Building Canada Strong Bill

Honourable senators, the Senate is resolved into a Committee of the Whole in order to study the subject matter of Bill C-39, An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy.

Honourable senators, in a Committee of the Whole, senators shall address the chair but need not stand. Under the Rules, the speaking time is 10 minutes, including questions and answers, but, as ordered, if a senator does not use all of their time, the balance may be yielded to another senator.

The committee will receive the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, P.C., M.P., President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs, Internal Trade and One Canadian Economy; the Honourable Steven MacKinnon, P.C., M.P., Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; and the Honourable Patty Hajdu, P.C., M.P., Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario.

I would ask senators to please be clear on which minister their question is addressed to.

I would now invite the ministers to enter, accompanied by their officials.

(Pursuant to the order of the Senate, the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, the Honourable Steven MacKinnon, the Honourable Patty Hajdu and their officials were escorted to seats in the Senate Chamber.)

Ministers, on behalf of all senators, welcome to the Senate.

As I have informed my colleagues, the question-and-answer period will be divided into 10-minute blocks. These blocks will be shared between two or three senators and will include time for your responses.

I would ask you to make your opening remarks of at most five minutes each.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon.

It’s a privilege to appear before this Senate Committee of the Whole today to speak further to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act.

I was pleased to introduce the bill on September 21, and I’m very happy to have the opportunity to discuss it further with you today.

Honourable senators, there is no question that the world around us is changing. Global trade is being reshaped. Businesses are dealing with more uncertainty. Supply chains are under pressure. Countries are competing for investment, talent and market access.

Canada is responding. We are diversifying our trade, strengthening our economy at home and building new commercial relationships around the world.

We have what the world wants: an educated workforce, vast natural resources and access to markets around the globe. But that’s not enough.

We must turn those advantages into real opportunities for people and businesses in our communities. For businesses to do that, they need clear rules, predictable decisions and reliable ways to get their products to customers. That is what Bill C-39 is all about.

Canada’s transportation system is the backbone of our economy. Our roads, railways, ports, airports and warehouses have to work together to move goods efficiently.

Bill C-39 would strengthen our trade corridors by allowing important routes and geographic areas to be designated as national trade corridors with clear performance goals.

A national trade corridors council would help identify bottlenecks and improve coordination across the system. The objective is simple: fewer delays, greater reliability and lower costs. This is particularly important as we diversify our trade.

If Canada is going to expand exports, we need the infrastructure and systems to get Canadian products to new markets quickly and reliably. Our ports are a critical part of that effort.

Approximately 80% of Canada’s trade by volume with countries other than the United States moves by sea. Bill C-39 would give port authorities greater flexibility to respond to changing trade opportunities while strengthening accountability and oversight and encouraging greater collaboration along trade corridors.

Let me be clear: These measures will not privatize Canada’s ports. Our Canadian port authorities are independent, self-funded entities responsible for managing port lands on behalf of the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada retains ownership of port lands.

The changes in Bill C-39 would give port authorities the tools and flexibility they need to contribute to the Canadian economy.

The measures in the bill will also facilitate investment and project delivery by reducing unnecessary regulatory duplication. The “one project, one review” approach would help to better coordinate federal processes, clarify timelines and reduce the administrative burden while maintaining Canada’s rigorous safety and environmental standards.

We also need to build projects faster. The Major Projects Office will provide a single entry point for high-priority projects and help make federal approvals more coordinated and predictable.

Another important part of the bill is digitalizing trade. Too much of our trade system still relies on paper and requires businesses to provide the same information repeatedly.

Bill C-39 would support a “tell us once” approach and enable greater use of electronic trade documents. This means less paperwork, fewer delays and a more efficient trading system.

Finally, none of this works without the people who keep our supply chains moving. We need skilled workers, workforce development and greater labour mobility.

We also need stability in our transportation system so that disruptions do not ripple through the broader economy.

Canada has tremendous advantages. We have the talent, the resources and the market access the world wants. Now we have to turn these advantages into investments, projects, jobs and growth. That’s exactly what Bill C-39 would do. It would facilitate investment in Canada, accelerate project completion here and make it easier to get Canadian products to customers around the world.

Thank you, minister.

Thank you.

Minister Hajdu.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is an honour to be with you as Minister of Jobs and Families to highlight the labour components of Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act.

These components are key to strengthening Canada’s labour framework and protecting Canadian workers. They are also one part of a larger suite of complementary measures that, together, offer a comprehensive plan to simplify and advance Canada’s projects while diversifying our trade and attracting new investment.

Today, I will outline the labour components of the bill and how they will help strengthen labour relations in federally regulated sectors.

We know that a strong economy depends on a strong workforce and a good relationship between workers and their employer.

Workplaces with healthy labour relations have the stability and confidence to invest and grow. The labour components of Bill C-39 are designed to strengthen good-faith bargaining and worker protections in Canada’s federally regulated workplaces. The Canada Labour Code is the framework that supports workers and employers in these federally regulated sectors, such as interprovincial transportation, banking and telecommunications.

The framework and tools within it help 95% of federally regulated workplaces renew their collective agreements without labour disruption. However, for the other 5%, reaching a renewed agreement is much more difficult; for some, this presents a cyclical inability to conclude agreements without labour disruption. These cycles can be self-reinforcing, as relationships between workers and the employer often remain strained and the inability to resolve their disputes together further places at risk the next collective bargaining process. This is unfortunate because all parties claim and agree that the best deals are the ones they arrive at together.

We asked employers, workers and Canadians how to improve the tools that the federal government offers to parties to help them reach agreements together in a better way. We heard that, for the most part, Canada’s labour relations system is working well. However, we also heard that existing tools don’t always help to resolve the most complex and contentious disputes. That’s why Bill C-39 focuses first and foremost on strengthening the tools, supports and processes that help workers and employers find solutions together.

Many of the suggestions focus on the need to strengthen the parties’ accountability so that they negotiate fairly and transparently, while taking each other’s needs into account.

Bill C-39 responds to that advice and focuses on three key priorities.

First, we are modernizing collective bargaining with strengthened tools and additional supports. This means supporting earlier engagement in high-risk bargaining situations, helping rebuild labour-management relationships following disputes, adding supports for first collective agreement negotiations, providing more time for parties to work out their differences and reach an agreement at the bargaining table and laying the groundwork for expedited grievance arbitration and an administrative monetary penalty regime for bad-faith bargaining.

The federal government is also investing in the capacity of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and the Canada Industrial Relations Board so that parties have timely access to the labour relations services they need.

Second, we will strengthen worker protections and help them adapt to modernized workplaces. We will increase the federal government’s capacity to protect workers from wage theft, misclassification and workplace accidents. We will make it easier to reach the conclusion of a first collective agreement.

That also means protecting airport sector workers by maintaining their union representation and their collective agreement when the contract changes hands.

Finally, we will clarify section 107 of the Labour Code, defining clear requirements for the use of this tool of last resort.

It bears repeating that 95% of federal collective agreements are renewed without labour disruption. This means that for most workplaces, relationships are healthy and maintained well between collective agreements, setting up parties for continued success. The new supports and tools in Bill C-39 will help parties resolve disputes successfully even more often. However, for the small number of exceptionally difficult relationships that become deeply entrenched with repeated cycles of disputes, the new tools in Bill C-39 are designed to help these parties focus on transparent, solutions-focused bargaining.

The bill addresses one of the tools the minister has when negotiations have broken down and parties are at an impasse despite the new tools this bill provides. The bill places clear guardrails around the use of section 107, which permits a minister to refer a dispute to the Canada Industrial Relations Board —

Thank you, minister.

Mr. Chair, it was so good that I was hoping she could continue.

It was scintillating.

Mr. Chair, thank you for the invitation. I’m glad our colleague Patty is sitting between Steven and me. Steven and I seem to be wearing identical suits today, so if we were sitting side by side, it would have distracted honourable senators.

Thank you for having me. I’m very glad to be here with my colleagues.

I just want to use a moment of my five minutes to make a more personal comment. This is the first time that I have had the opportunity to appear before you since our colleague from New Brunswick, Dr. Rodney Ouellette, was appointed to the Senate. I have had the privilege of knowing him for a very long time. He is a scientist and a renowned doctor from our province who has done a great deal of research on cancer. I am very touched to see him here with us.

Canada is at a crossroads. The choices that we make today will have an impact on the strength of our economy and our ability to create opportunities for future generations. That is why the government is proposing legislative measures to build more efficiently. We also need to strengthen our transportation and trade systems, as well as the foundation for a fair and productive workforce, as my colleague just said.

Our history offers powerful examples of what happens when Canadians rise to the challenge of building big and building well. Past generations built projects that helped define this country. Strategic infrastructure, like our railway system or the St. Lawrence Seaway, expanded access to international markets and helped establish Canada as a trading nation.

The nation-building projects of the 21st century may involve critical mineral projects, traditional and renewable energy infrastructure, modern ports, trade corridors and emerging technologies. They have the potential to create jobs, strengthen economic security and resilience, support innovation and help Canadian businesses compete successfully in global markets. To capture those opportunities, Canada must be able to make decisions in a timely and predictable way.

Mr. Chair, one of the consistent messages we have heard from workers, communities, Indigenous partners and investors is that the federal approval processes can often be too lengthy and too difficult to navigate. While careful assessments, of course, remain essential, excessive delays can create uncertainty and discourage investment.

Our objective is clear: to make federal decisions about projects within a one-year time frame, naturally while continuing to meet strict environmental standards and respect the rights of Indigenous peoples.

We have heard from Indigenous Peoples, provincial and territorial governments, businesses, labour organizations, industry representatives and citizens from across our country. Throughout these conversations, a number of common themes emerged. Canadians want efficiency, predictability and economic growth that respects our environmental responsibilities. They want stronger supply chains, better infrastructure and good jobs. They want Canada to remain competitive while preserving the values that define us as a country.

We believe that Bill C-39 responds directly to those priorities. The government believes that we can create opportunities, strengthen our economy and build a country that’s more resilient and better positioned to compete around the world for generations that follow. We believe that is at the heart of this legislation.

As I’ve often said, you have no idea how happy my colleagues and I will be to answer your questions.

Thank you, ministers, for your remarks. We will now begin the question period.

Thank you, ministers, for being here today, and thank you for the leadership you, your colleagues and the Prime Minister are providing in securing Canada’s place on the world stage.

My first question is for Mr. MacKinnon. Did you receive and have a chance to look over or be briefed on the report on labour reform that was completed by the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications and sent to your office by mine in June of this year?

Thank you, Senator Quinn. I know you have a lot of experience in the port sector, and I want to say how much I value that committee’s work and how important and inspiring it was in helping guide some thinking around the urgency to act.

That study made many important points, but none more important than the need for Canada to be a reliable, predictable trading partner. If we are going to attract investment and shippers, develop exports and have efficient supply chains, predictability lies at the heart of it. There are a number of other things I am sure we will also get into, but I thought that the report eloquently brought forward a number of those issues.

This bill is the response to that. This bill is the response of getting to collective agreements in a more predictable and, I dare say, systematic way, but it is also about surrounding the collective bargaining system with better facilities, more predictable logistics planning and more predictable capital investment planning in our supply chains and our transportation systems.

In that report, the Senate committee took a precise, surgical approach to identifying the need to prevent strikes or lockouts in only the marine and rail industries in those very few critical corridors that, if made inoperable, would cause serious economic hardships to not only the businesses directly involved but also the businesses across the country who receive the goods they sell to Canadians. However, the approach in the proposed legislation is very broad and does not prevent a strike or a lockout.

The Prime Minister is working hard on diversifying our trade corridors and trading partners, and one of the challenges that Canada has is our fractured international reputation as a reliable trading partner. That is directly related to the number of work stoppages that have occurred in the last number of years. Why would we not use a similar narrow, surgical approach to ensure disruptions cannot occur in the critical corridors of national economic interest serviced by railways and ports?

To be clear, that approach would only be limited to defined critical corridors specifically designated as in our national interest. Why did we not take that surgical approach, rather than a broad-based approach, that would prevent strikes or even the threat of a strike or a lockout from occurring and the damage that is done?

You said two important words there: “national interest.” This bill sets that out as a test that a minister — currently my colleague Ms. Hajdu but any Minister of Labour — would be able to consider should we get to that point. The point of this legislation is to balance what the Supreme Court tells us is a constitutional right to strike and the need to better support parties, particularly ones who, as you point out, senator, in some limited cases, are chronically unable to reach agreements without assistance.

How do we better support those parties, and how do we put measures in place before, during and after collective bargaining periods to avoid these conflicts altogether? Yes, we need to put guardrails, including a national interest test, around the decisions that any Minister of Labour would have to make subsequently.

Minister Hajdu, in the absence of a Charter Statement, are you able to provide clarity on the issues currently surrounding the right to strike and whether or not there is an unlimited right to strike? Will a Charter Statement be forthcoming? What are the reasonable limits in section 1 of the Charter on a right to strike?

My understanding is that, under the Department of Justice Act, a Charter Statement must be tabled for every government bill, so I look forward to the Minister of Justice’s assessment of this legislation.

I would like to say that the Minister of Transport is exactly right. What we are attempting to do in this legislation, and I believe we will be successful, is to give people in those high-conflict situations, which you have clearly outlined — and I also appeared before your committee and thought your testimony was excellent there as well — the tools and, I would argue, the pressure to return the dispute resolution to the table. It cannot be a constant cycle of parties unable to arrive at collective agreements with a constant expectation on either side that the government will resolve these disputes cycle after cycle.

This legislation provides a new way, in these very specific and very few cases, to disrupt the cycle of parties being unable to conclude a collective agreement and turning to the government for the resolution through a referral to the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

Just coming back to that answer, the reality is that the broad-based approach, as I call it, in this legislation, while making advances, still provides the opportunity to have the threat of a lockout or a strike, or, in fact, a strike itself before the government acts, with, again, damage being done where those critical corridors are already effectively shut down, even if it is for a day. Why wouldn’t we take a more focused approach in those narrow examples of critical corridors that handle goods from ports via rail to businesses across Canada?

Thank you, senator. There are two answers. The first is that we have the constitutional right to strike in this country, and the second is the powerful role that the special mediator appointment creates.

I didn’t have a chance to finish my speech, but if I had, you would have heard me outline the steps that occur in these situations, which will, in my mind, provide the transparency and the responsibility to parties, both unions and workers and their employers, to negotiate in good faith at the table. Because should the party choose to ignore the first report by the special mediator, then that report will automatically become public. That will shine a light for Canadians who are affected by labour disruption. It will also shine a light on the employer’s behaviour, if that’s the sticking point, or on the union’s behaviour, if that’s the sticking point.

That special mediator’s report will be part of any consideration of section 107. When I explain that we believe these tools will create an even smaller number of parties that choose to resolve their issues through a strike or lockout, that’s why I believe this will be effective in the regime that we are proposing.

Again, on the constitutionally protected right to strike, I understand from different conversations with witnesses and people in the legal profession that the right to strike is constitutionally protected, but it is not an absolute right. Is that wrong?

I’m not a constitutional lawyer, so I am not going to be able to argue the law effectively. What I can say is that we do believe that we need to respect the Constitution, but I also believe the government has a very important role in fostering industrial peace. I believe the measures and mechanisms within this legislation give the government new tools we have not had previously that, as I said, will drive the parties back to the table and put the onus on the parties instead of the government to resolve their disputes.

I will back away from that.

Mr. MacKinnon, given the terminals situated within a port fall under federal jurisdiction, can you explain why they are being declared to be “works for the general advantage of Canada,” clause 212 in Division 2 of Part 2 of Bill C-39? Why are you using declaratory power if it is already federal jurisdiction?

Sometimes, as you would well know, senator, some of the facilities fall in a grey area between federal and provincial jurisdictions. It happens. We wanted to remove that ambiguity.

The goal here is to make works for the purposes of improving our supply chains or improving our export capabilities or capacity easier in the spirit of project approvals —

Thank you, minister. I’m sorry to interrupt. We will now go to our second block of questions.

Welcome to the Senate, ministers. My question may be technical, but it has an important strategic component, and that’s what I had hoped to hear you address, Minister LeBlanc.

Bill C-39 introduces major reforms to speed up the approval of major infrastructure and energy projects in Canada. This shortening of timelines is causing a lot of concern among environmental groups and for certain communities.

In your opinion, what benefits would follow from a combined strategic environmental and economic assessment process when implementing the measures set out in Bill C-39?

In other words, to what extent could such an assessment help anticipate long-term benefits more effectively, in order to find an acceptable middle ground between economic haste and environmental prudence?

Thank you for the question. You’re right; the way you framed it is entirely appropriate. The need to act faster means that federal authorities have to work together more effectively. As you may hear from my colleagues this afternoon, this in no way reduces our responsibility to assess projects against environmental standards or to fulfill our obligations to Indigenous peoples. Simply moving faster and recognizing that the times we live in require the country and the federal government. . . . I’ll say the same to our partners in the federation, who, in many cases, are looking at how they can be more reliable partners so as to expedite these approvals properly. I think that, as you said, the way we reconcile those priorities is reflected in our commitment to act rigorously and in the fact that environmental standards have not changed, nor have our responsibilities toward Indigenous rights holders. We are committed to acting in a more coordinated manner across the federal government.

By conducting such a strategic assessment at the outset, the government can establish clear sector-specific directives and pre-assess certain risks. I could go on about this: We could assess the cumulative effects across an entire region, scientifically validate trade corridors and regions of interest. Would the government therefore be in favour of adding a formal strategic environmental and economic assessment mechanism to guide certain decisions made under this law and meet the objectives of this ambitious bill?

That, again, is a question that helps pinpoint the exact objective of the bill that you are currently examining. In fact, one of the new things this bill does is provide the possibility of creating regional corridors. My colleague, Minister Steven, can tell you more about that. As you rightly pointed out, the bill will enable us to assess the cumulative effects, rather than simply looking at a given project, which may be very specific or technical, as you said, without considering the region’s ecosystem and the cumulative effects. That is one of the benefits that we want to see come out of what we are proposing.

What’s more, our colleague, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, has often spoken to us about this issue, which came up in several consultations. As you know, we did not come here with a bill before holding over 400 discussions and consultations with Indigenous peoples, provinces, territories and the general public. We even extended the consultation period this summer so that we could hear people’s good suggestions. One of them . . . . Oh, Mr. Chair, I had something really interesting to say. I was going to talk about the mitigation hierarchy.

Thank you. I’m sure you’ll have the opportunity to answer another question.

Welcome, ministers. It’s good to have you with us. You will have a chance to complete your answer because my question is along the same lines as the previous one.

Ministers, I believe everyone in this chamber has great appreciation for the pressure that our government must be under as you work on behalf of all Canadians to urgently grow and diversify Canada’s economy in this context of serious disruptions outside our borders and, concerningly, the threats of disruption within.

We know the stakes have never been higher; know that we are with you.

As was said in Minister MacKinnon’s speech on Bill C-39, An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy, the proposed legislation was inspired by the Prime Minister’s ambitious goal for Canada to double its non-U.S. exports within the decade. It is very ambitious and very necessary, so we’re with you.

The government says its goal is one project, one decision, one year, and that it changes how decisions are made but not the standards, and we’re talking about standards here.

Picking up on that, it would be good for us to hear about that. Could you tell us specifically what the government will be doing to ensure that the existing national environmental standards are met, and what steps will be taken to ensure transparency on this — that’s the second part of the question — for Canadians?

This is, again, a fundamental question that was certainly discussed a great deal in our consultations. We talked about it a lot as a government before tabling this legislation, accepting the two premises of your question that transparency will be important in terms of reassuring Canadians that the government is acting in a rigorous, thoughtful way, and respecting institutions as important to this process, such as the Impact Assessment Agency, the Canada Energy Regulator and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

You see from the different parts of the law that one of the things we’re doing is creating, as you said, one decision maker for the project.

For example, our colleague the Minister of Environment and Climate Change will be the decision maker. Her responsibility will be to receive advice and scientific evidence. The public participation process under any of these agencies doing these reviews has not been changed. Public participation remains. The independent agencies with scientific expertise and access to independent persons who can provide advice — all of that remains the same. We’re simply saying that we can do things concurrently and not sequentially. Once you receive your permit from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, you don’t then have to spend four months filling out different permits to get some authority from the transportation department under navigable waters and protections and then go to another government department.

We were accumulating snow in front of the plow at a level that caused investors to say, “This is a problem.” Everyone is thinking of big projects, interprovincial projects, big mining projects and major ports. However, this applies to a small craft fishing harbour in my constituency where they’re trying to obtain a permit to dredge the basin of the harbour so that 40 lobster fishers can get out before the season opens. Your chair, who is from the Acadian Peninsula, would know this very well.

I have a list of wards in his part of New Brunswick where you wait so long to obtain a permit that literally the lobster season has come and gone. These people, who are the economic lifeblood of these small communities, aren’t able to prosecute their profession safely.

We’ve said, as a government, that they deserve better. We need to do the soil samples and build the containment cells so that there is no seepage into tidal water. All of that can be done at a speed that doesn’t create an economic drag on these small projects. This encompasses all projects. We’re all thinking of big projects and the Port of Montreal —

Thank you, minister.

Welcome, ministers. At a recent press conference, Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak cautioned the federal government against fast-tracking Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act, and urged it not to repeat the approach taken with Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act.

Given that Bill C-39 is among the most consequential pieces of legislation introduced in recent decades, with implications for Indigenous rights and interests that could be felt for generations, will the federal government commit to ensuring that Indigenous Peoples are afforded adequate time and meaningful opportunities to raise concerns and propose amendments as legislation advances through both houses of Parliament?

Will your government also commit to being open to amendments that strengthen protections for Indigenous rights and interests, including measures to align Bill C-39 with Canada’s obligations under the UNDRIP Act? That question is for all three ministers.

I’ll take the first stab at that, senator. I wish to point out that we had extensive consultations and, in fact, we extended those consultations in the past months. To illustrate the interest, which would confirm your point, we received 403 submissions from Indigenous groups, rights holders, stakeholders and others. Over 30 meetings were convened or held with First Nations groups and all of that during the engagement period.

Of course, we expect to hear from rights holders and national organizations as we continue through the parliamentary process. We will obviously carefully consider all of their feedback and advice. This process is truly at the core of what we’re doing.

I would simply point out that, in the early days, Minister LeBlanc and I have experienced a lot of very positive feedback from rights holders when it comes to these processes, which now bring First Nations, titleholders and others into projects at their very beginnings. I think we both know that too often, in the past, these projects were conceived, developed, financed in many cases, with the procurement streams, employment streams and other things all conceived in one big package — and then the consultations began.

We are experiencing now, literally seeing someone from a First Nations community with big ideas, useful feedback and ways to shape a project. Minister LeBlanc and I have experienced this several times over the past year in the context of Bill C-5. We, obviously, very much hope that continues.

Mr. Chair, I just wanted something fantastic to add to the question.

Good afternoon, ministers. Thank you for being with us.

My first question is for Minister MacKinnon.

Minister, Bill C-39 aims to reduce red tape and allow businesses to make greater use of electronic trade documents. You’ve indicated that paperless trade could reduce business costs by up to 4.2%.

SMEs account for nearly three-quarters of Canadian businesses that export goods. I’m not even talking about the ones that want to do so.

How will you measure whether these savings and simplifications will benefit SMEs, and not just large companies that already have all the necessary resources?

I’m glad that you mentioned that passage of the bill.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Canada could boast about being a leader when it came to international trade and the way approvals were organized, or in other words, the ecosystem that existed between port authorities, the Canada Revenue Agency, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Department of Immigration and others. Today, we are, unfortunately, lagging far behind. There’s no reason for that other than some laws that are preventing us from protecting or that are preventing a culture of data sharing between agencies, port authorities and other links in the supply chain.

Your question had to do with costs and SMEs. In my opinion, SMEs have a lot to gain from these measures, and I’ll tell you why. Obviously, this should make things more convenient and efficient for the entire ecosystem. However, for an SME that wants to export, I believe that the paperwork, procedures and approvals required, along with the difficulty navigating all of that if they want to even consider exporting their goods or the results of their ingenuity, create too many barriers. I think that big companies are now able to deal with all of that. They simply hire people to deal with it. Now, with these measures, SMEs will be able to consider participating in international trade. We need them to do so.

My question is for Minister Hajdu. You can answer me in writing. Currently, the Canada Labour Code guarantees that anyone working for a federally regulated employer can take up to 10 days of paid sick leave per year, which they may take one day at a time. With Bill C-39, this guarantee will no longer apply to unionized employees whose collective agreement provides for a plan that is at least as favourable. What is your intention in referring some workers to their collective agreement rather than the Labour Code?

Welcome, ministers. My question is much more practical and concerns entrepreneurs from ethnoculturally diverse backgrounds. Assuming that Bill C-39 passes, Minister LeBlanc, what can you tell us about access to government procurement, to public procurement, for ethnoculturally diverse entrepreneurs, specifically Black Canadian-owned businesses, which represent 2.8% of businesses in Canada?

What specific measures will be put in place to enable these companies to access public procurement throughout the process?

My colleagues may want to weigh in on that because it’s a great question.

Senator, when you say public procurement, are you talking about government procurement?

Yes.

As you’re well aware, that is a priority for our government. Our colleague, Minister Lightbound, has pointed out a number of initiatives that specifically recognize the challenge that you’ve identified, and the now unacceptable circumstances surrounding access to federal contracts by groups that historically had difficulty gaining such access. You define the problem quite well.

We make no assumptions that a bill will pass. We don’t come before the Senate or the House of Commons expecting that a bill will pass, so I’m not as enthusiastic as you are. We will let the bill make its way through Parliament.

We’re already studying this matter, and will be pleased to do so with you and to benefit from your advice and ideas. We’re already looking at the procurement side of things to find a way to correct a historical challenge that is no longer acceptable. I will ask our colleague, Minister Lightbound, the person responsible for this — I don’t claim to have a clear view of these issues — to work with you on ensuring that when we’re ready to implement the bill, we will do so in the right way.

Welcome to the Senate, ministers. Before I ask my question, allow me to commend your government’s efforts to boost the resilience of our economy, and also your commitment to restoring Canada’s reputation, which has taken quite a hit in recent years as a result of certain strikes.

My question is directed more at Minister LeBlanc, but you can decide amongst yourselves, and please try to answer in three minutes or less.

As a senator from Quebec and a former provincial minister of economic development, I would like to know more about the impact that your concept of trade corridors will have on provincial autonomy in the area of land development.

To put it simply, is there a consultation process with the provinces? Do they have a right to veto if they don’t want the oil or gas pipelines you might want to build across their territory?

Thank you for that question, senator. I will begin and then I will ask Mr. LeBlanc to pick up where I leave off.

There are two concepts of “corridor” in this bill. First, there are trade corridors that we intend to designate, plan and assess as a whole. Of course, we will consult with the provinces and all the many stakeholders when developing and implementing this concept. The intent is quite clear: We need to make the operability and planning of trade corridors a key concept in our legislation.

When it comes to what is often referred to as a “corridor,” and I’m sorry if I’ve been using the two concepts interchangeably, we are indeed talking about the corridors planned for environmental approval. I will let Mr. LeBlanc take it from here.

Mr. Chair, Senator Gignac’s question concerns an area that our government is seized with, specifically collaboration with the provinces, which, as you pointed out and as you know very well, have specific responsibilities and jurisdictions that we want to respect. The provinces also want to be partners in diversifying our trade, as well as in the sustainable development of our economy.

I am also the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs, and I’m very proud that we’ve signed cooperation agreements with eight provinces to avoid duplication. For example, if in the case of your province, where BAPE is recognized for its expertise and rigour, why repeat work or studies that have already been expertly done by your province?

In any case, we will try, and I hope that the new government elected last night will work with us to that end, because that is precisely what will enable us to develop the economy across the country in the right way, in a way that respects jurisdictions and benefits from the shared jurisdictions of our partners in the federation.

I want to echo the comments of my colleague and friend Senator Gignac in terms of the efforts of the government right now.

Minister MacKinnon, Bill C-39 would establish the National Trade Corridors Council to advise on regulatory barriers, supply chain coordination and governance modernization. It would, among other things, give the minister authority to make transportation regulations based on international standards.

I think this is a very good thing.

Will your council play a formal role in identifying and recommending which international standards should be adopted, and will there be a transparent process such as a public list of recognized standards so that industry can understand what applies and propose additions?

That is a very good question, and I think it’s great that you, Senator Gignac and myself are having this moment of being very excited over a national trade corridor and the attendant council.

I’m going to take us back, perhaps, to the rationale, which is that the country, for a long time, has tended to — it did not necessarily need to, but it has tended to — plan its transportation and supply chain network facility by facility. I dare say, there is a small element of “if you build it, they will come” transportation systems for their own sake rather than for underpinning a successful economy.

What has also occurred in this era of very high-tech logistics is — I would venture — that there are many private-sector players who know a lot more about the performance of Canada’s supply chains than the Government of Canada does. It is for that reason that we want to consolidate information about the performance and efficiency of our supply chains.

There will be questions about competitively sensitive data and all of that, but we want to ensure that this data is used to plan a more efficient, reliable transportation system and supply chain network.

In the interests of time, though, minister, I really want to focus on the use of standards and that effort —

I’m sorry. Standards?

Industry standards as being a way of regulating.

You’re talking about the international norm?

Yes.

Yes. We are, obviously, a participant in the International Maritime Organization, or IMO, to take one example. We have conventions and standards adopted through the IMO, which are not always easy to import. Sometimes we want to recognize a world standard as opposed to engaging in the very laborious process of developing our own regulations, which, in some cases, simply mirror the international standard.

It is for that simplicity and efficiency that we’ve put this —

That’s exactly what I want to try and get at. Given that international standards support efficiency and trade harmonization, might this approach become part of a broader effort to use consensus-based international or industry standards by default across Canada?

There is no use in having a regulatory framework that doesn’t update rather than international standards that are regularly updated.

It is absolutely in that spirit that we’re moving in this direction, yes.

Fantastic.

In terms of Division 8, Part 2, which establishes — and we were speaking about this earlier — the Enabling Digital Trade Act, it gives legal recognition to electronic trade documents. This is great. This legal recognition is very welcome; however, the act applies only to federally governed documents, and many of the trade documents fall under provincial law.

If a shipment’s paperwork is only partly digital, then most of the benefit will be lost. What is the government doing, or what has it done, to work with the provinces to help make sure that there is a full set of interoperable digital trade documents, and what progress has been made so far?

We can’t require provinces to do anything, but we will be working with every province — especially those provinces with ports — to ensure that the “Tell Us Once” principle becomes the norm. I think provinces will have a deep incentive to do that with proper information sharing and assurances.

This bill wants to take all of the kinks out of being able to do that at the federal level and across the federal ecosystem, including port authorities and other things. There are ports, senator, where the trucking function and truck arrivals — things that aren’t even, really, necessarily federally regulated — are all contained in one digital ecosystem. We want very much to get there.

The world has come to expect this, the shipping industry has come to expect this, and we believe Canada must absolutely not only get there but leapfrog the rest of the world.

There may be lessons to be learned from what did and did not happen during the beneficial ownership registry because so many companies are provincial. There is some opportunity to improve and to put pressure on provinces.

Minister LeBlanc, I would like to ask you one quick question. If international standards are becoming part of the red-tape reduction solutions — which I think we’re seeing here, and it’s a great initiative — for federally regulated elements, what is the government’s plan when it comes to provincial rules and standards that become a barrier? You’re working very hard, I think, on this issue with the provinces and territories.

Is there a way that we could be using consensus-based standards as a tool to start hardening efforts to put in place —

Thank you, senator. Unfortunately, I have to move to the next senator.

Thank you. Welcome to our ministers here this evening. I will take the opportunity to thank Minister LeBlanc for his efforts in Washington over the past number of months. I don’t necessarily agree with everything the government does, but I know it’s frustrating at times, and we appreciate your efforts and congratulate you on the work. My question is for Minister LeBlanc.

Bill C-5 and the Major Projects Office were presented to Canadians as the solution to accelerate major project approvals, with a public commitment to a maximum two-year approval timeline. Your government now represents Bill C-39 as a means to complete federal reviews and decisions within one year.

What was missing from your original approach that makes this further legislation necessary? Can you identify the specific shortcomings that Bill C-39 will address and explain why those shortcomings were not addressed in Bill C-5?

Thank you for the question. Thank you for your comments about the summer I spent in a hot and humid circumstance in Washington, D.C.

Senator, we were in this very chamber in June 2025 — a year and three or four months ago — discussing Bill C-5 which, as you noted, gave Governor-in-Council the opportunity to designate projects, put them on the schedule under the legislation as being in the national interest and benefit from a period of up to two years in which the conditions would be elaborated. It’s a presumptive approval of the project. The conditions, within a maximum of two years, would be defined for the project to be able to commence. That work, obviously, would be done with the normal review agencies, consultations with Indigenous groups and public participation. You know very well, senator, this in no way diminished that work, and it only applied to the projects that were designated under Bill C-5. Those are projects of national interest.

The Prime Minister was in Alberta last week. He identified the Pacific Link pipeline as exactly one of those projects. That’s our first formal designation. There will be others over the next few weeks that will be important for the country within every region of the country.

What we did with this legislation is learned from the brief but insightful period we had where we realized that — and you would know this well, senator — the length of time to approve port infrastructure in your former district of the House of Commons within the great province of Newfoundland and Labrador would be two to four years in order to build a breakwater to protect some fishing harbour infrastructure. I come back to that example because many of us know those examples well. It applies to those small projects where you may need one or two federal permits, or it would apply to the more complex projects where there would be a myriad of potential federal permits required.

We think that the government can do a much better job of bringing a greater level of coherence to that process so that people who want to begin those important works for the economy of our country can do so in the right way while following all of the appropriate reviews and oversights.

It is an extension of Bill C-5, senator, but this will apply to projects both big and small and not just the small group that will be designated under the legislation that was adopted in June of last year.

Thank you, minister. I recall our many conversations about small craft harbours in your role.

While these projects are important, as I know you are fully aware, my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Province of Quebec and the federal government struck a historic agreement in August of this year to replace the 1969 Churchill Falls power contract and further develop Churchill Falls and Gull Island. In August, I attended the announcement in St. John’s and witnessed the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Premier of Quebec and the Prime Minister of Canada standing on the wharf in St. John’s together as partners in this $273-billion project. It was a historic day in our province. The deal resulted in thousands of jobs for trade workers in Newfoundland and Labrador and billions of dollars in procurement opportunities for our businesses, and that’s just scratching the surface.

While there are some concerns with the possible delays due to the results of the Quebec provincial election last evening, my question to you today is related to taking this project from the August announcement to shovels in the ground. Can you explain to this chamber today how Bill C-39 will assist in making this project a reality and assist in having this project reach the status of national interest?

Thank you. Senator, that is the perfect example of a project that is in the national interest. You identified the most significant investment in renewable, clean power in North American history. It was an iconic moment for your province and the Province of Quebec, and the Government of Canada was a partner. It will unlock a series of other investments within the Labrador Trough in critical minerals and in infrastructure that will help the economy of that whole part of Atlantic Canada.

Quebec is, by political definition, a province in Central Canada. Geography makes Quebec an Atlantic province as well. That agreement between the two premiers and the Government of Canada as a participant would be the perfect example of a national interest project.

Out of that, there will be individual proponents, such as Mining Project X and a railway, if my colleague wants to add anything. There are a series of infrastructure and resource development projects that will come from that historic agreement. The Gull Island project is one example, but there are literally dozens of other examples of projects. Some may very well get designated, senator, under Bill C-5 because that’s the most effective way to bring them to a point of commencing work. We will work with the two provinces to figure out the best way to do that.

The proponents of the project would be Hydro-Québec and the Newfoundland and Labrador utility — there are a number of partners there. But there will be a series of other smaller projects that will flow from that historic decision, which would benefit from Bill C-39. The Government of Canada is saying if you need a permit under the Canadian Navigable Waters Act to bring a particular vessel to a new port that we’re building on the coast of Labrador, you could understandably expect a permit within one year, and there would be better coordination of the federal authorities doing that work.

As long as we all remember that it’s Newfoundland and Labrador. My next question is for Minister MacKinnon.

Your government established the Major Projects Office following Bill C-5. Bill C-39 would now establish a separate transportation project office alongside the coordination role of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. Although these bodies cover different categories of projects, what specific problem requires another office? How do we ensure that this structure reduces the administrative burden that we are all concerned about and gives proponents clear accountability for timely decisions?

Yes. This is an example of actual streamlining. For all of those projects that fall outside of the impact assessment frame, Transport Canada proposes to put in place an office that would guide proponents. Think of a spur line, a short-line railroad or a port facility, which we spoke about earlier — something that does not rise to that impact assessment level but requires, nonetheless, regulatory treatment. We want to make sure we provide a service to shippers, railways, ports and anyone involved, frankly, in the federally regulated transportation ecosystem as a way to be guided through and enjoy this one-year approval.

As a follow-up to that, Minister MacKinnon, Bill C-39 allows cabinet to designate regions of national interest, as we saw last week, and it expands the framework applying to projects within them.

What objective criteria would prevent these extraordinary powers from becoming a system where politically favoured regions receive different answers than others?

If you are referring to the regulatory corridors, if you will, this would be based on a manifest interest in creating infrastructure: a fibre-optic network, an electricity distribution network, some other piece of energy infrastructure or, for that matter, a road.

Thank you, minister. The next 10-minute block will be shared by two senators.

Thank you for being here with us today. My question is for Mr. MacKinnon, the Minister of Transport. Bill C-39 introduces measures that relax the domestic shipping requirements in Canada. The unions and the St. Lawrence Shipowners are concerned about the fact that foreign vessels will now be able to engage in coasting trade without a licence in response to a declared emergency without first verifying the availability of Canadian vessels. Will the government recognize that it is possible to strengthen trade corridors while protecting the Canadian fleet and Canadian jobs, since it seems to me that that is the goal you’re trying to achieve?

I agree with them. As those close to us tell us, with everything that is happening in the world today, senator, there are unforeseeable circumstances and risks that we cannot even imagine that could force the Minister of Transport to use emergency measures. That is exactly what is provided for in this bill. It is an emergency measure.

Is there a way to set limits on these emergency measures to ensure that we first check to see if Canadian vessels are available?

Obviously, I would welcome your suggestions on that. I guarantee that you will not be suggesting any situations that had me consider or plan to possibly invoke such emergency measures. Without limiting the minister’s ability to enlist such measures, I’m entirely open to the idea of hearing your suggestions on that.

I would be happy to share them with you, if I have any.

During Transport Canada’s consultations on strengthening the one Canadian economy, the industry called on the government to take the unique features of the St. Lawrence Seaway into account. It said it was concerned about safety and environmental protection.

Can the government explain why its amendment to the Coasting Trade Act is necessary when the current system already provides mechanisms for fast-tracking applications, including in emergency situations?

I’ll get back to you with an answer to that question. However, the intention is the same as stated in my previous answer: We need to be able to act in emergencies or unforeseen situations; the integrity of the Coasting Trade Act will remain intact.

Thank you. I yield the balance of my time to my colleague.

Thank you, ministers, for being here. Bill C-39 is designed to accelerate projects that strengthen Canada’s economy, and I applaud the ambition of this bill. However, accelerating projects does not by itself tell us who will benefit from the employment these projects are expected to create.

Minister Hajdu, what mechanisms will the government use to track the employment outcomes of these projects, especially the participation of young Canadians? How will you measure whether they are translating into sustained deployment and career opportunities for the next generation?

Thank you very much for your question. In fact, the entire focus of the work we’re doing now is protecting and growing opportunities for Canadian jobs.

Over the past year, we have been working very closely with provinces and territories in many different areas. One of these areas regards a better sense of data: Who is actually employed, who has which skills and how do we accelerate access to skills training in high-value and highly needed sectors?

For example, we have launched four out of six sector alliances that bring together employers, trainers and unions to do a better job aligning and understanding, first of all, the need, the shortages, the transformation in specific industries and the skill shortages and to accelerate and better streamline training offered in provinces and communities across the country with what employers are saying they need.

That work will continue. Also, for each project, there are estimates about the number of jobs it will create. We are working very closely with a variety of partners, including unions, to ensure we have a very good forecast of the kinds of skills we need.

Finally, it always excites me to talk about Team Canada Strong, which is our government’s signature investment in skilled trades training and apprenticeship completion — and, in particular, Red Seal apprenticeship completion. It is an $8-billion investment. It is a partnership with provinces and territories, colleges, unions and polytechnics. It is intended to attract people to the trades and help them complete their apprenticeship journey. There are exciting things happening around the digitization of apprenticeship supports to help them finally complete their Red Seal. We could talk about that more if you wish.

Thank you for that. That’s fantastic. However, I want to remind you that not every young person wants to pick up a wrench or a hammer.

My question is specifically around young people. I will use your wise and welcome words that employers, unions and workers need to find solutions together. Considering the jobs that should be created through these projects, I have an idea for you.

Will the government agree to a labour force employment plan to accompany these projects, one that is specific to young people and clearly shows the number of youths who will be hired and in what regions so young Canadians can hold the government to account and employers and unions can have tangible targets they can work toward?

Thank you very much, senator. It is a very important component of our plan to become better at understanding the granular data regarding what young people are experiencing — such as unemployment — in what areas of the country and what the barriers are.

We are always looking for ways to improve our capacity and share information with provinces and territories. As you know, we are not the only jurisdiction that supports training and employment for young people.

However, over the past year, we have seen increasing enthusiasm from ministers and other levels of government around working more collaboratively with the federal government to better understand the needs of youth.

We, as you know, have a number of different measures in place to support provinces and territories, including the Labour Market Development Agreements. We believe we can do a better job in terms of tracking the outcomes of those labour market agreements. These are the funds that we supply to provinces and territories to work with youth, in particular, but also all folks who are experiencing labour or work challenges.

Finally, we have a robust youth employment strategy that I think is one of the hallmarks of the success of the federal government in terms of supporting youth because it provides paid work experiences in a variety of sectors across the country. It is very evidence-based and focused on getting young people a foot in the door to a paid position. That has now been demonstrated to be one of the factors that lead to better employment outcomes over the course of their lives.

I look forward to working with you, senator, on doing a better job of tracking those investments and ensuring they land in the way that young people need them to.

Thank you.

My question is for Minister Hajdu. Previously, when you introduced Bill C-39, you stated, “As workplaces continue to evolve, our labour laws must keep pace to ensure . . . workplaces remain fair and safe. . . .” You also said that building a stronger Canada for all requires a strong, modern labour framework. I think we all resolutely agree with those statements.

The National Employment Equity Council held a forum two weeks ago with the theme of modernizing Canada’s labour framework, which — as you indicated — is the promise of Bill C-39.

Minister, if this bill is the government’s approach to modernizing Canada’s labour framework, why were the recommendations from the 2023 Employment Equity Act Review Task Force not included in this bill? Additionally, are you open to possible amendments that would include those recommendations?

Thank you very much, senator.

I will just say two things. One, this bill is very focused on supply chain disruption, so the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code in this bill are related to one of the challenges around predictable supply chains, which, as I said, in those very specific sectors and very specific cases, has to do with repeat conflicts between employers and their workers. It is meant to provide the additional supports necessary to help those parties improve their relationships, thereby arriving at collective agreements together and ending the cycle of repeated conflicts, requests for government intervention, government interventions and the continued fraying, if you will, of those relationships that are critical to all of the work that my colleagues have spoken about.

In terms of the employment equity piece, there is important work to do. I look forward to working with all interested parliamentarians on the next steps to modernize the Employment Equity Act. Certainly, it is something that we believe is critically important. Many of the investments we make in skills training are very specifically focused on people who are under-represented in the labour market, including people who are racialized, young people, people with disabilities, Indigenous Peoples and women in specific sectors. We will continue that work together with parliamentarians.

Thank you.

My follow-up question is related to the last part you mentioned. More specifically, can you talk about how the Government of Canada will ensure that Indigenous, 2SLGBTQI+, Black and racialized workers, as well as those with disabilities, will fairly share in the jobs that are coming from these projects and the overall promised prosperity that the Government of Canada is stating will come with the legislative changes included in Bill C-39?

Thank you. That is an excellent question and one that many people, both on the employer’s side and on the workers’ side, have been grappling with.

There are no easy solutions, but the investments the federal government has been making, in particular around under-represented groups in the trades, are starting to pay off.

[Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in Innu-aimun.]

Thank you for being here.

Will the government acknowledge that the governance of corridors must include not only the Indigenous peoples who are directly affected by the projects but also those upstream and downstream who will feel the environmental, social and economic impacts?

I’m going to fire off a second very important question. How will you support our First Nations to reduce the pressure that our Indigenous nations, communities and governments are feeling when it comes to employability and training? There’s been a lot of talk about consultations. How will you ensure that we do not end up in a situation like the one in Labrador and in Quebec where the Innu Nation doesn’t have a seat at the table when it comes to major projects that affect our territory? You can answer in writing if you don’t have enough time to answer, but I would like an answer to reassure those who are watching at home.

Thank you.

I’ll start, and perhaps Mr. LeBlanc will want to add to my answer.

First, I’d like to point out another section of the bill that talks about Indigenous advisory committees for port authorities. That’s something we’ve never tried before. If you agree that everything eventually gets shipped through a port, then you’ll see the importance of including First Nations at that stage.

The best way to answer your question is to reiterate what I said to Senator Francis. It’s early days, I admit. However, including First Nations at the very beginning of the process, from the conception stage onwards — you talked about projects in northern Quebec and Labrador — will stimulate the creativity of local stakeholders, companies, and institutions of knowledge and training. These are often small communities, and folks there talk to each other. We are already seeing glimmers of inspiration regarding their involvement in the design process, which is not yet complete but which includes them from the start thanks to short timelines.

As a final quick point, you mentioned pressure. There’s also pressure on the group coming in to talk about —

Thank you, minister.

I’m sorry. That was a good point.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know that Minister MacKinnon will be able to add to my answer because, in some cases, certain species come to mind in a port context. British Columbia is one example, but it’s an issue all across the country.

You’re absolutely right, senator. I understand the importance of protecting species at risk. I acknowledge that you raised a technical aspect of the act, but I don’t agree with your interpretation of the example you used. You suggest that protecting species at risk could be sacrificed on the grounds that the project is too complex for certain proponents. That is not at all what we have in mind.

On the contrary, we deliberately asked federal authorities to work faster, but to work with proponents from the moment they submit their application to ensure that the mitigation hierarchy is applied. Our colleague has often talked to us about this. It’s a critical part of making good decisions.

Moreover, if I may, with respect to the consultations we conducted over the summer, as my colleagues will recall, the document released in May included a provision that would have completely exempted projects from the application of the Species at Risk Act. The House of Commons removed that provision from the bill you are currently considering in your pre-study. We listened and understood that very reasonable concern. We removed the government’s ability to completely exempt projects from the application of that act. When the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada conducts an assessment, my colleague, the Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Nature, will have access to the data and the obligations created by the act. I can’t imagine a situation where the decision would be made the way you have —

Thank you, minister.

Minister LeBlanc, my question relates to Division 2 and pertains to amendments to the Building Canada Act.

In this division, we see constant reference to “region of national interest,” but the definition is vague. Theoretically, it can apply to any size of land anywhere. Then, in the bill, you also have conditions to allow for the pre-approval of certain projects if listed in the region of national interest. Since 2001, Canada has lost over 5 million hectares of farmland, an 8.5% drop, or roughly the size of Nova Scotia.

Today, farms cover just over 6% of our country, yet that tiny fraction drives 7% of Canada’s economy, bringing in roughly $160 billion a year. What I don’t see in this bill is the requirement for a federal agricultural impact assessment. With food security now so often mentioned in the same breath as national security — our Prime Minister has mentioned the importance of safeguarding our food security on several occasions — has the government been monitoring the loss of agricultural land and what impacts these proposed changes in Division 2 will have on agriculture, one of our key economic drivers?

Senator, thank you for a very important question. Mr. MacKinnon may want to add something in terms of these regional corridors that you identified at the beginning of your question, but let me begin by recognizing that the government completely shares your concern about the economic and social importance of agriculture and the agri-food sector. My colleague Steven MacKinnon comes from Prince Edward Island. He and I talk often. My colleague Patty is from northern Ontario. We understand, the government understands, and Canadians understand the importance of protecting precisely the fragile economics of agriculture and agri-food in the country. Canadians understand the importance of food security.

As to the premise of the question, in the designation of a potential regional corridor, would the government consider its impact on agricultural lands and the ability of the men and women who earn their living and support their communities in this sector? Of course we would.

I can assure you, senator, that our colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has spoken to us — and I’m sure you’ve spoken to him as well — about the importance of when the government considers a designation, ensuring that the communities participate both in the consultation and in the conditions that would lead to a certain project being able to begin work. One of the critical partners in that conversation would be agricultural producers in a particular corridor where a project was being considered.

Perhaps, Steven, do you want to add something?

This is where the importance of “one project, one review” comes in and the agreements with provinces to collaborate. As you would know, many provinces, including, as Mr. LeBlanc pointed out, my birth province of Prince Edward Island, my second home, which was New Brunswick —

Now, Quebec, which I’ve called home for 22 years, has agricultural reserves.

British Columbia has those, so these agricultural designated lands or areas would obviously come into the assessment process, if not the public consultation process that the act still very clearly lays out. Impacts on agriculture would be evaluated as they are today and would be considered as they are today, and a decision would be made based on the science and on the evidence.

Thank you, minister. As I expect you fully appreciate, Minister LeBlanc, agricultural land is a non-renewable resource. What we’re seeing now is our producers being squeezed, and their margins so tight, and we’ve put them in a precarious position as far as their personal finances go. To have someone come along, a developer offering a price that is pretty attractive, I can’t fault a producer for making the hard decision to maybe give up their family legacy and sell that land. In agriculture, we certainly see quite a bit of passion about land and being a steward of that land. I want to speak about how we’re putting pressure on these producers to make that choice, as you’ve said.

When prime agriculture land is paved over for an urban expansion, housing or industrial use, the living and fertile soil beneath it is permanently lost. We do not get it back. A recent example comes to mind from Clearview Township in Ontario, where National Defence is planning to build a preliminary receive site for the Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar program. I believe they’ve bought almost 300 hectares of productive ag land already and have plans to buy more. On their website, it says they require at least 1,500 hectares.

We find ourselves trapped in what I call Sophie’s choice type of situation, having to choose between national security and food security. It’s a slippery slope. Bill C-39 offers no clarity on how to balance the two, leaving us to wonder, without explicit legal guardrails, how do we protect our prime farmland from being permanently lost? How do we stop relying on financially marginalized farmers to continue to make that sacrifice to keep it in production?

That’s a very important question. Agriculture in Canada and the pressures that you describe are not only very real, but we have the National Food Security Strategy. We have identified food security as a national imperative.

In the transport sector, we are working very hard to secure our supply chains for food security in terms of import and export, which means increased refrigerated reefer capacity, which means expanding port facilities able to handle food and medicines, as well.

But land use, senator, is not, strictly speaking, a federal matter. It is largely, as you well know, a provincial matter. Agriculturally zoned land, should someone come and purchase that, that does not mean that they have the automatic ability to do with it what they want — develop housing or other uses, as you describe. That would go through a rigorous provincial land use in an unincorporated area, or, in a municipal area, that would go through a rigorous municipal land use process. In my home municipality of Gatineau, it’s very hard to get agricultural land “dezoned,” notwithstanding who the owner is or what their intention or motivation is for that land.

So I would —

Mindful of my time, respectfully, I would just like to say that, across Canada, you’re right; it is a provincial area of jurisdiction. It’s certainly an issue that the Senate Agriculture and Forestry Committee studied and reported back on in its soil report. It is definitely a crack of great concern that we do not want to see land continually fall through that crack because, if you consider my opening comment and my question, we rely on that percentage of land to drive $160 billion of GDP.

I want to quickly ask my third question, and it is for you, Mr. MacKinnon. Thank you so much, fellow Islander; it’s nice to see you. The amendments in Bill C-39 on the Canada Labour Code will keep our transportation infrastructure running and moving goods. How will that influence our trade relationships, reputation and aspirations?

Great. I do want to make one quick point on land, though, which is that there is nothing in Bill C-39 that undermines or encourages, for that matter, agricultural land to be — pardon me?

I was looking more for a desire to drive profitability. In driving profitability in agriculture, we will protect agricultural land.

Yes.

Yes.

That is an important subject, just not one that this 250-page bill already can contain.

Minister, we have to go to the next block. I’m sorry.

Maybe in another senator’s question I’ll answer that one.

My question is for the Minister of Employment.

You’re proposing to amend the Canada Labour Code, particularly one aspect of it that isn’t getting a lot of attention right now, but that’s starting to raise concerns in the minds of employers. The issue relates to previous contractors and, consequently, to business transfers and changes in service providers. The text in question can be found in subclause 310(1) of the bill, which amends subsection 44(1) of the Canada Labour Code. The effect of this amendment would be to preserve a union certification, or an ongoing certification process, when an employer decides to replace one service provider with another. In other words, if the outgoing provider is unionized, that bargaining relationship would carry over and apply to the new contractor. This provision is starting to raise concerns. After all, there is little point in changing contractors because of dissatisfaction with their performance if the result is that the very same employees continue carrying out the work. That is raising concerns. What is the objective? I understand that this provision primarily concerns companies in the aerospace sector, for now, but I’d like you to tell us about your future plans.

During my two times as the Minister of Labour, the situation that workers found themselves in when the contract that they worked under was purchased by a new employer and they — in the past, prior to previous amendments to the Labour Code — lost their positions, their wages or their rights and started all over again, even if they had been working for that company for three, four or five years, was very distressing. The previous government took steps to protect workers in those situations. They did what is commonly called “contract flipping.” I would argue that it is often driven by price. As anyone who has run an organization knows, labour is sometimes the only place where you can squeeze savings. The challenge is that these are the most vulnerable workers in the airport sector.

We repeatedly heard that workers should not lose their representation in these moments when their employer changes but their job does not.

Are you focusing primarily on airport operations or will this involve construction as well? This sector is particularly sensitive with respect to business transfers, dispositions and successor-related issues. That’s why employers are wondering whether you’re focusing exclusively on the operation of airport services, or potentially on related construction activities as well.

All the changes proposed in Bill C-39 are for federally regulated workers, and the construction workers building the airport would not be federally regulated. It is for people who work in the airline sector and transportation sectors that are interprovincial. Trains, trucking, telecommunications and banking are primarily the federally regulated sectors.

It’s because subclause 310(4) states:

The Governor in Council may, on the Minister’s recommendation, make regulations prescribing services, industries or locations for the purposes of the definition previous contractor in subsection (1).

For now, it seems to cover only the aerospace industry, but the prescribed industry could be expanded by an order-in-council. What are your intentions regarding the possibility of expanding the prescribed industries by an order-in-council? For the time being, the term “previous contractor” only applies to airports or anything related to the aerospace industry. As for paragraphs 310(1)(b) and (c), which have to do with prescribed services and prescribed industries, it will be you, the minister, or another minister who can determine what those industries are. Do you know what those other industries are at this point?

It is only those covered by the Canada Labour Code, which would be, as I said, in federally regulated sectors. We have not seen this predominantly as an issue in other federally regulated sectors as of yet. I actually can’t anticipate it happening in other federally regulated sectors, but this is an issue that has occurred repeatedly in the aeronautics sector, in particular, for very low-wage employees who are often the most vulnerable in that sector.

If I understand correctly, this is about operations in these industries, not the “construction” part? For example, this covers the operation of a train, but not the construction of a railway?

The Canada Labour Code does not cover construction workers. It covers federally regulated workers. This is very well defined, and the other workers are covered by provincial labour law.

Thank you.

Ministers, welcome to the Senate. My question is for Mr. LeBlanc. It comes from the Southern Chiefs’ Organization, or SCO, in Manitoba, who would like the response in writing.

Bill C-39 is in three parts composed of 19 separate divisions, and the SCO has observed that there are several definitions identified in the act. However, there are no definitions of the Crown’s duty to consult, nor is there a clear term defining consultation with Indigenous Peoples within the legislation. The conduct of the duty to consult as part of any one project, one decision and one-year process must reflect a distinctions-based approach that will explicitly and distinctly address and justify any potential infringements.

Grand Chief Settee from the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, or MKO, proposed that the Building Canada Act in Bill C-5 be amended by adopting the definition of “duty to consult” at Annex A of the updated guidelines for federal officials to fulfill the duty to consult. As of March 2011, the duty to consult is an obligation of the government as a whole. In Haida and Taku River and Mikisew Cree, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the provincial and federal governments have a legal obligation to consult when the Crown contemplates conduct that might adversely impact potential or established Aboriginal or treaty rights.

Every potential major project, trade and energy corridor or critical minerals development in Canada will be subject to the Crown’s legal obligation to carry out their duty to consult in a manner consistent with the honour of the Crown.

Would the minister provide a written response about adopting clear definitions of the Crown’s duty to consult and consultations with Indigenous Peoples to provide clarity and certainty on the government’s ambition to advance reconciliation while achieving the objectives of Bill C-39?

The second question is this: When Prime Minister Carney and other ministers were interviewed last week about a sweeping bill to overhaul environmental and labour laws and rules, we learned that Bill C-39 removes what Prime Minister Carney sees as barriers to development in pursuit of his pro-growth agenda as a way to create certainty for investments in development projects. There will be no rules allowing companies to pay offset fees if their projects are in fish habitats, and construction can begin before a project is approved.

Minister LeBlanc, this goes against what the government is talking about in giving powers to First Nations and following due process. I remind the ministers that paragraph 13 of the schedule to the Manitoba Natural Resources Act, 1930, gives constitutional protection to the treaty promises of the Crown. The treaty livelihood promised to First Nations was given constitutional protection for the first time 52 years before section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Manitoba Natural Resources Act, including in paragraph 13 of the schedule to the act, forms a part of the British North America Act —

Thank you, Senator McCallum. Your time has expired.

Ministers, thank you for being here to answer our questions.

My question is for Minister LeBlanc. We are in the third nation-building moment in Canada’s history, and we know that we were very slow in building some things. However, the reason we were slow was not always because of environmental concerns or Indigenous people’s rights. It was also due to a lack of investment, so let’s agree on that.

Paradoxically and historically, in these other nation-building moments, reforms that intended to simplify the regulatory process brought new forms of fragmentation, and I can give you examples, but that’s not the objective of my question. Major and small infrastructure projects affect — as you have mentioned — watersheds, biodiversity, greenhouse gas emissions, public health, Indigenous land use and fishers, et cetera. These interactions cannot always be understood through a single super-specialized regulatory agency or lens. Bill C-39 aims to give more powers to the regulatory agencies, which are hyper-specialized, not to mention energy-specialized in fossil fuels.

My question is: You mentioned the scientific need to answer all these cumulative impacts. How will scientific independence be maintained when a specialized regulator assumes greater responsibility for environmental reviews? What additional scientific resources are you going to give these departments and agencies so that they can meet the shorter statutory timelines?

Senator, thank you for the question. I would absolutely share the way you describe the challenge of attracting investments, including both foreign investment and domestic investment. You can think of institutional investors in Canada. We had the Maple 8 pension funds. Everyone’s thinking of big and small examples of investors that are essential for many of these projects to proceed. In some cases, there could be public participation as well as the provincial and federal governments, but in many cases, you’re right: Access to private investment, including foreign investment, is critical to being able to bring these projects to fruition. A simplified, more reliable and predictable regulatory framework is part of attracting that investment.

I’m saying in no way does it diminish the responsibility around oversight evaluation, and I think that was the second part of your very thoughtful question.

You may be thinking of the Canada Energy Regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission or the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. This legislation sets up one decision maker as being ultimately responsible for doing the work with other federal agencies, provincial agencies and independent agencies, as well as public consultations. All of that process remains intact. We have not diminished or limited the ability of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to get advice from a specialist scientist at Fisheries and Oceans Canada or from the Canada Energy Regulator to benefit from work done with species at risk. Because there is one focus for a decision in a defined period of time, I would posit before you, senators, that this in no way limits the important work of all of the federal and other agencies, in many cases provincial and independent if you think of scientific advice, which is necessary to come to those decisions.

Simplifying the decision maker doesn’t limit the factors or access to the advice in order to come to the decision.

Thank you very much for saying “at a given time and moment.” What specific mechanisms will ensure for Canadians that environmental monitoring will continue after the project and will deliver the long-term economic benefits?

Thank you, senator.

Thank you, ministers, for being here. Of course, my question is for Minister Hajdu.

There are many measures in the section regarding how we can improve the collective bargaining process and help the parties reach an agreement. The objective is to reach an agreement. From my experience working with you or the guys sitting beside you, the objective has always been to find out how we get to that place. And there is no magic. I don’t care what anyone tells you. There is no magic. Legislation is not magic; it’s a guideline for how we can get there.

In the context of the ability of unions to bargain with their employers and reach a collective agreement, the unit had to struggle to achieve certain basic things that are now a fundamental part of the Constitution of this country. The right to strike was established in 2015 in the Charter and so was the right to collective bargaining.

Here’s what the Supreme Court said:

The right to collective bargaining and the right to strike are not separate rights operating in parallel. The Supreme Court says the strike leverage is part of what makes collective bargaining meaningful.

I want to say that there are really good provisions that have been brought forth in the legislation that you’re putting forth here today. However, where it is disturbing — which I’ve heard from all my colleagues in the labour movement — is your ability to suspend the right to strike if there is an impasse. When that impasse occurs, there is no magic as to what will happen. You don’t need a special mediator to tell you it is impossible for the parties to reach an agreement.

Let me give you one example.

You were the minister who intervened in the Air Canada dispute, and you said that the parties were at an impasse and this dispute wouldn’t be resolved at the bargaining table. Yet, despite that statement, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, or CUPE, was ordered back to work under section 107, and within the short time of defying the section 107 order — less than two or three days — they reached a tentative agreement. I would say they reached a tentative agreement with the employer. My point is, again, the right to strike is leverage. We don’t necessarily like it. Yes, it causes suffering to the nation and the public, but it is a fundamental right that is coupled with the right to negotiate.

Minister, in the context of the new power provided in the bill, how much time would workers be given to exercise their right to strike if the special mediator says there is no possibility of the parties reaching an agreement before you send it to the labour board to say you at least need to send the parties to mediation or arbitration to resolve the dispute?

Senator, I just want to thank you for your leadership in the labour movement and the assistance that you’ve provided many Ministers of Labour during high-conflict labour disputes. I acknowledge your experience and your wisdom in this space.

I also want to say that, first of all, what we have done is actually strengthen the ability of unions to strike without intervention pre-emptively through section 107. In fact, there were no guardrails on section 107 prior to the introduction of this legislation. A minister could use section 107 to refer disputes to the arbitration board prior to strike action commencing. A minister did not have to assess or provide any reason, really, to use section 107. Certainly, the minister did not have a publicly available report from the special mediator that will now be a required component of contemplating section 107. This new process is really designed on the advice of labour and employers. Both said to ensure that, as we are designing new measures for the Labour Code, we are not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In other words, 95% of cases work out just fine without any government intervention, and those really don’t need any new tools —

Honourable senators, the committee has been sitting for two hours. In conformity with the order of the Senate, I am obliged to interrupt proceedings so that the committee can report to the Senate.

Ministers, on behalf of all senators, thank you for joining us today to assist us with our work on the bill. I would also like to thank your officials.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Honourable senators, is it agreed that the committee rise and I report to the Senate that the witnesses have been heard?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Honourable senators, the sitting of the Senate is resumed.