THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 4, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on maintenance of activities or essential services in the federally regulated rail and marine sectors in the case of labour disruptions.
Senator Larry W. Smith (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Before we begin, please take a moment to review the cards placed on the tables in the committee room to familiarize yourself with the guidelines for preventing incidents related to sound feedback. Please keep your earpieces away from all microphones at all times. Do not touch the microphones. Their activation and deactivation will be controlled by the console operator. Finally, avoid handling earpieces when the microphone is activated. They must remain in your ear or on the sticker provided for this purpose at each seat. Thank you all for your cooperation.
My name is Larry Smith. I’m a senator from Quebec and chair of the committee. Now I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: Good morning. Senator Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Wilson: Good morning. Senator Duncan Wilson, British Columbia.
Senator Mohamed: Good morning. Senator Mohamed, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Welcome to the Senate. René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Arnold: Good morning. Dawn Arnold from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Hay: Good morning. Katherine Hay, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Quinn: Good morning. Jim Quinn from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Manning: Good morning. Fabian Manning, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Lewis: Todd Lewis, Saskatchewan.
Senator Robinson: Welcome. Mary Robinson, representing Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Good morning. Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. I would like to welcome everyone with us today as well as those listening to us online on the Senate’s website, sencanada.ca. We are meeting today to continue our study on the maintenance of transport services in the case of labour disruptions.
I would now like to introduce our first panel of witnesses. From the Canadian Labour Congress, we welcome Bea Bruske, President; and Chris Roberts, National Director, Social and Economic Policy Department. From the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada, we have Tom Doran, First Vice‑President. From Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, we welcome Paul Boucher, President; Don Ashley, National Legislative Director; and Ken Stuebing, Partner, CaleyWary. Thank you for joining us today.
Witnesses will provide opening remarks of five minutes. I spoke to most of the witnesses before, but I ask for your adherence to the five minutes so we don’t go over because our time is always limited. That will be followed by a question‑and‑answer session with senators. I will now invite Ms. Bruske to give her opening remarks.
Bea Bruske, President, Canadian Labour Congress: Thank you so much, chair. Thank you, senators. I’m grateful for the opportunity to be here with you today.
My name is Bea Bruske, and I am the President of the Canadian Labour Congress, or CLC. We represent 50 different union affiliates representing every single sector of our economy from coast to coast to coast and literally every single type of workforce available. The CLC represents many unions that bargain on behalf of workers in the federally regulated rail and marine sectors.
I want to be perfectly clear with us this morning. In this country, workers have a constitutionally protected right to collective bargaining, and that includes the right to strike. The Supreme Court has recognized that the ability to exert economic pressure on employers is a necessary and integral part of collective bargaining. It is a legitimate means of achieving workplace objectives.
We need to make no mistake that the overwhelming majority of collective agreement negotiations in the federal jurisdiction are settled without a work stoppage. But, occasionally, negotiations do stall, and those are the ones that we hear about. When this happens, employees have the right to withdraw their services. Those are not quick and easy decisions for workers to make. They have the right to inflict some economic harm directly on their employer and, yes, sometimes indirectly on third parties which do business with their employer.
Workers will never compromise their right to withdraw their labour. We have been alarmed at the growing readiness of the federal government to intervene in labour relations to terminate collective bargaining, to end legal strikes and to even outlaw legal strikes before they begin.
Ottawa’s readiness to intervene poisons effective collective bargaining. It encourages employers to expect and rely on government intervention. And it turns very serious issues at the bargaining table and serious negotiations into surface bargaining, where employers can bide their time to go through the motions of negotiations.
A perfect example of this was the bargaining between CUPE flight attendants and Air Canada just this past August. The company counted on government intervening and preventing a work stoppage. The airline stopped serious bargaining and focused on a communications campaign, expecting that Ottawa would step in to save the day. Air Canada was so confident that Ottawa would intervene that it didn’t bother to take adequate precautions and didn’t properly inform passengers about a potential disruption.
When Ottawa continually signals that it will step in on the side of the employers, it corrodes collective bargaining. There are already safeguards in legislation to minimize legitimate risks from a work stoppage. The Canada Labour Code already ensures that in the event of a stoppage, services are maintained “. . . to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public.” The new ban on scabs further protects against an imminent or serious threat by including any threat to life, health or safety of any person; serious damage to the employer’s property; and serious environmental damage.
And now what we see is that industry seems to want to add corporate profits to the list of vital areas that must be protected. We in the labour movement do not accept this.
When a strike is threatened, transportation industry workers are designated as “essential.” But most of the time, what we see from the transportation industry corporations is that they think of their workers as expendable. Company workforce reduction programs are relentlessly focused on shrinking their payroll, intensifying work, forcing down labour costs and generally finding ways to do more with fewer workers. Workers think this is a very cynical double standard — that they’re essential, on the one hand, when it suits, but not essential, on the other hand, when it doesn’t suit.
I want to end with the previous Minister of Labour’s comments on this particular issue. In 2022, our transport minister appointed a National Supply Chain Task Force consisting of corporate executives and advisers. The task force’s report recommended the government safeguard supply-chain operations by reducing the threat of labour stoppages. To his credit, the then Minister of Labour indicated he would not accept that recommendation. He wrote that healthy and resilient supply chains that are built and operated by healthy and resilient workers who depend on the best deals being struck at bargaining tables, not imposed by government intervention.
Senators, we call on this committee to vindicate collective bargaining and the Charter right to strike as part of Canada’s democratic system for governing the workplace and sharing in our economic prosperity. Thank you, and I’ll be happy to take questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Bruske. I will now invite Mr. Doran to give his opening remarks.
Tom Doran, First Vice-President, International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada: Thank you, chair of the committee and senators. I appreciate the invitation and the ability to join remotely. My name is Tom Doran, and as the First Vice‑President of International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada, or ILWU, I represent West Coast dockworkers who help keep Canada’s ports safe and ensure goods can keep moving. Our members are the people you see on the docks at 3 a.m. in the rain. They care about safety, doing the job right and getting home to their families. That is the spirit I bring to this discussion.
I hope we can be useful to your study of the maintenance of activities. From our perspective at ILWU, there is a generalized misunderstanding of the rules governing the maintenance of activities during labour disruptions in federally regulated industries.
Section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code says work continues only where stopping it would create “. . . an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public.” The good news is that, in practice, employers and unions map those activities in advance. If we disagree, the Canada Industrial Relations Board, or the CIRB, which is the independent federal labour tribunal, decides what truly meets the section 87.4 health and safety test.
A few examples from the waterfront include moving cruise passengers safely through terminals, checking refrigerated containers so goods do not spoil and maintaining core harbour safety and emergency response. That balance protects the public without crossing the problematic line of turning a safety rule into an economic rule.
We also would like to briefly acknowledge our support for the recent legislative change to the code that prohibits the use of replacement workers during a strike without disrupting the continuation of necessary services. Again, this is a balance that protects the constitutional freedom of strike activity while ensuring the safety of the public.
Senators, if you are looking to reduce the consequences of labour disruptions, the solution is not to redefine “essential” around ordinary commercial effects. The better way is for parties to bargain earlier and in good faith under predictable rules.
Beyond what the code prescribes for grain handling and transport, our view is simple. If stopping an activity were to create an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public, it should be maintained. The code does not provide jurisdiction to weigh economic impacts as a factor to determine whether a service is necessary to prevent serious and immediate danger to the public. Such a standard would de facto amount to a back-to-work order and would render a strike meaningless. We are not open to broad commodity lists that relabel ordinary traffic as “essential.”
That safety-focused standard preserves limited carve-outs and leaves the normal economic pressure where it belongs, at the bargaining table. Work stoppages carry costs, but that lawful pressure is what returns both sides to the table to negotiate. Withholding labour through a strike or job action puts economic pressure on an employer to negotiate the same way that lost wages put pressure on workers and their representatives during a lockout. This reciprocal tension is a legitimate economic tool and a part of the collective bargaining process. It is the mark of rules‑based, good-faith negotiation.
This is why the recent heavy-handed use of section 107 of the Canada Labour Code is so troubling. On paper, section 107 is a narrow referral mechanism to the CIRB to maintain or secure industrial peace. Though present in the code since 1984, it had never been used to unilaterally end work stoppages until 2023, with repeated use since, when politically convenient.
Senators, make no mistake; that shift by the Government of Canada has an impact. It changes behaviour.
When a party comes to expect ministerial intervention via section 107 during any work stoppage, it has a reason to hold out, rather than negotiate. The “break glass in case of emergency” box becomes an everyday tool. And, to be candid, it is almost exclusively to the benefit of the employer.
The result? Prolonged uncertainty, imperfect and precarious collective agreements and, ironically, harms to Canada’s trading reputation. That uncertainty is then cited to justify using section 107 again. It is a self-perpetuating downward cycle that permanently erodes industrial relations.
Restoring section 107 to its historically limited role would reduce stoppages by removing the incentive to wait for a rescue and by putting the pressure back where it belongs: at the bargaining table. This would be a positive step for Canada’s supply chains, its trading relationships and the economy writ large.
The dockworkers I represent want stable workplaces, predictable rules and the dignity of settling contracts across the table. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute, and I would be pleased to answer questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Doran. I will now invite Mr. Boucher to give his opening remarks.
Paul Boucher, President, Teamsters Canada Rail Conference: Good morning, senators. I’m Paul Boucher, national president for the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, or TCRC, representing 11,500 members across the country in charge of the safe operation of trains for several railway companies in Canada, including CN and CPKC. Thank you for this invitation to speak to the committee and provide Teamsters Canada Rail Conference’s input on these important subjects.
It is well established that the railway freight companies do not offer essential services within the meaning of section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code. This is both by virtue of long-standing agreements of the parties and as found by the Canada Industrial Relations Board.
For decades prior to 2024, CN and CPKC have each expressly agreed with all of its different bargaining agents that they do not provide any services, operation of facilities or production of goods within the meaning of code.
In May 2024, the Minister of Labour made referrals asking the Canada Industrial Relations Board to determine whether the agreement entered into by the parties was sufficient to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public in the event of a work stoppage at CN and CPKC, respectively.
Following the hearing on August 9, 2024, the board issued dual decisions confirming that a work stoppage at either railway company would not result in an immediate and serious danger within the meaning of code; therefore, there was no need for any services, operations or production to be maintained by any employees during a work stoppage.
This represents decades of consistent, accepted precedent. There is no pressing need to revise the code in light of this long history of concurrence between the parties on maintenance of activities, as recently confirmed by the board.
It bears emphasizing that the railway freight companies are private companies — highly profitable companies. The supply chain has been left in the hands of private corporations that answer to shareholders. It is vital that workers’ constitutional rights not be stripped in favour of private corporations’ interests.
I note that Bill C-58 came into effect this summer. It has amended subsection 87.4(2) of the code to require an employer and union to reach an agreement on maintenance of activities no later than 15 days after notice to bargain has been given. If the parties fail to reach an agreement within 15 days, either party may apply to the CIRB to have outstanding issues resolved.
CPKC did not mention last week that it is presently using this process in the context of bargaining with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, System Council No. 11. The board’s hearing is next week.
It is our view that this revised process under the code must be given an opportunity to function before further changes to the code or this section are contemplated, if any.
Last week, this committee heard comments from the railway freight employers and the Railway Association of Canada, or RAC, about the economic impacts of labour actions. The railway companies rarely mentioned lockouts. In March 2022, CPKC locked out its employees. In July 2024, TCRC, in its representation of both the CPKC groups and the CN bargaining unit, offered to stagger the cooling-off period, thereby effectively staggering any work stoppage between the two carriers in the interest of maintaining one operating national railroad. CN and CPKC rejected this offer outright.
Hours after receiving the board’s August 9, 2024, decision, CPKC gave notice of its intent to lock out its employees and alter the terms and conditions of all its collective agreements. In so doing, CPKC gave us no alternative but to serve notice to strike.
On August 18, 2024, CN also served the union with a notice of lockout, to be effective 00:01 on August 22, 2024. This coincided with CPKC’s previously served lockout notice. The union did not serve a strike notice to CN.
The companies also neglected to explain the significant concessionary demands that both CN and CPKC sought from TCRC in the most recent round of negotiations.
Tellingly, on behalf of CN, Ms. McGuire spoke of surface bargaining and lack of incentive to negotiate an agreement. In 2023-24, the union’s plan was to achieve a negotiated settlement. The union had been successful in completing a negotiated agreement with CN in the previous round. However, in 2023-24, both companies sought extreme concessions on vital protections in the collective agreements and later sought to achieve through interest arbitration what they could not achieve otherwise in freely negotiated agreements.
Fatigue is a critical safety issue for employees and for the public. Running trades employees of CN and CPKC have experienced a systemic failure to respect employees’ rest rights under the collective agreements. In recent negotiations, CN and CPKC each sought to limit or eliminate protective rest articles and have only the statutory minimum rest periods apply. TCRC is unaware of any other union in this industry being subject to such concessionary demands from the companies. Mediation works when both parties want to negotiate. In TCRC’s experience, forced arbitration does not replicate free collective bargaining.
Unfortunately, there were no winners in recent interest arbitrations. The parties were not able to resolve the significant issues. Fair wages and a handful of safety issues are all that ever get resolved at interest arbitration. The real issues do not get resolved through interest arbitration. This is why the constitutionally protected right to exert economic pressure on the other party is necessary in order to achieve meaningful resolution to real critical issues that are the priorities of TCRC’s members.
The provisions of the code enshrine workers’ rights to engage in free bargaining, leading to a freely negotiated collective agreement — not imposed bargaining or imposed collective agreement. These are fundamental democratic processes.
Section 107 must be read in context of the code, which provides a clear mechanism for the right to strike. It cannot be that section 107 was intended to override this constitutionally protected process.
The recent usage of section 107 has emboldened federally regulated employers and threatens to perpetuate surface bargaining. CN and CPKC colluded to create an artificial crisis, prompting the government minister to use section 107 to undermine the rights of workers and to reward the companies for failing to bargain in good faith.
It is critical that the processes under the code remain in place to facilitate workers to negotiate what they view as a fair agreement, as opposed to what might be deemed fair by railway employers or the government.
Thank you. We welcome any questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Boucher.
We will now move on to questions from senators. I’d like to advise senators that you will each have a maximum of five minutes for the first round of questions.
I also remind witnesses that if they do not have enough time to provide a full response, they are welcome to submit their complete answers in writing, and we will firm that up at the end of our meeting with this group of panellists.
Should senators wish to ask questions of our witnesses, please alert our clerk, who will add your name to the list of questioners. I invite our deputy chair, Senator Dasko, to ask the first question.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, witnesses, for being here today and participating in this study that we’ve launched here in our committee.
From witnesses last week, we’ve heard about increases in labour disputes and disruptions in the industry that we’re studying. We’ve heard about Canada’s poor international ranking in terms of labour relations in this particular area. We also heard about the increased use of section 107 and from you, Ms. Bruske, about the readiness of government to intervene.
I’m trying to understand why the government is intervening more. I wonder if you’ve had serious discussions with government officials as to why this is happening. I wonder if you’ve done some deep analysis behind the scenes, talking to experts in the field. Why are they doing this now? I think one of you mentioned that 2003 was the first use of section 107 — maybe I misheard that. But why are they able to do it?
Mr. Doran, one term you used was “politically convenient.” Well, if it’s so, why is it so? That’s my question to any of the witnesses, please.
Ms. Bruske: Section 107 has been used eight times in the last 24 months, and that is a significant amount of usage of that section. Rather than tabling back-to-work legislation, which would have to be debated in the House, with rationale given, with arguments heard and with MPs voting —
Senator Dasko: Us too.
Ms. Bruske: — you too, absolutely — this is a much more politically expedient way for government to get workers to come back to work. The reality is that every single time section 107 is used, it means the parties don’t have to negotiate to a finality. They don’t have to negotiate a collective agreement that’s acceptable to the workers and that’s acceptable to the employer. You lose muscle memory when you’re not having to sit across the bargaining table, having to discuss the very difficult issues keeping people apart.
You heard from some of the other witnesses this morning already that interest arbitration only resolves part of the issue. It never gets to the very serious outstanding issues that are left remaining after that collective agreement gets resolved, and it then becomes a bigger issue in the next round of bargaining. So we never solve the problem.
Senator Dasko: But why are they doing this? Why are we seeing increased use of this option?
Ms. Bruske: Again, it’s politically expedient to utilize this particular option rather than to force the employer to have to negotiate at a bargaining table.
We hear a lot about the economic hardship on employers. I want to remind us that there’s economic hardship on workers when they choose to go on strike. Nobody decides they want to go on strike or they’re looking forward to being locked out. Workers have to sit down with their families at kitchen tables to decide as to whether or not they can afford to take the deal that’s on the table by voting yes to, potentially, a substandard deal or to be able to say no and walk a picket line. Nobody looks forward to that. That is economic pain for that particular family. We just saw teachers in Edmonton and all over Alberta on a three-week strike with no pay. That is how seriously they felt about the issues that were not being resolved.
Senator Dasko: Are they getting public support for this, then? If they’re doing it and they’re getting away with it, would you conclude the public supports what the government is doing?
Ms. Bruske: The workers are getting public support, or the employer is getting public support?
Senator Dasko: The government is getting public support for ending the disruption.
Ms. Bruske: I think anytime that people are impacted by a labour disruption, they want to see an end to it because nobody likes to be impacted by any kind of a disruption, right? We understand that there’s a lot of pressure on employers, especially by the corporations, to intervene on their behalf so that they don’t actually need to have that difficult bargaining at the bargaining table. That would be my answer to that issue.
Senator Dasko: Would any other witnesses like to take a stab at that?
Mr. Boucher: Yes, there’s a lot of pressure from the companies and government to intervene all the time because they do not want to bargain in good faith. They may claim they are bargaining in good faith or they want to sit there and get a deal at the table, as you heard last week, but that’s not necessarily true.
For example, with CN and CPKC in the last round of bargaining, they colluded together to sit there and line the potential work stoppage at the same time to put government pressure on and end any kind of good-faith bargaining and just get an imposed deal by an arbitrator. As I said in my opening remarks, they didn’t get what they wanted and neither did we, and nobody won.
The best deals are at the table, without interference, and with economic pressure on both the company and the employees in the union. There are always good deals to go. I will use the example of 2019 with CN and the conductors’ strike. If it hadn’t been for the government not interfering with that work stoppage, we would not have gotten an important safety issue within the collective agreement, being that if I’m fatigued on the train, there’s no such thing as “do now, grieve later.” I can just get removed from the train. That would have never been achieved if government had interfered.
Senator Lewis: Thank you for your comments and presentations so far today. All across, you’ve spoken about the employers and the large corporate entities and so on. Is there any recognition in labour that it affects more than just the employers? Certainly, I come from a province where when there’s a rail strike, farmers don’t get paid, equipment dealers don’t get paid. It has a huge impact across the entire region or even the country. It’s a lot more than just CN’s or CP’s corporate profits that are being affected. I’d like some comments from all of you about that.
Ms. Bruske: Every single worker understands that when they make the difficult decision to go out on a picket line or when they are locked out — not choosing to, but when they are locked out — there are consequences to other entities, to customers, to consumers, to other businesses. We hear this all the time. Nobody wants to be on a picket line. What we want is free and fair collective bargaining so that the issues can get addressed. The only way to do that is for government to stay out of collective bargaining so the parties are forced to get to an agreement at the bargaining table.
Mr. Boucher: I would like to add to that. There were comments made by the representatives of CPKC last week in regard to unions representing between, I think he said, 300 and 3,000 people, give or take, holding 41 million Canadians hostage for the economy. The reality of it was, as I say, that at the last round of bargaining, it was both CN and CPKC that put the lockout notice in. CN locked us out. CP locked out their employees as well. We had to do a strike notice as well. That was their choice. They didn’t care about 41 million Canadians and the economy when they sat there and forced the issue and lined things up.
We do take things seriously when we’re at the bargaining table. It’s a hard decision when you’re going to take the country on strike, especially with national rail carriers. It’s not an easy decision to make. In the last three, four rounds of bargaining with these companies, they are coming at us with significant cession demands. For example, in the last round, they wanted to — for both companies — take the collective agreement that has been there for over a hundred years, throw it in the garbage and start from scratch, because it does not work for them. But it works for us. They made the decision to put pressure on the government by lining up a work stoppage to have government intervention, which ended up being section 107, and force binding arbitration. And they didn’t get what they wanted. That’s not the way to go. The thing is to keep the people at the table. The pressure is there, and a deal will happen. It has been proven through history.
Senator Lewis: As we talk about history, some of our witnesses last week could go from 1950 to the current moment, 75 years, and we’ve seen back-to-work legislation over two dozen times, particularly between rail and maritime use, and it’s far weighted toward looking after these kinds of strikes.
You keep talking about rail safety and so on. What is Transport Canada’s feeling on this? Why would the federal government continue to use this back-to-work legislation if safety is at risk? Are you guys finding safety is at risk? Can you give an example where back-to-work legislation has affected safety?
Mr. Boucher: I’m not sure I’m understanding the question around back-to-work legislation affecting safety other than the fact at the table. So when we refer to the safety aspects for us, Transport Canada’s are around the duty and rest period regulations, which are minimum standards. It’s the minimum standards for rest when you’re at home, when you’re at the away-from-home terminal. We have provisions in our collective agreement that enhance those minimum requirements. In the last few rounds of bargaining, the companies, their demands are to remove those provisions in our collective agreement, to just have a maximum of the regulations by government, thereby, in our view, affecting the safety of our workers and the public.
We are the judge of our own conditions. The minimum requirement of the government is 12 hours when I get home. A lot of our collective agreements say 24 hours or more so we can be rested to go back to work the next time around.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Wilson: My question is for Mr. Doran. Thank you for being here virtually with us today. I specifically wanted to ask you about something that stems from the Ready and Rogers report, particularly, identifying the risk that the ILWU on the West Coast could move to bargain on an enterprise basis versus a geographic basis. I understand that voluntarily the ILWU has bargained geographically for many years. I am just wondering if there is truth to that risk.
Mr. Doran: Sorry, the audio paused for a second there. What was your question around risk? I’m familiar with the Ready and Rogers report, but —
Senator Wilson: The question was whether the ILWU on the West Coast is planning next year, about a year from now, when the agreements come up for renewal, to bargain on an enterprise — or on a business-by-business, terminal-by-terminal basis — versus on a geographic basis.
Mr. Doran: I understand that was mentioned in the Industrial Inquiry Commission’s report to the labour minister. We’re a democratic organization. Our membership and our contract caucus develop strategy in bargaining. We don’t have any clear direction to engage in what you classify as enterprise bargaining, rather than negotiating on an industry-wide basis as we have.
I do not see collective bargaining as a threat in any regard, whether it would be on a more industry-wide basis or whether it is focused on individual employers.
There are obviously issues that are specific to certain employers. As senators may or may not understand, ILWU Canada has a collective agreement with the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association, which represents about 40 different employers. We have a multi-employer collective agreement, and there are certain specific issues that might have to be dealt with between the union and the specific employer where the association may not have the knowledge or expertise to complete those kinds of discussions or specific negotiations.
In addition to that, throughout our history, we have been locked out as many times as we have gone out on strike. Most recently, in 2024, when ILWU, Local 514, which has their own collective agreement — it’s not the longshore collective agreement; they have a separate agreement with their employers — attempted to engage in limited strike activity with a single employer, the B.C. Maritime Employers Association responded with an industry-wide lockout, which locked out all foremen and longshore workers and shut down the West Coast ports in response to the limited actions of ILWU, Local 514.
Senator Wilson: I’m not really getting a clear answer, or maybe it sounds like the decision hasn’t yet been made in terms of whether you will bargain on a terminal-by-terminal basis next year.
The Ready and Rogers report also made recommendations with respect to the employers being able to apply for geographic certification — which I gather the union has the ability to do but the employers do not — to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Also, they recommended the creation or establishment of a special mediator process. I’m wondering if ILWU has taken a position on either of those two recommendations.
Mr. Doran: Yes, we have. We have made our position known to the federal Minister of Jobs and her staff as well as the Secretary of State for Labour, Mr. Zerucelli.
We do not support the creation of a broad geographic certification for a number of reasons. It would require legislation to do so. It would be forcing workers into a collective bargaining structure against their will. We wonder how the commissioners square that with the Charter-protected rights, like freedom of association and the right to belong to the trade union of your choosing. We don’t believe that this recommendation is supported by the Charter rights.
There are certain issues that have been perpetuated throughout the most recent rounds of bargaining, which we feel would be entrenched into a broad geographical certification, forcing bargaining units into an arrangement against their will and solidifying power on one side of the table, without a corresponding balance on the other side of the table.
With respect to a special mediator —
The Chair: Mr. Doran, we need to wrap it up.
Mr. Doran: We agree with the recommendation around the special mediator. We have told the minister that as well. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
Senator Simons: I want to start with Ms. Bruske, and I want to follow up from where Senator Dasko left off.
What has intrigued me about seeing the federal government invoke section 107 again and again in the last year — I mean, it’s extraordinary, the concentration of that — is that there has been very little public pushback. There has been no moral hazard for the government. Last week in Alberta, where I am from, I was expecting considerably more pushback to the government’s invocation of the “notwithstanding” clause and the importuning of a collective agreement that the union had rejected, and the organized union for a minute talked about a general strike, and then everything fizzled out completely.
I’m wondering if you could comment for me on whether there is a danger to organized labour in this moment if the public has decided that it is going to accept government imposition of these kinds of back-to-work orders as the norm.
Ms. Bruske: Thank you for that question. This is a very concerning reality. If we allow our constitutionally protected rights to be overwritten by a premier using the “notwithstanding” clause against workers, what does that mean for the future?
In this particular case, The Alberta Teachers’ Association decided they could not stomach the potential of $27 million per day in fines. I can understand why that’s a huge hill to climb, having to worry about the amount of fines you have to pay as an organization, which would literally cripple that organization, when this is an organization that was not able to even pay strike pay to their teachers on strike. This is a very fraught moment in time that we are dealing with. When we’re talking about taking away rights for workers, it has consequences in the long term. It’s going to have consequences on the kinds of workplaces we have that support family and community.
I do just want to point out to Senator Wilson’s question with regards to a mediator to be assigned that while I appreciate the different unions may have different viewpoints on this, there are already mediation processes available under the CIRB. It’s not a lack of information that’s keeping the parties at the bargaining table from reaching a deal; it’s the overuse and reliance by employers on governments stepping in to do the work for them.
I would point out that in the most recent Air Canada strike, within 24 hours of that union defying the return-to-work order, those parties reached a tentative agreement at the bargaining table. Yes, they are going through an arbitration process to finalize a couple of those outstanding items, but it took 24 hours for that employer, once they were faced with the reality of “No, we’re not going back,” to come to the bargaining table to get serious.
Senator Simons: Mr. Roberts?
Chris Roberts, National Director, Social and Economic Policy, Canadian Labour Congress: May I just add that the CUPE flight attendant strike was extremely popular with the public? They had, in our experience, overwhelming support.
Senator Simons: I don’t think the strike was popular. I think the realization that many Canadians had in that moment about the working conditions of flight attendants and the pay structure was a revelation to a lot of people. Senators who travel a lot know what that is like, but I think for a lot of people it was very eye-opening.
In the time remaining, I have a quick question for Mr. Boucher. We heard in testimony last week the frustration on the part of the rail companies whose representatives said that they can negotiate with all their other unions, but that the Teamsters oftentimes don’t present a united front within the union. It’s a difficult table because, within your body, there are variances of opinion. We have heard from Mr. Doran about his concerns about having one big bargaining unit. Can you talk a little bit about the structure of the Teamsters and if there is something about the structure of your union that makes it more difficult to organize the negotiations?
The Chair: You have a minute to respond to complete the question.
Mr. Boucher: That might take all day.
The Chair: That’s why I’m saying it.
Mr. Boucher: In Coles Notes, it’s not our structure; it’s the companies themselves. They like to blame the Teamsters for failing at the bargaining table. The reality is that they are coming at us aggressively at the bargaining table with concessionary demands that we can’t live with or agree to. Maybe the other unions they deal with don’t have the same issues; they are not as concessionary, and they’re able to get the deals they want. At the end of the day, if the companies came and bargained in good faith, there wouldn’t be an issue at the bargaining table.
Senator Cormier: I will ask my question to Ms. Bruske. It might be outside the scope of what we’re talking about, but I think there is a link.
[Translation]
To ensure their well-being, the workers that you represent need to negotiate not only good conditions with their employers, but also a robust social safety net that protects them, whether in terms of access to public health care or employment insurance.
I read the brief that you tabled in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance in July regarding the budget being tabled today. In the recommendations, you talk about $4 billion for pharmacare and a new fund for the education workforce. You also talk about immediate financial assistance for workers and post-secondary institutions, and you recommend investing directly in critical infrastructure, including transportation and energy, to support increased internal trade and the diversification of trading partners.
My question is this: If the government took into account those recommendations and included them in the budget, how would those actions help, support or positively influence your ability to negotiate with employers? I would like to hear your thoughts on that.
[English]
Ms. Bruske: The budget that is being tabled today is incredibly important. We see significant holes in our social safety net, and I think our submission identified where those holes are.
Right now, workers are dealing with a trade war. I travel all over Canada all the time; I hear from workers in every single community worried about the future of their jobs. Making sure that we have a strong social safety net that deals with health care being available where and when they need it, that deals with an overhauled Employment Insurance system and wage subsidy so they can stay connected to their employers, that deals with adequate training and educational opportunities for the jobs of tomorrow and managing the risks of artificial intelligence are all incredibly important. All of these things need to be taken into consideration because our workplaces are ever-evolving.
When you look at the ports, railways and airlines, any single workplace, the workplaces and how the work is being done are evolving. This often leads to friction at the bargaining table when you’re dealing with automation, artificial intelligence and making sure that workers can be secure in their jobs. It is critically important that we identify all of those kinds of additional training and educational needs and that we fund them properly so that workers can actually pivot to that new economy and stay readily employed with a good family-supporting wage.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Mr. Boucher, do you wish to comment?
[English]
Mr. Boucher: The world is changing all the time. Mindsets are changing both globally and domestically. With the evolving world as it is, there are always going to be issues at the bargaining table. The common theme that needs to happen here is that you have to have both parties bargaining in good faith. What I’m seeing is that corporations are getting away from that and trying to rely on government to enforce deals to be arbitrated, which, as I’ve already said, don’t work. Issues are always outlying there. Until that happens, we’re never going to be caught up, and we’re not going to catch up.
The biggest issue here for us is that companies sit through and recognize the fact that it’s not about the bottom line and their dollar; all kinds of people are involved in this, including the 41 million Canadians that are affected by it. They have a responsibility as well to sit through and respect that.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Quinn: I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today.
[English]
I have a couple of questions, and anybody can answer.
Today, I would say Canada is under attack with respect to our friends in the south with tariffs and whatnot. It’s putting into question our ability to trade consistently and reliably with the United States. We have probably grown somewhat lazy over the years because we have 350 million people next door and we trade with them.
Now the government has said it’s time that we look at diversifying our trading lanes and trading partners. Yet, when we do have disruptions, the reliability of Canada as a trading partner comes into question and how it will get diverted. There have been some studies done, such as the Industrial Inquiry Commission of May 2025, which you’re probably aware of, which noted that business is at risk. Once the cargo leaves, it may not come back. Having run a port for a few years, that was one of the principal concerns we had in terms of working hard to capture cargo to make sure the labour force is getting the hours in so they can provide for those families versus a strike that may cause that cargo and those fluid marketplaces to be diverted.
Why wouldn’t we, in this day and age, with all these factors — the world is different in 2025 — look at section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code and talk about not only the health and safety reasons but also the economic security of the public? Why can’t we think about expanding that definition so the CIRB can seriously look at not just health and safety but economic security, which backs into affecting the public in many different ways? I’m wondering what your comments would be if we were to consider that.
Ms. Bruske: I want to point out that when workers go on strike, it’s generally because there is a significant change to their workplace that is happening. Workers will not generally go on strike because their raise isn’t big enough; they will go on strike because you are trying to change the terms of their work, or you are trying to actually cut down on their wages/benefits. If we want to have good workplaces with workers who are ready, capable and willing to do the work that we need in order to keep our economy running, we need to treat them fairly at the bargaining table. That has to mean free and fair collective bargaining.
Again, workers don’t easily choose to go on strike or are happy about being locked out. There are economic consequences to that family as well. The best way that we can ensure our economic activity being safeguarded is to actually force the parties to get to the bargaining table and to get to a deal without intervention.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
Don Ashley, National Legislative Director, Teamsters Canada Rail Conference: I would like to address that question.
Before we look at maintenance of activities, we need to look at the improper balance that’s set up right now. The country has made a choice to entrust critical infrastructure to private corporations. When we do that, we take away control.
Every time there is an intervention, it’s always the rights of workers that are sacrificed. We don’t see a section 107 application that assigns punitive damages to the private company that is equally a partner in any kind of dispute or lack of settlement. The default is to strip away workers’ rights to resolve an issue. It’s not to address the issue. There is no negative outcome for a private corporation in these types of things, so it puts the entire situation out of balance.
Senator Quinn: Thank you for that comment. My second question was going to be about the use of section 107, which I think has been used far too often and not necessarily for the right reasons. I think Parliament is in power to have people go back to work.
Having said that, we have talked about bargaining in good faith. We have had witnesses — and I have been involved in the industry — who said it’s the unions that are bargaining in bad faith. And then, no, it’s management; the owners are bargaining in bad faith. How do we determine who is bargaining in bad faith?
There is a study that was done by the National Supply Chain Task Force that said:
The Minister of Labour should urgently convene a council of experts to develop a new collaborative labour relations paradigm that would reduce the likelihood of [disruptions] . . . .
When there is a strike, the strike is because either the management says, “We’re locking you out; you have been bargaining in bad faith,” or, on the other side, “You have been bargaining in bad faith; therefore, we will go on strike.”
What is the solution there that would allow people to come together and bargain in good faith and have somebody watching that process so they can determine that party A or party B is not bargaining in good faith, and here is the solution to move forward, whether it’s mandatory arbitration — at the beginning rather than causing that economic downturn in these days?
The Chair: A quick answer to Senator Quinn’s question, please.
Senator Quinn: You can write in to answer that question.
The Chair: We are running out of time.
Ms. Bruske: If we have mandatory arbitration determined at the beginning, what is the incentive to bargain at all? And you will never get at the very crux of the issues actually keeping the parties apart by having a mandated arbitration approach.
Senator Quinn: If you’re bargaining in bad faith, then let somebody determine that early in the process rather than go through a lengthy process to get to the same end point.
The Chair: We need to move on, senator. If there’s anything that the witnesses can send us after the meeting in writing to respond or give additional information, we would really welcome that to give us the complete answer. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: As senators, we have to analyze the situation. After hearing the testimony from last week and today, it seems to us that the system is broken. You said that section 107 was unacceptable. However, is it not just a continuation of the 38 interventions that have happened since 1950? Even if we had to go to the House of Commons to negotiate a return to work, it would still be a government imposition.
My question is for anyone who would like to answer. I have just come to understand that imposing arbitration is unacceptable. I may be wrong, but I believe that the system does not work. What do you suggest we do to avoid the use of section 107 or having the government intervene? Things seem to work better in the United States with the Railway Labor Act. Could there be an arbitration system? Let us call it arbitration, intervention or obligation. Do you have any suggestions for ensuring that workers’ right to strike is always respected, but that we do not end up with a strike every six months or something else that significantly harms Canada’s economy?
[English]
Mr. Roberts: Thank you for the question. One of the complaints that unions in rail and marine ports have made over the years has been that governments only seem to take their concerns around health and safety, around fatigue, around relentless cost-cutting and workforce reductions seriously — they only pay attention to the industries — in the event of a stoppage when there is a lot of political pressure, public dissatisfaction and economic damage from a stoppage.
There would be some upside to the government as the regulator, so the Department of Transport and the Department of Employment, to take an ongoing, more active interest in the conditions of work, the terms and conditions of employment that often create the source for festering discontent and then disruption.
It’s not enough to intervene when there is a crisis and then imagine that all these issues go away. It’s in fact the opposite. It’s the inability to deal with underlying frustrations and problems, which are building up each time and causing labour disruptions. Those underlying sources have to be addressed and can be addressed outside of moments of impasse and stoppages.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Is there anyone else who would like to speak?
[English]
Ken Stuebing, Partner, CaleyWary, Teamsters Canada Rail Conference: Senator, thank you for your question. As Mr. Boucher mentioned, fatigue is a major issue for the TCRC’s members, and it is an issue that they live with and struggle with, and their rights being curtailed and trampled over — and during the period of a collective agreement. So it is during the period of free collective bargaining provided by the code, supported by the structure of the code that the members have an opportunity to exert pressure to get real, meaningful change and real defence of their rights.
The system that provides and supports this right for collective bargaining is not broken. The code works very well. The right to strike, constitutionally enshrined within the code, works remarkably well when allowed to proceed as designed under the code, which includes actually letting workers go out on strike, actually exerting economic pressure on the employer. That’s how, in this case particularly, fatigue will be addressed meaningfully by this union. Obviously, we invite the government, Transport Canada, et cetera, to —
The Chair: Mr. Doran, please.
Mr. Doran: I would like to say the Railway Labor Act in the U.S. does not preclude the right to strike, and it does not contain any provision that forces mandatory third-party arbitration, which some are continuing to suggest, which undermines the fundamental, constitutionally protected right to strike.
Canada needs unions. The 41 million people of Canada need unions, and unions lift the relative conditions for all workers in Canada. What we have seen is that employers have engaged in surface bargaining over the years precisely because, as you mentioned, the system is broken. If they can rely on the government to constantly give them an off-ramp, whether it is the use of section 107 or continued use of back-to-work legislation that provides for binding arbitration, as was said, it doesn’t get to the core issues. It doesn’t resolve issues in the industry. It only allows them to continue to fester.
Senator Hay: Thank you all for being here and online.
I want to pick up a thread that I have been hearing throughout. It was suggested in another meeting that it would be valuable to revise the Labour Code modelled somewhat after the U.S. railway act. What I recall from that meeting is there would be cooling-off periods or a 90-day period slowing down collective bargaining, while maintaining the right of a worker to strike.
I’m curious about your opinion on that, in particular with what you said around, in the period of bargaining, there being increased stress and potential discontent and whatnot. What is your opinion on that? I think it was Professor Lee who suggested that it might be an option. Then following up at another meeting, it was suggested that the Canada Labour Code does not provide the right framework, so what would the right framework be? It’s almost the same question, but two different ones.
Mr. Roberts: Quickly, I can say, as Mr. Doran pointed out, that the Railway Labor Act in the United States, as I understand it, does not enjoin major strikes, and secondary picketing is permitted as well. There are already cooling-off periods in the Canada Labour Code in the form of the cooling-off period in the conciliation —
Senator Hay: Is that 15 days? Because this is 90 days, as I understand it.
Mr. Roberts: I’m not sure if it is quite as long, 21 — my colleagues will correct me — but it is possible to strike under Railway Labour Act. Under the National Labor Relations Act, or NLRA, in the United States, I understand workers can strike during the life of the agreement over health and safety issues, which we don’t have here.
So I’m not sure that simply adopting what the United States has is going to be a solution here either. I’m not sure it has proven to be as effective at least from the vantage point of railway employees as it has for companies.
Senator Hay: To be clear, I don’t believe he said to just simply adopt it but to revise our current Labour Code modelled somewhat after the U.S. railway act.
Mr. Boucher: If I may add to that, as an example, with the 90-day cooling-off period you’re referring to, as we’ve stated, there’s a 21 day cooling-off period after 60 days of mediation. It’s called conciliation, but it’s like mediation. So let’s say another 90 days.
Let’s use the example of CN and CPKC. In the last round, the minister referred the maintenance of activities to the board. That actually was a cooling-off period, in essence, for 90 days. It was May 9, and then August 9 was the decision. There was no bargaining. There’s nothing going on. People just wait to see what happens. That’s what happens in the cooling-off period no matter how long you have it. It’s just an extension of waiting for the inevitable, in my view.
Senator Hay: So what would you suggest, then?
Mr. Boucher: My suggestion is that there’s nothing wrong with the code as it is. You have the economic pressure on both parties.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We’ve reached the end of our time for this panel. I’d like to thank you all for appearing today. It’s most appreciated. To the witnesses, as I mentioned earlier, if there are written follow-up responses to questions required, please submit them to the clerk by the end of the day on Tuesday, November 25. I would encourage you to do so on the two or three of these issues that we got into in great depth. It would be helpful to us.
I’d like to now introduce our next panel. From the National Supply Chain Office, we welcome John Corey, President of the Freight Management Association of Canada; from the Mining Association of Canada, Geoff Smith, Vice President, Government Relations, and online with us, Pam Schwann, President, Saskatchewan Mining Association; and from Fertilizer Canada, we welcome Michael Bourque, President and Chief Executive Officer.
Thank you all for joining us today. Witnesses will be providing opening remarks, and I would ask everyone who will speak to stay on that five-minute maximum so we can move on to questions from senators, because we’re all excited to see you and we’d love to have as much time as possible.
I would now invite Mr. Corey to give his opening remarks.
John Corey, President, Freight Management Association of Canada: Good morning. My name is John Corey, and I’m actually President of the Freight Management Association of Canada. I didn’t get a job with the National Supply Chain Office.
I would like to thank the chair and committee members for the opportunity to speak with you today.
The Freight Management Association of Canada, or FMA, is the voice of the shippers, representing all major industrial sectors including agriculture and agri-business, food processing, forest products, mining, chemistry, manufacturing and retail. The health of the Canadian supply chain is of great interest to my members. My members are not parties to the agreements but are affected by the process and the result.
As you are aware, the Canadian supply chain has been plagued by numerous work stoppages going back to 2019. However, the last two years have been especially disruptive.
Now, with the passing of Bill C-5, a predictable labour environment is more important than ever. Service disruptions or price increases are a part of doing business, but uncertainty is worse. Business leaders cannot plan alternatives with labour unrest. The past Canadian labour disruptions have injected an unacceptable amount of uncertainty into the dispute resolution process.
On July 1, 2023, 7,000 longshore workers went on strike at all ports in British Columbia. They remained out of work for 13 days, during which time all imports and exports through B.C. ports stopped. This, in turn, stopped all rail service to and from British Columbia. The Canadian supply chain stopped for 13 days. It usually takes a week to recover from one day of cessation of port or rail operations. The supply chain took months to recover from the B.C. port closures. The Port of Montreal has also experienced labour disruptions.
Both CN and CPKC had labour contracts expiring on December 31, 2024. Negotiations between CN and the Teamsters and between CPKC and the Teamsters were unsuccessful, and the first probable strike/lockout could occur in May 2024. This would be the first time in the history of Canada where two — the only two — Class I railways would be on strike at the same time.
As we saw, when ports shut down, so do the railways. Now, with rail shutting down, ports on both coasts would follow, crippling the Canadian supply chain and hurting the Canadian economy. More importantly, it would be impossible for critical water-purification chemicals and propane to reach their destination if a rail strike occurred.
The Minister of Labour requested the CIRB to review the impact of a strike in rail. The CIRB issued a decision on August 8, 2024, which acknowledged the economic, trade and reputational impact of a rail strike, but it ruled that rail services did not meet the threshold in the current Labour Code of being necessary to prevent serious danger to public health and safety. It took three months to render that decision, which curiously determined that the possibility of no clean and safe drinking water for Canadians would not pose a serious danger to public health and safety. A decision that should have taken a week, in my opinion, took three months to render.
Although the CIRB review delayed the work stoppage over the summer, in reality, it only prolonged the uncertainty. Uncertainty makes planning impossible. Economic impacts must play a role in the Labour Code when determining whether services should be maintained during a strike or lockout.
On August 22, 2024, the Teamsters were locked out by CPKC. Seventeen hours later, the Minister of Labour ordered the workers to return to work and imposed binding arbitration. Ironically, CN had requested binding arbitration the week before, but that request was rejected by the minister. The imposed binding arbitration has now been completed, and settlements are in place at both CN and CPKC. Workers received a 3% wage increase over the course of the settlement.
Other issues related to working conditions and safety have not been dealt with, as was mentioned during the previous panel. Also, the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference is seeking to have the binding arbitration imposed by the minister deemed illegal.
Clearly, the system is not working. There have already been situations where strikes are prohibited. For example, police and fire services are generally prohibited from going on strike. This prohibition is rooted in the legal framework that protects essential public services and maintains public safety. The Canada Labour Code already specifically requires a continuation of service of grain vessels during labour disruptions, as per section 87.7(1).
The Canada Industrial Relations Board has ruled that due to the critical role Oceanex plays in delivering essential supplies to Newfoundland and Labrador, the service has been designated as essential. Therefore, Oceanex operations continue uninterrupted despite the labour disruption.
What can be done to improve the process, the framework? I have some suggestions: First, recognize that the supply chain is vital to the Canadian economy; second, acknowledge that collective bargaining is the foundation of fair labour settlements, within a reasonable and defined time limit; third, maintain section 107 of the Labour Code and give the minister discretion to recognize exceptions to the Canada Labour Code; fourth, treat rail and port services as exceptions within the code; fifth, have a clearly defined timeline for dispute resolution, such as 90 days, when collective bargaining has failed, because deadlines focus attention; sixth, implement a process that could include but not be restricted to facilitation, mediation, binding arbitration and a review process such as the presidential emergency boards in the U.S.; seventh, recognize that back-to-work legislation is a failure of the supply-chain dispute resolution framework; eighth, ensure that Employment and Social Development Canada, Transport Canada and any other relevant bodies are involved in the development of a supply-chain dispute resolution framework and are concerned with the ongoing issues.
For Canada to move forward in diversifying our trade and becoming a world leader, all Canadians, carriers, shippers and workers must work together to ensure the Canadian supply chain is reliable and can deliver 24-7, 365 days a year for the mutual benefit of all.
Thank you for your attention, and I welcome any questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Corey. I made the error of not giving you the proper introduction. You are the President of the Freight Management Association of Canada. I apologize for that.
Moving on, from the Mining Association of Canada is Geoff Smith, Vice President, Government Relations; and Pam Schwann, President, Saskatchewan Mining Association. I’m asking you folks to cut it 50-50.
Geoff Smith, Vice President, Government Relations, Mining Association of Canada: It’s going to be a delicate dance.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to begin by recognizing that we are gathered today on the traditional and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation, and I want to acknowledge the hundreds of Indigenous Nations across Canada on whose traditional lands our industry operates and with whom we have strong partnerships.
Senators, we appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about mining industry activities when labour disruptions impact Canada’s regulated rail and marine sectors.
Mining is the largest industrial customer group of Canada’s railways, accounting annually for approximately 50% of total rail freight revenue generated, and is the largest single shipping sector in volume by both rail and marine modes of transit.
Canada’s strength in mining rests upon its ability to produce and process minerals competitively and to transport products efficiently and safely to and from domestic and international markets. This is especially true for Canada, the world’s second‑largest country by land mass. Work stoppages bring immense additional operational costs to businesses and reduce confidence in Canada as a destination for investment for supply‑chain‑reliant businesses such as ours. Over the last several years, as Mr. Corey mentioned, Canada has witnessed an unprecedented level of disruption in its supply chain. As such, the reliability and reputation of Canada’s supply chain continue to deteriorate.
That is, in part, because of the increasing view that labour disruptions in Canada now “go the distance,” reaping considerable operational disruption and damage before governments will meaningfully intervene. Instead of going the distance, the government should make every effort and use every tool at their disposal to address disputes. You’ve already heard about some of the tools available to the minister and those used in other jurisdictions, and we encourage you to take a fresh and creative look at options while ensuring that labour rights are not infringed upon.
What are the impacts of disruptions upon mining? In short, when mined goods and commodities stop moving due to a disruption in rail service and port access, mining stops. Impacts extend beyond production layoffs at mines to Canadians and local economies, including local businesses and their employees who supply and service mining operations.
Rail transport is also critical to secondary processing in the mining sector. Rail stoppages significantly impact the ability of companies to bring essential inputs to their mines. A large volume of products, such as ore, concentrate, reagents and fuels, are shipped by rail and subject to pre-emptive embargoes implemented by rail carriers on all hazardous materials when network disruptions are even anticipated to prevent these materials from being stranded, including on the tracks.
Canada can and must do better at creating a stable and predictable logistics supply chain that restores confidence, particularly as the race for critical minerals intensifies. This includes addressing long-standing mining/rail challenges flowing from the remote and northern location of most Canadian mines and the fact that the majority of Canadian mining companies are “captive shippers” in that they can only access service from one of the two Class 1 railways in Canada.
The result is that Canada’s rail freight system operates primarily as a dual monopoly for us. As one would expect, the result of this lack of competition is railway market power that is exercised through internal and operational decisions that result in rail shippers paying excessive rates, unfair fuel surcharges and receiving inadequate service.
It was actually this Senate committee, back in 2018, that got us close to meaningful change through support for captive shipper amendments to the government’s Bill C-49, amending the Canada Transportation Act, which were ultimately rejected by the Transport Minister. So we would like your help again. Time permitting, we can get into that, but I hope I can pass to Pam Schwann now with two minutes left.
The Chair: We welcome you to the committee.
Pam Schwann, President, Saskatchewan Mining Association, Mining Association of Canada: Good morning, Chair Smith and senators, and thank you for the opportunity to provide the perspective of the Saskatchewan Mining Association, or SMA. Our members are exploration and mining companies operating in the province.
Canada’s and Saskatchewan’s economies are highly trade‑reliant, with one in three jobs in the province directly tied to exports. As a landlocked province, Saskatchewan mining operations rely almost exclusively upon rail and port services to reliably and predictably deliver our products, like potash, to the United States and international markets, as well as to receive essential inputs.
Potash is one of the top commodities by volume and value that utilizes Class 1 rail services and ports. Canada exports 95% of potash to the U.S. and to more than 40 countries overseas. Potash is essential to providing global food security, with 50% of the world’s food production attributable to the application of fertilizer.
Repeated labour disruptions at rail and port facilities over the past six years have resulted in over 1.3 million tonnes of potash and more than $600 million in lost sales for Saskatchewan potash producers. This is also lost revenue to government, as royalties and taxes from potash are related to the value and volume of production.
Mining operations try to control as much of the export supply chain as they can to limit risk by providing their own rail cars and adding additional storage facilities at site. Some of them are so large they can be seen from space.
Labour disruptions at third-party facilities are a risk they can’t mitigate that ultimately affects the mine operations and their workers in Saskatchewan. The consequences of labour disruptions are real, including the loss of market share, as was seen in 2023, when Russia and Belarus displaced Saskatchewan as the top potash supplier to Southeast Asian markets because we couldn’t move potash out of the country.
The government should proactively take all necessary action to avoid labour disruptions and use every tool at their disposal. Canada’s economy depends on it now more than ever. This would include treating potash similarly to grain and granting it protection under section 87.7 of the Canada Labour Code so that regardless of labour disputes, potash will keep moving, on the basis of humanitarian grounds that potash is essential in providing global food security. If necessary, we support the federal government exercising its powers under section 107 of the Canada Labour Code.
Thank you for your attention. I’d be pleased to respond to any of your questions.
The Chair: Great job. Thank you very much, Ms. Schwann. Now we’ll move on to Michael Bourque.
Michael Bourque, President and Chief Executive Officer, Fertilizer Canada: Thank you, chair and members of the committee. Thank you, Pam. You’re going to hear me repeat some of the things she said. She’s doing a great job in Saskatchewan, and we appreciate her work.
Labour disruptions in our transportation supply chains have profound economic and global consequences, yet they rarely receive the attention they deserve once they have concluded. The fertilizer industry appreciates your willingness to examine this issue in depth.
My name is Michael Bourque, and I am the President and CEO of Fertilizer Canada. Our association represents the producers, manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and retail distributors of nitrogen, phosphate, potash and sulphur fertilizers. Together, our members contribute over $42 billion annually to Canada’s economy and support over 118,000 Canadian jobs.
Although I am relatively new to the fertilizer industry, I’m not new to transportation. One message I’ve heard repeatedly from our members — both producers and distributors — is that Canada’s recurring rail and port labour disruptions represent one of the most existential risks facing their companies and our industry.
Let me briefly explain how the fertilizer sector works. Canada produces close to 40% of the world’s potash, 95% of which is exported to farmers in more than 75 countries. You could say that we are the Middle East of potash. We have the largest reserves in the world. We are also a major producer of nitrogen fertilizers, mainly in Western Canada. While a considerable producer of fertilizer, Canada is not self-sufficient. We do not currently produce phosphate domestically and thus import all of our phosphate fertilizers, mainly from the U.S. We also import a significant portion of our nitrogen fertilizers.
These are not interchangeable products. They are the foundation of modern agriculture and the difference between a successful harvest and a failed one. In other words, our fertilizer supply chains depend equally on imports and exports moving efficiently through our country’s ports and rail networks.
Fertilizer is not a commodity that can wait. It must be applied during very tight seasonal windows — just three to five weeks in both the spring and fall — when timing determines whether crops succeed or fail. When trains stop or ports close, fertilizer doesn’t reach farmers, yields are severely impacted, and global food supplies are threatened.
Since 2018, our industry has endured nine major rail and port disruptions resulting in over $1 billion in economic losses. The 2023 Port of Vancouver strike alone cost nearly $127 million and permanently shifted market share to our competitors in Russia and Belarus, which quickly filled Canada’s contracts in Indonesia and Malaysia. The damage is still being felt today.
This is not just an economic issue; it is a geopolitical one. Potash from Russia and Belarus directly funds their regimes and, in Russia’s case, supports the war effort in Ukraine. Our allies want to depend on Canadian potash precisely because it is produced responsibly. If Canada cannot be a reliable supplier, those same allies are forced to turn to adversarial nations.
Domestically, these disruptions hit Canadian farmers hard. Eastern Canada imports up to 85% of its fertilizer, much of it travelling through the Port of Montreal and the St. Lawrence Seaway. If fertilizer doesn’t arrive before the St. Lawrence Seaway freezes, farmers risk entering spring without the product they need.
Even when a strike doesn’t occur, the threat alone can be devastating. Rail embargoes can be imposed up to 10 days in advance, forcing fertilizer producers to curtail operations and leaving product stranded in the system, with ripple effects that cascade through the entire supply chain.
We at Fertilizer Canada want to be clear: We are not asking to remove the right to strike or a lockout. That right is fundamental, but it is not absolute, and when the national interest and food security are at stake, there must be a mechanism to protect Canadians.
We believe the federal government should have clear, purpose-built authority to compel binding arbitration when labour disputes in key transportation sectors, like rail and ports, threaten to cause significant economic harm or disrupt critical goods, such as fertilizer. This approach would provide the cabinet with the ability to act swiftly and predictably, including when Parliament is not in session. More importantly, the existence of that authority itself would encourage both sides to reach agreements before disruptions occur.
We’ve seen in other jurisdictions that when this kind of tool exists, disputes are resolved faster and strikes are rarer. It benefits everyone — workers, industry and the broader economy.
Finally, I want to emphasize that while we have enjoyed relative labour peace in the port and rail network this year, dark clouds are on the horizon. Over the next six months, four major collective agreements across rail and port operations are set to expire. Even one disruption during the upcoming planting season would have profound implications for our farmers, our economy and our partners around the world.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today. I look forward to your questions.
[Translation]
I would also be ready to answer your questions in French. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bourque.
[English]
We will now move on to questions from senators.
I also remind the witnesses that if you have a need to send us something in writing in terms of follow-up, please do so, and then we can have the complete answers to the questions asked of you by the senators.
We will now move on to our deputy chair, Senator Dasko.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, witnesses. I just have a fairly brief question to Mr. Corey and also to Mr. Smith and Ms. Schwann.
Could you spell out the changes you’re looking for to section 87 of the Canada Labour Code? It seems to me you’re calling for an expansion of the criteria in terms of services that should be maintained. I think that’s what you’re saying. Could you clarify what you’re calling for with respect to section 87? Thank you.
Mr. Corey: For my part, section 87 so far is for grain, and I think what Ms. Schwann is going to say is it should also apply to potash.
I don’t think we should be commodity-specific when we use these tools. I think there has to be more discretion at the ministerial level to decide when and where to use these available tools. In my view, we need to have a timed framework that takes the drama out of the process. We’re always dealing with these situations when everyone’s hair is on fire. We need to take a step back and look at this as a normal course of business. There are labour negotiations ongoing everywhere, for every company. We need to treat it that way and have a process that will take some of the emotion out of it to let cooler heads prevail.
Mr. Smith: Thank you, senator. We don’t have a recommendation specific to that section. We would see that as a last resort. We have all kinds of other lower-hanging fruit that we would love to engage with you on.
I will defer to Pam in Saskatchewan to perhaps speak specifically to SMA and potash. She may have a different view on that narrower frame.
Ms. Schwann: Thank you very much for the question, senator.
We would be happy to send you some specific wording that we would recommend, but, in essence, what John said was correct; we would like to see an exemption for potash on the humanitarian grounds that potash is used in and essential for global food security. On these humanitarian grounds, we’d like it to be exempted under section 87.7. I would be happy to forward you that language.
Senator Dasko: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Wilson: My question is probably for Mr. Bourque, but I think some of the other folks may be able to answer it as well.
One of the things I know is some of your members, when contemplating major capital investments in new terminals, don’t just look at Canada; they also look at the United States. And some actually have made investments in the United States. I know currently one member is actually assessing the viability of a new terminal in Canada versus the United States. I know from my own experience in the Port of Vancouver the work we had to do to entice BHP to do their expansion in Vancouver.
To what extent do you think the labour environment in Canada is driving that investment south to the United States or incentivizing it?
Mr. Bourque: It’s a significant percentage of it. I’ll say 97% because it’s labour disruptions that have caused risk in the system. Secondarily, there are infrastructure issues, but it’s primarily because of labour disruptions that there is concern by companies that are expanding. I’ll note that there are three companies that are expanding in Saskatchewan. BHP, that’s coming online in 2027. Nutrien has said publicly that they will be expanding and that they are looking at their supply chains now. K+S just announced a month or so ago that they’re doubling production. All of them have told me that their number one risk is the supply chain, and the number one risk of the supply chain is labour-related.
Senator Wilson: Thank you. I want to make room for other senators.
Senator Lewis: Thanks for everybody’s presentations. When we’re talking about section 87 and how it relates to grain, I have dealt with grain producers for a long time, and they certainly don’t see themselves having a whole lot of a different experience during a labour stoppage. I think you would be the first to say during a rail stoppage, section 87, they may be loading the boats, but they quickly run out of the proper grain at terminal position. That just speaks to our supply chain — right across the entire supply chain — that everything is just-in-time delivery. What happens at the ports, of course, is one terminal runs out of a certain grade of grain and there is no more coming in, and so the whole boat sits there, and producers pay to merge. So I want to make sure that the rest of the senators realize that section 87, in some cases, has been helpful to grain producers, but in most cases, it really isn’t.
When we talk about our reputation as a reliable customer, certainly 2013 was a real watershed year where all of our customers on the grain side — they still talk about it. That was coming up to a dozen years ago. It’s long-term damage that we have had. As you said, we have had all these stoppages most recently, and it doesn’t seem to be getting any better. If you can comment on that, Mr. Corey. Thank you.
Mr. Corey: I agree with you 100%, although section 87 did work when you had a very limited — say, the Port of Montreal, when it went on strike, rail was still working, so they could deliver and it was shipping. But, yes, it’s not a panacea. There are better and other options that could be used. As long as people are talking, there is a possibility that they can get a deal. In my view, initially imposing binding arbitration is not necessarily the best way to go. It sort of gets everyone’s back up, and now someone else is going to make this decision. They need to continue to have people talking and negotiating during the process, which, as I said, if you make it 90 days, having that timeline focuses people’s attention. The possibility of not getting a deal that is good for you and having a third party impose a deal is somewhat of an incentive to get a deal.
Mr. Smith: If I can pick up on something that Mr. Bourque referred to, I think it’s to your credit as a committee to have these discussions while we’re not in the eleventh hour of a crisis or while there are picket lines happening. These are measures, at section 87, that are for extreme circumstances. They may also be, in a sense, a sacred cow. They are very delicate and extreme measures, one could say.
I think what needs to be done — we have a National Supply Chain Office under Transport Canada right now. We talk about this, and Mr. Corey’s organization often publishes an annual one-pager — sometimes it’s more than one page — of all the expiring agreements. Now, there has been some consolidation of those dates, but the awareness and the advance knowledge of these agreements coming to a conclusion or expiration are public knowledge. If we have an office like Transport Canada’s National Supply Chain Office, which is perhaps the eyes and ears of raising awareness of what is coming, what are the granular-level impacts of specific agreements on specific sectors, such as ours, that we can come to expect will flow down should that agreement expire? I think we need to be doing what you’re doing, but also identify the mid-range of activities such as awareness. What can the government do; what can be done around those kinds of conversations so that end users and others will be aware of what is coming? Then we can start to address some of those issues in more moderate ways.
Where legislators — senators, parliamentarians — where you are, the levers of what you have access to are there. The Canada Transportation Act — there is work that can be done that can even the playing field, specifically for our sector in terms of our captivity to the Class 1 carriers that I think can level the playing field in a way that is fair, that doesn’t infringe labour rights and that is absolutely within the scope and your roles as legislators as well.
I commend you and encourage you to continue to look for that mid-range of options of levers available to legislators such as yourselves so that we can lessen the impact should those agreements expire. But I do think awareness of the impacts and of the very timing can be increased as well. I propose that the National Supply Chain Office could have a role there.
Ms. Schwann: I would just recognize that while section 87.7 may not be a panacea, it is an option and another tool in the tool box that could be used because Canada’s economy depends on that.
The Chair: Thank you so much.
Senator Simons: As an Albertan, as the former deputy chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee and a former member of the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, I understand your concerns, and I understand in this moment in Canada’s economic and political history that these concerns are more urgent than ever.
But something Mr. Corey said just really struck me. He said what we need is to have less drama, less excitement. But the whole reason strikes exist and work is because of the dramatic narrative that they create, because of the theatre of the strike, and the whole power that labour has is to make your members miserable. That’s their lever.
So if we can all agree that in this moment of Canadian national urgency, it is more important than ever that we have reliable export reputations so that we can open new markets in Asia‑Pacific and in Europe, is there something that your organizations could be doing to exert some leverage on the companies so that they are incentivized to provide the working conditions that lead to labour peace?
Mr. Corey: I can answer that. I understand that labour needs to have a lever — they have to have leverage over the company, and, as you say, the drama is what sort of gets things rolling.
Senator Simons: Holding you hostage is the whole point.
Mr. Corey: Yes. That’s a point I would like to address also. Most shippers — 80% of shippers in Canada are captive to one railway.
Senator Simons: Yes.
Mr. Corey: We have no leverage whatsoever over the railways. In fact, if we had leverage, we would have better service and better rates, and we have neither. So that’s off the table.
But what I am proposing is that there are only certain circumstances where the government would step in with the power to order people back to work, and that would be, for instance, the examples I gave, when all the ports in British Columbia are closed. That shut down the country. That would be a situation when the government would come in and say, “Listen, we will have the 90-day process. You will go to a board. They are going to look at it. You can decide,” and then finally binding arbitration. That is going to happen in 90 days, no strikes.
The other situation would be when both railways go on strike. If you have one railway going on strike, that power is not required because there are workarounds. This has happened many, many times. Trucking can pick up some slack, and the other railway can pick up some slack, and they can work their way through. It’s only in situations when the supply chain is completely cut and stopped that I think the government should then step in and use its power to put people back to work through a 90-day process where a deal will come out at the end no matter what, and work will continue during that period.
Senator Simons: Would anybody else like to answer?
Mr. Bourque: I would start by recognizing the comment that Senator Quinn made earlier, which is that we are under attack. What we need to understand and work toward is this idea that we are in a paradigm shift. Canada is under attack. This morning I heard my colleague from the Forest Products Association of Canada saying we have already lost 2,000 forestry jobs. You can talk to the automotive sector or the steel sector, and they would have similar alarms.
We are in a very different time. We need to get our house in order. That’s the only thing we can do. The Prime Minister has said we need to concentrate on the things that we can control. We can only control getting our own house in order.
Nine labour disruptions in the last seven years does not sound like order to me. I think what we need to do is collaborate because we are not asking to take away the rights of workers, but we do need to have better mechanisms. I have heard the labour sector talk about their displeasure with the use of section 107. Section 107 was maybe not designed for the purpose that it has been used for, but we do need to design something that is going to serve that purpose because if we look to our southern cousins, they have pretty much the same system. They have got the same rail network, which is dominated by Canadian actors, who are obviously very good rail operators, yet they don’t have the same number of strikes that we have. Why is that? Because they have a good mechanism to ensure that people bargain in good faith and work things out before it comes to that. They have a big stick that they can use to force everybody to the table if necessary. Here, clearly, we don’t have that, or else we wouldn’t have so many labour disruptions. So, again, I really appreciate this committee looking at these issues, but I think we all need to have our hair on fire because we are under attack.
Senator Quinn: Thank you for that last commentary from both our witnesses because I’m going to re-emphasize that I think that collective bargaining is an essential element of the process, but we heard our witnesses say that in the collective process, a strike is an option that allows them to put economic pressure on management, on the owner of the company. Clearly, what we heard this morning validates that. It doesn’t just put pressure on the management or the owner of the economy; it puts it on the entire economy and people who use or export those products.
Picking up on the National Supply Chain Office, what I was advocating for, and I would like your comment on it, is to have somebody — maybe it’s the supply chain office — monitoring the negotiations so they can make a determination if they are serious or not. I have had the pleasure or displeasure of sitting in on negotiations. It was clear that neither side was serious.
How do we allow the process to take place while we consider the trade that we do globally and that, with tariffs, other countries can become suppliers to countries that we now supply? Potash is an example. Shouldn’t there be that new paradigm? Shouldn’t there be a new approach that allows somebody to say whether it’s serious or not in terms of the negotiation process?
Mr. Smith: Potentially, no. That is a subjective term: What is serious, and who is that person?
But I do think there needs to be a better function. With the budget this afternoon, perhaps some offices, like the National Supply Chain Office, may need to do some reinvention to justify their existence. There could be a role for that. Whether having a neutral person observing is legal in terms of the Canada Labour Code and negotiation, I don’t know.
We do talk about creative approaches. You know, our sector, the mining sector, if you listen to the World Bank about the potential exponential increases in demand for critical minerals around the world, is already positioned globally to diversify Canada’s trade. So what can we do, particularly, as Senator Simons mentioned, in terms of attracting workers? We need exponentially more workers to come to our sector. We are doing everything we can. We have a challenging situation the way it is with remote work, flying in, flying out. We have the highest industrial wage in the country in the mining industry. We all know that dough-re-mi is not the sole thing to attract young people. We do a lot of work through the Mining Industry Human Resources Council —
The Chair: A quick word. Would you like other witnesses to help you out?
Mr. Smith: Sure, I’ll leave it there, but we have Unifor and United Steelworkers around the table of the Mining Industry Human Resources Council to talk about how we can attract workers and create those conditions. We actually have a campaign called Mining Needs You; we will not meet any of those projections or diversify Canada’s trade —
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Bourque: That’s a very good question about whether it’s serious or not serious. One of the proposals that I heard for this cabinet-level authority to send to arbitration was that there were guardrails proposed. The number one guardrail that needs to be considered is whether they are bargaining in good faith. If they are not bargaining in good faith, or one party is not bargaining in good faith, then they shouldn’t have the right to have this forced arbitration. I think there do need to be these guardrails. That’s probably a very good one.
The Chair: Mr. Corey, a quick fill-in for our senator?
Mr. Corey: Ask your next question. I’m fine.
Senator Quinn: To take advantage of my time allowance, for a second I want to jump into the topic of economic well-being being considered in subsection 87.4. I’m hearing through some of the testimony here that potash, as an example, is traded around the globe. We all know that. But I have concerns about our reputation as a reliable trading partner when these strikes occur. At the same time, the tariff war is not always applied equally on suppliers. We’re increasing our supply of potash here with these developments you have talked about. Are we at risk of losing some of our market share to others who may not have the same tariffs, if any, applied to them?
Mr. Bourque: We have lost market share to Indonesia and Malaysia, which consider Russia to be more reliable than Canada. We are exporting. We have an excellent company called Canpotex that exports potash. It’s Canadian potash for export. That’s in the name. They export to many countries. Accessing markets is not the issue. It’s being able to deliver reliably and using our supply chain without disruption, obviously, at a competitive cost. That’s the issue. Those are the things that we can control and we should focus on.
The Chair: Just a quick end to the question for Senator Quinn because we have to move on to the next senator, please.
Ms. Schwann: I would just say that Saskatchewan provides 33% of the world’s potash, and our main risk is actually getting products out to port by rail and then to overseas markets. We export to over 40 countries worldwide. That is the number one risk. We have had $45-billion investment in the last 15 years in potash operations. That investment will not happen if we cannot deliver potash from our mines to our global customers.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Schwann.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I am going to change the subject. You heard the first group of witnesses. Those witnesses talked about fatigue, working conditions and security.
My question is for Mr. Corey in particular. You gave a number of potential solutions. Apart from the issue of wages, which never seems to be fully resolved and is often part of negotiations or disputes between unions and employers, would it be better to require that any unresolved negotiation issues be resolved while the collective agreement is in effect, following the implementation of a new system? In other words, if not all the issues have been resolved, is there a way to ensure a resolution before the next negotiations? Do you have any comments on that?
[English]
Mr. Corey: Thank you for the question. I think that situation has already occurred. That’s exactly what happened with CN and CPKC when binding arbitration was imposed on them just recently. They settled the salary portion, but there are still outstanding work conditions and other things that haven’t been settled. That’s why I think that blunt instrument is not the one that should be used.
There was a suggestion that we should have continued review by certain government departments or a government department looking at those issues not while the negotiation is going on but before they get to that port. That’s part of taking the drama out of the process. There’s an ongoing process where people are talking about issues and trying to solve them. When it comes to the actual bargaining time, if you can’t get it done in 90 days, then maybe people continue to work, and maybe there is a commitment by both parties that they will continue to talk about this afterwards.
The problem we have, as you said, is that right now we’re in a situation where we need to have our hair on fire, because we’re in a very difficult position. But I don’t think we should make legislation or look at frameworks that apply just to this situation. We need to have frameworks that work in the future. That’s why thinking about this logically and calmly is what we need to do so this system works today, tomorrow, 10 years down the road — not just as a stopgap for right now.
Having said that, we are in a very difficult predicament right now with labour stoppages and the supply chain. The supply chain is literally the backbone of the Canadian economy. Every time that stops, we have a serious issue across the country for everybody.
The Chair: Do you have other comments, Mr. Smith or Mr. Bourque?
Mr. Bourque: The fatigue issue is not a new issue. Transport Canada has done many studies, and railways have undertaken many initiatives to deal with fatigue. It’s a very complex issue.
It certainly would play a role in labour demands, but, again, you have to pick your priorities. I think that those discussions could happen, and we could still keep people working and the economy moving, because it does impact more than just the companies.
This is not about company profits. Those of us who are shippers, this is a time when we need to work with ports, railways and labour, because in a moment when we’re under attack, we should be behaving like Canadians and working together. These are all resolvable issues, but, clearly, the system as it exists today is not working.
The Chair: Mr. Smith, you have a minute.
Mr. Smith: I would briefly say that in a time of crisis or a time when we need to diversify or think differently about our economy and trade, there are times when we need to think about picking some winners. Arguably, with critical minerals, our sector has been foisted with a new frame that has been identified as an opportunity. It’s not to say that we are getting favourable treatment. It’s to say there is an opportunity within our sector.
“Shippers” is a broad category. If we are going to address and get to a point where these sectors can fulfill that promise, we need to start listening to the specific needs, particularly with captive shippers. There is a view we need to keep things balanced with the railways in an almost 50-50 sense, but there has never been a balance with captive shippers and the two Class I railways. It has been a monopoly relationship that has put us at a disadvantage through fuel surcharges, rates and all kinds of means.
At a time like this, we also have to, with precision, look into some of these priority sectors and say, “What do you need? What are the specific levers in this emergency situation, in this crisis?” Let’s address some of those things in between labour disruptions completely that will help rebalance some of these priority sectors. That can get us to some of the places we need to be at economically.
Senator Mohamed: Thank you for all of your comments.
Mr. Corey and Mr. Bourque, I appreciate your comments very much about the U.S., but I think part of it is that we have a very different culture here. I think following what the U.S. does in some regards doesn’t necessarily work here.
If you look at our immediate pressure to build our different pipelines of diversification when it comes to trade and, at the same time, be a reliable partner, is there another jurisdiction outside of the U.S. that gets this right, that balances the right to strike with ministerial discretion and the viability of our economy? Is there another jurisdiction we can look at and say, “Do you know what? They figured it out. Maybe that’s something we could beg, borrow, steal from.”
Mr. Corey: Unfortunately, the closest jurisdiction to us is the U.S. There are other countries in the world that have completely different political systems, much more authoritarian. Canada is a huge country, unlike many others. There is often comparison with Europe and high-speed rail and Canada; it’s apples and oranges.
It’s the same with our situation. North America is one network as far as rail goes. It’s completely integrated, as Mr. Bourque said. CN and CP are essentially 40% U.S. carriers anyway, ownership and volume.
I would not discount what is happening in the U.S. on a personal level. I loathe acknowledging that they might be doing something as good. However, talking and having people maybe from the outside of industry looking at a situation — I have been a mediator in the past for about five years on rail disputes, and the big question is this: Do you need someone who knows about the industry or someone who doesn’t know about the industry to make those decisions? Sometimes I think it’s better not to know anything about it, because then you cut through all the detail and get to what is really important.
I don’t know of any other jurisdictions that are similar to Canada.
Mr. Bourque: What I’m arguing at this point is we need to act in Canada’s interest. Whether we steal an idea from the U.S. or anywhere else doesn’t really matter, as long as it serves our purpose.
One of the things that we could be doing is looking at the number of ways we can work together in common interest. For example, the Railway Association mentioned the other day that there is a coalition. One of the things we’re looking for from today’s budget is some kind of accelerated depreciation so that we can deploy private capital.
We are also looking for significant infrastructure investments from the Government of Canada into our supply chain and our trade-enabling transportation networks — that includes ports, railways — some kind of de-bottlenecking. We have the Second Narrows Bridge in British Columbia that if it were to fail, it would cause significant damage to the supply chain. We have to start planning to supplement that in some way.
There are many ideas for infrastructure spending that we can do in Canada’s interest. I am arguing that we work collaboratively in Canada’s interest.
Senator Hay: I absolutely agree that we are under attack. Our hair is on fire. I have a lot of hair, so it’s very uncomfortable.
The Chair: Thank you for that comment. That was enlightening.
Senator Hay: I have a question on balance, and it might be uncomfortable. I personally can’t believe a couple of things. There is a fundamental right to strike, and there is a fundamental right to have a collective bargaining process to get to a fair and free collective agreement, “collective” being the operative word, I suppose.
I don’t want to leave today’s meeting with the feeling that I’m having that if labour would just come to the table, if workers — it’s kind of their fault. Strikes are not drama-seeking. Strikes come because of the breakdown of the collective bargaining process. The two tables need to work collaboratively and together. I would love your comment. There are two sides to this, and both sides need to come to the table. It’s not just for more drama. It’s their leverage, for sure, on the labour side, for strike, but I was just a little uncomfortable with that. I would like your comments on that.
Mr. Corey: As shippers, we’re no friends of the railway. We are treated as captive shippers. As I said, we have no control over their service or rates. However, we do recognize that the railways essentially connect the country from coast to coast and are essential to our supply chain, so we want them to continue working.
Are they the best employer? I don’t know. I’m not going to talk about all the specifics and the substance of the collective agreements, but you have to have both parties talking about stuff. You have to have both parties willing to give. In a mediation, you go in, you ask for more, and you settle for less. You have to leave being somewhat not happy but satisfied. That is the situation we need to have.
When it comes to breaking the supply chain, I think that’s an exception. When it shuts down the country, that’s when the government needs to step in and make difficult choices and pick a winner and a loser.
Senator Hay: I won’t comment on that piece, but I heard here that it is not about profit. I do think profit comes into play here. These are multi-billion dollar market cap corporations that are coming to the table.
Mr. Corey: Absolutely.
Mr. Bourque: We’re not asking to remove the right to a strike or a lockout. That right is fundamental, but it is not absolute. We have a very serious situation when the national interest and food security here and around the world are at stake. There must be a better mechanism to protect Canadians because the fact is that our system is not currently working. My suggestion is that we work in collaboration with all parties.
I’m not here to defend railways or labour or pretend that I’m a labour expert, but I believe that our industry can work collaboratively in the interest of all Canadians. We already have market access. We are already the dominant player in fertilizer. We just need to get our own house in order.
Mr. Smith: I wouldn’t want to characterize labour action as some sort of a dramatic fit or something, but I think the clarification is let’s get to these issues before the situation becomes the most dramatic.
I commend you again for the work you’re doing. We have a whole lot of suggestions, at least on the corporate side, the mining companies that we represent, where we can improve the situation up to those moments when we are faced with those disruptions. You’re doing good work, and I encourage you to continue. We have a lot more suggestions, and maybe we will get them to you by next Tuesday. I think that was the deadline. We appreciate the opportunity.
Pam, I don’t know if you have anything to add from the Saskatchewan perspective.
Ms. Schwann: I think you gentlemen have captured everything. Perhaps there are some sacred cows that need to be addressed in terms of keeping Canada globally competitive, including the automation of our ports, so we can compete with other ports in China. In our experience, automation has actually improved safety. Our potash mines are highly automated. That has been done to improve worker safety and productivity, and I think our ports need to look at that same framework.
The Chair: I thank the panel. Your answers were complete. If you have any additional information that we should have, please send it to us in writing by Tuesday, November 25, 2025.
Before adjourning, I’d like to remind senators that our next meeting will take place tomorrow, Wednesday, November 5, at 6:45 p.m.
Before closing the meeting, I’d like to thank the entire support team in the front of the room, as well as those behind the scenes who are not visible. Thank you all for your work, which contributes enormously to the success of our work as senators. Thanks again to the witnesses.
(The committee adjourned.)