What neither Progressive Conservative politician mentioned: imposing back-to-work legislation now would not likely stand up in court.
To defend such legislation, the government must persuade a court that its actions have a “pressing and substantial purpose.” That’s the legal test established by the Supreme Court of Canada to justify violating the right to free collective bargaining enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
A day of school lost here and there to rotating strikes almost certainly doesn’t meet that bar, according to legal experts.
“There’s a difference between a pressing and substantial purpose and an inconvenience to the public,” said Kevin Banks, director of Queen’s University’s Centre for Law in the Contemporary Workplace.