THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 5, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 6:49 p.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: I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications to order.
My name is Larry Smith. I’m a senator from Quebec, and I’m chair of the committee.
[Translation]
I would now like my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[English]
Senator Simons: Senator Paula Simons, Alberta. I come from Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Wilson: Duncan Wilson, British Columbia.
Senator Mohamed: Farah Mohamed, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Arnold: Dawn Arnold from New Brunswick.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Lewis: Todd Lewis, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Surette: Allister W. Surette from Nova Scotia, replacing Senator Cormier.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec. I will be replacing Senator Katherine Hay at the committee permanently.
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
The Chair: I’d like to welcome everyone with us today as well as those listening to us online on the Senate’s website, sencanada.ca.
Senator Miville-Dechêne, welcome back to this committee. My understanding is that you had a good run with the committee a couple of years ago.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It was about six years.
The Chair: We’re 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 Federation of Independent Business, Jasmin Guénette, Vice-President, National Affairs; and Christina Santini, Director, National Affairs.
From the Canadian Council for Indigenous Business, Matthew Foss, Vice-President, Research and Public Policy. Matthew is online with us. Hello, Matthew. I hope you are well. Thank you for being with us.
From the Western Canadian Short Line Railway Association, Rachel Mackenzie, Director, Communications and Government Relations.
Thank you all for joining us today. The witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes. I would ask that you please keep your remarks within five minutes, because I don’t want to push at you. After the presentations by each of our panellists, we’ll have a question-and-answer session with senators.
I will now invite Mr. Guénette to give his opening remarks.
[Translation]
Jasmin Guénette, Vice-President, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business: Good evening. We would like to sincerely thank the committee for this kind invitation. My colleague and I will share the speaking time and answer your questions.
I will make my comments in French and my colleague will make hers in English.
The CFIB represents 100,000 small business owners in all sectors of the economy and in all regions of the country.
Canadian SMEs are very concerned about the negative impact that labour disputes in federally regulated sectors have on their businesses, their employees and the economy in general.
SMEs suffer collateral damage from work stoppages, and, often, strikes launched by unions are deliberately aimed at hurting businesses. For large trade unions, putting SMEs at risk is a tool, a way of advancing their cause, even if it means hurting small businesses and their workers.
Work stoppages have negative consequences for the economy that are disproportionate to any benefit a union may derive from them. When strikes occur in federal transportation infrastructure, too many small businesses lose sales and fresh product inventory, pay contract penalties, and/or reduce production and working hours.
That is why your study on maintaining transportation services in the event of labour disruptions is so important. No labour dispute should cause the economy to grind to a halt.
I will now turn the floor over to my colleague, Christina Santini.
[English]
Christina Santini, Director, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business: Thank you, Jasmin.
A strong majority of small and medium enterprises, or SMEs — about 92% of them with a view — support having federally regulated workplaces that are instrumental to the supply chain be defined as essential service providers.
Recent work stoppages at Canada’s ports and railways have had a real and immediate consequence on their business operations, but economic harm isn’t even a consideration in the scope of the Canada Labour Code as it is written today. It should be.
For example, the 2022 West Coast port work stoppage severely disrupted operations for a livestock feed manufacturer and distributor in British Columbia, which supplied over 141 farms and 4 retail stores on Vancouver Island. As a result of the work stoppage, the company had to pay carriers and was only able to bring in one eighth of their regular shipments from suppliers in Alberta and the United States via ferry. The company saw higher costs and an 80 to 85% drop in monthly revenues.
That’s just one example to illustrate the kind of impacts work stoppages can have on small businesses. A long stoppage has harmful consequences for the economy that can be disproportionate to the benefit that any one union can obtain.
That is why a detailed cost analysis study should be required to determine the impacts of a work stoppage on the economy, Canada’s SMEs and Canadians before any work stoppage is even allowed to happen. If the projected harm is very severe, a general strike or lockout should not be allowed.
Our members can’t afford the ongoing costs and unpredictability that work stoppages at Canada’s ports and rails have inflicted upon them.
We thank you for your attention to this very important matter, and we remain available to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Guénette and Ms. Santini.
We will now hear from Mr. Foss. You have five minutes, sir.
Matthew Foss, Vice-President, Research and Public Policy, Canadian Council for Indigenous Business: Taanishi. Matthew Foss, dishinihkaashoon.
Hello. My name is Matthew Foss. I am a member of the Otipemisiwak Métis Nation. Today I am speaking to you from my home office on the lands of the Treaty 6 people and the Métis. As Vice-President of Research and Public Policy for the Canadian Council for Indigenous Business, or CCIB, I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, and all distinguished members of this committee, for the opportunity to provide you with my testimony and contribute to this important work.
Since 1984, CCIB has been committed to the full participation of Indigenous Peoples in the Canadian economy. We are a national, non-partisan and non-profit organization committed to advancing the full participation of Indigenous Peoples in Canada’s economy.
CCIB exists to promote, strengthen and enhance a prosperous Indigenous economy through business relationships. Ensuring Indigenous businesses have uninterrupted access to markets and inputs aligns with that mission. If transportation policies ignore Indigenous vulnerabilities, remote Indigenous entrepreneurs and workers will be left behind.
In our recent Adàwe and Atamitowin reports, which we did in partnership with Global Affairs Canada, we reported that Indigenous businesses are 40% less likely to be exporters compared to all Canadian businesses, with access to reliable infrastructure being one of the biggest causes of this gap.
Labour disputes in Canada’s federally regulated rail and marine sectors pose significant risks to essential services and supply chains, with disproportionate impacts on Indigenous communities and businesses. Many Indigenous areas, particularly in remote or northern locations, rely on these modes for food, fuel, goods, market access and resource-dependent enterprises. Disruptions such as recent rail lockouts rapidly halt logistics, exacerbate vulnerabilities and threaten economic gains.
A business in a major city may have the ability to pivot to other options, whether those are different forms of transportation, other sources or routes. An Indigenous-owned business in a remote or northern community often has zero alternatives. They are frequently captive to a single rail line or a single port. A disruption for them is not a delay; it is a complete operational shutdown, threatening the very existence of their business.
Many Indigenous businesses, particularly new and emerging enterprises, operate with tighter cash flows and less capital reserve. They cannot absorb weeks of zero revenue.
Furthermore, many are in perishable goods sectors like fisheries and agriculture. These strikes force them to lose 100% of their product, a catastrophic loss that a non-perishable goods business may not face. This vulnerability is a key equity consideration.
Through our Supply Change program, CCIB has worked for years to integrate Indigenous-owned businesses into the supply chains of corporate Canada. Rail and port shutdowns threaten those very chains. When a major mine, manufacturer or resource project scales back operations because they can’t ship from a port, their Indigenous suppliers — the local caterers, service providers and B2B businesses — are the first to have their contracts paused or cancelled.
Rail and marine transportation are critical lifelines for Indigenous businesses and communities, supporting supply chains, resource extraction and access to essential goods in remote areas. This is underscored in CCIB’s 2022 publication The Transportation Issue, which highlights transportation’s historical significance in Indigenous trade networks and its modern role in business resilience and development.
Rail and marine transport intersect Indigenous economies in vital ways, with historical roots in pre-colonial trade innovations like canoes and modern partnerships enabling development. Railways connect communities through passenger and freight services. These networks carry essentials like food, fuel, construction materials and natural resources, enabling Indigenous entrepreneurs in mining, forestry, agriculture, fishing and retail to access markets and sustain operations.
CCIB believes that essential service laws should balance worker protections with UNDRIP principles, avoiding top‑down impositions that undermine Indigenous labour rights. To avoid future conflict and facilitate ongoing dialogue, CCIB recommends tripartite consultations — government, unions and Indigenous representatives — for rail and marine agreements. While many focus on labour rights or economic productivity, CCIB’s argument is rooted in reconciliation, fairness and the unique logistics of remote communities. We therefore urge this committee to recommend that any “maintenance of activities” legislation or framework must include an Indigenous economic lens.
Marsee, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Foss.
I will now invite Ms. Mackenzie to give her opening remarks.
Rachel Mackenzie, Director, Communications and Government Relations, Western Canadian Short Line Railway Association: Good evening. Thank you, honourable senators, for the invitation to appear before you today. My name is Rachel Mackenzie. I represent the Western Canadian Short Line Railway Association, an industry association of over 20 short-line railways across Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
Your committee has been tasked to investigate:
. . . the impacts of labour disruptions on users of federally regulated rail and marine networks . . . and on Canada’s supply chains . . . .
Tonight, I would like to add context about the impacts of labour disruptions on short-line railways and short-line-served rail shippers.
Short-line railways are former CN and CP branch lines that were sold or leased to new operators and remain connected to a Class I railway through an interchange point. Each short‑line railway services multiple customer loading sites before delivering loaded trains to interchange where those cars continue on to ports or domestic locations via a Class I carrier. Short-line railways transport bulk grains, pulses and specialty crops, aggregates, dangerous goods, energy products, oversized loads and provide railcar storage that relieves congestion on the CN and CPKC networks.
Most short-line railways in Western Canada are provincially regulated and are non-unionized. Of the short-line railways with unionized workforces, they report positive relationships and successful negotiations with their unions.
When there is a labour disruption on a Class I railway, connected short-line railways grind to a halt, as they are not receiving new railcars and cannot release any customer traffic. Some short lines will continue loading cars from customer cars already on their line or from short-line owned private car fleets, but this work will end as soon as car supply is exhausted and will only add to the backlog of loaded cars at interchange once Class I service resumes.
For pulses and specialty crops that are shipped in bulk from rural Saskatchewan and containerized at the Port of Vancouver, the 2023 BCMEA-ILWU labour disruptions paused loading and shipment of pulse crops off short lines.
Leading up to the 2024 rail labour negotiations, short-line-served customers were concerned about uncertainty and service delays and began to make other plans for their freight traffic. In southern Saskatchewan, this meant selling grain to U.S. buyers and trucking grain across the U.S. border to load onto rail on the BNSF in northern Montana. Durum, pulses, and organic specialty crops that would have been loaded on short lines ended up on trucks and American railways. Witnesses from Transport Canada have told this committee that rail traffic lost to trucks can be very difficult to bring back on rail, and this experience is corroborated by Western Canadian short lines.
Other customers responded by pre-ordering large numbers of railcars to fulfill commitments prior to the anticipated labour disruption. This behaviour creates bottlenecks, car supply issues and operational challenges for the customer, the short line and the Class I railway.
When Minister O’Regan referred the question of rail service as an essential service to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, it was unclear when the CIRB would issue their finding. Since the government had been so quick to intervene in recent labour disputes, many customers assumed that a strike or lockout would occur on specific dates in the spring of 2024, but that it would last a very short time before government intervention. The CIRB deliberations created further uncertainty around scheduling and drove shippers to make alternative transportation choices that gave them more control.
The return to service is a complicated process, depending on the length of the stoppage. Other witnesses before this committee have suggested a three- to seven-day backlog for each day of stoppage. Because the Class I railways prioritize restoring their mainline services first, this delay is even longer for short-line-served shippers at the end of branch lines. The return to service is marked with significant congestion at yards and interchanges, extended dwell time and resulting delays in car supply. These service issues directly impact short lines and their customers.
Short-line railways offer cost-effective loading sites and development opportunities for small- and medium-sized businesses seeking rail access. Short lines perform valuable first‑ and last-mile services in the Canadian supply chain, but struggle against the misperception that they are inefficient. Facing service disruptions and long delays for factors that are outside of their control only cause further harm to the reputation of the short-line industry.
The ideal outcome is successful negotiations between employers and labour. However, repeated challenges in negotiation would suggest that the relationships between the federally regulated Class I railways and the TCRC are fundamentally strained, and additional support is needed. While we do not have a specific model to recommend, the WCSLRA would support reform that increases the likelihood of successful agreements, decreases the frequency of labour disruptions, retains rights for workers and provides transparency on timelines for users of Canada’s rail network.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Mackenzie.
We’ll move on to questions from senators.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, witnesses, for being here today.
Mr. Guénette and Ms. Santini, I want to drill down on what you are calling for in terms of how we might fix the situation and relieve the strains on the system from labour shortages.
You were calling for the extension of the definition of essential service. Could you describe that in more detail, and are you looking for amendments to section 87 of the Canada Labour Code?
Mr. Foss, I will ask you the same question. Are you looking for the same kind of change? Ms. Mackenzie, I will also ask you the same question. Are you looking for that kind of a change?
I’ll start with the first two witnesses. Thank you.
Mr. Guénette: I can start, and my colleague can follow up.
We recommended that a cost analysis study by an independent third party be required to determine the cost and impact of a work stoppage for the economy, SMEs and Canadians — as my colleague mentioned in her opening remarks — before any strike is even allowed to happen. If the impact and cost are deemed potentially too severe in terms of financial loss or major delay of essential products, a general strike should not be allowed. Other forms of work stoppage activity could be allowed, but a full general strike that stops the entire economy from functioning should not be allowed.
Senator Dasko: Would that be amendments to section 87 or would that be another section of the Labour Code?
Mr. Guénette: Whatever would make the most sense in terms of legislation. In the past couple of years, our members — we represent 100,000 members across Canada in all sectors of the economy — have suffered work stoppages several times at the Port of Montreal, the B.C. port and the St. Lawrence Seaway. Last year, CN and CPKC, without rapid intervention, would also have had a work stoppage lasting more than one day. SMEs are losing sales, money, inventory, et cetera.
No union should have the right to paralyze the entire economy, and we are hoping that this study will bring forward this idea of including economic harm into legislation so that, before any strike is even allowed to happen, a study would be conducted. If all railways in Canada are paralyzed, obviously, many businesses will suffer, so that strike should not be allowed.
Senator Dasko: Mr. Foss, could you describe how you see the solution to the problems that you outlined in your presentation?
Mr. Foss: I’m not sure, senator, that we have a specific solution in mind either, in terms of how to proceed with this. I would just echo similar comments that a strike and shutdown of port or rail facilities can potentially be devastating. So real consideration has to be made as to how to prevent and minimize potentials for that to happen, whether that’s through section 87 or other tools. I don’t know that I have the answer to that. I’m certainly not an expert on those aspects of Canada’s laws.
Senator Dasko: Harm should then be the criterion for changing the arrangements that we have now?
Mr. Foss: That’s correct.
Senator Dasko: Thank you. Ms. Mackenzie? Do you agree with that or do you have a different view?
Ms. Mackenzie: Expanding section 87 doesn’t necessarily solve the core problem, which is that the relationship between the federally regulated railways and the unions is fundamentally strained.
Senator Dasko: So other changes would be necessary?
Ms. Mackenzie: Yes, I believe so.
Senator Dasko: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Lewis: I have a question. Thank you for your presentations. Mr. Foss, your perspective is very interesting, of course. It’s not just about moving products to export or to markets. It’s also about the First Nations and their isolation. It’s about goods coming into the First Nations. Could you give me some examples of how many First Nations would be affected in terms of percentage? Do you have any numbers on how many would be seriously affected by work stoppages?
Mr. Foss: Apologies, senator. I didn’t bring that information with me, and I certainly don’t know that I have that specific information. I would just suggest to you that most communities are in remote locations and are therefore limited with respect to their access to any infrastructure.
Senator Lewis: As a second question, have you ever been consulted with before in these situations when there are work stoppages? Has there been any back and forth between your group or First Nations and either the companies that are locking out or the unions that are going on strike?
Mr. Foss: No. Certainly not our association. I couldn’t speak to whether or not others within the Indigenous community have been consulted with or spoken to, but I suspect not.
Senator Lewis: Thank you.
Senator Wilson: I’m aware of how larger organizations or larger enterprises are able to manage different supply chains and can more easily pivot during these labour disputes, whereas for SMEs it can often be crushing. You did a good job in your presentation of articulating that. For example, with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB, how many businesses do you represent and what percentage of them do you think would be trade-dependent businesses? Are they relatively balanced between dependent on inputs brought in through trade corridors as well as exporting or is it favouring more exports or more imports?
Mr. Guénette: We represent 100,000 small businesses in all sectors of the economy and in all regions of the country. Our largest membership base is in retail. Many of them depend on ports and rail to receive the product that they sell to their clients. We have 6,000 members in agriculture. Many of them depend on rail to send and receive fresh products.
We have members in construction, wholesale and all sectors of the economy.
I don’t have a specific number to share with you on how many are trade-exposed, but I would assume that the majority of them are simply because they sell product to the Canadian population in all regions of the country. That’s why we have been so vocal about this situation. When ports are shut down, we receive messages from our members. During the last B.C. port strike, we had members in Eastern Canada repairing cars that were waiting for auto parts coming through the B.C. ports and vice versa, east to west.
So we have submitted ideas numerous times on how to alleviate the situation and cope with it. It seems that whenever there is a difficult negotiation between an employer and a union, we find ourselves in a work stoppage. It’s not helping the Canadian economy, and it’s not helping small businesses from coast to coast to coast.
Senator Simons: My question is for Ms. Mackenzie. Any importer or exporter is going to be inconvenienced by a rail strike, but your industry is uniquely vulnerable because you literally have to connect your trains to their trains. So when there’s a major strike like there was when both CN and CPKC went offline at the same time, what kind of losses did that mean for your sector?
Ms. Mackenzie: Certainly. In terms of economic losses and numbers, I would be happy to follow up in writing with the committee. Anecdotally, you hear a lot about — as I mentioned in my opening statement — customers moving to truck, especially for higher value commodities that have a larger margin that can absorb the slightly increased transportation costs of trucking. You saw customers making additional plans, and those plans did not include short-line railways.
Senator Simons: Is there anything in the immediate moment? A colleague of mine was mentioning that they were recently reimbursed for a flight they were supposed to take during the airline strike this summer, and Air Canada paid them for the WestJet flight they had to re-book. It made me wonder. In an industry like yours, is there any backstop? Can your members buy insurance against a strike? Is there any legal recourse you have if CPKC or CN break a contract that they have with you to take product on?
Ms. Mackenzie: I am not aware of any insurance available that would support short lines in that situation or legal recourse that they could take.
Senator Simons: One of the challenges with the rail sector is the lack of competition. We had a witness yesterday who represented the freight folks and said, “Don’t think I’m on the side of the railways because we’re the ones who are always at battle with them.” But again, you have a very competitive industry. There are many little short-line rail systems especially — I’m from Alberta so I’m more familiar perhaps than some others — but you only have two big partners. What constraint does that put on your members?
Ms. Mackenzie: It’s very significant to our members. The short lines in Western Canada are based on how they evolved. They are generally single-served. Every short line out there is going to connect to one Class I. They’re either connected to CN or CPKC. They can’t switch. You’ll often see customers now looking for dual access. If you look at large potash mines being built, they are trying to arrange situations where they have access to both CPKC and CN. But the short lines will only have access to one. So all the customers on short lines are dependent on the functionality and freight rates offered by that Class I railway with the levels of service.
We often find ourselves identifying very highly with these shipper customers because the short lines themselves are so dependent on the operations and agreements with the Class I.
The Chair: Ms. Mackenzie, you mentioned that you possibly wanted to send us a written response to add some meat to the answer that you gave us in terms of short-line relationships with big players and what happens in the case of labour disruptions. If you could, when you go back, send us something back, that would be very helpful to give us some complement and show us the depth of what happens to the customers when there is a strike with a major player.
Ms. Mackenzie: In terms of financial numbers around losses and things like that?
The Chair: That would be very helpful. I would leave it up to you to be creative and give us something that gives us a little more depth about the potential issues that you face in your business.
Ms. Mackenzie: Certainly.
The Chair: Please do that if that’s okay with you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: My question is for Mr. Guénette. Indeed, unions generally want to hurt their employers. In this case, it is not so much the employer as all the customers who are suffering. You are proposing a solution that seems rather tenuous to me. You say that before every general strike, we need to know what financial impact a strike could have on small and medium‑sized businesses. How can we do that? What can we rely on? How can we collect data? What is the threshold beyond which we say there should be no general strike?
Basically, do you want a ban on general strikes? I get the impression that your mechanism would be difficult to implement.
Mr. Guénette: Thank you for the question, senator. My colleague can add to my answer if I forget anything.
There are several factors. First, we conducted a survey of the federation’s members. The vast majority would like to see workers who are essential to the supply chain become essential workers, so that port and rail operations can continue as normal, even if negotiations are difficult and the union and management cannot reach an agreement.
The second thing is that if a strike vote is passed, before the strike begins, an independent third party should have a few days to assess the economic impact of a strike on Canada. When the Port of Vancouver or the Port of Montreal went on strike, we had these figures and we knew how many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of goods would not be delivered each day. We had those figures.
Depending on the extent of the damage caused to the economy, there could be a general ban on strikes. This could be a smaller-scale strike, an evening strike, a weekend strike, or an overtime strike. There could be other activities, but a general strike that would paralyze the entire economy should not be allowed.
SMEs are not at the negotiating table. When our members lose hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of dollars because the union is angry—
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I understand perfectly. I was trying to understand the mechanism. If it’s a third party, it might have a little more impact —
Mr. Guénette: An independent third party.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: — than SMEs that say they are going to lose millions of dollars. That’s how I understood it.
Secondly, in your opening remarks, you spoke very emotionally about the fact that the union wants to harm SMEs, that they specifically try to harm SMEs in order to settle the strike. Do you think this is because you are here and you are the ones who are suffering the most compared to businesses? I sensed a lot of emotion in what you said.
Mr. Guénette: I think it’s a tactic that’s being used, and they want to hurt the economy, not just the employer. Obviously, the Port of Montreal and the Port of Vancouver are suffering huge losses, and catching up once the strike is over is a monumental logistical headache. These companies are also suffering considerable losses.
People claim that unions use this tactic: if it hurts the economy, and not just the employer, the government or the employer will come to some agreement. The situation will be resolved more quickly because the damage will be so great that pressure will mount. The aim is therefore to hurt the economy in order to advance one’s own objectives.
Unions use strikes to hurt the economy in order to advance their own goals. We hope that this situation will not continue for much longer.
Unfortunately, the past few years have been very difficult. We saw this with all the work stoppages. They should not have the right to paralyze the economy to further their own interests.
[English]
Senator Arnold: Thank you all for being with us today. I have a question that is somewhat related to the last question. Labour disruptions in the rail and marine sectors have repeatedly brought Canada’s supply chains and, by extension, our economy to a standstill.
We have heard from many witnesses at this time, and the impact is extreme. The picture has been painted for us on that, I would say.
My question may be uncomfortable, but I would like your perspective on it, because I’m assuming that you follow these labour negotiations and situations quite closely.
In your opinion, what are the underlying issues driving this persistent tension between trade unions and employers?
Ms. Santini: Ultimately, unions attempt to represent their membership, and employers try to keep in mind cost and revenues. Admittedly, perceptions from either party can be quite different. Government usually tries to intervene with mediators, arbitrators and whatever tools they have on hand to find the common ground.
It seems that quite frequently, as of late, those differences couldn’t be mended or couldn’t be brought together. We’re always at an impasse, which results in a work stoppage.
Part of the question could be whether there are enough tools. What could help strengthen or stimulate those discussions? From our perspective, we’re not the ones at the table. We can’t say what might be the underlying causes of the impasse.
Perhaps for some time there was a great amount of revenue because demand was up, but now demand is going down, so you can’t base future salary expectations on what revenues are going to be, because they’re not what they were historically. We’re not at the table. We don’t have those realities. We only receive what is released publicly.
From our end, ultimately, small businesses feel the pain. We used to think that retail stores or wholesale manufacturers had three to six months of stock, so they will be fine, they’ll withstand it. I had to speak to members who are week-to-week or two to four weeks ahead in stock. As soon as you have labour disruptions, particularly since it creates backlogs and points of congestion, if you have a few days of strikes it throws them off. They end up having shortages, and they need to make tough decisions or let down their customers. So that’s part of their reality.
Senator Arnold: We’ve been told over and over again that it’s about not wages. I’m just curious: What is it then?
Mr. Foss, you mentioned a trilateral approach. What would you see being brought to the table that’s maybe not at the table as far as negotiations right now?
Mr. Foss: Thank you for that question. I think of the relationship as being one of those aspects, and really the perspective of another party with respect to what’s going on and the impacts this is having. Neither employer nor employee group is actually contemplating and thinking about the impacts work stoppages are having on communities and businesses in remote areas that are, perhaps, low on their radar screen, if at all, for what their considerations are, going into bargaining and negotiations.
Senator Arnold: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Thank you to our witnesses. You mention the right to strike and the fact that there should be no strikes. Are we also talking about lockouts by employers? Do your comments apply to both parties?
[English]
Ms. Mackenzie: I reviewed all the transcripts for previous meetings of the committee on this topic, and people talked about the right for workers to strike and the importance for the workers to have access to dignity and the importance of those rights. Something that I didn’t see is this: When the negotiations are allowed to fail, or when the government intervenes, what does that end up creating in terms of dissatisfaction or low morale for workers?
It is really important to think about the longevity of the rail industry and having an industry in which people feel safe working and want to work and remain in the industry long term. Creating an environment that is unfavourable for workers may have long-term impacts in terms of availability of employees and length of duration of people’s careers in the rail industry at all levels. That will have impacts, I believe, on rail safety and efficiency. We want to have a rail industry in which people want to work.
Senator Aucoin: Thank you.
Senator Quinn: Thank you for being here this evening.
Yesterday, we had some good discussions with our panels with respect to different aspects of this topic. I commented that it’s always preferable to negotiate at the table to come up with a solution, and yet the government has used section 107, perhaps too often and perhaps inappropriately, but nevertheless, it has been used.
Section 90 of the Canada Labour Code allows for cabinet to pause the strike or lockout during an election if cabinet is of the opinion that the dispute “. . . adversely affects or would adversely affect the national interest . . . .”
Would you support giving cabinet a similar ability to temporarily pause a labour dispute while Parliament debates whether to pass back-to-work legislation?
Mr. Guénette: Yes.
Senator Quinn: That’s a question for everybody, by the way.
Mr. Guénette: The government should have the tools they need to ensure that either the work stoppage ends rapidly or it doesn’t start. They need to have section 107, back-to-work legislation and other tools, but they need to be able to act.
Ms. Mackenzie: If I understand correctly, that would work as a middle ground between section 107 and the typical parliamentary — at least you have a whole cabinet considering it versus one minister, which is a move in a better direction, having more people weighing in rather than merely one person’s decision.
Mr. Foss: I would agree that increasing the tools available is a step in the right direction.
Senator Quinn: Last night, in another discussion we had, I made the comment that our current government is now looking at trade diversification, largely because we’re under attack from our friends to the south, so we need to seek different trading partners and things of that nature. Yet, section 87.4 puts some restrictions in place on us, and it talks about:
. . . operation of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public.
When the Canada Industrial Relations Board, or CIRB, considers things, they look through that prism of the safety and health of the public, and, yet, in this day and age, it’s like an old school thought — that’s the way I would put it — because the reality of today’s world is this: Shouldn’t we be looking at what it means to the security of the public and the security of the cargo providers? That’s because when it backs down the supply chain, which is another worry I have — the people at the CIRB may not necessarily understand the intricacies of supply chains. So shouldn’t we think about the security of the public and the security of essential cargo providers as we move forward?
Ms. Mackenzie: You’re looking at me; I think it’s about me.
In terms of the security, in terms of the operational and financial resilience of short lines and other supply chain providers?
Senator Quinn: Last night, the commentary, as I recall, chair, was that folks commented that when there’s a strike, it’s a strike against management; it’s a strike against the company that makes big profits.
I asked about the other folks that are in that supply chain, and that’s why I’m asking this question tonight: Should we not consider amending section 87.4 in this day and age — with all those factors I mentioned — to allow for the CIRB to at least consider the good of the public and the good of the cargo provider?
Mr. Foss: Senator, I would suggest that yes, the provisions and considerations have been too narrow in the past. I don’t know if some of the impacts on remote communities have ever been seriously considered and thought of with respect to those provisions.
Mr. Guénette: In a sense, it’s what we are suggesting to the committee this evening: to add a test for what can be considered —
Ms. Santini: Economic harm.
Mr. Guénette: — harmful to the population, and we are suggesting that it is economic harm.
Senator Quinn: My last short question is for the Short Line Railway Association. I’m so glad that you’re here this evening. We have short lines down East. I’m from down East.
In the past, the CIRB has made decisions that cargo can be shifted from rail lines to trucks, and you mentioned trucks, and that’s what prompted this question: I wonder if the CIRB really understands that you can’t simply divert cargo from trains to trucks?
The volume of cargo that is handled by a train versus the volume of trucks required to move that to the marketplace is somewhat different. For me, as a marine-background guy, it’s like suggesting a large container ship can have containers moved by a barge, which wouldn’t be practical or possible, really.
I’m worried about the CIRB making decisions without calling in those who have the expertise that they may be lacking to hear and receive advice from those who are involved.
Ms. Mackenzie: There are other complications. If you think in terms of large-scale trucking and in terms — I mean, clearly emissions, but, also, I would say there is roadway demurrage. You hear a lot about driver shortages in trucking and equipment shortages in trucking.
Each railcar that passes by you on a train represents multiple trucks. Think about that traffic on the roads and road safety. In rural Saskatchewan — as Senator Lewis, I’m sure, could corroborate — think about rural roadway demurrage.
Senator Quinn: Should the CIRB be required to call in the expertise that can make commentary on a potential decision they’re going to make with respect to transferring cargo from train to truck?
Ms. Mackenzie: Any expertise that allows them to make a more informed decision would likely be very helpful.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
Senator Wilson: One of the things that we’ve heard about quite a number of times from witnesses to date on this issue — and there was a report. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with it. There was a commission that was appointed to look at this issue, particularly with respect to the longshore and the Ready-Rogers commission.
One of the recommendations of the Industrial Inquiry Commission on West Coast Ports, led by Vincent Ready and Amanda Rogers was to appoint a special mediator in a situation where it looks like the negotiations are breaking down, and at a certain point in the process, this special mediator would be appointed. That special mediator would give the government eyes on the table in terms of what is happening.
You said earlier tonight that you don’t know what is going on, and you don’t know what is happening, and we have heard repeatedly from several witnesses about the need for increased transparency. I’m wondering if we should consider going further than the special mediator and whether users should have eyes on some of those negotiations.
From what I’ve heard from some of the more hotly contested negotiations, what happens behind those closed doors is actually quite shocking with regard to the demands that are made, and sometimes they are bargaining in bad faith. Perhaps we need to shine even more of a light on it than the Ready-Rogers commission is suggesting.
Mr. Foss, you suggested an Indigenous representative as well, and I would be interested in your thoughts about just how much help you think that would provide, in terms of putting some light on the situation and getting the parties to actually settle.
Mr. Guénette: It’s a good question. Increasing transparency in itself is a good idea. If that prevented additional strikes, we would support such a proposition.
For us, what is important is that the demurrages we have seen in the last several years don’t happen again, hence we propose what we are proposing. We’ve said that small businesses are not at the table, and increasing the conversation with them prior to a vote on a strike may be positive, but at the end of the day, we need to find a mechanism that prevents a general strike if the economic arm is deemed too severe. Whether small businesses are at the table or not, the end goal is to ensure that the supply chain is protected 100% of the time and that certainty is protected 100% of the time.
There is no reason for a retail store waiting for sports goods for the Christmas season to have a situation in which all Christmas sales will be lost because of a strike. We need to find ways for these situations to be avoided.
Senator Simons: I want to come back to Ms. Mackenzie.
When you were speaking with Senator Aucoin a moment ago, you talked about the challenges of having a trained, rested, safe workforce. I know that across the transportation sector, finding workers and training them for demanding jobs are real challenges. In your short-line universe, do people come to work on short-line rail as an apprenticeship before going on to work for Class I or are some of your workers people who retired from Class I work because they don’t want the long trips? What is the training process to ensure that your workers are well trained and well rested.
Ms. Mackenzie: In terms of entry into the workforce, there are some people who have retired from Class I. There are also younger people for whom the Class I lifestyle didn’t work, and they’re seeking a different quality of life and work environment within the rail industry. Those people come to short lines. Short lines also hire people from other industries or from the rural communities that they serve. The training adheres to regulatory training standards that they have to meet within the industry.
In terms of regulations relating to rest, the majority of our members are provincially regulated, so they follow provincial guidelines relating to fatigue, et cetera.
Short-line operations are quite different from Class I operations. You’ll often see people operating Monday to Friday, they have a schedule that they can predict, and on their time off, they’re home with their families. So that creates a very different situation.
Senator Simons: Senator Arnold was asking why people are striking. The implication of what you’re saying is that working for Class I can be very hard, because you’re away from your family, you work long hours, and the work is physically demanding. Presumably, it’s not just about money; it’s also because working Class I takes a lot of sacrifice.
Ms. Mackenzie: Yes. I mentioned in my opening statements that our members who have unionized workforces report that they have very positive relationships with the union. Part of that is related to the fact that some of the issues that the unions are concerned about regarding Class I aren’t as much of an issue with short lines, and my members have talked about building a relationship of trust with the unions. They say that the unions trust that short lines are good employers and are looking after their employees, and the railway employers trust that the unions are showing up to negotiations in good faith and that the unions are our partners. They see them almost in a partner-type relationship.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
The Chair: This question may be for Mr. Foss. Sir, you mentioned that in cases of labour disruptions, you and your members didn’t receive much communication or feedback. Is there an opportunity for your members to develop closer relationships with the government? I shouldn’t suggest that there is not a closer relationship, but you mentioned that relationship issue, and it caught my attention. In addition to that statistical data, do you have, or are you collecting, data for your members so that you can see the actual numbers that impact your members when these labour shortages or disruptions occur?
Mr. Foss: Senator, thank you for that question. Unfortunately, no. As an association, our membership is quite diverse across the country, although, often we are in a position in which we’re speaking for Indigenous businesses that are not members as well as Indigenous businesses that are members, and sometimes even on behalf of the communities in which those members reside and serve.
I don’t know that I have those numbers for you, and I don’t know that I have anecdotes from members directly with respect to impacts or those questions, but I note that, in the studies that we have done with respect to Indigenous businesses, the access to infrastructure tends to be one of the biggest challenges they face, so anything that further limits or restricts that is certainly harmful. Where you bring us more into the conversations, I think it would be helpful.
The Chair: Do you have any thought or strategy about proactive measures that you and your members can take so that people start to give more recognition to your needs?
Mr. Foss: My appearance in front of your committee is one example of taking a proactive stance, but part of it is just having more awareness of our existence and our needs and giving those consideration in some of these types of conversations.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other questions for our witnesses?
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: If possible, could you send us a summary of the losses your members have incurred? I don’t know if you’ve done the calculations.
Mr. Guénette: We have various comments. We may have some figures to share with you. When we get back to the office, we will try to compile them as quickly as possible. May I add a quick comment?
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr. Guénette: Earlier, a question was asked about why there have been so many strikes lately, and whether this was related to wages. I would like to add one factor that does not explain everything, but may nevertheless help to explain the situation: the current political climate, with a minority government. There are certainly some labour unions that want to take advantage of the situation, because it is difficult to implement back-to-work legislation when there is a minority government, for all the reasons we know.
There are obviously issues related to the work itself, such as pay, working hours, and so on. However, there is also the issue of the political environment in which we find ourselves, which encourages certain unions to call strikes when negotiations become difficult due to the presence of a minority government and the difficulty of passing special back-to-work legislation.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any other questions from our senators?
[Translation]
Thank you for being here today. It is greatly appreciated.
[English]
Thank you for your participation today. We appreciate it. Thank you for sharing knowledge with us.
We would like to introduce our next panel: from the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, Greg Moffatt, President and Chief Executive Officer; from the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, Bridgitte Anderson, President and Chief Executive Officer; and from the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, Chris Procyk, Vice President.
Thank you all for joining us today. Witnesses will provide opening remarks for a maximum of five minutes — if you stay disciplined, we would really appreciate that — which will be followed by a question-and-answer session from our senators.
I would now like to invite Mr. Moffatt to give his opening remarks.
Greg Moffatt, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada: Thank you, chair and members of the committee. It is a privilege to join you today on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe People.
My remarks today are anchored in one idea: Our ambition does not match our reputation.
Canada’s ambition is bold: to double non-U.S. exports by $300 billion in the next decade. However, to our trading partners, Canada’s image is different. We are seen as unreliable, a country where labour disruptions in critical transportation infrastructure are frequent and expected, not rare. This committee’s work is essential to closing the gap between who we want to be, and how the world sees us.
Canada’s chemistry and plastics sector is the third largest in manufacturing, generating $112 billion in shipments each year. More than 80% of our products are exported, and 85% move by rail or through Canadian ports. Every day, roughly $75 million in chemistry products — carried in more than 500 rail and tank cars — moves across Canada. For our members, there is no plan B if rail stops.
One railcar equals three trucks. At a large facility, replacing rail service would mean 240 more trucks per day — not practical, not safe — and when ports are closed, there are no alternatives.
In the event of a strike or lockout, facilities must begin shutting down up to a week early to comply with strict transport regulations. These shutdowns cost roughly $1 million per day per facility, and restarting can take weeks.
This is not just an economic story; this is about public safety. Chemicals such as chlorine and sulphuric acid, vital for water and wastewater treatment, are shipped daily. Most municipalities can store only about a week’s supply. If rail is interrupted, the risk to public health is immediate and serious. Under section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code, a service is considered essential if its disruption endangers public health or safety. Our sector’s role clearly fits that definition in the respective water treatment and wastewater treatment chemicals. However, protecting only essential chemistry shipments will not prevent broader demurrage across all supply chains and across the Canadian economy.
Chemistry underpins nearly every sector in Canada. Mining, forestry, metals, automotive, energy, defence and construction all rely on our products. When chemistry stops moving, these industries slow or stop too. Each day a disruption continues, costs multiply for producers, for consumers and for government.
In the last two years, Canada has seen 62 separate work stoppages in transportation: at the Port of Montreal, the St. Lawrence Seaway, West Coast ports and both major railways. Each one damages Canada’s international reputation for reliability. Each one tells buyers and investors that Canada is a high-risk, unpredictable location to do business. This perception undermines our ability to grow exports and attract investment.
We recognize the fundamental importance of collective bargaining, but negotiations between a handful of parties should not halt the entire national economy nor jeopardize public health and safety.
The question before this committee is vital: How do we keep Canada’s supply chains moving during collective bargaining while minimizing uncertainty and risk?
Canada needs a modern, balanced approach. We must ensure that essential transportation and trade services keep running during negotiations, while protecting the right to bargain in good faith.
We support calls for special mediation processes, neutral third parties to keep talks moving and help avoid work stoppages, as recommended after last year’s challenges at the West Coast ports.
However, mediation is not always successful. When negotiations fail, the government must have clear, timely tools to preserve labour peace and keep the economy working. These powers rest with the Minister of Labour under section 107 and with Parliament’s back-to-work legislation. However, section 107 is too broad, with unclear powers and timelines. During last year’s railway dispute, ministerial powers were invoked from May through August, but with no clear process or communications, leaving shippers and workers uncertain for months.
Our sector recommends clarifying section 107 by defining ministerial powers, outlining available dispute-settlement measures, setting clear timelines and criteria and explicitly considering economic harm as a factor for government intervention. Back-to-work legislation should remain a last resort, only for truly exceptional circumstances, because when it’s needed, the damage has already been done.
To close the ambition-reputation gap, Canada must acknowledge that trade and transportation are vital for our economy; clarify and strengthen section 107 so that government action can be timely and transparent; and create a balanced collective bargaining framework that protects workers and safeguards the national economy.
Now is the moment to align Canada’s ambition with our reputation, and guarantee that, even during tough negotiations, Canada keeps moving.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Moffatt.
We will now invite Ms. Anderson to give her opening remarks.
Bridgitte Anderson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Greater Vancouver Board of Trade: Thank you and good evening, honourable senators.
My name is Bridgitte Anderson. I am the President and CEO of the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade. I’m speaking to you today from the traditional territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.
The West Coast is the home of Canada’s two largest ports that are the key to export diversification away from the U.S. Over 80% of exports flowing through the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority and its terminal operators are bound to non-U.S. markets.
On behalf of our membership of over 5,000 businesses, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the impacts of labour disruptions on users of federally regulated rail and marine networks, on Canadian consumers and on Canada’s supply chains.
The shutdown of the West Coast ports put $800 million per day at risk.
As you might recall, waterfront operations and the associated rail and trucking at Canada’s West Coast ports experienced 24 days of shutdowns within a 16-month span between 2023 and 2024. These shutdowns delayed critical exports, disrupted an estimated $19.2 billion worth of cargo and raised costs for consumers and businesses alike.
Critically, the shutdowns detrimentally impacted Canada’s reputation as a reliable trading partner at a time when we need to be doing everything we can to strengthen our international trade relations and domestic supply chains.
With the next round of collective bargaining less than 14 months away, instability could quickly return. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada has made it clear that they intend to negotiate separate collective agreements directly with individual employers on an enterprise basis moving forward, which has the potential to increase future instability and delays in the movement of goods and critical services.
Following the 13-day strike in July 2023, the government initiated an Industrial Inquiry Commission led by Vince Ready and Amanda Rogers, who studied the underlying issues in labour disputes at Canada’s West Coast ports. Published in June 2025, the commission’s final report concluded that the longshore bargaining system is “. . . broken but not beyond repair . . . .” and sets out recommendations that “. . . offer a roadmap for achieving lasting stability and prosperity at West Coast ports . . . .”
Today, we urge the government to consider the key recommendations from the commission’s report. Specifically, we ask that the Canada Labour Code be amended to enable employers, the minister or the CIRB to initiate proceedings to establish a geographic certification under section 34 and a council of trade unions to represent employees covered by the certification.
The commission’s proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code would not unilaterally impose a bargaining structure on the parties; it would allow a CIRB process. This change would be focused on ensuring that negotiations are not fragmented, while continuing to preserve the collective bargaining process.
If West Coast ports remain an outlier, further disruptions could result in the diversion of Canadian cargo through U.S. ports once again, while Canada’s reputation as a reliable trading partner would continue to deteriorate.
We also recommend amending the Canada Labour Code to include special mediator provisions with powers consistent with the recommendations of the commission. This is critical to providing certainty to bargaining and aligning Canada’s West Coast with the rest of the country’s ports, as well as our major competitors in the U.S.
If another strike occurs, it will again mean higher prices for Canadians at a time when the economy is struggling. Each day of disruption undermines business confidence, threatens jobs across industries and puts Canada’s international trade relationships at risk.
The actions of the U.S. government have made it clear that they want to come for our industry, businesses and port activity. We need to implement smart policies that allow us to grow our economy here at home, pay workers well and deliver our products to international markets.
Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Anderson. We will now invite Mr. Procyk to give his opening remarks.
Chris Procyk, Vice President, Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan: Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
Thank you for the invitation to speak on behalf of the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, or APAS, regarding the critical issue of rail disruptions and their impact on farm families, particularly in Saskatchewan.
My name is Chris Procyk, and I’m a vice president with APAS. I farm about one hour southeast of Regina, near the community of Fillmore. On behalf of Saskatchewan farmers, I want to express my sincere gratitude to the chair and committee members for undertaking this study.
This evening, I want to focus my remarks on the impacts of rail and port disruptions on Saskatchewan grain farms. It is imperative to understand that Canada’s rail and port systems are not just a means of transportation; they are the lifeline of the agricultural economy. The vast distances in our country make rail transport the most viable, efficient and cost-effective way to move our products to global markets.
For most farm families, the rail system is directly tied to their livelihoods. Any disruption in this system can have significant and immediate effects on our operations and income. I want to make it clear that Saskatchewan farmers have no options to deliver grain to port other than by rail. We are entirely reliant on the rail infrastructure.
The impacts of rail and port disruptions are far-reaching, affecting Canada in multiple ways: economically, operationally and reputationally on the global stage. However, I want to focus on the most immediate and devastating consequence for Saskatchewan farmers — the financial impact.
Even short-term disruptions have long-lasting impacts as the entire supply chain backfills. Every day of disruption typically requires at least a week of recovery to return the system to normal. Farmers aren’t paid for growing grain; we are paid only when we deliver it.
Imagine for a moment if your salary as a parliamentarian was impacted by something completely beyond your control, like a technical issue with the government pay system. You’ve done the work and fulfilled your responsibilities, but you’re unable to receive your pay because of forces outside of your control. Now imagine that it frequently happens. Think of the stress and uncertainty that creates.
This is the reality for Canadian farmers during rail and port disruptions. Despite doing the work, we aren’t paid unless we can deliver our products to market. Without this revenue, we have no way to pay our bills, service our loans, prepare for next year’s crops or provide for our families.
In the fall of 2024, during the last labour disruption, I was unable to deliver grain during the time period in which I had contracted it, which led to my farm not being able to pay down lines of credit, thus incurring significant interest costs because of this. In addition, the backlog created by the disruption led to even more delays in delivering our products in a timely manner, even though this production was contracted more than six months in advance of delivery.
Clearly, this recurring issue requires meaningful action to mitigate labour disruptions’ impact on federally regulated rail and marine sectors. We urge the committee to consider the unique and critical nature of agricultural products. As perishable goods, they require timely transport to ensure their value is not diminished.
Preventing future disruptions demands foresight and preparedness. In this very chamber, proactive strategies are regularly implemented to avoid disruptions to federal government operations. This same foresight must be applied to our rail and marine systems for agriculture.
We recommend the following three concrete steps to pre‑emptively address this challenge: broadening essential services to include critical economic activities, like grain movement to global markets; expanding section 87.7 of the Labour Code to include grain movement throughout the entire rail and port transportation system, ensuring that farmers are protected; and enhancing pre-emptive measures by shortening dispute resolution and intervention timelines to help reduce the likelihood and impact of rail and port disruptions.
Farm families cannot be left vulnerable to these preventable setbacks. The situation I am describing today is not hypothetical but a recurring challenge that jeopardizes the livelihood of farm families and the stability of our agricultural economy. The cost of inaction is not merely economic; it strikes at the heart of rural communities across Saskatchewan and beyond.
The solutions I’ve proposed today have the potential to mitigate future disruptions, deliver long-term certainty for Canada’s farmers and protect our nation’s standing on the global agricultural stage.
Saskatchewan farm families are ready to collaborate with all parties to craft and implement solutions that ensure the resilience of our crucial rail and marine transportation systems.
I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Procyk. Now we will move on to questions from senators.
Witnesses, should there not be enough time to complete your answers, I ask you to submit your comprehensive responses in writing.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, witnesses. All of you have talked about the harms caused by labour disruptions and the damage done to your industries and families. You all have interesting suggestions that involve changing legislation as well as other steps to be taken.
First of all, Mr. Moffatt, could you dig a little deeper into the changes you’re suggesting to section 107? You mentioned making some changes. Can you tell us what those changes might be in more detail? That would be helpful.
Mr. Moffatt: The vast majority of labour negotiations end successfully. There are very few strikes and only a few instances in which the impact of that strike has caused great harm to the economy. Both Class Is occurring last year at the same time was unique. The last time that happened in Canada was in the 1980s. It is rare that it happens, but it certainly happened.
What is important with section 107 is the need for clear timelines. Section 107 is about preserving labour peace. There is no specific mention in the regulation about the minister considering economic harm in making that decision.
Certainly, when the time comes for the government to step in and protect the economy, it shouldn’t just be solely on the basis of public safety. Economic harm needs to factor into that decision making. It’s just more about timelines, communication and transparency.
Senator Dasko: Section 107 gives the government the right to send them back to work.
Mr. Moffatt: Correct.
Senator Dasko: With arbitration or not, as they see fit.
Mr. Moffatt: In May 2024, there was the decision to refer to the CIRB to determine what commodities should be moved if there were a strike. I believe that’s a 90-day clock. So it’s three months. However, that still creates uncertainty for businesses in terms of how they operate. Switching supply chains is difficult for anybody regardless of the nature of their business or how complex the organization is.
When the CIRB issues its notice, it’s unclear what the timeline will be around the government’s intent to act. It was unfortunate, and certainly we learned a lesson as an association. We should have participated much more fully in the CIRB process in bringing attention to the safety and critical nature of water, chlorine and sulphuric acid in water treatment and providing clean water.
The reality is that 15 railcars of chlorine a day, nationally, are moving on Canada’s rail system. You can’t run a national transportation system to move 15 railcars. It’s hard to fathom that you could expect a national railway to operate to move 15 railcars. You can’t move them all on the same train anyway because it’s highly regulated. Chlorine moves in very distinct ways on trains, in special corridors and at certain speed limits. It’s highly regulated.
Senator Dasko: I have another question for Mr. Moffatt, Ms. Anderson and Mr. Procyk. You have solutions to the problem. Have you talked to the government about it? Have you talked to your members of Parliament or cabinet ministers to advance your views? Did you have any reaction from the government? Are they favourable to what you’ve been proposing?
Mr. Moffatt: There was the Industrial Commission, and you see the report and recommendations. They’re certainly not ours, but you’ve heard mention of them here tonight, and I’m sure you’ve heard mention of them from other presenters. The special mediator is an interesting recommendation.
I would say that the government has been involved in electoral politics for almost 12 months now.
Senator Dasko: Several centuries.
Mr. Moffatt: Yes. Talking about how you deal with labour in that context is very difficult. So doing the Industrial Commission was the right thing to do.
Collectively, business, labour and government need to sit down and have a conversation about what’s needed to make sure this economy continues to function when critical transportation becomes exposed to labour disruption.
Senator Wilson: I’ll direct my question to Ms. Anderson with the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade. Ms. Anderson and I have lived through a number of port disputes in the Greater Vancouver Gateway. I’d specifically like to talk about the Ready-Rogers recommendations. You said that you support them.
My question is this: Shouldn’t we be doing more than that? I look forward to being able to ask the minister about the Ready‑Rogers recommendations when she hopefully comes to meet with this committee as part of this study, but it focuses primarily on the port side of things, and we’re also looking at the rail side of things.
One thing I know from my own experience is that the threat of strike is as damaging as a strike sometimes. We heard from the railways that testified that it takes weeks for them to prepare, so they start downing tools a long time before a potential dispute. We know on the marine side that shippers divert cargoes to other ports — unfortunately in the case of the West Coast, U.S. ports — creating a sovereignty risk.
Beyond the Ready-Rogers recommendations, should this committee also be looking at making recommendations with respect to the essential service provisions, broadening those to include economic factors?
Should we also be looking at section 107? Section 107 in particular is coming under challenge right now because of the broad and sweeping nature of how it has been used. Maybe with some other parameters around section 107, it might actually be a more useful and productive tool in the future. What is your opinion on those things?
Ms. Anderson: Thank you for the question, senator. The Board of Trade has been very vocal on the opportunity in front of us. We are at a critical time in our economy. We face a lot of uncertainty. There is lagging economic growth and there are rising costs for businesses and families alike.
When you look at it in that context, yes, Canada and the government should be doing everything it can to address not only the situation in the narrow way — and in doing so, it becomes political — but people and organizations need to stand up for the broader national economy to ensure that that we are keeping economic growth front of mind and also our reputation as a national trading partner.
As you say, when there’s even a threat of a labour disruption, it impacts us and our ability to be able to continue on as a reliable trading partner.
Many of our members want to see that broader definition of essential services, also recognizing that there is a role for government to play when it comes to the supply chain. Whether it’s around productivity or strengthening the supply chain, now is the time for Canada to do that, given the threat that we are facing from the United States.
It needs to be addressed on many fronts, whether we’re talking about essential services, section 107 or our supply chains, it should be all-hands-on-deck — pardon the pun — but it really should be all of us coming together to find solutions to ensure our economic growth and strength, going forward.
Senator Lewis: I have a question for Mr. Procyk. Thank you for your presentation. As a former president of APAS, I don’t think I could have said it better myself. Thank you very much.
We hear a lot about international reputation, and so on, and certainly with agriculture in Saskatchewan, so much of the product is exported internationally. Could you make some comments on how that reputational damage has affected us in the short term and long term?
Mr. Procyk: Our rail service is suspect at best to begin with. When you throw in a rail or port disruption, the opportunity becomes even more glaring.
In the first panel, Senator Quinn mentioned trade diversification. That’s a nice sales pitch, the trade diversification to all those countries, away from China, the U.S. and some of these spots. But if we can’t get it to port or onto a ship to go to the end-use customer, it doesn’t mean anything.
So our reputation is already tarnished by the lack of service to the port and from the port out. I don’t know how much more we can withstand while still being seen as a reliable, trustworthy partner.
Senator Lewis: I have a second question. When the ports are closed or there’s not enough grain because of a rail stoppage to fill a boat, who pays for the boat sitting there, sometimes backed all the way up to Victoria on the West Coast? Who pays for that?
Mr. Procyk: I believe you and I do, Senator Lewis, as farmers in Saskatchewan, or any farmer. It gets passed along through the chain and ends at our doorsteps.
Senator Lewis: Thank you very much.
Senator Simons: I want to start with a question for Ms. Anderson. I was taken aback. I did not know how many different unions, how many different bargaining groups were involved in the Vancouver port. When Senator Wilson and other witnesses first raised this, I thought, obviously, there should be fewer; it would be more sensible.
Then the unions came and made an excellent point, which is that, under the Constitution, they have freedom of association, and they can’t be pushed into making one big union.
From your perspective, as somebody who understands Vancouver’s business economy from a variety of different angles, is there a way that a convincing argument could be made for people to bargain together in their own self-interest rather than adhering to a model where there is some external force pressing them to be one union if they don’t choose to be?
Ms. Anderson: Thank you for the question, senator. Vince Ready made the recommendation that we would be supportive of with regard to geographical certification, and my recollection from the report is that it would be all except for Trigon point and Westshore Terminals. He and Amanda Rogers are the exports on this.
Yes, it would be very helpful to have some geographical certification and to have the ability for these unions to come together and bargain with one voice. That was part of the issue in Vancouver and the strike, that there are a number of labour unions.
So again, from our perspective at the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, it’s taking the broader national interests of the economy and stepping back, recognizing that the best deal is always done at the table, but what’s the best path forward to that deal? And if the deal can’t be reached, that’s when there need to be other tools implemented.
Senator Simons: Mr. Moffatt, you’ve talked about the way section 107 is working or not working. As I listened to you, it occurred to me that — human nature being what it is — the government has been so ready to invoke section 107 over and over again in the last 12 or 18 months.
I’m wondering if it doesn’t make strikes more likely, because everybody knows that Daddy will come home and fix the problem, and, therefore, people act out. They know that the consequences will not be felt because the government is expected to step in.
I’m not asking you this in your capacity as the president and chief executive officer of the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, but as a human being and an observer of human nature. Is there a danger that the knee-jerk invocation of section 107 is actually making strikes more likely, not less?
Mr. Moffatt: The way I would choose to answer that question is to look at the United States. They have the U.S. Railway Act, which regulates rail and air transportation, and it’s a very lengthy process to keep the parties at the table.
In the U.S. there is a strong foundational sense in Congress that preserving interstate commerce is the primary function and responsibility down there; it crosses partisan lines. That isn’t necessarily the case here. Again, I am not a labour expert. I understand why companies lock workers out and why unions go on strike. That kind of calculus maybe is part of it; it’s hard to say. I think what we should focus on here is how we can keep the parties at the table negotiating as long as possible.
In terms of our government — not just federal government, but provincial as well — we need to ensure that we embrace this notion that our economy is highly dependent. Whether you’re moving grains, proteins, commodity chemistry or durable goods, our economy is dependent on a functioning transportation system. There have been examples where it has broken down over the last number of years.
Senator Simons: It seems to me there’s a chasm, though. When we talk about essential services, we’re traditionally talking about the public sector. We’re talking about nurses and firefighters, who, if they are not there, people will die, not hypothetically in three weeks, but in the next 20 minutes.
It seems to me that using that language when we’re talking about private sector businesses that do things, which we consider as very important, are essential with a small “e” for our trade future or our global reputation, or even in the case you mentioned, having clean water two weeks out. That’s not the same thing as an essential worker who will essentially put a tourniquet on you because you’re bleeding.
Mr. Moffatt: I wouldn’t necessarily say that we’re here asking that transportation workers be deemed essential, but the economy matters. There’s a balance there between those who should be deemed essential and using the tools to keep parties negotiating as long as possible to make it as difficult as possible to go on strike or lock workers out. I think that’s what we’re really looking for.
Senator Quinn: I have a comment for Mr. Procyk. Yesterday we heard that it’s not an easy decision for the workers to call a strike or to go on strike because it affects their families; they’re trying to feed their families, et cetera.
You’ve reminded us tonight that strikes have downstream effects in the supply chain with respect to families who are affected by not moving cargo to the marketplace and not moving things through that system. Thank you for reminding us of that broader implication.
I want to come back to Mr. Moffatt because you talked about section 107. You heard my commentary before, so I won’t get into it in detail, but would you support giving cabinet a similar ability, as they have during election periods, so that they can create a pause in order to allow Parliament to debate whether there should be a back-to-work legislation?
Mr. Moffatt: I think that would be an appropriate measure to consider.
Senator Quinn: You talked about some of the essential things that are moved by rail, but section 87.4 mentions the word “immediate.” In 2001 the CIRB made a ruling that said that it’s generally concluded that the danger must arise within a short time, and not necessarily now or even within a few days, yet we have commodities such as chlorine and propane that are moved in bulk across this country, particularly into Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada, which is sometimes forgotten in CIRB decisions, which they say can be moved by other means such as a truck, for example.
Would you agree that it’s a good conclusion for the CIRB to make — that we can displace trains with trucks?
Mr. Moffatt: For some commodities you can, but in my remarks, I indicated that for each railcar, that’s three trucks. For some facilities, that’s 240 trucks per day. Those trucks aren’t sitting idle waiting to deal with this issue. You’re competing with other sectors. It’s not necessarily an option.
Senator Quinn: Do you think they should remove the word “immediate”?
Mr. Moffatt: Yes.
Senator Quinn: Thank you. Another ruling the board made was that they don’t accept that transportation by truck cannot be an alternative to moving those products that are necessary for the functioning of critical operations, such as water treatment facilities. Is that something that you would agree with?
Mr. Moffatt: Chlorine is manufactured in Canada in Vancouver, near Saskatoon, and in Quebec. It moves long distances by railcar. It’s highly regulated, so there would have to be a conversation about how we move chlorine, specifically for water treatment, by tanker truck over long distances.
Senator Quinn: You’re underlining the point I’m trying to make here. Shouldn’t the CIRB be obligated to bring in experts in those areas where they may not have the appropriate expertise to make rulings on so they can then hear from the expert and consider what that means in terms of movement of goods that are essential?
Mr. Moffatt: I would say when it comes to chlorine, the safest place for that chlorine, after it has been manufactured, is in a railcar. They are designed to withstand extreme trauma and to preserve the functioning of the vessel. The safest place for that chlorine, after it has been manufactured and before it has been consumed in a wastewater treatment facility, is in a rail tank car. You would have to do something else in a truck tank. It does move by one-tonne totes, but again, those are extremely fortified totes. It does move by truck over short distances in small quantities.
Senator Quinn: The CIRB gets involved in so many labour situations, like my colleague mentioned, whether it’s health professions or other professions. We’re talking about transportation.
Mr. Moffatt: Yes.
Senator Quinn: Some of the rulings that have been made indicate that maybe they don’t have a complete understanding of what the supply chain challenges and realities are. Should they be required to bring in people who have expertise and can advise them?
Mr. Moffatt: Yes.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: We previously welcomed the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which proposed a possible solution: Whenever a strike is called, a third party would assess the potential impact of the strike on small and medium-sized businesses, and a decision would then be made as to whether a general strike would be authorized. There could be more localized pressure tactics, such as rotating strikes, but no general strike.
Do you think this is an interesting way to proceed? You mentioned changing section 107 and giving more power to the government, but does this approach seem promising to you?
[English]
Mr. Moffatt: Unions and employers are now required to give notice, so you have a general idea of when a strike is going to be.
The industrial commission has suggested a special mediator process, bringing instruments and tools into that process to keep parties negotiating as long as possible. Frankly, you could single out critical transportation infrastructure — rail and ports — for that more specialized, detailed process to keep the parties talking. I’d have to understand more about what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business was talking about there.
Again, for the most part — and I believe I may have made this comment earlier — the majority of labour disputes are settled in an appropriate way. Very few reach the point where there’s a strike, and the strike has severe consequences on the economy, like the rail strikes did last year. We need to try to find a solution that allows the collective bargaining process to run its course and make it very difficult for there to be a strike or lockout. At the end of the day, if there is a strike or lockout, the government needs to have the tools and the will to get the economy moving again.
For us in chemistry, the effects start long before the strike does, because 7 to 10 days out, our members are already starting to reduce their production. They operate 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They produce things that go into railcars, and they need to start moving. As soon as the threat of strike happens, they have to start thinking about how to modify production based on how many railcars there are. It’s immediate. It’s not just chemistry; many other sectors face the same challenge.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You mentioned briefly that in the United States, there is a culture of consensus to prevent railway strikes. However, there was a serious threat of strikes in the ports in early 2025. The United States is not without its problems either. However, on the issue of ports, was what happened with the International Longshoremen’s Association exceptional, or are there strikes there too?
[English]
Mr. Moffatt: Even in the U.S., strikes are possible. Strikes will always be possible here in Canada. It’s just a question of what the process is by which we can agree to keep the parties at the table negotiating as long as possible, and when a strike does happen, the government must have the right tools to move in an appropriate way very quickly to preserve the economic well‑being of the country.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Thank you to the witnesses. I have greatly appreciated your responses so far. It has been very interesting. You have provided several suggestions that the government could implement.
My only small question concerns section 107. It could be invalidated by the court, leaving us without section 107. Notwithstanding the fact that section 107 already exists, should all the measures you have already suggested be taken and implemented in practice, so that negotiations can continue for as long as necessary to avoid a strike?
[English]
Ms. Anderson: Thank you very much, senator. There are a couple of things to keep in mind. Our belief is that section 107 is a legitimate tool and that other tools should be made available in order to keep the economy going. It should also be noted that section 107 does not preclude the parties from coming back to the table to obtain a negotiated settlement. In my understanding, there is an example in the port strike of negotiated settlements after section 107 was brought into place.
From our perspective, when we look at the economic ramifications and the implications to our reputation as a stable trading partner, that becomes the priority if there cannot be a negotiated settlement. The best way to get a deal is at the table, but if that can’t happen then priority must be given to the economy, our supply chains and getting things moving, as well as our reputation as a trading partner. I’m not sure if that answered your question around section 107.
Senator Mohamed: First of all, I appreciate the specificity with all three of you offering data points. Leaning into that, we’ve heard many times this term “economic harm.” I’m wondering if you can provide an opinion on how we should define “economic harm.” Is it a formula? Is it a threshold? The reason I ask this is because we’ve heard a lot about how ambiguity is what holds people back, and clarity is what we need. How do we get around that? We’ve heard from many witnesses this idea that economic harms should be an element that we consider.
To all three panellists, if you could just reflect on this: How do we get there in terms of the definition?
Mr. Moffatt: When I think about economic harm, I think about the broadness of the harm. In the case of both Class I railroads going down, you have no choice. When a port closes, you have no choice. Your ability to pivot is very limited. For me, economic harm relates to the broadness of impact on the economy. That could be one of the ways to create some focus about how that harm is defined.
The Chair: Ms. Anderson, could you give us your feedback?
Ms. Anderson: Sure. Thank you very much. During the port strike, we launched something called the Port Shutdown Calculator, which showed a ticker, if you like, on what the economic damage was, and that was very illustrative for understanding the broad economic impacts. When we’re talking about the ports and the rails, maybe a way to liken it is to look at the U.S. If there were a strike at Delta Air Lines, for example, other carriers could step up and take the cargo and the passengers. However, Canada is a vast country, and there are very limited options for moving goods and people, so we have to be able to prioritize those. So when it comes to economic harm, it is the number, but it’s also understanding that there aren’t a lot of options in Canada. We’re a large country, and we’re also really dependent on trade, not only within our own country, but outside of our borders. We ought to recognize that those are some of the criteria that should be kept in mind.
The Chair: Mr. Procyk.
Mr. Procyk: I would echo a lot of what has already been said. In terms of agriculture, we can understand some of the numbers in terms of reference price from one month to another or one week to another, the cost of demurrage, as Senator Lewis pointed out, in terms of boats sitting, waiting for railcars to come and fill them and the lack of turnover in elevator space in the country. There are a lot of numbers that are out there. Having the ability to pull them all together into one spot and make them meaningful is the challenging part, because there are so many of them.
In agriculture, as a system, we can pull some of those numbers together, and I can endeavour to try and submit something to you, but it will be complex, and I don’t envy the task in front of you to put that forward.
I would also echo the previous question about the measures, the more tools in the tool box to use appropriately, the better the solution. Whether it’s section 107 or the amendments proposed, the more tools that the government of the day has to address any given situation, the more appropriate response they’ll have.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Moffatt, to wrap it up, do you have a final comment on that issue?
Mr. Moffatt: I had my chance to comment on this notion of economic harm. But again, there should be a lot of focus in the way the regulation is currently written around public safety and the health of Canadians. There’s no reason why economic harm cannot be part of that conversation and the lens through which government takes a look at how to manage a labour disruption.
The Chair: Thank you to all of our witnesses. Now that we’ve reached the end of our time for our meeting, I would like to thank you all for appearing today. It is most appreciated.
Mr. Procyk, if you have something that you wanted to write back to us, because you mentioned something in terms of potential answers, Wednesday, November 26, would be the date to get it in by, so we would really appreciate that.
Before adjourning, I’d like to remind senators that our next meeting will take place on Tuesday, November 18 at 9 a.m. Before closing the meeting, I would like to thank our entire support team for this committee, those 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.
(The committee adjourned.)