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

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the longshoremen of the Port of Montreal, as well as the Maritime Employers Association or MEA. They are essential to our economy, and their role is more important than ever, as we are going through the difficult period of the COVID-19 pandemic.

I hope that the measures that the government puts in place tonight, which that we will support, will allow the two parties, the longshoremen and MEA, to come to an agreement. I am counting on the two parties to build the prosperity of the Port of Montreal and the whole economy associated with it in all regions of Quebec. It is important to protect the economy in all regions of Canada, Quebec and Ontario.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Does he not recognize that, since the right to strike has been recognized as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court of Canada, it is not possible to simply decide that it does not exist anymore, just because it is bothersome and has consequences for society?

If it is indeed a fundamental right and if that right allows workers to use job action to achieve a negotiated solution, we must allow free negotiation to take place and not intervene as the Liberals are doing.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is the Liberal government's inability to be proactive that is forcing us to pass legislation that is going to take away the workers' right to strike.

Could the government have acted sooner and differently when major problems started to arise between the parties? That much is obvious. However, the minister never showed up in Montreal to negotiate and put the pressure on. Nothing like that happened. It is because of this incompetence and extreme foot-dragging that we are here in the middle of the night about to bring in special legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, whenever we hear people speak tonight who favour this legislation, they make much of the fact that the negotiations between the employer and the union have gone on for years. That is not at all unusual. I remind the members here of how long our workers at the House of Commons worked without a contract: four years, and that was with us, our House of Commons management and very loyal and brave workers including our Parliamentary Protective Service officers who risked their lives to protect us on October 14, 2018.

Is the hon. member so unfamiliar with labour negotiations that he thinks it is significant that they have been negotiating for two years?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the main issue here is that the Liberals' inability to settle the dispute and help the parties come to an agreement is forcing us to bring in special legislation tonight.

The aim of this special legislation is to help not the big corporations that own the Port of Montreal but all the small businesses throughout every region of Quebec and eastern Canada, including Ontario. Food producers could be prevented from getting essential goods during a very difficult time for our economy. We are still in the middle of a pandemic, and something must be done.

I absolutely deplore the fact that the government was unable to act as an honest broker to help the parties come to an agreement before we got to this point.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his heartfelt speech.

This crisis has impacted many other workers, including in the agri-food processing sector in my riding. Over 80% of production is exported through the Port of Montreal.

We talk a lot about the workers at the port, but there are also factory workers who are being laid off because of this situation.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Beauce is quite right.

That is what I have been saying from the beginning. The labour dispute at the Port of Montreal has an impact on the economy, not only of Montreal and the surrounding area, but of all regions of Quebec, including the ridings of Beauce, Mégantic—L'Érable and Richmond—Arthabaska. These repercussions will be felt in all of our regions.

It is so disappointing that it has come to this. The Liberals have been incapable of doing their job. The ministers did not intervene when they should have, to the detriment of the workers at the Port of Montreal, who could have reached a negotiated settlement if only the government had taken a stand.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to rise in the House tonight, speaking specifically to the back-to-work legislation for the Port of Montreal. I am pleased to provide a perspective as an Ontario MP, for many of my constituents, businesses and farms that rely on the viability of the port in my part of eastern Ontario. Some parts are only an hour or two away from the port, depending on their part of the riding.

Members have heard me speak in the House several times over the course of the last few months. As a new parliamentarian coming here in the class of 2019, I am judging as constructively as I can the government's performance on numerous files. We have seen the government, and I have said this many times, talk a good game. They say the right things and they have good intentions, but unfortunately we see time and time again their ability to talk and their ability to deliver, and not just have good intentions, but good results, are not happening.

I have spoken several times in the last couple of weeks to constituents, on media interviews and in the House here on different topics, for example, on the border closures, international flights and the debacle that we saw last week. I do not need to tell members or Canadians that in that situation the government should not have been caught by surprise that countries around the world, unfortunately, during COVID-19 would become hot spots or have outbreaks. The situation in India and Pakistan has been terrible, but the government was caught totally flat-footed, and here we are having to react, or they reacted very late to that.

I look at the debate we had on medical assistance in dying, trying to respond to the court ruling in Quebec. Constant extensions and delays were happening, because, I believe, and I think many Canadians believe, the government was talking but not actually delivering, following through or checking things off.

We find ourselves in the same situation here now with the Port of Montreal. The government has failed to bring both parties together to get a resolution. This bill tonight is not something to celebrate or be happy about. This is the result of a failure and a lack of leadership on the part of the federal government.

I want to bring context here tonight of why this matters economically. Many people, maybe those who are not familiar with the Port of Montreal, think it benefits the city of Montreal or maybe some neighbouring communities, but it is a lot more than that. It is the second-busiest port in Canada. There are 140 countries that use the Port of Montreal as a gateway into Canada, and we use that to export around the world. There are 40 million tonnes of cargo, and to put that into context that is 88 billion pounds of cargo, that go through the Port of Montreal every year. It affects every facet of our economy and our well-being. It sees 2,500 trucks a day, 60 to 80 trains a week, $2.6 billion in economic benefit, $250 million in tax revenue, and, here is an important part, 19,000 direct and indirect jobs, many of them well-paying union jobs, which is nothing short of a great thing.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time we are dealing with a strike. Back in August 2020, we were in a similar situation for 19 days. We saw what happens. We saw the economic damage it created across the country, the ripple effects and the months it took to get caught up. We also have a problem when it comes to the reputation of reliability at the Port of Montreal, which is important for the employer, the union, thousands of businesses and tens of thousands of workers in this country.

I had the opportunity to speak, and my staff did as well, today to people in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry to get a local impact, but I also know, and I talked to, many colleagues across Ontario. I was speaking, and my team was, with the economic development officer, Bob Peters, from the City of Cornwall. As members may know, I am very proud of my riding and the many businesses that are there. Cornwall is one of three major supply chain hubs in Canada serving the bulk of central Ontario, Quebec and eastern Canada. We are very proud of that. We have thousands of job in Cornwall and in our riding alone that rely on a viable and reliable Port of Montreal in operation.

I think of the issue with the Suez Canal a few weeks ago and the issues that happened when the supply chains were blocked there. The massive economic impact, the ripple effect that it had, was very devastating to many parts of the world. Just-in-time deliveries and reliability matter, not just for those directly in the port but going through that supply chain. It matters, not just to jobs at the port but to jobs across this country.

I think of Laframboise in my riding as well. As a local manufacturer and supplier, it relies on moving products. Benson Auto Parts, proud from the city of Cornwall, founded and originated and grown from there, relies on the Port of Montreal to import its products and to support its staff and its revenues. I do not need to remind this House, and of course all Canadians, that now is not an opportune time to put another economic strain on those supply chains and on our businesses in this country.

Another good friend we were speaking to today was my friend Jim Wert, not only the mayor of the Township of North Stormont but also a very well-respected farmer in our region and beyond, across the province. Jim was reporting that what we have seen, with the threat of closure and now the closure at the Port of Montreal, has already caused a spike in commodity pricing and it has a big effect on agricultural operations. That is not just the case in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. I see my colleague behind me from Saskatchewan and I know there are impacts there as well. It ripples right across the country and affects agricultural operations.

This time of the year is a key time for our farmers. There are extremely time-sensitive deliveries that need to get to our farms in planting season, including potash, urea and phosphorous. We cannot have that come in two, three or four months later. We cannot have that being unreliable. Not only does that affect commodity prices on a large scale, but it could cripple and wipe out planting season in many parts of this country.

Beyond my riding, we can look at CN Rail and how it uses the port. There are auto companies like Pfaff Auto in Concord, just north of the 400 and 407 in the GTA. Northern Transformer provides a hundred jobs in Maple, Ontario in that same region. If they cannot get products, if they cannot get what they need through regular deliveries from the Port of Montreal, we could be seeing temporary job losses at a time when our economy cannot sustain that.

It is unfortunate that it has come to this. Already, with just the word of the closure of the port and the stoppage at the port, there has been a 10% drop in shipping volumes. They have gone elsewhere: New York, New Jersey and Norfolk, Virginia. We cannot be seen, at the Port of Montreal, as a country and as an economy that is unreliable.

I want to give credit to my colleagues here on the Conservative side, to our leader and our shadow minister for labour. I think they showed great leadership tonight. There was an amendment that came through the NDP that was supported both by members of the union and labour leaders, and by businesses as well. Our leader listened to both sides for supporting an amendment. Unfortunately, we have to deal with this, and we are supporting back-to-work legislation because it is necessary for our economy.

I close here tonight with my message to union workers and all workers in this country, the tens of thousands who rely on the port being reliable and viable in getting their product. We cannot afford a prolonged work stoppage, and we cannot afford to see those great union jobs at the Port of Montreal be lost because shipping routes and operations change to other ports. I am sorry that the government has not acted in a way that would bring a deal. It is unfortunate that this legislation is before us, but tonight they have seen us support a reasonable amendment in an effort to get the best piece of legislation to get those workers back on the job and to make sure that the bright future at the Port of Montreal is realized, both in the short and long term.

I appreciate the opportunity. As always, I look forward to the comments and questions from my colleagues.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about something the member said.

What I understood from his remarks is that the economy is important—I am not denying that—and that it cannot be shut down. Also, in order to keep our economy moving, workers cannot have the right to strike, nor can they resort to job action. Basically, the workers are being asked to put up with their working conditions.

At the same time, he says he believes in free negotiations. Does my colleague not see the inconsistencies in his speech?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me the opportunity to reiterate that this is not an ideal situation we are in. The message, as I concluded there, for the union workers in this country is that we need to make sure that not just for those at the port but for tens of thousands of union jobs that rely on that port being open and being known as a reliable place to bring products in and out, we need to have that strengthened and we need to have it up and operational in our country.

It is a positive in the long run for the union to be seeing that. It is very unfortunate that we are in this situation. It is a begrudging situation and a begrudging vote that we have to make, but it is in the best interest of the union in the long run for us to have a viable port.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are gaslighting working people. We just heard from the member celebrating good union jobs. We heard this legislation is key to protecting union jobs. My goodness, let us respect what the workers of the Port of Montreal are saying themselves, the processes they have undertaken over a number of years to bargain collectively and fairly.

We heard the Conservative leader go on about the working class. Well, this is the test. Their support of back-to-work legislation is taking the side of the employer against union jobs, against working people. Why are the Conservatives trying to mislead Canadians, when their actions speak for themselves? They are on the side of the bosses, instead of standing up for the port workers in Montreal and instead of standing up for working people in this country.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to speak to the member from Manitoba and the NDP yet in this COVID world, but I think this is the first time I have been accused of gaslighting, for those who know my style. I certainly hope my speech did not reflect that whatsoever. The approach we are taking is not pro-business or pro-union; it is pro-Port of Montreal, and that includes a win for both the union workers, the management and the economy of this country.

I appreciate the member's raising those points, as it gives me the opportunity to talk about the respectful, rational leadership the Leader of the Opposition and my colleagues showed tonight by supporting an amendment that was desired by labour leaders and supported by those on both sides of labour and business. That is a mature, professional approach that is far from gaslighting.

We want a strong economy and strong union jobs in this country. The approach we are taking is one I am proud of.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague had great comments about the importance of the supply chain and the jobs, and the impacts this would have across the country, the grand scale of the things that are hinging on this situation. He also mentioned a few folks from his riding. I am wondering if he would have any more comments on some of the concerns he has heard from those in his riding who are obviously watching this very closely.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I should put an asterisk on what I was saying about supporting union jobs. I support union jobs being here in Canada, not union jobs moving to New York, New Jersey or Norfolk, Virginia. If there is no access to the Port of Montreal and it could be seen as being unreliable, jobs and operations would be permanently shifted to the United States or other areas. We do not want to see that.

When we talk about this, it is a balanced and reasonable approach of what we have seen through the amendment here tonight and the vote on the final piece of legislation. We can balance those factors out. Again, I am disappointed we are in this situation. I know there are many anxious business owners and farmers in my riding, across the province of Ontario and frankly across this country who are waiting to see the outcome of this legislation and to get things opened up at a time when our economy cannot take many more hits.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Joliette.

I sit here and wonder what we are doing here tonight. Why exactly are we here, when the Prime Minister has had all day to do what needs to be done?

Despite the late hour, the Bloc Québécois will not give up, nor will I, when faced with the absolute necessity of denouncing the government's intention to pass special legislation forcing workers back to work at the Port of Montreal.

Binding back-to-work legislation is an affront, but binding back-to-work legislation passed under a gag order is a double affront.

As our leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, clearly stated earlier today, there is a way out. A fair outcome under the circumstances is not only desirable, it is within reach for the Prime Minister. He still has a few hours left.

Through its many interventions, the Bloc Québécois has laid out all the pieces of the puzzle next to each other. The Prime Minister has to set his misplaced ego aside and simply put the pieces together. He spent time addressing the economic problems stemming from the strained labour relations at the Port of Montreal. He addressed it through special legislation that should only be used as a last resort, but it is not too late to do the right thing. The Prime Minister still has a few hours to act like a head of state and live up to his responsibilities.

The indecency of introducing such a bill speaks to a number of things, starting with the fact that an equitable alternative solution is within reach. It should be noted that the right to strike is recognized, protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by the Constitution and reiterated by the Supreme Court.

Imposing special legislation is completely unacceptable. Our leader confirmed this morning that the union had clearly stated in writing that the employees would go back to work tomorrow if management retracts its unilateral change to workers' schedules.

Earlier today, in question period, it was no surprise that the Prime Minister refused to confirm that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour had stated in writing that the unilateral change made by the employer on April 9 to the 2013 collective agreement would be prohibited by the provisions of the special legislation. It leads us to wonder whether this amendment would be allowed under the provisions of the labour code.

Would it not be easy to pick up the telephone, call the employer and ask it to back down on the unilateral change? It is even more necessary given that the union has agreed to return to work in a few hours, tomorrow morning, and to continue bargaining if the Montreal port authority agrees to reverse the unilateral measure imposed on April 9. Why not do this? Why is the Prime Minister not upset with the employer's action taken on April 9, but is upset with the workers' action? After all, unilaterally changing working conditions, namely the scheduling, during bargaining is just not done.

Every day that the Prime Minister's pride prevails costs the Quebec economy up to $25 million. It took some nerve to say earlier today, in question period, that the mediation and arbitration process would be impartial. Really now.

I am saying this because the union asked the employer about what it made of the statement by the member for Mount Royal. The union told the employer that it understood that unilateral changes to scheduling could not be made under special legislation and told it what this means in light of the labour code provisions. The employer answered that it would reply after the special legislation was passed. Who really believes that it will be impartial and neutral? We should not be taken for fools.

The government's actions confirm that it is condoning the employer's strategy, which is to leave the bargaining table. It leads us to believe that strings were already being pulled in advance. The Government of Quebec wants the 1,500 Port of Montreal workers to go back to work. Quebec regions and many of the province's economic stakeholders want the dispute to be resolved. For their part, workers want to work. They do not want to be on strike.

The union understands what is at stake with the economy and the impact labour disputes can have. To claim otherwise is to show contempt for the labour movement and for all unionized workers, regardless of what field they are in.

Every member who is still here at this late hour tonight needs to understand that many hours of precious time have slipped by since Michel Murray explained that work would resume if the employer would go back on its unilateral change to work schedules. A few hours have already been wasted.

The federal government's actions, decisions and approaches do not support the legal framework surrounding labour law. Bill C-29 destroys that framework. The right to negotiate and the right to strike are linked. The right to strike is inherent to the right to negotiate because, without the threat of a strike, there is sometimes no power to negotiate and no way to come to an agreement. These are fundamental rights recognized in the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organization, the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This special legislation is a back-to-work bill. By choosing to take this approach to the current dispute, the government is turning a blind eye to the very principle of those rights. According to the Canadian Union of Public Employees, this special legislation is basically an affront to all Canadian workers. I would like to add that we are right to be concerned about this legislation being imposed, because a clear solution was identified to get employees back to work as of tomorrow without compromising the negotiation process.

The points of negotiation do not need to be analyzed and dissected here by me, the Prime Minister or the government. What is worrisome is how recklessly the Prime Minister is using this process to force the hand of the parties in question. The demands of the union are not excessive or unreasonable. My colleagues have talked about them.

In the column he wrote in Le Devoir in August 2020, Professor Soares aptly contrasts the human needs that employees are seeking to fulfill, such as work-life balance through more predictable schedules, with the employer's desire to maintain the status quo. Workers' rights were won one step at a time by people who had the courage to stand up and demand that their rights be respected, that they be able to live and work safely and in dignity. The labour movement was built one gain at a time, and these gains were hard won from the government and the most powerful players in the world.

The Prime Minister claims to believe in bargaining. He claims to have exhausted all options. However, he has absolutely no problem violating workers' rights and making the choice to support an employer that unilaterally made changes to a collective agreement. The agreement may have been expired, but it is still in force during the negotiation period. He should be relieved that our leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, has been willing to co-operate and work diligently on this issue these past 24 hours.

If the Prime Minister is so worried about Quebec's economy, about Quebec's workers, about their rights, about the principles of bargaining and all that, why is he not being fair and responsible? Why is he not acting like the leader of a country?

Let us recap: Was he concerned about Quebec farmers in 2019, when the Premier of Quebec, the Union des producteurs agricoles and others were asking for special legislation during the conflict between Canadian National and the Teamsters union? With regard to the urgent need to supply propane to the farmers and ranchers of Quebec, what answer did he give?

The Minister of Transportation at the time said the government was convinced that the best and fastest way to resolve the issue was for both sides to continue to negotiate collectively, and that it was prepared to help. That is what needs to be done.

The present case has to do with an employer that just got what it wanted handed to it on a silver platter. When working men and women exercise their right to strike, they do not do so for pleasure. They do not like to strike. The right to strike is not some walk in the park that can be taken away at the whim of elected officials with special legislation.

So much for a progressive party and a progressive Prime Minister. With its approach, the government is sending a clear message to unionized workers in Canada: their right to strike, which is their main pressure tactic when negotiations grind to a halt and which is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has just been voluntarily eroded by the state.