Hon. Frances Lankin: Senator Gold, one year ago, both houses of Parliament passed back-to-work legislation three days into a legal work stoppage at the Port of Montreal. I’d like to quote the minister at that time. She said:

This is literally a matter of life and death . . . If medical products and life-saving medical devices do not get to hospitals and patients in a timely manner, the health of Canadians is at stake.

Senator Gold, as reported by Blacklock’s Reporter on Friday of last week, it would appear that the information provided by the employer vastly overstated the risk to delays of COVID-related and other medical products.

As Government Representative, you had to present the arguments and the Charter Statement to this chamber in support of the legislation. Does the Blacklock’s Reporter story give rise to concerns for you that you and the minister were provided information that may have been based on erroneous claims?

Senator Lankin: Last night, I received a package of freedom of information-released documents. There are a lot of them. I have thoroughly reviewed them. Senator Gold, I know that you, with your background in constitutional law, will understand the Charter implications of this. The employer refused to disclose the number of masks and syringes stranded in the port due to confidentiality. As you know, the longshoremen members of CUPE local 375 committed to moving such medical supplies through the port despite the strike. However, we were left with the impression that lives were “literally” at stake.

An internal memo from the labour department indicates they counted only five containers of COVID-related materials — none of which, by the way, were vaccines — that were again “stranded” by the strike.

In another freedom of information-released memo, which talks about the majority of the goods moving through being forestry and agricultural goods, the following statement appears:

The most concerning problem is the reputational damage that the strike — the strike hadn’t started yet — has on Canada’s image as a reliable trading partner.

Senator, surely you — and I hope the government — will agree that the stated most concerning problem does not come close to reaching the criteria for a section 1 exemption for the constitutionally protected rights of workers’ freedom of association.

Senator, there is a constitutional challenge going on to this. It was this chamber’s duty to uphold these workers’ constitutional rights. Senator Gold, do you still believe this chamber fulfilled our duty or — as I believe — we spectacularly failed in our duty in the consideration and passage of this legislation?