‘Stay the hell out of bargaining’: Unions blast Bill C-39’s labour provisions during committee testimony

OTTAWA — Unions called on the federal government to repeal Section 107 from the Canada Labour Code during committee testimony on Tuesday, as members of Parliament study a bill that seeks to clarify its uses for ending strikes.

“We’ve maintained … since (Section) 107 was starting to be used by this government, that governments should stay the hell out of bargaining,” said Mark Hancock, national president at the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE).

“The only place a collective agreement should be found, can be found, is at a bargaining table with both sides,” he added.

Committee hearings began in the House of Commons and the Senate this week, with testimony from expert witnesses, on the Liberal government’s latest major projects bill.

Bill C-39, which builds on the government’s Bill C-5, is intended to fast-track the regulatory approval process of all major projects, not just those deemed within the national interest.

This is achieved through the creation of “regions of national interest,” allowing construction to begin before an impact assessment is completed and giving ministerial discretion to override project conditions.

The bill also makes changes to the Canada Labour Code, including changes to collective bargaining and giving the labour minister “guardrails” on when they can intervene to end a lockout or strike.

Over the last few years, the Liberal government has relied on Section 107 of the labour code to end lockouts and strikes at airlines, ports and railways. There are currently four different court challenges brought forward by unions on what they view as the federal government’s misuse of Section 107.

In August of last year, the use of Section 107 was invoked by Jobs Minister Patty Hajdu to force 10,000 Air Canada flight attendants back to work, which backfired when flight attendants defied the order by the Canada Industrial Relations Board and stayed on the picket line. A deal was secured a few days later following hours of negotiations between CUPE and Air Canada.

Unions have maintained that the expectation of ministerial intervention in a strike or lockout leads to bad faith bargaining, because employers expect binding arbitration.

“When you have arbitration, not only do we believe that the court will find it to be unconstitutional, but it will also create an environment where problems stack up, labour relations deteriorate, and that will follow our business and our business reputation far more than any problem that this bill purports to resolve,” said Tim Perry, president of the Air Line Pilots Association.

Hajdu has said Bill C-39’s labour provisions give “guardrails” to her use of Section 107, including a special mediator report and a national interest test.

During her testimony on Monday, Hajdu said that a report issued publicly by the special mediator will have a shaming effect on employers, should the report show they are acting in bad faith. She also argued Bill C-39 protects the right to strike even “more vigorously” with those guardrails in place.

“So not only will the minister have that special mediators report, but all of Canada will know exactly what’s happening at that table,” she said. “That will be very illuminating for union members, for employee groups, employer groups, for customers, for shareholders.”

David Chartrand, Canadian general vice-president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, said Hajdu can consider the report, but she is not bound by it.

“It’s economic harm that is one of the factors to be weighed, even though economic pressure is the very purpose of a strike, that is far too much power to place in the hands of one individual,” he added.

Perry said the national interest provision is far too broad and does not think the guardrails are sufficient.

Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, agreed with Perry that this will lead to bad outcomes in collective bargaining.

“I don’t believe for a minute that this legislation will improve the collective bargaining process,” she said. “I think this will improve employers to hold out and not to get to a deal.”

Hancock said the purpose of Bill C-39 is not to provide guardrails for the minister, but to protect the federal government from legal challenges.

“I think one of the things this government’s attempting to do is to to shelter themselves from court challenges, and I think they’ve done a decent job of that, but at no point will we, as the union, give up our right to strike, and no guardrails are going to take away our right to strike,” said Hancock.

The bill passed the House of Commons, with the help from the Conservative Party. However, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has said his party plans to bring amendments to “protect the rights of workers.”

Notably, the Liberal government has not yet released a Charter statement on Bill C-39’s potential effects.

The legislative committee has given itself until Nov. 16 to hear from expert witnesses, before they begin clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Some experts during testimony in front of the Senate committee warned a bill of this magnitude warrants further study.

“The time frame for this review is really completely unrealistic and unfeasible,” said Arlene Kwasniak, University of Calgary professor, to senators on Monday. “I recommend that either you somehow make longer time frames or just reject the bill in its entirety and start over.”

National Post

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.