Good.
As I was indicating, today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. According to House of Commons procedures, witnesses and members can appear virtually. Today all the members are in the room. We have witnesses who are appearing virtually.
We have a couple of rules. You can choose to speak in the official language of your choice. In the room, interpretation services are available through the mics. If you're appearing virtually, please click on the globe icon at the bottom of your screen and choose the official language of your choice. If there is an interruption in translation, please get my attention by raising your hand in the room or by using the “raise hand” icon for those appearing virtually, and we'll suspend while it is being corrected.
I would remind all members to wait until I recognize them before speaking. Again, to get my attention, simply raise your hand or use the “raise hand” icon.
I also want to remind members, with regard to all their devices, to please turn off any alarms that could go off routinely. There was an incident at our last meeting. This is for the protection of the interpreters. As well, please refrain from tapping on the microphone boom. It does cause sound issues for the interpreters, and we do not want to do that.
Before we go to the witnesses, I want to clarify something. At the conclusion of Tuesday's meeting, Ms. Zarrillo moved a motion at committee. The meeting adjourned before there was a clear direction on that particular motion.
I want to advise members on the motion that was moved by Ms. Zarrillo. There is a procedure for that, given that the motion that was introduced without 48 hours' notice was on the subject matter that the committee was studying, but the precedent on that is that it must be rather general. My interpretation was that the study was on unionized wages in general, in a broad category, versus non-unionized. The motion addressed a change to a specific item. Therefore, I would rule it as non-admissible at that time. Given that, the motion has now been on for 48 hours, so Ms. Zarrillo would have the ability to move it as she chooses.
I raise that because I just want to advise members that I will continue with that precedent decision on motions that may be introduced without a 48 hours' notice on a related study, given the fact that it doesn't kill the motion. The 48-hour rule is the one that's been accepted and used, and that's the one that will take priority.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, February 26, 2024, the committee resumes its study on compensation disparities between unionized and non-unionized workers in Canada.
I would now like to welcome the witnesses. We have Tristen Wybou, executive vice-president of the BC General Employees' Union, by video conference. From the Canadian Labour Congress, we have Bea Bruske, president, and D.T. Cochrane, senior economist, by video conference. From the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers—District 140, we have Dan Janssen, general chairperson, who is with us in the room. From UA Local 663, we have Scott Archer, business agent.
We'll begin with Ms. Bruske.
Ms. Bruske, you have up to five minutes. The floor is yours, please.