Human Resources Committee on Dec. 9th, 2025

[Prof. Dalia Gesualdi-Fecteau]

Thank you for your question.

First, I think that all labour lawyers will tell you that clear definitions create more certainty and less litigation. I would like to emphasize that. The risk is that insufficiently clear definitions will lead to litigation in labour relations and result in what we have seen in recent labour disputes, particularly at Air Canada, namely, strained labour relations during collective bargaining.

In my view, this is not a matter of defining some outlandish labour law concept. The definition of what is considered working time is a concept that has been known and recognized for 100 years, both in international labour law and in labour legislation. In my opinion, inserting a definition into the Canada Labour Code would provide greater certainty.

I refer you to recommendations 16 and the following in the 2019 report issued by the expert committee. In my opinion, they are very clear. These recommendations were made in a context where we had to decide on the right to disconnect, which is something else entirely. Our work, consultations, analyses and reviews of labour relations complaints led us to conclude that the problem was not one of the right to disconnect, but rather one of defining what is considered working time. The lack of a legal definition was causing problems. I would like to emphasize that.

Committee members, I propose that we return to these recommendations, which were discussed at the time with Minister Tassi and which, to date, have not yet been followed up on, unlike other recommendations, such as the establishment of a federal minimum wage, which have been followed up on and adopted in recent years.

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

In fact, recommendations were adopted by this committee and have been implemented.

My next question has two parts.

Why is this change perhaps more difficult to implement than others? What are the arguments or reservations that make them contradictory and prevent us from establishing a definition?

[Prof. Dalia Gesualdi-Fecteau]

I think this question should be put to the people who make public policy.

From my point of view, it's very simple. First of all, we need to establish that when a person is at the workplace, at the employer's disposal, it should be considered work and be remunerated. This is the basis of what we even consider to be work, because we are subject to the employer's authority. It is a fundamental rule of labour law that should be clarified in part III, in my humble opinion.

Then there is the whole issue of a person being at the employer's disposal, but perhaps not at the workplace, where the debate is more polarized.

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

Thank you.

That means we are ready to establish a definition in part III of the Labour Code.

You mentioned something else. In closing, I am thinking about the date on which the study was completed. I believe you said it was in 2019.

We know that changes have been made to labour standards in recent years. One example is the whole area of virtual work. You just touched on this issue. I hope it will be taken into account, because it can pose other difficulties for other categories of workers, particularly with regard to working from home or working in a space other than the employer's premises.

[Prof. Dalia Gesualdi-Fecteau]

I will respond very briefly.

Without meaning to sound too self-congratulatory, I reviewed that section of the report before coming here today. I can tell you that it still holds up very well. We almost foresaw the changes brought about by digital transformation. In my opinion, some of the recommendations in that report will be just as relevant in 2025 as they were in 2019.

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

Thank you very much.

I have one last question to ask you, just to clarify something.

You said that this committee was made up of people from both the employer and employee sides. So, there was a compromise.

I think you understand what I am getting at. I will let you speak.

[Prof. Dalia Gesualdi-Fecteau]

Indeed, this committee was represented by workers' groups, employers' groups and academics. In total, there were six experts on the committee.

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

Thank you very much, Ms. Gesualdi‑Fecteau.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Gill.

We'll now go to Mr. Reynolds for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming today. My question is for Mr. Lesosky.

A lot of witnesses who have been here stated that they support collective bargaining and that the best deals are always done at the table.

I want to talk about bargaining in good faith. There are some organizations questioning the collective bargaining process with regard to Air Canada flight attendants. I'm wondering when the Air Canada flight attendants' collective agreement expired.

[Wesley Lesosky]

It was on March 31, 2025.

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

That's quite a bit of time before a strike was actually proposed.

Did CUPE have any issues getting Air Canada to sit down at the bargaining table?

[Wesley Lesosky]

No, we started bargaining—

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

I meant after the expiration of the collective agreement.

[Wesley Lesosky]

Challenges.... No.

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

Did they come to the table regularly?

[Wesley Lesosky]

We planned dates, and they came to the table regularly.

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

How many negotiating committee meetings happened between the expiration date of the collective agreement and the notice to strike?

[Wesley Lesosky]

I don't have that in front of me. I apologize.

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

Okay.

Do you know if the bargaining units for Porter, WestJet and Flair are having any issues getting their respective employers to the table?

[Wesley Lesosky]

I can't comment on Porter. I don't believe Flair is in bargaining. The other airline, WestJet, I believe is actively bargaining now.

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

Okay.

Does the possibility of the section 107 order change how employers are negotiating?

[Wesley Lesosky]

From what I've seen, I believe it does, and I can base that solely on, again, our CEO making the statement that he did. I believe the crux of it was that they believed there would be an intervention at the end if the union moved forward with any type of work action, and that's what they played with. That's what I believe, based on what I saw.

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

During the collective bargaining process, do you feel that they are open to the issues that are being brought forward, or do you feel like maybe they're dismissing them with the understanding that, most likely, they'll just get legislated back to work or section 107 will be brought in and they'll be sent back to work?

[Wesley Lesosky]

I believe, based on what I saw, that they came to the table, but I don't believe that they came to the table, at the onset, to necessarily come to a collective agreement that could be ratified. Again, I base that on how it ended. There were issues that were discussed during bargaining. There were minor issues that were agreed to, I'll say, during bargaining, but the crux of the issue—the unpaid work, expenses, wages, anything with a financial cost of substance—I believe, was delayed until the end for this reason. That's, again, based on what the CEO stated.