Colin Reynolds

Madam Speaker, it is with great honour that I rise in the House today to speak on behalf of the hard-working people of Elmwood—Transcona. Before I was elected as a member of Parliament, I was a construction electrician for 20 years. I hung up my tools a few days before the election, but I have not left that world behind. To this day, I am proud to serve as the sitting vice-president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2085 in Manitoba. As I speak in the House today, I bring the perspective of someone who has spent my life putting on my boots and picking up my tools every day to earn a living and support my family. Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, is a large, omnibus-style bill. The Liberal government says the goal is to speed up projects in major infrastructure, natural resources and transportation, but buried inside this large bill are proposed major changes to the Canada Labour Code. The Liberal government has brought together many policy updates and put them all into one bill that would affect the relationship among workers, employers and the federal government. Canada needs to build. We need more infrastructure, more investments and more well-paying jobs, but how we treat the people who are actually behind building this country matters a lot and should be a priority. Bill C-39 would make many changes to the federal labour law. The Liberal government says these changes are meant to modernize the Canada Labour Code, strengthen collective bargaining and help employers and employees find solutions to disagreements before they become major labour conflicts. The changes that are part of the bill include proposing a new position for a special mediator who would step in during hard negotiations and report directly to the minister, which would create more opportunities for the government to become involved earlier in difficult bargaining relationships instead of letting employees and employers work out their disagreements together. This would open up another opportunity for the government to become involved in the bargaining process. The bill would add more access to federal involvement when workers and employers are trying to negotiate their first agreement. There would also be changes dealing with multi-employer bargaining and expedited grievances. This would add more processes and responsibility to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. The bill also proposes a modification to paid medical leave, adding 100 health and safety officers and increasing the CIRB capacity by adding 26 staff members. These would be significant changes. However, proposed alterations in the bill to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, and what effect these would have on employee and employer relationships, deserve special attention. Section 107 is not new. It has been part of the Canada Labour Code for decades, since 1984. Right now, section 107 gives the minister very broad authority in decision-making. It lets the minister, when they consider it necessary, take steps to maintain or secure industrial peace and promote conditions to help solve disagreements. The minister can also direct the CIRB to take the measures the minister considers necessary. The new proposed changes continue to make vague statements about the situations and power the minister holds. With the proposed implementation of Bill C-39, these are the steps that would have to take place when a disagreement happens between employees and employers. A special mediator would have to be appointed and complete their work within 21 days. The mediator would write a report to the minister. The minister would then have to give an opinion on whether a strike or a work stoppage would be a significant worry to the national interest. The minister could then direct the CIRB to order workers back to work, extend an existing collective agreement or establish a binding dispute resolution. However, the minister would still be the one deciding what the national interest is. The minister should not be given any more power to intervene in a lawful dispute. This is because the power would affect and change collective bargaining directly. The right to strike is one of the main forms of leverage that workers have during negotiations and it is a constitutional right. If this is taken away, the balance of bargaining changes. The “What We Heard—Building Canada Strong for All” report explains that collective bargaining works in most cases, saying that 95% of the time, “collective agreements are reached without a work stoppage.” The Conservative Party supports workers' rights to organize democratically by bargaining collectively and peacefully withdrawing their services if necessary. Section 107, with and without the changes proposed by Bill C-39, allows the government to step in and stop lawful strikes. This directly affects workers' right to strike and to negotiate a fair agreement. The Liberal government claims that section 107 would only be used in exceptional circumstances. While section 107 of the Canada Labour Code has been implemented for over 40 years, it was not normally used as a mechanism for ending lawful strikes. Since 2024, the Liberal government has used section 107 routinely to end major strikes and impose arbitration. The Liberals have involved themselves with WestJet, the Canadian National Railway, CPKC, the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, west coast ports, the Port of Montreal, the Port of Quebec, Canada Post, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and most recently Air Canada. Many of these interventions were challenged by unions in court. The Canadian Labour Congress and other organizations have argued that the recent use of section 107 undermines the workers' right to strike and weakens collective bargaining in good faith. Many unions and organizations have spoken about the restrictions on the right to strike and wanting these restrictions removed. The Canadian Union of Public Employees recently made a claim against the Liberal government's Bill C-39, highlighting that the right to strike is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bill would attack Canadian workers' ability to negotiate by taking away the right to fair collective bargaining. Section 107 causes issues in the bargaining and negotiation process. Without a proper collective bargaining process, employers do not take bargaining seriously because they know the government will step in during a work stoppage. Government intervention can remove the leverage workers have at the bargaining table and encourage employers to wait for the government to intervene instead of reaching an agreement fairly. These are serious consequences that are possible with implementing this bill. Continuing to make significant Labour Code changes in a large bill without properly considering the negative impacts would have a negative effect on Canadian workers and their rights. The government should create conditions for workers to negotiate, not become the negotiator. Bill C-39 is not just about labour. It would also make substantial changes to Canada's project approval and environmental framework. Bill C-39 would change how environmental decisions are made under federal law. The bill proposes one single federal project decision where there are currently separate federal decisions. It would create a one-year federal review timeline. It would give certain agencies, like the Canada Energy Regulator and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, a larger role in leading reviews for projects in their field. It would also give the environment minister new authority to allow prep work to begin before a final decision if the minister considers it in the public interest and follows certain conditions. The Liberal government does not have the best track record of picking winners and losers. Additionally, there would be changes to the Species at Risk Act, the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Navigable Waters Act. The Liberal government argues that environmental assessment requirements would remain in place and would respect indigenous rights. However, environmental organizations have raised concerns. World Wildlife Fund Canada, Canada's largest international conservation organization, explains that faster approvals must still be able to provide safeguards for species and ecosystems, and that the proposed changes could weaken environmental protections. Bill C-39 contains many objectives that Canadians understand. We do need a labour relations system that lets employers and employees reach sustainable agreements. The government should create a system that encourages bargaining instead of encouraging the parties to depend on the government when negotiations become difficult. The government should propose a national interest test that is objective and should listen to workers and employers who are actually living under these rules. Collective bargaining is not the enemy of economic growth. It is part of a working labour market. Workers have a right to bargain and employers have a right to negotiate. The government's role should be to establish fair rules. I leave members with this question: Is an omnibus bill really the right tool we want to use to make so many significant changes without proper consideration and consultation?

Madam Speaker, I do not think it is more of a threat. It is about the Liberals' use of section 107, which has been in place for 40 years. It was not used by previous governments, but over the last two years, it has been used seven or eight times. The issue is not about being more accountable. The issue is that one person gets to decide, and it is not an act of Parliament that would put workers back to work. I think most Canadians respect that process, but that process has not been used by the government in the last several years.

Madam Speaker, I think the biggest issue we are discussing is the fact that the major changes in approving national interest projects are all going to be made at the hands of a minister and at one person's discretion. I think having all of these major changes coming forward in an omnibus bill is not the right approach to making such critical changes to our country's legislation.