THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 26, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 6:45 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on maintenance of activities or essential services in the federally regulated rail and marine sectors in the case of labour disruptions; and, in camera, to examine and report on the local services provided by the CBC/Radio-Canada.
Senator Larry W. Smith (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Larry Smith. I am a senator from Quebec and chair of this committee. I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: I am Paula Simons, a senator from Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Wilson: Hello. Duncan Wilson, senator from British Columbia. Great to see you again.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, senator from New Brunswick. Good to see you again as well.
Senator Arnold: Dawn Arnold, senator from New Brunswick. Nice to see you.
Senator Lewis: Todd Lewis, senator from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Senator Donna Dasko, Ontario. Welcome.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Raitt, for attending tonight and providing time for us.
I would like to welcome everyone with us today, as well as those listening to us online on the Senate’s website at sencanada.ca. We are meeting today to continue our study on the maintenance of transport services in the case of labour disruptions.
I would like to introduce our witness, The Honourable Lisa Raitt, P.C., Co-Chair, Coalition for a Better Future and Vice‑Chair, Global Investment Banking, CIBC Capital Markets. Congratulations, that is great. Thank you for joining us today, Ms. Raitt.
Ms. Raitt will be providing opening remarks of five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with senators. I invite Ms. Raitt to give her opening remarks.
The Honourable Lisa Raitt, P.C., Co-Chair, Coalition for a Better Future and Vice-Chair, Global Investment Banking, CIBC Capital Markets, as an individual: Thank you, senator. I’m delighted to see so many people I have worked with in the past on this committee.
Frankly, you all know more about this than I do because I have been rusty the last number of years. I am looking forward to having a good conversation following my opening remarks, because this is such an important topic, and it calls for thoughtful discussion on what we can possibly do.
As Senator Smith has indicated, I am delighted to be the co‑chair of the Coalition for a Better Future, a role I share with the Honourable Anne McLellan. The coalition is made up of 140 organizations, and we have everybody: business, labour, Indigenous leaders and civil society. All of us are united in one mission. The mission is to build a stronger, more inclusive and more prosperous Canadian economy.
Tonight I will not wear my hat as a co-chair because we represent so many different interests in there. I do not think it would be fair to say that what I will discuss with you is necessarily going to be the opinion of everybody within the coalition.
However, I will draw on some of the lessons we have learned from our work in the coalition to point out how important it is for us to do something on this matter.
As you know, transportation is very important. If you cannot move it, you cannot sell it; if you cannot sell it, you cannot grow your economy. You know we have richness in resources. We also have richness in skills. We are so diverse in this country. We have great competitive advantages, which are a springboard to prosperity.
However, we have been slipping lately. That is what we have seen at the coalition. Productivity is lagging. We have seen supply chains straining under pressure. It is not just labour; it is wildfires and global shocks. Those things impact too. Each time the lesson is the same. Our supply chains are only as strong as the weakest link. That is why your study is so crucial.
Labour disruptions in rail and marine transportation are not narrow sector issues anymore; they are systemic economic shocks. The sectors that move our goods not only feed our families, heat our homes, supply our hospitals, support our agriculture and fuel our industries but they also bring people together. They also move these critical goods to partners around the world. Therefore, a shutdown or a prolonged slowdown does not just affect the parties at the bargaining table, as you know; it affects every Canadian and our reputation as trading partners.
Recent trade disruptions with the United States have exposed how vulnerable our economy can be. We are a vast, trade-dependent nation, and a reliable transportation system is not a luxury; it is the backbone of our prosperity. Yet, we have a regulatory framework that does not reflect that realty.
If we look at today’s definition of “essential service,” it focuses exclusively on the immediate risks to health and safety. These are critically important, but perhaps we should be thinking about whether that is too narrow. Should we be thinking broadly, taking into consideration enormous economic harm and reputation erosion that a supply chain stoppage can create?
If we are serious about building an economy that is pan‑Canadian in nature — competitive, connected and resilient — then we really need to modernize how we think about essential services and transportation. That means treating our transportation networks as the strategic national assets that they truly are.
The world is changing. The United States is investing in critical areas like energy, critical minerals and advanced manufacturing, and they are also investing in the infrastructure needed to move those products to market. They are not just growing their economies; they are trying to capture global market share. If Canada does not adapt, we do have a risk of being left behind.
So we should look at things strategically and with confidence in our own strengths. We should expand, diversify and secure the markets we serve. That requires modern infrastructure, a resilient supply chain and a regulatory system calibrated for the economy we’re trying to build, not the one we actually had decades ago.
When governments delay their approvals, when regulations do not keep pace with the risk, when we fail to make decisions in real time — all of that indecision is actually a decision. It costs us investment, jobs and credibility, not just on infrastructure, but also on labour stability and the continuation of transportation services.
I would ask you to consider a few things as you conduct your study.
First, think about whether you want to discuss broadening the definition of “essential services” to include not only health and safety but also serious risks to economic security, supply chain integrity and national competitiveness so that an assessment can be made as to whether there is going to be a maintenance of activities given those competitive issues.
Second, require preemptive continuity plans for such critical corridors. The middle of a labour dispute is not the time to try to figure out how we will be moving goods and what is essential.
Third, develop structured, time-bound dispute-resolution tools that protect the collective bargaining process but prevent the prolonged paralysis that can destabilize the broader economy. I know we’ll talk about this more in questions, so I will follow up there.
Fourth, we have to recognize that every link in the supply chain, from that shortline railway in Saskatchewan to the container terminal in Prince Rupert, contributes to our competitiveness, and each one deserves predictability, clarity and a modern regulatory framework.
I mentioned the coalition at the beginning. One of the things we do at the coalition is to measure Canada’s metrics. What we have seen in our economic scorecard is that we have incredible potential, but we’re just not moving fast enough. We have to be bold. We have to be willing to modernize, invest, streamline and, yes, make difficult decisions when the national interest is at stake. We know we have done big things before in this country. We’ve built national projects, united this country and positioned us for decades of success. We can do it again; we just have to have the courage to lead.
Senators, I thank you for the work you are doing here. It matters greatly to Canada’s long-term prosperity. If we get it right, we can build a transportation and supply-chain system that is reliable, resilient and competitive, and we will not just keep the goods moving; we will actually move Canada forward, as well.
I’m excited to hear your questions and continue the dialogue. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Raitt. We will now move to questions.
Senators, you will have approximately five minutes each for questions. We will have a second round if we have time.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, Ms. Raitt, for being with us today and for sharing your thoughts.
You were the Minister of Labour for many years in the Harper government. You invoked section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. You also used back-to-work legislation a number of times. Of course, the current government has also used both of these tools; they’ve had a number of situations. We have had witnesses here who have talked about the effects of the labour disputes on the economy and how difficult it has been for Canadians, workers and for the companies involved.
Thinking back on your experience as Minister of Labour, why do you think we have had all of these disputes? Other countries do not have the disputes we have. Have you reflected on why we have developed the environment we have?
Looking back on your experience, is there anything you think you would have done differently if you could go back and do it again?
Ms. Raitt: Always. Second chances would be awesome, but we did not win in 2015. Senator, thank you for your questions. They are thoughtful.
Yes, I admit I had three back-to-work legislations: one was Canada Post, one was for air services and one was for rail services. I used section 107 differently, though. I only used it to pose a question to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, or CIRB, to ask them to determine whether there needed to be a maintenance of activities. We never used it to order them to stop a strike. It was viewed, in my time, as a bridge too far, to be honest.
Also, senator, I will be candid with you and tell you that I never thought that the CIRB would actually implement an order like that sent over by a Conservative government. As a result, we never went as far in section 107.
What has happened in labour relations? It has been more than the last 20 years; it has been 40 years. We have been struggling, especially in the industrial sectors, for a very long period of time. If you look at the history of our Parliament, we have had almost 40 back-to-work legislations, and, for the most part, it has been in rail and Canada Post. The reason is that they’re incredibly important to the national economy.
If I could put my finger on it, I would say that we don’t put enough effort into labour stability. Labour relations is hard work, and it has to be dealt with in good faith by both parties. It is not just happening at the time of bargaining; it has to happen all the time. Putting in a process or putting in something that takes the heat out of confrontation and allows them to develop better relationships in the downtime — in the close period — would be something to take a look at.
Senator Dasko: Is there anything that you think your government could have done or you could have done as Minister of Labour — any regulation, law, practice, policy — that might have taken us to a better place?
Ms. Raitt: It is a great question. I went back to look at the work stoppages over the past three years. They have been extensive; there is no question about it. I can see why the Senate is seized with the issue. We have had an industrial inquiry, and we had Vince Ready do yet another report for us. He must be on our speed dial, senator, because we also used him in 2011. So we know what the issues are, and we know how important it is.
What I would have focused on is to bring the parties together, have them sit on a committee with the Minister of Labour and work through some issues in terms of how we’re going to deal with the big pieces. You have an opportunity to do it now. If you look at the issues in the past, they have been mainly about hours of work, fatigue and whether flight attendants were being paid appropriately. Those were the things that people went on strike about. They are very important, but AI is going to change the world.
Being proactive and having some kind of an agreement to have a group that is going to think clearly about the impacts of AI on our system and not be surprised when it happens to us would be a really great first start — a calm place where there can be a lot of discussion, including the Canadian Labour Congress and anyone else who wants to be involved in it, but chaired by the Minister of Labour.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Senator Lewis: Thank you for your comments so far and for appearing before our committee.
With your group, being the co-chair and having the number of members you have, is there much talk about competitiveness? We have recently seen not only internationally but domestically — and the recent Nutrien announcement last week was like a bomb going off in the middle of all of this. Certainly, we’re competing heavily with the United States for port positions. We might as well recognize that. Certainly with the Nutrien decision, it has come home to roost, so to speak. I would like your comments on that.
Ms. Raitt: Senator, it was devastating to see Nutrien choose to use a port in the United States. Even when I was Minister of Transport in 2013, there were many discussions, especially within my caucus, and there was a lot of frustration. David Anderson, if you recall, was a member of parliament for Saskatchewan. He would talk to me frequently about the frustrations that they had about specifically rail and getting the goods to tidewater. He would say, “They are just going to go through the United States, Lisa. They are going to use a U.S. port.”
I never really thought that would happen. I thought that since they were such a strong Canadian-based company, they would see the benefits of using a Canadian company. We basically got our dance card called on this one.
If I look at the decision making in the boardroom, I’m sure they looked at labour stability. I’m sure they looked at how accommodating and welcoming the host port is. Canadian ports have their hands tied in being able to do extraordinary things to attract and bring in a very good customer because of the way in which they are governed and have their governance.
In the United States, all bets are off. They will use every tool that they possibly can in order to attract that kind of group to the system, because it creates jobs and gives it a great opportunity.
I hope that we work on labour stability through your report. Putting that out into the universe and giving assurances is not going to happen. It is very difficult, senator, for a company to understand or to think that in approximately 15 months, we may be faced with another work stoppage in the B.C. port system. That does cause some decision making to put us in a situation where we are now, where the U.S. ports become very attractive.
As a result, we are competing with them not just on the basis of cost but on the basis of how credible we are in terms of being able to sustain a service to them.
Senator Lewis: Thank you.
Senator Wilson: Thank you for your testimony and the very specific, constructive suggestions that you have offered. That is one of the things we are searching for now as a committee. We have heard a lot of testimony about the challenges. Solutions are what I am interested in focusing on.
In that vein, I would like to dig into a few things that you said. With regard to preemptive continuity plans, we know that the threat of a strike is often as bad as a strike. Frankly, we have threats of strikes all the time, so we have disruption all the time as a result of that. I would like your thoughts. I would like to hear more of what you think about on that front.
Ms. Raitt: Yes.
Senator Wilson: Also, with regard to structured, time-based resolution tools, one of the things that the Vince Ready-Amanda Rogers commission recently recommended was the appointment of a special mediator in the process. That special mediator would give the government a window into the process.
Having lived through this myself, as you have many times, it seems to me that earlier involvement, eyes into the process by the government and potentially others, could help. For example, when you came out a few strikes ago in person to meet with labour and management, that was very late in the process.
Ms. Raitt: Yes.
Senator Wilson: Would that earlier window be an option or a better approach?
Finally, my last question — I want to get them all out because I know that the chair will not give me time to ask more — is this: Should we look at pulling rail and port supply chain sectors out and doing something differently with them, treating them differently than the way we look at the labour environment? I ask because so many Canadian businesses depend on that backbone for their livelihood and economy.
Ms. Raitt: Excellent questions, senator. You are familiar with the B.C. ports, obviously. Let’s start with the first one: contingency plans.
I believe that just having the parties be mandated to negotiate a maintenance of activities at the front end early is not sufficient. Now that replacement workers are completely off the table, there is not a great ability to have a contingency plan that will be satisfactory and actually move the goods. We are kind of snookered when it comes to something like that.
I do not know what contingencies you can come up with, quite frankly, for the supply chain, other than to get to the table and get to a deal quicker. It falls upon the government to try to figure out how they can help the parties, if they hit an impasse, to get through and not go to a work stoppage or at least not to threaten to get to a work stoppage.
The second question: structured tools. The FMCS does a great job. The service that is available for mediation is a very hands-on one.
I will be candid. You never want to insert the minister too soon in the process, because the minister only has one tool, and it is back-to-work legislation, and it is so blunt. You can only threaten that so many times. The minister isn’t the professional in the room for mediation. You have to lean heavily on the service we do employ, and they are very good. They should be involved. Maybe they can be involved a little earlier instead of waiting for them to determine that they can no longer get to a deal on their own.
Then the last question about pulling the rail services out, here is my thought on that: I have been thinking about it. How do you treat the whole thing differently? What is going to be the impetus to make all of us think about this in a way in which we recognize the importance of not having the old standoff between the two parties because of the damage that happens to the economy? Can we create something different?
The government gave itself Bill C-5. Bill C-5 is basically plowing any law out of the way in order for them to get a major project done. Whether or not they are going to use that power, it is a power that is available to them. It is extraordinary. Maybe it is worth thinking about whether a similar kind of power can be brought for specific issues.
They have now shown that it can be passed, and no one is really pushing on the constitutionality of it yet because it has not really been utilized. Maybe that is a way.
I have one word of caution for all of this, senator, and that is this: If you decide you are not going to respect the way in which the system has to be changed in a slow fashion, what you are opening yourselves up to is wildcat strikes and illegal strikes. They are getting actual results. We have seen the results happen for disobeying a ruling of the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Obviously, it was not a legal strike, but because of the fact that the CIRB would not enforce it through the courts, it was moot. There was no punishment for the union as a result of not following the order.
We will end up with more situations where desperate times would call for desperate measures, and illegal strikes would happen. Those are very difficult to deal with. There is an incredible amount of charged emotion and never wanting to include criminal proceedings in any of these things.
Senator Wilson: I am thinking of some sort of alternative dispute resolution. In terms of doing things that are not as radical, how about mediation arbitration — building a tool like that into the process specifically for the supply chain?
Ms. Raitt: Sure. That would make a lot of sense, as long as you get the buy-in from both labour and management that that is the way they want to go.
The problem is, senator, I don’t know whether or not the parties actually do want to have labour stability and labour peace. They are not behaving that way — I have to tell you. It seems to be always putting the Canadian consumer in the cross‑hairs as the two entities lock one another out or strike.
There is a real impact on all of these things. I do not know whether or not Canadians see it, but they will feel it because we lost Nutrien. That is an impact from not being able to show stability in our supply chain. The world is big, and you have to ship, and if you cannot ship because we’re going to be going into another port strike, rail strike, whatever, that is problematic. Mediation arbitration, sure, insert it, use it to whatever extent that you can.
It starts with the parties having a clear understanding of the importance of this to Canadian society, and that’s a bigger one to deal with.
When back-to-work legislation is threatened to unions or to management — because you can threaten both — what normally happens is you say, I have the pen, folks, and if you are not behaving well at the table and are not cooperating, then the legislation will not be favourable to you. That’s the only threat the government can have.
Determining whether or not you’re going to go to issues-based arbitration or final offer selection is very blunt and not ideal whatsoever. More room for anything, I have to say.
Senator Simons: Ms. Raitt, it’s lovely to see you with us tonight.
I’ve been thinking a lot about this as we listen to our witnesses. It seems to me that the rail industry is very different from other industries where there are strikes. When there is a strike that affects Air Canada, there are options: people can fly WestJet, Porter or Flair. But if you’re a customer of the rails, you are really locked in often to just one rail line that can serve you.
So when there’s a strike, the rail companies, who are very profitable, don’t suffer the same way that their customers do. It’s the customers who have no recourse because there is no competitive option for them.
Now, we are a country with a lot of geography and only two major rail lines. It seems to me that one of the challenges of getting to a labour negotiation is that there isn’t much impetus for the companies to settle, because they are not suffering in the same way their customers are.
The customers have no legal or economic recourse to make themselves whole again. We can’t just conjure up another three or four rail companies and build more rail lines. We’re still functionally using the same infrastructure we built in the 1870s. How do we untangle that Gordian knot?
Ms. Raitt: I have to be careful because many of the entities you’re talking about are clients of my employer, so I’m not saying this from a point of view of an advocate, but I will give you some ideas. Is that fair? It’s not advocating; it’s just a concept.
I think you’re right. You can say that this was brought to a very sharp focus when both CN and CPKC, at the same time, shut down both services. It was a stark, ridiculous kind of scenario — terrifying actually. As a result, you think, what can we do here? What’s possible and what’s not possible?
I do think companies do suffer. Shareholders become impatient with labour instability, because your company is not looked upon as being a great place to invest, because you’re not really sure whether or not they’re going have another strike, whether the customers are going to be able to move or the customers choose to go somewhere else. They go to another port, for example, and they go through the United States.
That all being said, you have answered the question in your own question: It’s competition. This is where I’m saying that I’m not advocating for this, but it’s a possibility. You can expand the radiuses of interchange in the country to allow the utilization of other services to come along the tracks. Not during necessarily a strike situation, senator. I’m not saying that is a replacement-worker situation.
However, as government, you have the ability to set what levels of interchange there can be. How far up the line you can go so that one rail company from the United States can come pick up some cars and not necessarily be impeded from doing so by virtue of the ownership of the car. It’s something to take a look at.
We did expand that circumference in 2014. I don’t know whether or not it has been done further.
Senator Simons: When Minister Alghabra — they did a little experiment with interswitching. At the time I was both on this committee and on the Agriculture Committee. So I heard two different perspectives on the value of extended interswitching.
Ms. Raitt: Indeed.
Senator Simons: It’s true. We don’t necessarily want to put more money into the pockets of American companies at a time when we’re trying to insulate our own economy from American economic pressure, but we are trapped by our geography. We only have a finite number of ports and an even smaller number of rail lines, and it is very difficult for the customers.
We’ve heard many testimonies during our study from people shipping everything from Potash to grain to fruits and vegetables to car parts. It’s very hard. There is nowhere else to go.
Ms. Raitt: Yes.
Senator Simons: Should there be some kind of recompense? People who booked on Air Canada and had to switch their flights to WestJet received some compensation from Air Canada. Would there be more of an economic hazard for the rail companies if they had to pay some kind of compensation to the clients?
Ms. Raitt: That could work to cause the companies to have a second look at whether you’re going to lock out. I don’t know whether that is an appropriate thing for the unions to look at. I don’t know that it’s going to matter to a great extent.
Senator Simons: It seems to me that if there were more moral hazard there might be more impetus.
Ms. Raitt: Senator, the other way of looking at it is to deem the operation as one that is imperative for national security. Abandon the national economy arguments and go to national security, given the situations we find ourselves in these days.
Senator Simons: Like the wildcat strike situation you referenced, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Thank you very much.
Ms. Raitt: Indeed.
Senator Simons: I bet you’re wondering what would have happened if your government had brought in legislation like Bill C-5.
Ms. Raitt: We wouldn’t have. No way. I’d have to have close protection 24-7. It would not happen.
Senator Quinn: Thank you for appearing, Lisa; it’s a pleasure. Your opening comments answered most of the questions I had, but I have a few left just to talk a little bit about.
When you talked about that we need to consider 87.4 of the Labour Code, other factors than just health and safety, and think about the economic security of Canada and its public.
In an earlier discussion, during our sessions, there was discussion about how you know if negotiations are being done in good faith at the table. We’re not there. It’s only the parties involved at the early stages. It might be a good idea to have a moderator or an observer there to determine whether they are being serious.
Backing that into what we already have in the Labour Code, section 90, which gives the power to cabinet to pause a labour disruption if it affects the national economic interest during the election period, and until the return of the writs 21 days thereafter.
Ms. Raitt: Yes.
Senator Quinn: Should that be expanded to cover periods when there isn’t an election happening? So it forces the people to get that much more serious at the table, and gives time to the government to decide which avenue they want to follow. Do they want to prepare back-to-work legislation or put mandatory arbitration in place?
It’s building on what Senator Wilson talked about, and I would like your views on that.
Ms. Raitt: Those are very good questions. On the economic security, obviously, it’s not included in the Canada Labour Code, and that’s why you end up having the back-to-work legislation that would lean on that.
That was the reason why the Canadian government was putting this through the House of Commons and then the Senate, passing an entire law in order to deem it appropriate given the national economy.
To your point about negotiations in good faith, at the end of the day, senator, it’s just people sitting around a table, and they can have their own agendas. I have seen people with their own agendas sitting at tables perhaps obstructing a good forward path in collective bargaining. You really can’t do anything about it because they’ve got it in their mind that it is going to go this way. They have the confidence of their company, their shareholders or their union. As a result, you’re stuck with them.
The minister can already appoint a mediator to go in. You have a ton of powers as a minister, and they can come back and tell you what’s going on. They can come back and say, this is the reason this isn’t happening. So-and-so doesn’t want to get to a deal, and they want to see this go to a work stoppage because they think it is better leverage at the end of the day.
So, yes, you definitely have put your finger on it, and there is nothing you can really do. It is not like being in a faceoff circle at a hockey game, where you wave off the two guys trying to grab the puck and not getting along and you bring in two other people. That is not a possible way of dealing with it.
Unfortunately, you’re stuck with what you have at the table. A special mediator may be helpful in order to do it. There are some very talented mediators and arbitrators in this country, who get people to agreements when I never thought they possibly could. Good for them.
Last question: It was always very frustrating to me that companies and unions would deliberately choose to end up with their final term of cutoff of position to be in a strike notice during summer recess because we couldn’t come back. It would be complicating it to try and recall the House in order to pass back-to-work legislation.
As a result, it was always very frustrating. So to be incredibly selfish, I would welcome that you can’t go on strike when the House of Commons isn’t sitting. There is a parliamentary calendar that you can look at and see what the dates are and try to craft your deals around it. Whether or not that would fly, I don’t know. It could be deemed to be selfish, but certainly having people in Ottawa be able to move toward back-to-work legislation, should the need arise, is much better and easier than using section 107, because, quite frankly, you can’t get back, and in the other case, if you’re in a minority government, you can’t get it through the House of Commons.
Senator Quinn: It sounds like government has exceeded the intention of section 107. In the recent past, we have used it so many times, and Air Canada stood up to it a little bit. There was a statement being made there in terms of government overstepping.
Ms. Raitt: You’re right. The government has the power to use section 107 of the Canada Labour Code in the way it does. But the government can’t make the Canada Industrial Relations Board, or CIRB, enforce an order that they didn’t want to give, and that is what ended up happening.
That happened to us in a B.C. court issue. I don’t know, Senator Wilson, if you remember where it was, but there was a great desire for a CIRB order to be placed with the courts so that it could be enforced, meaning that if somebody didn’t abide by it they would be held in contempt of court and subject to imprisonment. CIRB has never done that. They have never put their order with the Federal Court of Canada in order to be able to enforce it. That’s exactly the wall that the government hit with section 107. The unions did a stellar job in forcing that hand, and section 107 a very difficult tool for anybody to use now for that purpose of stopping a work stoppage or a lockout.
Senator Quinn: Changing tracks just a little bit, we had the CIRB in one of our earlier sessions, and the chair was our witness. She did her job — there is no question about it. It was difficult for her to answer many questions.
One of the questions I asked was that I had gone through the resumés of all the people who are on the CIRB and there are arbitration specialists, lawyers, councillors, that type of thing, but there was nobody with any background in supply chain and validity. I’m wondering, specifically in ports and in rail, should there be a better mix of skill sets on the CIRB with respect to supply chain issues that come before it so that people who have an understanding can have more meaningful input? I say that because we have had rulings from them that say, you can’t move it by rail but you can move it by truck. When you’re moving grain, it takes a hell of a lot of trucks to move that much grain. Do you think there should be a better skill mix when the employment process is considered?
Ms. Raitt: Are you saying we should have fewer lawyers, sir? Yes, I agree, it’s always a good thing to have fewer lawyers.
Senator Quinn: It’s always a good thing to have more lawyers.
Ms. Raitt: That makes a lot of sense. The appointments to the CIRB are the purview of the minister — it is an order-in-council — and I think that adding that to the matrix of skills that should be part of the skill set, absolutely.
It is a very good job. To be a vice chair at the CIRB is a very good job. It is very interesting work, it is paid well, and the people are dedicated to it, but it is not a bad idea. Honestly, having someone in AI, who understands cyber technology should be sitting on these things as well, because it is going to get really complex in the next couple of years. It is a great suggestion. I hope your committee takes that one up.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you very much for being here. This is very interesting.
I want to take you back to the issue of essential services and strategic corridors that could be kept open to transport grain and potash. Ultimately, there are a number of possibilities. Do you think that would lessen the balance of power of employees at this time, because they are able to stop the trains completely? Could that, in a way, help shorten labour disputes? Organizing essential services is complicated. Do you think this idea can make a difference, or is it too complicated?
I will conclude by saying that all of the witnesses here told us that they constituted an essential service. Not just grain, not just potash, but everything, including meat, because it can spoil. How do we move forward? Is this a tool that could considerably help reduce conflicts or not?
Ms. Raitt: Thank you very much for your question.
[English]
The term “essential service” is one that is quickly and easily understood by Canadians all over the place. That’s why it’s used so such.
The term used in the Canada Labour Code is “maintenance of activities,” which is a different thing. If you’re asking me if we should expand the definition of maintenance of activities to mean that economic or supply chain issues be included? I think that’s something that can be looked at, without a question. It lifts it from being that very narrow focus on health and safety only, which is very important, but when they redid the scab legislation they recognized that climate issues may be something that ought to be taken into consideration with regard to whether you’re going to allow a replacement worker to come in.
If they’re going to start broadening what “maintenance of activities” looks like to include climate, you should be able to get to a place where you’re thinking about maintenance of activities for the economy.
Senator, we often think it’s the unions who are the bad guys in these situations. They are not. The actual history of these work stoppages shows that it’s lockouts by the companies that have precipitated the biggest ones recently. Maybe they are doing it because they think the workers are going to go on strike, but certainly it is not the unions that are taking advantage of a system; it’s both parties, very much looking to get a third party to settle their ways because they think they’re going to get a better deal.
If you create a situation where your maintenance of activities has to continue for the betterment of national security and the national economy, it does take away that ability for them to stop working, but it doesn’t take away their ability to slow down the work. That’s a totally different ball game. They can have situations where there’s a rolling strike across the country, and it starts on one day and stops on the next. Those sorts of things can still happen. Maybe that is enough to satisfy the right to strike under a collective bargaining situation.
If we want to do it right, senator, you have to have a good, constructive discussion with the unions from this country with the labour movement to get somewhat of an agreement, because otherwise you’re going to be at the Supreme Court trying to craft the right scenario that is going to work for them to give you permission to do it. That can be very difficult.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Compulsory arbitration is a very harsh way to proceed. Given that we are talking about Canada’s economy and situations where there are no replacements, should compulsory arbitration be part of the tools that can be used in these cases?
[English]
Ms. Raitt: I do. Issues-based binding arbitration makes sense, but it really does help in work when you are talking about money, essentially.
However, when you’re talking about things like fatigue, work‑life balance and whether you need to change the entire structure of pay — not just how much you are going to get paid — it is more complex and may not be seen as the best way to resolve a major dispute.
I know that I sound like I’m a broken record, but I have to underscore: AI will be fundamentally changing. The B.C. ports traditionally do have disagreements over innovation and automation. AI is beyond those things. It is supercharged. As a result, I don’t know whether binding arbitration could sort out an issue around the utilization of AI and the impact on the workforce. I don’t know if it could work, to be honest. It would be difficult to get to some satisfaction there.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you very much for your thoughts.
[English]
Senator Arnold: Thank you for being here with us. It is a refreshing, balanced and frank approach that we haven’t always heard. I really appreciate that. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us.
I agree with you about the need for proactive discussions about AI. You suggested that they happen with the minister; is that correct?
Ms. Raitt: Yes, I do. I’m not tooting my own horn, but as Minister of Labour, I had an advisory council. Actually, a current senator of yours agreed to sit on my advisory council: Senator Yussuff. It was important for me: to have a vehicle where we could have people from all different parts sit down and have a conversation on topics that were not controversial but important. You can do something like that. It is not a task force or a report or recommendations. It is the ability to bring together the people who really know what is going on in the system, have a frank conversation and, hopefully, come to some kind of path forward.
Senator Arnold: The power of face-to-face conversations.
Ms. Raitt: It works, yes.
Senator Arnold: You sound pro mediator.
Ms. Raitt: Yes.
Senator Arnold: You have seen them do almost miraculous things. What do you look for in a good mediator when it is a challenging situation?
Ms. Raitt: I look for confidence, toughness and the ability to see the other person’s point of view. That is the most important piece. You have to strive for neutrality. Having somebody who comes from the union or the employment side, sometimes they are a little bit blinded — they have blinders on — because they do not fully understand and embrace what the other side is trying to get at.
A good mediator can put themselves in the shoes of the party they are talking to, understand where they are coming from and perhaps get them to another place to understand the other side. That is the role. The mediator is supposed to help both sides try to understand where the other is coming from to get to “yes” on something, and the skill set is unique.
As I said, we have some marvellous mediators in Canada. We are all getting older, senator, and I worry about whether we’re doing the right thing on training and preparing people for these kinds of roles which are not to be replaced by AI. You can’t replace those roles with AI.
Senator Arnold: Finally, you said that the minister has this one blunt tool.
Ms. Raitt: Yes.
Senator Arnold: In a perfect, utopian world, what kind of tools would you give a minister that they don’t have right now?
Ms. Raitt: Going back to the senator prior to you, there is some room to think about essential services, maintenance of activities from an economic point of view. It would have to be very carefully thought through, constructed and bought into. Otherwise, as was pointed out, we will end up with wildcat strikes and annoyed shareholders of companies that are important to Canada. It is not for the faint of heart, but we don’t have the commodity of time on this one.
I do not know whether our economy will be able to withstand these kinds of economic shocks, to be honest, because we have a big problem to the south of us with trade. We are trying to diversify and pivot, and you can’t do that if your supply chain is not reliable.
Senator Arnold: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you, Ms. Raitt. As my colleague said, this is a very interesting discussion.
You have emphasized the importance of transportation infrastructure, noting that protecting it in the current state is not sufficient, but we need to aim for a competitive economy. In this context, how do we reconcile the necessary and significant investments for major economic revitalization with union rights? How do we reconcile that in a context where labour disputes impact strategic sectors?
In fact, you answered by talking about lockouts and the mediator profile. However, I’m sure that you can provide us with some interesting solutions on how to reconcile making major investments with respect towards unions.
[English]
Ms. Raitt: Thank you for the question. I like it.
I love talking about investments and ports, because it can’t all necessarily come from the taxpayer or the customer. These are large investments to be made, and we will need some help. I know this government is very interested in the private sector.
What is interesting to me, senator, is when you talk about how do we ensure we are not going to be trampling — not your words, mine — on the rights of the workers, some of the most successful investors in this country actually have union representation on their boards, and that would be the Public Service Pension Plan, or PSPP, and the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, or OMERS. They have union representation on their boards. They have interests in investing in certain infrastructure in our country related to transportation. At the moment, they may not have the best prospects to invest in, given what is available.
That is an interesting way to ensure that if investment is coming to a port, an airport or a terminal, whatever it may be, that traditionally would have some government funding, if it’s a pension plan that is actually an arm of a union and the proceeds are used to pay the pensions of former unionized workers, you can see that at that point maybe those two things would work well together.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Furthermore, you also talked about the need to introduce a modern framework. I interpreted that as the need for a more stable and predictable framework for conflict management in key sectors in order to reduce the number of ad hoc political interventions.
What should such a framework should look like?
[English]
Ms. Raitt: Senator, I wish I knew. I took labour law at Osgoode Hall Law School, and my professor was Eric Tucker. He writes many things in this field of back-to-work legislation and what has been happening. Most recently he has written about wildcat strikes and how they are changing the face of North America.
I am firmly on the side of persuasion being a better tool than prescription. I don’t find prescription to be completely effective because people do not like to be told what to do.
However, if you build a case for a common goal of economic prosperity — as I said, we’re in difficult times right now in our country — maybe that is the path forward. Maybe you do have this one moment in time when Part I of the Canada Labour Code can be amended and passed through the two houses to get to a place where we have a workable process that everyone can sign off on and agree that, okay, it may not be perfect but it is far less adversarial, because it is the adversarial nature that kills us on supply chain reliability. As I said, it is humans around that table, and one person being frustrated with one another and all of them being frustrated with the minister and the government isn’t necessarily the best way forward.
The Chair: We are coming to the end of our time. Lisa, I want to thank you for your insightful comments tonight.
If you had to give a two-minute conclusion to what we have discussed tonight, what words of wisdom would you pass on to us in terms of considerations as we try to come to some conclusion with the work we have done on this issue or subject?
Ms. Raitt: Yes. Senator, my plea to you as a committee is to please do something. Be bold. Give recommendations that are not looked upon as being the normal ones. We have seen the status quo recommendations for the past 40 years. You can go back to the Sims report. You can go back to all of them. It is a long history of how we have dealt with it.
We have been dealing with back-to-work legislation and collective bargaining in this country the same way since the 1940s. We deserve to have a better regime. I’m hoping that your committee can thoughtfully bring together all of the testimony. I have read the testimony that has been transcribed to date. It is interesting. I don’t necessarily see those bright ideas.
Dig hard. Ask academia what they are thinking. Look for a new path forward for us. Then do not be shy about telling the government we have to think about it in a different way. You have the luxury to do that, senator. That is why the Senate does the best studies, because you are not beholden. You can come up with interesting stuff that one day parliamentarians may actually adopt.
The Chair: On behalf of all of our members, I thank you sincerely for the time you have given us. You have been generous, thoughtful and we certainly appreciate your expertise. I thank you again on behalf of our committee. Thank you and have a great evening.
Ms. Raitt: Thank you. It has been my pleasure. I appreciate it.
The Chair: We will now move in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)