Adjournment Proceedings

This debate addressed Bill C-39, which proposes amendments to the Canada Labour Code and related labour laws. Heather McPherson of the NDP argued that the government’s actions and support for the bill harm workers’ rights, citing the ongoing strike by Bank of Canada security officers as evidence that the government should ensure fair bargaining and protect the right to strike. In response, Maggie Chi of the Liberal Party asserted that the government supports workers and that the bill assists unions and employers by establishing special mediators to help resolve disputes. The government maintained that the legislation does not infringe upon the right to strike.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

4 statements

Heather McPherson, Edmonton Strathcona

NDP
“Bank of Canada security officers have been on strike for 134 days. The labour board found the bank broke the law twice by using replacement workers, but it keeps doing it. The workers just want to keep their current contract wording, and the bank refuses to arbitrate. The government must make the bank bargain fairly. The government must also stop pushing a bill that harms workers' right to strike.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk today about workers who are working at a federal institution and have been on strike for 134 days. It is a federal institution that has twice been found breaking the law and the government refuses to take action despite the rhetoric that it is here for workers. Today marks 134 days since PSAC security officers in Ottawa have been on strike. These are frontline security officers. They are first responders. They protect Canada’s central bank, its assets and the people who work there. They deserve respect from the managers and executives whose safety it is their job to protect. Twice, the Canada Industrial Relations Board found that the Bank of Canada had broken federal labour law by using scab workers against these striking employees, and the Bank of Canada continues to use scabs even after being ordered to stop. I want to be very clear about this issue. The employees on strike are asking for one simple thing. They are asking to keep the wording in their collective agreement that they already have. The bank is demanding concessions on scheduling rights. That is it. If the Bank of Canada stepped back from that, the strike would be over. The PSAC workers have offered to go to arbitration, and the bank has refused. At a moment in time when workers’ rights across this country are under attack because of the tariff war, because of Bill C-39 and because of so many things the government is doing, the fact that the Bank of Canada is not negotiating in good faith with PSAC workers, who have been on strike for 134 days, is unconscionable. I want to bring this back to something that we have also heard from the minister. When I asked this question in September, the parliamentary secretary said, “Mr. Speaker, let me be crystal clear. We will always protect the rights of workers, and we will always support workers’ constitutional right to strike.” That was in September, but what we have seen is a pattern from the government of undermining collective bargaining, taking away workers’ right to strike and weakening the ability of workers to stand up for their own actual human right to withhold their labour. The Canada Labour Congress president, Bea Bruske, warned Parliament at committee on October 20 that employers who expect government intervention have less incentive to bargain seriously. The Unifor president, Lana Payne, told the parliamentary committee on October 26 that the national interest test in Bill C-39 is so broad that virtually every single strike could qualify, because every strike has an economic impact. I am looking at one side, and I see PSAC workers who are not being treated fairly by the Bank of Canada, which has been found guilty twice of using scab labour. Then we have a government that says it will continue to fight for the right to strike for all workers but brings forward legislation such as Bill C-39, and the government has been told by Unifor, CUPE, CLC, USW and so many labour leaders that it breaks the right to strike. This is a problem.

Maggie Chi, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health

Liberal
“I support this bill. It does not take away anyone's right to strike or any other workers' rights. Instead, it helps unions and employers solve disputes earlier by adding special mediators. The government would only step in as a last resort.”
  • A repeated line

    “We cannot build a strong economy without respecting the workers who keep it running every day.”

    Said 4 times by 4 members since May 27.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Edmonton Strathcona for the opportunity to set the record straight. Workers power this country. The government will always have their backs and stand up for their rights. Let me be clear from the outset. Bill C-39 would not take away their right to strike. It would not take away a single right that workers have today. Free and fair collective bargaining, including the right to strike, is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is the foundation of Canada’s labour relations system, and it remains so. We cannot build a strong economy without respecting the workers who keep it running every day. We also cannot protect workers without an economy that creates new jobs and can withstand shocks. The federally regulated private sector underpins key sectors of our economy and employs one of the most skilled workforces in the world, with more than one million workers and more than 22,000 employers. They deserve a labour system that protects them and delivers strong collective agreements at the bargaining table. Today, that system works well. About 95% of labour disputes are resolved without a work stoppage, but in a small number of difficult cases, negotiations break down and become entrenched. When that happens, existing tools are not always enough. Bill C-39 would strengthen a system that already works, with straightforward objectives: supporting good-faith negotiations and strengthening collective bargaining. During consultations, we clearly heard that some bargaining parties need more support earlier. The bill would strengthen the tools, supports and processes available so that unions and employers could find solutions together. It would create earlier and more adaptable supports for these difficult negotiations. It would create a process to appoint a special mediator, who would work with the parties to resolve differences and reach agreements at the bargaining table. It would also encourage good-faith bargaining, a responsibility that applies to both parties. Strikes and lockouts can be part of the bargaining process, and government intervention in a labour dispute should always be a last resort. Bill C-39 would keep existing powers under section 107 of the Canada Labour Code only for the very small number of disputes that become entrenched and where the impacts reach well beyond the bargaining parties. It would add requirements and greater clarity and transparency before they can be used to intervene in a dispute. Before interventions can be considered, a special mediator would work intensively with both parties and provide greater transparency about what is breaking down at the table. That means more accountability, not less. It means more room for bargaining, not less. A national impact assessment would also determine whether the labour disruption has significant impacts on Canadians and the broader economy. An economy is only as strong as its workplaces, and our workplaces are only as strong as the protections and relationships that hold them together. We will not build Canada strong by weakening workers’ rights. We will build it by helping workers and employers reach agreements, by keeping workplaces safe and by making sure they succeed together in a rapidly changing economy. That is what this bill would do.

Heather McPherson, Edmonton Strathcona

NDP
“The government says it supports workers, but it does not. It voted against worker protections and ignored union leaders who said this bill takes away the right to strike. This government helps employers, not workers.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly why workers across the country are so frustrated with the Liberal government. The Liberals constantly say that they are on the side of workers, but when it came to taking away section 107 from the Canada Labour Code, they voted against taking it out. When it came to listening to labour leaders like Bea Bruske, Lana Payne and Marty Warren, who said not to bring forward Bill C-39 because it takes away workers’ right to strike, they did not listen. The legislation the government brings forward helps employers. It does not help workers. This is not a government that is here for workers.

Maggie Chi, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health

Liberal

Linked statement

“Our government supports Canadian workers. This bill does not take away the right to strike. It helps workers and employers reach agreements. We are hiring more safety officers, training workers, and supporting unions.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite seems to think this government has abandoned Canadian workers. Nothing could be further from the truth. This government has said time and time again that we will always respect workers’ rights. Bill C-39 would not take away the right to strike. That right is protected by the charter and it stays. What the bill would do is give workers and employers more support to reach agreements together. We are also backing workers with action. We are adding more officers to enforce their rights and keep workplaces safe. We are investing in skilled trades, training, apprenticeships and union workers across the country. We are investing in projects that will build Canada strong. Canadian workers power this country, and our government will continue standing with them every step of the way.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 161

  1. Government Orders Government Orders 107 statements
  2. Oral Questions International Trade 8 statements
  3. Oral Questions Major Projects Office 2 statements
  4. Oral Questions Finance 14 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 6 statements
  6. Oral Questions The Environment 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions International Trade 5 statements
  8. Oral Questions Foreign Affairs 6 statements
  9. Oral Questions Natural Resources 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions International Trade 6 statements
  11. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 4 statements
  13. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 6 statements
  15. Oral Questions Canada Revenue Agency 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions National Defence 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Natural Resources 3 statements
  19. Government Orders Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 44 statements
  20. Oral Questions National Defence 8 statements
  21. Private Members' Business Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act 11 statements
  22. Government Orders Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 21 statements
  23. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  24. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  25. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements