Transport Committee on Oct. 16th, 2023

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

Thank you so much for your very complete answer to my question.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You have three minutes.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Murray, my next question is about how the appointment of the chair of the board of directors of a port authority should take place. In the bill, we see that the government would like to gain control over the boards of all of Canada's ports by appointing their chair. I have to wonder when I see this.

I think everyone here has raised the issue of the politicization of the position. In my view, an appointee is beholden, first and foremost, to the person who appointed them. Thus, a person appointed by the minister becomes, first and foremost, beholden to the minister. I wonder, then, what moral authority such an individual would have. We know there's a chain of command in any organization, and it seems to me that the proper functioning of an organization also depends on moral authority. If we trust that the person in charge is the right one, and that they are in charge for the right reasons, it will be easier to work with them than if we're under the impression that this person is simply the spokesperson or the stooge of the government of the day.

Am I mistaken?

[Michel Murray]

At the risk of repeating myself, at one time it was the board of directors that appointed its chair. There were no political appointments. This meant that, for a long time, the Port of Montreal was well served by people who wanted the Port of Montreal to be competitive. Unionized employees were involved in the process, and we were invited to participate in international meetings where we went in search of customers. Obviously, a political appointment would taint our labour relations, which can already be difficult in the maritime industry.

In fact, it's important to remember that we don't negotiate with shipping companies. We negotiate with an employers' association that is appointed by the shipping lines to negotiate with us. It's hard enough for us to get along with them. If, on top of that, the minister can appoint the chair of the port authority board, which is not our employer, but which sometimes intervenes in our labour relations, that still worries us a bit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Next we have Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Bachrach, the floor is yours. You have six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both of our witnesses for appearing today.

I would like to start my questions fairly generally. My sense in the conversations that have led to this legislation is that there's a tension that exists when it comes to Canada's ports and our port authorities.

In speaking with port authorities, my sense is that they wish to act more independently, to have the flexibility and the freedom to compete globally, and to act more like private corporations, in that they want to be able to borrow money more easily and to make strategic investments rapidly to enable them to compete globally. I think that's an understandable perspective.

In talking to the government and the minister, my sense is that the focus of this legislation seems to be on public accountability, that is, moving port authorities and marine ports along that spectrum from fully arm's-length corporate entities to more government and public accountability, particularly coming on the heels of the pandemic and the supply chain challenges that we've seen.

If the goal of the legislation before us is to move us along that spectrum towards more public accountability and more ministerial accountability, is that a direction that you support?

I'll put it to both of you, with the hope of a short answer so I can ask my other nine questions.

[Robert Ashton]

Sure, if it's done properly, but adding two, three or, say, five more spots to a port authority board that are going to be picked by different levels of government doesn't open up public accountability, because the board of directors answers to nobody. However, if we had somebody from my union, or my friend's union, or the ILA sitting on those port authority boards, we are the public. We will be drilled by the public. That will bring public accountability back. People who sit in their ivory towers and come to a meeting once a month is not public accountability.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Murray, you have the floor.

[Michel Murray]

I fully concur with my colleague Mr. Ashton.

I'll come back to what he was saying about the presence of union representatives on the board of port authorities. The change that preceded this one meant that the union representatives who already sat on the Harbour Authority Board of Directors were driven out. There was a longshoreman on this board for some 15 years. Perhaps that allowed the parties to have a better dialogue.

I reiterate that I have a bit of a problem with the fact that a port authority reports to the government of the day. It's no secret that governments change from time to time, though some governments may last awhile. At some point, governments change and the wheel of political appointments is restarted and people come to sit on boards of directors on behalf of the new government.

We wonder if this is truly desirable for the port authority with all that it implies. The port authority promotes its port, manages its infrastructure and rents it out to the ships that dock at the port. It's a job that makes the port of Montreal or Vancouver attractive. We don't see what political appointments have to do with it.

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

Thank you, Monsieur Murray.

Mr. Ashton, some of the discussion today has focused on the emergency provisions that allow the minister to take pretty much any action he or she deems necessary in cases where there is a risk to the supply chain. The wording is quite broad. I read it earlier in the meeting. I think the concern that has very rightly been expressed is that those powers would be used inappropriately in the cases of collective bargaining or labour action.

Is this something that you feel could be addressed with a simple amendment that creates a clear exemption for labour-related actions, or does it need a more thorough overhaul?

[Robert Ashton]

If the language is clean, plain and written so that a layman like me could read it, then maybe all it needs is “this excludes labour relations”, “this excludes collective agreements”, “this protects our charter rights, and the government is going to stay out of collective bargaining”. If it's clean so a layman can read it and understand it, then definitely.

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

Okay. My last question is a very simple one. We've had quite a discussion about the appointment of directors on port authority boards.

Monsieur Murray, you voiced a concern about the change of government and the corresponding change in directors that can result. The focus here really has been around the appointment of the board chair. It seems there are two options. One is the appointment by the other directors on the board, and the other is the option that is presented in the bill, which is that the minister appoints the chair. To be clear, it's the former that you prefer as the appointment option.

Perhaps I'll put this to both Mr. Ashton and Mr. Murray.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Could we have a 10-second response each, please?

[Michel Murray]

My preference would be a group appointment over a ministerial appointment.

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

Okay.

Mr. Ashton.

[Robert Ashton]

I'm open to democracy, so if you want a chair, then make it an election. Let somebody like me put in for it, or let somebody who represents another part put in for an election to be a board chair, but it has to be that we're allowed to be on the board of directors.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Ashton and Mr. Murray.

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

For the second round of questioning, and our final round for today, we'll go to Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Strahl, I'll turn the floor over to you. You have five minutes, sir.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

After Mr. Ashton's opening remarks, I pulled up the current board of directors for the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. I noted one notable fellow British Columbian, Ken Georgetti. Ken Georgetti served for 15 years as the president of the Canadian Labour Congress and was the president of the BC Federation of Labour. He achieved significant legislative improvements for workers. As British Columbians, we know Ken Georgetti. That name is legendary in the labour movement, in our province and right across the country.

Clearly the issue is not that there is no labour. I don't think Mr. Georgetti has forgotten to stand up for workers just because he's not an active member of a union that is working at the port.

I guess that's my concern here. There's nothing preventing a government from appointing people who have a labour background. Obviously, the Government of British Columbia recommended Mr. Georgetti, and he was appointed in 2021. The question is on active members of labour or active members of port users. Should the Viterra president be able to sit on the board of directors? The answer would be no, because he would have an obvious conflict of interest because of his active involvement in the port.

If the issue is not that there's no labour representation—again, Ken Georgetti is a guy who's going to fight for labour on that board—is the issue not one of whether someone is an active participant in the day-to-day operations of the port? Is that not more of a consideration? Do you think that either labour or the business side could operate on the board of directors without being in a fairly obvious conflict of interest?

[Robert Ashton]

I'll answer both of your statements there.

Ken Georgetti has a great history in the labour movement. I'll never take that from him. He's done amazing things for the workers of this country and my home province of British Columbia. However, Ken Georgetti does not represent labour at the Port of Vancouver. He doesn't. He supported the building of RBT2, which has the potential to destroy half my jobs in the port of Vancouver. That is not what a labour rep does. A labour rep fights for workers' jobs. That's what a labour rep does.

To your other suggestion about whether it would be a conflict of interest if an employer in the port of Vancouver sits on any port authority board, or if I sit on a port authority board, or one of my people who is active, the simple answer is no. The port authority builds more things and is involved in more issues than just the building of terminals.

Currently, the way the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is structured.... It came almost dead last in that report that was put out. A couple of port authorities that I mentioned came in a little higher than it did, and they have active workers who represent them on the boards. So no, I don't think that would be a conflict of interest. If one came up, I would expect that board member to recuse himself for that one issue.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

I appreciate that.

You mentioned the summer, and obviously you had a very contentious labour negotiation.

Have you ever seen the solution that was proposed by the Minister of Labour used before? If your members had not agreed to that contract, do you think it was a legal remedy to have the negotiator essentially impose a contract, or say that this is what the contract should be, with the threat—I think, fairly obviously—that this would form the basis for back-to-work legislation if it was not utilized?

We're going a little off topic here, but I know you're a subject matter expert on it. At the end, when the minister imposed that solution, did you feel that what he proposed was actually legal?

[Robert Ashton]

I'm not going to get into the legalities of it. My members spoke loud and clear, and that's all that matters to me at the end of the day. My members said “no” because they wanted a freely negotiated collective agreement presented to them to vote on. That first one was voted down by my membership, and my membership is always right, end of story.

When we freely negotiated the last terms of settlement that we brought to my membership, my membership voted it up. Again, my membership is always right.

I'm not going to get into the legalities of that. I have a lawyer to do that.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You have 30 seconds, Mr. Strahl.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

I have a final question, then.

You've mentioned Roberts Bank terminal 2 numerous times. There are two parts to that approval. One is to build a landmass, and the second part is what should be done on it.

Do you reject the whole project out of hand, or do you think the port could work with labour and others to increase the landmass and perhaps do something on it that would be more acceptable to your membership than another container port that is increasingly automated?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Give a very short response, please, Mr. Ashton.