Bill C-29 (Historical)

Port of Montreal Operations Act, 2021

An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of operations at the Port of Montreal

This enactment provides for the resumption and continuation of operations at the Port of Montreal and imposes mediation as the process for resolving matters remaining in dispute between the parties. It empowers the mediator-arbitrator to impose arbitration as the process for resolving matters that cannot be resolved through mediation. Finally, it sets out the elements that are to be included in the new collective agreement between the parties.

Port of Montreal Operations Act, 2021

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, for such a powerful and straightforward speech.

Does he think there is still time for negotiation? What alternatives are there if the strike continues?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

The amendment that the NDP proposed this evening removes the worst parts of the back-to-work bill. The arbitrator will not be able to stop the collective bargaining by demanding a final offer.

We tried to find a way to gain some time and extend negotiations a little. That is what we were able to do, under the circumstances. I am pleased that the NDP managed to at least do that.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I listen to this debate, I continue to become more upset. Not only is the government stripping these workers of their charter right to strike, it issued notice of its intent, through this expedited legislation, to force workers at the Port of Montreal back to their jobs before they even began their strike. What is worse is that the government continues to fearmonger about COVID-19-related supplies with claims that continue to go unsubstantiated. I would like to address this with a quote from an article by FreightWaves published on August 20, 2020. It states:

The union representing longshore workers at the Port of Montreal agreed on Thursday to move some containers holding goods needed in the fight against COVID-19.

“The Maritime Employers Association and the longshoremen’s union have agreed to move containers that contain controlled substances and COVID-19-related merchandise and to unload a ship containing sugar,” the MEA announced early Thursday afternoon.

I hope this puts an end to the reprehensible nonsense. If there is any issue with important pandemic-related supplies not getting to where they need to go, that is certainly not on the union or the workers. Look to the government or the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

The legislation itself would do the following. It would force the employer and the union to extend their expired collective agreement, prevent the employer from locking out workers and prevent the union from striking.

I would like to provide some context to this bill before I give further remarks. In 2019-20, the Canada Industrial Relations Board heard the employer's application for a determination on essential services. The employer's counsel used every trick in the book to stall things at the CIRB, including a motion for the board chair to recuse herself, and forwarded judicial review applications. After the decision was issued, CUPE Local 375 went on strike for 12 days in August 2020. Workers went back to work after a truce agreement was signed, giving the parties seven months to conclude a deal. The union worked with the federal mediation service all this time. On April 16, the union reviewed its strike mandate with a 99.3% vote.

The union finally offered to end the overtime and weekend strike if the employees reverted to the working conditions applicable before April 9. On April 23, members of the union declared their mandate of an unlimited general strike as the employer did not show it wanted to negotiate in good faith. As we know, the minister then signalled before the general strike started that the government would be tabling legislation to force workers back to work, despite their charter right.

The minister should know, if she is speaking to both sides, that this strike can quickly come to an end without the need for legislation. The union has made it very clear that it would cease all forms of work disruption with one fair request to the employer to stop the pressure tactics and collective agreement violations.

I will read what a CUPE spokesperson had to say:

If the Maritime Employers Association (MEA) doesn’t want a strike, all it has to do is let up on its pressure tactics and the union will do likewise. No overtime strike. No weekend strike. It’s straightforward. We want to return to the bargaining table.... We don’t want to hurt the Montreal economy. However, we do want to exercise our fundamental right to bargain collectively.

The minister, in her speech on Government Business Motion No. 5, said the following:

Our government firmly believes that the best deals are reached at the bargaining table. However, intervention is sometimes necessary when the parties are at a significant and long-standing impasse, particularly when a work stoppage is causing significant harm to Canadians. We cannot allow the situation we saw in August 2020 to repeat itself, particularly in the midst of this pandemic. If the current stoppage continues, serious accumulated and negative impacts will continue to be felt all over Canada.

Again, the minister has not provided any concrete examples or data of the direct, significant benefit to Canadians. She continues to fearmonger without concrete facts. Instead of facts and data, all I am hearing is a bunch of quotes from lobbyists about what they speculate may happen. The only relevant fact that I have heard from the government about the actual effect of the work interruption was related to the August 2020 strike. This is relevant. What happened to those ships and the supplies they were carrying? They simply got diverted to other ports.

I have no doubt, and acknowledge, that this has made for significant changes and complications to supply chains and land transportation of goods, but this is part of what happens in a strike. Given the fact that she is the labour minister, I would expect the minister to be aware of this and instead monitor the situation. Her job is not to say that the sky is going to fall and then give notice that she will revoke the charter rights of workers to strike before their strike even begins.

Back-to-work legislation is known to have lasting, negative effects. When we take away the charter rights of hundreds of people by an act of Parliament and force them back to work like this, it really affects the morale of workers. I know. I have seen it. What it also tends to do is sour the relationship between the employer and the employees.

By way of example, let us look at the track record of back-to-work legislation and providing a swift resolution to drawn-out collective agreement talks. Bill C-89, an act to provide the resumption and continuation of postal services, was passed by this same Liberal government in the House of Commons on November 24, 2018. It received royal assent two days later and came into force at noon on the following day. Here is what representatives of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers had to say about being forced back to work to help resolve the situation a whole year after being back.

Though the legislators who passed the bill may have thought it would resolve the situation, nothing is fixed, no contract is in place, and we’re still working without a new collective agreement, without the right to strike, under the dangerous and unfair conditions that we were trying to deal with in negotiations.

They go on to speak very directly about the overarching problems being suffered due to the nature of back-to-work legislation.

Workers pay the price for back-to-work legislation. CUPW members worked two and a half years without new contracts, with the same old problems we were trying to solve through bargaining back in 2018.

After finally getting a contract, though imposed by an arbitrator some 400 days after the back-to-work legislation, significant issues are still not satisfactory. I suspect these will be part of the next round of bargaining next year. This type of legislation is a way of kicking the can down the road via a still drawn-out process all while taking away the employees' right to collective bargaining.

I think it is important for Canadians listening to know that it is not just Liberal governments that impose the harmful and unfair labour practice of back-to-work legislation. In fact, one could say that the Liberal government learned this tactic from the Harper Conservatives and is carrying on the torch of stripping workers of their charter right to strike. Let us have a look at back-to-work legislation by the Conservatives.

The Conservatives legislated the following groups back to work: the Air Canada Pilots Association and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the United Transportation Union.

Before I end, I do want to raise that the government has still not addressed my concern about a recent development. It is my understanding that there was a proposal put forward last evening to avoid the need for Bill C-29. While I am not privy to all the details of this proposal, I do know the employer, the union and the government were all made aware of the said proposal. This proposal would have involved a return to work, as well as the resumption of the flow of goods.

I am being told it was only the employer that objected to this proposal as a way forward. I think it would be a further injustice and shameful for the government to continue its pursuit of this motion and legislation, given the employer's unwillingness to play ball.

I call on the government to allow the workers to pursue their right to strike.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a number of occasions throughout this debate, I have asked my NDP colleagues whether they have a threshold at which they would accept and support legislation like this.

The response received was that it was hypothetical question and they do not want to be asked hypothetical questions. This could not be further from the truth. A hypothetical would be if I presented a scenario to somebody, and then asked them what they would do if this happened or if that happened. I am not asking that.

I am asking, very simply, if they support back-to-work legislation in principle? Would they ever support it?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is the first “no” I have heard. The NDP members who are heckling me know they would never support it. I thank them, because I finally got an answer. Would the member agree with that answer?

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member asked this the last time. Once again, I support the Constitution, and I would uphold it.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to note the facetiousness of the question from the member for Kingston and the Islands.

If we were talking about business here and about negotiations between businesses, and in fact, we hear this all the time, we would hear that the Canadian public cannot have access. We cannot have access to the contracts that dictate the vaccines for COVID-19 because that could affect commercial negotiations. God forbid we do anything that could harm the profits of large corporations. However, when it comes to workers, we can just jump in right away to trample all over their rights and affect their ability to negotiate fair conditions of work.

The Liberals are asking us at what point we would bring in the hammer. As soon there is an answer to that question, it gets built into the corporate plan. We have seen that. We are seeing that right now with the government, which has signalled a willingness to invoke back-to-work legislation, directly affecting the bargaining strategy of the companies.

It is the wrong question. I object to the question in principle because it does not recognize that there is a real negotiation here. I think it is so typical of the Liberals. They recognize negotiating principles when it is about protecting corporate profit, but when it is actually about protecting workers and their—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We need time for an answer from the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague.

That Liberal member has asked, during his questions and in his speech, what the role of a parliamentarian is. I look at the role of parliamentarians as being to uphold the Constitution. I truly believe that for the minister to take away workers' rights before a strike even happens is an abuse of her role as Minister of Labour and a direct attack on our Constitution.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to ask a non-hypothetical question.

I have constituents in my riding of Langley—Aldergrove who are being negatively impacted by the labour disruption in the Port of Montreal. I have constituents who have perishable goods tied up in the port strike.

What would the member say to them? What answer would he have for them? My constituents have a right to make a living too.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, they sure do. I totally agree with the question. However, the workers have a right also. They have the right to have fair working conditions.

Would the member say it is not okay for his constituents to be out of pocket or interfered with, but that it is okay for 1,120 workers to take abuse where they work and for them to not be able to improve their working conditions?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, does the hon. member, who put forward the background of offloading essential supplies, believe we are hearing fear tactics today about the threats of the ongoing strike?

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, I have been assured that even in 2020 there was an agreement to make sure those medical supplies would be unloaded, and that is even on record. I have also heard from the union that this would happen again. It would make sure that nothing would stop these medical supplies from being offloaded to make sure Canadians would be safe.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to see all my hon. colleagues this evening during the very important debate. I would like to inform the House I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague and friend, the member of Parliament for Alfred-Pellan.

The government is aware of the serious harm and potentially long-lasting effects to the Canadian economy being caused by the ongoing work stoppage at the Port of Montreal. It is also aware that the work stoppage is jeopardizing the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated lockdowns. We know that Canadians need the parties to find a resolution as quickly as possible. Nothing about the collective bargaining between CUPE Local 375 and the MEA, the Maritime Employers Association, has been quick.

The parties have been negotiating the renewal of their collective agreement for approximately 30 months now. During this time, they have engaged in protracted litigation to determine which activities needed to be maintained in the event of a work stoppage, held over 100 bargaining sessions supported by federal mediators and had multiple work stoppages.

Despite this long history and the ongoing work stoppage at the Port of Montreal, the parties have been unable to resolve their differences and conclude very importantly a new collective agreement. That is why the government is left with no other choice but to introduce legislation that will end the ongoing work stoppage and prevent further disruptions, resolve all matters that are in dispute between the parties, and establish a new collective agreement.

The government does not take this decision lightly, but we must act in the best interest of Canadians and Canadian businesses. The Port of Montreal is the second-largest container port in Canada. Every year, it handles over 1.6 million 20-foot equivalent units and 35 million tonnes of cargo, representing approximately $40 billion in goods. It is part of the critical economic infrastructure upon which Canadians and Canadian businesses rely.

What does all this mean for Canadians and Canadian businesses? I will explain. Even before the strike action began, there was a decrease in container volumes at the port worth $30 million per week for the month of March 2021, as compared to the prior year. The partial work stoppage reduced port capacity by approximately 30%, representing lost cargo volumes worth an estimated $90 million per week. The situation has deteriorated into a full work stoppage, which is now impeding the flow of approximately $270 million per week in cargo through the port.

In addition, there are significant risks that this work stoppage will deepen the reputational harm caused by the strikes in the summer of 2020 and create ongoing uncertainty. Even before this latest work stoppage began on April 13, we saw several companies diverting their cargo from the Port of Montreal. According to Sophie Roux, vice-president at the Montreal Port Authority, several Quebec and Ontario companies, such as Olymel, Resolute Forest Products, Société des Alcools du Québec and Dollarama, started using new routes to import or export their goods and containers back in February as the end of the truce neared. Temporary diversions could easily become permanent ones, which would result in long-lasting negative effects on the port and the integrated transportation system around it.

In March, the Shipping Federation of Canada voiced its concerns that once logistics chains are reorganized around other hubs, including those in the United States, it will be difficult to reestablish arrangements through the port. The federation believes that a port strike would have dire, long-lasting consequences.

In the wake of the parties each giving 72 hours notice for job action, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters expressed serious apprehension with the looming work stoppage. In its press release issued on April 12, the organization stated, “The uncertainty caused by this labour dispute has had financial impacts on Canadian manufacturers and exporters, and the partial strike risks hurting the sector even more.” It also noted that this work stoppage, “will further impact an already fragile manufacturing supply chain, particularly in Quebec and Ontario.” It continued that, “As governments are investing billions of dollars to restart the economy, it doesn't make any sense to allow a slowdown of operations at the Port of Montreal.”

As the stoppage continues, many sectors of the economy that depend on cargo transitioning through the port will find it difficult to function. I ask members to consider, for example, the Forest Products Association of Canada. Exporters face serious delays and increased costs to move products through other busy ports. They also indicate that it took that portion of the supply chain three months to recover from that strike.

It is reasonable to expect similar impacts this time. Prior to the beginning of this work stoppage, stakeholders in the forestry industry indicated that another work stoppage in the port would present the same significant challenges and costs for the forest industry.

In addition, several agrifood stakeholders have indicated that the work stoppage is damaging their ability to ship containerized agricultural products and is causing harm to Canada's reputation as a reliable exporter of agricultural products. Reputation is everything. Food producers also indicated that they had rerouted their exports to other Canadian and U.S. ports prior to the beginning of the work stoppage, something we do not want to see.

As members can see, the effects are wide ranging and the overall impact would be devastating were this work stoppage to continue, particularly as we continue to navigate the impacts of the ongoing pandemic and the associated lockdowns that have dealt such a blow to the economies around the world, including Canada's.

Back-to-work legislation is a last resort and not something this government takes lightly, but we also have a responsibility, again, to Canadians and Canadian businesses across the country. We must act in the best interests of Canadians and Canadian businesses. As the parties remain unable to come to a new collective agreement, we believe this is the best course of action. Members can rest assured we will continue to support the parties through every means possible.