OTTAWA – Business officials were on Parliament Hill last week urging MPs to reject a government suggestion that grain be given special status in new labor law.
Grant Mebs of Vancouver, of the Waterfront Foremen Employers Association, said it is unfair to exporters of other bulk commodities if grain is singled out. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce made the same pitch.
In its proposed amendments to the Canada Labor Code, the government suggested that labor disruptions involving non-grain industry interests not be able to hold up movement of grain through ports.
Read Also
Strong cattle prices boost forage sales, reps report at Ag in Motion 2025
Representatives from Proven Seed and BrettYoung at Ag in Motion 2025 are reporting strong forages sales across Western Canada this year, driven by high cattle prices, as well as more producers establishing new, higher-quality stands and exploring drought-tolerant varieties.
While grain industry companies and unions would not lose the right to strike or lock out, waterfront employers and their unions would have to keep the grain moving, even if other commodity movement was blocked by strike or lockout.
“It is a question of equity,” said Mebs as he appeared before the Commons committee studying the labor code amendments. “The association is opposed to giving one commodity preferential treatment over another.”
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce called the grain proposal “a fundamentally misguided solution to a complex labor relations problem.”
Other areas affected
The national business lobby said port work stoppages affect other commodities as well.
“We firmly believe that the inclusion of provisions such as this one that create an unlevel playing field among various sectors of the economy are unnecessary and not helpful in terms of making Canada an attractive place to invest,” it told the committee.
Representatives who appeared last week from longshoremen’s unions, the Grain Services Union and the Canadian Labor Congress said they accept the proposal.
In past disputes, longshoremen have said they are willing to continue moving grain even if they are striking or locked out by their employers.
The government proposed to give grain a special status to take away the ability of either side to block grain exports as a way to increase the pressure for a government-dictated end to the conflict.
For years, grain industry officials have complained they are “taken hostage” by disputes over which they have no control. Foreign markets can be lost and the reputation of Canada as a reliable supplier can be disputed.
Walter Eberle of the GSU said the union, which represents workers at several prairie grain companies, is reluctant to support any proposal that weakens the right of employers and employees to settle issues through free collective bargaining.
In the end, it decided to support the proposal “out of respect for the ILWU (International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union) and Canadian farmers,” he told MPs.
He added a caveat: “We would not wish to see the proposed section … being used as a means to broaden any encroachment on the right to strike or lock out in the grain handling industry.”
Edmonton Reform MP Ian McClelland said he was not impressed by the business argument that grain not be exempted from third-party disruptions.
“I think it’s entirely reasonable that the grain industry is protected because the grain industry has been targeted,” he told Mebs.
The employer official agreed that grain had been targeted in some past disputes, but said it is unfair to protect any particular commodity.
