Labor minister Lawrence MacAulay warned last week that if a proposal to protect west coast grain shipments from third-party strike disruption does not keep grain flowing, the government will get tougher.
The protection for grain is included in Canada Labor Code amendments which began their trek through Parliament Feb. 19 when debate opened.
As one of many changes proposed in the code, labor disruptions occurring in non-grain related disputes will not be allowed to stop grain flowing through west coast ports.
“The effectiveness of the grain provisions will be reviewed again in 1999 after the next round of west coast longshore bargaining,” MacAulay told the Commons. “If this step is not strong enough to protect the vital flow of grain exports from our ports, then stronger measures will have to be considered.”
Read Also
Going beyond “Resistant” on crop seed labels
Variety resistance is getting more specific on crop disease pathogens, but that information must be conveyed in a way that actually helps producers make rotation decisions.
Opposed by business lobby
The provision has been opposed by west coast employers and the Canadian business lobby, but endorsed by grain companies, grain unions and the longshoremen’s union which normally would be involved in strikes or lockouts covered by the amendment.
Opponents complain that grain should not be singled out as a special commodity deserving protection from disruption.
Supporters say west coast employers have used grain as a “hostage” commodity to avoid serious bargaining, knowing that a grain disruption would create pressure on politicians to legislate an end to the shutdown.
In the Commons, the New Democrats and the Progressive Conservatives supported the special status for grain, but Tory critic Jean DubŽ said the Conservatives would consider extending the protection to other commodities as well.
Reform MPs were less supportive.
Labor critic Dale Johnston said it is a baby step toward giving grain farmers some protection from being innocent victims of others’ labor management problems.
But it is not enough and as the business lobby argues, it should extend to other commodities that flow through west coast ports.
“The government’s meagre concession to grain producers falls far short of ensuring the product reaches market and farmers are not left in the lurch,” Johnston said. “The disruption in 1995 that brought rail traffic to a halt is still fresh in the minds of Western Canadians.
Johnston, who argues the party position in favor of final offer arbitration as an alternative to strikes in sensitive areas, then went on to support the argument of other commodity shippers that grain should not be given special protection.
“The negative impact of any port dispute is not limited to grain, nor is its economic impact greater than the implications of the port shutdown on the exporters and importers of other commodities including forest products, coal, sulfur and potash, to name a few,” he said.
Singling out grain creates “an uneven playing field among various sectors of the economy, is unnecessary and not helpful in making Canada an attractive place to visit.”
Debate on the labor code amendments continues in the House of Commons.
In the last Parliament, a similar amendment was approved by the House but was held up in the Senate as west coast opponents lobbied senators and the bill died unapproved when the June election was called.
