Corey Hogan, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources
“I do not want this bill to pass. It completely removes the minister's power to step into labour disputes. The government has another bill that keeps that power as a last resort, but adds strict rules so it can only be used during major national emergencies.”
“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.”
-
A repeated line
“We must protect Canadian workers while strengthening our country's economic resilience.”
Said 3 times by 3 members since May 27.
Every time it was said
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.
