BLOG

Cher Mr. le Directeur Général:Compte tenu des éditoriaux sans équivoque exprimés dans le Bulletin des Armateurs au sujet des Dispositions Maritimes (et autres) du CETA depuis qu’elles furent révélées en Août, 2014, et les Séances publics du Comité Sénatorial des Affaires Étrangères et du Commerce International (enquêtant sur le CETA et la Loi C-30.), tenus du 30/3/17 jusqu’au 10/5/17, il est regrettable pour l’Industrie de Transport Maritime Canadienne, ainsi que pour les citoyens Canadiens et Européens en général, que vous, ou l’un de vos représentants, n’ayez pu comparaître au devant des Sénateurs afin de témoigner des effets des Dispositions Maritimes (et autres) sur ceux-cis.

Comme vous voyez ci-bas, qu’un simple marin puisse être invité à témoigner d’une question pivotale à l’existence continue de la Marine Marchande Canadienne et de ses marins, laisse entrevoir qu’un plaidoyer tel que le Vôtre ou celui de l’Association aurait pu peser lourdement en faveur des navigateurs Canadiens et des populations des signataires du CETA (AECG).

Que l’Association des Armateurs Canadiens, que beaucoup croyaient éteint suite à son agglomération au Chambre de Commerce Maritime le 28/9/17 (un mois avant que le CETA, ou AECG, ne soit signé.) puisse non seulement comparaître le 6/4/17 au devant des Sénateurs, mais ce avec trois témoins, quand d’autres auraient pu apporter, en plus de points de vues plus variés, ceux de plus d’appoint.

Suite à l’admonition de l’Assistant Chaire du Comité au Président par Intérim  Mr. Kirk Jones, de l’Association des Armateurs Canadiens , de conclure afin de permettre aux autres invités de témoigner, celui-ci résumait la position de l’Association:

1. De s’accorder avec les Dispositions Maritimes du CETA et n’y demander aucune modification;

2. De s’accorder des modifications à la Loi du Cabotage Canadien modifiée dans la Loi C-30 et de n’y demander aucun amendement.

Ce qui semble dire, contrairement aux déclarations publiques depuis les révélations sur les Dispositions Maritimes en 2014 et par rapport à garder les marins Canadiens sur leurs bateaux Canadiens, que l’Association des Armateurs Canadiens soit:

1. D’accord avec l’Octroi des Droits au Cabotage Maritime aux navires enregistrés Européens (généralement bons marchés pour être opérés largement par équipages de Drapeau de Complaisance.) à tous les ports du Canada, accordés au Chapitre 14 du CETA, Article 3.2, et dont la mise en application entraînerait la disparition sous peu des milliers d’emplois marins et celle de la Marine Marchande Canadienne;

2. D’accord à ce que ces Droits ne soient que temporairement suspendus sous la Reservation II-C-14, sauf ceux pour le Corridor Halifax-Montreal et quelques autres (qui prête l’apparence aux non-initiés que le CETA ne touche que ces derniers ports quand aux Dispositions.), et qui permettrait aux Armateurs de faire pression sur les marins Canadiens pour faire de larges concessions salariales et en conditions de travail sous la possibilité de voir la Reservation retirée, et ainsi voir tous les Droits de Cabotage restaurés aux Intérêts Européens, et ce sans intervention additionnelle du Parlement Canadien.

3. D’accord à ce que les Canadiens soient exclus d’être considérés pour naviguer sur les bateaux Européens au Canada sous le CETA (parce qu’il est déjà permis de les exclure dans le cadre de traités de libre-échange.) et de ne pas avoir à émettre de permis pour travailleurs étrangers temporaires pour leurs équipages (du moins dans le Corridor Halifax-Montreal) pour ensuite ne pas avoir à les payer le salaire moyen pour marins Canadiens, tels que le dictent les exemptions accordés à la Clause 92, sections 2.3 et 2.4, de la Loi C-30.

Présent comme témoin pour l” Association des Armateurs Canadiens ce matin là était le President Serge LeGuellec de Transport Desgagnes, dont vous annonciez peu après la collaboration avec les Armateurs du Saint-Laurent.

Considérant que, parmi vos invités à une conférence future, vous inclussiez Mr. Jean Charest, Ancien Premier Ministre du Québec, qui prêtait son appui depuis au moins Novembre au CETA avec ses effets  catastrophiques pour les bateaux et marins Canadiens, suggère que la position des Armateurs du Saint-Laurent sur l’entente est la même, de fait, que celui des Armateurs Canadiens.

La participation de l’Association des Armateurs du Saint-Laurent aux Séances du Comité Senatorial auraient pu témoigner que l’Association ne se fait pas seulement valoir pour son Souper et Tournoi de golf annuels.

Sincèrement,

Marc de Villers,
Timonier, M.V. “Camilla Desgagnes”,
CDN63142X,
marcdevillers@icloud.com
514-404-6008.

Dear Mme. Usher:

Having had the pleasure of hearing you testify before the Senate-Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Enquiring into Bill C-30, on Thursday, 6/4/17, I wish to share some remarks concerning  CETA’s Maritime Provisions which may alleviate some of the concerns you expressed before the Committee.

I’m a Canadian seafarer who, thanks to our ship discharging at the Government dock on Esplanade or, later, at the terminal below the King street convenience store, has been to Sydney many times over the years and benefited from the cities’ many advantages, one of which was the bookstore (formerly on Charlotte street) and another, seeing the final screening at the Vogue Theatre, showing, appropriately enough, “The Last Picture Show”.

As shown in the attachment below, I had been invited to appear before the Senate-Committee on Thursday, 13/5/17, to testify of  CETA’s effects on the ships and sailors of the Canadian Merchant Marine. Here’s what I discovered in relation to your concerns:

As indicated in Senator Woo’s final question to you and the Shipping Federation of Canada, it seems to be general knowledge, as stated by Chief Canadian CETA negotiator Steve Verheul on 30/3/17 (in answering Senate-Committee Chair A.Raynelle Andreychuk), that:

“It’s always easy to further liberalize a Trade Agreement. That’s not usually a problem to negotiate, amend or just do it in practise.”

As Counsellor Dingwall, who testified along with you, may have been aware, Canada’s lead CETA negotiator was perhaps referring to Article 3.2, in Chapter 14 of CETA (International Maritime Transport), which extends Maritime Cabotage Rights to European registered vessels to all of Canada’s ports.

These Rights are only temporarily suspended by Reservation II-C-14 (pages 1209 and 1210), with the exception of the Halifax-Montreal Corridor and a few others (concerning dredging and the Transport of empty containers): To the casual observer it would appear that CETA’s Maritime Provisions  grant Maritime Cabotage Rights only between those two ports to European registered ships.

However, it is the legal nature of Reservations in International Treaties that, being included at the behest of a single party and having been approved, they can otherwise be revoked without the consent of  other parties.

Therefore, it would only require the unilateral withdrawal of the Reservation (without any further need of assent from the Parliament of Canada) to restore the Maritime Cabotage Rights to all ports in Canada granted to European Interests in CETA’s International Maritime Transport Chapter.

This could occur anytime after CETA begins Provisional Implementation on 21/9/17 (or, indeed, before.).

The exemptions granted to European shipowners in Bill C-30 from paying their (Flag of Convenience, mostly non-European) seafarers median Canadian wages in the Halifax-Montreal Corridor (Clause 92, sections 2.3 and 2.4) could then be easily amended to include Sydney and/or any other port inCanada, on the Atlantic coast or elsewhere, as those most directly affected by the Legislation, namely Canada’s thousands of seafarers, will likely be too busy trying to cope with the lowered wage and working conditions engendered by CETA or seeking alternate means of employment,  than to draft any effective opposition.

A project as important as the Sydney Mega-Hub Cargo Terminal would not have been left at risk by its’ sponsors.

I wish you all the best in your efforts for the ports’ projected development.

Sincerely,

Marc de Villers,
Wheelsman, M.V. Camilla Desgagnes”,
CDN63142X,
marcdevillers@icloud.com
514-404-6008.

Dear Mr. President:

Considering that:

• The Seafarers International Union of Canada didn’t send even a small delegation to Brussels last October to help Europeans have CETA revised, withdrawn or stopped and protect not only the jobs, wage levels and working conditions of the Union’s members, but those of all Canadian seafarers.

• After  CETA had been signed and rushed to Ottawa to be tabled in Parliament 31/10/16 , not a single S.I.U. of Canada Demonstration was held anywhere in Canada from CETA’s arrival or during the rest of the year (except for one in B.C. on 3/12/16):

• After not sending any Delegation to Europe, 2 weeks after CETA was signed in Brussels and its’ Enabling legislation (Bill C-30) tabled the next day (31/10/16), the S.I.U. of Canada sent a delegation, including yourself and Vice-President Caron, to Manila, the Philippines (known worldwide for supplying low wage crews to Flag of Convenience fleets) to a convention of the International Transport Workers Federation (I.T.F.), representatives of mostly low wage crews from around the world, who may organize or even supply the foreign seafarers who may be needed to replace Canadian ones, once CETA is implemented.

• The S.I.U. of Canada had already hosted an I.T.F. convention, representatives of mostly low wage, Flag of Convenience crews in Montreal in September.

• The S.I.U. of Canada didn’t hold a single demonstration in Canada on CETA from the time it was rushed from Brussels, 30/10/16, to be tabled in Parliament 31/10/16 (or, indeed since 21/10/16, in Montreal) until January 12th, 2017, 75 days later(Except for a local one in B.C. on December 3rd.).

• The S.I.U. of Canada didn’t hold any demonstrations on CETA on Parliament Hill for the entire 197 days it was being debated there or since:

– The S.I.U. of Canada didn’t have any demonstrations on CETA on Parliament Hill or anywhere else in Canada (except for one in B.C. on 3/13/16) even at times that CETA was being debated in the House of Commons and thereafter in the Senate as the future of Canadian seafarers was being decided;

– The S.I.U. of Canada didn’t hold any demonstrations on CETA on Parliament Hill or anywhere else in Canada (except for one in B.C. on 3/12/16) even as the government attempted to “fast-track” CETA legislation through the Commons before the end of the Parliamentary Session on 16/12/16 and only gave up doing so on 15/12/16.

– The S.I.U. of Canada didn’t hold any demonstrations on CETA on Parliament Hill or anywhere else in Canada even when the government announced it would prematurely end Debate on CETA in the Commons and hold a Final Vote on 12/12/16;

• The S.I.U. of Canada has not held a single Demonstration on CETA on Parliament Hill or anywhere else in Canada since 12/1/17 to this day:

– The  S.I.U. of Canada held no demonstrations on CETA on Parliament Hill or anywhere else in Canada even when Debate in the House of Commons reached its’ end and CETA was passed on 11/2/17.

– The S.I.U. of Canada held no demonstrations on CETA on Parliament Hill or anywhere else in Canada even as Debate on CETA unexpectedly extended to the Senate for weeks afterwards and into Senate-Committee Hearings from 30/3/17 for another 40 days.

– The S.I.U. of Canada held no demonstrations on CETA on Parliament Hill or anywhere else in Canada even as CETA was hurriedly and unanimously approved without amendment 10 Clauses at a time  at a final 30 minute Senate Committee Hearing that had been billed as Clause-by-Clause examination of CETA on 10/5/17.

– The S.I.U. of Canada held no demonstrations on CETA on Parliament Hill or anywhere else in Canada even though the Senate-Committee’s examination of CETA’s Enabling Legislation made no amendments, merely included a list of 9 areas of serious concern (including Maritime Transport among the greatest) and failed to issue the Senate any Recommendations .

– The S.I.U. of Canada held no demonstrations on CETA on Parliament Hill or anywhere else in Canada even as the Senate-Committee’s Report on CETA’s Implementation legislation (Bill C-30) was presented to the Senate for consideration and there was received, considered and approved within hours without amendment.

– The S.I.U. of Canada held no demonstrations on CETA on Parliament Hill or anywhere else in Canada when Parliament received Royal Assent on implementing CETA 16/5/17 and on the same day tabled Bill C-47,  a law to permit maritime transport of empty containers by ships of any Registry to any port in Canada.

• The S.I.U. of Canada  never held a demonstration on CETA on Parliament Hill or anywhere else in Canada WITHIN A MONTH of CETA passing any legislative Milestone in its’ Legislative Approval process.

– For instance, the S.I.U. of Canada held its’ last Demonstration on CETA in Canada (except for one in B.C. on 3/12/17) on 21/10/16 (10 days before CETA arrived in Canada on 31/10/16 and its’ Enabling legislation, Bill C-30, tabled immediately in the House of Commons and held no more that year, except for 1 in B.C. on 3/12/16.).

a) A month before House Debate on CETA and it’s enabling legislation, Bill C-30, began (21/11/16) and no more held until 12/1/17.

b) A day of Canadian Maritime Supply Chain demonstrations, including the S.I.U. of Canada were held on 12/1/17(and none since.):

– A month after the government failed to pass CETA’s Enabling legislation (Bill C-30) in “fast-track” legislation before Christmas and only passed 2nd Reading  by 13/12/16.

– A month before the Commons passed CETA’s Enabling legislation on 11/2/17.

• In failing to engage in any Demonstrations or other forms of public actions, the S.I.U. of Canada missed many opportunities to inform the Canadian public of the losses to and possible disappearance of Canadian seafarers and the ships of the Canadian Merchant Marine.

Since CETA was signed in Brussels on 30/10/16 until its’ Enabling Legislation (Bill C-30) was approved without amendment  in the Senate  on 11/5/17:

– The S.I.U. of Canada held Demonstrations for 1 day (12/1/17) in a total of 192 days since CETA arrived in Canada and none since (except for one in B.C., on 3/12/16);

–  The S.I.U. of Canada held 1 day of demonstrations (12/1/17) in a total of over 200 days since its’ last Demonstration (except for 1 in B.C. on 3/12/16.) before that in Montreal on 21/10/16 and none since.

– The S.I.U. of Canada held 1 day of Demonstrations on CETA since it came to Canada 265 days ago, on Legislation that could severely drive down wages and working conditions for Canadian seafarers at best and lead to their disappearance as well as that of the ships of the Canadian Merchant Marine.

There will have been 1 day of S.I.U. of Canada demonstrations in the 325 days since CETA was signed and brought to Canada (except for 1 in B.C. on 3/13/16.) should no demonstrations or other Public actions be held by the Union by 21/9/17, when CETA will be implemented.

There will have been 254 days since the last S.I.U. of Canada Demonstration against CETA on 12/1/17, when CETA is implemented on 21/9/17.

• The S.I.U. of Canada has not informed its’ members how:

1.  CETA could cause the disappearance of thousands of their jobs and those of other Canadian seafarers through CETA’s Article 14-3.2 : There, Canadian Maritime Cabotage Rights are awarded to low wage European ships to trade in all Canadian ports in competition with Canadian ships and crews.

Because Flag of Convenience crews are paid far less than Canadian ones ( Between 1/10 to 1/3 what Canadian crews are: $2/hour is not uncommon.), Canadian ships would soon  be priced out of competition, be withdrawn and might begin reappearing reflagged with Flag of Convenience crews.

2. The S.I.U. has not informed members how the possibility of Reservation II-C-14 being withdrawn from CETA puts severe downward pressure on their wages, benefits and working conditions and those of all other Canadian seafarers as shipping companies, including the 3 largest in Canada, have employment contract offers which began being voted on immediately upon CETA’s Approval and will continue to do so throughout the year, namely:

1. Canada Steamship Lines;

2. Algoma Central Marine;

3. Desgagnes Transport.

It is worth noting that 2 witnesses appearing before the Senate-Committee on 6/4/17, representing the Canadian Ship-owners’ Association were:

1. Acting-President of the C.S.A., Kirk Jones, a 30 year veteran of C.S.L., which would begin holding employment contract votes for unlicensed seafarers in its’ self-unloader division within days of Royal Assent being received in Parliament (16/5/17.) on CETA’s approval.

2. President Serge LeGuellec, of Desgagnes Transport, which will be holding similar votes before the end of the year.

In casting the C.S.A.’s position on CETA (and that of C.S.L., Algoma and Desgagnes.) before the Committee, Acting President Jones stated:

1. “First, the C.S.A. understands that the negotiated outcomes of the CETA are a done deal and that they will be implemented.”

2. “In our opinion, the amendments to the Coasting Trade Act in Bill C-30… do not need to be changed or amended… “.

3. “… there should be no changes to Bill C-30 that would expand market access conditions beyond the negotiated outcomes in the CETA.”.

Therefore:

1. The C.S.A.’s members, including C.S.L., Algoma and Desgagnes, in accepting that “… the negotiated outcomes of the CETA are a done deal and that they will be implemented.”:

a. Fully accept Article 3.2 in Chapter 14 of CETA, which grants Maritime Cabotage Rights to low wage European registered ships to all ports in Canada in competition with Canadian ships and crews (and perhaps cause them to be reflagged European);

b. Fully accept Reservation II-C-14, which may only temporarily suspend most of these Rights and can be used to drive down wages, benefits and working conditions of Canadian seafarers in employment contract negotiations, upon the possibility that the Reservation may be withdrawn.

2. That the C.S.A.’s members, including C.S.L., Algoma and Desgagnes Transport:

a. Fully accept the changes in the Coasting Trade Act which permit low wage European registered ships to engage in Maritime Cabotage anywhere in Canada in competition with Canadian ships (and which consequently may be reflagged European) as a result of Rights granted in Chapter 14, Article 3.2 in CETA, should Reservation II-C-14 be withdrawn;

b. Fully accept Reservation II-C-14, which perhaps only temporarily restricts European use of Canadian Maritime Cabotage Rights to the Halifax-Montreal Corridor and can in the meantime be used to drive down the wages, benefits and working conditions of Canadian seafarers in employment contract negotiations upon the possibility that the Reservation may be withdrawn.

3. The C.S.A.’s members, including C.S.L., Algoma and Desgagnes, may well agree that “… there should be no changes to Bill C-30 that would expand market access conditions beyond the negotiated outcomes in the CETA ” because in terms of Article 3.2 in Chapter 14 of CETA.” (which needs only Reservation II-C-14 to be withdrawn to restore Rights to European registered ships to trade anywhere in Canada) there is nothing further in market access left to be granted, anyway.

Because Reservation II-C-14 only temporarily suspends most Rights granted to European Interests in the Maritime Transport Chapter of CETA in Article 14-3.2, Canadian seafarers and Union leaders may hesitate to negotiate beyond ship-owners’ initial offers for fear of triggering the withdrawal of Reservation II-C-14, restoring Maritime Cabotage Rights to low wage European ships to trade in all Canadian ports, permitting them to flood the Canadian coastal maritime market and lead to the disappearance of thousands of Canadian seafaring jobs and the ships of the Canadian Merchant Marine, all of which can be done without consultation with the European party and without further approval from the Parliament of Canada.

• The N.D.P. began to ask the government questions on CETA’s effects on Canadian ships and sailors (7/12/16) only at the beginning of the 4th day of Commons Debate on CETA .

N.D.P. Standing Committee on International Trade member Tracey Ramsey asked whether 3,000 Canadian sailors’ jobs would not immediately disappear once CETA was implemented, which the government M.P. did not deny, nor was it ever denied when the question was asked a further 2 times during Commons Debate.

• Questions on Canadian ships and sailors in Commons Debate on CETA only occurred after the N.D.P. and others had received information on CETAs’ effects on Canadian ships and sailors from a source other than the S.I.U. of Canada (E-mails and telephone calls made on 3rd, 5th and 6th of December, 2016.).

• Repeated N.D.P. questions on the effects of CETA on Canada’s ships and sailors made in House Debate on 7th, 8th, 12th and 13th of December, 2016, after warnings issuing from a non-S.I.U. of Canada source, likely helped derail the government’s attempt to “fast-track” CETA’s approval before the end of the Parliamentary Autumn Session on December 16th, 2016.

• The government failed in its’ attempt to fast-track approval of CETA in the Commons before Christmas and merely achieved Approval at 2nd Reading on December 13th, 2016.

This would have allowed 48 more days, before the re-opening of Parliament on 30/1/17, for the S.I.U. of Canada to oppose CETA before a Final Vote occurred, and, in the end, would provide 149 days before the Senate approved CETA without amendments on 11/5/17: Almost 5 months during which CETA could have been contested by the S.I..U. of Canada.

•  Instead, the S.I.U. of Canada declared CETA effectively approved on December 14th, 2016, on it’s Facebook page (and again there on December 21st), 148 days before it actually was on 11/5/17,  regardless of the fact that the government had failed in its’ bid to gain approval in the Commons for it by Christmas, 2016.

• The S.I.U. of Canada’s statement on its’ Facebook page on 14/13/16, that CETA had passed in Parliament, although it hadn’t and that the government had failed in its’ “fast track” attempt, matched the government’s intent to have CETA’s enabling legislation (Bill C-30) passed by then.

• Further, in the S.I.U. Facebook page on 21/12/16, after having declared CETA passed in Parliament when it would not be for another 148 days, the S.I.U. of Canada said Canadian domestic cargo should be defined by the government as it was not included in CETA: Canada, being a large exporter of raw materials to foreign markets, domestic goods carried on ships in Canada are probably only about 10% or less.

• The S.I.U. of Canada failed to assist a member in finding a way to have CETA revised, withdrawn or stopped, though the means to do so were claimed to be at the Union’s disposal:

A member stated in General Assembly at the S.I.U. of Canada’s Montreal meeting on 5/12/16  that lawyers had been retained to issue a Legal Opinion on CETA’s effects on the ships and sailors of the Canadian Merchant Marine.

You responded that the member could have saved his money as the Union had a number of Legal Opinions on CETA at its’ disposal which could have been provided to the member.

Though the member made 3 e-mail requests ( on 8/12/16, 11/12/16 and 12/12/16) for access to such Legal Opinions, you only responded and consented to send them to the member on the morning of 12/12/16, mere hours before the government had stated it would hold the Final Vote on CETA in the Commons.

These Legal Opinions were never received, although requests for them were repeatedly made, in accordance with your request to be notified should they not arrive (E-mail, 13/12/17).

• The S.I.U. of Canada would fail to provide information apparently at the Union’s disposal to an S.I.U. of Canada member attempting to have CETA revised, withdrawn or stopped:

Having been told before the Assembled members at the S.I.U. of Canada meeting in Montreal on 5/12/16, that the Maritime Transport Chapter of CETA  (Article 3-2.) gave Maritime Cabotage Rights to low wage European ships to all Canadian ports, you stated at the meeting that to your understanding these were limited to Montreal and Halifax and again in an e-mail on 13/13/16, further adding that this stipulation could be found in the Annexes and Reservations of the text of CETA without stipulating where;

The issue could have been instantly clarified  by specifying where in the 1,600 pages  of the text of CETA  this reference could be found.

• Though yourself  and Vice-President Caron were informed (E-mails 27/3/17 and 28/3/17) of the possibility of Hearings by a Senate-Committee on CETA, because receipt of these messages was not acknowledged, the S.I.U. of Canada cast doubt as to whether it would send anyone to inform Senators of CETA’s effects on, not only the members of the S.I.U. of Canada, but all Canadian seafarers, to the extent that a rank and file member of the Union had to be invited by the Senate-Committee to testify instead, and who was asked to stand down only 4 days before the Hearing,  when the S.I.U. of Canada Leadership finally expressed interest in providing a witness to testify before the Committee.

• As President of the largest seafarers Union in Canada, you failed in testimony to point out to the Senators of the Committee that CETA gave Maritime Cabotage Rights to low wage European ships to all of Canada’s ports in competition to Canadian ships and sailors in Chapter 14, Article 3.2, which event would shortly lead to the disappearance of both the ships and sailors of the Canadian Merchant Marine.

• Additionally, you failed in testimony before the Committee on 13/4/17 to point out to the Senators how:

1. Most of the measures granted in Article 14-3.2 were only temporarily suspended by Reservation II-C-14, except for the Montreal-Halifax Corridor and others, and that, through its’ withdrawal,  Maritime Cabotage Rights for low wage European ships to all of Canada’s ports could be restored at any time without any additional permission required from the Parliament of Canada and;

2. That, in the meantime, the threat of withdrawal of Reservation II-C-14 could lead to severe losses in wages and working conditions to Canadian seafarers in contract negotiations  with Canadian maritime shipping companies, where wage reductions were known to be in the contract offer from Canada Steamship Lines for over a year ( Article 16/5/16 in the World Weekly Maritime News) and which were included in the 1st seafarers employment contract to be voted on within days of CETA being approved on 16/5/17, for C.S.L. Self-Unloaders.

• Steve Verheul, Chief Canadian CETA negotiator, had already told Senate-Committee Chair A. Raynelle Andreychuk in testimony on 30/3/17 that:

” It’s always easy to further liberalize a trade agreement… to … amend, or just do it in practise.”

• You failed to mention anything to the Senators, in testimony before the Committee on 13/4/4/17, of the seafaring jobs on European ships under CETA supposedly open to Canadians which you told S.I.U. of Canada members of at the Montreal meeting on 6/3/17, which would be available to them, although European Shipowners do not have to consider offering any to Canadians under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (because CETA is a free-trade agreement).

• You assured the Senators of the Committee that, following talks including Chief Canadian CETA negotiator Steve Verheul, European ship-owners would have to seek Temporary Foreign Worker permits for their crews on such ships, assuring them of Canadian median level seafaring wages though you failed to inform the Senators, as the other Canadian Maritime Union representatives on the panel failed to do, that there were clauses in Bill C-30 (Clause 92) which exempted them from doing just that.

• After failing to respond to an e-mail from an S.I.U. of Canada member, requesting that you contact the Senators to inform them of this omission, it became necessary for a member to contact each individual Senator who was a permanent member on the Committee to (twice) inform them that, due to the exemptions granted in Clause 92 of Bill C-30,  foreign seafarers on European ships in the Montreal-Halifax Corridor under CETA would not require Temporary Foreign Worker Permits and therefore would likely not receive Canadian median level wages under the conditions set forth under Bill C-30, contrary to what Senators had been told.

• The Senate Committee’s refusal to address CETA’s shortcomings and particularly the threat in particular to Canadian ships and sailors through amendments to Bill C-30 (or Laws, which require the intervention of Parliament to be changed.) but, rather, with “Regulations”, such as those proposed to put Canadians aboard European ships under CETA, and pay their foreign seafarers Canadian wages, but which can be cancelled or changed at any time, without referral to Parliament.

•  The S.I.U. of Canada, as announced at it’s meeting in Montreal on 5/3/17, proposes to have Canadian seafarers aboard European registered ships in Canada under CETA, particularly on the Halifax-Montreal Corridor and that foreign seafarers remaining would receive median Canadian wages.

Of course, since CETA and Bill C-30 were approved unamended by the Parliament of Canada on 11/5/17, this will only likely occur, as stated by Senate-Committee Chair A. Raynelle Andreychuk on 10/5/17, through “Regulations” rather than “Laws”, which means these can be cancelled or changed at any time without reference to the Parliament of Canada.

• The S.I.U. of Canada has so far failed to warn Union members that seafarers sailing on European registered ships under CETA will be subject to foreign Flag State or International Rules on such things as Hours of Rest and Safety, which can be far below Canadian ones.

• The 1st Canadian unlicensed seafarers employment contract Vote, conducted within days of CETA receiving Royal Assent on 16/5/17, in a series to be conducted this year for the 3 largest maritime shipping employers in Canada (Canada Steamship Lines, Algoma Central Marine and Desgagnes Transport), all represented by the S.I.U. of Canada, are being conducted in near total secrecy from most S.I.U. of Canada members including:

1. No information to most members on:

a. When Votes were and are to be held;

b. Results of the 1st of the 2 Votes on the 1st employment contract or;

c. Whether any of  these had or have even yet occurred.

2. Disabling of the S.I.U. of Canada Facebook page before the 1st Contract Vote which began within days of CETA’s approval, which medium had been used to circulate information important to Union members, as stated in an e-mail in early October, 2016, by an S.I.U. of Canada Vice-President.

The S.I.U. of Canada Facebook page’s disappearance occurred:

1. As or before CETA was approved in the Senate;

2. As or before employment contract Votes began for unlicensed seafarers, all represented by the S.I.U. of Canada, for the 3 largest maritime transport companies in Canada.

3. Without notice or explanation from the Union.

• The S.I.U. of Canada’s secrecy on employment contract Votes from most members will likely not benefit Union members as much as other parties.

• The S.I.U. of Canada, in response to the threat (Article 14-3.2, Reservation II-C-14 and others.) posed to wage levels and the jobs of not only its’ members  but all Canadian seafarers and their families through CETA’s Maritime Provisions and elsewhere (European Rights in procuring Government services to the Public, for example):

– Rather than take public actions with the help of its’ members, such as periodic demonstrations, which would have alerted Parliament, various levels of government and the public to the threat to not only Canadian ships and sailors, but Canadians and Europeans also, seems to have abjured this route in favour of less obvious means of influence;

– Whether such less obvious means to have CETA revised, withdrawn or stopped were actually undertaken cannot be confirmed by most members as they have not participated in them.

Though the S.I.U. of Canada is the largest seafarers Union in the country and said by some to have done far more to stop CETA than any other, since CETA’s Enabling legislation was tabled in the Commons (31/10/16), by carrying out only 1 day of demonstrations in 265  until this day, it is hard  to see how it could have done less.

-The S.I.U. of Canada seems to have chosen, rather, to canvas such figures behind the scenes (as stated in e-mails) as:

–  Quebec CETA negotiator and former Premier Pierre-Marc Johnson;

– Chief CETA negotiator for Canada Steve Verheul;

– Unnamed Canadian Architects of CETA’s Maritime Provisions;

–  Government Leader in the Senate Senator Peter Harder;

Which has resulted in the original text of CETA and its’ Enabling Legislation’s, Bill C-30, being approved (in the Senate’s case, in what must have been record time as it was considered and passed within hours of being received on 11/5/17) without any amendments on 11/5/17 and is to be implemented shortly.

• The S.I.U. of Canada has persisted in it’s apparent intent, similar to that of the shipping companies, to sign long term seafarer employment contracts which are affected by CETA’s Article 14-3.2, Reservation II-C-14 and others, regardless of the fact that CETA’s long-term existence is in doubt, and that members may needlessly have to live with, at best, lowered wages and working conditions even though CETA may only briefly or never come to pass.

• The Seafarers International Union of Canada’s affiliation, through the American Federation of Labour (A.F.L./C.I.O.) to its’ corporate parent, the Conference on Foreign Relations (C.F.R.), is to a powerful foreign business and political lobby group which has featured many pro-CETA conferences and panels since 2016.

• The Seafarers’ International Union of Canada derives a significant part of its’ income from Canadian maritime shipping companies, which may benefit significantly from the Maritime Provisions of CETA, particularly Article 14-3.2 and Reservation II-C-14.

There remain 58 days before CETA is implemented on 21/9/17.

What are your plans for the S.I.U. of Canada and its’ members to have  CETA revised, withdrawn or stopped?

Sincerely,

Marc de Villers,
D-1289,
Wheelsman, M.V. “Camilla Desgagnes”,
CDN63142X
marcdevillers@icloud.com
514-404-6008.

Dear Mr. President:

As you may have heard, 24 hours after CETA was approved in Spain & meetings with Unions, the Spanish Socialist Workers Party withdrew its’ support for CETA, greatly imperilling its’ chances of ever coming fully into force.

110 M.P.s of the French Parliament have asked the French Constitutional Court for an opinion on CETA, which is due mere months from now, on its’ Constitutionality ( for example, on equality of France’s citizens  before the Courts, where CETA’s C.D.S. mechanism is concerned).

It looks less likely that CETA  will enter into Provisional Application by 1/7/17, Canada Day.

Along with a Referendum in Holland on it, CETA is likely to succumb to any of the increasing numbers of successive challenges to it in Europe and elsewhere, which could see it withdrawn either shortly or within a year.

Considering what looks like perhaps the worst series of employment Contract offers in over 50 years and since the last major Strike by Canadian sailors in 1966, this has been likely due to CETA .

Maritime Cabotage Rights to all Canadian Ports given to low wage European ships through Article 14-3.2 and the temporary suspension of most (which may be intended to lead one to believe that these maritime Cabotage Rights are mostly limited to the Montreal-Halifax Corridor) by Reservation II-C-14, whose withdrawal (without need of any Parliamentary oversight) would restore those Rights, may be intended to cause seafarers to accept any shipping company’s initial Employment Contract offer for fear of triggering Reservation II-C-14s’ removal and cause the disappearance of Canadian merchant ships and crews, through allowing low wage ships to flood the Canadian market.

Long foreknowledge of the Liberal government’s intent to reintroduce CETA has likely led to the present state of disastrous employment Contract offers from Canadian shipowners ( re World Shipping News, May, 2016) & that CETA would be in provisional application by 1/4/17.

Therefore, that employment Contracts for unlicensed seafarers’ with Canadas’ 3 largest Maritime Shipping companies would be due to be renewed soon afterwards is likely no accident.

For the continued safe conduct of affairs of the Canadian Maritime Shipping Industry, Members and Canadian seafarers generally, no long term seafarer employment contracts should be entered into until the likelihood of CETAs’ future existence has been ascertained.

As you stated to Members in Montreal at the beginning of your Mandate, the Union was  not then in an optimal financial state to withstand a strike, even though it’s been over 50 years since the last and likely only major one in Canadian history, that there is no taste on the part of Canadian seafarers for it and that ship-owners will likely be adversely affected should one occur.

Of course, we all know that rejection of a Contract proposal, or, in this case, decline of an immediate  commitment to long term arrangements, does not mean a strike: It merely means that talks may continue or, in the present state of not knowing what long term conditions in the Industry will be with regard to CETA, such arrangements will be briefly postponed until such knowledge is available.

Canada’s Maritime Transport Industry is a largely seasonal affair and most Canadian seafarers, with familial and other responsibilities, would mostly endure hardship should work become unavailable.

Until CETAs’ future, or lack of one, can be ascertained and the possibility that some Maritime Shipping companies be amenable only to operating at the level of their current offers, those seafarers who wish to do so should be permitted to in order to guarantee a level of income until that determination is possible.

Should some Maritime Shipping companies insist that new long term arrangements go into effect immediately upon conclusion of the old ones, it is their privilege to lock out their employees, should they wish to do so: Under such circumstances, those so affected would at least be eligible for unemployment benefits.

Sailors,  being generally of a practical nature, will not initially seek to apportion blame, should they be committed to unfavourable employment conditions for at least 6 years, when CETA may be given the short shrift it deserves (particularly due to its’ Maritime Provisions) to foreign pro-CETA lobbies such as the Conference on Foreign Relations, to which the Union, through its’ affiliation to the American Federation of Labor (A.F.L./C.I.O.),may have obligations which have prevented it from acting effectively against It.

Nor will the fact that the Union derives a large part of its’ income directly from Canadian shipowners, through remittances for the provision of certified seafarers to them, be likely to distract their attention, at least initially.

The Ire of Members, should they have been needlessly committed to long term engagements under unfavourable circumstances will accrue to those members of the Executive who may have made such commitments.

May we all act accordingly to guarantee not only the long term health of both the Canadian Merchant Marine, that of its’ sailors and the Canadian Maritime Transport Industry in general, but that of the rest of Canada, Europe and elsewhere as well.

Yours Truly,

Marc de Villers,
Wheelsman, M.V. “Camilla Desgagnes”,
CDN63142X,
D-1289.

Mr. le Vice-Président:

Pourriez vous me dire si le 2ieme Vote sur le Contrat d’emploi pour Marins de C.S.L. Auto-Déchargeurs s’est produit et, si oui, quel en fut le resultat?

Marc de Villers

D-1289.

Nous avons effectivement conclut une entente de principe, à la demande du Ministre, et celle-ci est présentement voté. Nous auront les résultats bientôt, aussitôt que touts les bulletins seront de retour. Quant à DMC, une note sera tres bientot émise à tous les Membres sur tous les navires DMC ( pour l’instant, ca va relativement bien )

Patrice Caron
Vice président exécutif
Executive vice president
SIU Canada