Thank you, Chair and members of the committee.
You've heard from a number of business leaders about the importance of economic stability, and I want to start by saying that Canada's unions share this goal. We want a strong Canadian economy. We want businesses to succeed. We want reliable supply chains, good jobs and stable labour relations.
We know how to achieve stability: It's by making sure that both sides have a reason to bargain and to reach a collective agreement.
Approximately 95% of federally regulated disputes are settled without a work stoppage. That is a simply remarkable record and one that we should be working to strengthen. It works because employers know that workers can withdraw their labour and stop operations. Workers know that striking comes at a significant cost to themselves and their families. Both sides have something at stake. Both sides have a reason to reach a deal.
The proposed changes to section 107 would upset this balance. They would give the minister unfettered power to end a legal strike and to suspend workers' constitutional rights based solely on a minister's opinion that a strike has or could have an adverse effect on the “national interest”, defined as virtually whatever the minister believes it to be.
Far from creating guardrails, we believe that Bill C-39 would entrench a controversial interpretation of existing powers that is currently facing four constitutional challenges.
In its current form, Bill C-39 would give employers a reason to hold out instead of reaching a deal, putting decades of labour stability at risk. Workers will lose faith in a legal process and may take action outside that legal process, increasing the risk of illegal strikes and more serious labour conflicts.
There's a longer history here that we need to remember.
In Atlantic Canada, generations of coal miners fought for the right to organize, to bargain collectively and to improve workplace conditions. In Cape Breton in 1925, a striking miner, William Davis, was killed by company police during a bitter labour dispute.
Those struggles helped to shape the labour relations system we have today: a system that recognizes that workers must have meaningful rights and the ability to actually exercise those rights.
To be clear, the Canada Labour Code did not create the concept of strikes. It created a system by which unions and employers agreed to the rules of engagement in resolving labour disagreements.
Labour peace is fragile, and the proposed new powers for the minister effectively remove the right to strike from workers. Taking away the right to strike is not going to eliminate labour conflict. It takes away the legal framework for resolving it, and what looks like greater stability on paper is going to create more instability.
The CLC has put forward practical alternatives. We have provided our amendments directly to the labour minister. Our central proposal is to explicitly clarify that section 107 does not empower the minister to end legal strikes.
We propose creating an independent panel of experts to assess whether ongoing strikes have created a genuine national economic emergency. The threshold would be exceptionally high, requiring serious, widespread and irreparable harm to the national economy. The panel would advise government, and if intervention were necessary, government would have to introduce legislation and make its case in Parliament.
We also propose that special mediators be independent of government, be experienced in labour relations and be trusted by both parties. Our experience under the public service labour relations act raises some concerns that the proposed special mediator process could delay settlements rather than help achieve them.
These are not untested ideas that we've put forward. Independent reviews of Canada's labour laws, including the Woods and Sims reports, recommended similar approaches decades ago.
Members of the committee, we share the government's interest in a strong and stable economy, but stability cannot be achieved by giving employers a reason to avoid reaching collective agreements. Certainty for businesses cannot mean that workers are certain to lose the right to strike based on the opinion of the minister of the day.
The overwhelming majority of collective agreements are reached without a strike because the system gives both parties a reason to negotiate. Weakening that incentive puts the entire system's success at risk.
We have given the government a clear path to protect workers' rights, support stable labour relations and respond to genuine national emergencies. I urge this committee to look at our proposed amendments and to protect the right to strike.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.