Human Resources Committee on Dec. 9th, 2025

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you very much.

Through you Chair, I'd like to thank all of the witnesses for being here in person. I agree with my colleagues today that it is nice having everybody in person, as it creates a more relational type of atmosphere.

Let's pick up on what my colleague was trying to do with her line of questioning, but I want to rephrase it in terms of our government's investment in expansion.

My first question would be for Mr. Chan.

In regard to the federal budget, including major investments in infrastructure and in trade corridors.... I'm from Atlantic Canada, so I'm a touchpoint within trade nationally, regionally and internationally. Do you think that clarity in the labour definition would improve certainty for employers considering investments in Atlantic regions?

[Pascal Chan]

I'll say this. I think that greater clarity or greater predictability instilled in our tendency to see all of these labour disruptions and a more predictable and favourable environment for attracting foreign investment is a large determinant in that. Therefore, addressing a lot of these issues, as well as increasing our capacity to trade with other countries by expanding major infrastructure, will all factor into the equation as to whether we're going to improve our reputation internationally and be able to take advantage of those elements to diversify our trade.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

That's wonderful. Thank you so much. I wanted to give you time to say what you wanted to in response to my other colleague.

My next question is for Mr. Pigott. Thank you very much for being here today.

In the beginning, you talked about a couple of case studies and things that had already been done, or precedents.

Are there precedents? You mentioned one—I believe it was OPSEU—and another from a case in 2024. I'm wondering if you could expand on those and show how unclear definitions have led to disputes or financial penalties that could deter investment in smaller, rural markets. I say, “smaller, rural markets” because I'm from a rural riding in Nova Scotia.

[Christopher Pigott]

Thank you for the question.

Perhaps the best example that would speak to your question is the 2024 decision I mentioned in which the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that the back-to-work legislation that ended the 2018 Canada Post labour dispute was a reasonable limit on charter rights. In that dispute, an ongoing period of rotating strikes had basically shut down Canada Post. Canada Post is not as important as it used to be, but what the courts have found in this regard is that it's still vital to rural, remote and northern communities.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you very much for that.

It's something to recognize, as well, that 97% of disputes are completed without any type of government stepping in.

I think balanced reform is what we're trying to get out of this study, so if Parliament considers reform, how do you think statutory language both enables employers to meet these labour market needs and protects workers from a misclassification, unpaid overtime or an erosion of rights?

[Christopher Pigott]

If part III of the code is going to be examined and amended, it needs to be done in a comprehensive way that avoids the piecemeal, one-off changes to specific terms that create unpredictability for employers and impact employers differently depending on which industry they are in.

Any reform to the definitions in part III of the code calls for a comprehensive review that has both employer representatives and worker representatives at the table to figure out what's working and what's not. Through that review, hopefully, any definitions, whether related to work or any other minimum standards that are unclear or not doing the job they need to do in the 21st-century economy, could be reviewed and jointly agreed-upon changes could be made.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Wonderful.

I have a minute or so left and I have one last question for you. Thank you very much, Mr. Pigott.

From a legal perspective, what do you feel are some of the most significant risks that our ambiguous definitions of “work”—which is what we're trying to define here with this study—pose, particularly for small or mid-sized employers operating in rural regions?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Please give a short answer.

[Christopher Pigott]

The biggest challenge is that if the legislation doesn't provide clarity on the term, either the workplace parties or, ultimately, arbitrators or the courts need to try to figure out what to do. That uncertainty just continues down the pipeline and impacts businesses on the ground as they're trying to operate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Fancy.

That concludes the first round. I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing today and providing testimony on this particular study.

With that, we'll suspend for five minutes while we transition to the next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Committee members, I welcome you back to the second hour of meeting number 20 of the HUMA committee.

We have the following witnesses appearing.

In the room, we have Professor Gesualdi-Fecteau, a professor at the Université de Montréal, appearing as an individual. Appearing online, we have Wesley Lesosky, president, airline division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. From the Conference Board of Canada, appearing virtually, we have Pedro Antunes, chief economist.

Before I begin, you have the option to choose to participate in the official language of your choice. Please make yourself familiar with the channel that gives you that interpretation. As well, if there's an interruption in translation services, please get my attention and we'll suspend while it is being corrected.

Also, please wait until I recognize you by name to speak.

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

Mr. Chair, the interpreter informs me that there are currently difficulties with the interpretation and that we can suspend the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Is there a problem with interpretation?

Okay. We'll continue and see if they're okay.

I'm getting a thumbs-up.

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

I can hear the interpretation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Each witness will have five minutes to give an opening statement.

We'll begin with Professor Fecteau for five minutes.

Professor, you have the floor.

[Professor Dalia Gesualdi-Fecteau, Full professor, University of Montreal, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Most of the testimonies that were presented before this committee have focused on section 107 of the Canada Labour Code and its disruptive impact on labour relations. Today I'm going to focus more on something else, on another key element of the committee's study, which is the definition of “work”.

In several recent labour disputes in the federally regulated private sector, the central issue has been working time. What I'm going to argue today is that the very definition of “work” needs to be understood as the definition of what working time is.

How do we reduce the likelihood of such disputes, while ensuring a level playing field across sectors and workplaces? I believe it is essential to consider regulatory changes to part III of the Canada Labour Code to clarify what is deemed to be “work”.

We've seen this in the railway sector. We've seen this at Air Canada. A significant amount of work is not compensated for at Air Canada, and flight attendants have been asking to be compensated for ground time. I believe that if a solution can and should be found at the bargaining table, we have to think of how provisions in part III of the Canada Labour Code can be a segue to avoid such situations.

By way of a reminder, labour standards play a critical role in ensuring a basic floor of rights, and part III of the Canada Labour Code sets out minimum labour standards in workplaces in the federally regulated private sector.

Again, as a reminder, part III of the code was enacted in 1965. It was not substantially updated until a comprehensive review was conducted in 2017, which led to a series of amendments. Some issues were unresolved, and in 2019, the government established the independent expert panel on modern federal labour standards to study, consult and provide advice on five complex issues related to the changing world of work.

With six other experts, I had the pleasure to serve on the expert panel. In the course of our work, we conducted extensive research and consulted over 140 organizations and individuals across Canada. The report was released in December 2019. One of the key issues—and I'm insisting here—that the panel tackled was the key function of statutory labour standards to set a boundary between what is work and not work, and to redefine what is working time, what is work, and what should be compensated as work.

Part III of the code, as it stands today—even after the report was released in December 2019—does not provide a statutory protection for employees who are required to remain available for potential demands for work from their employer.

According to the labour program's labour standards interpretations, policies and guidelines—standby time is not considered as being work. An employee who is not required to perform any duties, while obliged to remain available, is not entitled to compensation. In the questions, I can go back to what we heard in our consultations on that.

One of the key recommendations of the expert panel, recommendation 16, was to include in part III of the Canada Labour Code a definition of what is “deemed work”. It says:

Determining the circumstances under which employees are deemed to be at work, regardless of worksite(s), enables employees to be compensated for all time spent at the behest of the employer.

Further on, it says:

The definition should be based on the principle that work includes the time when an employee is effectively at the behest of the employer at or outside the workplace or worksite(s). Employees should be deemed at work “when providing services required or permitted by the employer”.

We often refer to this as “standby”. In the airline we'll refer to this as “ground time”—periods that are not currently addressed in part III except when the employee is effectively called. At that point, if he's called to work and has to be at the workplace, then he'll be paid for three hours, but standby periods, where the person is in the middle of two moments where they were effectively working, is not compensated for.

I could go back to this, but in other provinces in Canada, we have regulated this issue. There are other examples in Europe such as in France—l'astreinte, as we call it. This recommendation, we believe to be very clear and straightforward.

While some of the other expert panel's recommendations have been implemented—and I'm thinking here of minimum wage—the definition of what is “deemed work” remains outstanding.

I'm going to stop here. I would like to come back, in the period for questions, as colleagues from FETCO mentioned, to the piecemeal approach to modifying part III. I think it's an important point. We can get back to that afterwards.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Professor.

We'll now move to Mr. Lesosky, president of the airline division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

You have the floor for five minutes.

[Wesley Lesosky, President, Airline Division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)]

Excellent.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation, and you have my regrets that I could not appear in person.

My name is Wesley Lesosky. I have been a flight attendant for over 25 years, and I am proud to represent 10,500 flight attendants at Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge as president of the Air Canada component of CUPE. I am also the proud president of the airline division of CUPE, representing 20,000 flight attendants nationwide at 11 airlines, including WestJet, Air Transat, Porter, PAL, Flair and others.

The study before this committee today is one that goes to the very heart of fairness at work.

Across the airline industry, flight attendants perform hours of work every day without pay, from mandatory safety checks to boarding passengers to attending onboard emergencies and Transport Canada-mandated briefings, safety audits and pre-flight and post-flight checks. These are essential safety tasks directed by the employer and should, by any reasonable definition, be paid work. However, because the Canada Labour Code lacks a definition of “work”, airlines rely on a block-to-block system that pays us only from push-back to arrival. The result is duty days of 10 to 12 hours with pay for only five to eight of those hours.

When those unpaid hours are included, many fall below the federal minimum wage and often below the poverty line. Even full-time flight attendants often earn just $26,000 per year, which doesn't even cover rent in cities such as Toronto, Calgary, Montreal and Vancouver, where the majority of our members are based. We've spent years trying to fix this.

In 2023, we began lobbying the federal government through CUPE's “unpaid work won't fly” campaign. We held demonstrations across the country. We submitted a petition with 17,000 signatures to the House of Commons. In 2024, we met with MPs from all parties to talk about the abuse of unpaid work in our industry. Opposition parties introduced Bill C-409 and Bill C-415, which had broad support but died with the 2025 election.

For years, the federal government insisted that unpaid work should be resolved at the bargaining table. In good faith, we obliged that request. Throughout the spring and summer, we offered multiple proposals to Air Canada during bargaining: paying all hours at full rate, internal wage adjustments, duty-day compensation and flat-rate top-ups.

Air Canada rejected them all, often within minutes. Why? They saw no need to negotiate, because they expected federal intervention to bail them out. Air Canada CEO Michael Rousseau said so publicly.

Within hours of us going on a lawful strike, the government invoked section 107 and took away our only leverage, at Air Canada's request. Because of the courage of our members to remain on strike, and despite the best efforts of Air Canada and their enforcers in the federal government, we compelled our employer back to the bargaining table. We made partial progress on unpaid work in our new contract, but only after enormous disruption to the public and severe damage to labour relations.

This underlines the core problem. If committee members take away one thing, hopefully it is this: Workers should not have to negotiate for the right to be paid for their time at work. It should be the bare minimum.

Our union is participating in Minister Hajdu's industrial review on unpaid work, and we are eager to see its result. However, I want to be clear. Flight attendants in this country don’t need an inquiry into whether unpaid work is happening. We experience it every day when we report for work. We may as well have an inquiry as to whether the sky is blue. Let's also be clear that the issue is not isolated to Air Canada and it is not going away—just ask the flight attendants at WestJet, Porter, Pascan and PAL, who are negotiating new contracts right now.

When flight attendants are forced to work unpaid hours, it is an abuse of their time, their extensive training and their dignity. It's also a public safety issue, because underpaid, exhausted crews are not what any passenger wants in an emergency. Parliament has the power—and the responsibility—to fix this.

We're calling on Parliament to act immediately on the following three steps.

First, define “work” in part III of the Canada Labour Code. Make it clear that all hours at the employer's direction—before, during and after flights, including boarding, deplaning, delays and mandatory training—constitute paid work.

Second, require that all such hours be paid at the employee's regular rate of pay. No more “half rate” for ground duties and mandatory training, especially when those duties are safety critical.

Third, end the abuse of section 107 to unilaterally impose binding arbitration in disputes like ours. Every time section 107 is used, it erodes workers' constitutional right to strike and signals to employers that they can ignore fundamental issues in bargaining.

In 2025, no one in Canada should work for free. We urge the committee to recommend immediate amendments to the Canada Labour Code to end unpaid work and restore fairness to federal workplaces.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Lesosky.

We'll go to Mr. Antunes for five minutes.

[Pedro Antunes, Chief Economist, The Conference Board of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members, for the opportunity to testify.

I'm not a labour law specialist, and I have not conducted research directly on section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. My perspective comes instead from examining the economic impacts of major work disruptions, including rail and port stoppages. I would like to offer a few economic considerations that I think are relevant to the committee's study.

I think the problem stems from high market concentration for a lot of single operators in this country. It makes the economy vulnerable in that way to work stoppages. Canada is a large, diversified economy, but many key industries remain highly concentrated, with a small number of firms controlling large shares of national capacity. This includes sectors such as transportation—as we've been talking about—telecom, food processing and food retailing, and certain resource-based industries. High concentration in a single operator magnifies the economic impact of any major disruption. When a dominant firm faces a labour stoppage, the effects are no longer between the firm and its employees; the shock spreads across supply chains more broadly.

I'd like to offer that the problem is market power. Canada has a competitiveness problem. We've heard this very much recently around the productivity issues in Canada stemming from two things: the lack of investment—private investment—and a lack of competitiveness. It's a well-known issue in Canada. Where market power is concentrated, work stoppages can lead to immediate and disproportionate spillovers.

The other thing that I think is important is transportation. We've done some work specifically on some of the work stoppages that happened in 2024 around rail and ports, but transportation really deserves special attention. The transportation sector is not just another industry. It is the backbone of how the Canadian economy functions. It's roughly 30% of our GDP, and I will remind folks that GDP is our income earned from economic activity. Therefore, 30% of our income that accrues to workers and to firms is directly tied to exports. This means that a large share of our Canadian production must physically move across borders to reach markets. If we add interprovincial and inter-regional trade, the dependence becomes even greater. Most goods produced in Canada must travel long distances at least once to reach consumers, supply chains or international markets.

The other piece that's important—and this was very apparent during the rail strike in 2024—is the legacy impact on investment attractiveness. Again, I go back to our productivity problem, which is one of attracting private investment to this country. It doesn't showcase very well if we have, essentially, bottlenecks or problems with getting product to market. When labour stoppages disrupt transportation corridors, ports and rail networks, the effect is not just temporary delays; it tells global investors that critical Canadian infrastructure may not be reliable.

Again, in 2024, we saw a lot of movement pre-empting the rail strike to other ports, activity remaining south of the border instead of coming north, and this is a reputation risk that can undermine efforts to attract capital to resource projects, manufacturing, clean tech and others.

I'll stop there. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Antunes.

We'll now begin the first round of questioning with six minutes for Mr. Seeback.

You have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to first talk to Wes.

Wes, thanks so much for being here. Thank you for your opening statement. I was particularly moved by the “may as well have an inquiry as to whether the sky is blue”, the so-called inquiry on unpaid work.

The minister was here at committee, and I tried to press her on whether or not, in the five meetings you had with her before she invoked section 107 to order you back to work under the existing collective agreement, you advised her that your members were doing work unpaid. She refused to answer that, which I found curious.

Liberal members at this committee are using this line, and I want you to let me know what you think about this line. They use it in almost every question. It's “allegations” of unpaid work. What they're effectively doing is saying that you're only putting forward allegations of unpaid work, that it's not a fact; it's an allegation. What are your thoughts on that?

[Wesley Lesosky]

Thank you for the question.

I mean, it's not allegations when it happens, when it's been demonstrated and when it's proven. As we explained to Minister Hajdu when we met with her in September, complaints in unionized environments are not often received by the department of labour. They're received by an arbitrator through a grievance process. There are no complaints that directly come to her or her office. That would be something on which we're dealing with the employers.

It is strongly concerning when she states things such as they are “allegations” when, again, it's so well documented.

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

One of the things that has come up repeatedly from union members during this study is that the use of section 107 actually makes relationships between employers and unions worse. I've asked that question of the minister. I asked it of the Secretary of State for Labour. They refused to answer that question. They just tap danced around it and talked about various different things.

What's your position on that? When the government uses section 107 to order you back to work or orders you to continue to work under the existing collective agreement, does that make your relationship with the company better or worse?

[Wesley Lesosky]

Thank you for the question.

It makes the relationship with the employer worse. It deteriorates labour relations. It deteriorates trust of the employer within the membership. It puts everything on the side. After years of building up a relationship with Air Canada to the point where we were having weekly discussions.... Since the strike, we have not had discussions, other than contractually mandated ones such as union-management headquarters meetings.

It takes away everything, because you have a third party playing within this that is siding with one side. It erodes labour relations, and you have to restart that. For somebody in my position, who has been here for eight years, that's very problematic. It goes against the core of what a union and management committee should work towards and work in unison for going forward.

Obviously, we'll never see eye to eye on everything, but that's what collective agreement provisions, grievance provisions and stuff like that are for. Section 107 definitely erodes the working relationship amongst the two groups, in my opinion.