THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 11, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 6:46 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.
Senator Larry W. Smith (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening, colleagues. Good evening, minister. We’re pleased to have you with us tonight. We hope that we will have some more committee members. They are between votes on a bill in terms of amendments, but we have quorum, and it will give us an opportunity to spend some time together and get as much information as possible.
[Translation]
Colleagues, to support the smooth operation of committee proceedings, the following guidelines must be observed by all participants to help prevent audio feedback.
[English]
Please consult the cards placed on the committee tables for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Keep earpieces away from all microphones at all times. Microphones must not be touched. Activation and deactivation will be managed by the console operator. Avoid handling your earpieces while the microphone is active. Earpieces should either remain on the ear or be placed on the designated sticker at each seat. Thank you all for your cooperation.
My name is Larry Smith. I am the senator from Quebec and chair of the committee. Now I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: Senator Paula Simons, Alberta. I come from Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Wilson: Senator Duncan Wilson, British Columbia.
Senator Lewis: Senator Todd Lewis, from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. I would like to welcome everyone with us today as well as those listening to us online on the Senate’s website, sencanada.ca. We are meeting today to continue our study on the maintenance of transport services in the case of labour disruptions. With that, I would like to now welcome our minister, the Honourable Patty Hajdu.
Hon. Patty Hajdu, P.C., M.P., Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario: Hi, everybody. My name is Patty Hajdu. I am the Member of Parliament for Thunder Bay—Superior North and I have the honour of serving as Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency of Northern Ontario, commonly known as FedNor. This is actually my second time serving in this capacity as the labour minister, and I have to say it is a role that I greatly enjoy. Is it okay if I let my colleagues introduce themselves?
The Chair: Please go ahead and introduce yourselves.
Rob Wright, Deputy Minister of Labour and Associate Deputy Minister of Employment and Social Development, Employment and Social Development Canada: I’m very glad to be here. I’m Rob Wright, the newly installed Deputy Minister of Labour, working with Minister Hajdu.
Gary Robertson, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Dispute Resolution and International Affairs, Labour Program, Employment and Social Development Canada: I’m Gary Robertson, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister of the Policy group.
[Translation]
Ms. Hajdu: First, I would like to thank the committee members for their valuable work.
[English]
It’s very important work, and, as I said to the chair as we were chatting earlier, the study that you are undertaking right now, I think, couldn’t be happening at a more critical time in our economy, and I think everybody is very aware of the economic shocks that Canadians have been facing as a result of the tariffs and one would say the trade war that we’re experiencing with the United States. Obviously, there have been disruptions in transportation in particular. This is a very important study, and I hope the results from your study will help inform the government and all parties for the next period of time.
I do know that you have heard from the former Minister of Labour, the Honourable Lisa Raitt, and I had a chance to look at her testimony. I would say that she very well highlighted the challenging role that the labour minister will face in balancing the different interests that really land on your lap as the labour minister during an escalation of a dispute. She spoke very much about the fine balance that the government tries to maintain during a time of dispute between workers and employers.
She also spoke about the seriousness that I would believe that every labour minister feels about the situation when there is either a dispute that has become very serious or a dispute that has spilled over into labour strife. Those are very difficult moments for the government because you are balancing a variety of different interests.
The Canada Labour Code does require that parties identify any activities necessary to prevent any immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public. I also understand that you have heard a number of different views on what that means and how you interpret that element of the code. I believe that as a government and as a labour minister, in particular, the work that I do as the labour minister is about supporting the stability of our supply chains, with maintaining meaningful collective bargaining and also respecting workers’ fundamental right to strike, which is, as you know, contained within our Charter rights.
For me, if I can just veer off my speech for a moment, this is all about relationships. That’s partly why I love this job so much. I do want to acknowledge the work of Gary Robertson, in particular. Rob Wright is new as my deputy, an exemplary human being, but Gary has been doing this for many, many years. I want to acknowledge the work that he has done to lead the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, or FMCS, and the fine team of mediators who really do understand that to prevent a strike, you have to probably take 10 steps back and really be thinking through the relationship from early days. Certainly, that’s, for me, why this work is so interesting, but also so critical.
It is also why, in 2024, our government introduced new legislation that requires parties to agree on the maintenance of activities in the event of a strike or lockout at the beginning of bargaining. Because, of course, in the heat of the moment, it can be very difficult to even agree on very simple things once emotions are high and feelings are so, I would say, intense. When we’re talking about the space of labour negotiations, people forget that it is individuals who are doing this work, that it is not necessarily just the corporation and the union, but that those are actually people who are reflected in those rooms, and people get tired, people get lonely, people get scared, and people get angry. All of those feelings can be very difficult to work through when you are trying to establish, for example, maintenance of activities in the heat of the moment.
This way, by doing so earlier, there can be an agreement and a plan for continuity before we get to those extremely, I would say, hot moments where people are sometimes having a hard time removing themselves from the frustration that they are feeling.
Additionally, our government recently put an end to the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces during strikes or lockouts. Of course, replacement workers have long been considered, especially by unionized workers, as workers who undermine the trust and prolong disputes, and now that practice is no longer available.
At the end of the day, the government is committed to improving labour relations and supporting employers and workers in Canada. I do believe — and I’m sure you have heard this from many other parties — that the best deals are the ones that are reached at the table. And why? Because even with interference or support in a more, I suppose, firm way by a government, agreements can be arrived at, but they can be resented deeply by the union and, in some cases, by the employer. That leads to a deterioration of that relationship I was talking about earlier, which makes even the next round complicated and starting from behind.
That’s why we focus so hard on early intervention with parties, through the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, to get to a place where they can actually arrive at a collective agreement, where everyone understands there will be compromises and everyone understands that there will be wins and losses to a certain degree, but that people, by and large, walk away from their negotiated agreement, agreeing to continue to work together in good faith and without the kind of resentment that we see when there is an intervention by a government.
Last fiscal year, the FMCS, the mediation team, supported over 200 collective bargaining negotiations. I’m sure you have heard this number before. Ninety-seven per cent were resolved without a work stoppage.
But as you have seen and as you are studying, when talks break down, it can be very challenging for employers, for companies, for Canadians and for other workers along the supply chain who rely on the services that particular organization provides. It can, indeed, threaten Canada’s economic health. As I said, these are fragile economic times, and Canadians are very worried — in fact, intolerant, I would say — of additional pressures on their own prosperity, jobs and their own feelings of safety and security in their own communities.
My role during collective bargaining is to be there to the degree that the parties want me to be there. Gary knows that sometimes parties want to see the minister early, and that is, in my mind, a best practice. If parties want to engage early with the minister, we make that happen. If parties want to see the minister in the middle of a heated debate, then I fly out to where the negotiators are with the parties, and I am there as well. So this is a real hands-on role for a labour minister.
I will say, in certain instances, the government must act and intervene in order to restore industrial peace. As I said — and Ms. Raitt reflected this in her remarks — these are not easy decisions for labour ministers. They are taken with a great deal of respect for the work that has gone on by both the employer and the union. But, indeed, part of the labour minister’s job is not just to uphold the collective right to bargain and to strike, but also to foster industrial peace. Those decisions, when they come, each one is different, but they are all ultimately very important and taken with a great degree of care.
We are looking at how we can strengthen our federal labour relations framework, and this includes strengthening this collective bargaining process by getting started earlier, by ensuring people have appropriate tools, renewed tools to help them have those conversations earlier and arrive and get through those difficult sticking points where people are not agreeing.
We’re also looking into measures that could be advanced to stabilize supply chains and strengthen the Canadian economy at this very uncertain time.
Again, I think we have lots to talk about, Mr. Chair, and I am very pleased to be here. I especially want to thank you for the thoughtfulness with which you are pursuing this study. It certainly is a challenging time for Canadians, and I think they would be reassured to know that a group of you are doing this work on behalf of all Canadians. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. Let’s move on to questions from senators. Senators, we give you each five minutes, but hopefully we can get as much information in five minutes of questioning as possible so that we can have as many questions as possible. We have time to 7:45 p.m. Minister, is that all right with you if we ended up around 7:45?
Ms. Hajdu: Absolutely.
The Chair: So I think we can move forward with questions from our deputy chair.
Senator Dasko: Thank you minister and officials for being here. During the course of our study, we have had a lot of testimony from companies and workers talking about the labour disruptions and the impact of the disruptions on jobs, on people, on communities and on companies. We have had a lot of companies who have come to tell us how damaging the labour disruptions are.
I know your government has used different tools. You’ve used section 107; you’ve used back-to-work legislation. I remember getting called back to work in my early days in the Senate to vote on a Canada Post settlement. So you have used a lot of different tools.
We also hear about how our relations here in this country are not nearly as good as they may be in other countries. I just wonder if you have any thoughts or might reflect on why we have developed this environment over the years. Are we doomed to continue this culture? Are we doomed by our history? You have mentioned some possible policy actions for improvement, and I want to get back to that too and ask what you think are the best things we should be doing right now.
We have to write a report on this study, and I would love to hear your views about that.
Ms. Hajdu: Thank you very much, senator. Listen, when there is a labour dispute — and apologies for having to call you back to help pass back-to-work legislation. I’m not sure which year that was —
Senator Dasko: It was 2018.
Ms. Hajdu: In 2018, that was the Canada Post dispute that I used back-to-work legislation to resolve. And you’re right, there are flashpoints where we can remember specific disputes that were very disruptive. I would point you back to the number of disputes that are resolved without conflict. What I would say is that, unfortunately, when there are labour disputes, they overshadow the majority of collective agreements that are negotiated without dispute.
In fact, we have data that demonstrates that if you exclude Canada Post, which we can talk about at length in a moment, actually, the person-days not worked are declining. So although it feels that we are having more disruption, in fact, we really aren’t losing more days than we were before; in fact, that number is going down.
I think Canada Post, in particular, is a bit of a unique relationship. It has been a challenging relationship, in part because it is a Crown corporation and in part because the government is, in a weird way, also negotiating on behalf of the Crown corporation — an independent Crown, I understand. As you would know, injections of a lot of financial support to keep that Crown corporation afloat are needed. And I think, quite frankly, the decision Prime Minister Carney made recently to give that corporation flexibility to operate differently was, indeed, what needed to happen to unstick some of those challenges.
I’m hoping that the next round of negotiations between the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, or CUPW, and Canada Post will be much more productive; one will have to wait and see.
Without Canada Post in the picture, in fact, what we are seeing is a reduction in those days lost.
Senator Dasko: What’s the very best thing we can do to try to stay on a good track or get us on a better track?
Ms. Hajdu: We are looking at how we can foster those relationships at an early stage. I would say that would be one piece of work.
Tomorrow morning I have a tripartite meeting that has been called for by both employers and unions where we will bring together, for example, Federally Regulated Employers – Transportation and Communications, or FETCO — which, as you know, is the coalition that brings federally regulated workers together — with the Canadian Labour Congress, or CLC, and other representatives of the union movement so that we can actually talk together about what those best practices and potentially new tools look like.
We have to be careful not to minimize, I would say, the significance of the tools that we do have. As you know, and you mentioned this, there is back-to-work legislation which has been used. Section 107, which is currently being challenged in a number of different court cases, has been used. Each dispute is different. Each dispute requires a different solution and a different tool.
I would be hesitant to say there’s a magic tool out there that we could add to our tool box, but I would also say that we are very open and want to work collaboratively with both the employer group and the union group to determine what will best help them. Because ultimately — and I’m going to sound like a broken record — those deals they arrive at together, even hard-fought deals, even when there is conflict getting to those deals, are a much better outcome than an imposed deal by even an arbitrator.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Mohamed and Senator Arnold, meet Minister Hajdu, Rob Wright and Gary Robertson.
Senator Lewis: Thanks for your comments so far. I recognize the balancing act you have to play, but, at the same time, when we talk about industrial peace, there is not much commercial peace in a lot of the — I’m from Saskatchewan. Boy, railroad imports have been — the perception that things are getting better, from the agricultural producers in my province, they’re worse. And we don’t have commercial peace even now.
At every single trade mission my colleagues go on to represent Canada at the international level, the first question is, “Can you supply what we’re going to possibly buy from you?” We spend a lot of time on China. This summer those important shipments of canola are at risk.
It’s a very difficult position. When we talk about a strike, the threat of a strike is just as damaging commercially as the strike itself. As we know, in a railroad, the slowdown starts weeks before. With the threat of a strike, shipments start slowing down. All our customers want just-in-time delivery. So once the system stops or starts to wind down, it takes a long time to start again.
I appreciate your comments around looking at new tools. How are we going to get to that stage where we’re not put in a position where you have to go halfway through in those heated moments? Do we need a different framework? Is there a possibility of a different framework that both employers and unions can work towards before they get to the threat of a strike or a strike? That’s the situation we find ourselves in.
Ms. Hajdu: Thank you, senator. You’re absolutely right about the threat of a strike being as difficult economically, not just for the producers but for the corporation and the economy as a whole.
Senator Lewis: And customers as well.
Ms. Hajdu: And we see that. We calculate that, as a matter of fact, and other departments are calculating that and speaking sometimes, I would say, on a minute-by-minute basis with labour and giving us renewed calculations even as a strike looms.
We also know, especially with large transportation companies, that it is not as easy as turning on and off a switch. I have certainly experienced that as well. For example, airlines don’t want to strand their passengers, so flights start to get grounded well before the actual strike time. You are absolutely right; people start to withhold shipments or start to make alternative plans. Ultimately, at the end of the day, this is not good for anybody — I think you have listed a number of stakeholders.
As I said, we’re always open to new tools. I don’t know if I heard this in your question, but there isn’t a way, though, to remove the right to strike absolutely; that is a constitutional right. And barring changing the Constitution, which is definitely not something that’s in my role to do, and I wouldn’t have an appetite to do that — I think that the Constitution does actually protect workers in circumstances where they have lost control — we need to find alternatives, especially in this time where we are seeing such an economic threat to our country.
Those alternatives have to be felt by both parties as workable, hence the work we’re commencing with the tripartite table, the work the department is doing and the mediation service with, for example, rail and ports right now that have collective agreements that will expire later in the year. We’re not waiting to engage. We can’t force parties to engage, but we are sensing a willingness that people do want to engage. Because, I think, despite the history and some of these relationships, there is a profound understanding about the threat to the Canadian economy and to Canadian workers all along the supply chain. I think that’s the last point I’ll make.
It is not just those workers that are impacted and not just those companies or shippers or receivers. It’s also the auto worker in a unionized plant in southern Ontario who — to your point — needs just-in-time delivery of parts for their line. With that delay, it can stop the line and result in, at least, slowdowns and jeopardize commitments on contracts and really put the entire country at risk.
Your point about needing tools is important. I would say that we do have some very powerful tools. The government, as you know — I think most labour ministers have had to use those tools. I think I’ve expressed the regret that we feel when we have to step in to resolve other people’s disputes. Nonetheless, it is part of the job of the labour minister to determine that balance when some rights are now superseding other rights. That is a challenging space, but we have, as you know, not hesitated to take that action when we felt that there was an impasse in those negotiations.
Senator Lewis: To the point of essential services or the right to strike, we never heard that from any of our witnesses that that was a goal.
To your point about when it comes to using back-to-work legislation, it’s a tool, but it’s a failure by the time — nobody’s happy.
Ms. Hajdu: A failure of relationships. You’re right.
Senator Lewis: On everybody, right?
Ms. Hajdu: You’re right.
Senator Lewis: And to the entire supply chain, because if it’s at that point, there has been a lot of damage done already.
We heard from a lot of the witnesses we had, talking about how to stretch it out to try and get the — it really is the last resort, because at times it seems it’s almost where we’re headed right from day one, and we have to get away from that somehow or another.
The Chair: Can we move forward? We have to make sure everyone has a chance to ask some questions.
Senator Wilson: I understand that the Senate is now adjourned for an hour, so we are going to be able to finish this time with you and not have to run out to vote.
Minister, I want to say thank you very much for being here. We really do appreciate it. It’s great to be able to have this conversation directly with you.
By way of background, prior to being in the Senate, I was with the Port of Vancouver for more than two decades, the last 14 years of which I was a member of the executive, so I have lived through plenty of labour disputes. I have also been on the receiving end of calls from some of Senator Lewis’s constituents, and I have also been in shipping line headquarters and customer headquarters around the world.
Over that career, I don’t think there was a single meeting where the concern about labour reliability in Canada didn’t come up in terms of the supply chain. Every single time it would come up. Even when we had prolonged periods of no strikes, the anxiety that people had about doing business with Canada because of that perceived lack of reliability — and in some cases, it is a real lack of reliability.
As you know, the study that we’re doing is very focused on the supply chain. It’s just railways and ports. In my view, I think that’s very different from — we’ve had some people raise the Air Canada strike and airline strikes in these meetings, and, to me, that’s a very different situation because it’s not the same kind of monopoly situation. If you’re in Saskatchewan, and you are only on one rail line, and your stuff goes through one port, you don’t have flexibility. You don’t have options.
I’m interested to know what, if anything, you and your department are doing that’s very focused on the supply chain, on ports and rail, to stabilize that. It is the backbone of our economy, and the anxiety that we’ve heard in our hearings has been palpable.
Ms. Hajdu: Thanks for sharing your background. You’ll be pleased to know I was in Vancouver last week, meeting with the BC Maritime Employers Association, or BCMEA, and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, or ILWU, the two unions. That was our second meeting in a month or so, and it was very encouraging, to be honest.
I think, again, the sense that I’m getting from some of the stakeholders, in particular amongst the ports, is that they understand those exact things that you are talking about and that there is a reputation that Canada has right now of not being able to deliver on the goods that we need to ship to ourselves and around the world. That is a business fragility, but it is also a fragility for workers because, ultimately, at the end of the day, we have — and I would say it’s also a fragility for our sovereignty, to be honest. If we don’t have the ability to ship as a country, then we can make all the trade deals that we want, but we won’t be able to get our stuff to market. We can look for new markets, but if people don’t have confidence that we can actually get our stuff out of Canada and onto those boats and to new countries, then we will be really disadvantaged. The northern Ontario girl in me had a different word for that. We would be disadvantaged.
That’s why we take these relationships so seriously. For me, coming into this role again and seeing the degradation of the ability of the parties to talk, the first step was to try to bring them together.
You know that there has been a commission, in particular, on the ports. We asked all three parties, really, to respond to the recommendations of the commissioner. There were some disputes, of course, as to what parts of the report different parties felt were good advice or bad advice, but what I think came out of that response was a willingness of all the parties to sit together in a room. I’m not saying we’re out of the woods at all, but I will say that the fact that we’re meeting right now and mediation is meeting right now months ahead of the conclusion of the collective agreement is, to me, a positive sign. I’m not going to say we’re out of the woods, but we are seeing positive signs.
I will also say that the tools that we have are very powerful, whether it is section 107 or back-to-work legislation. The tool that you choose depends on the circumstances of your government. I’ve used back-to-work legislation, and I’ve used section 107 — again, not lightly. It is not anything that I would enjoy doing. To your point, I would much prefer that parties were able to arrive at an agreement themselves.
Those are very powerful tools, and I would say that, to your point, the problem with those tools is that they don’t necessarily restore confidence to the very people that we want to restore confidence to: the shippers and the customers. Sure, Canada can force people back to work using these tools, and we have, but that’s not the confidence that the people you’re talking about are looking for. What they’re looking for is stability of relationships.
I think that’s the journey we’re on now with the department and with the leadership of the Prime Minister. We have to get to a more functional place, tools aside, so that we don’t actually end up in a box where that is the last resort to restore confidence to the Canadian economy.
Senator Simons: Minister Hajdu, I guess what I worry about is that when you don’t let a labour dispute play out, and you short-circuit things by ordering people back to work with whatever methodology you use, you buy yourself security in the moment, but you set yourself up for more labour unrest down the road, because things haven’t had the chance to play out. It’s that old expression: “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” You’ve pre-empted evil today, but future Minister Hajdu is going to have a problem down the road because the underlying tensions have not been resolved.
I know that when the Air Canada flight attendants went on strike, there was huge public sympathy for them because we see flight attendants all the time and because, frankly, the idea that they don’t get paid until the door shuts struck a lot of Canadians as unfair. They had kind of a whip hand.
I don’t know that people feel the same kind of tenderness towards longshoremen and teamsters. Nonetheless, working conditions in ports and on long-distance rail are really tough, and we don’t have enough workers going into those lines of work. We have a shortage of railway engineers and people who work on docks.
Sometimes you have to let the kids in the back of the car fight it out and not always be short-circuiting the natural consequences of letting people suffer through the labour shock, which might teach them a lesson. I guess that is my real concern. If we keep going every single time to circumvent the labour disruption in the moment, we’re going to pay for it down the road with a longer disruption because the relationship between the parties has been allowed to fester and not to heal.
The Chair: Do you have a question, Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: It’s difficult. We heard our witnesses in October, and then we were busy with the budget implementation act and other things. We did hear from witnesses, not just from the labour movement but from academics who study the field, who said the government’s overreliance on ordering people back to work is going to, in the end, blow up in their faces, because we won’t have resolved any of the underlying structural problems that deal with monopoly, with labour shortages and with the fact that nobody has any sympathy because everybody wants stuff moving to market.
Ms. Hajdu: I would say that the times that I’ve had to use tools that interfere with people’s right to strike — again, this is not a decision you take lightly. I take your point, Senator Simons, that if you help solve people’s disputes and don’t let them fight it out in the back seat of the car, they will not figure out how to resolve their disputes. I think that is certainly something we’ve heard, and I’ve heard that from experts as well.
I will also say that there are times where parties will and have declared to me, “We are at an impasse.” That means nobody is returning to the table; that means nobody is tabling a new offer. This can happen on either side. It can happen from employers; it can happen from unions. I’ve seen it all. When you are at an impasse and both parties are saying, “We are at an impasse,” and fighting it out means Canadians stuck abroad or canola that can’t get to market and is rotting in farmers’ containers — there are many compounding impacts — that’s the difficult decision. That’s the industrial peace piece that a labour minister really struggles with.
To your point, sometimes resetting a relationship is not just letting them fight it out in the car. People can get in car accidents that way. I don’t know if you’ve ever driven while kids are fighting. As a single mother, sometimes I’ve had to pull over and say, “Look, we can’t go any further.” That’s what we’re trying to do right now. We’re trying to pull the car over and say, “Look, this is not working.”
I’m so relieved that the tripartite table, both employers and unions, is excited to start this process. I think we’re going to get some good, fruitful conversations and suggestions about earlier intervention, what works, what doesn’t, what tools could be used. I think there’s an opportunity for them to hear from each other, which sometimes doesn’t happen, especially not in the moment when people are trying to shout over each other.
Senator Simons: We held these hearings against the backdrop of the premier of my province invoking the “notwithstanding” clause to strip teachers of their right to strike. I think you said to Senator Lewis that it would require a constitutional amendment. It wouldn’t, in fact. It would require the invocation of the “notwithstanding” clause to take away people’s right to strike.
I come from a province where we also spell “disadvantaged” with an “F,” and I don’t want to see people disadvantaged in that way on the labour side of the equation either.
Ms. Hajdu: Of course not. Ultimately, I believe in unionization. I have a whole chart here of why unionization rates in Canada — which are much higher, for example, in the rail industry — benefit our families: higher wages, safer conditions. Unionization is an important part of how we build a healthy middle class, how we ensure families who are working long hours and in sometimes very difficult conditions are fairly compensated, that they have good legislation and good collective agreements that protect them from getting hurt at work. Ultimately, everybody wants our Canadian workers to be prosperous and to be safe at work.
I can’t comment on your particular province, nor will I, on their decisions. I can tell you as the federal labour minister — I think you heard this from Minister Raitt as well — that’s why these decisions, even if it sounds trite, are taken with great reluctance, because of all the points you’ve raised. We know those agreements are going to be better if they’re not dictated through arbitration. As you would know, there are many different kinds of arbitration.
The Chair: I’ve never felt such excitement from the room, and we don’t have all of our members here. I just want to ensure that everyone has a chance to talk with you.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I would like to thank the minister for joining us today. It’s good to see you.
I have two questions. I’m telling you this because I hope that you’ll keep your answer short enough for me to ask my second question.
My first question is the following. The committee has been looking at this topic for a few months. We’ve heard from all kinds of witnesses. I’m wondering something. We have smart people in this world and in Canada and we have all kinds of experts. Why can’t the tripartite committee or whoever put a plan on paper two years before the collective agreement expires? That way, they could complete all the steps to come to an agreement before going on strike.
We seem to have tools in Canada, unlike the Railway Act in the United States. Yet, even if we have tools, sometimes the system breaks down in the middle and we have another tool to use at a different stage. There doesn’t seem to be a system or plan to follow from A to Z before a strike takes place. I would like to hear your brief comments on this topic, and then I have another question.
[English]
Ms. Hajdu: Thank you so much. I will try to do it quickly. Therefore, I’ll do it in English, because I’ll also be clearer.
We have been adding tools, for example, recently, Bill C-58, which says that people have to determine well before a strike happens what essential services are for their business or their company. I think those kinds of things are tools that will help with that preplanning that you’re talking about.
I will also say that the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service will work with parties early. Again, it’s voluntary. We can’t force them into a room and lock them there, but many parties will ask for early intervention to deal with irritants that have accumulated.
The last thing I’ll say is that we need a strong and healthy Canada Industrial Relations Board, or CIRB, to help when people are not feeling their collective agreement is protecting them. That’s the work that we’ve been doing to support the CIRB and ensure we can work through the cases. I will continue to advocate for an independent relations board that does that work, which helps prevent the buildup of frustration.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: My second question concerns a different topic. On May 29, 2025, the Quebec National Assembly passed Bill 89, An Act to give greater consideration to the needs of the population in the event of a strike or a lock-out. The Quebec Labour Code seeks to maintain services ensuring the well-being of the population, that is, the services minimally required to prevent the population’s social, economic or environmental security from being disproportionally affected, in particular that of persons in vulnerable situations. Do you think that a similar bill could be passed under the Canada Labour Code to avoid a work stoppage? Thank you.
[English]
Ms. Hajdu: At this time, there is no contemplation of doing the same thing as the update that Quebec has done to their code. I will say that your study and the work of the tripartite committee are going to be very important because, as I said, we are looking for tools that people agree will be useful to prevent work stoppages.
Senator Mohamed: Nice to see you, minister. I will be brief.
I am new to this space of labour relations. During some of the witness testimonies, we heard a lot about — and I’m sorry I missed your remarks; you may have addressed this already — trying to make sure that things move well. We’re out there trying to get more deals for trade and trying to expand our markets.
Without asking you to betray any cabinet confidence, can you share with us a little bit about what we are being told outside of Canada in terms of the reliability of our systems? To me, once you lose somebody, you lose them, and they don’t likely come back. If we are out there and trying to get all these new deals and we don’t have the infrastructure to support all of this, it is sort of like the chicken and the egg.
I wonder if you could help us understand what the reality is. I know this is not your portfolio, but I’m going to assume you speak to the Minister of International Trade because the two are very closely aligned. Do we have what it takes to actually deliver? What are your reflections on this inflection point where we currently are? Thank you.
Ms. Hajdu: I can’t comment on what other partners around the world have said. I have heard it third-hand from, obviously, colleagues who have said that the stability of the supply chain is a critical ingredient to getting our goods to market. I take them at their word that those are the conversations they have been having.
I have spoken, though, with other Canadian leaders who have, in a domestic context, talked about the challenges. I don’t know if you were in the room when I spoke about the auto sector, for example, which can be deeply impacted if there is a long-term or even a short disruption. We were talking about how disruptions are not just the time people are on strike; it happens before. Of course, there is a resumption of services, which takes time, and it can really jeopardize all kinds of other industries that rely on goods that are being delivered, particularly in a just-in-time kind of context but also in other ways.
In my role, I’ve certainly heard domestically about how the fragility of the transportation system can lead to real anxiety and, in some cases, a reduction in business, depending on the circumstances.
Senator Arnold: Thank you, minister, for being here with us today. I apologize for being late. I hope I’m not reiterating something that has already been said.
I’m very happy to hear how you are working proactively with people, and you pull the car over and you are giving them a talking-to or whatever. That’s really great. You were talking about the tools you would like and how you are looking to us and potentially our report to provide some of those tools.
One thing we have heard about before — maybe this has already been discussed — is that in the U.S. they have a 60-day kind of cooling-off period. Have you put any thought into implementing something like that? Has that already been covered?
Ms. Hajdu: Thank you very much for the question. I do understand that it’s a completely different frame in the United States, and that’s largely because they have a completely different landscape. We do have the Charter right to strike, and that makes it very different here in Canada.
I would also say that they have a much lower rate of unionization in the United States, and that, in our brief assessment of the data, does mean that there are lower wages overall in the sector of rail, for example. I can’t speak to all sectors.
Although we’re talking about labour disruptions and the right to strike, unionization plays a really important role in this country. I stand by that, and the Prime Minister does too, by the way. When we talk about building Canada strong, we are talking about good union jobs. Why? Because unions protect wages. They protect workers from harm. They insist on safe workplaces.
This is a dance that happens between workers and — I think this is what I was going to say to Senator Mohamed. The responsibility doesn’t just rest on the workers. The responsibility rests on employers too. There is a responsibility of employers to follow collective agreements and to make sure that they are actually ensuring the safety of their workers, that they are acting as good corporate citizens and recognizing that their workforce is the most valuable asset that they have. I have to say that the majority of employers think this way, but there are some who really struggle.
The balance that I try to achieve as the labour minister is to reflect the needs of three things: the economy of Canada, obviously; the workers and the workers’ rights established in the Constitution but also in their collective agreement, which is sometimes being violated; and the need for the employer to stay profitable and, obviously, be able to get their goods to market and to their customers on time. That’s the delicate balance that goes into being a labour minister when there is a very hot dispute.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I apologize for being late.
I’m sure that a number of questions have been asked. However, I’ll ask you a slightly more philosophical question about the balance of power. Generally speaking, in labour disputes, the balance of power is between the union members and the employer. However, a third factor comes into play here. When a rail or rail service strike takes place, the small businesses and all the people who depend on trains and rail transportation pay the price. We seem to think that we should let things run their course, because it’s a relationship between employees and their employer.
In this case, what about the Canadian population, trade and businesses affected by strikes? I would say that the union’s balance of power is much greater than in most conflicts. We’re dealing with a rather special situation here, which explains the Quebec legislation. I’m not saying that I agree with this legislation. However, it stems from the idea of redefining essential services. It isn’t just the employer who may suffer, but ultimately the entire population as well.
[English]
Ms. Hajdu: Thank you very much, senator. We did discuss this a bit that when a strike happens, it deeply impacts people all along the supply chain, including and probably more profoundly small businesses, which have even less flextime or flex room, if you will, in their operating capacity to manage these unanticipated things that happen during a strike.
For example, in the Canada Post strike, I heard from small businesses a lot, actually, who use Canada Post as an affordable way to ship their goods around the country. Even though there are alternative shippers, they cost more, which affected their bottom line, and certainly that is part of the consideration that a labour minister has to make whenever there is a strike.
Ultimately, first of all, I would say that the best way to support small businesses is to try to foster better relationships between the employer and the union. Unions and workers do have a right to strike in this country. It is established in the Constitution. We have, as you know, recently amended the Canada Labour Code to actually compel workers and their employers to determine essential services long before a strike would happen.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: However, don’t you think that the balance of power is skewed and that a new approach is then needed, such as a special mediator or binding arbitration?
[English]
Ms. Hajdu: Again, I don’t know if I have the perfect answer. What I would say is that when you speak to workers who are very frustrated and they have decided to take strike action, they feel that the balance of power has been manipulated against them. When you speak to small businesses, they feel powerless in the middle of a strike because they are not even a party to the dispute, but they are suffering nonetheless as a result of the impact on their bottom line.
Again, the best answer I have for you is the work that we’re doing now to get ahead of a situation where we have a strike and where we can foster greater peace in those — and I will remind you — 3% of the cases in which we see labour action. Ninety-seven per cent of federally regulated collective agreements are negotiated without any labour action. But the ones that do see labour action, strikes, for example, those are profoundly disruptive to the Canadian economy, and it is, to Senator Simons’ point, why the government is under such pressure in those moments to do something, because, in fact, the cost to the Canadian economy — and by “the Canadian economy,” I mean small business owners, larger businesses, individuals with paycheques that are being disrupted along the supply chain, who are all saying, “Do something.” That is the balance that a labour minister must find between protecting people’s right to strike or labour action when they feel that they are not being negotiated with fairly by their employer and the ability to step in to foster industrial peace. It’s not an easy moment.
The Chair: We have five minutes left. We really appreciate the fact that you have come and spent some time with us. I would ask Senator Dasko and one of our other members if they have a quick question.
Senator Dasko: No.
Senator Wilson: I could go for another few hours. Minister, contrary to what Senator Lewis said earlier, I do recall testimony from some folks suggesting that we should look at making things an essential service. That being said, we also heard the right to strike is constitutionally protected, but that it is not an absolute right.
I’m going to set that aside, and I want to ask you about something else that we heard in testimony, and that is what they do in the United States, which is they have a mediator who is in the process from the very beginning, and that mediator controls the timeline for the process, whereas here we have established timelines. I don’t know if you call them statutory timelines. We have established timelines. In the U.S., their systems are much more reliable. Their labour relations seem to be much more reliable than in Canada. I’m interested to know if you and your department have been looking at the U.S. model.
Ms. Hajdu: We have observed the U.S. model. I wouldn’t say we are looking at the U.S. model, just because their legal landscape is so different and the reality of their shipping industry is so different. We have two major rail lines; they have dozens of rail lines. We have a higher rate of unionization; they have a very low rate of unionization. It is an apples-and-oranges comparison.
Having said that, I agree with you that having earlier intervention — and what that looks like right now is something I think the tripartite table will explore — is critical to getting a better outcome for all of us. Ultimately, at the end of the day, negotiating at the final hour, when there are unresolved grievances, unresolved angst and difficult relationships from previous settlements that have been, in some cases, imposed by an arbitrator, does not result in great conversations. These are people, as I said, in my earlier comments. These are human beings. These are individuals, and individuals, just like all of us, need to maintain our relationships. So that is part of the work that we’re doing right now.
Senator Lewis: You talk about reputation internationally and so on, but it is starting to seep in domestically as well. We saw it with Nutrien’s decision, and to your point about losing good union jobs, there are going to be good union jobs in Washington State. They are going to be created by their decision to go down there to ship their potash. Are you seeing more of that from Canadian companies that are beginning, more and more, to become worried about that it has gotten to the stage where they just can’t depend on our system that we have?
Ms. Hajdu: I wouldn’t say I have heard that at all, actually. What I am seeing right now is Canadian companies determined to stand up for their country and to have a footprint in Canada and employ Canadians. In fact, what I am seeing from Canadians from coast to coast to coast is a fight for their country, and I hope that corporate Canada feels that too. In fact, this is a time where we need to stand together — corporate Canada, labour unions and, indeed, government. That’s exactly the path that we’re on right now.
The Chair: I see lights flashing, so that means there could be a vote somewhere.
Minister, thank you very much for coming in. There is one little message I would like to ask of you. Maybe Mr. Wright and Mr. Robertson could help us with that. In my experience, I have done a lot of selling in my life and managing large numbers of people, and the thing that I have always focused on because it was taught to me was relationship building and trust. Trust is one of the most critical elements of any successful relationship. Could you take a couple of minutes and send us one or two pages on your strategy of trust building and how you are going to use trust building in a formal way to help you with your negotiations that will be coming up? I have done a few labour deals also — not on the same scale — but trust is always an important element. Thank you so much. If you could get something to us, Rob and Gary and minister, within the next couple of weeks.
Ms. Hajdu: The trust exercise too? I will. It is a great challenge. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your time.
Colleagues, pursuant to the motion adopted yesterday in the Senate and given that we have concluded our first panel with Minister Hajdu, this brings us to the end of our meeting. I want to remind senators that our next meeting will take place on March 24, 2026, at 9:00 a.m.
(The committee adjourned.)