Human Resources Committee on Dec. 9th, 2025

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

The foundation of the relationship is the collective bargaining process. Do you think that the use of section 107 is undermining that relationship?

[Wesley Lesosky]

Yes, 100%, because I believe both sides should go to the table to bargain what they can, freely and fairly. However, if one side has leverage over something that they assume will be imposed, there's no incentive for them, necessarily, to come to the table at 100% at the onset. Therefore, yes, I believe that.

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

Do you think that the repeated or looming use of section 107 is reducing workers' leverage at the table?

[Wesley Lesosky]

Yes, I do believe that, because there's always going to be that threat in the federal sector that it will come down, so you're always going to have to try to attract the best proposals at the onset, watering them down to try to get the employer to agree to something, which may not be something that's going to fit the needs of the membership. For a union we have to worry about.... It's not a worry, but we have to focus in on getting something to ratify, something in which our members get a voice, a say, so that they're happy to go back and so that labour peace is there for the term of that collective agreement—that's the point.

Section 107 throws that all out. It doesn't allow labour peace and stability, and it just has a disgruntled workforce coming back until the next time you go into bargaining, which both sides are anxious about when coming back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Reynolds. Your time has concluded.

We now go to Madam Koutrakis.

You have five minutes.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I just want to clarify for my good friend, my colleague Mr. Seeback—who, I know, is a lawyer—that, when I use the term “allegations”, I'm pretending to be a lawyer, because I think that, when I come back in my next life, I'd like to be a lawyer. Therefore, because we know that there's a probe currently and that probe has not come forward with its results, I'm using “allegations”, trying to sound like a lawyer. I don't mean any disrespect, whatsoever, to any worker in Canada. I'm completely behind my words when I say that every Canadian who works should be paid, so I meant no disrespect, whatsoever, when I used the term “allegations”.

My question is for Mr. Antunes. In your testimony, you said that, “Canada is a large, diversified economy”. You also said something that struck me when you said that a dominant firm in labour disruption is no longer an issue between that firm and its employees, as it has larger economical impact. I know I'm paraphrasing, but I believe that is what you meant in your testimony.

I know that you've analyzed how uncertainty affects investment decisions. From an economic and investor perspective, can you elaborate on what potential investors seek when they are thinking of entering the Canadian market?

[Pedro Antunes]

That's a very broad question.

Obviously, there are many challenges that Canada has faced. This is something that is a national concern, not just a concern at our organization. We've heard this from many economists. Canada is a laggard with respect to its private investment as a share of GDP. Private investment is what drives our future productive capacity, but we're a laggard compared with the U.S., France, Germany and many other countries in the OECD. I think the challenge is manyfold but one I'm hoping we'll address with the review process and by having certainty around that.

We've had many examples in the past that don't showcase us well. We can talk about TMX, for example, when the government had to buy the pipeline and there were cost overruns. Even with the government trying to get that pipeline built, it was a long process. This does not showcase well. The rail strikes were all over the news in the U.S. and Canada. Firms on both sides of the border were looking at options to avoid being stuck with a product at the border, as you may recall. This was very damaging on a much broader scale. How we showcase to the rest of the world and how effective our ability is to get projects done in this country.... Our dependence on transportation networks, especially, is hugely important in terms of attracting investment in this country.

Now, having said that, there are other issues. We can talk about taxes. We can talk about the challenges we're facing right now with the trade war with the U.S. However, these are important issues as well.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

I believe that. You very rightly mentioned the challenges we are currently having with free trade and our good friend to the south. This is why our government said that it would like to double our exports with new partnerships. This is why we're working so hard. All Canadians can see how hard this government is working to make sure we get to a place where we achieve that result.

Do you believe that the government has a place during labour disruptions and that, as a last resort, section 107 offers the government a tool to protect our economy? Do you think that without section 107 being available as a tool, the government can achieve the result of doubling our exports to new partners?

[Pedro Antunes]

Obviously, there are some moral hazard issues that have been discussed from a union perspective and from a bargaining perspective. When a firm has so much market power, especially in transportation, as we just mentioned, it goes beyond just that firm and its employees. It affects the rest of the economy. In those cases, we need to be aware of the potential economic impacts. We have reports from Statistics Canada. When these talk about the accounts, they mention specific strike actions and how they have affected our GDP, income and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Antunes. We are over time.

Mrs. Gill, you have the floor for two minutes and 30 seconds.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Gesualdi‑Fecteau, I'll come back to you.

It seems to me that there must be a consensus among experts on the definition of work that we could draw on. I am referring to experts because you were a member of a committee. These could also be national or international experts, that is, a core group.

For example, you mentioned Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec. You also mentioned on-call time in France.

Is there a consensus on the definition of work? Do you know if any countries or states have backtracked on the definition and decided to remove it at some point?

I know that the idea of defining work is fairly new, even though it could have been done 100 years ago.

In short, I am listening. However, if you do not have enough time to respond, I would invite you to send more information in writing to the committee.

[Prof. Dalia Gesualdi-Fecteau]

Once again, even though it is a subject in itself, I am not sure that the definition of the word “work” should be addressed here, or rather the question of what constitutes working time, what it means to be “deemed to be at work”.

For the sake of this discussion, let me give three Canadian examples.

Legislation in Manitoba, Quebec and Saskatchewan include a definition of an employee deemed to be “at work”. The definitions are part of these three statutes. Thus, when a person is expected to be at the workplace and is waiting to be assigned work, the person is considered to be at work and must be remunerated. This is essentially what the law provides for in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec. I would like to point out that, in terms of their legislative framework, these three provinces are quite different in terms of the scope of protections, but they have made these three choices.

France has implemented legislation on the concept of “on-call time”, which goes even further. For example, when an individual is at home and must wait for the employer to potentially assign them work, they must be compensated, perhaps not by paying them their full salary, but by granting them compensation for this on-call period. There are therefore different solutions for how to compensate individuals during on-call periods, but this must be considered as being at work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Does that answer your question, Mrs. Gill?

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

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We will conclude with two and a half minutes to the official opposition and two and a half minutes to the government.

Mr. Seeback, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Wes, the Liberals just sort of used a phrase about using section 107 as a “last resort”. Do you feel that it was used as a last resort to order you back to work, or do you think it was sort of pre-emptive, as in it happened almost immediately?

[Wesley Lesosky]

It happened almost immediately, for sure. I don't think it was used as a last resort.

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

When it's used eight times in 14 months and hasn't been used eight times in almost the previous 50 years it existed, do you think it's being used as a last resort?

[Wesley Lesosky]

Absolutely not. No.

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

Mr. Antunes, you talked about scarcity with respect to the transportation network in Canada. Were you aware that it was the current Liberal government that extended the CN contract to align with the CPKC contract so that they expired at the exact same time?

If you talk about scarcity of resources, would you agree with me that it was a terrible mistake to have both contracts expire at the same time so that no rail would move across the country at all in the case of a strike, as opposed to them expiring at different times and one of them, therefore, being able to operate when the other was on strike?

[Pedro Antunes]

It was a terribly impactful situation on the economy, for sure. I'm not familiar with how the contracts were initially set. Certainly, the fact that both rail lines—again, 90% of our rail service—were going down at the same time was extremely concerning.

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

Just to be clear, that decision was made by the current government. They decided to extend the CN contract. They expired at different times so that you could have different collective bargaining processes take place. In fact, they extended the CN contract so that it expired the exact same day as CPKC, so that no rail would move.

Is it better to have half your rail system up and running in the event of a strike or none of it up and running in the event of a strike?

[Pedro Antunes]

Obviously, it's much better to have at least half up and running. I would say that even half our rail industry being down is still very problematic.

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

Those are my questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Seeback.

Mr. Joseph, you have two minutes and 30 seconds.