The House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities (HUMA) met on December 9, 2025, to study the definition of “work” and the use of section 107 in the Canada Labour Code. Witnesses included Pascal Chan from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Daniel Safayeni and Christopher Pigott from Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications (FETCO), David Neufeld and David-Alexandre Leblanc from the Union of Safety and Justice Employees (USJE) and the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), Professor Dalia Gesualdi-Fecteau from the University of Montreal, Wesley Lesosky from the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Airline Division, and Pedro Antunes from the Conference Board of Canada.
Pascal Chan argued that Canada’s supply chain reliability is undermined by frequent labour disruptions, which harm the country’s reputation as a trading partner and deter investment. He recommended amending the Canada Labour Code to provide new dispute resolution tools for federally regulated trade infrastructure and to give cabinet authority to act when collective bargaining fails, such as through a special mediator who could make recommendations to the minister.
Daniel Safayeni stated that federally regulated sectors contribute 16.5% of GDP and employ 2.1 million Canadians, and that labour instability threatens Canada’s credibility as an economic partner. He emphasized that employers support collective bargaining and the right to strike but need a modern framework to protect the broader economy during disruptions in critical sectors, and he noted that the judiciary is currently clarifying the scope of section 107, making it premature to remove it.
Christopher Pigott explained that the Supreme Court has held that the right to strike is not absolute and that government intervention can be constitutional if collective bargaining has stalled and a fair arbitration process replaces the strike. He cited recent Ontario court decisions upholding back-to-work legislation as reasonable limits on charter rights, and warned that defining “work” in a one-size-fits-all manner could have unintended consequences across diverse federally regulated industries.
David Neufeld and David-Alexandre Leblanc argued that the recent surge in the use of section 107—eight times in two years—undermines workers’ constitutional right to strike and tilts bargaining power toward employers, who may delay negotiations expecting government intervention. They called for the repeal of section 107 from the Canada Labour Code, noting that other tools like mediation and last-offer votes already exist, and supported Bill C-247 as a means to remove the provision.
Professor Dalia Gesualdi-Fecteau focused on the definition of “work,” arguing that part III of the Canada Labour Code lacks a statutory definition of working time, which has led to disputes over unpaid standby and ground time, notably in the airline sector. She recommended implementing the 2019 expert panel’s recommendation to deem employees at work when they are at the employer’s behest, a principle already adopted in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Quebec, and stressed that clear definitions reduce litigation and uncertainty.
Wesley Lesosky testified that flight attendants perform unpaid work daily—such as safety checks and boarding—because the Canada Labour Code lacks a definition of “work,” and that Air Canada rejected proposals to pay for all hours, expecting section 107 intervention. He called for Parliament to define “work” in part III, require payment at the regular rate for all hours at the employer’s direction, and end the abuse of section 107 to impose binding arbitration, arguing that workers should not have to negotiate for the right to be paid.
Pedro Antunes noted that high market concentration in sectors like transportation magnifies the economic impact of work stoppages, with the 2024 rail strike causing an estimated $3 billion GDP loss and a 10:1 spillover effect on the broader economy. He argued that labour disruptions damage Canada’s reputation with global investors, who seek reliable infrastructure, and that the government needs tools to protect the economy when disruptions threaten national supply chains.
The committee began with a notice of motion from MP Marilène Gill to invite additional unions to testify on the study, which was tabled for later consideration. During questioning, members debated the economic impacts of strikes, the role of section 107, and the need for a definition of work, with some members arguing that the government’s use of section 107 has been pre-emptive and undermines collective bargaining, while others emphasized the need to protect the economy from cascading disruptions.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.