Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today on behalf of Canada's professional airline pilots. ALPA Canada represents more than 95% of Canada's unionized professional pilots, employed at 22 Canadian airlines.
The government has characterized Bill C-39 as an effort to modernize and strengthen collective bargaining. These are objectives ALPA Canada supports, but unfortunately, we believe this legislation misses the mark.
ALPA Canada has consistently advocated for the removal of section 107 from the Canada Labour Code. Let's not forget what the Supreme Court of Canada has told us: “The right to strike is...an indispensable component of [the] right” to meaningful collective bargaining. Ministerial intervention to end lawful strikes and lockouts violates that right.
Moreover, the bill's proposed amendments to section 107 and ending strikes will lead to behaviour not conducive to concluding collective agreements. In fact, it will encourage employers to adapt their behaviour at the bargaining table in ways that will lead to the increased invocation of section 107, discouraging good-faith bargaining and further deteriorating labour relations in this country.
ALPA Canada's recommendation from the outset has been to improve the front end of the bargaining process by giving unions and employers the structure and tools they need to reach collective agreements prior to a notice of dispute having been filed. Instead, Bill C-39 focuses heavily on what happens at the end of the process: more conciliation, more mediators and additional intervention mechanisms. The priority should be to proactively prevent bargaining breakdowns and not, quite simply, to manage them.
Let me suggest some practical amendments to the code that we believe should have been included in this bill. First, ALPA Canada recommends that the code include an expedited CIRB process to resolve information disclosure disputes while bargaining is still under way. When employers delay or refuse to provide information, meaningful negotiations can and do stall. The current process is slow, and by the time a decision is reached, the damage is generally already done.
Second, ALPA Canada recommends that the code include clear and effective provisions for the expedited arbitration of grievances. Section 49 of Ontario's Labour Relations Act provides a clear example of how such a mechanism can work. The stagnation in resolving grievances plays a major role in the deterioration of labour relations, and it cannot be ignored when analyzing outcomes in collective bargaining. Bill C-39 misses an opportunity to address this gap and help parties promptly resolve disputes before they escalate.
Third, ALPA recommends that the code permit all notices of bargain to be issued six months prior to the expiration of a collective agreement. If the government wants to encourage better bargaining outcomes, why not let all bargaining begin earlier? Contracts can be complex, and bargaining takes time. If the code better reflects these realities, better bargaining outcomes could be reached.
Finally, when it comes to Bill C-39's proposed changes to the conciliation process, the settlement of first collective agreements and the introduction of special mediators, ALPA asserts that the rules should not change midway through the process. Unions and employers presently engaged in collective bargaining have developed strategies and negotiated under the existing legislative framework. Changing the rules upon royal assent risks upsetting the balance between the parties, creating uncertainty and encouraging procedural manoeuvres that do little to support constructive negotiations, even in advance of this legislation.
If the government's objective is a bargaining process that works, that provides timely access to information, that resolves disputes sufficiently, that allows sufficient time to negotiate and that protects constitutionally protected rights, it has missed the mark. It overlooks the hard-earned lessons of Canadian labour relations, and it ignores the wisdom that lasting labour relations and peace are achieved through meaningful collective bargaining, not government intervention. In other words, this legislation is penny-wise and pound foolish.
We urge the committee to address the bill's noted shortcomings and adopt amendments that genuinely strengthen the collective bargaining process and protect workers' constitutional rights.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.