Evidence of meeting #3 for Bill C-39 in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was workers.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning to both witnesses and thank you for being here.
Mr. Hancock, I'm going to continue on the same topic. Your union has directly experienced the consequences of the use of section 107 in the dispute involving Air Canada flight attendants. The government intervened to end the strike and impose mandatory arbitration.
You're calling for the repeal of that section. Instead of repealing it, the government is explicitly enshrining ministerial authority to end a legal strike in Bill C‑39.
Why is it essential for you to repeal section 107? Also, what would be the consequences of maintaining the application of section 107 on the right to strike and collective bargaining? I imagine the proposed amendments do not address your concerns at all.
National President, Canadian Union of Public Employees
No, not at all. Like a lot of other unions, we're in the courts, with the government using section 107.
I know there are at least two or three other unions in the courts. We believe the government oversteps in a number of cases. We've maintained for the last few years, since section 107 started to be used by this government, that government should stay the hell out of bargaining and that the only place a collective agreement can be found is at a bargaining table with both sides, maybe with the help of a mediator.
As soon as the employers know that the government may or will intervene in trying to end the dispute, things dry up at the bargaining table. We've seen that time and time again.
We're in the courts. We're going to continue through the courts. We know our fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution and in the Charter of Rights. We have the right to withdraw our service when needed, and we're going to maintain that as we move forward.
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC
Thank you. This leads me to say that Bill C‑39 does not provide stability or legal certainty.
Ms. Bruske, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the following. When workers decide to exercise their right to strike, the decision does not seem to be taken lightly. It has consequences for them, for their well-being. Why are they choosing that option? Is it for the sake of disrupting the economy, or is it because there is no other way left to negotiate an agreement?
President, Canadian Labour Congress
Certainly, when workers make the very difficult decision to walk a picket line.... That is not an easy decision to make. That's after many months, usually, of bargaining and attending meetings with their union to understand what the issues at the bargaining table are. Workers don't make that decision lightly.
The first day on the picket line costs them their paycheque. They don't know how long they're going to be on the picket line for. For example, we have the Bank of Canada down the street; those workers have been on a picket line for over 100 days. However, the issues in front of them are big enough that they know they need to take action.
Whether it's wage inequality, dealing with job security, or dealing with the trade and tariff issues that we're dealing with right now in terms of how those are impacting their workplaces, workers know that the card they hold is to withdraw their labour. The employer holds all the other cards: where to invest, how to invest, how to organize their business, whether to expand, whether to shut down and whether to minimize production lines. Those are the cards the employer holds.
The card the workers have is the ability to withdraw their labour. Without that, you upend the table.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC
Thank you very much.
The government cites the economic consequences of a strike to justify its action, but what is the point of going on strike if there are no economic consequences?
President, Canadian Labour Congress
The whole point of having a strike or a labour dispute is to have an impact on the employer. You can't have an impact on the employer if you can't impact their business. Often it's also a public relations battle for the hearts and minds of the support: whether the public supports the employer or the workers in this particular case.
I think that, as illustrated with the Air Canada situation, every single Canadian understands that if you go to work for 40 hours and only get paid for 30 hours, that's patently unfair. This issue wasn't going to be resolved at the bargaining table, and those workers decided that they were willing to go out on strike and contravene a government order to return to work. Those workers felt strongly that this issue was enough for them to take action and potentially be fined and have other consequences.
When we are pushing workers to the brink, and they do not have the framework of being able to go out on a legal strike, that's not going to end strikes and labour disputes in this country. It will make them more unpredictable, potentially longer and potentially violent on the picket line. That is a huge problem. It means we will have a less stable economy and less stable workplaces.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC
Thank you very much for your answer.
I have one last question on mandatory arbitration. Collective bargaining is not just about salaries; there are plenty of other things involved. You just mentioned the issue of Air Canada flight attendants. You also referred to the challenges posed by automation and AI, which were talked about earlier today.
Explain again why mandatory arbitration cannot replace meaningful collective bargaining, especially when there are complex issues like the ones you talked about.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
Thank you for that important question.
In my experience at the bargaining table, what compels workers to go out on strike isn't, in general, wages and benefits. It's that something is at risk, whether it's their job security, respect and dignity at work or wages that are so far off base that there needs to be an economic strike in that way. However, arbitrated decisions don't generally get to the heart of those more complex issues, whether the issue is automation, how it's being used and how many jobs will be displaced; whether it's AI in terms of decision-making; or whether it's tariff-specific threats that a particular employer and the workplace need to manage.
Arbitrators will cut the baby in half, give a bit to both and say, “Here you go. Here's your new collective agreement. See you in three years' time.” We hope it won't, but that's usually what happens.
We need to find a way for the parties to stay at the bargaining table and to really drill down on the issues that are at stake in this moment. We are living in a vastly and quickly changing economic reality right now—with threats of tariff issues, threats of AI and automation, youth unemployment—that we're navigating. We have many challenges, and those challenges are best discussed and best resolved at those bargaining tables, not by an arbitrator who doesn't necessarily understand that particular sector of the economy or that geographic location of the economy.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Clarke, ON
Thank you.
I believe that the theory for the case for Bill C-39 is this government's belief that, by passing Bill C-39, it will make the collective bargaining process better. However, that relies on two premises, neither of which seems to be true, so I'd like your comment on this.
Premise number one is that the introduction of a special mediator will greatly enhance the ability—for unions in particular—to negotiate against bad-faith employers, if we're saying this honestly. Given the fact that the only thing the special mediator can do is produce a report, do you think they will have a meaningful impact on the collective bargaining process?
President, Canadian Labour Congress
Having a special mediator and having transparency are not bad things, but in and of itself, having a special mediator is not going to solve the issues and the challenges at the bargaining table. Yes, they can provide a report. Yes, the minister can make that public. Yes, we can name and shame, and maybe that will drive some actions in some way, shape or form. However, if an employer is recalcitrant and does not actually want to reach a collective agreement on a difficult issue, a special mediator's report is not going to address that.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Clarke, ON
Thank you.
The second premise, which I'd love for you to comment on, is that putting in so-called guardrails, or controls around the triggering of section 107, will make employers in particular more likely to stay at the table and get a deal done. My belief, however, is that these are not real safeguards. It has to be in the national interest, but who decides that? Well, the government decides what's in the national interest. I believe your organization has talked a bit about having an independent council, so could you comment on that and tell us about some of your proposed amendments to the legislation?
President, Canadian Labour Congress
We believe this would enshrine the use of section 107 to break strikes, and we know that this section of the labour act has been in effect since 1984. Only in the last two years has it been used eight different times to break eight different strikes. In this particular case, we still have outstanding court actions, as you've heard some of my colleagues talk about. There are four court actions on this particular issue.
I want to point out that the ability to break a strike, as is contemplated under the new language in Bill C-39, section 107, in the second part, actually enshrines the ability to force workers back to work. That is a greater ability than any other G7 government has: the ability to enforce workers' return to work. Even the President of the United States does not have the ability to send workers back to work. They may have an opportunity to pause an ongoing labour dispute, but they don't actually have the ability to force those workers back without a vote in Congress. Therefore, this is going well beyond the point to which every other democracy we align ourselves with goes. This is hugely problematic because it removes the ability to have leverage at the bargaining table, to give both parties a need to get to the bargaining table and resolve complex issues.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Clarke, ON
I'll roll this back to some of the changes or amendments we could make to improve the law. If I can, I want to get just a yes-or-no answer from you. I know it's difficult.
Given that the special mediator has extremely limited powers and can only publish a report, given the lack of protections or safeguards around the triggering of section 107 and given that, in fact, this would now entrench section 107 as part of our legal landscape, do you believe we will be worse off if Bill C-39 passes?
President, Canadian Labour Congress
One hundred per cent: We will be worse off.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Clarke, ON
Thank you very much. That's very clear. I appreciate it.
With regard to some of the improvements we could make, my colleague Mr. Seeback has talked about the potential of giving the special mediator more power—not demanding that they make a deal for the people, but perhaps giving the power to say that if you guys don't get a deal and if that employer doesn't get a deal, you're at least going to sit in the office, even if you're staring at the wall for the next three weeks. You're going to at least be in the office staring at your union counterparts.
Do you think this would be helpful?
President, Canadian Labour Congress
Any time you force decision-makers to be in the same room is helpful in terms of driving conversation and discussion.
A mediator needs to be independent, needs to be a subject expert and needs to have collective bargaining experience in order to bring real value to the process.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Clarke, ON
Thank you.
In my last 30 seconds, Mr. Hancock, could you provide me with a couple of comments on whether you believe that the status quo is preferable to Bill C-39?
National President, Canadian Union of Public Employees
Absolutely, it is much more preferable.
As I said earlier, we're fighting section 107 in the courts. I'd much rather be at a bargaining table getting a collective agreement done, with both sides agreeing to a contract, than having to deal with the government's interference with our fundamental right to negotiate collective agreements and our fundamental right to strike. That will become the fight if Bill C-39 continues, rather than getting a collective agreement at the end of the day.
Liberal
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Richmond East—Steveston, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to both of our witnesses for joining us today and for your leadership in supporting workers.
I'm going to stay on the special mediator piece.
Yesterday we heard from Minister Hajdu. She made a strong case that Bill C-39 enhances collective bargaining rights under proposed sections 87.01 and 87.02, which state that an independent special mediator must provide a report to the minister when the parties have not reached an agreement.
The report could be made public, and we've talked a lot about that today. It could reveal the intent from both sides—for example, if the employer is being unproductive. The public would see this and take it into account. There would also be monetary penalties if the negotiations are done in bad faith.
Do you believe that this adds some teeth to the process?
President, Canadian Labour Congress
Monetary penalties are really dependent on how big or small the employer organization is.
Let's be frank: If you're trying to have a monetary penalty for an Air Canada versus a smaller organization, there's going to be a different kind of motivation on whether to resolve a problem.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Richmond East—Steveston, BC
We also heard from the minister that some agreements had lapsed and had been allowed to remain lapsed for years, weakening ties between labour and management and weakening the collective bargaining process. In your view, will this change improve the bargaining processes and limit the ability for management to rag the puck? Could that happen?
President, Canadian Labour Congress
What would improve the bargaining process is doing some of the things that have been announced. Having more resources for the CIRB to deal very expeditiously with matters outstanding between the parties is critically important. An arbitrated approach to bring quick resolutions to grievances and not letting those things pile up is an incredibly important part of the process.
We have suggested, very strongly, that at no point should workers be forced to abandon a picket line without a vote in Parliament. For decades, that is what has had to happen in order to send workers back to work. These are not light decisions when you're taking somebody's constitutional rights away. If this is a requirement the government feels is necessary, it should be tabling legislation in the House of Commons, and that legislation should be debated. Workers should understand what the discussion and the debate are about, and a vote can be taken.
Enshrining the use of section 107 to break a strike is the absolute wrong way to go. It will cause more labour disputes.
