Debates of April 27th, 2021

Proceedings on a Bill Entitled An Act to Provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Operations at the Port of Montreal

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I want to be very clear that the government has been there every step of the way for the last two and a half years. The federal mediation and conciliation service has supported the parties. They have been at the table for two and a half years, and over 100 mediation sessions.

In February, I took the extra step of appointing two senior level mediators to further assist the parties. There has been regular contact and engagement. I, the Minister of Transport, other ministers and MPs have reached out to the parties to communicate the important message of ensuring an agreement is reached at the table.

I want to assure the member that we have been there every step of the way and we will continue to be there to support the parties to reach an agreement at the table.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech, but I disagree with her claim that the government did everything it could. Certain sections of the Canada Labour Code would have allowed the government to intervene in special circumstances. For example, the government could have forced mediation and the arbitrator would have issued a ruling. That was not done. The minister still had a card up her sleeve.

Why did the government not invoke these sections of the Canada Labour Code and act accordingly?

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I want to reassure the member that we have absolutely been there every step of the way and have taken every measure we can. I want to remind the member that these parties have been negotiating for two and a half years. The federal mediation and conciliation service has been there. In February, I appointed two of our senior level mediators.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the mediators, who have worked very hard. I think the parties at the table would agree that those supports have been helpful. The message we want to reiterate for them is to please come to an agreement at the table.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Maritime Employers Association, since the truce agreement has expired, has flexed its muscle and has ensured it has increased the hours of work against the union's rights without having any kind of consultation with them. This is what has provoked the strike. These workers want their bargaining rights. They are saying, and this is from Michael Murray, the CUPE spokesman for 375:

...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.

Why is the minister taking away these people's bargaining rights, ensuring they go to binding arbitrations instead of having fair collective bargaining power?

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is the least favoured option, but our government has done everything in its power to support the parties to reach an agreement at the table. I want to remind the member that there have been two and a half years of negotiations. The federal government has been there every step of the way with mediators. Two additional mediators have been appointed. Despite this support, the multiple disruptions in the past and actions the parties have taken, there has been no significant progress made at the table. This is why we are taking the action we are taking today.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the minister is saying she is doing this with a heavy heart, but the fact is that she is doing it. In fact, from the discussions we have had, it is clear that she telegraphed that this was an option she was considering. Since she has done that, the negotiations have taken a real turn for the worse.

Therefore, I would like to ask the minister a question. Often deals are made under pressure. When either side uses the tools it has in its tool box to bring pressure to the other side, that is when deals get done. Does she not feel that by telegraphing this was coming, she has taken that pressure off and prevented the hard negotiations from happening at the table as they should be happening right now?

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that the hard negotiations continue at the table and the federal mediators are there to support the parties as they work through these negotiations.

We really have to look at the economic impact that has taken place with respect to the work stoppages and the initiatives that have taken place with respect to the past two and a half years, the economic harm. It is reported that $600 million was lost with respect to the previous strike action that was taken.

In addition to this, it is the health and safety of Canadians. We are looking at workers who are impacted because their work relies on the supply chains, seniors who are waiting for medicines and medical equipment, farmers who are waiting for fertilizer and seed. Therefore, along the whole way we are examining all options. The situation now has come to the point where it is dire, and that is why we are taking this action, but of course we continue to encourage the parties to come to a negotiated agreement at the table, and we have continued to provide the support of a mediation service to do that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I still hold out hope that there will be a negotiated agreement. I know how passionate the minister is in terms of the bargaining process and she sees the true value of it. Different political parties and different levels of government, unfortunately, at times have to take actions. However, even though we take the actions, we still hope to see negotiated agreements.

I wonder if the minister could just provide her thoughts on still having some hope.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. I am definitely filled with hope. The message has been made very clearly to the parties on both sides. We recognize that negotiation is hard, but one comes to the table with two things: a spirit of flexibility and a desire to get the agreement done. Therefore, we keep sending that message to the parties.

I want to thank them for doing the hard work and thank the mediation service, which has been working so hard with the parties, and really encourage them to come to an agreement now. We want that deal to be made at the table, and I think the parties are listening to us. I encourage them to listen to that message, to come to an agreement. That, of course, would be the best result.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will find that I have the unanimous consent of the House for my speech to be considered a 20-minute speech and for me to share my time with the member for Chilliwack—Hope.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Does the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent have the unanimous consent of the House to share his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to be a member of the House and to have had the opportunity to duly represent the people of Louis-Saint-Laurent for nearly five and a half or six years now.

Normally, I am always pleased and enthusiastic to rise in the House. However, today, it is quite the opposite. Rising in the House to debate and pass special legislation to force employees back to work is the furthest thing from a victory. It is not a victory for workers, for the employer, or for the business people and companies dealing with the problems resulting from the dispute, and it is certainly not a victory for parliamentarians.

Parliament's job is to pass bills that help society move forward, not to force people back to work. Unfortunately, we are obligated to debate this motion, which will lead to the passage of special legislation forcing Port of Montreal dock workers back to work. Obviously, we have a lot to say about that. We are here because the Liberal government, and particularly the Prime Minister and member for Papineau, a Montreal riding, unfortunately failed to show leadership at the appropriate time.

Let us consider the facts. The Port of Montreal is extremely essential. It is the beating heart of Montreal's economy, Quebec's economy and Canada's economy because goods that go through the port end up everywhere. That is why we have to pass this bill, which will cause port operations that have been stalled for more than a day now to resume.

The Port of Montreal is a crucial economic tool. It is Canada's second-largest port. Some 40 million tonnes of cargo and two billion products go through the Port of Montreal. For that to work, the port has to be efficient and reliable. Unfortunately, it is neither at the moment. This dispute is tarnishing the Port of Montreal's reputation, and now 1,150 dock workers are on strike because of it.

This dispute has deep roots. For nearly two and a half years now, the Port of Montreal's 1,150 dock workers have been without a contract. Anyone working for an organization wants to know what to expect. Disputes may arise occasionally, and contracts have to be renegotiated from time to time, but when it takes almost two and a half years to reach an agreement, that does not fly, and that is when problems come up.

These workers have been without a contract since December 2018.

Members will recall the sad events of last summer, when the Port of Montreal was hit by a 19-day labour dispute. Over those 19 days, $600 million was reportedly lost due to the work stoppage at the port. It took three months for economic activity to return to normal and for the backlog to clear. Since everything was shut down for 19 days, the containers piled up and could not be moved. The total economic impact of the dispute was $600 million.

Given the pressures of last summer, in the middle of a pandemic, we would have expected negotiations to resume civilly so that the parties could quickly find some middle ground. Unfortunately, that is not what happened. Instead, there was a seven-month truce, but it did not last.

There was an attempt at mediation. Experienced mediators were called in to help move things along. We recognize that. More importantly, however, we recognize that it did not work. That is the problem.

The government claims to have goodwill and talks about how terrible this is. I heard the minister talk about her goodwill earlier. Incidentally, I want to congratulate the minister for speaking a few sentences in French. I do not doubt her goodwill, but we need to see some results. There are no results to speak of. That is why the Prime Minister should have shown some leadership. I will come back to the lack of leadership a little later.

Every day this strike continues is costing our economy between $10 million and $20 million, which is huge. This is the second day of the strike, so it is time to move forward. Using special legislation is messy. No one wants that. I used to sit in the National Assembly in Quebec, and I had to vote on special legislation. As an opposition member, I agreed with the government's approach, but I could not applaud the passing of special legislation.

Special legislation undermines confidence in Parliament since it must be adopted quickly. It also causes upheaval in society when the government forces unionized workers who are striking legally to return to work and negotiate with their employers.

From the outset, I will say that we want to keep the economy rolling. We want the workers at thousands of plants, primarily in Quebec and Ontario, to be able to resume work and have access to the goods that flow through the port. We want them to be able to ship their products through the Port of Montreal. For that to happen, the workers need to return to work.

In her speech, the minister said that this dispute would directly affect 250,000 jobs in Quebec and 270,000 in Ontario. As members can see, this conflict is not a local, municipal or provincial issue. It is a Canadian one. Companies in western Canada and in the Maritimes will be directly affected by this as well.

Sadly, we will recall that during last summer's dispute about twenty vessels destined for the Port of Montreal were redirected to other ports such as the Port of Halifax. This has been happening again for the past several weeks. Why? It is because the government did not show leadership at the right time to prevent this dispute. Unfortunately, it was not prevented.

The Quebec government is calling for special legislation to be passed because Quebec's economy is being affected by this situation. Business people also want operations to resume. We completely agree. We also know that the unions think passing special legislation is appalling. That is true. Unfortunately, we believe that this government failed to show leadership. I will explain.

When such serious disputes arise, when positions are irreconcilable and there is no flexibility on certain aspects that could move things forward, that is when political leadership must be shown and unfortunately that did not happen.

I will never understand why the member for Papineau, who is from the Montreal area, the Prime Minister of Canada, who has all the authority to act, did not do anything about a dispute that is happening just a few kilometres from his riding.

The Prime Minister had a fundamental duty to pick up the phone last week and call the union and the Port of Montreal management, to encourage them to work things out and ask them what the issues were. That is a prime minister's job. That is where leadership is needed.

When every effort has been made to resolve a conflict but unfortunately nothing is working, the Prime Minister needs to step up and do something. Instead, this Prime Minister said the parties had to be left to their negotiations to see if that would work. That did not work for two and a half years. In a case like this, it is important to think outside the box. That is where leadership comes in, and that is where leadership was lacking.

The Prime Minister and member for Papineau, from the Montreal region, did not have the courage to do the right thing. That is why we find ourselves in this situation today, the same situation we sadly decried quite a while ago. I say “sadly” because we would have preferred not to do that. More than a month ago, when we felt no progress was being made, we asked questions in the House. The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and the member for Mégantic—L'Érable rose in the House to question the government and ensure that it would take action to avoid a dispute. Unfortunately, that is what we are facing now.

We are currently suffering the repercussions of the third wave of the pandemic, which, as members know, were exacerbated by the current government's tardiness in procuring vaccines when it mattered. We are now suffering the consequences of the 10-day gap in January and February.

Business people were hard hit by the lack of access to supplies and equipment during the rail crisis almost two years ago. Then they were hit by the pandemic and eventually the third wave. On top of all that, they are now facing the labour dispute at the Port of Montreal. Thousands of jobs throughout Quebec, Ontario and Canada are at stake. Unfortunately, this government failed by not showing the necessary leadership. Now we have to debate this bill, which has to pass so that operations can resume at the Port of Montreal.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many members of this House ever had the opportunity to sit at a bargaining table on the union side, but I did. The only power that labour ultimately has is the right to withdraw its services. Without that, it has no ultimate negotiating power. Here is something else: Strikes cause economic pressure; that is the very point of them. That right does not just exist for labour whose withdrawal of services does not produce consequences. It is like saying that workers with effective strike pressure cannot exercise that right.

At the Port of Montreal, the government is intervening before those workers even have a chance to exercise their right or exert pressure. My hon. colleague said that this is not a victory for employers or employees. Well, it is a victory for employers, because no employers sit at a table and bargain seriously if they know that a government will intervene and ultimately take away the right of the workers to strike, and guarantee an arbitrated result.

Why does the member not support workers' rights to strike and exercise the only fundamental constitutional right they have, or is that a right only for workers whose withdrawal of services does not actually impact anybody?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay my respects to the member for the experience he provides as a negotiator on the union side.

It is very sad what we have to address today, because there is no winner. The hon. member talks about how the Montreal Port Authority would be on the winning side, but there is no winner. A special law is anything but a win, but we have to address it.

I think about the thousands of people, union people, who are working in different shops in Quebec, in Ontario and from coast to coast who need their products to be offshore, and they also need products coming from the port in order to create wealth here in Canada. Yes, we are very seriously thinking about the 1,150 union workers who are on strike right now, but we are also thinking of the thousands of people who are working in many shops around the country and who are involved, by accident, in this situation.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for his speech.

Rather than talking about unionized workers, I will focus on employers.

Is the member aware that, from the moment an employer learns of the government's intention to introduce legislation, they will no longer negotiate because there is no longer any incentive to do so?

I would also like to know whether the Conservative Party, which is the official opposition, will vote for or against the special legislation.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

The fact is that by letting things drag on, unfortunately, the government has set the stage for the special legislation. The Prime Minister should have picked up the phone and taken action instead of introducing special legislation. I have said it before. That is what we believe.

Therefore, it is important to note that, in our hearts and minds, we believe that when the Prime Minister does not do his duty, we find ourselves in a situation such as this one. Instead of sending the signal that it was preparing a special bill, the government should have sent signals to bring about the successful conclusion of the negotiations.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we hear from the government that every step of the way it hopes something is going to happen. Often we hear these words, with no action. Is this not all about leadership and getting something done, leadership from the Prime Minister?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is why we are here today, because of lack of leadership. There are times when we need more action instead of talking. This is exactly where we are today. A special law to get back to work is anything but good. It is not good for union people, not good for the business community, because we are all losers in that situation, especially we parliamentarians.

The point is that instead of talking about adopting a special law a few days ago, the Prime Minister should have talked about directly getting involved in this process. He should have picked up the phone, called both parties and tried to reach an agreement. We have not seen that, and this is a lack of leadership.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to speak to this House, this time from Chilliwack remotely. My hon. colleague, the opposition House leader, had excellent remarks. I am always pleased to share the virtual stage with him. He mentioned a few things that I want to build on.

Primarily, government members like to pat themselves on the back for their intentions. They always have good intentions and think that should be enough to get them kudos for how they operate. Good intentions do not equal good results. While the minister talked about having a heavy heart and she had good intentions to facilitate a deal, the fact is that they did not get it done. To quote Michael Ignatieff, “They didn't get it done”, so we are here today.

That is disappointing. None of us are happy that we are here debating back-to-work legislation. Back-to-work legislation indicates a failure. It indicates that there has been a failure from the government to facilitate a negotiated settlement, that the bargaining has broken down and that this is, as the minister said, the last tool in the tool box, but here we are. It is being deployed. That is something we have heard. Certainly, I spoke to the union today. It said that once the minister telegraphed, some time ago, that back-to-work legislation was an option she was considering, the negotiations fell off the table. The negotiations started to get less serious and no longer were tackling the issues at the heart of this dispute, because one side could say it would wait to see what the government does before bringing forward ideas.

I think that has been really unfortunate. As was said by the member for Vancouver Kingsway, when the pressure is removed from a negotiation, there is no more impetus to come to the best deal. A pressure valve has been released by the government here. To signal that before a strike was even under way was truly unfortunate. From the reports that we are hearing on the ground, it did have a negative impact on negotiations.

We have seen that when there is a deadline, it seems the government fails to manage a file even more than usual. When there is a hard deadline, the government's failures increase. We saw it last fall, when the CERB benefits were going to run out. We all got pushed up against the wall because the government had failed to manage the timeline. We saw it with medical aid in dying, where the government absolutely failed to respond to court deadlines. We saw it with the U.K. trade agreement, where the government has failed to meet deadlines. Now, with a seven-month truce period, the government has failed to facilitate a negotiated settlement between the union and the employer. Once again, this deadline was known. It is not a surprise, and neither is the situation at the Port of Montreal a surprise, but the government has failed to get a deal done with the parties.

We know that the Port of Montreal is extremely important to the country. It is the second-busiest port in the country and it has connections to more than 140 countries. It is the largest port in eastern Canada: 40 million tonnes of cargo were handled in 2019; 2,500 trucks a day go through that port, and 60 to 80 trains a week; there are $2.6 billion in economic benefits, $250 million in tax revenue, and over 19,000 direct and indirect jobs; a hundred billion dollars' worth of goods go through there. We cannot overstate the importance of the port, and we cannot overstate as well the difficulty that has been felt around the world because of the uncertainty that is happening at the port.

We saw that with the August 2020 shutdown, when there was a $600-million cost to the economy for a 19-day strike. It took three months after that strike for port activities to get back to where they were and for the backlogs to be cleared.

We know that, as we go forward, any work stoppage is going to have a massive impact on Canada's economy, at a time when we can afford it the least. We already have some of the highest unemployment rates in the G7. We have seen the pandemic have a devastating impact on small businesses right across the country, and the last thing they can afford is a prolonged stoppage that will impact their bottom line again.

We have also talked to the port itself, which is not the employer in this situation but is an interested party. It has indicated that since the truce ended, it has seen about a 10% drop in shipping volumes. That is before any action was taken by either side, before any work stoppage occurred. At the same time, ports in New York and New Jersey and Norfolk were seeing a corresponding increase in traffic as the shippers from around the world were making decisions on the reliability of the Port of Montreal.

That is what is at stake here: the continued questions about the reliability of the port. By failing to get a deal done, by failing to facilitate a deal, those questions remain, so people and businesses are making decisions that will impact workers not only at the port but right across the country. If the volumes do not come back and the 10% decline becomes a permanent decline, that will result in fewer union jobs. If we cannot get product across the country to manufacturing facilities, that will result in fewer jobs and the impacts will be felt all along the supply chain.

We Conservatives, too, believe in the collective bargaining process. This is the process that the government says it had good intentions to support, but it failed to help the two parties come to an agreement. We want these decisions to be made at the table, without the guillotine, if we want to call it that, of back-to-work legislation hanging over their heads. The best deals are made at the table between willing parties. Certainly we want to reiterate our support for collective bargaining, and that we are not celebrating today that the government has taken this action.

However, we do believe that Canada cannot afford a prolonged work stoppage at this port. We cannot afford to see companies choosing to temporarily or permanently shift their operations to other ports. As the CEO of the Port of Montreal has indicated, extra dollars to move a product using a different port are one thing, but reliability is non-negotiable. Companies cannot have their products tied up in port or be unsure that they will be able to get to the customers in a timely fashion.

It is unfortunate that we are here today. It is unfortunate that the government was unable to facilitate a deal between the two parties. We do not celebrate the fact that this is before us, but here we are. We have to make a choice, and we choose to support the Canadian economy and support the workers right across the supply chain who are relying on the products that come through that port.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to questions and comments, I see the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North potentially rising on a point of order. We will give the floor to her.

Government Business No. 5—Notice of Closure Motion

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, indeed it is nice to see you. I wish I were there in person with everyone.

I give notice that with respect to consideration of Government Business No. 5, at the next sitting of the House a minister of the Crown shall move pursuant to Standing Order 57 that debate be not further adjourned.

Proceedings on a Bill Entitled An Act to Provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Operations at the Port of Montreal

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The House appreciates the notice provided by the hon. minister.

We will now go to questions and comments. The hon. member for Mount Royal.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his always fair and nuanced position on how he approaches issues such as this. I wanted to mention something that he raised, which is the fact that a very significant percentage of work in the port relates to the Midwest of the United States. The port has already seen a 19% decline in goods that were originally ordered by customers in the American Midwest. If we do not see a final resolution, not a temporary one, but a final resolution to this uncertainty, it is highly likely that we will continue to see an erosion of the business the port does with the United States.

Is this a concern for the hon. member? How does he recommend we address that?

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to work with the member on the special committee on the U.S.-Canadian economic relationship. He mentions that this issue is having an impact on our economic bottom line.

The real danger here is that, with a couple of work stoppages in such a short period of time, questions about the long-term reliability of the port are obviously raised. We cannot make a decision about shipping the weekend before something arrives at a port. The decisions have to be made a long time in advance. The uncertainty has caused a number of companies to make decisions to move away from the Port of Montreal, and to move away from the economic activity coming into that port and coming into Canada. We cannot afford for the temporary redirection to U.S. ports to become permanent. That is why we are supporting the effort to get certainty here because the long-term economic damage would be too great.