John Brassard

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“My party has a plan for this bill. Our critics will work to protect workers, the environment, and transportation.”

“Madam Speaker, we have had a fulsome discussion at caucus about the bill. We have a strategy in place. We have shadow ministers who are leading that strategy, not just our shadow minister for transportation but for the environment as well. Our labour critic is certainly aware of what is needed to make sure this bill does not have unintended consequences. They will be doing everything they can to ensure that the rights of labour are protected, the rights of the environment are protected and certainly that transportation issues are addressed. I have full confidence in our transportation critic.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Angelo Iacono

“I am against this bill as it is written. It gives a minister too much power to interfere with workers' rights and union bargaining. Many airline workers and other unions are worried about this. The government also forced these labour changes into a huge bill so we cannot vote on them separately. The committee must listen to workers and fix this part of the bill.”

“Madam Speaker, I think I gave the reasons I am concerned, in particular about part 3 of the bill. It would give broad ministerial discretion over the collective bargaining process and workers’ rights under the guise of national interest. What is “national interest”? It is not defined. I am speaking here on behalf of the people I represent: the Air Line Pilots Association, flight attendants and other federally regulated workers who have expressed grave concern over this piece of legislation. There are public sector unions that are not federally regulated that see this as a wedge and an opening to potential implications for the entire collective bargaining process in this country. That is what concerns me the most about this piece of legislation. It is part of an omnibus bill. The Liberals included it in part 3 so that it would be an all-or-nothing approach. I resent that, and I hope that when the bill gets to committee, the voices of labour will be heard, and amendments will be made that correct this situation.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“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.”

“Even a Liberal MP pointed out flaws in this bill, like giving ministers too much power to skip environmental rules and rushing reviews before Indigenous groups can give input. This bill needs changes. I want to know how the minister responds to those concerns from his own party.”

“Madam Speaker, all is not well in the Emerald City. Earlier today, while speaking on the bill, the Liberal member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, a member from the minister’s caucus, spoke about Bill C-39’s shortcomings but stopped short of explicitly calling for amendments to the bill. We believe there should be amendments. Among the issues that he flagged are that there is too much discretion for ministers to exempt projects from environmental regulations and that the compressed timelines may prevent indigenous communities and NGOs from giving meaningful input, allowing construction to begin before an environmental assessment is complete. This is coming from a Liberal member of the caucus who has his own concerns about Bill C-39. There are multiple concerns right across the country with respect to this piece of legislation. How would the minister react to the member’s comments?”

“Food and rent cost too much for regular Canadians. We want to get rid of the industrial carbon tax to help people and businesses save money. Will the government adopt our plan?”

“Mr. Speaker, lower food costs and lower rent so their children do not have to live with their 80-year-old grandmother, says S from Innisfil. This is just one of thousands of responses I received over the summer about how these past 11 years of failed economic policies have impacted average Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet. However, if we ask the finance minister or one of the Prime Minister’s well-connected business buddies, times have never been better, while Canadian families and businesses are struggling just to make ends meet. Conservatives are proposing to eliminate the industrial carbon tax to help Canadians and businesses save money. Will the Liberals adopt our plan?”

• Echo ×5

  A repeated line

  “Will the Liberals adopt our plan?”

  Said 5 times by 4 members since September 22.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Warren Steinley

“Liberals only care about who comes up with an idea, not whether it helps people. We proposed cutting the fuel tax in 2024 to save Canadians money and help the economy. The Liberals rejected it then because it was a Conservative idea. Politicians need to stop playing games and help Canadians.”

“Madam Speaker, first, I want to say that I am sorry that I did not get any questions from my colleague from Mirabel. However, I will respond to the hon. member’s question. I think I spoke about it. I do not think the Liberals, in their ideology, subscribe to the concept that it does not matter who proposes an idea, but if it is good for Canadian workers and Canadian businesses, then maybe they should adopt it. This could have been saving people money, not just all summer, but back in 2024, when we first proposed the removal of the excise fuel tax. We saw, as Conservatives, and we were hearing it from our constituents back then, that the tax was having a profound impact, not just on them personally, but as a cascading effect across the economy. The only thing that I can say to the hon. member is that, if it is not a Liberal idea, then it is a bad idea, and that is what we have been dealing with in this place. It is time that we stopped this and started thinking about Canadians, rather than our political fortunes in this place.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 27 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The school food program is already in place, and people in my riding are not telling me it helps. We support bills that save Canadians money during this tough economic time. We will always oppose government policies that fail to help regular workers and families.”

“Madam Speaker, there is nothing to revisit. The government passed it. It is implemented. I have not heard much in my riding about children actually benefiting from it. Nobody is reaching out to me to say that it is the greatest program in the world. We will support things that benefit Canadians, Canadian families, Canadian workers and Canadian businesses, and we will support the things that save them money during the great economic crisis that is going on right now. Again, this is a self-inflicted wound that started long before Donald Trump became the President of the United States. We will vigorously oppose, upholding our constitutional obligation, things that do not help Canadian workers, Canadian families and Canadian businesses, and the history of the Liberal government is that there are not many things that have worked properly except for well-connected insiders.”

“I support this bill to cut the fuel tax, but it does not go far enough. High gas taxes make groceries and everyday life cost more for struggling families. Conservatives tried to cut these taxes three times before, and the Liberals voted against it every time. Now the government is finally copying our idea. This tax cut should last longer, at least until Canada Day in 2027.”

“Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to be standing here today to talk about this bill, which would continue the lowering of the excise tax on fuel until January. Over the summer, I listened to my constituents and many of the business owners who have had to deal with the unjustified tariff war that is going on right now, which was started by the American administration. This type of relief and the continuation of this type of relief are welcomed. It was Ann Landers, the famous columnist, who once said, “People of integrity expect to be believed,” and when they are not, “time [will] prove them right.” The finance minister’s introduction of this bill has proven that Conservatives have acted with integrity on this issue and have worked hard for many years to save people money. We see this as a welcome temporary relief that perhaps does not go far enough, but who can argue against saving people money? Certainly, the Conservatives have been arguing this for years. Much of what Canada is facing, our citizens are facing and our businesses are facing, if we are honest about it, has been a self-inflicted wound of failed economic policies, policies that have not improved the lives of Canadians and have not saved them money. In fact, it has cost them a tremendous amount of money over the years, especially over the last 11 years, and we are seeing that continue. A lot of these failed policies were implemented long before Donald Trump became the President of the United States. It is Canadian businesses, Canadian families and Canadian workers in all sectors, like the energy sector and the interprovincial sectors, who are paying the price. What we have seen over these years is Canadians walk into the grocery store, especially seniors and single moms, who are those who can least afford it, look at the prices and, sadly, have to put many items back on the shelf. We are seeing a nutrition problem, and a food security problem, that is rampant in this country. I know that because many of the calls that I take in my constituency office are literally about walking people back from the ledge because they cannot afford their rent, their groceries and the necessities of life. For many years, Conservatives have been arguing for the removal of the excise fuel tax, the carbon tax and other taxes, because there is a cascading effect across the supply chain that impacts the prices in stores. When the producers, the wholesalers and the transporters have to pay this type of tax, it has an impact on people. It is only now, after 11 years, that the Liberal government is starting to understand what we understood years ago, which is that many of these failed economic policies, including these policies of increased taxation, are having that kind of effect on people. I stand here today in support of this legislation, but I also remind the House, and I remind you, Madam Speaker, as I know you are aware of this, that there have been several occasions when Conservatives have proposed reducing the tax on fuel, whether it is the excise fuel tax, the industrial fuel tax or other taxes. Each time we proposed those through opposition day motions, every single member of the Liberal government voted against it. Every member on that side voted against. There have been three occasions. This started in 2024 when the Leader of the Opposition proposed that we remove fuel taxes to save people money. At that time, the Conservatives were well ahead of the curve. We were not listening to polls. We were listening to our constituents about the impact that gas taxes were having on them, not just on the price they were paying at the pumps, but also on the price they were paying at the grocery stores and the price they were paying on all goods across the economy.At that time, in 2024, we proposed removing the tax on gas. The Leader of the Opposition did that. What did the Liberals do? They voted against it. Then, when Parliament resumed on April 15, 2026, the member for Calgary East proposed a motion, which states: That... (i) gas prices have soared upwards, (ii) Canadians now pay almost 20 per cent more at the pumps than Americans due to high Liberal taxes, the House call on the government to adopt the Conservative plan to save Canadians 25 cents-a-litre by removing federal taxes on gas and diesel— Diesel is in a whole other stratosphere with respect to pricing and how it is impacting producers, especially our farming communities. I will continue with the motion from back then in April: (a) removing the Fuel Excise Tax for the remainder of 2026, which costs Canadians 10 cents-a-litre; Every single Liberal voted against that motion. In fact, if I recall the debate back then, the Liberals who were standing up that day were accusing the Conservatives of spreading misinformation, of lying to Canadians about the savings they would have on removing the excise fuel tax, yet here we are today with government legislation that is proposing exactly what we proposed years ago, which could have started saving Canadians money. Then, on May 27, 2026, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources in Quebec talked about 13% higher gas prices in Canada than the United States, which equates to 22¢ more on average per litre. Again, every single Liberal member voted against that. People of integrity expect to be believed. When they are not, time will prove them right, and time is proving the Conservatives right on this and many issues, including the carbon tax and any other pieces of legislation that were Conservative ideas that the government is now implementing. I subscribe to the politics that, if it is a good idea, it does not matter whether it is a Liberal idea, a Conservative idea, an NDP idea or a Green idea. If it is a good idea that benefits Canadians, Canadian families and Canadian businesses, then it should be supported. Every single one of those opposition motions that we put forward was a good idea to save Canadian families and Canadian businesses money, but in every circumstance, the Liberals voted against it. All of a sudden, here we are today, and it is a good idea. We have a constitutional obligation as an opposition to question the government. Our constitutional obligation is to hold the government to account. It is to call into question decisions that are being made, legislation, regulatory reform or any other thing that it proposes. That is our constitutional obligation, and we uphold that obligation with great respect and great integrity. It is also our obligation to propose solutions to the government when things are not working, when things are failing with respect to legislation, regulation or other policies. That is precisely what we did. I know the government House leader, yesterday, stood up and accused Conservatives of proposing things that were un-Canadian. The government would rather have an audience than an opposition. These were good ideas that were being proposed years ago, and we will continue to propose ideas that are going to help Canadians. Let me end with something I received from a constituent. As the House knows, we have the ability to communicate all the time through various means, including sending out mailers. I got this one over the summer. Chris from Innisfil said, “The gas tax needs to be much lower”, which would improve affordability and automatically lower prices. Today, as I stand here, I say to Chris that I am sorry that we could not have done this earlier. We tried, as an opposition, to make life more affordable and to save him money. On this day, we will do that. We are going to support the government on this. It does not go far enough. We believe that it should extend at least to Canada Day in 2027, because the economic crisis, the food insecurity crisis and the affordability crisis that families are facing are real and are going to continue under the Liberal government.”

“Conservatives tried to cut the fuel tax three times to help families with costs. The Liberals voted against it every time and said our ideas were false. Now the government wants to cut the tax itself. I want the minister to explain why they changed their minds.”

“Madam Speaker, I have been here long enough, coming up to 11 years now, to remember the Liberals’ talking about the Conservative proposal of removing the excise tax on fuel. They accused Conservatives of spreading disinformation and said that it in fact would have a limited effect on affordability, yet here we are with the finance minister’s doing this today. The minister talked about swift and concrete action. Well, in April 2024, the Leader of the Opposition put forward an opposition motion to save families $670 by removing the tax on gas. Again, on April 15, 2026, the hon. member for Calgary East proposed another motion. Then, on May 27, 2026, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources proposed another motion to remove the tax on gas. In each and every case of those opposition motions, because Conservatives were ahead of the curve and saw the affordability crisis impacting Canadians at that time, it would have provided real relief, but instead the Liberals accused us of disinformation. In every case, the Liberals voted against it, including the Minister of Finance. Why has there been the change?”

“Committee members did not get the written documents to review until the day they questioned witnesses, including the Privacy Commissioner. I am asking the member how this delay hurt his ability to study the bill.”

“Madam Speaker, the way the Liberals are acting tonight, it is almost like the arsonist who sets a house on fire and then we expect him to put the fire out. It is almost the same thing. I want to go back to the issue of the Privacy Commissioner. One of the things that I saw, and the member was there when I was there, was that the briefs that were submitted to the committee did not arrive and were not sent to committee members until the day they were sitting around the table to question the Privacy Commissioner and other witnesses who had submitted briefs, eight days later. I know the hon. member brought this up. He was quite concerned, as were other members sitting around that table, including the Bloc members. How much of an impact did not having those briefs have on the member’s ability, as a member of this committee, to scrutinize this piece of legislation?”

In response to a question from Ryan Turnbull

“The government is backing down on parts of this bill, like cutting how long data must be saved from one year to six months. This shows the bill is flawed.”

“Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Oshawa does not even know this yet, but there is breaking news that the Liberal government is actually standing down on some of the contentious parts of the bill, namely the retention of records. They are talking about reducing it from one year to six months now. There are other things they are talking about with respect to adjusting this piece of legislation. Again, like everything else they do, is this not an admission of failure that the bill is completely flawed?”

“The Liberal member for Whitby just said democracy is a waste of time. That shows how the government really thinks.”

“Madam Speaker, the member for Whitby heckled that democracy is a waste of time. This is the prevailing attitude of the Liberal government. It is interesting to hear this—”

“I want to split this bill into two parts. This would give police the tools they need right away, but pause the parts that threaten people's privacy so we can study them more.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for what I thought was a very thoughtful speech on a very concerning bill. It is not just the NDP or Conservatives who are concerned, but civil liberty organizations and other stakeholders. The Privacy Commissioner himself has significant concerns about the privacy aspects of this legislation. Earlier today, Conservatives moved an amendment to separate the bill into Bill C‑22A and Bill C‑22B. By doing that, we could work with and allow the police the tools they need for investigations of serious crimes and other matters, but it would also put on pause the ultimate concern of this bill, which is part 2, and allow the Privacy Commissioner and others to come back in further reflection on this bill. Does the hon. member agree with the amendment that we put forward?”

“Witnesses sent their notes to the committee before the meeting, but committee members never got to see them. Was that frustrating to the member?”

“Madam Speaker, I was at the committee meeting the day the Privacy Commissioner was there, along with other witnesses representing social media platforms. Before the meeting, all the witnesses indicated that they had submitted their briefs to the committee. However, members were not able to see them because they had not received them. Did the member not find it frustrating that we did not receive the briefs before the meeting, not only from the Privacy Commissioner but also from the other witnesses?”