Debates of May 27th, 2026

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am sure Canadians would find it interesting to hear the Conservatives actually make the type of statements that were just made in regard to military expenditures. The member opposite was the parliamentary secretary for defence at the time when we invested just under 1% of Canada's GDP towards defence, towards our military. We would have to go back generations to realize the type of commitment that the Prime Minister, who was elected just over a year ago, has made. Not only did he say 2% of GDP, but we achieved 2% of the GDP last year.

We can talk about tendering and providing the equipment that is necessary and about supporting our men and women in the forces in terms of pay increases. In a very real and tangible way, the current government has been there for our Canadian forces.

Does the member have any regrets that the Stephen Harper regime could give only 1% of the GDP?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, the one thing the member for Winnipeg North never talks about is the creative accounting that the Liberals did to get the 2%. They added these in, which have never been added in before, until 2017, and then they added in the big numbers last year: veterans pensions; the Canadian Coast Guard's entire budget, even though it is not a defensive organization nor does it have the ability to be a defensive organization; and Transport Canada airplanes.

The pay raise the Liberals gave was long overdue, yet today there are still forces members who have not received the benefits or the bonuses for staying on as members, especially for those who serve in the Canadian reserves. The army reserves have not had those benefits yet at all.

The Liberals can sit here and talk the game, but we know that, even with the increases in salaries, they have clawed them back by increasing rents on our troops. They have increased the living differentials, especially for the people who are now deployed overseas in Latvia. Their take-home pay has dropped since the so-called raise, because the Liberals are clawing it back through other deductions.

If we had used the same math when we were government, our spending would have been well over 1.5%.

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

Madam Speaker, this bill is more than 300 pages long and contains many questionable amendments and provisions. Among other things, there are measures that expand the government's powers and reduce transparency. There are measures that limit who can file a complaint with the procurement ombudsman and what types of complaints the ombudsman can review.

Given that procurement, especially military procurement, is set to become increasingly important, does my colleague welcome this type of measure from a transparency perspective?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleague that if we look at actual things the Liberals have bought for our troops, we see that they have not resulted in increased lethality or kinetic capability within the Canadian Armed Forces.

It took the Liberals over 10 years just to replace the sidearms for our forces. Today, members of the Canadian Armed Forces in Ottawa, in the national capital region, have been asked to turn in their rucksacks, sleeping bags, frag vests and body armour because there is not enough to be sent abroad for the people who are deployed in Latvia, where there could be a hot conflict in short order. We know that the people going through basic training right now do not even have enough uniforms, and there are not enough beds.

This is a failure of the government to recognize what we need to keep our troops healthy, as well as to make sure that our Canadian Forces has the equipment to deal with the conflicts of today and tomorrow.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you know, today's schedule has been disrupted, albeit in a positive way, by the arrival of the Olympic and Paralympic athletes we welcomed earlier. In light of that, I would like to ask you to confirm what time the consideration of Private Members' Business will begin.

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

It will begin in exactly one minute.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Yellowhead.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know that my hon. colleague was at one point a visitor to the public accounts committee when some of the military generals were there. I specifically asked this question then, and I am wondering if he can comment about it.

The Liberals said they want the F-35, but it has changed multiple times, and now they are delaying again. If the procurement process is so bad that it is going to take 15 years, when are we expecting to actually spend the money?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague from Yellowhead knows, Justin Trudeau said he would never buy the F-35. He then ran a competition, and they ran it again. Guess what. The F-35 beat all the other fighter jets every single time, on cost, lethality, survivability and interoperability.

The Prime Minister is now playing politics with a jet we need in order to protect Canada and to work with our allies.

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

I would like to inform the hon. member that the amendment is in order and we will proceed with debate on it after the bill next comes before the House.

Canada Labour Code

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

moved that Bill C-247, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing on behalf of the NDP our deepest gratitude to all the workers, unions and labour leaders who have voiced their support for this bill to repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code and uphold the right to strike.

In just two years, the Liberals have used section 107 eight times, each time violating the Constitution and disrespecting the rights of millions of workers on whose backs our country runs. Members do not need to take it from me. We can ask the representatives of workers themselves.

Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, leads over three million workers across the country. Speaking on repealing section 107, she said, “No government should ever be able to strip workers of their right to free and fair collective bargaining. Canada’s unions will fight alongside the NDP to get this bill passed...and ensure that Canada’s labour laws protect workers, not undermine them”.

Mark Hancock, national president of CUPE, said, “It's hard to calculate the damage that's already been done by this Liberal government repeatedly stepping in to take away the only leverage workers have at the bargaining table. It's bad for workers' livelihoods, and it's bad for the constitutional rights of all Canadians. Section 107 has got to go”.

The CLC, CUPE, CUPW, the United Steelworkers, Teamsters, PSAC, the ILWU and more are all standing in solidarity behind this bill to uphold the right to strike. This is the rule of law. One of the biggest outcomes of solidarity is that workers understand their rights.

Let us talk about workers' rights. In 2015, in its decision on the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan hearing, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the right to strike is protected by the Constitution as an “indispensable” part of collective bargaining rights. It is no wonder the Liberals have continued issuing their back-to-work orders in backrooms with CEOs rather than out in the open and on record. They are afraid to leave evidence of their unconstitutional behaviour.

Even Stephen Harper's anti-worker Conservative labour minister said, regarding the use of section 107 to end strikes, “If you find a lawyer who can tell you that it's possible...then I wish I had their advice 15 years ago. But as far as I'm concerned, you aren't able to do that.”

The issue goes beyond Canadian law. Just last week, the International Court of Justice issued a landmark ruling that “the right to strike of workers and their organizations is protected” under international law. Workers fighting section 107 in Canada are on the front lines of a global workers' movement. I commend them and say, “Good on you.”

I wonder whether the Liberals care, since they are so routinely turning their backs on international law, whether it is a violation of indigenous rights through Bill C-5, migrants' rights in Bill C-12 or the right to peaceful assembly in Bill C-9.

New Democrats know where we stand. It is with international law and with workers. We know that throughout Canadian history, and throughout the world's history, workers exercising their right to strike have been absolutely critical for advancing human rights and economic empowerment.

In fact, in my own riding of Winnipeg Centre, we had the Winnipeg General Strike, which was a legendary moment in our local history. Over 30,000 workers walked off their jobs in protest of exploitation and unfair wages, forcing governments to recognize their rights and helping unite workers' struggles across Canada. This legacy has lived on through the far-reaching social progress achieved by the labour movement.

Maternity leave was ensured in no small part by the 42-day strike in 1981 by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, helping set the standard for maternity leave across Canada. That was the same Canadian Union of Postal Workers whose right to strike the Liberal government violated using section 107 in 2024.

It is not surprising that the Liberals forget such important lessons when they have so routinely neglected the rights of women workers. We know that their failure to invest in a workforce strategy for child care workers, for example, is threatening women's participation in the workforce. It is also plain that their application of section 107 has had deeply disturbing gendered impacts.

Let us remember the most recent example, when CUPE flight attendants at Air Canada went on strike against unpaid labour. In a sector made up of mostly women and gender-diverse folks, it is simply sexist for Air Canada to assume unpaid work could continue to fly. However, when flight attendants exercised their legal right to strike, what did the Liberal Minister of Jobs and Families do? The minister shut them down using section 107 in less than 12 hours.

Through you, Madam Speaker, I would ask the Liberal minister this: Was 12 hours enough time to consider the devastating consequences of forcing unpaid work onto so many workers, mostly women and gender-diverse folks, just to please the Air Canada CEO, the former one who had to resign? Was 12 hours enough time to decide in favour of threatening draconian fines on all those who dared to insist that they be paid for their work?

It is proof of the senselessness of section 107 that flight attendants bravely refused the Liberal minister's ridiculous back-to-work order and continued to fight for a fair deal, receiving a groundswell of support from over 80% of people across Canada.

Section 107, we know, hurts workers everywhere. We know this from the example that breaking strikes hurts workers everywhere. Each time the Liberals invoke section 107, it tells CEOs across Canada that they can disrespect their workers' rights because the government will come to rescue them when their bad-faith bargaining results in a strike. When former Air Canada CEO Michael Rousseau was asked why he had no plan in place for customers in the event of a strike, he told the whole world he did not prepare because he did not have to. He knew the government would use section 107.

That assumption, based on the Liberals' poor record, was just as real as those of the anti-worker Conservative premiers whom the Liberal Prime Minister has grown so close to. When Danielle Smith violated the charter and shut down the legal strike of Alberta teachers, and when Doug Ford violated the charter and tried to shut down the legal strike of Ontario education staff, what did the Liberal government say? There were crickets. That is because it is on the same page as these right-wing Conservatives when it comes to walking over the rights of workers.

At a time of rising inequality, inequity and economic vulnerability, we should be encouraging the extension and empowerment of unions and workers' institutions across Canada, not cutting them down. We should be supporting union drives among service workers, gig workers and unpaid care workers, affirming their right to strike should they be offered an unfair deal.

It was so inspiring to the NDP to see the beginnings of this movement as Uber drivers in Victoria won a historic victory last month by ratifying a union contract with improved pay, health and safety measures. Given its track record, I ask myself whether the Liberal government sees this victory as just another problem to be solved by draconian back-to-work legislation. For our part, the New Democrats are clear. We offer our warmest congratulations to these drivers and support the struggles for unionization among all similarly exploited, unrepresented workers. As was recently put so well by our dynamic New Democratic Party leader, Avi Lewis, “The greatest gift we can pass on from one generation to the next is a union card”.

We are giving the Liberals a chance to do what is right, to respect the charter and stop attacks on workers. However, if they refuse, we know workers will not back down against the attacks on their rights. We can just ask the Air Canada flight attendants.

During the Winnipeg strike of 1919, nobody waited around for friends of big business in the government to give workers permission to walk off the job. If the Liberal government decides to stand by its friends, the billionaire class and big multinational corporations, and vote down this bill, New Democrats are ready to stand by working communities, union leaders and human rights advocates to remind the government that it can never take away workers' power to strike.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, does the member, or the NDP at the federal level, and I would emphasize the federal level, see any circumstance whatsoever where the government should actually have access to a tool that would be able to respond to a national labour disruption?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to be really clear. It took twelve hours for the last strikebreaking tactic to be used by the Liberal government to force mostly women back to unpaid work. The current government has a poor track record on workers' rights, including the only 30‑day time period for labour to respond to other attempts of the Liberal government to crush down the rights of workers. It is a shameful question, and it just demonstrates how the Liberal government continues to turn its back on workers.

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

Madam Speaker, the member has obviously called out the Liberals for their repeated use of section 107 to take away the right to strike. I have been here a long time, and what I find interesting and curious is that at no point in the last 10 or 12 years did anyone call for the repeal of section 107. In fact, the section has been in place for a very long time, and no one has thought it necessary to repeal it.

Would it not actually be the Liberal government's weaponization of section 107, specifically weaponizing referrals to the CIRB, to take away the right to strike and doing it eight times in 13 months that is the problem, and not the section in and of itself?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to be really clear that the Conservatives are no friends of workers either, but I have to agree with my colleague.

Our current Prime Minister seems to have a worse track record than Prime Minister Harper, if members can believe it, in the government's use of section 107, which brings up the reason that unions from across the country, including the CLC, which represents three million workers, are asking to repeal it. Who knows how many more times the Liberal government is going to force people back to work, including unpaid work, and side with the billionaire class and its corporate buddies?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I shared some time together on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I know she cares a lot about this cause. In her speech, she talked about the dispute between Air Canada and its flight attendants, who were doing unpaid work, and the fact that women were disproportionately affected.

Can my colleague tell us how repealing section 107 would help women and promote their cause in certain disputes?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her good question.

It is true that women have some of the worst-paid work and are some of the most exploited workers in this country. It is often a gendered issue. Look at Air Canada flight attendants. That was the most recent disgusting example of the government abusing section 107, impacting a career in which jobs are held primarily by women and gender-diverse people. They also have no child care plan in place. It is another gendered issue where the government refuses to put a work strategy in place to make sure early childhood educators have livable wages and benefits. Liberals still expect us to have bake sales to earn enough money. It is such a bro club with the Liberal government right now.

It is a huge issue. I hope the government will come to its senses, if it wants any credibility with workers and unions across the country, and support Bill C-247 to repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to start off, as the member opposite did, with regard to the 1919 general strike in Winnipeg. That general strike set history, not only for the union movement in the city of Winnipeg, but I would suggest for the world. In many ways, our union movement over the years is one of the reasons we have many of the social programs that we have today. The union movement overall has increased wages and benefits, and in many ways it has contributed to the lifestyle that we have here in Canada.

Ultimately, I would argue, and I have said it many times in the past, that Canada is in fact the best place in the world to call home. I do not say that lightly, because I do believe that our union movement is one of the primary reasons for that. When I ask people what they love about Canada, I often find it is about policies that have ultimately made Canada that star in the world. That is why I have always been, since I was first elected, back in 1988, a strong union advocate.

I see not only the true value and contributions that unions have made in the past and today, but also the potential that is there for the future, and I think the government does have an obligation to continue to work with the union movement, as we have over the last number of years.

I disagree with the painting that the member for Winnipeg Centre is trying to portray to Canadians as a whole and to the union movement. The best agreement is a negotiated agreement. Those are the best agreements. I believe 95%‑plus of agreements are achieved without any stoppage of work or lockouts. Over the years, I have had the opportunity to walk along with many on picket lines. I have had the opportunity here and at the Manitoba legislature. I do not think one has to be a New Democrat in order to be a supporter of the union movement, and that is something the NDP members do not realize. I will take the challenge.

When the New Democrats ask about people going back to work, do they not realize that there have been NDP governments that have actually ordered unions to go back to work? They have brought in back-to-work legislation. When I was first elected, we had a compromise brought in by Howard Pawley during the eighties that was called final offer selection. That was a compromise, because the NDP premier at the time promised to bring in anti-scab legislation but decided not to when he was elected as the premier. Instead, he came up with the compromise of final offer selection.

I am a big fan of final offer selection. Back then, we talked a great deal about it. The NDP and the Liberals actually worked together on coming up with a compromise that would have ultimately ensured that Manitoba today would likely still have final offer selection. In fact, it was the member for Winnipeg South Centre's father who negotiated with the NDP to come up with an agreement that would have seen its success. The union movement supported it in Manitoba in a very big way, but at the last minute, a bit of sabotage was done. I will not tell members which political party caused it, but I can say one thing: I and many members of the caucus back then were very disappointed, because we saw the value of it, just as we, for the first time, have anti-scab legislation at the national level, brought in by a Liberal government.

Understanding the value of the worker has been amplified in the budget process. Look at the Red Seal program. We are talking about enhancing 80,000 to 100,000 highly skilled workers through the Red Seal program. That is a real commitment.

We understand that when we talk about those major projects, the projects that we want to advance, union labour is not an option. It is essential that we get union labour involved. We will see that in many of the major projects that are on the horizon.

I took a look at what is being suggested in Bill C-247 and I posed a question. I believe it was a legitimate question. As I say, different levels of government, and the national government on occasion, have recognized that there might be a situation where we need a tool to deal with a labour dispute. We have seen that. Different levels of government, different political parties, including New Democrats, have had to use those tools.

Under this Prime Minister and this government, we have departments that are consulting. I believe the consultation has come to an end. Dozens of stakeholders came to the table to talk about labour. There is a serious attempt by the government to look at how we can improve labour conditions here in Canada. That is why I say we take it very seriously. That is why we are doing consultation with the different stakeholders.

That is why I posed the question. I did not mean it in a sarcastic fashion whatsoever. It was a very specific question to the member for Winnipeg Centre. I even emphasized the federal New Democrats. Is it the federal New Democrats' position? Even though she did not answer the question directly, I infer from the tail end of her answer that the answer is no, that they do not see any circumstance whatsoever where the national government should have any form of a tool if there is some form of a labour-business-management dispute that is causing issues. That is what I took from the comment from the member for Winnipeg Centre on behalf of the New Democratic Party.

Consulting is critical on anything with respect to labour and labour relations. Working and recognizing the value is more than just talking about it. It is taking action where we can. That is why I have highlighted a couple of things I have seen in the last couple of years that I think are very meaningful and that provide opportunities.

One of those achievements that I am very proud of, as I said, is the anti-scab legislation that we introduced not that long ago and ultimately passed. The other thing within this fiscal budget is that we have now proclaimed how important it is that we expand and promote programs such as the Red Seal program. I see the value, and I believe that Canadians see the value of that.

Working with the different stakeholders, listening to what they would like to see, in a responsible fashion, with respect to our labour laws, I think is the responsible approach to take. That is the approach that this Prime Minister and the government have put into action.

I am not 100% sure, but I believe if it has not concluded, it will be concluding shortly. The best way to change labour laws is to work, through consultations, with different stakeholders in order to come up with good, solid labour laws.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to speak to this private member's bill, which I believe is exceptionally well intentioned. This is a private member's bill that has been designed due to the malfeasance of the Liberal government. When I say “malfeasance of the Liberal government,” one might be wondering what I mean. What I mean is that up until the last two years, there was nobody in this country who said that we should get rid of section 107. There was not a single union saying that. There were no national unions saying that.

In fact, section 107 was used the way it was supposed to be used for decades in this country. It has been the Liberals' weaponization of section 107 that has led us here today. Let me explain what I mean by weaponization. We should take a look at section 107 in and of itself. The section is quite valuable. It says, “where the Minister deems it expedient, may do such things as to the Minister seem likely to maintain or secure industrial peace” and “the Minister may refer any question to the Board or direct the Board to do such things as the Minister deems necessary.”

The purpose of section 107 was to refer things to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, and the board would then do things to maintain industrial peace. That is how it functioned, until these Liberals, by accident, discovered a secret power within section 107. When I say they discovered this accidentally, I mean they literally discovered it accidentally.

Minister Seamus O'Regan, during the WestJet mechanics strike, referred a matter to the CIRB. He asked the CIRB to impose binding arbitration. Fine, that is what the CIRB went on to do, but it also then said that it did not mean the right to strike was taken away, because that was not specifically requested in the referral.

The WestJet strike went on and, guess what? The parties reached a settlement. They reached a collective agreement themselves, which is how it should work. Conservatives firmly believe the best deals are made at the bargaining table. That bargaining can be hard. Sometimes there is pain as a result of that bargaining and the disruption, but the parties come to an agreement themselves, and that is how it should work.

What the Liberals discovered in their mistake with the referral of the WestJet mechanics strike is that all they needed to do in their next referral was add in “and the parties are not allowed to strike or be locked out.” They stumbled into this new power, and once they had this new power, they became absolutely addicted to it. They then used it seven times over the next year and a bit to take away the right to strike for Canadian workers. They routinely and repeatedly used it and specifically told the Canada Industrial Relations Board that as part of the referral for binding arbitration, it must also order the parties to cease a strike and a lockout, thereby depriving unionized workers of their constitutionally protected right to strike.

These section 107 referrals are now before the courts, and the courts will be determining the constitutionality of those referrals. I can understand why the NDP has said we need to get rid of section 107, because these Liberals have created such a toxic environment in labour relations in this country because of their repeated use of section 107. It is like they are hammers and everything, therefore, is a nail. It is the only thing they can do. If there is any labour dispute, get out section 107 and smash it to the end. That is what the Liberals been doing for the past 18 months.

It was so terrible, as my colleague pointed out, that the CEO of Air Canada was relying on the use of section 107, which is why they had no fallback position when the flight attendants chose not to follow the CIRB order saying to end the strike. Amazingly, through that defiance, they came to a collective agreement, just like when the strike went on with WestJet and the WestJet mechanics. The parties were able to find an agreement for themselves.

What is the problem here? Is the problem that section 107 allows the government to refer certain things to the Canada Industrial Relations Board? Is that the problem? No, it is not the problem, because, for decades, that power existed. For decades, it was used properly. For decades, it was used appropriately. The challenge has now come because the Liberals weaponized the use of section 107. If they had used it once, we would not be having this conversation. This private member's bill would not be on the Order Paper today. If they had used it twice, it probably would not be either, but the Liberals became obsessed with using section 107.

Why did they have to routinely use section 107? It is because they have allowed the environment in this country between employers and unionized workers to become so toxic that it was the only way they could end disputes, rather than allowing the collective bargaining process to continue. They used it to stop the work stoppage with CN and CP Rail. They used it with Canada Post. They used it with Air Canada. They used it with WestJet. It is like they had nothing else they thought they could do. In the process, they have created outrage among Canadian unions, outrage at the use of section 107. There is so much outrage that the Liberals have decided they are going to do some sham study into the use of section 107.

We know what they do with their investigations. They commenced an investigation into unpaid work for flight attendants. What investigation is necessary? They should go and have a conversation with a flight attendant. The Liberals know that flight attendants are doing unpaid work, but they conducted a study to look into whether or not flight attendants do unpaid work. It is unbelievable, actually. They might as well do a study as to whether or not people get wet when they are standing outside when it rains. Unpaid work was being done. But wait, it gets worse. One would think it could not get worse, but it actually does. The first part of their study came back and said that they need to do more study. It is literally unbelievable.

After a decade of these Liberals, the state of labour relations in this country has never been worse. We have seen the most work disruptions in the last couple of years, more than we have seen in the last 30 years. In part, it is because of how they behave. In part, it is the weaponization of section 107. In part, it is because of sham investigations into things like unpaid labour.

While I agree with the member's intent in getting rid of section 107, we do not need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, if I can use that expression. What we actually need to do is throw out the people who are poisoning labour relations in this country.

I want to congratulate the member for putting forward this piece of legislation. I think it is exceptionally well intentioned. Unfortunately, I do not believe that section 107 is the problem. There are lots of ways to use section 107 that are not weaponized and that will not destroy the labour relations in this country. The only way to do that is to get rid of the people who are doing it. Unfortunately, we cannot support this piece of legislation.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C‑247, which seeks to repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code.

First, the right to strike, and we need to call it that, is a fundamental right that is recognized by the courts and that is protected by freedom of association. The Bloc Québécois believes that this right must never depend on the political goodwill of a federal government. I remind members that Bill C‑247 seeks to repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. This section gives the Minister of Labour extremely broad powers to intervene in labour disputes in the federal jurisdiction. The minister can go so far as to ask the Canada Industrial Relations Board to intervene or impose any measures the minister considers necessary.

The main issue is that there are practically no clear guidelines in the legislation at this time. I will begin by explaining a little more about what the bill would change. I will then provide some numbers. Lastly, I will remind members of our historical position.

First, with respect to section 107, there are no strict criteria tied to public health, national security or an exceptional emergency. This opens the door to political interference in strikes that are, in fact, lawful. A strike is often the last resort for workers after months or sometimes years of negotiations. If the government can intervene as soon as the pressure gets intense, the right to strike becomes meaningless.

A strike only carries weight when it creates real economic pressure. If employers believe that Ottawa will eventually intervene, why would they negotiate quickly? Why would they make compromises or concessions at the bargaining table? As a result, the existence of section 107 directly alters the balance of power between employers and workers. It encourages employers to stick to their guns rather than bargaining in good faith. The Bloc Québécois believes that disputes should be resolved at the bargaining table first, not in ministerial offices and not through premature political intervention.

Historically, section 107 has existed since 1984, but it was rarely invoked. What is concerning today is the rapid increase in its use. Just since 2024, Ottawa has used section 107 to intervene in at least seven major labour disputes. My colleagues have already cited recent examples in their remarks, including WestJet, CN, CPKC and Air Canada. The noteworthy thing about the dispute at Air Canada is that it was about unpaid work, which disproportionately affected female flight attendants. Other examples include the ports of Montreal, Quebec City and Vancouver, as well as Canada Post.

What was intended to be an exceptional power has effectively become a standard tool for managing labour disputes. Take Canada Post, where more than 55,000 workers were affected by the dispute. Small and medium-sized businesses pegged their economic losses at approximately $76 million per day. Yes, these disputes have a significant impact on the economy. They are a source of concern among businesses and citizens.

However, when a government limits a fundamental right, it should always do so openly, in front of Parliament. For a long time, when a government wanted to end a strike, it had to introduce special back-to-work legislation. This entailed a public debate, a vote by elected officials and political accountability. Section 107 circumvents this debate, this democratic process, by employing a much more low-key administrative mechanism.

Many labour organizations have been complaining about this situation for years. In their view, section 107 makes it possible to suspend or neutralize a lawful strike without any real parliamentary oversight. A number of lawsuits have also been filed challenging the constitutionality of these interventions. There are even some labour law experts who hold that the right to strike is an integral part of true collective bargaining.

If that right can be suspended too easily, it throws negotiations off balance, not to mention the obvious problem of creating a double standard. Prolonged lockouts, aggressive management strategies and refusals to compromise are often tolerated. However, as soon as workers effectively exercise their right to strike, Ottawa takes swift action, as if the problem were always the union, as if the right to strike were an economic obstacle and not a fundamental democratic right. The Bloc Québécois believes that true balance must be restored to labour relations.

Repealing section 107 does not mean that the government loses all its tools. The minister will still be able to appoint mediators, use conciliation, support negotiations and establish commissions of inquiry. If an exceptional intervention is truly necessary, the government can still introduce special legislation in Parliament, but it will then have to publicly defend that decision to elected officials and the public. That is what parliamentary democracy is all about. That is how the process should work.

Bill C-247 aims to protect a fundamental right, limit a ministerial power that has become excessive, strengthen collective bargaining, and return negotiations to where they belong, that is, between employers and workers. We often say this that the best agreement is always one that has been negotiated rather than imposed by force. For the Bloc Québécois, defending the right to strike means defending workers' dignity, freedom of association, and the balance of power in labour relations.

Let us look at some statistics and key points to drive home our message. As we know, there has been a recent surge in the use of section 107. Some would even go so far as to say that this section has been weaponized and has become an obsession for the Liberals. Section 107 has been around since 1984. For decades, it was used only very rarely. According to several legal and union analyses, its use has skyrocketed since 2024. As I mentioned earlier, the federal government has intervened in at least seven or eight major labour disputes by invoking section 107.

Think about the major disputes where the government has invoked section 107: WestJet, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific Kansas City, the port of Montreal, the port of Quebec, the port of Vancouver, Air Canada, Canada Post. Take the WestJet dispute, for example. According to CUPE, in June 2024, the government attempted to invoke section 107 even before the strike at WestJet had actually begun. Crucially, when the Canada Industrial Relations Board did not immediately suspend the strike, the employer quickly returned to the negotiating table. A court ruling forced them back to the negotiating table. Ultimately, an agreement was reached swiftly once the parties returned to the table to talk.

It is important to bear in mind that these disputes have economic repercussions. As I have already mentioned, 55,000 workers were involved in the dispute at Canada Post. That is not insignificant. Canadian small businesses were deeply affected and pegged their losses at $76 million a day during the strike. We fully understand why they were worried. Negotiations needed to resume. The parties had to get back to the negotiating table.

We are saying that there is a way to do better in terms of bargaining. The best way to resolve a labour dispute is with a framework where disputes are resolved at the table, there is no premature political intervention, the right to strike carries its full weight, and the parties are genuinely encouraged to reach an agreement.

The Bloc Québécois is acting in accordance with its historical position. I know that my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean is here. One of our former leaders, Gilles Duceppe, was a trade unionist. More recently, we had another trade unionist on our team, Louise Chabot, whom I acknowledge. This is part of our DNA, and we continue to hold those traditional positions.

Section 107 makes it possible to circumvent parliamentary debate on back-to-work legislation and intervene directly in a dispute by suspending a perfectly lawful strike or rendering it meaningless. As we said, repealing this section would not leave the minister with no other recourse. The minister would still have all the mediation and conciliation powers provided for elsewhere in the Canada Labour Code. This would force the minister to play a more traditional role during labour disputes, in other words, facilitating and supporting negotiations, suggesting solutions and exerting political pressure, rather than directly short-circuiting a lawful strike by issuing a broad directive to the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

This change is important. That is why we support this bill, out of respect for workers' rights and in keeping with the historical positions of the Bloc Québécois.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by pointing out that we are at a pivotal moment for the Canadian economy. All over the world, trade rules are changing very rapidly. Supply chains are much more fragile, and economic and geopolitical tensions are having serious consequences here at home for the workers, businesses and communities that depend on stable, well-paying jobs.

In this context, the government's responsibility is very clear. We must protect Canadian workers while strengthening our country's economic resilience. The two go hand in hand. We cannot build a strong economy without respecting the workers who keep it running every day, and we cannot protect workers in the long term without an economy that can withstand shocks and remain competitive.

It is with that in mind that I rise today to speak to Bill C-247. I want to begin by thanking the member for Winnipeg Centre for introducing this bill. I also want to acknowledge her strong commitment to Canadian workers. The government shares the fundamental goal underlying this initiative, which is to strengthen a labour relations framework that respects workers, promotes collective bargaining and supports the country's economic stability.

We firmly believe in the right to strike. This right is protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because it is an essential element of free, balanced and respectful labour relations. Workers must have real bargaining power, and our government has taken concrete measures to strengthen that right. One example is Bill C-58, which prohibits the use of replacement workers in federally regulated sectors. This had been a key demand of the trade union movement for many years. This reform helps to establish a better balance in negotiations and to protect the integrity of the collective bargaining process, because, ultimately, the best agreements are those negotiated at the bargaining table. Our government truly believes in dialogue between the parties.

Collective bargaining is not always a simple process. It can sometimes involve significant tensions, but it remains a mechanism for finding lasting, balanced solutions. That is why we have the federal mediation and conciliation service, which plays such an important role. Despite what the headlines may sometimes suggest, the vast majority of federally regulated labour disputes are resolved without a work stoppage. In fact, 97% of disputes where the parties worked with the federal mediation and conciliation service were resolved this way, which shows that our system generally works well when the parties bargain in good faith and, above all, have access to the right support tools.

However, we must also recognize another reality. Certain infrastructure and sectors now play a critical role in our country's economic stability. In a context where global supply chains are already under pressure, some labour disputes can have rapid and significant repercussions for millions of Canadians, businesses, exporters and the economy as a whole.

Recognizing this reality in no way diminishes the importance of the right to strike. It simply means that the government also has a responsibility to consider the public interest, economic stability and the potential consequences for the workers themselves, because at the end of the day, when an economy slows down significantly, it is often workers who bear the brunt of the impact. That is the rationale behind section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. I want to be very clear. Its use must always remain exceptional. Our government believes that extraordinary interventions in a labour dispute should always be a last resort.

Our priority remains the same: to enable the parties to reach a negotiated agreement. In some situations, however, the economic, social and logistical effects are too great to ignore. At such times, the government has to act carefully, in a balanced way, with deep respect for workers' rights. This is not an ideological issue; it is about responsibility. I think it is possible to be deeply supportive of workers and, at the same time, pragmatic about managing the country's economic interests.

Canadian workers also understand the challenges facing our economy. They understand the importance of protecting jobs, investments and long-term economic stability. That is why the government is currently engaged in major consultations on the future of labour relations in Canada. The focus of these consultations includes how the collective bargaining process works, mediation mechanisms, certain time limits set out in the Canada Labour Code and the use of section 107.

I also want to highlight an aspect too often overlooked in the debate: the daily reality of the workers and employers directly affected by labour disputes. For many Canadians, labour relations are not an abstract concept; they directly affect paycheques, mortgage payments, the stability of small and medium-sized businesses and the ability to plan for the future.

When negotiations go well, everyone wins. Workers, employers and communities benefit. However, when disputes drag on or turn unpredictable, the problems do not just stay at the negotiating table. They quickly spill over into supply chains, local economies and sectors that depend on reliability. That is why predictability is just as important as fairness in our labour relations system.

Our goal must always be to create conditions that enable the parties to reach an agreement without unnecessary disruptions. That means strengthening tools for negotiation, mediation and early dispute resolution. It also means that both parties must have confidence in the system. Workers need to know that their rights are protected and respected, and employers need to know that there is a clear, fair and effective process for resolving disputes.

Canadians need to be able to count on economic stability and the continuity of essential services. This balance is not always easy to achieve, but it is essential.

We need to recognize that the labour market is changing. We are seeing new forms of work, changing supply chains and increased global competition for investment.

In this context, jurisdictions that are able to maintain stable, modern and predictable labour relations will be better positioned to attract good jobs and sustainable investment.

This is not about weakening workers' rights. It is about strengthening the overall framework that protects those rights in a lasting way. Ultimately, the best protection for workers is a growing, stable economy capable of creating opportunities. That is why our approach is not set in stone. It is pragmatic and evolves with the economy. That is also why we are committed to continuing the dialogue with workers, unions, employers, and all partners in the labour relations system. We believe that this ongoing commitment is not a sign of uncertainty, but a sign of responsibility. This is how we ensure that the framework remains relevant, fair and effective for years to come.

Unions, employers, workers and indigenous partners have participated in the discussions. We are listening carefully to what they have to say. Labour relations are changing, the economy is changing, and our legal framework must reflect today's realities while protecting workers' fundamental rights.

Our goal is clear: to maintain a modern, credible, balanced labour relations system that lines up with Canada's economic realities, a system that truly protects workers, promotes free and fair bargaining, and enables Canada to remain strong, stable and competitive in an increasingly uncertain global environment.

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

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway will have three minutes at this time and will be able to conclude the next time the bill is debated.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is not a whole lot I can get in at this point with three minutes, but I will say that I am proud to rise as the labour critic for the NDP and to speak to the bill.

Prior to being elected, I spent 16 years working as the director of legal resources for the Teamsters Local No. 31. In that time period, I did not just walk picket lines, as my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, said, but I negotiated collective agreements, I made applications to the labour board, I defended the right to strike, I prosecuted unfair labour practices and I did essential services designations. There was probably not a section of the Canada Labour Code that I did not deal with in those 16 years. This is not a theoretical exercise to me or to the millions of workers in this country. It affects their lives.

Here is what I know from that experience: One, collective bargaining is the foundation of union rights in this country. Two, the right of a worker to withdraw their services is a charter-protected strike.

I am surprised to see the Liberals so easily violate charter rights, because they themselves claim proudly that they are the party of the charter. As the party of the charter, eight times in the past two years, they have violated the charter rights as described by the Supreme Court of Canada. That is not an NDP position, but the highest court in the land that said that workers have the right to withdraw their services as a core expression of their right to free assembly and association. Eight times this government has ended that right by sending an email.

Now, my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, is saying that NDP governments, in the past, have brought in back-to-work legislation. That is the democratic way to do it, after many days of labour action, and then back-to-work legislation is debated in the House. However, that is not what this government has done. The Liberals ended eight strikes by an email. When did they do it? It was 12 hours after the flight attendants at Air Canada went off the job, and 10 hours after the rail workers at CN and CP rail went off the job. They did not even wait a day for these workers to express their charter rights before they were violated. The only power labour has is the power to withdraw their services. That is it. If we interfere with that right, we interfere with the very foundation of collective bargaining.

Collective bargaining is a success in Canada, and 99% of collective agreements are resolved without a strike or lockout. They are resolved at the bargaining table. I have heard repeatedly from the government, and all members of the House, that the best agreements are agreements reached at the bargaining table. Do members know why they are reached at the bargaining table? It is because unions and employers have a tool—

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

I have to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member will have seven minutes to conclude his speech the next time the bill comes to the floor.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

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

Employment

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to address the continuing, worsening youth unemployment crisis. The youth unemployment rate now is at 14.3%. We recently asked the finance minister about the youth unemployment crisis in this country. He would not agree in the House that we face a youth unemployment crisis, and he was not even able to state the youth unemployment rate. That is from the finance minister of this country, which shows how asleep at the switch the government is. It has no plan to address a crisis that it will not acknowledge and does not even understand the magnitude of.

However, there is good news as well. This week the human resources committee tabled its detailed report on a youth unemployment crisis study, which contains many recommendations that, actually, specifically reflect the Conservative youth jobs plan. As we have called on the government to confront this youth unemployment crisis, we have put forward a Conservative youth jobs plan to unleash the economy, to fix immigration, to fix training and to build homes where the jobs are, and now we have a unanimous report from the human resources committee that reflects these key Conservative priorities.

I want to congratulate the members of the human resources committee from all parties who got behind these Conservative priorities. Now it is time for a government that has been asleep at the switch for too long to recognize this crisis, to talk to young people, to read the statistical reports, to know the information and to implement a real plan that reflects what Conservatives have put forward and what is contained in this all-party report.

I want to highlight a number of the recommendations. First, this all-party report recommends that “the Government of Canada seek to reduce taxes and red tape in order to address concerns about how the taxation and regulatory environment has limited productivity growth and held back youth employment.” It is incredible, an all-party recommendation calling on the government to respond to this Conservative priority to reduce taxes and red tape.

Recommendation two states, “That the Government of Canada recognize the positive role that natural resource development, manufacturing, and all other sectors play in contributing to employment, and seek to valorize work in all sectors.”

Recommendation three deals with recognizing the role that immigration policy failures have had in contributing to youth unemployment, and addressing them.

Recommendation five calls on the government to “apply strict penalties to companies hiring illegal workers.” We have actually had cases where companies that have been punished for hiring illegal workers went on to get government subsidies. When we have this culture of permissiveness toward companies hiring illegal workers, it contributes to youth unemployment.

Recommendation seven calls on the government to “celebrate the value and dignity of trades work [and] ensure that institutions providing trade skills are treated equally and fairly”. That responds to the fact that the government has actually removed funding for grants from students attending vocational institutions. That is, if someone is trying to pursue in-demand skills at a vocational institution, the government has cut them off from getting a student grant. We would reverse that, and that is what is alluded to by recommendation seven in this all-party report.

There are many great recommendations in this report. It provides a clear blueprint for the government to follow, building on the Conservative youth jobs plan released in the fall. The government is doing nothing. Young people are getting desperate. The government needs a plan. We now have an all-party report that follows the lead of the Conservatives with specific concrete recommendations.

Is the government prepared to implement these constructive recommendations in the 10th report of the human resources committee?