Debates of April 28th, 2021

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, with respect, I have some news for the minister: Strikes are intended to cause economic disruption. That is the whole purpose of a strike. A strike that does not have economic impacts is a strike that has no value whatsoever.

There is no right to collectively bargain without the right to back that up by withdrawing services. If that right is neutered, there is absolutely no pressure that workers can bring to bear to match the employer's power to unilaterally determine the conditions of employment. The other thing, of course, is that it is always open to the minister to declare essential services, which would allow the workers to exercise their right to strike while ensuring there is a minimal workforce there ensuring essential goods get delivered.

If workers do not have the right to withdraw their services, what possible pressure could there be on this employer to resolve this dispute?

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

Madam Speaker, I would say to the member that, in fact, those measures have been taken. Over the last two and a half years, there has been action where there has been a work stoppage. There has been a partial and a full strike. The economic impact of that was a loss of $600 million. That is the estimated cost with respect to the previous action that has been taken.

What elevates this now is that we are in the midst of a pandemic. This has been a very difficult year for all Canadians, not only from an economic point of view, with respect to businesses working very hard to recover, but also for Canadians who are relying on things such as medicines, which they need desperately in order to get through this pandemic. Supply chains have been impacted. For example, the rail to the port has been minimized because of a lack of products moving at the port.

I think it is important for the member to realize that the impact of this is grave and the situation is dire. The pandemic has exacerbated the situation, and we must take action.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #99

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from April 27 consideration of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I finished yesterday, I was talking about the history of the Port of Montreal and the dispute that has led us to this legislation. The government made a strong and concerted effort to help both parties come to an agreement over two and a half years. We did this because we firmly believe that the best agreements are the ones reached at the bargaining table. However, in some cases, despite our best efforts, the parties remain at an impasse and turn to their last resort, which is to take job action. Those are exactly the circumstances that we are facing now.

Let me explain why this work stoppage is so detrimental. The Port of Montreal is the second-largest container port in Canada. As I mentioned, every year it handles over 1.6 million 20-foot equivalent units and 35 million tonnes of cargo, representing approximately $40 billion in goods.

The Port of Montreal is central to the economic well-being of Canadians across the country, in particular in Ontario and Quebec.

The work stoppage at the Port of Montreal is causing major and permanent damage to Canada’s economy, further disrupting the supply chains, which are already considerably affected by the COVID-19 crisis.

The longer this work stoppage lasts, the more likely it is that commercial activities cannot resume, which would cause lasting damage.

We must act quickly, since the negative impact on the economy will only increase and become significantly worse in the coming days.

The port is an enormous operation involving enormous costs and the potential for enormous loss. We are not just talking about temporary losses either. Some shippers forced to reroute shipments to other ports may not return. Others may not return in the short term. This means that economic harm could continue long after any work stoppage has ended.

As I mentioned, the rerouting of container cargo is a major factor. The redirection of cargo has been occurring for weeks, even before any job action had begun. Some businesses have been rerouting containers to other ports in Canada, such as Halifax. Others have been going to ports in the United States, such as Boston, to avoid becoming stranded in Montreal.

It is not only rerouting cargo that is a problem. There is also a cost that comes with the delay of imports. Interruption to supply chain flows can be particularly costly to manufacturers and retailers, especially in the case of a more prolonged dispute. We also have to consider export delays. Missing delivery deadlines, potentially losing sales and wasting products, such as perishable goods that cannot be properly stored or handled, all spell out significant losses.

A prolonged work stoppage would also have a serious impact on jobs. The port sustains tens of thousands of jobs. This includes both direct jobs, such as people who work for terminal operators, and indirect jobs, such as people who transport goods to and from the port, and those who work for companies that are serviced by the port. The first workers who are expected to experience job impacts are those in employment that directly support ongoing operations at the port. This includes terminal operators, tugboat operators, freight forwarders and truckers, among others.

As the stoppage continues, these impacts are expected to spread to indirect interests, such as local companies that provide services to the port, such as refuelling services to vessels and tugboats. A backlog at the port would have additional impacts, such as reduced hours or temporary layoffs on workers and businesses that are unable to reroute necessary production inputs through other ports, particularly those in the manufacturing, construction and sales sectors.

In short, the longer a work stoppage continues, the more damage will be done. The work stoppage at the Port of Montreal is resulting in economic loss to the Canadian economy and it will grow more with each passing day that the work stoppage continues. The fact of the matter is this is a loss no one can afford these days. All of this comes at a precarious moment in Canada's economic recovery from the ongoing pandemic. Supply chains have been disrupted for over a year now and industries are working hard to recover from and manage these complexities.

Following the job action notice from the parties on April 12, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters issued a news release calling on the government to step in. In its news release it stated that some manufacturers had already incurred millions in additional costs every week as a result of redirecting their containers to the Port of Halifax. This was before the work stoppage even began. It noted that while industry will have to absorb these costs and delays, it will ultimately hurt consumers. We must take these warnings seriously. While our government agrees that the best agreement is always one that is reached by both parties at the bargaining table, the fact is that is not always possible.

Our government provided considerable and ongoing support and encouragement to the Maritime Employers Association and the Syndicat des débardeurs, also known as CUPE Local 375, during the collective bargaining process to help them reach an agreement satisfactory to both parties.

As I said before, our federal conciliators and mediators have been working with the parties for more than two and a half years. They provided support at more than 100 bargaining sessions. Unfortunately, in cases like this, despite our best efforts, the parties have been unable to reach an agreement. The reality is that the negative impacts of a work stoppage on the economy could be severe, widespread and long-lasting. There has been no agreement, and there is no end in sight.

For all these reasons, our government must protect the Canadian economy and minimize losses to businesses. That is precisely why we are tabling back-to-work legislation. Once it has received royal assent, the bill will order an immediate return to work and the resumption of operations at the Port of Montreal. The most recent collective agreement will be extended until a new one is adopted.

We have tried all other avenues. We have put our conciliators and mediators at the table. They have much skill, but it has not worked. We cannot stand by and do nothing. We cannot allow thousands of Canadian jobs to continue to hang in the balance.

Believe me, introducing legislation to end the dispute was a difficult decision. We were very much hoping for a different outcome. Unfortunately, we find ourselves in an impossible situation. It is at times like these that we must balance the needs of workers with the needs of the Canadian economy, and while we continue to hope the parties will reach a deal before this legislation is adopted, we must move forward with it in the meantime.

It is absolutely necessary that we keep this port open and fully operational. National and regional economies depend on it for both the immediate and distant future. We cannot afford such an economic loss, and we cannot afford to sully our reputation as a reliable trading partner.

In conclusion, I ask the members of the House to give careful consideration to the points I have brought up today. I ask them to think about the severe and lasting damage we are facing here, both in the short and long term. I ask them to do what needs to be done to get the Port of Montreal fully working again and pass this legislation now.

[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]

Madam Speaker, I know the member has been a very strong advocate in many ways, and I appreciate his comments.

How does he interpret the law in terms of guaranteeing procedural fairness for both sides? If he could he provide his thoughts on that, I would really appreciate it.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have heard this question from a number of people in this debate. How does the law guarantee procedural fairness to both the union and the employer? I am going to mention four ways.

First, it provides the parties with meaningful input into the selection of the mediator. Each party will have 48 hours to provide a list of three people to the Minister of Labour, and if both parties agree on one person, the minister will need to name that party.

Second, the law allows each party to put all of the matters that it wishes to on the table. The mediator-arbitrator needs to consider every single issue put forward by both parties.

Third, it provides a 14-day period for the parties to continue to work things out in mediation, and allows the parties to extend that by seven days, by mutual agreement.

Finally, it allows the mediator to have the discretion to determine what is the best way to resolve each and every matter, by either using one method or another method that the mediator-arbitrator judges best to solve a particular issue.

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

Madam Speaker, earlier in his speech, Mr. Housefather said—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order. I remind the hon. member that he is not to mention the names of his colleagues in the House.

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I sometimes forget.

When my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville asked the hon. member for Mount Royal whether the bill would contain guarantees for workers that the employer would not start imposing shifts again, he said yes. However, when pressed on the issue by our leader, the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly, during question period, the Prime Minister refused to answer.

Why did the Prime Minister refuse to answer and repeat what the hon. member for Mount Royal guaranteed my colleague?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can only speak for myself, but I am pleased to tell my hon. colleague what happened.

The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville asked me a question and asked for the department's response. We received the response and I passed it on. The current collective agreement will be reinstated and extended. This means that any actions not permitted by the collective agreement will no longer be possible.

For example, the employer told employees that it no longer guaranteed a weekly minimum income and that they will be paid only for hours worked. That is not allowed under the collective agreement, so that agreement will be reinstated. That is what the hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville wanted to know, and I was pleased to hear the public servants at the department confirm it.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to collective bargaining, the one great bargaining chip that unions have in the power imbalance that is usually in effect with their employers is the ability to withhold their labour. This is something that unions have used for centuries to gain collective rights and powers for workers. Now that the government has stepped in and ordered the workers back to work, it has effectively crushed the ability for them to strike.

What incentive does the employer now have to negotiate in good faith when the workers have had this key bargaining chip removed from them by the government?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear from my good friend from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

Our Minister of Labour is the daughter of a steelworker, and this is the last option the government wanted to take. It is the last option she wanted to take. We essentially had no choice in the matter.

For those who say we rushed to judgment, last August we allowed a strike of 13 days to continue at the Port of Montreal. However, now, in this situation, there are critical issues with respect to COVID that have required us to make sure the operations at the port continue.

That being said, the employer has every incentive to reach an agreement, just as the employees do. Not only will the employees' right to strike end, but so will the employer's right to lockout. The employer cannot be sure at all of where the arbitrator will go if it leaves issues to go to arbitration. It may be that the arbitrator will take the union's side on every position. We do not know that, so it is a gamble for both parties—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the last answer from the parliamentary secretary because it really sets the stage accurately for where we are in this.

Concerns have been brought forward about supplies, in particular supply chains of medications and necessities. The Bloc and the NDP have suggested that there should not be concerns about this because necessities and medications will still make their way through.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary can provide his comments as to whether he has concerns about that.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, our minister has received correspondence from companies that provide life-saving dialysis products. They are worried their goods are going to be unable to reach Canadian hospitals. We really appreciate the good faith of the union in offering to unload cargo that has medical supplies. However, the issue is that some cargo is bundled with all kinds of other cargo that does not have medical supplies. It would be very difficult practically, as it was in the strike last August, to locate exactly where there are medical supplies.

That is not to be said of the other practical issues, such as transport. Trains to the port are now being rerouted elsewhere. There are no trains to just transport goods coming—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether the government has considered the solution the leader of the Bloc Québécois proposed today.

My colleague, the hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, asked a question earlier. He was told in no uncertain terms that the special legislation would reinstate the collective agreement. As a result, the special legislation would prevent the employer from modifying schedules the way it has.

The union committed in writing to ensuring workers would return to work immediately if the employer were to reverse this decision. We therefore have an opportunity to ensure that workers return to work tomorrow morning, more quickly than if we were to pass special legislation.

Does the government not wish to call the employer about this?

I would like an answer to my question. I do not know why we cannot get an answer. I think it is a very clear solution.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I would like to repeat that the special legislation will reinstate the original collective agreement. The parties will have the powers they had under the collective agreement, but will not be able to make unilateral decisions. I gave the example of the guaranteed minimum weekly income. Under the original collective agreement, the employer could not make changes in that regard. That provision will be reinstated

The minister spoke to the parties for two and a half years, as did other ministers. The mediator is still there—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I must interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary and move on to a final question.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.