Transport Committee on Oct. 16th, 2023

[Robert Ashton]

In a nutshell, the way the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority went about it and did it, ignored environmentalists and ignored community groups, it's a flawed system. It should not be built.

If we had voice on the port authority board so we could have done it properly, definitely, but why build something that's just going to cause more issues in the supply chain and cause more glut on the railway tracks when we haven't figured out the current problem as it exists today?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Ashton.

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Next we have Ms. Koutrakis.

Ms. Koutrakis, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I also thank our friends who are testifying here this afternoon.

I think it's really important to clarify something, and that it be on the record: strikes are legal in Canada. Passing Bill C‑33 won't change that. We've already heard the answer from Mr. Bijimine, the Transport Canada representative. I think we really need to be cautious and not let an opinion that isn't really the right one pass.

Mr. Ashton and Mr. Murray, how would you describe your relationship with the port authorities? Do you feel that they listen to workers, or do you find it difficult to make yourselves heard? It's related to what I said at the beginning. I'd like you to help me understand better.

[Michel Murray]

You're referring to labour-management relations, since you mentioned the right to strike. Our employer is the Maritime Employers Association, whereas Mr. Ashton's employer in Vancouver is the BC Maritime Employers Association.

There used to be a good working relationship between the parties, 20 or 30 years ago. For the past two decades, we have felt that there is an absolutely incredible contempt on the part of the employers' association towards the men and women we represent. Several legal actions have been taken. The employers have colossal resources, millions of dollars, which represent 15 to 25 times the union budget.

I would say that labour relations are difficult. There needs to be real reflection, in order to choose the right players to sit at the negotiating table. When the people in front of me, at the bargaining table, are only expressing union demands and when the real decision-makers aren't in front of me, it delays the process and it deteriorates the relationships we have.

For about two decades, labour relations have been very difficult. We don't have the real decision-makers in front of us. One day, the Minister of Labour is going to have to look at the Canada Labour Code and the requirement for shipping companies to form an employers' association. We're never in front of the real decision-makers, but in front of the letter carriers of a board of directors who are never seated in front of us. For our part, we are delegated by the longshore workers, men and women, to represent them at a negotiating table. That's one of the problems.

I imagine it's the same on Mr. Ashton's side. I was in Vancouver during the last strike. One of the problems was that no shipping companies were sitting at the negotiating table, but rather the members of the employers' association, who are coming out of university. I've got nothing against university people, let's be clear, but the negotiators are university people who don't make any decisions. They have to go to the board of directors and the shipping companies to get their decisions ratified. It's a long process, which can lead to a bit of a labour relations challenge.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Ashton, I don't know if you want to add anything. I do have a different question.

I don't know how much time I have, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You have one minute and 10 seconds.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Quickly, Mr. Ashton, if you would like, you can add your comments to those questions.

[Robert Ashton]

The British Columbia Maritime Employers Association represents our employer groups. They're separate from the port authorities in B.C.

We have four port authorities in B.C. There should be only three, to be honest with you. My relationship with the biggest one has been really bad over the last 10 years because of their actions towards our union. With the one up north, we a have pretty cordial relationship; we get along quite well. With one of the port authorities on Vancouver Island, we get along quite well. Honestly, why there are two port authorities on Vancouver Island, I couldn't tell you.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

My next question is on this bill.

Bill C-33 contains a few measures to help with the coordination and logistics at Canada's ports. Do you think these changes will make it easier for employees to do their jobs, or do you foresee it adding hurdles or blockages to the fluidity or resilience of our supply chain?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Give a 15-second response, please.

[Robert Ashton]

In a day-to-day working environment, right off the top of my head, I can't really see it.

If you're looking for data from the member companies for the port authority to give to the Government of Canada, good luck. Why are the member companies that ship cargo and run the terminals and the railways going to give private data to the Canadian government?

I couldn't tell you. I don't think it'll work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Ashton.

Thank you, Ms. Koutrakis.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Murray, I'd first like to return to the idea of including worker representatives at the board table. I think it's an interesting concept because, even if it doesn't quite fit the culture here in North America, I get the impression that there are other places in the world where this is done and companies don't necessarily go bankrupt. It can work.

Next, I'd like to come back to something you raised earlier, which you can enlighten me on. You seem to be saying that it's difficult to have a discussion with your real employer, since, as members, you have to negotiate with the Maritime Employers Association rather than directly with the Montreal Port Authority. Is there a mechanism that allows you to talk to the port authority, or are you always redirected to the association?

Would the presence of representatives of the board of directors at least make it possible to put the workers' point of view more directly to decision-makers, who might be more aware of the realities experienced by workers?

[Michel Murray]

First, I should point out that the port authority and the employers' association are two separate entities. However, as I said earlier in my testimony, when it comes to legal action against the Longshoremen's Union, they're buddy-buddy, they're represented by the same law firm and they use the same delaying tactics. They did it to us last time for a year and a half before the Administrative Labour Tribunal.

In our testimony, we say that we don't have the real decision-makers, the real payers, in front of us. The real decision-makers are not the port authority or the employers' association, they are the shipping companies established in the port, such as Hapag‑Lloyd, Maersk and MSC Canada. They sit on the board of directors, and it's they who really make the decisions on the parameters of a negotiation or the renewal of a collective agreement. However, we never have them in front of us to explain our union demands and to tell them why we think a change in working hours could have a positive effect on productivity. Instead, we have a group of letter carriers in front of us, taking our messages to the board of directors, to whom they are supposed to sell our demands. It's a ridiculous negotiating system. We never have the real decision-makers in front of us.

Nothing would stop these companies from coming to the table and saying they're ready to hear the union's ideas for increasing their productivity. We certainly have ideas for how our members can benefit from a better work-life balance. Happy employees would probably have a positive effect on motivation and productivity in the port, but we're never able to address these companies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Murray and Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Finally, for this evening, we have Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Bachrach, you have two and a half minutes. The floor is yours.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One issue that I've heard concern expressed about from your organizations is around automation at our ports and the impact on workers. I know that this was one of the issues that contributed to the recent strike. It's a long-standing concern and a concern that, I think, is on a lot of port workers' minds.

With the idea of having labour representation on port authority boards, how do you see that contributing in a positive way to the discussion about automation and mitigating the impacts on Canada's longshore workforce?

[Robert Ashton]

It's quite simple. I'm going to go back.... I don't mind picking on RBT2. It's my thing, I guess, now.

When the concept of RBT2 first came up, if there had been a labour representative from my union on the port authority board, we could have explained the concerns we had—the decimation of the jobs that would have been created—and we could have advised them on different ways to do business. Yes, ports and port authorities and terminals have to green the working environment. I understand that, but there are other ways to do it than bringing in robots and getting rid of Canadian jobs so that corporations can make tons more money. This situation at RBT2 didn't have to happen. It wouldn't have happened if we had been on the board of directors.

[Michel Murray]

Automation is a global concern for representatives of women and men longshore workers. It's a concern that all longshore unions everywhere must address.

I still think that some people believe that automation is a panacea and will revolutionize lives. They used to say the same thing when I was 16: I'd stop working at 50 and an absolutely extraordinary leisure society would open up to me. It didn't happen.

You'd have to look at what's happened elsewhere. There have been projects all over the world, mainly in Europe, that have demonstrated that automation is not a panacea and has not increased supply chain resilience or productivity.

Mainly in Montreal—I imagine it's the same in Vancouver —people are much better served by employees dedicated to the job, who are well trained and have been doing it for years. As far as I'm concerned, I'd say automation isn't a panacea.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Murray.

Thank you very much, Mr. Ashton. We very much appreciate your time and your witness testimony this evening.

With that, I will adjourn the meeting. For those of you staying behind, we have another meeting after this with the U.K. delegation.

This meeting is adjourned.