Bill C-39, Building Canada Strong Act · Second reading · now at committee in the House Where it stands
The bill would set one-year deadlines for impact assessments of major energy projects, including pipelines, power lines, and offshore renewables, once required information is submitted. It would also allow the federal government to designate trade corridors, adjust port governance and rail switching rules, and let electronic documents replace paper records for trade. In addition, the bill would introduce new collective bargaining rules and timelines under the Canada Labour Code, along with changes to environmental reviews and fisheries offsetting fees.
86 statements
Linked statement
“I still have four minutes left to answer questions from Friday.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think I had four minutes left to answer questions from last Friday.”
Mr. Speaker, I think I had four minutes left to answer questions from last Friday.
“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.”
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.”
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.
“Other governments, run by both the NDP and Conservatives, recognize essential services and have ordered striking workers back on the job. I want to know if the federal NDP also recognizes essential services.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the issue of labour. I would like to get her to think about essential services. The Manitoba government actually asked the Manitoba Labour Board to order striking Dynacare employees back to work. It used the mechanism of the labour board, and the labour board agreed that Dynacare is an essential service. Whether it is an NDP government in Manitoba or Conservatives in other jurisdictions, they seem to recognize essential services. Does this particular member or the federal NDP recognize essential services?”
Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the issue of labour. I would like to get her to think about essential services. The Manitoba government actually asked the Manitoba Labour Board to order striking Dynacare employees back to work. It used the mechanism of the labour board, and the labour board agreed that Dynacare is an essential service. Whether it is an NDP government in Manitoba or Conservatives in other jurisdictions, they seem to recognize essential services. Does this particular member or the federal NDP recognize essential services?
“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.”
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 analysisMr. 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.
“This bill raises questions about the right to strike. I want to know if the member agrees that the justice minister should report on whether the bill protects Charter rights.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the member’s last answer, she talked about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and how she believes in it. The last I checked, the Liberals like to say all the time that they are the party of the charter. Given that the section 107 provision in the Canada Labour Code raises questions around the right to strike, does the member support the Minister of Justice tabling a charter statement so that we can see whether or not the justice department believes the bill has captured and balanced those rights correctly?”
Mr. Speaker, in the member’s last answer, she talked about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and how she believes in it. The last I checked, the Liberals like to say all the time that they are the party of the charter. Given that the section 107 provision in the Canada Labour Code raises questions around the right to strike, does the member support the Minister of Justice tabling a charter statement so that we can see whether or not the justice department believes the bill has captured and balanced those rights correctly?
“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.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. 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.
“This bill gives the government more power to approve projects without consulting people. It harms Indigenous rights and environmental protections. Does this bill risk an authoritarian abuse of power?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and for her staunch defence of indigenous rights. She has done so eloquently once again. As an aside, I would like to thank Idriss, the good Samaritan who came to my rescue when I got a flat tire in La Vérendrye Park. Without his help, I would not be here today. I would also like to thank the Carquest garage in Gracefield that fixed my tire. It is thanks to their help that I am able to be here today. That said, I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on the potential for authoritarian abuse of power with Bill C-39. This expression was thrown around rather freely during the election campaign, as I am sure the member will agree. At times, during the election campaign, close ties to certain individuals, their spouses or their relatives led organizations like Amnistie internationale Canada francophone to raise concerns about it based on their assumptions. However, in this case, we have an actual example. After Bill C-5, Bill C-15 and now Bill C-39, the government wants to give itself powers with no consultations required. This affects first nations, environmental laws and social licence in particular. Is there a risk of authoritarian abuse of power here?”
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and for her staunch defence of indigenous rights. She has done so eloquently once again. As an aside, I would like to thank Idriss, the good Samaritan who came to my rescue when I got a flat tire in La Vérendrye Park. Without his help, I would not be here today. I would also like to thank the Carquest garage in Gracefield that fixed my tire. It is thanks to their help that I am able to be here today. That said, I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on the potential for authoritarian abuse of power with Bill C-39. This expression was thrown around rather freely during the election campaign, as I am sure the member will agree. At times, during the election campaign, close ties to certain individuals, their spouses or their relatives led organizations like Amnistie internationale Canada francophone to raise concerns about it based on their assumptions. However, in this case, we have an actual example. After Bill C-5, Bill C-15 and now Bill C-39, the government wants to give itself powers with no consultations required. This affects first nations, environmental laws and social licence in particular. Is there a risk of authoritarian abuse of power here?
“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.”
Reply to a debate question
Reasoning 38 of 100
This statement drew 4 conclusions, but gave no reasons for 2 of them.
See full analysisReply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. 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.
“This bill promises faster approvals for major projects, but it will not work. The one-year timeline has too many loopholes and delays. To actually get projects built and keep workers from leaving my province, the government must approve the 500 stalled projects, scrap its bad energy laws, and end the industrial carbon tax. We must also let union workers speak to a committee about the labour changes in this bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House, on behalf of the incredible people of Long Range Mountains and as the shadow minister for energy and natural resources, to speak to Bill C-39. I think most Canadians would agree on one thing, which is that we need to get this country building. We need mines, pipelines, LNG facilities, transmission lines, ports and the infrastructure that would allow Canadian resources to get to market. Canada has the resources, workers and expertise the world needs, but for the past 11 years, major projects have been stalled and delayed by an uncertain federal regulatory system, driving investment out of Canada and, in too many cases, leaving projects abandoned altogether. That is really what I want to focus on today, along with another part of this bill, which is the changes to the Canada Labour Code. We have heard promises about faster approvals before. When Bill C-5 was introduced, Canadians were told the federal government was going to speed up major projects and give proponents more certainty. Conservatives supported that goal of getting projects moving, because we have been calling for faster approval for years. The Liberal government then created the Major Projects Office and said it would help coordinate projects and provide proponents with a clearer path through the federal system. More than a year later, we are back here in the House, debating yet another bill that is supposed to make it easier to build. I think the question most Canadians are asking is quite simple: Will this actually help to get major projects built? Given the track record of the Liberal government for the last 11 years, Canadians are certainly not going to measure success by how many offices are created or how many announcements are made. They are going to measure success by whether projects actually move forward, whether investment comes back or stays in Canada, whether shovels are in the ground and whether people actually get hired. This is especially important for resource-rich provinces like mine, Newfoundland and Labrador. I know the importance of responsible resource development and what it means for our communities. It means good jobs and profitable local businesses but, more importantly, it means the ability to live and thrive at home. For generations, too many of our young people have had to leave home to find work somewhere else. Families watch their children finish school and learn a trade or earn a degree, only to leave because the opportunities they are looking for are somewhere else. I know that experience personally, because I had to leave the province I love under those exact circumstances, just as my parents did when I was a young girl. Now I look at my four children and all of the young people in the communities I represent who want the opportunity to stay home. That is why this issue is especially important to me, to the people I represent and to Canadians right across this country. Even small projects can transform communities. A mine, a sawmill expansion, an energy project or a major piece of infrastructure can mean that a young person can stay home, start a small business, build a career, raise a family and stay in the community they grew up in. These projects provide work for local contractors and suppliers and investment in communities that already have the people, the resources and the experience to contribute to Canada’s economy, which is exactly why Conservatives have been calling on the Prime Minister to approve the 500 projects that are caught up in federal review. Population growth and workforce retention are such important issues in my province, where we have a declining population and high levels of out-migration, but those challenges cannot be overcome and opportunities cannot become reality if any project, big or small, spends years sitting in the federal process waiting for approval. Bill C-39 is the government’s newest answer to years of Liberal delays in the federal permitting system. The government is presenting this legislation as a one-year timeline, but let us break that down. The clock would only begin once all of the required information and studies have been provided and accepted. That is not the same thing as saying a project would receive a federal decision one year after it first enters the process. This is simply because there is no limit to the number of things that the bureaucracy would consider and ask for before a project was approved and the time actually starts. In addition, the process could be delayed, extended or suspended; and, if the government misses its timeline, it is only required to give an explanation and a new proposed timeline. A company deciding to invest billions of dollars in Canada needs to know with certainty how long the process will take from start to finish, especially given the track record of the current Liberal government. That certainty matters even more when cabinet retains the ability to extend or suspend the process, not to mention that workers want to know when the projects will begin and communities want to know when the jobs and investment will follow. I want to bring some real-life context to this and explain why this is so important. During one of my commutes back and forth to Ottawa, I spoke to a young man named Justin. Justin is a dad of three and a tradesperson working in Ontario. He told me, “I just want to work close to my family so I can pick up my kids after school and take them to hockey. If we could get some work in Newfoundland, I could do that.” Justin is one of the people I think about when we talk about getting projects moving. Trades NL states that currently the unemployment rate among its members is about 70% and people are looking for work everywhere across the country except in the province. That is why we need these projects now, not when Justin’s kids are grown up and that opportunity no longer exists for him. That is why the timelines in this legislation matter so much. What Canada needs is a system in which proponents know what is expected of them; from the start, the process is clear; and government’s decisions are made within a reasonable time frame. Timelines are only a part of the problem. The government keeps making changes around the edges while refusing to address the root of the problem: the regulatory and tax policies that continue to hold projects and investment back. Conservatives have consistently called for the repeal of antidevelopment laws like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 because Canada needs a regulatory system that gives investors certainty across the board, not a government deciding project by project which ones get special treatment. We have called to remove the federal industrial carbon tax to make Canada more competitive and bring investment back. There are roughly 500 projects waiting in the federal approval system. Conservatives have called on the Liberal government to approve them, remove the barriers holding back investment and give investors the certainty that they need to put their capital to work in Canada. Newfoundland and Labrador has tremendous offshore energy, hydroelectricity, mining and critical minerals potential. Those resources should be creating well-paying jobs, attracting private investment and giving young people a reason to build their future at home. The same is true across Canada where our energy and natural resources are in demand around the world, but having those resources means very little if the regulatory system makes it unnecessarily difficult to develop them and get them to market. The answer cannot be to leave those laws in place and then have Ottawa decide which individual projects deserve an accelerated path. While much of this bill deals with major projects and approvals, it also would make significant changes to the Canada Labour Code. I recently met with the Newfoundland and Labrador regional representative of the Canadian Labour Congress. We had a good discussion about the issues facing workers in organized labour and their deep concerns with this legislation. One of the things that I took away from that conversation was how important it is that the workers who would be affected by these changes have a meaningful opportunity to come before Parliament and explain their concerns. There would be substantial changes to federal labour law and they should not be rushed through simply because they are part of a much larger bill. Union members should have enough time to appear before a committee and make their case for why they believe the changes being made are a problem. Canada is not short on potential. We have the resources, the skilled workers and the communities ready to build. What Canada needs is the certainty to turn that potential into projects, investment and well-paying jobs. Business managers need certainty about the rules and the timelines, workers need confidence that they will be heard and provincial leaders need to know that their jurisdiction will be respected. Canadians should be able to expect that when Ottawa promises faster approvals, those promises lead to projects moving forward.”
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House, on behalf of the incredible people of Long Range Mountains and as the shadow minister for energy and natural resources, to speak to Bill C-39. I think most Canadians would agree on one thing, which is that we need to get this country building. We need mines, pipelines, LNG facilities, transmission lines, ports and the infrastructure that would allow Canadian resources to get to market. Canada has the resources, workers and expertise the world needs, but for the past 11 years, major projects have been stalled and delayed by an uncertain federal regulatory system, driving investment out of Canada and, in too many cases, leaving projects abandoned altogether. That is really what I want to focus on today, along with another part of this bill, which is the changes to the Canada Labour Code. We have heard promises about faster approvals before. When Bill C-5 was introduced, Canadians were told the federal government was going to speed up major projects and give proponents more certainty. Conservatives supported that goal of getting projects moving, because we have been calling for faster approval for years. The Liberal government then created the Major Projects Office and said it would help coordinate projects and provide proponents with a clearer path through the federal system. More than a year later, we are back here in the House, debating yet another bill that is supposed to make it easier to build. I think the question most Canadians are asking is quite simple: Will this actually help to get major projects built? Given the track record of the Liberal government for the last 11 years, Canadians are certainly not going to measure success by how many offices are created or how many announcements are made. They are going to measure success by whether projects actually move forward, whether investment comes back or stays in Canada, whether shovels are in the ground and whether people actually get hired. This is especially important for resource-rich provinces like mine, Newfoundland and Labrador. I know the importance of responsible resource development and what it means for our communities. It means good jobs and profitable local businesses but, more importantly, it means the ability to live and thrive at home. For generations, too many of our young people have had to leave home to find work somewhere else. Families watch their children finish school and learn a trade or earn a degree, only to leave because the opportunities they are looking for are somewhere else. I know that experience personally, because I had to leave the province I love under those exact circumstances, just as my parents did when I was a young girl. Now I look at my four children and all of the young people in the communities I represent who want the opportunity to stay home. That is why this issue is especially important to me, to the people I represent and to Canadians right across this country. Even small projects can transform communities. A mine, a sawmill expansion, an energy project or a major piece of infrastructure can mean that a young person can stay home, start a small business, build a career, raise a family and stay in the community they grew up in. These projects provide work for local contractors and suppliers and investment in communities that already have the people, the resources and the experience to contribute to Canada’s economy, which is exactly why Conservatives have been calling on the Prime Minister to approve the 500 projects that are caught up in federal review. Population growth and workforce retention are such important issues in my province, where we have a declining population and high levels of out-migration, but those challenges cannot be overcome and opportunities cannot become reality if any project, big or small, spends years sitting in the federal process waiting for approval. Bill C-39 is the government’s newest answer to years of Liberal delays in the federal permitting system. The government is presenting this legislation as a one-year timeline, but let us break that down. The clock would only begin once all of the required information and studies have been provided and accepted. That is not the same thing as saying a project would receive a federal decision one year after it first enters the process. This is simply because there is no limit to the number of things that the bureaucracy would consider and ask for before a project was approved and the time actually starts. In addition, the process could be delayed, extended or suspended; and, if the government misses its timeline, it is only required to give an explanation and a new proposed timeline. A company deciding to invest billions of dollars in Canada needs to know with certainty how long the process will take from start to finish, especially given the track record of the current Liberal government. That certainty matters even more when cabinet retains the ability to extend or suspend the process, not to mention that workers want to know when the projects will begin and communities want to know when the jobs and investment will follow. I want to bring some real-life context to this and explain why this is so important. During one of my commutes back and forth to Ottawa, I spoke to a young man named Justin. Justin is a dad of three and a tradesperson working in Ontario. He told me, “I just want to work close to my family so I can pick up my kids after school and take them to hockey. If we could get some work in Newfoundland, I could do that.” Justin is one of the people I think about when we talk about getting projects moving. Trades NL states that currently the unemployment rate among its members is about 70% and people are looking for work everywhere across the country except in the province. That is why we need these projects now, not when Justin’s kids are grown up and that opportunity no longer exists for him. That is why the timelines in this legislation matter so much. What Canada needs is a system in which proponents know what is expected of them; from the start, the process is clear; and government’s decisions are made within a reasonable time frame. Timelines are only a part of the problem. The government keeps making changes around the edges while refusing to address the root of the problem: the regulatory and tax policies that continue to hold projects and investment back. Conservatives have consistently called for the repeal of antidevelopment laws like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 because Canada needs a regulatory system that gives investors certainty across the board, not a government deciding project by project which ones get special treatment. We have called to remove the federal industrial carbon tax to make Canada more competitive and bring investment back. There are roughly 500 projects waiting in the federal approval system. Conservatives have called on the Liberal government to approve them, remove the barriers holding back investment and give investors the certainty that they need to put their capital to work in Canada. Newfoundland and Labrador has tremendous offshore energy, hydroelectricity, mining and critical minerals potential. Those resources should be creating well-paying jobs, attracting private investment and giving young people a reason to build their future at home. The same is true across Canada where our energy and natural resources are in demand around the world, but having those resources means very little if the regulatory system makes it unnecessarily difficult to develop them and get them to market. The answer cannot be to leave those laws in place and then have Ottawa decide which individual projects deserve an accelerated path. While much of this bill deals with major projects and approvals, it also would make significant changes to the Canada Labour Code. I recently met with the Newfoundland and Labrador regional representative of the Canadian Labour Congress. We had a good discussion about the issues facing workers in organized labour and their deep concerns with this legislation. One of the things that I took away from that conversation was how important it is that the workers who would be affected by these changes have a meaningful opportunity to come before Parliament and explain their concerns. There would be substantial changes to federal labour law and they should not be rushed through simply because they are part of a much larger bill. Union members should have enough time to appear before a committee and make their case for why they believe the changes being made are a problem. Canada is not short on potential. We have the resources, the skilled workers and the communities ready to build. What Canada needs is the certainty to turn that potential into projects, investment and well-paying jobs. Business managers need certainty about the rules and the timelines, workers need confidence that they will be heard and provincial leaders need to know that their jurisdiction will be respected. Canadians should be able to expect that when Ottawa promises faster approvals, those promises lead to projects moving forward.
“This bill will help our economy by speeding up building projects and giving businesses certainty. Our government has already invested heavily in western Newfoundland, from ferries and energy to local businesses. I want the member to admit that we have delivered for her area.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague certainly represents a beautiful part of the country. I had the privilege of being in her riding four times in the last year. The member talks about the work that is needed to help drive the economy of the country forward. I would submit to her that this is exactly what is in this bill, this build Canada strong act, which is all about moving faster on timelines and creating the certainty that businesses need. When I look at what this government has done for Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it is Churchill Falls and helping to support Premier Wakeham and the Government of Quebec; whether it is the fifth Marine Atlantic ferry, which is crucial for her riding; $30 million and I was part of an announcement in Corner Brook in her riding; or whether it is Corner Brook Pulp and Paper expansion project, Bay du Nord, the mining sector opportunities or tourism, there certainly have been some good things that I have been a part of that have been announced in her riding. I am wondering whether she would acknowledge that the government has put forward things that are making a difference in western Newfoundland.”
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague certainly represents a beautiful part of the country. I had the privilege of being in her riding four times in the last year. The member talks about the work that is needed to help drive the economy of the country forward. I would submit to her that this is exactly what is in this bill, this build Canada strong act, which is all about moving faster on timelines and creating the certainty that businesses need. When I look at what this government has done for Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it is Churchill Falls and helping to support Premier Wakeham and the Government of Quebec; whether it is the fifth Marine Atlantic ferry, which is crucial for her riding; $30 million and I was part of an announcement in Corner Brook in her riding; or whether it is Corner Brook Pulp and Paper expansion project, Bay du Nord, the mining sector opportunities or tourism, there certainly have been some good things that I have been a part of that have been announced in her riding. I am wondering whether she would acknowledge that the government has put forward things that are making a difference in western Newfoundland.
“I want to see projects actually get built, not just studied. The government only promised to study the Churchill Falls expansion, instead of committing to build it. The wind project does not even have a route or a company behind it yet.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for visiting my beautiful riding. As I alluded to in my speech, I absolutely want to see construction move forward. I am happy that the member talked about Churchill Falls. This sort of gives me the opportunity to break down some of the components of that. This is a large announcement and complex. One of the things the government announced in this large project was the Churchill Falls expansion. We have been talking about the Churchill Falls expansion for a very long time. The government’s commitment is only to study the Churchill Falls expansion. In the previous MOU, there was a commitment on construction. On the wind project, there is no proponent or route proposed. Once again, we need the projects now, not commitments to study, but for construction of the projects.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for visiting my beautiful riding. As I alluded to in my speech, I absolutely want to see construction move forward. I am happy that the member talked about Churchill Falls. This sort of gives me the opportunity to break down some of the components of that. This is a large announcement and complex. One of the things the government announced in this large project was the Churchill Falls expansion. We have been talking about the Churchill Falls expansion for a very long time. The government’s commitment is only to study the Churchill Falls expansion. In the previous MOU, there was a commitment on construction. On the wind project, there is no proponent or route proposed. Once again, we need the projects now, not commitments to study, but for construction of the projects.
“Government members are supporting this 250-page bill without reading it. I think this bill weakens our democracy, and I want to know if my colleague agrees.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if parliamentarians from the governing party here are aware of this omnibus bill. Earlier, during question period, I got the impression that they were saying yes because it will save us from Donald Trump. In fact, they are not even listening to me. Perhaps it is because I am speaking in French. I get the feeling they are under a spell. As we take a closer look at the bill and focus on strengthening democracy and the rule of law, in all seriousness, I would take a moment and go read all 250 pages. No one can tell me otherwise. I want to know whether my colleague agrees that Bill C‑39 weakens democracy.”
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if parliamentarians from the governing party here are aware of this omnibus bill. Earlier, during question period, I got the impression that they were saying yes because it will save us from Donald Trump. In fact, they are not even listening to me. Perhaps it is because I am speaking in French. I get the feeling they are under a spell. As we take a closer look at the bill and focus on strengthening democracy and the rule of law, in all seriousness, I would take a moment and go read all 250 pages. No one can tell me otherwise. I want to know whether my colleague agrees that Bill C‑39 weakens democracy.
“We need more time to study this massive bill, especially the changes to labour laws. The government is rushing it through committees, so we cannot properly look at how it will affect people.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I alluded to in my speech, specifically around the changes to labour laws, one of the concerns I certainly heard from constituents in my riding is that this is being put in this massive piece of legislation and being pushed through in majority committees. There will not be time to talk properly about the repercussions for people who will be impacted by this piece of legislation. I would agree with the member that we need to have that time, especially on that piece of legislation.”
Mr. Speaker, as I alluded to in my speech, specifically around the changes to labour laws, one of the concerns I certainly heard from constituents in my riding is that this is being put in this massive piece of legislation and being pushed through in majority committees. There will not be time to talk properly about the repercussions for people who will be impacted by this piece of legislation. I would agree with the member that we need to have that time, especially on that piece of legislation.
“Other countries build natural gas facilities in four to six months, but Canada cannot. The government refused to sell our natural gas to Japan and Germany. I want the government to explain why we cannot build these projects as fast as other countries.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague talked about timelines. A Liberal government member spoke earlier in the debate today and talked about the need for diversification of our trade. I think we would all agree, as I certainly do, we need to do that, but that particular member was part of a government that said no to Japan and Germany that wanted our LNG. That would have been an incredible opportunity to diversify our trade. Germany, in fact, went to Qatar, that built them the intake facility in six and a half months. The Netherlands has built an LNG intake facility in six months. Finland has built an LNG intake facility in four months. Why is it that these countries can build a facility in four to six months and we cannot in Canada? Maybe the member can expand on that. It is probably a lot of talk and no—”
Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague talked about timelines. A Liberal government member spoke earlier in the debate today and talked about the need for diversification of our trade. I think we would all agree, as I certainly do, we need to do that, but that particular member was part of a government that said no to Japan and Germany that wanted our LNG. That would have been an incredible opportunity to diversify our trade. Germany, in fact, went to Qatar, that built them the intake facility in six and a half months. The Netherlands has built an LNG intake facility in six months. Finland has built an LNG intake facility in four months. Why is it that these countries can build a facility in four to six months and we cannot in Canada? Maybe the member can expand on that. It is probably a lot of talk and no—
“Canadians need results right now, not more paperwork and government offices. We need the government to actually start building these projects.”
“Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with my colleague that the time is now. Canadians need results. We do not need another office and bureaucratic process. What we need is action, commitment to construction, projects moving forward and shovels in the ground. Canadians will hold the government to account based on that.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 38 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisReply to a debate question
Reasoning 0 of 100
This statement drew 3 conclusions but offered no reasons to support them.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with my colleague that the time is now. Canadians need results. We do not need another office and bureaucratic process. What we need is action, commitment to construction, projects moving forward and shovels in the ground. Canadians will hold the government to account based on that.
“I want the House to pass this bill. It speeds up project approvals so businesses can invest, while still protecting the environment and workers' rights. It also helps companies and unions solve labour disputes before strikes happen.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today after a busy summer in my riding of Milton East—Halton Hills South to speak to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, and to the important balance this legislation seeks to strike between economic growth, business investment and the protection of Canadian workers. This legislation recognizes something that I believe is fundamental to Canada’s economic future: We cannot build a stronger economy without stronger business and we cannot build stronger business without an equally strong workforce. These two things should never be competing goals, because they vitally depend on one another. I was raised in a blue-collar, working-class home. My mom was a long-term care nurse for over three decades, and my father learned the carpentry trade after immigrating from Italy, before working as a truck driver. I learned from my parents that work can be hard, but it can be meaningful when properly recognized and supported. Canada faces a rapidly changing global economy and we have an opportunity to meet the moment and attract new investment, expand Canadian businesses, strengthen our domestic supply chains and build major projects that create good jobs. However, as we do that, we also have a responsibility to ensure that workers have safe workplaces, fair wages, meaningful collective bargaining agreements and the protections they need to succeed. That balance is particularly important in critical sectors like aviation, ports, railways and logistics, industries that Canadians rely on every day. Bill C-39 would require earlier bargaining in higher-risk situations with the goal of preventing labour disruptions before they occur, and its measures are designed to strengthen the collective bargaining process. For example, parties in high-risk relationships would need to begin the bargaining process at least six months before the current CBA expires, and the conciliation period would be extended from 60 days to 90 days, giving both sides more time to negotiate before a dispute escalates. Accordingly, a key part of our labour reform is the introduction of a special mediator, who would have a defined 21-day mandate to work with both parties during the conciliation period. Most importantly, this process would not eliminate the right to strike. I believe that collective bargaining should remain the foundation of Canada’s labour relations system. Workers and employers should be able to negotiate their own agreements, and government intervention should not become a substitution for bargaining. That being said, there are exceptional circumstances where a labour dispute can have consequences that extend well beyond the parties at the bargaining table. This brings me to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. Section 107 gives the Minister of Labour the authority to take measures considered necessary to maintain or secure industrial peace and promote conditions favourable to the settlement of industrial disputes. Members may remember the dispute between flight attendants and a national airline in August last year. I have many flight attendants and airport workers who live in my riding, just a short drive from Toronto Pearson Airport, and many of them contacted my office to explain the conditions of their work. Likewise, I received calls from those impacted by the unexpected cancelling of flights, about families who were stranded, cargo that was delayed and businesses that were affected. Many will say that labour strikes are supposed to be painful and disruptive, and those people are right. That is how we experience just how crucial the role of the striking worker is. We all profoundly feel the absence of their work. It impacts our lives and it impacts their lives. That particular strike was ended using section 107. Our government ordered an inquiry into the very valid grievances of the attendants. I publicly responded at that time, acknowledging the crucial work that flight attendants provide to keep our economy moving, and I expressed my disappointment that more time was not available for meaningful bargaining between the parties. We know that the best, fairest and most comprehensive deals are the ones made at the bargaining table by the parties themselves. Bill C-39 is our government’s response to this. It proposes a clearer framework for when those powers can be used, providing greater protections for collective bargaining. Section 107 should always be a genuine last resort, not something that is used simply because of a strike or lockout being inconvenient. Bill C-39 introduces clear guardrails and greater accountability by requiring a special mediator to investigate and provide a public report to the minister outlining the following: firstly, the issues in dispute; secondly, the parties’ positions on those issues; thirdly, the extent of the parties’ participation in the process; and lastly, the likelihood of reaching a negotiated settlement. Only after considering this new report would the minister be able to consider invoking section 107. We must recognize that federally regulated industries are essential to maintaining our economy and protecting Canadians. That is why there needs to be a clear and transparent process for responding to disputes at major ports, railways and other critical infrastructure. Bill C-39 attempts to establish that process, while maintaining collective bargaining as the primary means of resolving disputes. Our country needs a system that provides balance between protecting our economy and protecting our workers, which is why Bill C-39 proposes several other labour protections regarding worker misclassification, wage theft, workplace safety and stronger support through the wage earner protection program. Over the summer, I spoke with many union leaders, including from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, who represent airline workers in my riding. They expressed concerns over what they call “contract flipping”, where contracts are retendered and subcontractors are switched, which can negatively affect workers and their wages. This bill would extend successor rights in certain contract retendering situations in airports and air transportation, helping preserve union representation and collective agreements when a contract moves from one contractor to another. I will speak a little about business investment as well. Not only do workers deserve certainty, but businesses do too. For businesses considering whether to expand, invest, hire or build new facilities in Canada, uncertainty is very costly. If approvals take years longer than anticipated, investment can and often does move elsewhere. I have heard many similar stories from businesses in my riding. Canada is competing for investment with countries around the world. Our system must be rigorous but also predictable. This bill proposes a more coordinated federal approval process, with the goal of one project, one review, one year, but we do not need to choose between upholding Canada’s strong environmental protections and streamlining project reviews. We can do both and must do both. Businesses need to know what the rules are, and workers need to know that those rules will protect them. Communities need to know that projects will be properly assessed, and indigenous communities must continue to have meaningful opportunities to participate in decisions that affect their rights and interests. A modern economy should be capable of doing all these things at the same time. Bill C-39 also recognizes that expanding Canadian businesses requires more than just approving individual projects. We need stronger transportation corridors. We need reliable ports and railways. We need efficient supply chains, and we need to reduce unnecessary duplication for businesses. This is particularly important at a time when Canada is working to diversify its trade relationships and strengthen the economy. We cannot control what other nations do, but we can control whether Canada is prepared to compete. We can make it easier for businesses to invest and easier to build. We can strengthen our infrastructure and protect Canadian workers, and we can create a labour relations system that encourages employers and unions to reach agreements together. That is the balance that I see reflected in Bill C-39. It is about recognizing that Canada’s economic success depends on both workers and business. We need a framework that encourages investment while maintaining strong standards, and we need collective bargaining that really works. We need safe workplaces. We need fair treatment for workers. We need an approval system that gives businesses the confidence to put capital to work in Canada. Canada has tremendous economic potential. We have skilled workers, entrepreneurs who want to grow, natural resources, manufacturing capacity, infrastructure, and communities ready to build, but potential alone is just not enough. We need to create the conditions for Canadians to turn that potential into investment, jobs, innovation and long-term economic security, while ensuring that the workers who make growth possible are protected and have meaningful voices. Bill C-39 would bring these objectives together to make our economy more competitive, protect workers, make the regulatory process more predictable and uphold environmental protections and indigenous consultation requirements. It seeks to ensure that when labour disputes become particularly serious, there is a transparent and structured process before exceptional government authority is used as a last resort. What I and I expect many Canadians want to see is more investment, more businesses expanding, more projects getting built, more Canadians working good, well-paying jobs and stronger protections for those workers. That is the balance we should continue working toward.”
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today after a busy summer in my riding of Milton East—Halton Hills South to speak to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, and to the important balance this legislation seeks to strike between economic growth, business investment and the protection of Canadian workers. This legislation recognizes something that I believe is fundamental to Canada’s economic future: We cannot build a stronger economy without stronger business and we cannot build stronger business without an equally strong workforce. These two things should never be competing goals, because they vitally depend on one another. I was raised in a blue-collar, working-class home. My mom was a long-term care nurse for over three decades, and my father learned the carpentry trade after immigrating from Italy, before working as a truck driver. I learned from my parents that work can be hard, but it can be meaningful when properly recognized and supported. Canada faces a rapidly changing global economy and we have an opportunity to meet the moment and attract new investment, expand Canadian businesses, strengthen our domestic supply chains and build major projects that create good jobs. However, as we do that, we also have a responsibility to ensure that workers have safe workplaces, fair wages, meaningful collective bargaining agreements and the protections they need to succeed. That balance is particularly important in critical sectors like aviation, ports, railways and logistics, industries that Canadians rely on every day. Bill C-39 would require earlier bargaining in higher-risk situations with the goal of preventing labour disruptions before they occur, and its measures are designed to strengthen the collective bargaining process. For example, parties in high-risk relationships would need to begin the bargaining process at least six months before the current CBA expires, and the conciliation period would be extended from 60 days to 90 days, giving both sides more time to negotiate before a dispute escalates. Accordingly, a key part of our labour reform is the introduction of a special mediator, who would have a defined 21-day mandate to work with both parties during the conciliation period. Most importantly, this process would not eliminate the right to strike. I believe that collective bargaining should remain the foundation of Canada’s labour relations system. Workers and employers should be able to negotiate their own agreements, and government intervention should not become a substitution for bargaining. That being said, there are exceptional circumstances where a labour dispute can have consequences that extend well beyond the parties at the bargaining table. This brings me to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. Section 107 gives the Minister of Labour the authority to take measures considered necessary to maintain or secure industrial peace and promote conditions favourable to the settlement of industrial disputes. Members may remember the dispute between flight attendants and a national airline in August last year. I have many flight attendants and airport workers who live in my riding, just a short drive from Toronto Pearson Airport, and many of them contacted my office to explain the conditions of their work. Likewise, I received calls from those impacted by the unexpected cancelling of flights, about families who were stranded, cargo that was delayed and businesses that were affected. Many will say that labour strikes are supposed to be painful and disruptive, and those people are right. That is how we experience just how crucial the role of the striking worker is. We all profoundly feel the absence of their work. It impacts our lives and it impacts their lives. That particular strike was ended using section 107. Our government ordered an inquiry into the very valid grievances of the attendants. I publicly responded at that time, acknowledging the crucial work that flight attendants provide to keep our economy moving, and I expressed my disappointment that more time was not available for meaningful bargaining between the parties. We know that the best, fairest and most comprehensive deals are the ones made at the bargaining table by the parties themselves. Bill C-39 is our government’s response to this. It proposes a clearer framework for when those powers can be used, providing greater protections for collective bargaining. Section 107 should always be a genuine last resort, not something that is used simply because of a strike or lockout being inconvenient. Bill C-39 introduces clear guardrails and greater accountability by requiring a special mediator to investigate and provide a public report to the minister outlining the following: firstly, the issues in dispute; secondly, the parties’ positions on those issues; thirdly, the extent of the parties’ participation in the process; and lastly, the likelihood of reaching a negotiated settlement. Only after considering this new report would the minister be able to consider invoking section 107. We must recognize that federally regulated industries are essential to maintaining our economy and protecting Canadians. That is why there needs to be a clear and transparent process for responding to disputes at major ports, railways and other critical infrastructure. Bill C-39 attempts to establish that process, while maintaining collective bargaining as the primary means of resolving disputes. Our country needs a system that provides balance between protecting our economy and protecting our workers, which is why Bill C-39 proposes several other labour protections regarding worker misclassification, wage theft, workplace safety and stronger support through the wage earner protection program. Over the summer, I spoke with many union leaders, including from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, who represent airline workers in my riding. They expressed concerns over what they call “contract flipping”, where contracts are retendered and subcontractors are switched, which can negatively affect workers and their wages. This bill would extend successor rights in certain contract retendering situations in airports and air transportation, helping preserve union representation and collective agreements when a contract moves from one contractor to another. I will speak a little about business investment as well. Not only do workers deserve certainty, but businesses do too. For businesses considering whether to expand, invest, hire or build new facilities in Canada, uncertainty is very costly. If approvals take years longer than anticipated, investment can and often does move elsewhere. I have heard many similar stories from businesses in my riding. Canada is competing for investment with countries around the world. Our system must be rigorous but also predictable. This bill proposes a more coordinated federal approval process, with the goal of one project, one review, one year, but we do not need to choose between upholding Canada’s strong environmental protections and streamlining project reviews. We can do both and must do both. Businesses need to know what the rules are, and workers need to know that those rules will protect them. Communities need to know that projects will be properly assessed, and indigenous communities must continue to have meaningful opportunities to participate in decisions that affect their rights and interests. A modern economy should be capable of doing all these things at the same time. Bill C-39 also recognizes that expanding Canadian businesses requires more than just approving individual projects. We need stronger transportation corridors. We need reliable ports and railways. We need efficient supply chains, and we need to reduce unnecessary duplication for businesses. This is particularly important at a time when Canada is working to diversify its trade relationships and strengthen the economy. We cannot control what other nations do, but we can control whether Canada is prepared to compete. We can make it easier for businesses to invest and easier to build. We can strengthen our infrastructure and protect Canadian workers, and we can create a labour relations system that encourages employers and unions to reach agreements together. That is the balance that I see reflected in Bill C-39. It is about recognizing that Canada’s economic success depends on both workers and business. We need a framework that encourages investment while maintaining strong standards, and we need collective bargaining that really works. We need safe workplaces. We need fair treatment for workers. We need an approval system that gives businesses the confidence to put capital to work in Canada. Canada has tremendous economic potential. We have skilled workers, entrepreneurs who want to grow, natural resources, manufacturing capacity, infrastructure, and communities ready to build, but potential alone is just not enough. We need to create the conditions for Canadians to turn that potential into investment, jobs, innovation and long-term economic security, while ensuring that the workers who make growth possible are protected and have meaningful voices. Bill C-39 would bring these objectives together to make our economy more competitive, protect workers, make the regulatory process more predictable and uphold environmental protections and indigenous consultation requirements. It seeks to ensure that when labour disputes become particularly serious, there is a transparent and structured process before exceptional government authority is used as a last resort. What I and I expect many Canadians want to see is more investment, more businesses expanding, more projects getting built, more Canadians working good, well-paying jobs and stronger protections for those workers. That is the balance we should continue working toward.
“The member says she wants to protect workers. If that is true, she should want the government to share a report showing how this bill affects workers' Charter rights.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite used the term “workers” several times throughout her speech and also talked about the changes to collective bargaining, particularly the need to have a transparent process. I take it that the member is in favour of Bill C-39 and the changes to the Labour Code, particularly to section 107. Does the member believe that the government should be transparent and submit to the House, through the Minister of Justice, a charter statement outlining the impacts on the charter rights of the workers she says she wants to protect?”
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite used the term “workers” several times throughout her speech and also talked about the changes to collective bargaining, particularly the need to have a transparent process. I take it that the member is in favour of Bill C-39 and the changes to the Labour Code, particularly to section 107. Does the member believe that the government should be transparent and submit to the House, through the Minister of Justice, a charter statement outlining the impacts on the charter rights of the workers she says she wants to protect?
“Work stoppages are rare, because 95% of these labour deals are reached without one. Our government cares about transparency. We test all our bills carefully to make sure they follow the Charter of Rights before they come to the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a question about section 107. I will note that 95% of collective agreements in federally regulated sectors are reached without a work stoppage. It is a very rare incident when this happens. Certainly I am in favour of transparency and accountability, as is our government, which is why this legislation is being presented. All of our legislation goes through rigorous charter testing. The last thing the government wants is to be brought into court on a charter challenge. I would rely on the work that has been done by the drafters of the legislation and by the minister in making sure that all legislation is charter-compliant when it comes to the House.”
Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a question about section 107. I will note that 95% of collective agreements in federally regulated sectors are reached without a work stoppage. It is a very rare incident when this happens. Certainly I am in favour of transparency and accountability, as is our government, which is why this legislation is being presented. All of our legislation goes through rigorous charter testing. The last thing the government wants is to be brought into court on a charter challenge. I would rely on the work that has been done by the drafters of the legislation and by the minister in making sure that all legislation is charter-compliant when it comes to the House.
“This bill takes away workers' rights and gives employers too much power. It also shows that the government is hiding things from the public. I want the member to say if she will vote against this bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Milton East—Halton Hills South for her comments. She mentioned her concern about workers in particular. Bill C-39 creates a situation that is really a form of abuse that will take away workers’ rights. It will skew negotiations in the employer’s favour. In my view, this poses a huge risk because it could cause workers to lose the gains they have achieved over the past few decades. I will draw a parallel. Right now, the member should be at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, where a debate is taking place on the Cúram software. Mr. Ostrander is there testifying about problems caused by a computer program. Here is the connection I am making. In both cases, there has been a lack of transparency, and the government has not fulfilled its obligation to be accountable to the public. Is the member concerned about this lack of transparency? Is she really going to vote in favour of this bill?”
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Milton East—Halton Hills South for her comments. She mentioned her concern about workers in particular. Bill C-39 creates a situation that is really a form of abuse that will take away workers’ rights. It will skew negotiations in the employer’s favour. In my view, this poses a huge risk because it could cause workers to lose the gains they have achieved over the past few decades. I will draw a parallel. Right now, the member should be at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, where a debate is taking place on the Cúram software. Mr. Ostrander is there testifying about problems caused by a computer program. Here is the connection I am making. In both cases, there has been a lack of transparency, and the government has not fulfilled its obligation to be accountable to the public. Is the member concerned about this lack of transparency? Is she really going to vote in favour of this bill?
