The NDP will always stand side by side to protect the rule of law and protect our Constitution.”

“I respect the Charter, including workers' right to strike and bargain freely. The minister claims the government consulted with labour. In reality, the government says it consults, but then breaks the Constitution and does whatever it wants.”

“Mr. Speaker, I respect the charter. That means the right to strike and the right to free collective bargaining. The minister is talking about how they consulted with labour, but I think labour is experiencing what indigenous people in Canada have experienced since time immemorial: The government says it consults, and then it violates the Constitution and does what it wants.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The government is rushing this bill and hiding things from the public. They also used labour laws to stop Air Canada, port, and rail workers from striking. I have a bill to change the law so the government cannot stop workers from striking, and I want the Conservatives to vote for it.”

“Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I would just say this government totally lacks transparency about everything. I certainly support that. Once again, the Liberals are trying to fast-track legislation. Actually, the NDP is going further than that. I put forward a private member’s bill to totally repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code because of the Liberal government’s abuse of section 107, including the Air Canada workers’, port workers’ and CN workers’ right to strike. I hope the Conservatives will support my private member’s bill.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I oppose this bill. It violates the Constitution, the Charter, and Indigenous rights, and it will lead to court challenges. It helps corporations while ignoring people's rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, all the government is building is a pipeline to the courts. Whether it is with workers or indigenous peoples, there are already court challenges starting to brew from the legislation. The government, time and time again, puts forward legislation that violates the Constitution and violates the charter. This is the latest and greatest. In fact, the bill would violate section 35 rights. The bill would not only violate section 35 rights; it also talks about indigenous groups without definition. It does not even have a definition in international law. I am calling this out for what it is. It is paving a way for the Liberals’ corporate buddies on the backs of the charter rights and constitutional rights of Canadians.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I oppose this bill. Labour unions say it gives the government too much control over workers, worse than any other major country. The government should not use Donald Trump as an excuse to take away the right to strike.”

“Mr. Speaker, the CLC did a legal analysis and found that Bill C-39 would give the Liberal government wider, broader and more unilateral control over labour negotiations than any other country in the G7, including the United States. While the Liberals are using Donald Trump as coverage to bring in the most egregious labour restrictions and are saying it is because of Trump, we do not fix our problems with Donald Trump by becoming Donald Trump. Would the member not agree that the Canadian Labour Congress, Unifor, CUPE, the United Steelworkers, all of these labour unions, know a bit about the right to strike?”

“I do not want this bill. It makes it easier for the government to stop legal strikes and rushes environmental reviews. It gives ministers too much power and hurts workers.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is an urgent fight over what kind of country we want to build. As a member of Parliament and as a Canadian, I want to build a stronger, more resilient country. I think that the majority of members of the House right now want that. We want good unionized jobs. We want a country where a family can afford to pay its rent or its mortgage, can afford to buy groceries, can afford to send its kids to school and can access health care services that it needs. That is what we all want. That is the Canada we are trying to build. Canadians are being told that Bill C-39 is about building Canada strong, but let us look at what the government would actually be doing. The bill would make it easier to shut down a legal strike. The bill would put enormous environmental decisions on reckless and dangerous timelines. It would create new ways to pre-approve development without proper consultation or review, and it would concentrate more and more decision-making power in the hands of ministers and cabinet. This would not be building Canada strong. This would be taking power away from workers, from communities, from indigenous peoples and from independent experts, and putting more of it in the hands of Liberal ministers. Canadians are being told that we need to move faster because Donald Trump is threatening Canada, and I agree. Canada needs to move with urgency. We need to diversify our trade. We need to build. We need good union jobs. We need energy security. We need need to stand up to Donald Trump, but we do not stand up to Donald Trump by becoming Donald Trump. The Canadian Labour Congress commissioned a comparative legal analysis of strike intervention powers across the G7, and the finding is extraordinary. With Bill C-39, the Liberal government would give itself broader unilateral government power to end a strike than any other country in the G7. France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Britain and even the United States respect a worker’s right to strike more than the Liberal government does. Even in Donald Trump’s America, the president cannot simply decide that a legal strike is inconvenient, order workers back to work and impose a binding settlement. There are legal thresholds, there is judicial oversight and there are limits on the duration of intervention. The Liberal government wants to give one Canadian minister extraordinary powers to decide that a legal strike is in the national interest, and then have workers ordered back to work. Canada would go further than every other G7 country. Think about that. At a moment when Canadians are looking south at Donald Trump’s attacks on democratic institutions, the government is proposing a labour regime that would give a Canadian minister powers that even the American president does not have. Why would workers trust the government with that power? Let us look at what the government has already done with Air Canada. Who remembers, in 2025, when it took mere hours for the government to order Air Canada flight attendants back to work because they wanted to get paid for the hours they worked? In fact, this government has used section 107 within the Labour Code 10 times, more than any other government. Bill C-39 would make the kind of intervention of section 107 explicit in the Labour Code. If economic disruption is the reason we end a strike, what happens to the right to strike? A strike is supposed to create economic pressure. That is the point. Workers have very little power individually. They have power collectively. They have the power of withholding their labour, and the consequence of that is that this is where their voice comes from. The scales are not equal, but that is the power that workers have, and Bill C-39 would take that power away from workers. What happened with Air Canada was not an isolated incident. The government’s own documents tell us that since 2023, nine of the 10 interventions under section 107 involved ending or temporarily suspending strikes or lockouts or imposing arbitration. With Canada Post, the west coast ports, the port of Montreal, the port of Quebec, CN, Canadian Pacific and of course Air Canada, the government has reached to take away the rights of workers time and time again. When the government says to trust it, that it will use these powers responsibly, my question is very simple: Why? Why should workers trust the government? The government has repeatedly intervened to end legal strikes. One labour expert described what Bill C-39 does as “section 107 on steroids”. That is exactly what the government is doing. The government is not removing the power it has been criticized for using. It is taking that controversial power and writing it more explicitly into law. It is putting a government escape hatch into every difficult bargaining relationship, and it is telling workers they can strike, they can exercise their constitutional rights, they can bargain and they can withhold their labour, as is their right, but if their strike becomes too “effective”, a minister can decide that it is in the national interest to end it. What did workers tell the government during its sham consultation? The government’s own consultation report says that nearly all unions and labour organizations called for section 107 to be repealed or amended. They warned that government intervention removes union leverage. They warned that it encourages employers to hold out for government intervention. One union participant put it bluntly: Frequent use of section 107 can disincentivize employers from coming to the table because they know the government will intervene and bail them out. These are unions that represent millions of workers in this country. I am talking about the Canadian Labour Congress, CUPE, Unifor, USW, ILWU, PSAC and every one of the federations of labour across this country. The government heard that, knew that and then did the opposite of what labour asked for. Canada should not be the G7 country where workers have the weakest protections against government intervention in a legal strike. We should not be competing with Donald Trump to see who can put more power in the hands of one executive. We should be competing with the world to build the strongest democracy, the strongest labour rights and the strongest working class in the world. We should be building a strong Canada with workers, for workers, by workers. I am going to end with a quote from Gil McGowan, the head of the Alberta Federation of Labour: ...you cannot build Canada strong by weakening the right to strike, worker bargaining power, wages and living standards. That’s the opposite of what Canadian citizens, including workers, voted for in the last election when they supported...elbows up to defend Canada.”

“The government should not give one minister the power to order people back to work without a debate or vote in Parliament. This hurts workers' rights. When employers know a minister can just force people back to work, they stop bargaining fairly.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member should know very well that they have used the essential services provision for section 107 to undermine workers’ ability to bargain in good faith with their employers more than any other government has ever done before. To not bring it to Parliament for a vote, to not debate it within the House of Commons and to give unilateral power to one minister is the opposite of what we should be doing. It is undermining workers’ rights in this country. He can try to find some ways of saying there is a rationale for it, but what this does is it allows any minister to order workers back to work. The minute employers know that power exists, they do not bargain in good faith.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“The government is rushing this huge bill through without enough time for us to debate it. Governments use giant bills like this to hide bad laws from scrutiny. The Conservatives did the exact same thing when they were in power, but they are right that this is a bad way to make laws.”

“Mr. Speaker, to be honest, the Prime Minister has shown a shocking dismissal of Parliament and a dismissal of the value of Parliament to debate bills and bring them forward. This is an omnibus bill. One thing I will say to the member is that the champion of omnibus bills was Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party. I would also say that I think his party’s members were falling over themselves to support another massive piece of legislation, Bill C-5, which took away indigenous and environmental rights in this country. However, the member is right. This is not the way we are supposed to bring legislation forward. It does not give us adequate time to debate it. Omnibus bills are always a way for governments to bring forward bad legislation that they do not want to have scrutinized. Even the media got a 250-page bill half an hour before they were meant to discuss it. This is not good legislation.”

“It is dangerous to let cabinet make these decisions. The government ignored labour unions and chose big business over workers. This bill should protect workers, not corporate interests.”

“Mr. Speaker, I disagree with my colleague on one thing. I do not want to be in the hands of cabinet. That seems like a dangerous place to be. I think the Liberals are not interested in listening. There was a consultation process. Labour unions representing millions of Canadians were very clear on what they needed to see from this legislation. Instead of actually listening to labour experts, the labour unions and the workers from across this country, they made a choice to stand with corporate interests and to stand with big business against workers in this country. It is workers who build our economy. It is workers who pay taxes. It is workers who contribute to our communities. It is workers we need to be protecting.”