Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2026

Opposition Motion—Funding of the Cultural Sector

[Claude Guay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to talk about the importance of the cultural sector, its future and its workers. I am pleased to do so.

The cultural sector provides 172,000 jobs across the country for artists, creators, broadcasters, writers and video game programmers. They perform a multitude of roles in front of and behind the camera, on stage and behind the scenes. Behind a show are screenwriters, crews and sound and editing specialists. Behind an album are artists, directors, technicians and partners who work to bring it to audiences. Each new project creates work for those teams. It allows businesses to draw on their suppliers, gives emerging professionals an opportunity to gain experience, and enables established workers to pass on their know-how. That is how an industry is through: through a continuous stream of projects, the experience gained along the way and the capacity to reinvest in future opportunities.

We want to preserve that expertise in Canada. We want to empower businesses to build on their successes. We want Canadian artists, workers and cultural enterprises to be able to build their future here. We want their talents to translate into projects, jobs and opportunities for growth both at home and abroad.

Their contribution, through their creativity, expertise and dedication, extends far beyond the economy. These are the people who bring to life the stories that define us, that reflect the diversity of our experiences and that showcase Quebec and Canadian culture at home and abroad. Our talented artists have demonstrated their ability to connect with audiences around the world. In recent years, television series such as Empathie and Heated Rivalry have enjoyed great success. Artists such as the members of Angine de Poitrine, whose alien language is somewhat beyond me, are making their mark all over the world. Robert Lepage, Denis Villeneuve and Yannick Nézet‑Séguin are all artists who are a source of pride for us and who are recognized both here and abroad. Their success raises the profile of our creators and the expertise of our teams. We want others to be able to follow in their footsteps and develop their careers.

We recognize, however, that the sector is facing significant challenges. Traditional media revenues are under pressure, audience habits continue to evolve, and companies must adapt their business models. When a production is delayed, the consequences are felt by the whole team; contracts become less frequent and income less predictable. The next generation may find fewer opportunities to learn and gain initial experience. In the long term, this uncertainty may jeopardize our ability to retain talent and keep experienced teams in place.

We must address immediate needs while laying the groundwork for future growth. Last June, our government announced a $600-million investment to provide stability and immediate support to the audiovisual sector. We recognize the importance of this investment, which will be distributed to the sector as soon as possible. This is a commitment the government has made. We want to support the ability to create and distribute Canadian content. We also want to keep services accessible and affordable so that families can continue to watch Canadian movies and TV shows and listen to our artists.

The sector's strength also relies on fair contributions by all broadcasting system participants, including online streaming services, to support the creation and promotion of Quebec and Canadian content. The Online Streaming Act made it possible to incorporate these services into the broadcasting framework. The CRTC developed the regulatory obligations applicable to the audio and audiovisual sector. We announced our plans to review certain requirements, draft new policies and maintain strong support for our content while taking the different business models and the cost of services to households into account.

We are also looking for ways to modernize our institutions and the funding mechanisms that support the audiovisual industry. We want our policy tools to better support companies throughout their development, from the creation of a project to its dissemination to audiences. The advisory group that met this year underscored the importance of intellectual property, distribution, audience development and revenue. We want Canadian businesses to be able to keep more of the value inherent in their creations.

This would enable them to reinvest, develop new projects and strengthen their presence in the market. We are also looking into creating a new federal body that would merge Telefilm Canada, the National Film Board and the Canada Media Fund and broaden their mandates. However, a decision has not yet been made in that regard.

The sector's future also depends on skills and workers. Artificial intelligence, which is important to mention, and all the changes in technology have changed the way things are done. What we want is for workers to be able to continue learning, for the next generation to develop its expertise and for businesses to have the ability to experiment and innovate. We want the regions and groups that face more barriers to also benefit from these opportunities. It is also important to mention indigenous sovereignty, as well as inclusion and fairness, which must also guide this discussion.

We are also giving equal attention to people who work in our media sector. Producing accurate news requires journalists, production teams and time to investigate, verify facts and explain what is happening. Preserving this capacity is essential to democratic life, particularly when misinformation spreads quickly.

In the spring economic update, we announced our intention to consult on expanding the Canadian journalism labour tax credit to include audio and audiovisual production. We want the future of these sectors to offer opportunities in all communities. Francophone creators must be able to create and reach their audiences. Indigenous creators must be able to share their stories and languages. Official language minority communities must see their realities reflected in our media. This diversity fuels creativity and enriches the content available to the public. It contributes to our sense of belonging and strengthens the bonds between communities. We therefore want to support an industry capable of offering opportunities to these workers, developing talent, and helping local businesses in this sector to grow.

As we prepare for this future, we will support jobs and the expertise that is so valuable. We are also preserving our ability to create right here in Canada, from coast to coast to coast. We want to tell our stories, the stories of all the different communities in our beautiful country, and share them with the world, not just here at home.

I will now answer my colleagues' questions.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out once again that we are talking about culture, of course.

Personally, what I would have liked to hear my colleague talk about is the fact that the cultural sector is currently being deprived of significant revenue from levies and, above all, the $600 million that had been promised to them as compensation has still not been paid out. My colleague talks about the media. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, local media outlets, in particular, are struggling to attract advertising because, obviously, it is the greedy web giants that are taking the lion's share of the revenue. What is more, they are not paying their fair share here, while local and community media outlets are trying to find ways to get by.

In this context, I would have preferred to hear my colleague commit to handing over the $600 million as soon as possible.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, I am pleased to share its commitment to provide the $600 million that my colleague mentioned. A lot more information will be provided in the coming days. I look forward to it.

That said, I also want to inform my colleague that in addition to the $600 million, another $550 million has already been distributed: $192 million to the CBC/Radio‑Canada; $150 million to Telefilm Canada; $127 million to the Canada Media Fund; $48 million to the Canada Music Fund; $26 million to the National Film Board of Canada; and $6 million to the Canada Council for the Arts. Most of these amounts, except for the funds provided to CBC/Radio‑Canada, will be spread out over three years, although the distribution has already started.

I thank my colleague for her question and for the opportunity to share this information.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the third time I have put a question to a government MP. I hope that, this time, I will receive a clear answer.

Here are the facts. In June 2025, the government announced its intention to withdraw the digital services tax. The objective was clear: facilitate negotiations with the United States.

Fifteen months later, can the member tell us what tangible results have come from the decision to withdraw the digital services tax? Has it had a positive effect on the negotiations, yes or no?

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight my colleague's remarks earlier this afternoon in this debate. I completely agreed with him when he said that it is necessary to learn. When things change, it is necessary to adapt. It is a bad idea to always fall back on formulas that do not work.

By the way, I did not hear the discussion, but the money that was supposed to come from those media outlets was not distributed. No one in the cultural sector benefited from it, because there were lawsuits. It went to court. That money could not be distributed to the cultural sector. Our cultural environment did not benefit from it.

That is why we decided to take a different approach.

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, many members on this side of the House stood up for culture and requested funding in budget 2025. In the end, we got it.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about some of the other members of the House's culture-related requests.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which will give me the opportunity to clarify what has happened in recent months and over the past year.

As members know, the Conservative Party did not make any culture-related requests. The Conservatives even wanted to take a step backward and cut funding for CBC/Radio‑Canada. They never mentioned providing more funding for French content or for culture.

It is also important to note that the motion was moved by the Bloc Québécois, who did not make any culture-related requests in the last budget. I find it a bit rich that we have this motion before us today to debate when the Bloc did not make any specific culture-related requests at budget time.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, that is incorrect; the Bloc Québécois has made requests related to culture. Second of all, the real issue is that the CRTC was following the new Broadcasting Act and wanted American digital platforms to pay their fair share, which would have resulted in $2 billion more in revenues for Quebec and French-language media and culture. So the question is—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt hon. members because the time allotted for this debate has expired. Hon. members who wish to discuss it further will have to do so outside the chamber.

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, October 26, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

I see that the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 5:30 p.m. so we can begin private members' hour.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from May 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-247, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Labour Code

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, this is a pivotal moment for Canada and Canadians. Global economic uncertainty continues to challenge workers, employers and communities across our country. Supply chains have been tested. Trade relationships have faced new pressures. Industries that Canadians depend on every day have had to adapt to significant change.

Through all this, Canadians have demonstrated the resilience and determination that define our country. Our responsibility as a Parliament is clear. We must protect Canadian workers while strengthening Canada's economic resilience. We must build a strong economy with the workers who keep it running. Our economy runs on Canadian workers, and we must protect workers with an economy that remains competitive, reliable and capable of withstanding shocks. Workers are the backbone of a strong Canadian economy. It is with that in mind that I rise today to speak to Bill C-247.

First, I would like to thank the sponsor, the member for Winnipeg Centre, for her continued advocacy on behalf of working Canadians. While we will not always agree on how to proceed, the Government of Canada shares her commitment to ensuring that workers are treated fairly and that the collective bargaining process remains strong.

The spirit behind Bill C-247 aligns with the objectives that our government strongly supports. We believe the right to strike is fundamental. We believe that negotiated agreements are always the best outcome. We believe that the responsibility for reaching those agreements belongs first and foremost to the employers and the unions. We believe that collective bargaining must remain the foundation of Canada's labour relations system. It is a constitutional right, it is hard-fought and it is essential. I also believe in balance, prudence and tools of last resort, so I prefer to fix section 107, not to scrap it.

Bill C-39 was designed with this goal: to add guardrails to section 107's use, strengthen collective bargaining, improve labour management relationships, identify and address risks earlier and increase the likelihood that employers and unions reach negotiated agreements at the bargaining table. That is the context of the broader purpose of Bill C-39: to protect our country and its workers in turbulent times, and to ensure broad prosperity for all workers.

Our economy is only as strong as our workplaces, and our workplaces are only as strong as the relationships that exist within them. More than one million employees and over 22,000 employers operate within the federally regulated private sector. They deserve a labour relations framework that is modern, balanced and effective. They deserve a system that supports good-faith bargaining, and they deserve a framework that helps parties identify problems earlier, address risks before positions become entrenched, and find solutions together.

The labour measures contained in Bill C-39 are built on what we heard directly from stakeholders. The government conducted two rounds of consultations this year with unions, labour organizations, employers, employer representatives, indigenous partners and other stakeholders from across the country. We received more than 300 written submissions. Participants expressed diverse views on many issues, but some points emerged with remarkable consistency. Everyone agreed that collective agreements are best achieved through good-faith negotiations between employers and unions at the bargaining table. We also heard that Canada's collective bargaining framework is working well in most circumstances.

In fact, approximately 95% of collective bargaining relationships conclude without a work stoppage. This is an important success. Bill C-39 builds upon that. It is important that parties can resolve disputes themselves without disruption and without outside intervention. The bill addresses key risks in labour relations and would provide additional supports, tools and opportunities for parties to reach negotiated settlements earlier. It would also limit the use of section 107.

Parties negotiating a first collective agreement would receive additional support from the federal mediation and conciliation service and access to binding dispute resolutions after nine months of unsuccessful bargaining. The bill would also provide additional support in bargaining relationships where experience suggests negotiations may be more challenging. This includes situations where parties experienced a strike or lockout during the previous round of bargaining. It includes situations where a binding dispute resolution process was previously required.

When a strike, lockout or imposed dispute resolution process occurs, it can signal deeper relationship challenges that require additional attention. In these higher-risk situations, parties would participate in postdispute remediation with the federal mediation and conciliation service and begin bargaining earlier, creating more time and opportunity to address issues before positions become entrenched.

Time can often be the difference between impasse and agreement. Bill C-39 would extend the conciliation period from 60 days to 90 days, giving parties more opportunity to resolve difficult issues at the bargaining table.

Taken together, these measures provide more support, more time and more opportunities for parties to reach their own agreements. Bill C-39 would prevent and resolve disputes earlier, strengthen labour management relationships and preserve free collective bargaining as the primary means of resolving workplace issues.

That brings us to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. Bill C-39 would fetter government intervention, strengthen collective bargaining and help parties reach agreements themselves. Labour measures are directed towards that objective.

Views on section 107 diverge among stakeholders. Some believe that a tool should continue to exist for the most exceptional circumstances, others expressed concerns about how section 107 has been used in the past. We heard, repeatedly, a desire for greater clarity, greater transparency, stronger safeguards and clearer limits on when this authority could be considered. That is a desire common to Bill C-247 and Bill C-39.

Stakeholders told us that, if section 107 was to remain in the Code, meaningful guardrails were needed around its use. That is what Bill C-39 would do. It would constrain ministerial discretion, raise the threshold for intervention and create a structured and transparent process that would have to be followed before intervention could even be contemplated.

This is perhaps the most important point of this debate. Under Bill C-39, the vast majority of collective bargaining relationships would never reach a point where section 107 could even be considered. That is because there are significant gates that must first be passed. The first gate is process. A special mediator must be appointed. In the vast majority of negotiations, a special mediator will never be appointed.

As I noted earlier, approximately 95% of collective agreements are successfully negotiated without a work stoppage. With the reforms proposed in Bill C-39, we are confident that that percentage will grow even higher. For the relatively small number of disputes where a special mediator is appointed, their mandate is to work intensively with both parties to help them reach their own agreement. The purpose of the special mediator is not government intervention but to help workers and employers resolve the disputes themselves.

The second gate is impact. If, despite the support of a special mediator, the parties cannot reach an agreement, there must be a determination that the dispute has consequences that extend beyond the bargaining parties and rise to the level of national significance. In other words, the impacts must reach well beyond a single workplace and affect broader economic or social interests. Those impacts must be weighed alongside the importance of free collective bargaining and the charter-protected right to strike. Even then, a strike or lockout must already be under way.

Only after those thresholds have been met could a minister consider whether further action may be necessary. Those are meaningful constraints, and they are consistent with strengthening labour. Those requirements introduce a degree of transparency and accountability that does not exist today.

If a special mediator is appointed, the process itself is equally important. The mediator would have 21 days to work intensively with both parties. The objective throughout that process would be to reach a negotiated settlement. If an agreement cannot be reached, the mediator will prepare a report outlining the issues in dispute, the position of the parties and recommendations for moving forward. The parties will receive that report and have further opportunity to continue negotiation. If the dispute remains unresolved, the report would become public. Canadians would be able to understand the issues, the challenges and the basis upon which the decisions were made.

That transparency is one of the central reforms contained within Bill C-39. The minister would then have to consider the mediator's report, assess the broader impacts of the dispute, weigh the importance of free collective bargaining and the charter-protected right to strike and determine whether reasonable alternatives remain available. In other words, the minister would have to demonstrate why intervention may be necessary.

Let me be clear about what this would mean in practice. Most collective agreements will remain on a normal collective bargaining path. Most negotiations will never require a special mediator. Most disputes will never reach the threshold of national significance. As a result, the vast majority of bargaining relationships will never enter a process where section 107 could even be contemplated. Workers and employers will continue to do what they have always done, which is negotiate agreements directly with one another at the bargaining table. That remains the heart of Canada's labour relations system. That remains the preferred outcome. That remains the objective of Bill C-39.

Bill C-247 raises important questions about the future of section 107. Our government's response is clear. The best way to protect collective bargaining is not to focus exclusively on exceptional circumstances; it is to strengthen the system as a whole, and Bill C-39 does that.

Bill C-39 encourages earlier engagement, helps parties identify risks before they escalate, strengthens labour management relationships and introduces greater transparency and accountability into the system. It also places meaningful guardrails around section 107 so that it remains a true measure of last resort. Most importantly, it preserves and strengthens free collective bargaining as the foundation of Canada's labour relations framework. That is what stakeholders told us they wanted and what Bill C-39 delivers, which is why I encourage all members of the House to support Bill C-39 when the time comes.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to stand in the House and speak on behalf of the good, hard-working people of Windsor.

Before I get into the bill, I want to recognize the bargaining team at Unifor Local 444, led by James Stewart, and the hard work they are putting in as they negotiate with Stellantis. The people of Windsor appreciate them.

I also want to recognize the workers in Brampton who are waiting for answers about the future of their plant, their jobs and their families. They want to know when the government is going to deliver on its promises and hold Stellantis accountable. Windsor's workers are standing with them, because they understand that when one community of auto workers is left in limbo, it affects all of us. That is what solidarity looks like on the ground.

However, frankly, after months of warnings from the industry minister about holding Stellantis accountable, workers in Brampton are still waiting for answers and meaningful results. They cannot feed their families with press releases. They cannot pay their mortgages with a promise. If public money was provided in exchange for commitments to Canadian manufacturing, workers and taxpayers have every right to ask whether those commitments are being honoured and what the consequences are of not upholding those commitments. The Liberal government needs to stop talking about accountability and start demonstrating it for a change.

There is something else that the Liberal government needs to remember about these workers. They are not just workers; they are taxpayers too. Every payday, they send their hard-earned dollars to Ottawa. They expect that money to be spent responsibly. They expect their government to respect the work they do, the taxes they pay and the commitments made in their names. Canadians are expected to show up for work, meet their obligations, pay their taxes and play by the rules. They have every right to expect the Liberal government to be held to the same standard.

Is it any wonder that Bill C-247 has made its way to the House floor today? When workers see their bargaining power weakened by a government intervention and when their concerns about job security go unanswered, their frustration is understandable. The government cannot keep saying to workers “trust us” while giving them very little reason to believe that their concerns are being taken seriously.

I want to approach this debate from a perspective I know well. I spent three decades in policing, and during that time, I was a member of a police union. I understand collective bargaining. I understand why workers need a voice, why they need representation and why negotiations matter. I have also attended picket lines as a police officer, helping maintain peace when emotions were running high. I have seen the anger and frustration. I have seen people worried about their livelihoods, their families and what the future holds.

A labour dispute is never just about the numbers on a page. It is about a worker who has spent 20 or 30 years at a job and is suddenly worried about what comes next. It is about a family that has built its life around a steady paycheque. It is about people who feel they have done their part and are asking for a fair deal.

As a police officer on a picket line, my job was not to take sides. My job was to help maintain peace, protect people's safety and ensure that everyone could exercise their constitutional rights, but maintaining peace and taking away someone's right to stand up for themselves are two very different things. That brings me to section 107 of the Labour Code.

Let me put this in plain language. A screwdriver is a tool. We use it to fix things, tighten screws and get a job done. If somebody takes a screwdriver and uses it to hurt another person, do we outlaw that screwdriver? We do not. We hold the person who misused the tool accountable. The problem is not necessarily the tool; the problem is how it is being used.

Section 107 has existed for decades as a mechanism the government can use to help address labour disputes and maintain industrial peace, but the Liberal government has repeatedly misused it to intervene in disputes and shoehorn everyone toward binding arbitration, taking away workers' ability to use a strike as leverage. My colleague from Dufferin—Caledon raised these concerns in his speech on May 27, and I understand why unions are angry. I understand why they are concerned that the government is stepping in before workers have had a fair opportunity to negotiate an agreement.

Let us think about it from the workers' perspective. They sit across the table from their employer, they negotiate, they make compromises and they try to reach an agreement. What happens if they believe that the employer is not listening? What happens if they have tried everything else and the only leverage they have left is the possibility of a strike? What happens if the government steps in and takes that leverage away? They are left wondering whether the bargaining process was ever fair in the first place.

Nobody wants a strike. Workers lose wages, businesses lose production, families face uncertainty and communities feel the impact. However, the fact that a strike causes disruption does not mean that the right to strike is the problem. Sometimes that disruption is what brings the parties back to the table and forces them to find a solution. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the right to strike as an essential component of meaningful collective bargaining under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I know the importance of collective bargaining from my own experience as a member of a police association.

Workers are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for a meaningful voice in decisions that affect their working life. That is a principle that we as Conservatives will defend without hesitation. We believe that people should have the opportunity to work, earn a living and provide for their family. We believe that businesses should be able to invest, grow and create jobs. However, those goals do not require us to weaken workers' bargaining rights. A strong economy needs successful businesses. It also needs skilled workers who believe they are being treated fairly.

Let us look at the WestJet mechanics dispute. The government referred the matter for binding arbitration, yet the parties ultimately reached their own agreement. There is a lesson there. When employers and workers have to sit down and work through their differences, they have an incentive to find a solution they can both live with. Collective bargaining is not easy. Neither side gets everything it wants. It requires compromise. However, there is a difference between helping the parties reach an agreement and stepping in to take away their bargaining power. There is also a difference between getting people back to work and actually resolving the issues that caused the dispute.

Unions have raised serious concerns about government interventions involving railways, Canada Post and airlines. We should listen to them. I do not believe that every union position is automatically right, nor do I believe that the employers are always wrong, but workers deserve to be heard. The rules should be fair, and the government should not reach for the easiest way out whenever negotiations become difficult.

Some members will ask, if section 107 is being misused, why not repeal it altogether? I understand the argument behind Bill C-247. I understand the frustration that has led many union members to support the repeal, but I come back to the screwdriver. If a tool has a legitimate purpose and the government misuses it, I believe we should hold the government accountable and put proper safeguards in place. We should not automatically assume that eliminating the tool is the only answer.

We should strengthen mediation, make extraordinary interventions transparent and ensure that workers' constitutional rights are respected. There may be exceptional circumstances where intervention is necessary to protect public safety or essential services, but those circumstances must be treated carefully. Economic inconvenience or crony capitalism alone should not become an excuse to take away workers' bargaining leverage.

I want to bring this back to Windsor and Brampton. In Brampton, workers are waiting for answers about their plant and their future. In Windsor, workers are standing with them, demanding that Stellantis honour its commitments and that the federal government do its job. Those workers are not asking for a handout; they are asking for accountability. They have put in the hours, they have developed the skills, they have built the vehicles and they have helped make this country prosperous.

As I said, I spent three decades as a police officer and as a member of a police association. I know the importance of rules and accountability. I know that when tensions rise, the best way forward is to deal with people fairly and consistently. This bill, the way it would be used by the government, is not fair and not equitable either.

Workers do not need lectures about keeping the economy moving. They are the people who keep it moving. They build our vehicles, keep our factories running, support their family, contribute to their community and pay their taxes for public services. They deserve a government that respects their contributions, honours its commitments and protects their rights.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Madam Speaker, what were the striking workers in Murdochville demanding in 1957? Why did 1,000 striking workers, 1,000 people working at the Murdochville mine in 1957, go on a long, seven-month, violent strike?

They were demanding decent working conditions and a decent wage. Normally, what people want is to be able to obtain decent working conditions through negotiations, through a process of dialogue between the employer and union members, where they discuss each other's objectives. The employer lays its cards on the table a bit regarding the economic reality, and everyone tries to find ways to share the profits.

However, that is not at all what happened in Murdochville in 1957. It remains one of the most significant labour disputes in Quebec's history. There were violent incidents in Murdochville that year. In April, 27 police officers were sent to stop picketing because, at the time, a Superior Court judge had ruled that the strike was illegal. A box of dynamite was later found in Murdochville. It is hard for me to imagine how violent it was, because I go there quite often.

After the discovery of the box of dynamite, which authorities feared might be used for criminal purposes, 50 police officers were sent to Murdochville. After that, the picketing resumed, and on July 14, 1957, Henri Bernatchez, a striker, died in a dynamite explosion on the grounds of the Murdochville mine. Two other strikers were seriously injured.

The dispute escalated. It spread to Quebec City. A large march took place in front of the National Assembly in September 1957. There were 7,000 workers from all over Quebec, but still, nothing was really resolved. It was a confrontational strike, a violent strike that unfortunately ended very badly for the strikers.

Why am I telling this story?

The goal is to find a balance in labour-management relations. We need to ensure that people talk to one another and that we encourage them to reach compromises rather than resorting to discouragement and violence.

There was a lot of that in what happened in Murdochville. The employer really did have a very anti-union attitude. Some of the strikers were also very demanding.

What we have seen in recent years, and what is particularly relevant to today's debate, is a growing tendency on the part of the federal government to intervene in labour disputes using a rather unexpected mechanism. One has to acknowledge the ingenuity of the government's legal advisers, who determined that section 107 of the Canada Labour Code could be used to bring an end to a labour dispute. That provision grants the minister considerable discretion. Traditionally, when a government has chosen to intervene to end a strike, it has done so through special legislation. Such intervention is never ideal, as the preferred outcome is always for the parties to reach a negotiated agreement.

The federal government has decided to use section 107 several times in recent years, so much so that it has almost become a habit. It is like when you get a new tool, so you want to use it all the time until you end up over-using it.

A number of strikes have been scaled back or brought to a swift halt by the federal government over the past two or three years. That was notably the case with WestJet in 2024. There was also the case of the national railways in August 2024. At the same time, there was the case of Canadian Pacific workers. After that, in November 2024, it was the dock supervisors at a B.C. port. There was also the case of the Port of Québec, where the strike was ended by the federal minister on November 12, 2024, using section 107. Members will recall that, in December, the Canada Post strike was interrupted.

More recently, one last really important example is the Air Canada strike. In August 2025, the Air Canada strike was on the horizon. We are talking about 10,000 flight attendants who were ready to go on strike. Within hours of the strike starting, the minister used section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. Basically, section 107 states that the minister can take action by referring the matter to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, which can order an end to the strike. It is a fast track to end a strike and take away workers' rights. The circumstances at Air Canada were not the same as those in Murdochville. Nevertheless, the strike began and, within hours, the minister invoked section 107. The Canada Industrial Relations Board then issued an order requiring the employees to return to work. However, Air Canada flight attendants refused to comply. They did not comply with that decision and, ultimately, within hours, an agreement was reached. Personally, I see a slippery slope there because, as I was saying, if there is no balance, if people are not respected, conflicts can sometimes escalate. Although the goal is to encourage people to make compromises, sometimes we end up achieving the exact opposite.

What makes this situation somewhat unusual, and the reason we support Bill C-247, is that in 2015, in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to strike is essential. This was an important decision that clarified that the right to strike is “an essential part of a meaningful collective bargaining process”.

The Supreme Court says that, in order to participate meaningfully in the pursuit of their goals, workers must have the right to strike. It states that the right to strike is constitutionally protected under the right to freedom of association enshrined in section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would like to share a few short passages:

The right to strike is essential to realizing these values through a collective bargaining process because it permits workers to withdraw their labour in concert when collective bargaining reaches an impasse. Through a strike, workers come together to participate directly in the process of determining their wages, working conditions and the rules that will govern their working lives.

The right to strike also promotes equality in the bargaining process.

While strike activity itself does not guarantee that a labour dispute will be resolved in any particular manner, or that it will be resolved at all, it is the possibility of a strike which enables workers to negotiate their employment terms on a more equal footing.

Here is one more excerpt, which is perhaps the most striking:

...the ability to engage in the collective withdrawal of services in the process of the negotiation of a collective agreement is, and has historically been, the irreducible minimum of the freedom to associate in Canadian labour relations.

The right to strike is the “irreducible minimum of the freedom to associate in Canadian labour relations”. Section 107 creates a fast track to removing workers' right to strike. It throws off the balance.

Today's proposal to simply repeal section 107 does not take all power away from the federal minister, because she can act in other ways, including by appointing conciliators. The idea of special legislation is not off the table either, although this section 107 has been challenged before the Canada Industrial Relations Board, and I suspect in federal court as well. I found no decisions when I was doing my research. I no longer have access to some of the tools I used to use. I did not find a ruling in the open-source database, but this use of section 107 would certainly have warranted judicial examination. I think that the idea of simply repealing it outright would restore the balance of power, without taking away all powers to intervene, yet getting rid of a tool that is too readily accessible and that, unfortunately, has been somewhat misused in recent years.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has five minutes for her right of reply.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, to start out, I will note that it has been over a year since I tabled my bill, Bill C-247, to protect the right to strike in Canada and to repeal the Liberal government's go-to strikebreaking tool: section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. Section 107 lets the minister violate workers' charter-protected right to strike by simply sending an email, which the Liberals have done 10 times in the past three years alone. In fact, with Air Canada, they sent flight attendants back to work in less than 12 hours, caving to the CEO, who had no intention of bargaining with workers, workers who, I might add, were primarily women.

Every time the Liberals have used section 107, they have told CEOs everywhere that if they refuse to bargain in good faith, the federal government will come to their rescue and shut down workers' strikes. The use of section 107 contradicts rulings by the Supreme Court and the International Court of Justice that protect the right to strike. The NDP has been clear: Section 107 has no place in our democracy.

During the time we have debated my bill to uphold the right to strike, the Liberals have taken their attacks on workers' rights to a whole other level in Bill C-39. This bill tries to justify the government's unconstitutional attacks on the right to strike and enshrine the Liberal government's strikebreaking tactics into law, which would cause even more frequent strikebreaking. It is no surprise that this is happening under the watch of the new governing party, which is run by the Bay Street boys. Unions across Canada have condemned this bill's attack on the right to strike. They include CLC, Canada's Building Trades Unions, CUPE, PSAC, CUPW, Unifor, Teamsters and more.

The Liberals are not building a strong country through these attacks on workers. Instead, they are creating new divisions throughout our society at the direction of big business, including corporate giants in the U.S. and beyond. As Bea Bruske, president of the CLC, stated, “we cannot defend Canada with our hands tied at the bargaining table.” She continued, “A right you cannot exercise is not a right. Canada's unions fought for the right to strike, and we will fight to defend it.” CUPE National has meanwhile passed a unanimous resolution vowing to defy the Liberal government's Bill C-39 if passed unamended through Parliament.

After years of violating workers' right to strike through the abuse of section 107, this Labour Day, the Liberal Minister of Jobs had the audacity to celebrate the historical progress of workers' rights, which was, in her words, “fought for by generations of workers and union members who organized, stood together, and pushed Canada forward.” She would have already been aware of the sweeping violations of collective bargaining rights contained in Bill C-39, which her government presented in Parliament just weeks later.

This is exactly the type of hypocrisy we are used to after years of the Liberals' attacks on collective bargaining rights. They say they support workers, only to violate their constitutional rights and prevent them from reaching fair deals through collective bargaining. If the Prime Minister cared about workers, he would be protecting and advancing collective bargaining rights, which are workers' tried and tested means of bringing home a livable wage. This starts with repealing section 107 and ending attacks on the right to strike.

Workers across the country are watching whether the government will support their rights and vote in favour of this NDP bill. I know that NDP members of Parliament will continue to stand up without qualification for the right to free collective bargaining and the right to strike in Canada.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we would request a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 28, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Health

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question that I posed to the Minister of Health regarding the outrageous compensation paid to Michael Green, the CEO in charge of the Liberals' $300-million PrescribeIT debacle.

PrescribeIT, of course, is the Liberal government's program that was supposed to digitize and streamline prescriptions across Canada. It is now $300 million later, and there is almost nothing to show for it at PrescribeIT. Instead of streamlining and digitizing prescriptions, PrescribeIT accounts for only a meagre 5% of prescriptions across Canada. On top of that, fully 200 million tax dollars are missing and unaccounted for. That is 200 million tax dollars that literally went into a black hole.

For all of that, the CEO, Mr. Green, was awarded compensation of $1 million a year, including, in his last year, receiving a $215,000 performance bonus. He received $1 million of compensation for no work, with nothing to show for it other than 200 million tax dollars that literally went into a black hole. All of this occurred under the watch of the current health minister and previous Liberal health ministers, who all turned a blind eye.

Since this scandal became public, the Liberals have been in full cover-up mode. Despite all of the attempts to cover up all that went on at PrescribeIT, including the outrageous compensation that was awarded to Mr. Green, we have been doing some digging. The more we dig, the more we learn and the worse it gets.

Court filings reveal that Mr. Green was actually awarded $600,000 in performance bonuses between 2022 and 2025 for work that was characterized as exceeding, thriving and delivering. We cannot make this stuff up. The Minister of Health pats herself on the back for terminating Mr. Green, but she only did so after this scandal came to light and she, effectively, had no choice. What the health minister failed to disclose, which we subsequently learned upon obtaining Mr. Green's termination letter, is that he received $1 million on his way out the door, a $1-million golden parachute.

How do the Liberals justify any of this?