Over the strong objections of Reform and Conservative MPs, the House of Commons has approved in principle Canada Labor Code changes that would prevent west coast export grain from being tied up by third party work stoppages.
Reform and Conservative MPs opposed it, in part because they object to grain being given special status in movement through west coast ports.
The proposal, endorsed by prairie grain representatives, was supported by Liberal and New Democrat MPs.
It now goes to a Commons committee where opponents, including British Columbia waterfront employers and other major business voices, are expected to mount a strong lobby.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
They were able to kill a similar proposal in the last Parliament when Senate hearings were dragged out until the election was called and the bill died.
The core of the Reform opposition was that by giving grain special protection from third party stoppages, it would put shippers of other commodities at a disadvantage.
“The legislation sets the rights of people who ship grain above the rights of those people who, for instance, might ship other commodities like those of our neighbors next door who grow something like alfalfa,” said Reform finance critic and Medicine Hat MP Monte Solberg.
The government proposes the special grain status because it has accepted the grain industry argument that politically sensitive grain often becomes a “hostage” to other disputes.
By stopping the flow of grain, the political pressure grows for a legislated settlement, even if the dispute is between companies and unions not directly involved in the grain trade.
Labor minister Lawrence Mac-
Aulay has appealed for grain representatives and other defenders of the legislation to make their voices heard when the committee hearings begin. Last time, they were all but drowned out by the critics.
In the Commons, Solberg used the plight of alfalfa growers in his riding to explain why grain should not be given preference. It reinforced the argument that grain is seen as a powerful commodity hostage.
“(With the legislation) what happens is that the bargaining position of alfalfa producers and shippers is weakened,” he said. “They can no longer combine with the politically powerful farmers who want their grain shipped to markets across the ocean. It creates a two-tier system and we think it is absolutely wrong.”
Reform MPs also criticized the legislation because it puts some limits on employer use of replacement workers during a strike and because they said it tilts labor relations in federally regulated industries in favor of the union.
Progressive Conservative agriculture critic Rick Borotsik walked a narrow line in criticizing the grain protection contained in the legislation.
“Other commodities should be given the same co-operation,” he said. But he added he would not want to see the grain protection withdrawn.
