Senator Lankin: Senator Gold, a year and a half of review by the Canada Industrial Relations Board — 82 pages of reasoning — summed up the results, remarking that, “In light of the evidence presented,” — and they say over and over again that the employer did not present hard evidence to back up their claims —

. . . the Board is not satisfied that it would be necessary to maintain all longshoring activities, as requested by the employer . . . .

They also say:

Free collective bargaining is seriously compromised if the right to strike may not be exercised by employees to counteract the employer’s economic power.

I pulled the Charter Statement that was filed at the time by you on behalf of the government. It is such a thin and flimsy document. It gives no rationale as to why section 1 is being used; it only says that section 1 can be used. Then it talks generally about economics.

The internal documents from the government show that there is a minimal economic impact of this, that there are alternatives and that the kind of heightened concern we had about medical supplies and COVID-related medical supplies are without evidence. Would you please ask the government to review their decision in this matter and not leave it to the courts to decide whether the rights of workers have been taken away? Rather, it’s the government, which is responsible for governing, that ensures the rights of workers. Ask them to review this and, if appropriate, withdraw their opposition and their defence in this court case.

Hon. Frances Lankin: Honourable senators, my question is to the Government Representative in the Senate. It won’t surprise you, Senator Gold, to know that I am returning to the Port of Montreal issue. I remain extraordinarily concerned that we made a mistake in this chamber and failed to do our duty.

I have, through internal documents read to you, evidence — what is evidence to me — that COVID was not the main concern and cannot be put forward as a way to justify a section 1 overruling of workers’ rights. You have responded that it was multi-factored, and I agreed. You talked about the economic impact. I’d ask you rhetorically what strike or lockout doesn’t have an economic impact.

In fact, this issue was reviewed for a year and a half by the Canada Industrial Relations Board in examination of the employer application for this to be declared essential work and to prohibit a strike. Their reasons were 82 pages long.

It has been stated many times by the board in the past that essential services’ right to strike and right to lockout are protected by code. They go on to say that this clearly is not a situation where these jobs are essential services. Could you respond on that point and tell us why the government then decided it had Charter-free access to use return-to-work legislation?