Bill C-39 Committee on Oct. 20th, 2026

[Mark Hancock, National President, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

My name is Mark Hancock.

Thank you to the chair, and thank you for allowing me to make this presentation to you today.

CUPE represents 800,000 workers across Canada, including over 35,000 in federally regulated industries such as those of airlines, ports and telecommunications.

I'm here today with a simple message on behalf of our members from all across Canada. CUPE will fight any attempt to undermine our right to strike. While there are some positive measures in this bill, including first contract arbitration and successor rights at airports, unfortunately, the good news ends there.

The thing is that we are on board with the goal of ensuring well-paying union jobs in a stable economy. To achieve this goal, we need an industrial policy that puts workers first, not omnibus bills that completely undermine environmental, indigenous and workers' rights.

Previous governments that tried to end lawful strikes at least had the courage to introduce back-to-work legislation. They faced questions from the opposition, and those debates at least had the veneer of parliamentary oversight. Instead, this government has used section 107 time and time again to end perfectly legal strikes with no parliamentary oversight.

Instead of doing the right thing and repealing section 107, Bill C-39 further cements the ability of a minister to end legal strikes. Ministers are trying to tell you that they're putting guardrails around the power that they think they have, but we have never believed that they could use section 107 to end a legal strike. Neither did previous labour ministers, and that's why we're before the courts.

Under Bill C-39, the right to strike will only exist in the abstract, because a right that can be taken away the moment it's exercised is not a right at all. It takes away the most significant leverage workers have at a bargaining table, where the power is already stacked in favour of some Canada's richest and most powerful employers.

If you want to look into a crystal ball and see the future for this bill, look at a recent decision in Quebec. The Quebec administrative labour tribunal found that Quebec's Bill 14, which established similar powers for government intervention, violated the right to freedom of association. The tribunal said these powers undermined the balance of power between workers and employers and declared them constitutionally inoperative. In other words, the federal government is in the process of making a mistake that Quebec is already undoing. The warning couldn't be clearer.

Here's the bottom line: Free and fair collective bargaining works because both sides have something at stake, but when employers know the government is going to bail them out, why would they put their best offer forward? Bill C-39 doesn't encourage employers to bargain. It encourages them to lowball workers and wait for the minister to do their dirty work.

I won't ask you to take my word for it. Last summer, Air Canada CEO Michael Rousseau told the world on national television that his company didn't prepare for a strike because they expected the federal government to bail them out. When the government ordered our members back to work, our brave members defied that order. When the employer understood that we would not allow our rights to be trampled on, they finally got serious at the bargaining table, and we reached an agreement.

It should have been clear to the government then that it was government interference that undermined collective bargaining and emboldened the employer. Instead of learning from this mistake, this government is determined to cement it into law. This will not bring labour peace. This is a recipe for more disasters.

Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister won a mandate to stand up to Donald Trump. He did not win a mandate to weaken workers' rights to please investors on Bay Street. These rights are foundational to Canada and to who we are as Canadians. We cannot build Canada strong by weakening Canada's foundation. Workers are team Canada. That's why CUPE will continue to insist that section 107 be repealed from this bill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Hancock.

We'll start the six-minute round with Mr. Seeback.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Bruske, I want to ask you a question that I've put to some other witnesses today.

When the ministers were here yesterday, they seemed to think this report by a special mediator that is public would be the panacea that fixes everything. I don't think it would be. When I probed a little further, I asked the minister what would happen if the special mediator report found that the employer was bargaining in bad faith. I said that surely then the use of section 107 would be off the table. She would not confirm that or agree with that, which means it's still available for the minister to use. What are your thoughts on that?

[Bea Bruske]

It is outrageous to me that an employer could rag the puck, so to speak, and not bargain seriously yet still be rewarded with the use of section 107 to impose a collective agreement on workers.

Let's think about this for a minute. Workers and their unions come to the bargaining table to bargain seriously and to deal with the big picture issues that we heard about from the other witnesses this morning, such as automation, AI—things that are impacting those workplaces in this moment. To think an employer could be cited in a report by a mediator saying they have not been bargaining in good faith and still be rewarded by having a collective agreement imposed is exactly what is wrong with this particular legislation.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Hancock, do you want to take the same question?

[Mark Hancock]

I agree with my friend Bea. It makes absolutely no sense from our perspective. We have over 4,000 certifications across the country, many of them in the federal sector. We're good at getting collective agreements. Very rarely do we have a strike vote. Very rarely do we have to take any type of action. I can tell you that it's in the cases when employers are unreasonable—when employers are messing around at the bargaining table or away from it—that we end up having to take action, generally. For the minister to give that type of answer scares the hell out of me, quite honestly.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I've had the pleasure of being the shadow minister for labour for the past two years. I've travelled to hundreds of union locals from coast to coast. I know that no one says they are looking forward to going on strike. Striking is absolutely the last resort. The minister seems to think this bill is going to help collective bargaining.

I know you commented on this in your opening statements, but could you both tell me whether you think this legislation is going to improve the collective bargaining process?

[Bea Bruske]

I don't believe for a minute that this legislation will improve the collective bargaining process. I think this will embolden employers to hold out for not getting to a deal. We heard my friend Mark talk about the CEO of Air Canada admitting as much last summer during the Air Canada flight attendants' dispute.

Workers making a determination that they want to go out on strike is not an easy decision. Those are kitchen table conversations, and that comes after months and months at bargaining tables. That comes after many conversations within the workplace and with your families about whether you can afford to go out on strike and whether what's at stake is worth putting your livelihood at risk. The economic impact on workers is immediate. Their paycheques end when they start walking a picket line.

Not having the ability to hold employers accountable and force them to the bargaining table by withdrawing your labour upends the balance at the bargaining table. It is the only tool that workers and their unions have to enforce proper collective bargaining and force the employers to come in a meaningful way to negotiate.

I've spent many decades at bargaining tables. It comes down to how high that strike vote is 95% of the time. If the strike vote is high enough, then all of a sudden we see an employer's ability to come back with a better offer at the bargaining table. Without the ability to push the envelope and get the maximum leverage, we are going to have significantly more disputes.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Hancock, I'm going to ask you a different question, because I'm conscious of my time. I want to talk to you about geographic certification, which I think is a bit of a sleeper in this legislation.

I asked the minister about it. She seemed to think it would be no big deal that two employers could seek geographic certification now anywhere in the country for any industry. I think it's deeply problematic. I asked her whether this would be done with the consent of unions. Of course, she said no.

What are your thoughts about this massive new expansion of the ability of employers now to seek to geographically certify unions against their will?

[Mark Hancock]

Thanks for the question.

I agree with you 100%. There may be cases in which it makes sense for unions to work together and for employers to work together, but both sides of the equation need to agree that's the best way to proceed. Bargaining, as Bea said, can be a difficult process. We see the scales tip very much toward the employer's side, generally. This is just one more example of the government potentially helping employers when it comes to bargaining. Very clearly, there may be some occasions, but all three sides have to agree: the government, the employer and the union.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I think I have 20 seconds left, so I'm going to be really quick.

It looks as though there is going to be a special mediator in this legislation. Would you support enhancing the powers of the special mediator to try to improve bargaining?

[Bea Bruske]

There are two things. Number one, it's incredibly important that the special mediator be independent, and number two, it's important that they be a subject expert.

Both the labour and employer sides can agree on what that roster of special mediators should look like. They should have the power to compel the parties to come to the bargaining table and bring decision-makers to the bargaining table to force those good conversations.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Seeback.

Go ahead, Ms. Harrison.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

I'd like to put my first question to both witnesses, and I'd like to go to the transparency provisions in Bill C-39, through which the public could view the special mediator's report.

When major labour disputes affect Canadians, as we saw with Canada Post, and with rail imports especially affecting farmers and agricultural sectors, do you believe there is power in the transparency measure that allows the public to better understand who is working towards the resolution and who may be prolonging the dispute? In my opinion, naming and shaming is a powerful tool, especially in 2026.

That is for both witnesses.

[Bea Bruske]

Certainly, unions are democratic organizations, and they have to take any of the recommendations from their bargaining committees back to their members, who will vote on them. We feel that unions are very transparent in terms of how they respond to their members' needs and how they show their work at the table, so to speak.

I don't have an issue with a report being made public. I do have an issue with a report citing an employer for behaving badly that still has access to section 107 to utilize it to end a potential strike.

[Mark Hancock]

I agree with Bea.

We've had two rounds of bargaining go with the port of Montreal. We saw an employer that dragged their heels and took us through essential services for about two years, just playing games and not being interested in getting an agreement with the union at the bargaining table. We're very happy to see transparency as part of the process.

I think that the public would be quite shocked by some of the games that many of these employers play out there. Again, I agree with my friend Bea.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you to both of you.

Mr. Hancock, you spoke to this already, but one objective of Bill C-39 is to encourage parties to resolve disputes at the bargaining table before a work stoppage occurs. Do you agree that providing mediation and conciliation supports earlier in the bargaining process could help the parties reach negotiation settlements?

[Mark Hancock]

We're always interested in working with mediators. We do that quite often across the country in both federally regulated sectors and provincial sectors. As I said earlier, most of the time we get a collective agreement even without a strike vote. We know how to bargain, we have great bargaining committees and we have really smart staff who know how to find a deal.

In those instances in which there are hiccups, we use mediators either at the provincial or the federal level. We're happy to use whatever tools will help both parties get to a place where a deal is found at the bargaining table and without any government intervention.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Ms. Bruske, would you like to answer that as well?

[Bea Bruske]

Certainly. A mediator can always be helpful. We don't have any issue with having additional expertise in the room. Bringing in decision-makers who have the ability to make those difficult decisions and foster good debate and discussion is incredibly important, especially in this moment when we have high youth unemployment and we have workers who are worried about the impacts of automation, AI and all of those kinds of things. Those bargaining table conversations are more important than ever, and we cannot short-circuit the system by getting to a quick resolution to those matters.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Hancock, during the Air Canada flight attendants' strike, you repeatedly stated that the best solution was one reached at the bargaining table rather than through imposed arbitration. Looking back, do you believe the parties would have had a greater chance of reaching an agreement if formal bargaining had begun earlier and additional federal mediation resources had been available from the outset?

[Mark Hancock]

Maybe. We would have had a better chance of getting a deal if Mr. Rousseau hadn't believed that the government was going to come to the rescue. That cost us a day of strike—legal or illegal, however you want to frame it—and we ended up spending that day pushing back on the government's intervention. We saw that in the last 10 to 15 days of bargaining prior to going on strike, things completely changed at Air Canada. They stopped coming with real bargaining proposals; they were coming without actually looking to find a deal. It was like a light switch went off.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you for that.

One of the concerns you raised during the Air Canada flight attendants' strike was that you believed that the employer was not negotiating in good faith.

I have two questions. First, do you feel the negotiations could have gone differently if they had known the special mediator report was going to go public if a deal wasn't reached and the report outlined the position of the parties? Second, do you feel the administrative monetary penalties for not negotiating in good faith would have changed the outcome?

[Mark Hancock]

I don't know the answer to that. You would have to get inside Mr. Rousseau's head and Air Canada's—the employer's—head. I believe they knew that they were going to be saved, that the government was going to ride in on its white horse and save the day. They expected our members to fold and go back to work, but clearly that wasn't the case. If things had changed, if there were a mediator who could have shamed Air Canada.... Who knows? Hindsight is, as they say, 100%.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.