Air Canada is backing controversial federal legislation that would give cabinet broad powers to stop legal strikes, arguing courts should determine what qualifies as a threat to Canada's national interest.Blacklock's Reporter says Michael Abbott, Air Canada's vice-president of labour relations, told a Commons legislative committee Tuesday that Parliament does not need to clarify the meaning of “national interest” in Bill C-39, despite warnings from unions that the proposed powers are dangerously vague.“I think the case law will develop in ‘national interest,’ that we won’t be having this argument in two or three years’ time,” Abbott testified.Bill C-39, An Act Respecting Certain Measures To Strengthen The Economy, would allow the federal labour minister to “take any measure the Minister of Labour considers necessary” to intervene in lawful strikes involving federally regulated private-sector employers.The proposed legislation would permit intervention when a labour dispute threatens the national interest, including situations involving a significant impact on the Canadian economy or social disruption.The sweeping authority could affect workers in major industries, including airlines, railways, ports and telecommunications.Critics argue the legislation could undermine collective bargaining by allowing Ottawa to intervene in legal strikes under a broadly defined national interest test.Bloc Québécois MP Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette-Manawan, Que.) challenged Abbott over the lack of a clear definition in the bill.“‘National interest’ is fairly vague,” Ste-Marie said. “It’s not defined in the bill. Would it be better if the federal government defined what the national interest is?”Abbott acknowledged the wording was broad but argued judicial decisions would eventually establish clearer limits on when the government could intervene.“Every major railroad, the major airlines and all the ports have been on strike in the past three or four years, sometimes multiple times,” Abbott said.“It’s problematic. The ‘national interest’ test, yes, it’s broad right now, but I think that will quickly tighten itself up through the courts.”Abbott said not every strike involving a federally regulated employer would necessarily justify government intervention.He pointed to Air Canada's nine bargaining units, arguing that only some have the ability to shut down the airline's operations.“I think the ‘national interest’ test needs to be looked at through a couple of different angles,” Abbott said.“We have nine bargaining units at Air Canada. There are five or six that could shut down our entire operation. The other two or three, I wouldn’t consider them national interest, okay?”Abbott rejected suggestions the legislation would effectively eliminate the right to strike across federally regulated industries.“I think the unions are playing that up a lot, that this is just going to be no-strike all over the board,” he said. “That’s not the case at all.”.However, organized labour has warned the proposed powers could fundamentally change the balance between employers and workers during contract negotiations.Michael Rowlinson, a lawyer with Goldblatt Partners LLP representing the Canadian Labour Congress, previously told the committee that the national interest provision has no clear precedent in existing federal labour legislation.“What is in the national interest?” Rowlinson asked. “The national interest is whatever the minister says.”Rowlinson argued the legislation would give major federally regulated employers a way to avoid the economic consequences of a strike by seeking government intervention.“Federally regulated employers, whether that’s Bell or Rogers or the railroads or the airlines, now have a clear pathway to avoiding any kind of strike action,” he said.“Their incentive to actually come to the table and bargain seriously with their unions is substantially diminished.”The Canadian Labour Congress has warned that giving cabinet such broad discretion could weaken workers' bargaining power, particularly in industries where strikes have significant economic consequences.The federal government has defended the need for stronger intervention powers, pointing to the impact major labour disruptions can have on businesses, workers and the broader economy.Government House Leader Steven MacKinnon told reporters September 19 that repeated strikes and lockouts in federally regulated industries have created economic problems extending far beyond the employers and unions directly involved.“There are chronic problems, problems that often disrupt the Canadian economy beyond the issues involved in collective bargaining, hundreds of thousands of unionized jobs,” MacKinnon said.“I’ve dealt with many people whose jobs are at risk because of a labour dispute, a lockout or a strike.”The debate comes after several years of labour disruptions involving Canadian airlines, railways and ports, raising questions about how far Ottawa should be allowed to go in restricting strikes to protect economic activity.While Air Canada maintains the courts can establish appropriate limits on the government's authority, unions argue Parliament should clearly define those limits before granting cabinet additional powers.Bill C-39 remains under parliamentary scrutiny, with MPs examining whether the proposed national interest provisions strike an appropriate balance between protecting the economy and preserving workers' collective bargaining rights.
