Transport Committee on Oct. 16th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Okay.

Mr. Muys, I'll turn the floor over to you. You have six minutes.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

My gosh, it's been three in a row. What's with that?

You talked about the fact that the chair, now appointed by the minister, is a political appointment. What would you suggest is a better way to appoint the chair? Is it the existing way, or is there a different model you would suggest?

[Michel Murray]

When it comes to appointing port authority board chairs, I'm not trying to suggest any particular way of doing things. I just want to point out that a political appointment could have consequences for labour organizations like ours. The moment someone is appointed by a minister, they become somewhat beholden to them for their actions in the context of labour relations.

I'll give you an example. Dominic Taddeo worked for nearly 30 years at the Port of Montreal as president and CEO. He was a good marketer, travelling all over the world to attract new customers to the Port of Montreal. He wasn't appointed by the minister, yet was doing an absolutely fantastic job.

So I don't think a political appointment will help labour relations. On the contrary, it will make things more tense all around, in my humble opinion.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

What I'm hearing is that it's not just labour relations but perhaps the overall effectiveness of the chair—in that, if this person is a political appointment in that sense, they may have a divided interest, so to speak, rather than look out for the interests of...what is best for the port overall.

[Michel Murray]

I tend to agree with that, actually.

I see a parallel with what I mentioned earlier about framing the powers granted to the minister. Earlier, Mr. Bijimine told us that the bill did not infringe on port workers' right to strike or freedom of association. However, this is not indicated in the bill. If it isn't in the bill, imagine if no one had reacted to these provisions and Mr. Barsalou-Duval hadn't asked his questions about the appointment of a chair by the minister and about the powers granted to port authorities. In fact, the minister could even delegate powers to a port authority, according to one of the clauses I read in the bill.

This is rather worrying for us, in the context of our labour relations with employers' associations.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Overall, in your testimony, you've pointed out a number of deficiencies in Bill C-33. Would you agree that Bill C-33 is a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation?

Perhaps both of you could comment on that.

[Michel Murray]

I wouldn't go that far, no. I'm here to share our labour relations concerns about the effect of the powers the bill grants to the minister over our right of association as recognized by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and on the right to economic pressure tactics that flows from it and that was recognized, as Robert Ashton said, by the Supreme Court of Canada's Saskatchewan decision. Those are our only concerns.

Are there other aspects of the bill that will serve the supply chain, the rail sector or customs? I imagine there are. However, I'm not the best person to tell you whether or not this is a good bill. I'm simply here to share our concerns with you.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Right, so you wouldn't opine as to which parts are good and which parts are bad.

Do you have anything to add, Mr. Ashton?

[Robert Ashton]

I echo my colleague's comment on that.

When we look at the port authorities in B.C.—I won't put words in my friend's mouth—we have to look at the boards of directors. Without any type of labour or community organizations represented on the port authority boards, how do we have community and labour buy-in on new projects? RBT2 could have been done completely differently, but it's a terminal that's not needed and that's going to cause more supply chain issues than it will fix. Yet, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is still pushing it and so is the Canadian government.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Just to expand on that point—not just the Port of Vancouver but other ports across the country—would you say the current composition of the boards...? Are there any good examples and, if not, where are the deficiencies?

[Robert Ashton]

I can speak only to ports in B.C. I see no community interest on these port authority boards. I see no labour; I see big business, and they're all political appointees.

The other aspect is that, when I've seen some of the MPs here on this panel asking questions about where the minister's abilities end, they weren't given an answer.

My fear—and I believe my brother's fear here—is that the minister could have the ability to say, “You're not allowed to go on strike. You're not allowed to use your fundamental charter rights to defend your workers and defend their needs and wants in their day-to-day lives.” That scares the hell out of me.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Bill C-33 gives the minister too much say.

[Robert Ashton]

It could be a bit open-ended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Muys.

Thank you, Mr. Ashton.

Thank you very much, Mr. Murray.

Up next we have Ms. Murray.

Ms. Murray, I'll turn the floor over to you. You have six minutes.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you very much.

Thanks for being here to provide your thoughts and reflections.

The first issue I want to ask about has to do with the changes that the bill makes to prohibit unruly interference with railway work, including unruly behaviour towards railway employees. It's still imprinted in my memory when a pipeline crossing was being built without permission by the hereditary chiefs of the nation across whose claimed territory this was being built and it ended up with railway blockages that shut down rail traffic in quite a bit of the country. I think there were even fires being built on the rails themselves.

What kind of impact does that have on your members when these seemingly unassociated conflicts affect railway work? Do you see the changes the bill is making to prohibit that as adequate to protect your members?

[Michel Murray]

I remember the events you're referring to, Ms. Murray. At the Port of Montreal, the impact was fairly minimal. As far as I know, no trains were unable to access the docks at the time. That is my recollection. The impact on the Port of Montreal railroad was fairly minimal.

[Robert Ashton]

I have an opinion.

There's a fine balance that we have to draw on this. Protecting the workers who are in place, protecting their health and safety and protecting their ability to do their job is, of course, of the utmost importance. I have that feeling 100% for all workers in this country.

The other thing we have to understand when we look at this type of language is that it's every Canadian's right, in my humble opinion, to protest a company or our government if they see fit, as long as that protest falls within the laws of the land. If you restrict the individual's right to protest, you are restricting the right of Canadians to air their opinions. If it puts workers into an unsafe position, then that has to be rectified, for sure.

What the Wet'suwet'en protesters did, doing what they thought was right to protect their land.... If they do not put workers' lives in jeopardy, then who is the Canadian government to say they cannot do it? Who is the government to say that an individual cannot have the ability to protest something that is wrong?

That's what this bill does. It says, “You don't have the right to have your say anymore; we're going to take it from you as a Canadian.” We all have to understand that what is of the utmost importance is the livelihood of these workers.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

It's a balance that has to be struck. I was trying to get a sense of your view on that balance, but because time is tight, I will go to another question.

This has to do with the transportation of dangerous goods regime. In metro Vancouver and places like Surrey and White Rock, for example, I know there has been concern in the past with the transportation of dangerous goods. Bill C-33 makes changes to the regime with the establishment of penalties and other changes.

From your perspective, are these changes ones that you and your members support? Are there other things that you think should be done?

[Robert Ashton]

If you're talking about the transportation of dangerous goods via rail, I wouldn't have an educated answer for you.

[Michel Murray]

We don't represent railroad workers either. However, I know that a representative of those workers will be appearing before your committee by the end of October.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I am surprised to hear that. You're representing port workers, and this transportation typically is to or from ports to other destinations.

I guess what I'm hearing is that the changes—

[Michel Murray]

Longshore and railroad are different unions. Another union is going to appear in front of this committee that represents the railroad workers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Murray.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for joining us today. I'll begin straight away with the topic that has brought them here and which is most important to them: the workers' right to strike and their right to freedom of association.

I sensed a desire on the part of Transport Canada officials to reassure people that the bill would have no impact on these rights. However, reading the bill's provisions shows that the minister is being granted many powers. We therefore wonder how this will be interpreted and applied in reality, because sometimes an emergency or a particular situation is used as an excuse to act, and all sorts of pretexts are found to ultimately go a little further than what was originally intended.

Mr. Murray, you mentioned stipulating in the bill that, notwithstanding what's included, workers' right to strike and freedom of association should not be compromised. Would an amendment or addition to the bill allay your concerns on that specific point?

[Michel Murray]

The bill's sponsor spoke about that earlier. If it doesn't affect the right to strike or freedom of association and negotiation, it respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 2(d) of the Charter must not be overridden by the new powers granted to the minister or by the bill. The Canada Labour Code includes very specific provisions concerning workers' right to strike or the employer's right to the lockout. Canada has signed international treaties recognizing the right of unions to exert economic pressure. Furthermore, as I reminded you, the supervisory body for the international convention signed by Canada has not recognized ports, public transport and others as essential services.

There is an organization that deals with essential services, and it's neither Transport Canada nor Employment and Social Development Canada. It's the Canada Industrial Relations Board. The Board determines serious and imminent threats to the Canadian population. That's the expertise of this administrative tribunal.

This is the second time I've testified before a parliamentary committee in connection with a bill. The first time was in 1995, on the amendments to the Canada Labour Code following the Sims Report. That gives you a sense of my age. This project was piloted by the Honourable Alfonso Gagliano, who was a friend of the longshoremen of the Port of Montreal and whom we liked very much. We're searching for testimony to find out what the legislator intended in 1995. Specifying in the current bill that it does not affect the right to strike or freedom of association could indeed reassure us and at the same time spare us from having to ask questions in 10 or 15 years' time about the legislator's intention.