Human Resources Committee on Dec. 9th, 2025

[The Chair (Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Committee members, good morning.

Hello, everyone.

We do have a quorum, so I will open meeting number 20 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Pursuant to the motion adopted on September 18, 2025, the committee is meeting on the definition of “work” and the use of section 107 in the Canada Labour Code.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House. Members are appearing in the room as well as virtually.

Before we begin, I want to review a few rules.

You have the option to participate in the official language of your choice. For those in the room, I would ask that you familiarize yourself with the earpiece and select the channel that will give you the interpretation you wish to participate in. If you're appearing virtually, click on the globe icon at the bottom of your screen and choose the official language of your choice. If there is an issue with the interpretation, please get my attention and we will suspend while it is being corrected.

Please silence your devices and refrain from tapping the boom, as it can cause health issues for the interpreters. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking.

In the first hour today, we have appearing, from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Pascal Chan, vice-president—

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

Excuse me, Mr. Chair.

I had my hand raised. I was waiting for you to recognize me.

I would simply like to table a notice of motion.

May I read it? I can also distribute it to my colleagues in both official languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madame Gill, it should come in both official languages.

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

Yes, it's in both official languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I will allow you to proceed, Madame Gill.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be quick.

The notice of motion is as follows:

That the committee invite the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW), the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), the longshoremen's unions (CUPE) of the ports of Quebec City and Montreal and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) - Transportation District Lodge 140 - to testify on the study on the definition of “work” and the use of section 107 in the Canada Labour Code; that the committee hold at least one additional meeting for this purpose.

This should have been implicit in the wording of the basic motion, but since witnesses will not be called, I wanted to clarify this with a notice of motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Gill.

This is just putting it on notice. Is that correct?

Yes? Okay.

Thank you. We will continue.

From the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, we have Pascal Chan, vice-president, strategic policy and supply chains. From Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications, we have Daniel Safayeni, president and chief executive officer; and Christopher Pigott, partner, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP. From the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, we have David-Alexandre Leblanc, assistant director, negotiations section, Public Service Alliance of Canada.

Each of you will have five minutes to give your opening statement, and then we'll go to questions.

We'll begin with Mr. Chan for five minutes.

Mr. Chan, you have the floor.

[Pascal Chan, Vice President, Strategic Policy and Supply Chains, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Pascal Chan. I'm the vice-president of strategic policy and supply chains at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which is Canada's largest and most activated business network, representing over 400 chambers of commerce and boards of trade across the country, as well as 200,000 businesses of all sizes in all sectors and all areas of the country, working to create the conditions for our collective success.

I’d like to start by thanking the members of the committee for taking on this important study and for inviting me to appear today.

At the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, we spend a considerable amount of time talking about economic growth, productivity and Canada’s competitiveness in the global economy.

That begins with who we are, and we are a trading nation. According to the World Bank, trade accounts for two-thirds of Canada’s GDP, and so reliable supply chains are non-negotiable.

With that said, the list of challenges that impact our supply chains yet sitting outside our control continues to grow: the COVID-19 pandemic, extreme weather events such as wildfires and floods, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, attacks on merchant vessels in the Red Sea, and a historic drought in the Panama Canal. The next obstacle is surely just around the corner.

Here at home you'd be forgiven for thinking we must be doing everything in our power to protect our ability to trade, but you'd be mistaken. Our business data lab's analysis of Employment and Social Development Canada data revealed that in 2023, we lost the most working days to labour disruption since 1986.

Last year, the Canadian rail network ground to a halt, and then later, our largest east and west coast ports shut down simultaneously. Looking back a couple of years, you can add in Vancouver grain terminals, the St. Lawrence Seaway, two major airlines and the B.C. ports, again, along with an overwhelming strike mandate for Canadian border services agents.

When it's all said and done, it really feels like we've outright progressed to flaunting how little we care about ensuring businesses can keep the lights on and cut the paycheques that Canadian workers use to provide for their families. This hasn't gone unnoticed. Canadians are concerned.

A recent survey conducted by Nanos Research revealed that Canadians are 11 times more likely to say that the federal government is doing too little when it comes to ensuring labour stability and the reliability of our nation's critical supply chain, while the majority of respondents are also concerned about the impact of labour disputes on the affordability and availability of goods.

Additionally, Statistics Canada's Canadian survey on business conditions revealed that in Q2, exporters, usually among the most optimistic businesses, were trailing other firms, with that advantage completely eroded. The drop reflects supply chain disruptions, tariff anxieties, higher costs and softening demand.

The Bank of Canada has raised the pressing need to increase productivity, noting in its assessment that our nation has trade agreements granting us better access to global markets than any country in the world. Along with that access comes opportunity, and the world increasingly needs what Canada can provide. We have the resources to meet the world's demand for food and energy security, but we risk squandering that opportunity if we don't act with urgency.

Looking at where we are today, free flowing trade with the United States is no longer a given. The Prime Minister has stated his objective of doubling Canada's non-U.S. exports—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The translation stopped.

[Pascal Chan]

Am I speaking too quickly? No? All right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Please continue, Mr. Chan.

[Pascal Chan]

Looking at where we are today, free flowing trade with the United States is no longer a given. The Prime Minister has stated his objective of doubling Canada's non-U.S. exports over the next decade.

While speeding up our ability to build trade-enabling infrastructure projects is critical, so is convincing our international trading partners that we can, quite literally, deliver the goods.

Trade is built on trust; if Canadian companies cannot get their goods to market, we risk losing those markets while compromising efforts to diversify our trading relationships.

The government should amend the Canada Labour Code to provide new dispute resolution tools for all federally regulated trade infrastructure, as well as establishing the authority for the federal cabinet to act when collective bargaining fails.

Thank you again for having me here today and for your efforts to build a prosperous nation for all Canadians.

I look forward to answering your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Chan.

Mr. Safayeni or Mr. Pigott, who's giving the opening statement?

[Daniel Safayeni, President and Chief Executive Officer, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications]

We're sharing the time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Proceed. You have five minutes.

[Daniel Safayeni]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Daniel Safayeni. I'm the president and CEO of FETCO, which is Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications. I'm joined by Christopher Pigott, partner at Fasken and counsel to FETCO. He'll speak shortly to the legal dimensions of the right to strike and the usage of section 107.

I want to thank you all for inviting us here to contribute to your study.

By way of background, FETCO represents private sector employers in Canada's federally regulated sectors: major railways, ports, courier and logistics firms, the banking and the finance sectors and airlines, all of which fall under the Canada Labour Code. Collectively, these sectors represent over $543 billion annually. That's roughly 16.5% of GDP. They employ more than 2.1 million Canadians. That's 12% of the national workforce, with wages that are on average 45% higher than the national average. Simply put, these are some of the best jobs in the country.

These employers are the kinetic pillars of Canada's economy, moving our goods, people, capital, energy and information. Together they form the backbone of our domestic and international supply chains. In short, every other sector of the economy depends on their reliability. In today's unsettled geopolitical and trade environment, stability and reliability are prerequisites for investment. Labour uncertainty threatens not only domestic operations but Canada's credibility as a trusted economic partner.

The federal government has set out an ambitious nation-building agenda and economic reform plan, one that depends heavily on federally regulated sectors, yet these sectors remain very constrained by a collective bargaining framework that simply hasn't kept pace with the times. Reforms have been largely reactive, piecemeal and politically driven, resulting in rigidity, operational inefficiencies and higher costs that ultimately dampen job creation and investment. That's why we very much appreciate the committee's attention to these issues.

I want to begin with a few high-level points.

First, employers believe in collective bargaining and the right to strike as fundamental and foundational aspects of a healthy labour system. We believe the best and most durable agreements are the ones freely negotiated by the parties at the negotiating table.

Second, arbitration is a last resort, not a strategy or a preferred outcome. Employers are not looking for government to rescue negotiations or to run out the clock to force intervention. Employers want agreements reached through good-faith bargaining. Nobody wants a third party who may not understand the business or the workplace environment coming in and penning their collective bargaining agreement.

Third, when nationally critical sectors are at stake, the framework needs a credible backstop that protects the broader public interest. Most federally regulated disputes, as this committee has heard, are resolved without a work stoppage. The challenge is that a small number arise in sectors where disruption can cascade across supply chains and impose costs on other workers, businesses and communities. In those rare but high-impact circumstances, government needs a modern, balanced framework that keeps parties bargaining, respects the right to strike and protects the economy when national supply chains and critical systems are at risk.

With that, I will turn things over to my colleague Chris, who will elaborate on the right to strike and the usage of section 107 of the code.

[Christopher Pigott, Partner, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications]

Thank you.

As it stands, the Supreme Court of Canada's case law is absolutely clear that the right to strike is not absolute. In fact, Canadian courts have held repeatedly that government-imposed restrictions on strike activity can be constitutional where the parties have reached an impasse and further negotiations would be futile and, second, where the right to strike is replaced with a fair and balanced interest arbitration process. The bottom line is that the charter allows the Canadian government to intervene in collective bargaining disputes to end negotiation impasses and the damaging impacts of work stoppages.

Recently, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has issued several decisions that confirm these principles. In a case called OPSEU, the court found the back-to-work measures that ended a lawful strike would not violate the freedom of association if collective bargaining between the parties had stalled and there was no hope of reaching a negotiated collective agreement.

In a different case from 2024 involving the 2018 work stoppage at Canada Post, the Ontario court found that back-to-work legislation was a reasonable limit on charter rights because it established a fair and balanced interest arbitration process to resolve the bargaining dispute.

These findings are consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour decision, where the Supreme Court said that, while a total, permanent ban on strike activity might violate freedom of association, such a ban could be saved as a reasonable limit where the right to strike is replaced by a meaningful dispute resolution mechanism.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Pigott.

I believe I may have missed David Neufeld, national president, Union of Safety and Justice Employees.

You have my apologies, Mr. Neufeld. Are you making a statement on behalf of them?

[David Neufeld, National President, Union of Safety and Justice Employees]

I am, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Good.

You have the floor for five minutes, Mr. Neufeld.

[David Neufeld]

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and committee members.

My name is David Neufeld, and I'm the national president for the Union of Safety and Justice Employees. I'm pleased to be here as part of your study on the definition of “work” and the use of section 107 in the Canada Labour Code. I'm joined today by David-Alexandre Leblanc, assistant director, negotiations and research branch of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

USJE is one of several component unions of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. PSAC represents nearly 240,000 workers who live and work in every province and territory in Canada. USJE represents over 19,000 members in 18 federal departments across the country, and USJE members also belong to the PSAC, which acts as our members' bargaining agent.

USJE falls under the mandate of the departments of public safety and justice. USJE's two largest departments are the Correctional Service of Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. USJE members belong to a diverse variety of occupational groups within the federal public service. This includes administrative services, general labour and trades, hospital services, data processing and the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders in the federal correctional system. They also form the operational backbone of the RCMP.

I would like to start by saying that only certain sections of the Canada Labour Code apply to the work of USJE members; therefore, we would not not be affected by a section 107 order. However, this issue does have broader implications for the 173 bargaining units and nearly 13,000 members represented by PSAC who are covered by the Canada Labour Code, as well as for the collective bargaining rights of workers across the country.

Let's be clear: No one takes the decision to go on strike lightly. Workers are fully aware of the implications of withholding their labour and the very real impact it will have on their livelihoods, their families and their communities. Strikes are seen as a last resort and are only taken after union members come to the decision that no further progress can be made at the bargaining table. A strike is considered to be the most powerful lever available to workers to maintain a balance of power with their employer, and it is vitally important that this constitutionally recognized right be respected.

That's why the sudden increase in the use of section 107 is concerning. Although section 107 has been in existence since 1984, it was rarely used. However, in just the past two years, the federal government has used section 107 eight times, often forcing workers off picket lines days or even hours after the work stoppage began. This alarming trend undermines workers' constitutional right to strike and is raising real concern that employers in federally regulated sectors will not meaningfully engage in the bargaining process, knowing the federal government will intervene to end a work stoppage.

In fact, we are seeing employers proactively request the federal government to use its powers under section 107 even before workers have gone out on strike. We believe that the federal government has recently been implementing its powers under section 107 in a way that is placing unreasonable and potentially unconstitutional restrictions on the rights of workers to strike and is no longer fit for its purpose.

It is time for section 107 to be abolished from the Canada Labour Code. Along with the PSAC, we are calling for the government to either bring its own legislation or support existing legislation that removes section 107 from the Canada Labour Code. The NDP has already put forward legislation to scrap section 107 in the form of Bill C-247. If the government truly believes that the best deals are made at the bargaining table, and we hear that all the time, then they need to let bargaining happen without interfering in the process. They can show their commitment to protecting the constitutional rights of workers by repealing section 107.

Employers need to be sent a message. The government is not here to bail them out of difficult negotiations.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Neufeld.

We will now begin with our first round of questions with Mr. Reynolds for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming today. I appreciate your time, especially your being here in person. It adds a lot to committee

My first question is for Mr. Neufeld.

The very foundation of the relationship between the employer and its unionized workforce is based on the ability to collectively bargain in good faith. I think that's a key point to make.

Do you think the government's use of section 107 undermines that relationship?

[David Neufeld]

Yes. As I mentioned in my opening comments, I believe it's important to be bargaining in good faith. Yes, section 107 grants the minister sweeping and discretionary powers to allegedly “maintain or secure industrial peace”, including directing the Canadian Industrial Relations Board “to do such things as the Minister deems necessary.” When invoked, pre-emptively or early in a work stoppage, it suddenly changes the rules of the game. It interrupts the economic leverage workers lawfully exercise to move an employer towards a negotiated settlement, thereby undercutting the bargaining dynamic that good-faith negotiations rely on.

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

The government has a tendency to rely on section 107 to force unionized employees back to work and the respective unions to binding arbitration, which prevents strike action.

Do you think this process is shifting contract negotiations in favour of the employer?