Human Resources Committee on Nov. 20th, 2025

[Capt Tim Perry]

I think it is incumbent upon all of us. Our union has not been on strike in...it's approaching 30 years—pilots in Canada. We don't want to go on strike. We want to work. Labour disputes are the result of breakdowns, and this just makes breakdowns more likely, not less likely.

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

Do you get any sense that the government's interested in trying to find a better process, or do you get any indication that they just think the answer is section 107?

[Capt Tim Perry]

So far, the answer has been section 107. I am a glass-half-full type of person. I do hope that everybody here in this room, in the House of Commons and Canadians from coast to coast get interested in resolving the problem, because there is one.

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

Kevin, I'll ask, basically, the same question. You did touch on it in your opening statement, but do you believe that the use of section 107, eight times in the last 14 months, is damaging labour relations in the country?

[Kevin Piper]

It undermines collective bargaining. What happens is there's a breakdown in trust between the parties, and the long-term health between management and the unions fails. All it essentially does is kick the issue down the road to the next time around, when you already have animosity built up between the two parties.

If I may, the example I'll use is the Port of Montreal. The Port of Montreal had their last three agreements imposed on them through binding arbitration, and, as we see, the Port of Montreal is in binding arbitration again because of that.

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

That's because of section 107.

[Kevin Piper]

Yes.

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

That's part of the problem, because when the parties don't get to resolve the dispute themselves through the collective process, it increases the animosity between the parties. Is that what you're saying?

[Kevin Piper]

The issues don't go away. If the issues were there in the last round and an agreement was imposed on them through binding arbitration, the majority of the time, those issues don't get addressed. They're brought up the next time around. If the employers' associations—in our industry, the terminal operators and the shipping lines—don't want to address them again, that becomes an issue for the next round of bargaining, and so on, until.... If they were important enough to bring up in 2012, 2015 and 2020, then they're going to be brought up in 2025.

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

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Seeback.

Ms. Desrochers for six minutes.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for joining us in person for this conversation.

I'd like to start by reiterating that the federal government is neutral in those labour disputes. The Canada Industrial Relations Board operates at arm's-length, and its independence is essential. It's there to manage disputes and to ensure procedural fairness. I also want to say that this government is pro-labour, pro-union, and we have proven that time and again. Actually, if you look into budget 2025, there are a number of measures to help unionized and non-unionized workers.

I come from a riding where there is a port, and I really appreciate the essential work that port workers do to keep our economy moving, as well as, of course, the airline industry, to keep our economy and our people moving—mobility and all of that.

The government has a role in balancing public interest and the rights of workers, particularly in critical, essential...like rail, ports and telecommunication. Those are essential to maintain. Of course, we heard from our colleagues about the impact of some of these work stoppages on small businesses. I really hope that, in today's conversation, such as my colleague mentioned, we could get to some constructive recommendations as to how we can balance the workers' rights with really strong impacts on the economy.

Maybe I'll start with a question for Monsieur Guénette or Madame Santini. Can you share a bit about the impact of some of these work stoppages, with concrete numbers, on the economy and on jobs? We're talking about Canadians losing jobs because, all of a sudden, there's a part of the system that is frozen. I'm not saying one is more important than the other. They need to work together. Can you give us a little bit of data?

[Christina Santini]

We did ask our members, back in January, how much all the work stoppages from the preceding year had cost them, and the median response was $10,000. It's not a small cost for a small business, where that $10,000 actually might be their margin for that month.

The reality is that some businesses lost a lot more, and not only did they lose in terms of perishable products, lost customers and things like that, it hindered their reputation when they were trying to grow. The reality too is that many had to face some decisions, particularly when you're talking about the port strikes that lasted over 13 days and the backlog that was associated. It meant they had real concerns about meeting the supply that they had, but also being able to keep production going and the hours they offered to their employees.

When we think of the economy and work stoppage, we often think of the employee and the employer who are at the negotiating table, and we forget that there are many other employers in the economy who are also concerned about whether or not they can maintain a cash flow to keep their employees receiving and being able to take home a pay. We need to make sure that's taken into consideration.

You referenced the role of balancing public interest. Absolutely, that is the role of government in these instances. It's to think, at some point we need to intervene because this is going to affect other people's livelihoods, and it's going to affect the well-being of the economy and of Canadians. Section 107 is one of those tools. There are many other recommendations that have been brought forward. I think ultimately we need to bring forward recommendations that help build the tool kit.

You spoke about impacts. There's one example that I'd like to reference. It's a concrete example from Vancouver Island, where during the port strike they had issues getting the grains they needed, and they supplied 70% of the market on Vancouver Island. This is animal feed that is needed to ensure the well-being of the cattle or the different animals within the farms on that island. It was quite concerning that they couldn't get the shipments they needed. Even trucking it in cost a lot more, and they could only get one-eighth of what they needed. The reality was that they had key concerns about maintaining and meeting the demand of their customers on the island. In terms of revenues, it was an 80% revenue loss.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you for that, Ms. Santini.

Did you want to add anything, Mr. Guénette?

[Jasmin Guénette]

No, not at this time.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Okay. Thank you.

Maybe this is a question for either Mr. Perry or Mr. Piper, because you are much closer to the workers and you've had those experiences.

How do you think these economic impacts play into the discussions at the table, or the decisions of the unions, to go ahead.

[Capt Tim Perry]

I can take a moment.

As I said earlier, our members don't want to go on strike. Nobody wants to go on strike. No one wants to reach that point. In fact, there are mechanisms within the Canada Labour Code to make sure that essential services are maintained.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

When they're not, like when we have, for example, a wagon of...and I don't know if that's the right word in English, so I apologize. There are train containers full of food that is spoiled. Our farmers have worked so hard to harvest that food, and it sits on the side of a rail because there is a work stoppage. How does that factor in?

I understand you're in aviation and it's a different industry, but how does it work into—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I just want to finish it, so can you maybe finish in writing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We'll have to come back to that.

Thank you.

Mrs. Gill for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses for joining us to enlighten us on the use of section 107 of the Canada Labour Code and the lack of a definition of the word “labour” in this code.

I have questions for Mr. Piper, among others.

You gave very detailed opening remarks. I noted the issue of democracy. I do not want to put words in your mouth, but you talked about democratic control. It is something that concerns you. I would like you to tell us more about this.

[Kevin Piper]

I only heard part of that, but it was about democratic control, so if I may....

The issue we find is with our ability to have faith in the employers' associations we're dealing with and the decision-makers who are at the table, and that the employers' associations aren't just going through the motions to wait for the federal government to implement a section 107 on us.

In Halifax, at the table, we have representatives from the shipping lines and from the terminal operators, and to reiterate, it's been 50 years since we've had a labour issue. That's not the case in other ports in Canada. I've been told by my colleagues that the employers' associations in those ports have to leave the table to make decisions. They come to a tentative agreement or an agreement in principle. Then they come back the next day and that agreement is gone, and they have to start over again.

I hope that answered your question.

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

Yes, absolutely.

Let me illustrate the situation with an analogy. In certain circles, section 107 is often referred to as a kind of hockey enforcer. The two parties are there, that is, the workers and the employer, and then a third party comes along, acting a bit like a tough guy in hockey, and pins the workers against the boards. That is somewhat what the workers are experiencing. There is a kind of force that upsets the balance in what should be free negotiations. That is somewhat what is happening.

[Kevin Piper]

Again, I apologize, as I'm only getting partial interpretation.