Port of Montreal Operations Bill, 2021
Motion in Amendment Negatived
April 30, 2021
Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:
That Bill C-29 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended in clause 6, on page 3, by adding the following after line 31:
“(3) During the period beginning with the coming into force of this Act and ending at the expiry of the collective agreement, as extended by subsection 6(1), the conditions of employment for employees are those that existed on April 9, 2021.”.
Senator Bellemare, do you have a question?
I also want to speak to the amendment.
Senator Dalphond, do you have a question?
Yes.
There are two minutes remaining to ask Senator Lankin questions.
Senator Lankin, if your amendment passes, it will mean we send the bill back to the House of Commons and wait for the reply, which could mean another week of delay. Did you consider the impact on the situation in Montreal?
Thank you for your question. Yes, certainly for Montreal, for Quebec and for Ontario, my province, the economic impacts that have been suggested could be possible are important for us to understand, so yes, I gave consideration to that.
Given how we have been able to expedite things over the course of dealing with emergency COVID legislation, I don’t know that it would take a week. It wouldn’t necessarily have to take a week. However, it is absolutely important for us to ensure that the legislation meets the test of minimal impairment and that the imbalance provided by continuing to see the risk to the workers of unilateral job security provisions being changed. This amendment is both necessary and a fair implementation.
Because I just mentioned emergency COVID legislation, I’d like to note that there are other ways that things could have proceeded. I mentioned this in questioning during the Committee of the Whole. Bill C-14 has just come through and been completed in National Finance today. It will be before us on Tuesday, I believe. Within that, there is a provision for the government to pass regulations that would ensure the protection and prevention of a shortage of medical supplies, like drugs or drug components, for example.
I also point out that there has been an absolute offer that those things will be moved. That the union has not been asked to unload those particular cartons, to me, speaks to an approach taken that has allowed the situation to fester.
Senator Lankin. Your time has expired. On debate, Senator Gold.
Thank you, Your Honour.
Honourable senators, first of all, Senator Lankin, thank you for your very thoughtful interventions and for the kind word you said about my remarks. Let me also say that you know how much we in the chamber respect you, especially your commitment to the Charter and your commitment to the rights of working men and women. As we say in French —
— that is to your credit.
I will not repeat anything that I said about the Constitution. However, your amendment does not address many of the questions and concerns you raised. That said, honourable colleagues, I want to, with great respect, submit that this amendment is both unnecessary and, in my opinion, inappropriate. The government cannot support it. Let me explain why.
As we know, clause 6 of Bill C-29 clearly provides that :
. . . the collective agreement is extended to include the period beginning on January 1, 2019 and ending immediately before a new collective agreement between the parties comes into effect.
All that means that Bill C-29 explicitly provides that the collective agreement that applied from 2013 to 2018 would be extended until a new collective agreement comes into force.
As we have been told and as has been remarked on a number of occasions, this collective agreement is the one that was successfully negotiated between the very same parties in the past. Therefore, when and if Bill C-29 comes into force, the parties would be required to abide by all of the terms of that collective agreement until the day that a new collective agreement comes into effect between the two parties.
Importantly, no unilateral modifications made by either side would stand upon passage of Bill C-29. Terms that were in the collective agreement that expired on December 31, 2018 would now be in effect.
According to the union, two measures that have been implemented by the employer since April 9 are at issue, as we have heard. The first measure relates to guaranteed paid hours, including unworked hours. We have received confirmation from the union, the employer and the minister that this measure would no longer apply because it is guaranteed by the collective agreement of 2013–2018.
The second measure relates to changes to the work schedules. Colleagues, I would note for the record this measure is consistent with the collective bargaining agreement that the parties agreed to in 2013. Therefore, it has been a part of their labour relationship for quite some time now.
What does this mean? It means the union was fully aware that the employer had schedule changes as part of their existing collective agreement because they had agreed to this as part of the overall collective agreement.
Colleagues, I must ask you to ask yourselves — we must ask ourselves — if it is the proper role of the Senate to remove measures to change a collective agreement and to remove measures that are part of the collective agreement that the parties, in fact, have negotiated between themselves.
The collective agreement provides an objective measure of the conditions that should apply to the parties for the period of mediation and arbitration until a new agreement is entered into through the Bill C-29 process. The amendment proposed by Senator Lankin would alter this objective measure. It begs the question, one that is perhaps academic to some: Are there other aspects of the collective agreement that the Senate may wish to alter? More to the point, is it our job, our role, to do so? I think not.
In my opinion, Parliament has no role in making changes to previously existing collective agreements, and it is for that reason, amongst others, that the government is not prepared to accept this amendment.
Ultimately, and notwithstanding all of this, because of the process in the Senate, we now know that this measure, although it is consistent with the collective agreement, will also be removed by consent of the employer. Indeed, in his responses to the questions posed by Senator Dalphond, Mr. Tessier committed clearly on behalf of the employer to remove the measure relating to schedules as soon as this legislation enters into force and revert back to April 9 working conditions as a measure of good faith to restart their negotiations from a neutral ground. I have no reason to question the commitment made by Mr. Tessier before Canada’s upper chamber and before the public at large.
As a result, even if it were desirable, which the government believes it is not, Senator Lankin’s amendment is simply not necessary. Moreover, colleagues, I think it’s important for us to consider the real, practical ramifications of sending this back to the House of Commons, especially in a minority Parliament. We’re here today because we’ve been recalled to deal with Bill C-29 as it’s a matter of urgency to Canada, especially in the context of the pandemic through which we are living. For us to move an amendment at this stage would leave the bill in legislative limbo for too long, even assuming the best-case scenario, where the government gains the support of another party to impose time allocation in the House. Passage of this legislation could be delayed by almost a week.
It is not fanciful to use a week, at least, as a measure of delay, with all of the consequences of which we’ve heard and about which I’ll say no more.
Given the estimated costs of anywhere from $40 million to $100 million associated with this work stoppage, given the impact on potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs, this would be a very significant price to pay for Canadians in order to enforce a state of affairs that we know could be in place as soon and as early as tomorrow.
Honourable colleagues, the responsible course of action, in my humble opinion, is to pass this legislation for the Port of Montreal to reopen and for the parties to initiate the dispute resolution process promptly so that the situation can find a long-term and stable resolution. Thank you for your kind attention.
I also wish to speak against the proposed amendment.
While listening to Mr. Murray, the union adviser, this afternoon, my first reaction was to agree that it was a great idea to amend the bill to make sure that the working conditions in place prior to April 9 were restored.
However, after listening to the other witnesses, my opinion changed.
First, clause 6(1) of the bill clearly states that working conditions according to the previous collective agreement are restored, which therefore addresses the union’s issues about wages.
Second, the testimony from the management representative convinced me that management is ready to withdraw its proposal regarding shift schedules and deadlines. The union also said repeatedly that if these two conditions were met, the workers would go back to work and end the strike.
Since, in my opinion, the meeting of these conditions is confirmed by the bill and the testimony we heard, and given that it is not our role to interfere in the bargaining process, I think it is appropriate to vote in favour of this bill to end a very costly labour dispute. Also, support for the bill in Quebec is nearly unanimous.
As a senator for Quebec, I will vote against the amendment and for Bill C-29.
Do you wish to participate in the debate, Senator Dalphond?
Yes, Madam Speaker.
First, I concur with what Senator Gold has said. He put it more ably than I could have.
I would add that I also agree with my colleague, Senator Bellemare.
For these reasons, I will vote against the amendment, and I move that we proceed to the question.
Do any other senators wish to speak?
All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”
Those in favour of the motion and who are present in the Senate Chamber will please say “yea.”
Those opposed to the motion and who are present in the Senate Chamber will please say “nay.”
In my opinion, the “nays” have it. I see no senators rising. The motion is defeated.
