Human Resources Committee on Nov. 20th, 2025

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will use my two minutes to let the secretary of state respond to the last question I asked him earlier. He did not have enough time to respond.

I would like him to explain to us in concrete terms what his own objectives are, the ones he set for himself. I am not talking here about the general mandate letter provided by the Prime Minister.

[John Zerucelli, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you for the question.

Our number one priority right now, with respect to the union training and innovation program, is encouraging unions and others to bring forward projects that can be funded to bring forward more apprenticeship opportunities in the skilled trades, because, as you know—

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

I apologize for interrupting you. You said “our,” but is this truly your priority? I am really speaking about your own objectives.

Your explanation is quite general. You are talking about initiatives with Minister Hajdu, which are programs. What are your actual objectives?

[John Zerucelli, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

The union training and innovation program is under my authority, as delegated by Minister Hajdu. I was about to explain the priorities that we have, and I will turn it over to Colette to talk about how that program will be moving forward.

[Colette Kaminsky]

Thank you. The—

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

I am sorry to interrupt you, Ms. Kaminsky.

Mr. Secretary, you have not answered my question. I wanted to know what your own objectives were, but you are using the word “our” and you are talking about a specific program, which we have already discussed.

Instead, I am going to talk to you about the forestry workers issue.

What do you want to do going forward? We know there is an emergency in our communities. Mr. Carney said people may have to retrain for other jobs.

What do you think about that idea or this assertion? What do you think needs to be done?

If you do not have enough time to respond to the question immediately, you can provide your response in writing.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Gill.

Mr. Secretary, if you could provide an answer to Ms. Gill, in writing, to the committee, it would be good.

[John Zerucelli, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Yes, I will do that.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mr. Secretary, we thank you, Ms. Kaminsky and Ms. Hassan for coming.

We will suspend for two moments while we transition to the last hour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I will ask the witnesses to take their seats, please, as we begin the second hour of today's study.

The second hour is on the definition of work and the use of section 107 of the Canada Labour Code.

We have witnesses appearing, but before we do that, I would just remind everyone again that you can participate in the official language of your choice. If there's an interruption in interpretation, please get my attention. We'll suspend while it's corrected.

Please direct all questions through the chair and wait until I recognize you before you proceed. As well, please refrain from tapping the boom on the mic for the protection of the interpreters. If you brought devices with you, please put them on silent mode so they do not go off during the meeting.

Today, for this hour, we have three groups. From the Air Line Pilots Association, International, we have Captain Tim Perry, president, ALPA Canada. From the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, we have Jasmin Guénette, vice-president, national affairs, and Christina Santini, director, national affairs. From the Halifax Longshoremen's Association, we have Kevin Piper, president and business agent.

Each group will have five minutes. When you get to five minutes, I'll say thank you, and I would like you to wrap up shortly thereafter.

We'll begin with Captain Perry.

You have the floor.

[Captain Tim Perry, President, ALPA Canada, Air Line Pilots Association, International]

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee.

My name is Captain Tim Perry. I have been a professional pilot for over 22 years. I am presently a current and qualified Boeing 737 captain at WestJet Airlines and proudly serve as the ALPA Canada president. Our association represents over 13,500 professional pilots at 22 of Canada's airlines. This is equivalent to 95% of commercial pilots in Canada.

Today, I will address the government's recent routine use of section 107 and will offer two recommendations to help create a system where differences are resolved at the negotiating table.

Before I start, I must emphasize that the right to strike has been recognized as a constitutional right for over a decade. Government intervention to end labour disputes in the federal sector has now become commonplace. As a result, employers now expect the government to intervene and are no longer interested in bargaining in good faith.

More specifically, airline management has written letters to the minister, pleading for section 107 to be used, and have admitted publicly to section 107 intervention being part of their bargaining strategy, all of which occurs at the latter stages of bargaining and all of which is very negatively impactful to labour relations. ALPA Canada strongly believes that parties must be incentivized to bargain in good faith and not to seek government assistance to resolve labour disputes.

To be clear, the continued use of section 107 by the government has had a damaging impact on bargaining with our employers. Its continued use, as a routine tool, tips the scale towards employers and erodes the principle of fair and free collective bargaining in Canada. As such, we support the removal of section 107 from the code. Section 107 strips workers of their constitutional right to strike and is done by the minister, unilaterally.

In the Canada Labour Code, section 107 is entitled “Additional powers”, meaning that these powers are residual in nature. It should be noted that the minister also has the authority to appoint mediators, for instance, or to appoint an industrial commission or to order a vote of the union membership on the employer's last offer. Moreover, it is ALPA Canada's view that the continued misuse of section 107 represents a symptom of broader issues within the bargaining process under the code, and we propose the following for the committee's consideration.

First, any analysis of whether section 107 should remain in the code should not be conducted in a vacuum. While changes like replacing the term “expedient” with “necessary” or providing the board with specific authority to review a minister's decision under section 107 are worth considering, the committee should also examine part I of the code, specifically sections 48 through 90, to explore potential improvements to the bargaining process. Ultimately, any proposed changes will require a broader, longer-term tripartite consultation process that meaningfully balances the interests of industry, government and labour.

Second, consideration must be given to providing incentives to bargain collective agreements, without having to resort to the notice of dispute provisions within the code. Isn't that what we all want—fewer disputes?

To provide context, the bargaining period timelines in section 50 of the code currently only require the parties to “meet and commence” bargaining but puts no guardrails around what follows during the open bargaining period. We suggest that an initial bargaining period be established, four to six months, for example, which would then be followed by a 30-day mandatory mediation period with a minister-appointed mediator, prior to the notice of dispute. This would do two things.

First, it would oblige the parties to focus on bargaining during the initial period. Too often, employers show up to the bargaining table poorly prepared and unable to discuss the issues at hand.

Second, mediation would allow for third party involvement prior to the formal notice of dispute. It would help to reduce the number of open issues and would incentivize the parties to resolve issues before the formal notice of dispute stage. At the end of the 30-day period, the parties could either agree to carry on in open bargaining or agree to embark upon a conciliation process. This would reduce the ambiguity of when mediation will happen.

Should there be a notice of dispute, ALPA Canada suggests that the conciliation period be reduced from 60 to 45 days and that more powers be given to conciliators, including a requirement to provide a formal report to the minister and/or arbitrator, and/or consideration given to requiring the parties to withdraw proposals under certain limited circumstances.

Currently, the number of actual days spent bargaining in the conciliation process is limited, and overall, the process in the aviation sector is largely ineffective. Reducing the length of the conciliation period should incentivize the parties to focus on negotiations from the beginning rather than relying upon that time for everything to come together.

To summarize, section 107 should never have been normalized, and its misuse undermines constitutional rights and destabilizes labour relations. We urge the committee to recommend reforms that restore balance and incentivize good-faith bargaining to take place at the negotiating table.

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Captain Perry.

Monsieur Guénette.

[Jasmin Guénette, Vice-President, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Hello, everybody. I would like to thank the committee for this kind invitation. My colleague and I will share the speaking time allocated for opening remarks.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business represents 100,000 small business owners. We have members in all sectors of the economy and in all regions of the country.

Canadian SMEs are very concerned about the negative impact that labour disputes in federally regulated sectors can have on their business, their employees and the economy in general. Small businesses are the collateral damage of those work stoppages. Often, unions will launch strikes not just to hurt the employer but also to deliberately hurt businesses and the economy. Last year's Canada Post strike during the holiday season is the perfect example of that. Hurting SMEs is a tool that large unions are using to selfishly gain benefits for their members. Work stoppages have harmful consequences for the economy that are disproportionate to any benefit a union might gain.

[Christina Santini, Director, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

When a strike happens at federally regulated infrastructures or employers, too many SMEs lose sales, lose fresh product inventory, pay contractual penalties, suffer reputational backlash, turn to costly alternative delivery methods or reduce production and their own staff's working hours. We lose sight of these employees.

This study on section 107 is important. It seems that, lately, every time negotiations are difficult between an employer and a union, we end up with a work stoppage. This needs to change. No labour dispute should derail the economy. We saw many work stoppages in recent years at B.C. and Montreal ports impacting small businesses and severely disrupting the supply chain. Work stoppages also recently happened at the St. Lawrence Seaway, CN, CPKC and Canada Post. Again, all of these had major impacts on small businesses and the economy.

The federal government must have the tools it needs to end work stoppages in federally regulated sectors. Back-to-work legislation, let's be clear, is almost impossible to adopt in the context of a minority government. Therefore, using section 107 is probably the only tool available to minority governments to stop damaging work stoppages and help the economy get back on track.

[Jasmin Guénette]

In the past, CFIB has recommended that federally regulated workplaces that are instrumental to the supply chain be defined as essential service providers. It is a solution the majority of our members support.

At the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications meeting two weeks ago, we also suggested that a detailed cost analysis study be required to evaluate the impact of a strike on SMEs and the economy before it is even allowed to happen. If the projected harm is too severe, a general strike should not be allowed. Businesses and the supply chain must be protected 100% of the time. Both back-to-work legislation and section 107 of the Canada Labour Code must be available to government to end costly work stoppages.

Moving forward, additional mechanisms are needed to keep these work stoppages from even starting. Our members cannot afford the ongoing costs and unpredictability that work stoppages inflict upon them.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Guénette.

Mr. Piper, go ahead for five minutes.

[Kevin Piper, President and Business Agent, Halifax Longshoremen's Association]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Kevin Piper. I'm the president and business agent of the Halifax Longshoremen's Association and a representative of the International Longshoremen's Association.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee on section 107 and the definition of work in the Canada Labour Code. The longshoring industry in Halifax and the longshoring industry as a whole are concerned about the unprecedented use of section 107.

Section 107 allows ministerial direction without parliamentary process. We see this as bypassing democratic oversight. One of our main concerns is that overreliance could erode bargaining power for unions, as employers may assume that the government will step in as disputes escalate. Section 107 has been used eight times in the last year and a half. Because of this, employers don't need to bargain in good faith, knowing that section 107 will be used to force our members back to work.

What we see as problematic in our industry is that the decision-makers are not at the table with the employers' associations. The shipping lines aren't at the table and the terminal operators aren't at the table. In Halifax that's not the issue, but for my colleagues on the west coast and my colleagues in Montreal, that is the issue. In Halifax we've been very lucky. We haven't had a labour dispute since 1970. We're an anomaly, I guess, but this is not the case for other longshoring industries in Canada.

Good collective bargaining is the cornerstone of labour relations in Canada. Having the decision-makers at the table is essential to good collective bargaining.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Piper.

We will begin our first six-minute round with Mr. Seeback.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for coming all the way here today.

Kevin, I know you came all the way from Halifax.

Just quickly, Tim, when we talk about work disruptions, there were 845 work disruptions in Canada in 2024. To me, this seems to be an increasing problem, with eight uses of section 107 in the past 15 months. I don't know if you heard or were watching, but I asked the Secretary of State for Labour if he thought the use of section 107 was deteriorating labour relations between the employer and the union. He didn't really answer the question. I think I'm being kind by saying that.

What do you think the effect of this use is on employers and unions?

[Capt Tim Perry]

On the use of section 107, there's no doubt about it: It erodes labour relations. There are lots of reasons for that. I don't think it's fair to say that labour disruptions are simply the result of unions going on strike. That's a myopic view. It's the result of a breakdown in labour relations. It's a breakdown of collective bargaining. It takes both parties to bargain responsibly in order to achieve a fair and good outcome.

When section 107 is used, it removes any incentive to bargain in good faith in the period leading up to what could possibly amount to being a dispute.

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

The employer knows that section 107 is coming, so they don't have to really bargain, and then we seem to end up there anyway. One of the reasons we end up there is that the employer knows that the government's going to intervene with section 107, because they've used it eight times in the last 15 months.

[Capt Tim Perry]

I think it's pretty clear that it's becoming part of the plan, if not “the” plan, for certain employers. I mean, we know that. We have letters in writing to the minister asking for them to invoke section 107. We have certain leaders admitting to that being their plan on national television. It's part of the plan, and it is really harming the process. If there were a better process, we could end up with a better outcome.

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

Were you surprised that the Secretary of State for Labour wouldn't even acknowledge that the use of section 107 is damaging labour relations in the country? Did you find that surprising?

[Capt Tim Perry]

I entered the room just as that conversation was ongoing, so I don't want to comment on the entirety of the secretary of state's replies. I will say—and I think this might answer your question—that, to me, it's very clear there is a problem here. It has to be acknowledged. To not acknowledge it or to allow for it to continue to be used is going to continue to erode labour relations in Canada. It's going—

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

Your proposal seems to be to build a better mousetrap, for lack of a better phrase. You want to build a better bargaining process or a better mousetrap. That's your suggestion. Is that right?