Human Resources Committee on Sept. 18th, 2025

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

Committee members, the committee resumes its meeting in public.

To begin, I will read into the record the motion that's currently on the floor, as it has been amended.

The motion reads:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the decision made by the committee on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, the Minister of Jobs and Families, the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, the Secretary of State for Seniors, the Secretary of State for Labour, and the Secretary of State for Children and Youth be invited to appear separately before the committee, each accompanied by their officials, for a minimum of one hour, to discuss their respective mandates and key priorities in their service to Canadians and that the committee direct the clerk to schedule these appearances before October 10, 2025, and if this is not possible, then at the earliest possible appearance.

That, the committee then undertake the following three studies on an urgent basis to ensure that the government has parliamentary advice on how to deal with employment and labour issues in Canada:

1. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development, and the Status of Persons with Disabilities undertake and prioritize an urgent study on employment in Canada, especially since youth employment has reached its lowest level in 25 years and young people continue to face barriers in accessing employment insurance, which increases their vulnerability. That the committee recommends solutions, provided that:

a. no fewer than seven meetings be dedicated to this study;

b. the Minister of Jobs and Families and the Secretary of State (Children and Youth) be invited to appear separately for two hours each, alongside their officials;

c. students, recent graduates, employers, labour market experts, and other witnesses at each party's discretion be invited to provide witness testimony;

d. the committee report their findings and recommendations to the House with a request for a government response pursuant to Standing Order 109; and

e. in the interim, the committee immediately report to the House that it is alarmed over the 25-year low youth employment data.

2. That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the impact of the lack of a definition of the term “work” in Part III of the Canada Labour Code and into the government's routine use of section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to refer labour disputes to the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) for binding arbitration, including their latest intervention ordering Air Canada and their flight attendants into binding arbitration despite the company's refusal to pay these attendants for their pre- and post-flight work, with a view to assessing the impacts these referrals have on the rights of workers in federally regulated industries, provided that:

a. the committee dedicate at least four meetings for this study,

b. the following witnesses be invited to appear on separate panels, for no less than one hour each:

1. the Minister of Jobs and Families;

2. the Secretary of State (Labour);

3. the Chair of the CIRB;

c. the committee invite the labour groups involved in each instance that the government invoked section 107 of the Canada Labour Code since the beginning of 2024 to provide their testimony;

d. the committee receive additional evidence from labour experts, economists, and other witnesses provided to the clerk by members of the committee;

e. the committee report their findings and recommendations to the House with a request for a government response pursuant to Standing Order 109; and

f. in the interim, the committee report to the House that it calls on the Minister of Jobs and Families to amend the Canada Labour Code to require federally regulated airlines to pay flight attendants for all hours they are on duty, not just the time they spend in the air.

3. That, notwithstanding the decision made by the committee on September 16, 2025, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee report its findings to the House on the study on workers in the seasonal industry and the employment insurance program that was undertaken during the 1st Session of the 44th Parliament and that the evidence and documents gathered by the committee be taken into consideration during the current session; that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

Currently being debated on the floor is an amendment to remove section 2 of this motion. Is there any discussion?

I have Madame Koutrakis, Madame Goodridge, Mr. Genuis and then Ms. Gill.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'm sorry, Chair. I have a point of order to clarify the rules.

We have a motion on the floor and an amendment on the floor that proposes to strike a study on the use of section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, but we are not able to say in public who moved the amendment to strike that study unless someone is willing to own up to it.

Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mr. Genuis, that's correct. You understand the rules of the committee. We are now in public, and currently there is an amendment on the floor.

I have Madame Koutrakis, Madame Goodridge and Madame Gill, and then it's back to Mr. Genuis. We're on the amendment to remove section 2.

Ms. Koutrakis, you have the floor.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to my colleagues for being around this table and doing the very difficult work that we are all tasked with doing for all Canadians.

I was the one who proposed in camera—I'm not afraid to own up to that, Mr. Genuis—to strike item 2 from this proposal. The reason for doing so is that, currently.... I think all Canadians know—the minister has been very clear—that the minister has ordered a probe, and the results of that probe are expected on October 17.

Many of the witnesses who would be called before this committee if we were to go into this study right now would not be able to provide us with fulsome and wholesome testimony, because a lot of that information might be redacted due to the litigation that is before us. Therefore, the reasoning for the request to strike it at this time is that we want to make sure that when—or if—this item ever comes back to the committee, we'll know with certainty what facts that probe gave us.

Right now, we don't have any of that, if we go forward, as in the entire motion proposed by our colleague Mrs. Falk, before October 10. The probe will end and the findings will be finished by October 17. I can't see how we can go forward with this study at this time when we know there is a probe happening at the same time.

Do we want to have a study that is going to produce something important that will benefit all Canadians, or do we want to have a study just because we are trying to embarrass the government since this is a hot issue right now and everybody is talking about it? I would like to think that's not the case.

I'd like to make sure that everyone around this table is working in good faith for all Canadians. Let's find a way to reach a compromise and allow this probe to happen in the way it's supposed to. We're here to work together. I hope that I can count on the support of our colleagues across the way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I have Mrs. Goodridge on the amendment.

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

Thank you Mr. Chair.

Perhaps we could ask the clerk if he can remind committee members about parliamentary privilege when it comes to witness testimony at committee and whether it can or cannot be used in court. My understanding of parliamentary privilege is that nothing a witness says could actually be used, because of parliamentary privilege. For that matter, I believe this is just something the Liberals are afraid to talk about.

Canadians were stuck all across Canada and the world this summer because of the Liberals' inaction on this very important issue. This is something that I believe we need to get to the bottom of, and Canadians expect us to act. They still haven't found any kind of resolution to this issue. One of the big challenges with this is that it means we still don't have an answer, so there are people who are afraid to fly right now because they're afraid they're going to get stuck, as some of their friends, families and co-workers did.

It is incumbent upon us, as parliamentarians, to get to the bottom of this, so I was wondering, now that the clerk has been able to find the green book, if he has the ability to give us that answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I will come back to that when the clerk advises.

In the meantime, I will go to Madame Gill on the amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Personally, I would like this part of the motion to remain as is, because I would like us to take a broader look at what is happening here. Air Canada is certainly one example currently in the news, but other airlines will be renegotiating their collective agreements in the coming months, probably over the holidays or this winter.

In my opinion, this is not just about Air Canada; it is clearly about the use of section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. This section has been used more frequently in recent years. We have to pay attention not only to cases where the section has been used, but also to the frequency with which it has been used. Beyond that, we are also talking about the definition of work, but there is no such definition in the Canada Labour Code. That is something else that should be added. It's not just part III of the code. There's no definition of work, so you end up with work not being paid. I think that's something that needs to be addressed as well.

In addition, the definition of work concerns not only flight attendants, but all Quebeckers and Canadians.

During a strike, people talk a lot about the economy. My party does, for example. We find ourselves in a situation where people are afraid to. I would therefore like the economic portion of the motion to remain. If we don't travel abroad, at least we'll travel in Canada and Quebec.

There are also all the people who have to travel on business. I think the flight attendants' union members are not the only people affected. I think the definition of work is a very broad and important topic. Since this topic is making headlines right now, I think it's a good time to tackle the problem head-on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mr. Genuis, go ahead on the amendment.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm glad we can have a discussion where we acknowledge what people's positions are.

This is with respect to the amendment we're on, the second study. We're proposing, as Conservatives, that we do proceed with doing a study of the government's use of section 107 of the Canada Labour Code.

My colleague opposite suggested that, in her view, it would be important that the study not begin before October 17, due to an internal process the government is undertaking. I don't want to be uncollaborative. I think the majority of the committee wants to see the study take place, as do we. I also don't think it's likely that we would begin that study before October 17 anyway, given that we've now gotten to a point where there's agreement on the need to do a substantial youth unemployment study.

I would propose instead—I don't think it's really necessary, but if it gives members greater ease—that we leave in the study but add a proviso that this study will not begin before October 17, 2025.

I'll look to you, Chair, for advice procedurally here. I wonder if I can subamend the amendment to leave in the study but add that section. You might find that this is too substantial to count as a subamendment, in which case we would have to vote down the amendment, and then I can move that additional proviso as a new amendment.

If the particular desire of the government is to say that because of internal processes they don't want this study to proceed before October 17, we can meet in the middle on that and do the study after October 17. However, if there are other reasons the government doesn't want to do the study at all, then I guess we'll just have to have the votes and let the chips fall where they may.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Okay.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'm sorry, Chair. I was just looking for some advice.

Is that a subamendment I can move, or is that too dramatic a change?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

It's too dramatic a change.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

All right.

I'm just forecasting that there will likely be such an amendment in the future, but for now, we'll oppose this amendment. I think we can work on a compromise after that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Okay.

We're still on the amendment by Ms. Koutrakis.

The floor goes to Madame Desrochers, and then Monsieur Joseph.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to come back to the point raised by my colleague Ms. Koutrakis. Meetings with stakeholders will indeed take place in the coming weeks. I think the government certainly wants to see this dealt with in a way that benefits workers and has made that message very clear.

I agree with Mrs. Gill about the importance of looking at the issue that has been raised. We agree with the need for the study, but we're wondering about two things. First of all, there's the question of timing, given that discussions are ongoing and there won't be a report released until early next year.

What is the best time to do this study?

What is the scope of the study? This is a really important issue, and I think it merits a deep dive. It merits a full, comprehensive study, and not one that is done as a way to, as my colleague said, embarrass the government. I think Canadians deserve better than that, and I think Canadian workers deserve better than that.

I know we're discussing the amendment right now, but I would like to go back to the initial discussion we had at the last committee meeting—I'm not sure if I can refer to it. This is a very large motion that actually includes four things. If it goes forward, it prevents us from prioritizing. It actually prioritizes for the committee the studies that would be going forward and the order in which they would be going forward. In the same way that we want to do one amendment at a time, I would also think that we would want to discuss one of these things at a time so that we're able to look at them each in their own validity.

That is my point of view, and I wanted to share it with the committee.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Chair, my colleague has already talked about the points I wanted to raise.

Furthermore, in subsection 2, I don't know if it's possible to remove the instances of the word “routine”, as in “routine use”. This is a new government. Therefore, the word “routine” seems excessive. We're talking about a period beginning in 2024, while the government wasn't elected until April 28. I don't know if Mr. Genuis can remove the instances of the word “routine” from his proposal, because it seems excessive to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Joseph.

Is there further discussion on the amendment?

Ms. Fancy.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In an effort to work collaboratively.... I think the federal government has been made aware of the deeply concerning allegations of unpaid work, which are central to some of this study. That's why in August of this year—I believe it was the 18th—a probe was launched into unpaid work in the federally regulated airline sector.

Today, we're following up on that work, and we're trying to create some concrete steps to get to the bottom of those allegations, primarily through stakeholder outreach within the probe. The government has reached out to a lot of the different targeted stakeholders, including unions, employees and employers, to participate in these consultations. That's part of the reasoning behind striking this section as an amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mrs. Goodridge.

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

I appreciate that they're going to have these meetings, some behind closed doors, but Canadians deserve to have answers on this. There are countless Canadians who got stranded as a direct result of Liberal inaction. This isn't the first time this has supposedly come to them. Conservatives have been talking about this. We talked about it in the last Parliament. I know the member wasn't here for this, but this isn't something new.

There was a private member's bill talking about how unpaid work won't fly. This is not something that all of a sudden happened and we couldn't have foreseen happening. Conservatives were saying this was a serious problem before prorogation, so we need to study this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, just to clarify, the motion on the floor right now is to strike the second study and not study at all the issues around section 107. Our position is that we should study section 107, which is why we're going to oppose this amendment, and if members would like to wordsmith, hopefully that wordsmithing is done with the goal of getting to a conclusion and not just using the clock. It's fine to propose word modifications, but this particular amendment, which we oppose, is to strike that study completely.

I'll leave it there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Is there any discussion?

Go ahead, Ms. Koutrakis.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to clarify that last point.

The point we're trying to make, my dear colleague Mr. Genuis, is that right now is not the time to put a limit or a date on this study. Obviously, Canadians know about this issue. All of us want to make sure that Canadians who work get paid for the work they do. We're just saying that right now is not the time to do that, when we already know that there are going to be stakeholder meetings, that we're going to have the results by October 17, and that the results are going to be made public early in the year.

If we're going to come back to this committee and have a fulsome and proper study, let's do it the right way. Let's not rush through a study right now and say “on or before October 10” to get all of this. Even if it starts on October 17, as you said earlier.... Why not wait to make sure that we are going to be dealing with facts and not just hearsay? Of course, all Canadians expect all Canadians to be paid for the work they do. This is an item that has really been top of mind for the minister and the ministry. We want to make sure that we do the right thing by all employers and employees, specifically to make sure they get paid for the work they do.

It is an item that is serious, and it deserves to have the proper study to make sure that we know what we're going to be dealing with on an ongoing basis. If we need to change the legislation and, as the minister has said publicly, if there is currently a loophole in the labour code that needs to be amended, that is something the government is going to be looking at, but first we need to make sure that we know what we're dealing with and what we hear from the results of the probe.

We're not saying no to this study. We're saying no to this study at this particular moment. Let's make sure we have the facts first, before we go forward and spend time on this important study.