Human Resources Committee on Dec. 9th, 2025

[David Neufeld]

In practice, yes, it is.

Striking, or the credible threat of striking, is the primary tool that balances the power at the table. When section 107 is used to order a return to work and impose arbitration before a strike achieves its purpose, the employer's exposure to economic pressure drops sharply. That tilts the playing field. The incentive to make the move at the table is reduced when parties expect the government to step in. Employers can delay meaningful negotiation in hopes of ministerial intervention.

Because of the frequency with which section 107 has been used in the past two years, we are concerned that employers are beginning to anticipate the government intervening in work stoppages. This could dramatically change the dynamics of a negotiation, because the employer could confidently operate under this assumption, reducing the employer's incentive to compromise.

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

This is what we saw with Air Canada. Obviously, the executive at Air Canada had no intention of bargaining in good faith.

Do you think this process leads to unions and their members feeling cheated out of their right to collectively bargain in good faith?

[David Neufeld]

Yes.

The Supreme Court of Canada recognized the right to strike as an integral, meaningful collective bargaining tool under the charter. While section 107 is a statutory power, using it to pre-empt or neutralize strikes undermines the legal purpose of strikes in Canadian labour law and fuels the sense that unions are being denied a fair process.

The federal government's pattern has damaged confidence and provoked challenges at the CIRB and in the Federal Court, which, again, reflect that members feel cheated and compelled to litigate rather than negotiate their rights.

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Do you think union members are losing faith in the collective bargaining process and in their right to collectively bargain in good faith?

[David Neufeld]

I would say that many are. When the government repeatedly stops lawful strikes and unintentionally swaps bargaining for arbitration, members observe how the legal mechanism they are democratically choosing—the strike—is somewhat neutralized.

That doesn't mean union members will simply give up. We've seen, recently, how the use of section 107 orders has ignited a broader response from unions across this country. In the Air Canada example you mentioned, members even defied the order and quickly got to a tentative agreement. To me, that is a prime example of free collective bargaining working when it's allowed to work, and it highlights the damage and, frankly, the chaos that can be caused by premature intervention.

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

What would you say to unions that might help restore their faith in collective bargaining?

[David Neufeld]

As I mentioned during my opening comments, I really believe that, in order for this to happen, structural change is required.

The repeated use of section 107 to override strikes and impose arbitration has fundamentally weakened confidence in collective bargaining. To rebuild trust, we call on the government to repeal section 107 from the Canada Labour Code. We think the recent abuse of this provision has given the minister sweeping powers to terminate strikes, which undermines our constitutional right to strike and the principle of good-faith bargaining. Removing section 107 would ensure that negotiations remain between the parties, without the government.

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

With the government's use of section 107 forcing unions to labour relations, to the CIRB, would you consider that a conflict of interest in federally regulated industries since the CIRB is a federal Crown corporation?

[David Neufeld]

Legally, not on its face, but perceptually it raises concerns. The CIRB is an independent and quasi-judicial administrative tribunal established via statute, and it operates, as you've said, at arm's length from the government. That institutional set-up is intended to avoid the conflict of interest. However, I think section 107's structure, in allowing the minister to direct the CIRB to take specific actions, creates the perception that the board is implementing executive directives, rather than neutralizing and evaluating the merits. That dynamic understandably fuels this perception of bias.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Reynolds. Your time is up.

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Ms. Desrochers, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank our guests for coming to testify in person today and for all the preparation it entails. It is very helpful.

I'll start with Mr. Safayeni.

You were talking earlier about FETCO and the whole sector, all of the employees, being responsible for 16.5% of the GDP in terms of the sector it involves. You talked about 2.1 million jobs.

Could you talk about how many indirect jobs are involved out of those 2.1 million direct jobs? I know that you probably don't have a figure, but for every cargo of grain that is moved by rail, for example, there are farmers and there are people collecting that grain. What is the indirect impact of this? Could you talk a bit about that?

[Daniel Safayeni]

The numbers I was quoting were very conservative direct numbers from StatsCan. That's work that FETCO undertook because we actually don't have a clear understanding of the direct impact of federally regulated sectors and what they actually mean to the economy.

The actual aggregate impact is much larger. That's the general comment about every sector and industry. You heard testimony earlier from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business about how every small business depends on the reliability of federally regulated sectors.

What is often missed in this debate is that it's characterized—as we even heard just now in the testimony—as an issue of labour versus employer, but when the west coast ports went down in 2023 for 13 days, that affected the labour movement across the country. You don't see this in the headlines, but there were union leaders of paper mills and steel-manufacturing plants pushing for the usage of section 107 to bring back the workers and have a fair resolution to the CBA. That's something you don't often hear about because it doesn't impact workers, and oftentimes workers that don't have the benefit of wages that are roughly 43% higher than what you're getting in federally regulated sectors.

I do think that's an important point here, because it does impact workers and communities across the country when reliability is interrupted.

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

Thank you for that.

I'd like to turn to Mr. Chan now.

You talked a bit about our need to increase productivity and the importance of our GDP and two-thirds of our GDP focusing on and relying on international trade. Can you talk a bit about the impact on Canada's reputation abroad when our grain growers are not able to ship their product? Is the country that's buying it going to rely on us when they don't know if they can or cannot get it the next time around?

[Pascal Chan]

The simple answer is no. I mean, listen, we run a number of trade missions to other countries. We're in a lot of places and we speak with delegates from other countries. Are we going to be a serious player on the international stage, or are we going to show that we can't reliably deliver and they can't count on us? Are they going to continue? I've heard that some are looking at collective agreements before they're deciding to do business with Canada.

You asked about some of the data. The Greater Vancouver Board of Trade has estimated that almost $10 billion in cargo was disrupted during the 2023 B.C. ports strike. On the St. Lawrence Seaway one that was a bit after that, it looked like the economic activity impacted reached about $900 million. On the railway stoppage, our business data lab saw that it disrupted about three billion dollars' worth of revenue, ton-miles for major carriers CN and CPKC.

I can go on. The terminal elevators at the port of Vancouver receive just over half of all the grain produced across Canada. I think that's one of the things you mentioned. They handle and export most of the grain that farmers in the Prairies grow. That strike stopped the nearly 100,000 metric tons of grain that flow through these terminals daily, resulting in $35 million in potential exports lost every single day.

I can share a lot about this.

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

It's a domino effect.

[Pascal Chan]

I can keep going if you want.

Also, almost 400 million dollars' worth of goods pass through the port of Montreal every single day. Additionally, if you look at 2021, Transport Canada carried out an analysis of the impact of a shutdown and resulted—

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

Thank you.

[Pascal Chan]

I'm sorry. I'm done.

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

It's just because I have another question and I only have one more minute, but thank you so much. I really appreciate it. I think you're right that this is what's missing in this debate, because I know that even when we're talking about 13,000 workers, the impact goes much beyond them.

I don't have a lot of time, but my last question is for you, Mr. Neufeld. You said that we should completely do away with section 107. How much economic damage do you think should be considered enough before we take action to end the strike? How much economic damage on all of Canada is enough?

[David Neufeld]

Again, I represent members who are not impacted by section 107. It's hard for me to comment on what type of economic damage would be acceptable. However, what I would focus on is the responsibility of the employer to come to the table and negotiate fairly.

I'll use the example of Air Canada. It was very clear that Air Canada was waiting for the government to take action with section 107 and allow airline stewardesses and stewards to do unpaid labour. The Canadian public came on board and said, this is ridiculous. Who would show up for work and do all that work for free? They help take care of us on these airlines, and some of us here in the room use Air Canada and other airlines—and other airlines are going to be dealing with the same thing. I think Canadians understand that when things are hard and people are trying to make ends meet, these workers are included and deserve a fair collective deal and to be paid for the work they do. I would put the onus on the employer to come to the table to negotiate fairly.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Desrochers.

Mrs. Gill, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all of the witnesses for being here with us today.

Today is clearly providing a good example of the different sides of the debate, which makes for a really interesting discussion.

Ladies and gentlemen, as elected officials, we are playing devil's advocate somewhat when we ask you questions, because we understand the importance of free bargaining rights on the one hand, but also the importance of supply chain reliability, competition and productivity on the other. This puts us in an uncomfortable position at times, but I believe that difficult discussions are the most fruitful.

That said, you mentioned a topic covered by our study that we haven't discussed much so far, namely the definition of the term “work”. It would be interesting to hear each of your thoughts on this subject.

Mr. Neufeld has already spoken about this definition in the context of flight attendants, but I am addressing all of the witnesses.

Can you tell us, in general terms, your thoughts on such a definition and the fact that it is not included in part III of the Canada Labour Code?

Let's proceed from left to right, starting with Mr. Neufeld, followed by Mr. Chan, Mr. Safayeni, Mr. Pigott and Mr. Leblanc.