Human Resources Committee on Nov. 18th, 2025

[The Chair (Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Good morning, committee members. It is 11 o'clock. The clerk has advised me that we have a quorum. Our witness for this part is appearing in the room; we have no one appearing virtually.

With that, I open meeting number 15 of the HUMA committee. Pursuant to the motions adopted on September 18, 2025, the committee is meeting on the definition of “work” and the use of section 107 of the Canada Labour Code for the first hour and on government mandates and key priorities for the second hour.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Those participating have the option to participate in the official language of their choice. If you are attending virtually, click on the globe icon at the bottom of your screen and choose the official language of your choice. Those in the room, please choose the interpretation of your choice by using the headset. I would ask all members to please silence their devices, as well as refrain from tapping the boom on the mic. This is for the benefit of our interpreters. I forget to remind about this from time to time, but if you could speak slowly, that will help the interpreters as well.

Please wait until I address you. Direct all questions through the chair, and wait until I recognize you before proceeding.

Before we begin, I have one routine motion. This study requires a budget approval. The estimated budget for this study is $18,950. Do we have approval for the budget? If we don't, we'll conclude, and there will be no study—and I'm not being satirical.

We do this because we get into these discussions. The budgets are dealt with as we start. They're estimates, and they're to cover the routine costs of the study. Do we have the approval of the budget that was prepared by the clerk?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mr. Clerk, we can proceed with the study. That's the only item.

When this motion was adopted, there was some question on witnesses coming before the committee and giving testimony that may involve legal action outside. I requested that the clerk solicit an opinion for me, as chair, on this. For the record, I'm going to read the legal advice that was given to me, as chair, on how we proceed:

Honourable Members,

Before we begin our hearings on the definition of “work” and the use of section 107 in the Canada Labour Code, I would like to take a moment to discuss the fundamental right of freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings.

While there are very few limitations to the freedom of speech granted to both members and witnesses, I wish to remind members of the sub judice convention. Sub judice means “under the consideration of a judge or court,” and is explained by Procedure and Practice, 3rd Edition, p. 99, as

“a voluntary restraint on the part of the House to protect an accused person, or other party to a court action or judicial inquiry, from suffering any prejudicial effect from public discussion of the issue.”

In addition, as Speaker Fraser noted, it serves “to maintain a separation and mutual respect between legislative and judicial branches of government.” On the one hand, it protects the individual and on the other it upholds the separation of the two institutions.

Furthermore, page 1079 of Procedure and Practice, 3rd Edition states:

“The role of the public servant has traditionally been viewed in relation to the implementation and administration of government policy, rather than the determination of what that policy should be. Consequently, public servants have been excused from commenting on the policy decisions made by the government.”

As you know, this convention is an informal rule of practice and not a formal rule of procedure and applies only to Members of Parliament speaking during parliamentary proceeding, whether in the House or in committee. Over the course of this study, we may be hearing witnesses who currently have active cases before the courts or a quasi-judicial body. In fact, we have the Canada Industrial Relations Board in front of us today, which is a quasi-judicial tribunal.

Members are asked to be mindful that some matters raised over the course of this study are under consideration before the courts. This is not to prevent all or any comments or questions by Members on the matter but rather to avoid Members addressing the particular issues that are before the court or commenting on the prospects for success by one of the parties to the legal proceeding.

That being said, subject to a decision otherwise by the committee, the sub judice convention does not give a witness the right to not answer questions. A witness may ask to be excused from answering a question because it relates to a matter in which the witness is involved before the courts, but it is up to the committee to decide whether the witness will answer the question. A witness's position in court is not affected by what is said before a committee as such testimony cannot be used, directly or indirectly, in such proceedings.

I trust that members will exercise caution during their questioning and remind members of these words from our predecessors in the First Report of the Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members:

“It is submitted that, while there can be no substitute for the discretion of the Chair in the last resort, all Members of the House should share in the responsibility of exercising restraint when it seems called for.”

I thank the members for their attention [on this matter].

With that, I would like to welcome our witness from the Canada Industrial Relations Board, Ms. Maryse Tremblay, chairperson.

Ms. Tremblay, the floor is yours for five minutes for your opening statement.

[Maryse Tremblay, Chairperson, Canada Industrial Relations Board]

Good morning.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the invitation to appear before this committee in respect of your study on the impact of the lack of a definition of the term “work” in part III of the Canada Labour Code and into the government's use of section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to refer labour disputes to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. I'll refer simply to “the board” from now on.

The motion adopted by the committee also refers to the latest intervention of the board following a ministerial direction under section 107 of the code ordering Air Canada and its flight attendants into binding arbitration.

As we indicated in our letter to the committee clerk on November 10, the board is an independent quasi-judicial tribunal. The board's adjudicative mandate is to interpret and apply the code, as well as the Status of the Artist Act and also the Wage Earner Protection Program Act. The board is commonly referred to as the federal labour tribunal.

In respect of all disputes before the board, mediation assistance is offered through the board's mediators to help parties reach a settlement. When disputes cannot be resolved through mediation or negotiation, the board's decision-makers—or the administrative judges, as they are often called—are responsible to adjudicate the disputes.

The board is composed of me and eight full-time and two part-time vice-chairs, as well as four full-time and two part-time representative members. The panels assigned to hear and decide cases are composed of a vice-chair or the chair and two members—a panel of three—or a vice-chair or the chair sitting alone. Members do not sit alone to decide disputes.

The code itself comprises four distinct statutory regimes: part I, which governs labour relations; part II, which deals with occupational health and safety; part III, which concerns minimum labour standards; and part IV, which deals with administrative monetary penalties.

More specifically, under part III of the code, the board hears and decides three main types of matters: unjust dismissal complaints; reprisal complaints, that is, complaints alleging reprisals taken for having exercised a right under part III of the code; and, as well, wage recovery matters, which are referrals or appeals relating to the payment of wages. Of note, wage recovery matters and unjust dismissal complaints are not filed directly with the board, but rather with the labour program of Employment and Social Development Canada.

Matters filed under part II, part III and part IV of the code can be assigned to external adjudicators. Typically, external adjudicators are private arbitrators with their own private practice who are placed on a roster of adjudicators to handle board matters or board mandates. When they're handling board mandates under the code, external adjudicators act on behalf of the board.

The board interprets and applies the Canada Labour Code provisions in the context of the specific applications and complaints it receives.

As an independent quasi-judicial administrative tribunal, the board must exercise its powers free from outside influence and cannot express opinions on matters or issues that may arise in applications or complaints brought before it. Accordingly, my comments before this committee will be limited and respectful of the board's adjudicative role and its attendant neutrality. I will therefore refrain from expressing my opinion on the substantive issues under consideration by the committee, as these matters fall within the jurisdiction of the board when it is called upon to decide cases.

The board's role is to apply and interpret its enabling legislation, as adopted by Parliament. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on policy issues raised in the committee's discussions, such as the impact of the lack of a definition of “work” in part III of the Canada Labour Code or the minister's decision to use section 107 of the code to give specific instructions to the board under certain circumstances.

For the same reasons, my comments will not address the policy considerations underlying the code.

That said, in order to assist the committee, we have prepared a table listing the decisions rendered by the board in 2024–2025 that relate to ministerial instructions to the board under section 107 of the code. That list was distributed to you prior to this meeting. It contains references to the board's decisions. We hope the list will make it easier for you to consult the board's decisions on ministerial referrals under this provision.

With that, thank you again for the invitation. I will be pleased to answer questions from the committee members within the boundaries attached to the board's quasi-judicial role.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Tremblay.

We will now begin the first round of questioning, which is the six-minute round, with Mr. Seeback for six minutes.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair

We're living in a time of historic work disruptions. From what I've been able to see, there were 845 work stoppages in 2024 in Canada, versus 153 in 2014. That's a massive increase in the number of work stoppages. It appears to me that we've been having less industrial peace in Canada over the last few years than we certainly had a decade ago.

If I were to look at a few things, section 107 was invoked four times between 1995 and 2002. It was invoked once between 2011 and 2015. It's been invoked eight times since June 2024. That's a staggering increase in the number of section 107 referrals by the Liberal government.

Do section 107 referrals affect how the CIRB operates, because they are considered urgent matters that must be taken up immediately? Does that disrupt the regular workflow at the CIRB when you get eight referrals in a little over a year?

[Maryse Tremblay]

It certainly increases the volume of matters before the board, in terms of bare numbers. That said, in terms of how expediently these matters are dealt with, there's not much difference between that and different kinds of other expedited proceedings that the board is dealing with. We can have unlawful strike applications, for example, that are filed, and these are dealt with on an urgent basis as well. We have interim relief requests as well that are dealt with on an urgent basis. Those section 107 matters are also treated as priority files under our regulations, as are these other matters that I've discussed.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Would they therefore bump down something else because they're a priority matter? Would they take precedence over other things that are currently before the board?

[Maryse Tremblay]

They would be dealt with on a more urgent basis, absolutely.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I want to talk to you very briefly about the WestJet referral by the minister, because I found it very interesting.

The WestJet referral in June 2024 did not include a requirement that people go back to work, as opposed to the section 107 referrals that came subsequently. The board exercised its discretion that it was not necessary to secure industrial peace by having them go back to work.

Can you explain why it was determined that, in order to secure industrial peace, the strike didn't have to end?

[Maryse Tremblay]

First of all, I will agree with you that the ministerial referral in the WestJet matter was different from the other ones we saw afterwards. In terms of explaining the decision issued by the vice-chair, who actually issued the decision in WestJet, I will refrain from going beyond what's found in the decision. In terms of understanding the rationale for finding or not that industrial peace involves a ceasing of the strike, I will refer you to the decision that's in our list that we've just provided.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

But your organization decided before that it wasn't necessary to secure industrial peace, because they did not tell them to go back to work. I'm not trying to trick you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Excuse me for a moment. There is a translation issue.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Seeback's microphone was off, and his remarks could not be interpreted. The situation has been resolved—for the witness as well, I believe.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Go ahead, Mr. Seeback.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

The WestJet decision did not require an end of the strike. The board determined that the strike could continue. It wasn't a requirement to secure industrial peace that the strike end. That's basically the effect of that decision. Am I correct?

[Maryse Tremblay]

Indeed, the decision did not include a call to end the strike.

Beyond that, with regard to the explanation or reasoning followed by my colleagues in their adjudicative functions, I refer you to the board's decision, which includes the reasons. It is the first decision on the list—number 2024 CCRI 1151.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Yes. I thank you.

The subsequent section 107 referrals always directed the board to have the parties go back to work. Would you agree with me on that?

[Maryse Tremblay]

That's what we've seen in the subsequent section 107 referrals.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

The board has no discretion to ignore that based on the Dow Chemical case. If the minister says in their referral that the strike ends and workers go back to work, you have no discretion to ignore that. Is that correct?

[Maryse Tremblay]

Your question is addressed in the decision of CN, so I will refer you to the decision in CN where the board speaks and explains how it has interpreted Dow Chemical and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court to deal with the ministerial referral.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Right. The fact is that when you were allowed to have discretion as to whether or not to end the strike, you didn't. Subsequently, the government took away your discretion and ordered you to order the workers back to work in every subsequent section 107 referral.

[Maryse Tremblay]

Again, in terms of the rationale and the explanation of those decisions, I can only refer you to what the decisions talk about. This is how we speak as a tribunal. It's in our decision. I will leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Seeback.

Ms. Koutrakis, you have six minutes.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Madame Tremblay, for being with us today and for shedding shed some light on the process in the issuance of a section 107 referred to CIRB and the relationship between government, employees and employers.

After the minister makes a referral to the CIRB, what actions are taken? What considerations does the board consider before issuing a decision?