Human Resources Committee on Dec. 9th, 2025

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

That's an opinion that's shared by every union that's come here today, so I don't think this is novel or new. I wonder if the Liberal members and the government will start saying those are allegations.

What I also wanted to talk about is the government's use of section 107 eight times in 14 months. It's an unprecedented use of this power.

Many unions that have come here have said that this actually takes away from the collective bargaining process, because the employer just says, “I'm just going to wait for Big Brother to jump in and order these workers back to work under the existing agreement.” They say that they don't really have to bargain that hard and that they'll pretend to bargain. What's your view of that?

[Wesley Lesosky]

Thank you for the question.

It's what I believe we witnessed at Air Canada when we saw our CEO publicly state that he assumed 107 would come in and we would not go on strike. That is incredibly problematic. To say something like that so vocally and so clearly shows what we believe was the intent from the onset. There was no strong, true interest in coming to a collective agreement and a ratified collective agreement.

Both sides discussed at the onset that this was obviously the goal: to come to a ratified collective agreement that both sides would be happy with and would move things forward, move labour relations forward and move the membership to a happy place with proper compensation and proper work rules.

When you saw that at the end, it was deteriorating for sure.

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

Madam Fecteau, you talked about work and the definition of “work”. It seems to me that somehow the Liberals think there's some dispute as to whether or not flight attendants were doing unpaid work. Do you have any opinion on that, or do you know the situation enough as to whether or not they were performing unpaid work?

[Prof. Dalia Gesualdi-Fecteau]

I think I can speak in general terms. When someone is at the workplace at the behest of the employer, the person is working and that should be considered as working time.

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

If you're not being paid for that time, you are therefore doing unpaid work.

[Prof. Dalia Gesualdi-Fecteau]

It's an issue, I believe, from a labour law perspective, and I think that has to be clarified in part III. It's going to help. It's going to level the playing field, even though solutions on the compensation schemes, when you're in a unionized workplace, will be reached at the bargaining table. Part III levels the playing field and provides a definition that is the same across sectors and across workplaces.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Seeback.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for their time and for preparing for the meeting.

First I'd like to start by saying that we do take very seriously the issues that were brought up around whether or not flight attendants are being paid or are unpaid for some hours worked. We do know the reality is not black and white. Since members across are trying to paint this as a black and white issue, this is why we ordered a probe into this, and we're looking forward to the result.

I also take offence with what the members are saying around the suggestion that the government has no incentives for these negotiations to go and that we're just waiting to step in. I think we have much more valuable things to do with the time and the funds than stepping in. We would like things to be resolved at the table; however, there is an issue with respect to the economic impacts of some of those strikes that does need to be considered.

I just want to talk for a minute to the representative from the Conference Board.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

That's Mr. Antunes.

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

Yes, it's Mr. Antunes. Thank you very much.

I want to talk a little bit about the impact. You talked about the rail industry. I was very surprised to hear from the member from Saskatchewan, particularly given the really serious damage that some of the rail strikes could have on the Saskatchewan grain and potash producers. A provincial official from Saskatchewan and the Prairies said they estimated that, if there was a multicompany stoppage from rail, it could have hundreds of millions of dollars a day in economic impact for Saskatchewan and the Prairies in respect of all of the crops that you talked about, potash and canola.

I wonder if you can talk a little bit more about those economic impacts that resonate all across Canada when our goods cannot move. They stay stuck somewhere. That is days and months of a farmer's work that just goes down the drain. Can you talk about that a little bit?

[Pedro Antunes]

Yes, of course.

In fact, the two big players, CN and CPKC, account for about 90% of rail traffic in Canada. Of course, rail traffic affects everything else in the transportation sector. The rail industry employs roughly 42,000 people. If you think about the transportation margins, they're fairly small, and that is the economic value that accrues to the rail industry itself.

What's much more widespread is the impact that it has in shutting down our trade. Rail lines carry about a billion dollars' worth of goods each day. This is, again, according to the Railway Association of Canada.

We looked at the economic implications of this back in 2024. The rail strike was in the summer, I believe in August of 2024. We assumed a two-week rail strike, and the implications of that on the economy were a $3-billion loss. I don't have that by region, but I do have it for the national economy. A $3-billion loss in GDP is certainly not immaterial, especially for something that lasts just two weeks.

Just to give you a sense of the outsized impact outside the rail industry itself, it's about 10:1. It other words, one dollar of GDP loss in the rail industry would lead to 10 times or a tenfold loss in the rest of the economy.

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

Thank you, Mr. Antunes.

I do find it funny that the members across are laughing as we were talking about a $3-billion loss in a span of two weeks.

Madam—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The point of order is that I was laughing at the fact that the Liberals extended—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

That's not a point of order, Mr. Seeback.

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

—the contracts of the rail companies so they expired at the same time, which caused maximum—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mr. Seeback, you are out of order.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

What's your point of order? Clearly state it. What's your point of order?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

The member opposite accused us of doing something that is untrue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

That's not the first time that would happen in the committee, Ms. Goodridge.

We'll go back to Madame Desrochers.

You have the floor.

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

Ms. Gesualdi-Fecteau, thank you very much for your testimony today.

I really appreciate the work you are doing on the definition of work.

You said you wanted to come back to the issue of the fragmented approach. I will give you a minute to talk about that.

[Prof. Dalia Gesualdi-Fecteau]

Thank you.

I just want to point out that when we conducted consultations in 2019, we met with many representatives, employers, unions and workers. At the time, the lack of a definition of “work” or even of this concept in the Canada Labour Code was unanimously recognized as a problem. What we were told is reported in a section of the report. It created uncertainty and problems of disparity between sectors and between workplaces. I emphasize this because, at the time, there was unanimous agreement among both employer and worker representatives.

I would like to point out to the members of the committee that Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec have resolved this issue by incorporating into their labour laws and minimum labour standards that when a person is at the workplace and available to perform work, they must be paid. That is work and that is working time. Three very different Canadian provinces have done this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Desrochers.

Mrs. Gill, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all of the witnesses for contributing to our study.

Ms. Gesualdi‑Fecteau, as you said at the outset, we have not studied the issue of the definition of work in part III of the Canada Labour Code in any great depth. You mentioned being part of an expert committee. What recommendations did the members agree on? I know there is probably a lot to say, so you can send us the recommendations in writing so that we can include them in our report.

Also, what difficulties arose? A lawyer mentioned several concerns about the definition and the fact that it would probably create more difficulties if we defined the term “work”.