Human Resources Committee on Nov. 20th, 2025

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Could you explain the difference between the use of section 107 of the Canada Labour Code and Bills C‑5 and C‑6 from 2011 under the Harper government?

Let me be clear: The problem I see with Bills C‑5 and C‑6 is the way in which workers were forced to return to work without their right to strike being respected. On the contrary, the use of section 107 ensured that your right to strike was fully upheld and gave you the opportunity to reach an amicable solution.

You said the right to strike was a constitutional right. Could you tell us the difference between the right to strike and mobility rights, as a pilot?

[Capt Tim Perry]

Thank you for the question. I'll do my best to answer, as I may need to become somewhat more familiar with the bills that you're referring to. However, I think that, in general, I can answer your question.

Government intervention, in general, is what we're talking about. Section 107 is one way that the government can intervene in collective bargaining. Putting the question before Parliament can be different in that it's not a unilateral action. It's not the action of one person at one time. In a sense, it's the people of Canada speaking. I think for members, while it may be distasteful, it's understood somewhat differently than one person, one minister, acting.

Is that a fair answer to your question? Does that answer your question?

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

That does not answer my question, but I will ask you another.

Does a union's decision to force staff to strike sometimes cause financial harm to families or small and medium-sized businesses? Are you aware that this can break up families?

[Capt Tim Perry]

There is no question that taking that decision to go on strike.... First of all, members being forced to go on strike, I think, is a mis-characterization of it. Members vote on whether to authorize the strike at the bargaining table. That's a democratic process, which is respected by members and unions. Also, it's a question that's taken profoundly seriously because it impacts all workers, as well as others.

I would like to add one thing. When a labour dispute gets characterized as just an action of a union, I think that fails the conversation. I received a question earlier about whether union members care about the arrival of goods by train that are important. Of course they do. It's everybody's job to make sure that they do their utmost to reach an agreement that continues so that businesses continue and so that members can continue to receive paycheques. It's everybody's job.

It's a very serious question.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Do you know why I am asking you this question? At the time of these events, we were in our ridings. At our offices, we were receiving many calls from fathers, for example, asking the government to take action. In some cases, families were stuck in Cuba with their children, and the start of the school year was approaching. They did not know what to do. The government therefore made the right decision. It did the right thing. This is very different from what was done in 2011 with Bills C‑5 and C‑6.

Do you have a message for the people who were held hostage in Cuba, Paris, or the Dominican Republic as the new school year was about to start? Do you also have a message for people who were not paid for three or four days, or even three or four months, if the conflicts lasted that long, and who were forced to put their homes up for sale? Do you have a message for these people?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Joseph.

Please give a very short answer.

[Capt Tim Perry]

They should hold everybody accountable, including employers, and the issues should not be oversimplified.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Mrs. Gill for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I understand correctly, Mr. Perry and Mr. Piper, you are both in favour of the removal of section 107. Am I correct?

[Capt Tim Perry]

For my part...yes.

[Kevin Piper]

Yes.

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

Okay, thank you. I absolutely agree with you about section 107. As I said earlier, it is somewhat like the third player inviting themselves to the game to determine the outcome of negotiations.

Mr. Guénette, I do not want to put words in your mouth, but you said earlier that, in the context of a minority government, it was different, and that the use of section 107 was the only means it had to negotiate.

I would like to hear the opinion of Mr. Perry and Mr. Piper on this matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Monsieur Guénette, could you answer the question?

[Jasmin Guénette]

I do not believe this question is addressed to me.

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

Indeed, it is not addressed to you but rather to Mr. Perry and Mr. Piper.

[Capt Tim Perry]

I'm sorry. I thought the question was being directed elsewhere. Could you kindly repeat it? I'm very sorry.

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

Yes, of course.

Mr. Guénette, please correct me if I am misrepresenting your words, but you said that, in a minority government context, the only means at its disposal in this type of labour dispute or negotiation was to invoke section 107.

I was asking you then, Mr. Piper and Mr. Perry, whether you agreed with that statement or not.

[Capt Tim Perry]

No, I do not agree with the statement because, as I mentioned earlier, there are other mechanisms available to the minister to act, including compelling a vote of the membership, appointing a commission or directing the parties to mediation.

There are other tools available, and I think, personally, with respect, it's an oversimplification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Gill.

We'll now go to Ms. Falk for five minutes.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'd like to thank each of the witnesses for taking the time to be here.

It's talked about a lot in the House and also in this committee that we're in a housing crisis in this country, and many Canadians can't find a suitable place to live. We also have two million Canadians a month who are visiting food banks. Life has become so unaffordable for so many hard-working Canadians who just want to be able to get ahead in life.

I'll start with you, Mr. Perry, quickly, because I don't have a lot of time.

To what extent is the affordability crisis driving the recent increase in labour disruptions in Canada?

[Capt Tim Perry]

Thank you for the question.

That's a complex issue for sure. I'm going to talk about members and working people. From that perspective, the strains on them are numerous. You've identified certainly one area where that's the case—

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

It's some of them.

[Capt Tim Perry]

Yes.

A good way to approach that is to have a healthy collective bargaining system that can make wages and working conditions move along with the times and—

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

I'm sorry, Mr. Perry. I just don't have a lot of time.

How about you, Mr. Piper? I know that your union hasn't had a strike in a long time—since before I was born—but in general, would the cost of living crisis seem to put pressure on those folks who are working?

[Kevin Piper]

Well, it's hard to speak for the industry as a whole—