Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-39. To begin, I want to point out to Canadians that the Liberal government has once again introduced an omnibus bill of some 246 pages that inappropriately combines measures that do not belong in the same legislation. This ploy is an attempt to blur issues and blunt criticism. It disrespects Parliament and the voters who send us here to properly scrutinize bills and hold government accountable. It directly contradicts previous promises by Liberals not to use this odious practice inappropriately. Unfortunately, this is not surprising. Liberals are infamous for saying one thing at election time and doing the opposite once elected.
As labour critic for the New Democratic Party, I will focus on the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code contained in part 3 of this bill. Let there be no doubt that this bill contains one of the most serious attacks on workers' rights in a generation: the entrenchment of the harmful misuse of section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. These changes would expand the federal government's unilateral authority to terminate a legal strike in a manner more broadly than exists in any G7 country, including Donald Trump's United States.
At its core, this bill would prevent Canadian workers from meaningfully exercising their constitutionally protected freedoms of association and expression. It would restrict their charter right to withdraw their services. It would fundamentally alter the balance of power in collective bargaining in Canada, and the way it would do so is deeply troubling to anyone who supports transparency and accountability. Once again, it reveals a disturbing trend by the Liberal government of concentrating power in the hands of cabinet ministers to avoid being responsible to Parliament. That is the approach of authoritarian rulers, not democratic ones.
Let me start by pointing out that ending lawful strikes was never the purpose of section 107. Since its inclusion in the code in 1984, this provision was always understood as an exceptional administrative power, not a weapon to violate workers' rights. In fact, there have been previous attempts to stretch that authority in the past, including by the Harper government in 2011. Former Conservative labour minister Lisa Raitt has publicly stated that Conservatives contemplated the use of section 107 to end strikes, but decided against it based on legal advice that this was not a proper use of that provision. However, the Liberal government has ignored that history and taken the use of section 107 to an unprecedented extreme.
In the last three years alone, Liberals have used section 107 10 times to intervene in labour disputes, most recently involving rail workers, port workers, postal workers and airline workers. In many cases, Liberals used this section to break strikes just hours after they began. Why is this objectionable? It is because the freedoms of association and expression have been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada to include the rights of workers to bargain collectively and withdraw their services in concert to advance their interests, so using the law in this way violates workers' constitutional rights. Because corporate management has disproportionate power in the workplace with unilateral rights to manage and vastly superior financial resources, workers' only way to counterbalance these is through withdrawing their services. Interfering with this strips workers of the only real power they have because this legislation undermines the collective bargaining process.
If employers know that government will intervene on their behalf to end a strike, they have reduced incentive to bargain seriously and come to an agreement themselves. Members should not take my word for it. Employers like Air Canada have publicly admitted this. It is unnecessary. The federal government and employers already have the tools they need to protect the health and safety of the public or intervene if the Canadian economy is truly imperilled by a protracted labour dispute. Governments always have the power to bring in back-to-work legislation where the issues can be fully debated in public in this chamber and elected representatives are held accountable to their voters by voting in their seats. This has been done numerous times when the national interest requires it.
Every labour code in the country, including the Canada Labour Code, has essential services provisions that allow any employer to make a case before an impartial adjudicator that a strike ought to be limited to preserve the health and safety of Canadians. These are routinely used in the cases of bargaining units like those of nurses, police officers and longshore workers.
Now, in this legislation, the Liberals want the ability to violate workers' rights even more easily. Far from containing any guardrails or government right to break strikes, this is a road map for how to do it. Bill C-39 would codify the minister's unilateral power to end a legal strike and would make the minister's own opinion the sole test for exercising that power. It would require the minister only to consider the report of a special mediator. This is someone, by the way, whom they appoint and whose recommendations they are entirely free to disregard.
It states that the minister may consider any relevant issue they wish, with no benchmarks or limits expressed in the legislation. It would require the minister only to consider the impact of their decision on freedom of association, merely making them think about workers' rights before violating them. In other words, federal workers can have their rights to take job action taken away by the sole opinion of a single cabinet minister for any reason they find convenient.
The legislation is also counterproductive, and I believe it would harm the public's interest. Undermining the right to strike is more likely to fuel conflict than prevent it. When workers are denied a legal means to withdraw their labour, disputes do not disappear; they risk becoming more confrontational and difficult to resolve. The history of labour relations and market economies makes this clear. When workers' rights were suppressed, strikes did not disappear: They were frequent, protracted and often violent, and they tore communities apart.
The facts prove that the legislation is not even necessary. The truth is that the current system of counterbalanced collective bargaining in this country works. About 95% of all collective agreements in Canada are successfully negotiated at the bargaining table by the parties themselves, with no job action. Canada is on track this year to have the fewest days lost to strikes in the federal sector since 1954. This is why unions across the country have warned against these provisions: They understand that Bill C-39 would fundamentally change the balance of power in labour relations and harm the Canadian economy by fuelling uncertainty and instability.
Bea Bruske, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, has been clear: Unions across this country are united. From coast to coast, across every sector, they are delivering the same message that unconstitutional restrictions on the right to strike are unacceptable and will be fought.
The right to strike is not a privilege. It is protected by the charter and recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is not a right to be respected only when it is ineffective.
Strikes can disrupt. They can cause discomfort. They can cause economic consequences to employers and sometimes sections of the public. However, that is the very point of a strike. It is the most impactful, and frankly the only, way workers can demonstrate the value of their labour in the marketplace. By showing the effect the withdrawal of their labour has on society and on their employer, they make the case that they should be compensated accordingly.
Let us all acknowledge in this place that labour rights have had and do have a very positive impact on Canadian society. Through the struggle and sacrifice of working people for the last 160 years, as well as the many men and women who took job action for fair wages, safer working conditions and a better life for their families, all Canadians have benefited. We all enjoy a standard of living that economies with no labour rights look on with envy.
This debate is ultimately about more than labour law. It is about what kind of country we want to build and whose interests we seek to defend. New Democrats believe that strong countries are built by empowered workers. Strong economies are built through free and fair bargaining. Strong democracies respect constitutional rights.
The legislation is built on the view that workers' rights are an obstacle to nation building. That is wrong. Workers are the people who literally build this nation. New Democrats believe that if we want to build a stronger Canada, we must respect workers' rights, value their voices and raise their standard of living, yet—
