International Trade Committee on Dec. 7th, 2023

[Bruce Rodgers]

I would say that it does. That's correct.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

One thing we also heard today is that, as a result of this, the cost of food and the cost of building homes went up as well because of the disruptions in the supply chain. Is that correct?

[Robert Ballantyne]

I haven't heard anything on that.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Would anyone want to cast a thought onto that? Would this have had an impact on the cost of homes and the cost of food for Canadians?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Seeback.

We have Mr. Arya for six minutes, please.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Murray, listening to you has raised my concern. I strongly believe that unions are required in any society. Unions have played a great role in protecting the rights of workers and providing benefits. However, listening to you now, I hear the casual attitude in your speech towards Canada's reputation and the supply chain disruptions, with no regard for the tens of thousands of workers affected by the strike of a few hundred workers.

Coming to the economic impact, probably later I'll go back and read your actual words. The words you used were that a balance exists.

How can I accept that? We talk about calculating the total economic impact of the disruption in trade as being worth $800 million a day with a cumulative effect of about $10.7 billion. If this is the attitude of the workers—whose right to unionize and right to strike I agree with—then maybe I should accept Mr. Ballantyne's proposal that we need to expand the definition of essential services.

Canada is a prosperous country, but 65% of our GDP comes from trade. We need trade to be flowing freely. There's a highly competitive world outside. We don't have the natural advantages we used to have once upon a time. It's a very competitive market out there and the Vancouver port, in the worldwide rankings on port efficiency, is ranked 347 out of 348.

We may quibble with the performance indicators and what have been considered to be the factors. However, we are not even close to anywhere near the top 25%. We are at the dead end and this is noted. In 2019, on the industry perceptions of export transport infrastructure quality, we came down from the top 10 to 32. When this is the case and when the unions are saying in a very casual manner that balance exists when it comes to economic impact, I'm really concerned.

If you have any thoughts on this, would you like comment for one minute? I have very limited time, and I have other questions to ask.

[Michel Murray]

It is totally within your rights to say that I have a casual attitude. However, what I clearly said was that Canada's reputation was not only economic, but also related to the international treaties it has signed concerning the right to organize and the right to strike. However, the international agreement that was signed clearly states that ports and transportation are not essential services. A tribunal in Canada has determined what essential services are, it's called the Canada Industrial Relations Board, or CIRB. It has already ruled on what constitutes a danger—

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Murray. I have very limited time and I have questions for other witnesses. Thank you.

Mr. Ballantyne, I know that “essential services” basically means we have to consider the safety and health of the public.

Should we not consider the livelihoods and how many people are directly affected by a strike in very critical infrastructure? As well as the losses.... I can understand the corporate losses, like those that Ms. Martin mentioned with the red meat, with its very limited life cycle, going to waste.

I can understand that, but should the livelihoods of tens of thousands of workers being directly affected be part of the consideration when we define essential services?

[Robert Ballantyne]

Yes, I think there is a good case to be made for expanding the definition of an essential service.

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the Supreme Court of Canada has always given a very tight definition of an essential service under that section of the Canada Labour Code. There has to be an immediate impact on public health and safety.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Ballantyne.

I have one last question for Ms. Anderson. We may have lots of free trade agreements with countries that represent 61% of the world's GDP, but we don't have the free trade agreement within Canada. I'm glad that the premiers touched upon the long-term national trade infrastructure and transportation corridor.

How important is it that the provinces work together, along with the federal government, to create a seamlessly operated infrastructure corridor that helps not only the trade within Canada but with our international exports?

[Bridgitte Anderson]

I think it's incredibly important. It comes as no surprise to anybody on the committee that there are interprovincial trade barriers that exist, but in regard to the port strike, yes, we did see some of this highlighted when it was very difficult to get goods across the country. It's important to note that, while this was a strike at the port of Vancouver, it really is Canada's port. We did see that trade was disrupted across Canada, and goods could not reach other provinces as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We'll go on to Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, please.

You have the floor for up to six minutes, sir.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's a pleasure to join you on this important study. Good morning to my colleagues and to the witnesses who are with us this morning.

Before asking my questions, I'd like to set the record straight. Earlier, my colleague Mr. Seeback mentioned that his party wasn't against the right to strike. However, if someone isn't against the right to strike, they don't ask that Parliament be recalled to pass a bill to end a strike. However, that's what the leader of the Conservative Party did last July during the Port of Vancouver dispute. In their defence, I remind the committee that the premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan did the same thing. I want to put things in context for the people watching us. So we can dispense with the pleasantries.

I will now ask my questions. Mr. Murray, you talked about the importance of getting to the root of the problem. If we want to avoid disputes, we need to bring the stakeholders to the table. In your presentation, you talked about the use of special legislation, something you experienced at the Port of Montreal, for example. That didn't happen at the Port of Vancouver but, as you point out, Canada has a dismal record when it comes to passing special legislation to force workers to return to work. You experienced it in April 2021.

Can you tell us about the consequences of passing special legislation on workers' rights during the dispute at the Port of Vancouver last summer?

[Michel Murray]

Special legislation was imposed on us by Minister Filomena Tassi. I need to describe the circumstances of the dispute at the time. We had said that the employer had taken three measures against us and that if it withdrew them, the union would withdraw its notice to strike and people would return to work. The employer didn't withdraw them, the government legislated them and we had special legislation passed.

It imposed arbitration of disputes, which took place at the Port of Montreal. All that has resulted in is that all demands, both employer and union, that were on the bargaining table in 2020 and 2021 have been postponed to 2023. The problem has just been put on hold. It's a well-known fact that arbitrators avoid very specific places in collective agreements for fear of upsetting the balance between the parties.

The arbitrator took a year to hear us, and now that arbitration of disputes is done, the vast majority of respective claims are back on the bargaining table this year. So nothing was resolved by imposing arbitration of disputes through special legislation.

I don't want anyone to say I have a casual attitude, but I must point out that the legislation was passed when the Liberal government had a majority, whereas it did not when the strike happened at the Port of Vancouver.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Murray.

It's important to get the facts straight. Je me souviens, “I remember”, as we say back home in Quebec. It's not just on our licence plates; it's our motto.

Mr. Murray, you also talked about the problem of not having real decision-makers at the table.

Why do you think they aren't there?

[Michel Murray]

The current section 34 of the Canada Labour Code was written in 1970, following a royal commission called the Picard commission.

The good old days of employers' organizations, where people were hired by the shipping companies to do the work, are gone. There's no representative of shipping lines and shipping companies at the bargaining tables. It's as if your committee or a minister of international affairs had to negotiate an international treaty with another country, but sent the parliamentary gardener to negotiate. We should send department officials or the minister himself. In our case, during our negotiations, the real decision-makers were not at the bargaining table. The same thing happened in Vancouver; the BC Maritime Employers Association had exactly the same problem.

Have you heard of any problems at the Port of Halifax? You have not. Halifax has been negotiating for the last two years, and there was a settlement this year. You know what? Representatives of shipping lines and shipping companies were at the bargaining table. There was no disruption at the Port of Halifax to get a four-year contract. At the Port of Montreal, as in Vancouver, we have to go back to the root of their absence. The reason there are problems with labour relations is that the real decision-makers are not sitting at the bargaining tables. If ever there was one special law that should be passed, it's the law that would force the real decision-makers, the representatives of shipping companies and shipping lines, to take a seat at the bargaining table.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Murray.

You are no doubt aware that we're currently considering an anti-scab bill. This is a long-standing request of the Bloc Québécois. It's been tabled a number of times. We did it with our NDP colleagues and tabled in the House in early November. I'd like to hear your comments on the bill. In your opinion, why is it necessary?

What do you think of the 18-month delay before the bill comes into force, receives royal assent and can be enforced?

[Michel Murray]

I have a great deal of respect for any parliamentarian in Ottawa who supports anti‑scab legislation. In Quebec, we're covered by anti‑scab legislation and, as we have seen, it has nevertheless improved labour relations and potential disputes. In a dispute, there's nothing worse than a scab coming in to do the work of a person who is on strike or locked out. At the Port of Québec, workers have been locked out for 14 months, but absolutely nothing is happening at the bargaining tables. In addition, nothing is happening in Parliament in Ottawa either. There are people who are locked out, and there are scabs who work every day. I have a great deal of respect for the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, who supported the anti-scab bill. I also have a great deal of respect for Minister O'Regan, who sponsored the bill.

That said, I wonder why someone would want to enact anti‑scab legislation if they only want to enforce it in 18 months. If you want to marry the workers, you don't send them a wedding invitation in 18 months. From the workers' point of view, if the Liberal government wants to marry workers, it must do so immediately. With all due respect, I don't understand the huge delay before the coming into force of the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Murray. I'm sorry to interrupt.

Mr. Cannings, you have six minutes, please.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you to all the witnesses here today.

I'm going to continue with Monsieur Murray.

We've heard a narrative here throughout this study that Canada's reputation is tattered and then a list of reasons why: that it's the pandemic, that it's climate change, the atmospheric rivers and the fires, and then that it's this strike we had in Vancouver. We haven't had a strike at the port of Vancouver since 1969, so things have been going well there. In 2010, as we heard in our last meeting, the BCMEA, this group of employers, ran the negotiations for the employers. They weren't the decision-makers, and that has caused delays.

I'm not sure if that was the reason why workers were locked out in 2018, but we heard from the union in Vancouver that they would put in their response to a position within a day and it would take seven or 10 days for the employer to come back. That's what causes these delays.

It seems that everybody is quick to blame labour for a labour disruption when we have container shipping companies and container ports around the world making record profits and we see inflation at record levels. The workers want a share of those profits to be able to handle that inflation, because they want to continue living acceptable lives, yet they're the ones who get the blame when the employers don't negotiate in good faith, it seems, or at least not in an efficient way.

I'm wondering if you could comment on that bit of a rant of mine, especially around this narrative that it always seems to be the union's fault when there's a strike.

[Michel Murray]

You're absolutely right. I don't think there's a union in Canada that's happy to go on strike. It's a pressure tactic we use on our employers and shipping companies. No one gets any pleasure out of it. We do it to get a settlement more quickly.

You're absolutely right that the management structure, both at the BCMEA and the Maritime Employers Association, or MEA, prevents us from talking to the real decision-makers.

I will say it again: In Halifax, the real decision-makers are at the bargaining table, and there's been no labour dispute. It's the same thing with the longshoremen in Vancouver. They have union demands, and the people at the bargaining table don't make a decision and have to forward those demands to a board of directors, which is a kind of star chamber. We never meet with a board of directors like that.

I'll go back to my original point. Section 34 of the Canada Labour Code really needs to be reviewed if we want to eliminate or minimize possible labour disputes. It's the same for us at the Port of Montreal; before 2020, the last disruptions dated back to 2000, 20 years ago, when management imposed a seven-day lockout. We really need to review the management structure so that the real decision-makers are at the table.

You're absolutely right. It's very easy to blame the workers who go on strike, to call them “casual”, as a member did a little earlier, but we don't do that for fun. We really want to negotiate better working conditions for our people, and that's the only role that unions must play.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

I want to pick up on the anti-scab legislation. We had the Canadian Chamber of Commerce here before us in a previous meeting urging us all to vote against this anti-scab legislation. It was the NDP that put this in the agreement with the Liberals to get this through.

You mentioned we've had anti-scab legislation in Quebec for years, as well as in British Columbia. It's a general thought that anti-scab legislation actually shortens labour disputes, because management can't bring in replacement workers.

Can you comment on your experience in Quebec?

[Michel Murray]

In our last dispute, in 2020-21, one of the companies used scabs; circumstances led to some incidents that no one wanted. This created a lot of tension on the picket lines and at the bargaining table, since a number of scabs had been used during the longshore strike at the Port of Montreal.

I think everyone knows the story. Before anti‑scab legislation was put in place, there was confrontation, there was violence, and no one wanted that. However, when you go on the picket line or are locked out and people come in to do your job, obviously things get a little heated and people get a little more aggressive. That's not desirable at a bargaining table. No one wants external events to disrupt what's going on at a bargaining table. I believe that anti‑scab legislation will certainly defuse all the tension that may exist.

In 2020, we experienced tension with scabs with a company owned by Logistec, in Quebec. That created a lot of tension, which necessarily disrupted negotiations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Next, we have Mr. Martel, for five minutes.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here with us.

Before asking my questions, I'd like to come back to what my colleague next to me said and tell him that we never wanted to force workers back to work during that strike. People blamed the government for not taking action.

I was surprised to see that my colleague was very upset and that he wanted to put on a show. That really surprised me.

My first question is for Mr. Rodgers.

In your opinion, how can we define what essential services are? From what I'm hearing, the economy is not an essential service.