THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 18, 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.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators.
Before we begin, please review the cards placed on the tables in the committee room to familiarize yourself with the guidelines for preventing incidents related to sound feedback.
[English]
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 your earpieces when the microphone is activated. Earpieces must remain in your ears or be placed on the sticker provided for this purpose at each seat. Thank you all for your cooperation.
We had some incidents — for the information of newcomers — a few months ago where we had to take some measures to ensure that we protected the folks in the back who do all the coordination of our activities.
My name is Larry Smith. I’m a senator from Quebec and chair of the committee. Of course, I’m sad because the Montreal Alouettes, for whom I played nine years, lost, but I’m very happy for the Saskatchewan Roughriders because they deserve the opportunity. Marv Levy is a Hall of Fame CFL and NFL coach, and Marv used to say to us, “One play can determine a game.” In 1975, it was -32 degrees out in Calgary while we were playing the Grey Cup. The last play of the game was by Don Sweet, our kicker who never missed a field goal — from the 19‑yard line, he missed the field goal. We lost 9-8. So one play determines the match. When you are on the three-yard line and Saskatchewan is trying to stop you, and you get hit and fumble the ball, not only are you not going to come back next year, but you are in big trouble because you lose the game.
It was a fantastic effort for Saskatchewan and the folks there, as well as their quarterback, Trevor Harris. He is 39 years old, so 13 years — what an accomplishment for him and the team.
Sorry, that’s my little epilogue for today.
Now I will ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: I have no idea to follow that. I’m Senator Paula Simons. I come from Alberta, Treaty 6 Territory, and the home of the Edmonton Elks.
Senator Wilson: I’m Duncan Wilson, senator for British Columbia.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, senator for New Brunswick. We’re the home of no CFL team.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Robinson: Good morning, and welcome. Mary Robinson, representing Prince Edward Island, which has no NFL team, either.
Senator Mohamed: Good morning. Farah Mohamed from Ontario.
Senator Lewis: Todd Lewis, senator from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec. Unfortunately, I don’t watch football.
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario. The Jays and Raptors are my teams.
The Chair: I’m very pleased everyone got that excess energy out of their systems.
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 this morning 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. From the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, or CFA, we have Bill Prybylski, Director. From the Grain Growers of Canada, we welcome both Scott Hepworth, Chair, and Kate Sauser, Policy Manager. From the Canadian Meat Council, we have Russ Mallard, Chair. Of course, we’re not going to ever forget Ian Petrie, who comes from P.E.I. and was a CBC host for 40 years. His dad operated on my left knee in 1964. Thank you very much. Ian was a Bishop’s University graduate and a great guy. I’m very happy to hear from you about his progress. We also have Lauren Martin, Senior Director, Public Affairs and Corporate Counsel from the Canadian Meat Council. Thank you all for joining us today.
Witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes. Please keep your remarks to five minutes so that we can get as many questions in as possible. Your remarks will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators. I will now invite Mr. Prybylski to give his opening remarks.
Bill Prybylski, Director, Canadian Federation of Agriculture: Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. I am a farmer from the east-central Saskatchewan and a member of the board of directors at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The CFA is Canada’s largest general farm organization, representing more than 190,000 farmers and farm families across Canada.
The reliability of rail and marine transportation is essential for farmers. My farm produces grains, oilseeds and pulses. Last year, we harvested over 900,000 bushels, of which 867,000 needed to be marketed throughout the year to generate the cash flow required to run our operation. On our farm, we need to generate roughly $8.2 million annually to cover input costs, such as fertilizer, seed, wages, insurance, taxes and more.
We don’t get paid to grow a crop; we only get paid when it’s delivered.
For the most part, I know when cash is required to meet our financial commitments, and we use deferred delivery contracts to align sales with those financial needs, but our delivery windows are much narrower than most people realize. That is why reliability in rail and marine transportation is so critical for farmers. Any disruption — a strike, lockout or weather-related slowdown — creates a domino effect that backs up grain movement all the way to the farm gate. When that happens, we can’t deliver on our contracts or meet our financial obligations. We are forced to rely on bank lines of credit, which carry interest costs that further reduce already tight margins.
In addition, demurrage costs, which are the penalties charged when railcars or ships are delayed, accumulate throughout the system and ultimately get passed onto us, the farmers.
Perhaps most damaging is the reputational impacts. Canadian businesses, like mine, rely on export markets. The viability of our operation depends on Canada’s reputation as a reliable trading partner. As we look to diversify our trade in response to recent trade disruptions, that reputation is paramount. We’re in a time when a single labour disruption could bring agricultural shipments to a standstill, and yet Canada saw over 62 transportation-related work stoppages in the past two years alone, including our first-ever dual labour disruption, impacting rail service from both Class 1 railways.
As a major exporting nation, Canada’s standard of living is closely tied to the uninterrupted flow of goods, especially agriculture and agri-food products, which generated over $100 billion in exports in 2024. Prolonged or threatened labour disputes undermine our reliability as a trading partner and cause international customers to divert business to competitors, eroding our competitive advantage. For example, labour disruptions like the 2020 Port of Montreal strikes led to diverted shipments and $600 million in lost sales, demonstrating the real financial impact on Canadian businesses.
That is why we are recommending that the government immediately launch consultations to explore options to address the root causes of these labour disruptions so that they do not occur at every contract negotiation.
We also recommend developing a clear, transparent and expedited process to resolve labour disputes, building off the recommendations outlined in the final report of the Industrial Inquiry Commission on West Coast Ports, released in May 2025. The commission’s findings highlight just how critical these ports are to Canada’s economy, to our reputation as a reliable trading nation and to the countless businesses and workers whose livelihoods depend on consistent port operations. The report makes clear that even short disruptions can trigger major ripple effects across the supply chain, including for rail, trucking and ultimately farmers like me. It underscores the urgent need for greater stability, cooperation and modernized labour relations to ensure that the rights of workers are respected, while also protecting the national interest in maintaining dependable transportation networks.
For Canadian agriculture, that balance is essential.
Agriculture depends on the stability of essential transportation networks. It is the difference between meeting our financial obligations and facing costly disruptions that cannot easily be recovered from.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and I look forward to questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Prybylski. We invite Mr. Hepworth to giving his opening remarks.
Scott Hepworth, Chair, Grain Growers of Canada: I am a grain farmer from Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, south of Moosejaw. I’m also the Chair of Grain Growers of Canada, or GGC. I am joined today by GGC’s Policy Manager, Kate Sauser.
As the national voice for Canada’s grain farmers, GGC represents over 70,000 producers from our 14 national, provincial and regional grower groups. Our members steward 110 million acres of land to grow food for Canadians and for 160 other countries around the world, creating $45 billion in export value annually. As the farmer-driven association for the grains sector, GGC champions federal policies that support the competitiveness and profitability of grain growers across Canada.
We appreciate the committee for inviting us today. As for grain farmers, 2024 was known and will be remembered as the year of major labour disruptions that had a severe impact on family-run grain farms across the country.
In August of that year, Canada experienced for the first time in its history a dual work stoppage by both of our major railways, CN and CPKC. This labour disruption came in the middle of harvest when rail transportation is the most essential for moving crops to markets. In fact, our research at the time showed that the initial impact cost Canadian grain farmers over $43 million a day, rising to $50 million a day as the stoppage continued.
This major labour disruption was followed by another in September by the Grain Workers Union Local 333 at the Port of Vancouver, which stopped all shipments of bulk grain. Terminal elevators at the port receive over 50% of all grain produced across Canada, making it the most important port for grain farmers. Data from the Canadian Grain Commission indicated that the work stoppage halted nearly 100,000 metric tons of grain per day, resulting in a loss of $35 million in potential exports daily.
These major labour disruptions, as well as others, including by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union in recent years, have had a devastating impact on Canada’s grain sector. When grain is unable to move due to a stoppage on our railways or at our grain terminals, it prevents producers from being able to sell their crops at opportune times, costing them tens of millions of dollars.
The cost to grain farmers is even more elevated during the harvest season, as we saw in 2024.
Not only do labour disruptions cost growers, but they also impact Canada’s reputation as a provider of high-quality grain.
I was on a trade mission in 2018 to North Africa, where they import a lot of our durum wheat, and one thing became very apparent to me: We have a reputation for producing some of the highest-quality crops. Durum wheat is mostly what they import. But we also have a reputation for not being reliable, and I think that’s what I’m here today to speak most on is our reliability — and the reputation that we are getting for being unreliable.
With that said, there is no magic bullet to ensure grain continues to flow and that the collective bargaining can continue to be respected. However, to ensure grain farmers are supported and we can continue to deliver high-quality grain and grain products globally, the Government of Canada must find a better path forward. At home, there are different options such as essential-service designation, binding arbitration, and provisions in the Canada Labour Code.
Abroad, such as in the U.S., where the Rail Labour Act exists, they have found ways to balance economic growth and labour relations.
To that end, it is paramount that the government take this issue seriously and consult with impacted stakeholders to create a better system. Without doing so, grain farmers will continue to be impacted on an annual basis and international customers will look elsewhere.
Thank you for your time, and I would be happy to take any questions.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Mallard can now give his opening remarks.
Russ Mallard, Chair, Canadian Meat Council: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Ms. Martin will speak first.
Lauren Martin, Senior Director, Public Affairs and Corporate Counsel, Canadian Meat Council: We will do joint opening statements. Thank you. I am still grieving the loss of the Blue Jays’ World Series. Aside from that, we are pleased to provide our comments on this study today. We think it is coming at a critical time. We need to realize every efficiency with respect to the flow of goods. You have had the opportunity now, in this study, to hear from several stakeholders, so what my chair and I wanted to do today is really speak to the unique realities of our business, that is, the business of meat processing. The Canadian Meat Council represents Canada’s federally licenced meat processors, accounting for over 95% of Canada’s beef and pork products. The meat our members produce feeds Canadians, and with some of the highest quality protein in the world, the red meat industry represents over $32 billion to the Canadian economy and supports around 300,000 jobs. As members of this committee know well, Canada’s economy relies heavily on trade. With respect to red meat, Canada exports over 70% of its pork production and approximately 50% of its beef production to over 90 countries in the world, accounting for approximately $9.5 billion in red meat exports over the past few years. We cannot efficiently or cost-effectively get these goods to market without reliable transportation infrastructure — rail, air and sea. When facing uncertainty, businesses must make challenging decisions. There is no end to the uncertainty businesses are facing today, so the Government of Canada must make certain what it can. We recommend that the government work with partners, employers and unions to amend the Canada Labour Code to safeguard against economic disasters, by providing the Minister of Labour with stronger dispute resolution tools to ensuring stoppages do not shut down critical supply chains. In addition, the government should identify and adopt labour dispute resolution mechanisms tailored to Canadian strategic infrastructure operations, meaning custom rules for a small set of high-impact work sectors where a stoppage has national‑level consequences.
Mr. Mallard: Thank you. Mr. Chair, our members spend considerable resources creating and maintaining relationships with customers worldwide. When companies cannot fulfill their orders reliably, this jeopardizes the relationships our members have worked hard to maintain. As I like to tell my staff, if we don’t take care of our customers, someone else will, and that applies to our whole industry. To position Canada as a competitive trading partner in the global economy, businesses must be able to get goods to and from market reliably and efficiently. When I’m not representing the Canadian Meat Council as our chair, I am President and CEO of Atlantic Beef Products, located in beautiful Albany, P.E.I. Senator Robinson would know well where that is. We‘re the only federally inspected beef processor east of Montreal. Our beef goes to countries like Japan. We are working on South Korea now, and Mexico is another opportunity for us. And in order for us to export our products — this is over and above our domestic business — we are required to get goods to market efficiently and reliably. Red meat cannot sit for days, let alone weeks, without spoiling. Given the nature of our products, the red meat supply chain is built to ship goods to markets quickly. We do not have the storage capacity locally, or even in Canada for the most part, to stockpile weeks of unshipped goods. When we’re faced with an event that exceeds or could exceed our storage capacity, we are forced to shut down production, having nowhere for the product to go. Animals cannot move off the farm, which has implications for farmers and animal welfare. Events like this are felt by businesses and individuals along the supply chain and gearing backup is not simply a flip of the switch. While we respect workers’ rights to strike, those interests must be balanced against the public interest and Canada’s very real need for business certainty in international market diversification. The July 2023 West Coast port strikes, for example, disrupted $10.7 billion worth of trade during its 35-day strike action and ruptured long-standing business relationships with those who could not rely on Canadian suppliers for their goods. Prime Minister Carney’s budget challenges Canada to meet the moment, build resilience and diversify trade by 50% into the fastest-growing markets. Canada’s red meat sector, with its $9.5 billion in exports, is eager to answer that call. But we simply can’t achieve our common goals if our strategic infrastructure can be shut down for weeks at a time. Modernizing labour dispute tools for these sectors will help ensure that we can deliver reliably into new markets and our existing markets and realize the trade diversification ambition that we will need in the years to come. Thank you.
The Chair: I would like to advise senators that you have approximately five minutes for each round. We will have a second round of questions if time permits. Should you wish to ask a question to our witnesses, please alert the clerk, who will add your name to the list. I invite our deputy chair, Senator Dasko, to ask the first question.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today and for your presentations.
We have had a number of witnesses before the committee, and they have told us similar stories about the impacts of labour disruptions on their operations. We have heard about these kinds of impacts from them, and we have heard from you about the impacts and the importance of good labour relations to your industries.
We have also been studying a few sections of the Canada Labour Code. Regarding how to deal with these issues, I want to ask you about section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, in particular, which gives the minister a lot of powers. I would like to hear from you as to whether you think those powers are sufficient to deal with the issues.
Ms. Martin, you said that you were looking for a strengthening of the dispute resolution mechanisms, but in section 107, the minister has a lot of power to end strikes through various mechanisms.
My question is to all the witnesses. It regards whether those provisions provide enough support and power to deal with labour disruptions in your industries or whether you are actually looking for a change in section 107. If there is time, I will ask about the other section, but I will just leave it at that.
Kate Sauser, Policy Manager, Grain Growers of Canada: Thank you for your question.
It is important to recognize that there is obviously a section that does provide some power to help mediate these labour disruptions. A good example for us to look at, especially as Canadians, is the U.S. Railway Labor Act and how they have a very useful benchmark in the fact that the labour legislation in transport — there is a sector there that requires rigorous pre‑strike measures. It has full guidelines as to how to mediate, how the pre-strike procedures are done, and then the duties to divert and avert disruption to help maintain continuity in critical supply chains.
What we are looking for especially is having that mediation resolution readily available, as it is imperative for all sectors here at the table today to have that act ready and able, so that we are able to look at something like that section and have an actual plan in place. It is knowing that there are going to be a lot of measures outlined for us to know that there will be something for us to act upon. This is so, if it ever does come down to another disruption — whether it be marine or rail — there will actually be power within the Canada Labour Code to have those pre‑strike measures, mediation measures and then also the procedures that would have to be done in the Canada Labour Code.
Ms. Martin: I want to state a caveat for the Canadian Meat Council that we’re not labour law experts, but insofar as what we observe and what our position is, our position — and our priority — is business continuity. What we have observed over the past while are multiple stoppages. We understand that the minister has powers to intervene, but, nevertheless, that intervention has come with work stoppages of some variety, which has led to a stoppage in the supply chain.
Our recommendation is specific but also fairly vague in that we’d like for the minister to have an enhanced tool box to intervene at an earlier date, to avoid that interruption to business continuity.
Mr. Prybylski: What has been estimated is that, for every day of labour disruption, it takes about six days for the supply chain to recover. So every time there is a work stoppage, for whatever reason, the recovery period is significant.
I would agree with my colleagues here that preventing those strikes or those labour disruptions in the first place is paramount to resolution.
Mr. Mallard: As I said earlier in my opening remarks, if we don’t take care of our customers, someone else will, and that applies internationally. If we can’t get goods to market, our minister doesn’t have tools and the process isn’t improved — there has to be some other way than strike action to solve this. We understand unions like to apply pressure — they have that option through collective bargaining — but, at the end of the day, there has to be a better way without stopping the flow of goods, because that affects much more than any particular collective bargaining unit.
It is a national problem, certainly in agriculture, as we feed Canada and the world. We’re major exporters of so many commodities. Our goods have to move.
So the minister has to have enough tools in the tool box, first of all, to avoid the strike in the first place. Keep the pressure on the employer — I get that — but the bottom line is that we have to keep goods moving. If we don’t, that has very significant implications upstream, right to the farm gate and all the suppliers to the farms. It creates an amazingly large problem, so we have to find a better way.
The Chair: It would appear that the world “proactive” could be tuned in or part of the response, and that may be an opportunity for you folks, as associations and individual members, to reinforce that proactiveness and tie that to culture, too, because you need a work culture that will work for both sides.
Senator Lewis: Thanks for your comments so far, and thanks for everything you do on behalf of Canadian agriculture.
We talk about agricultural commodities, but, at the end of the day, at the end of the supply chain, all your products end up on somebody’s dinner table. It is so important to realize that, both domestically and internationally, when we talk about reputation — as Mr. Hepworth did on a trade mission — at the end of the day, we’re talking about people’s food, both in Canada and internationally. People don’t like to go hungry, and it just shows how much time and effort we spend as a country trying to set up markets — again, both domestically and internationally — and the concept of labour peace doesn’t exist right now when it comes to transportation. We’re all talking about the next strike. When somebody goes on a trade mission, the first or second thing they talk about is labour peace, and there is no labour peace in the transportation industry right now.
I would like to hear your comments on that.
Mr. Hepworth: Yes, as you said, if reputation is not the first thing one of our customers talks about, it is the second. When they ask me what my country is doing to solve this problem, I don’t have an answer. We have a work stoppage or strike 9 out of 10 times, and we need to find solutions to prevent that.
You mentioned being proactive, chair. I would add being preventative. We have to prevent this from happening again and again. The world has become very hand-to-mouth, so reliability is absolutely key. A lot of countries can’t afford to buy a surplus; they buy what they need when they need it, and we need to get it to them when they need it.
Ms. Sauser: Thank you for your comment. I agree that labour peace is essential, especially when it comes to transportation.
As grain farmers, we deal with a lot of uncertainty. There is uncertainty every day in operations, whether it be the weather, grain prices, what inputs we have or what crops we are going to plant that year.
So adding this additional uncertainty on top of the already existing ones is something that does come back to the farm gate and is detrimental to our decision-making. As Scott mentioned, there is the matter of our reliability as an international partner. You don’t want to have those conversations when it comes to international trade missions and others noticing that Canada is being an unreliable trade partner. It is imperative for us to be a partner that people want to work with.
The Chair: Is there any other feedback?
Mr. Mallard: I would just say that we have a bit of a problem in Canada, and that is we tend to be reactive, certainly in government circles. We need a reputation of being proactive and heading things off before they happen. The issue is that, quite often, by the time we get around to reacting, the damage has already been done. It would be much better for Canada to have a reputation of being a proactive and dependable supplier by giving the minister and various folks the tools they need so they can be proactive.
They see it coming: We have processes, and the processes will not result in the cessation of movement of products in this country. The products have to continue to move. That just needs to be a given: The products are going to continue to move.
Find other ways to apply pressure to employers besides holding the entire country and the segments that supply goods around the world hostage. There has to be a better way.
Mr. Prybylski: In my opening comments, I mentioned that any disruption in the movement of grain affects the timing of my sales, so it certainly affects my ability to meet my financial obligations.
It also affects the price. Whenever there is even the threat of a labour disruption, the price of the grain that’s moving out is certainly affected, and that would have a direct relation to our reputation, as Senator Lewis pointed out. If grain companies know they’re not able to sell that grain on a timely basis to their customers, that’s reflected in the price we get at the farm gate.
Senator K. Wells: One of the recommendations in the Industrial Inquiry Commission on West Coast Ports Ready‑Rogers report was the appointment of a special mediator during the process. The committee has heard, almost without exception, about the impacts and challenges that labour disputes — or even just the threat of labour disputes — cause with respect to your businesses.
This question is for whoever feels most capable of responding to it. Would looking at a similar special mediator role across supply chains instead of simply in the port sector be of benefit? In particular, I’m interested in getting visibility into the process. To the point about being proactive and getting ahead of these things, the special mediator proposed by Ready and Rogers in the report is intended to give the minister visibility around the negotiation process. One of the things that I’ve seen over many years is that there is a lack of visibility around that process from the get-go.
What would you think of having a special mediator in the process, maybe even from the beginning, for particular critical supply chain systems?
Ms. Martin: I have to repeat the caveat that we’re not labour law experts; unfortunately, I don’t think I have a good answer to that.
Mr. Mallard: I can speak to the fact that we have a unionized operation, and we have stakeholders who are very interested in knowing what is going on. They shouldn’t be surprised if things aren’t going well. If the process keeps senior government officials from understanding how bad this really is, it would make sense to me to have someone involved to report back on whether it is going well. That’s a smart, practical idea.
Mr. Prybylski: There was talk of being proactive, so having that mediator in the negotiation process much earlier in that process makes a lot of sense, at least from our perspective, yes.
Ms. Sauser: It is important to also recognize that Canada Labour Code section 87.7 says grain transportation should obviously continue to operate during labour disruptions. That applies to the longshoremen’s union and should be applied throughout the whole direct supply chain, as this would not only take care of certain workers at the ports but also ensure more certainty along the supply chains as well.
Senator K. Wells: I have a follow-up. Ms. Sauser, I want to make sure I understand this. You are suggesting that section 87.7 be expanded to include the entire supply chain, right? Okay. Thank you.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much to all the witnesses.
For the past three years, I have served as the deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, and I am also an Albertan, so I’m keenly aware of the importance of effective supply chains for Western Canada’s agricultural production, in particular.
I’m struck, though, by the fact that while we may want labour peace, you don’t get labour peace without including labour. A lot of the discussions we’ve had seem to presuppose that labour is withdrawing its services for kicks rather than because they have legitimate grievances with their employers.
Mr. Prybylski, you said something in your opening comments about needing to look at the root causes behind why these strikes keep happening. I’m wondering if I could ask you to look at that from the perspective of labour for a moment. What would you like to find out about why these strikes keep happening from the point of view of angry workers?
Mr. Prybylski: I mentioned that there needs to be balance. We respect the rights of the workers, and labour is essential, right from my farm to the coast. Obviously, it’s important. We hear on the news that there is the potential for these strikes, and we don’t know the full story. Those are cases where a special mediator, as mentioned by Senator Wilson, could certainly shed light on those root causes. As a farmer, I don’t know what those causes are, but it would certainly be helpful if we could understand the reasons for such stoppages and be proactive in finding solutions to prevent the strikes in the first place. That’s taking into account the labour issues and the management, as well.
Senator Simons: As a consumer and citizen, I find strikes annoying — and, in some cases, catastrophic — but that is the point of them. I think somebody said that labour needs to find other ways to convince management to change what it’s doing, but the fundamental right we give to unionized workers in this country is the right to withdraw their labour as a bargaining chip. I think it was Mr. Mallard who said that there should be another way of doing that. How do you suggest that labour make a point if we constrain its right to withdraw work?
Mr. Mallard: That’s a good question. We could go in many different directions. Obviously, withdrawing work is the ultimate way. The employer could decide to lock them out, which also withdraws their opportunity to work.
It seems a very old-school way of doing things in today’s world. I certainly understand that it’s the ultimate tool to shut down the business, but shutting down the business has repercussions far beyond the local workers who are affected. I don’t know what the proper way would be, but I would say to look at what really hurts businesses. Obviously, the financial penalties that come with losing their workforce are very real.
I don’t want to sit here and suggest a number of options. I wouldn’t suggest that I’ve given it enough thought to give you a hard answer on that, but the net effect of withdrawing your workforce is that the business shuts down and all the suppliers of that business don’t get their opportunity to do so.
Senator Simons: The problem is that you don’t have other options. There are two railways. We heard from the short track folks last week, but there are two main line contemporaries. It strikes me that the problem here isn’t merely labour unrest in those unions; it’s the fact that you don’t have other alternatives and the companies have the whip hand in both cases: The companies are responsible for providing you service, but if the company is not behaving properly, you have no way of finding an alternative. Maybe the meat folks can truck stuff to the United States, but you can’t send pork to Asia any other way than the ones you have.
This is not directed to you, but to the committee, but it seems to me that we are not really looking at the big structural problem, which is lack of competition in the transportation industry.
Senator Quinn: Thank you to the witnesses for being here. There have been really interesting observations and great questions.
I want to come back to what Senator Duncan touched upon. To preface it, I think one of our witnesses said that times are different or times are changing. We are in an economy where we have a government that’s making serious investments to ensure that we’re in a better competitive position, globally. That means that we perhaps have to look at traditional things differently.
Coming back to the idea of a mediator, we had a question last week about collective bargaining. I think collective bargaining is an essential right, but how do we know that it is being done in good faith? Somebody in the room can help determine whether they are good-faith negotiations. If they’re not, is there something that can be done sooner, before a strike situation? Is there some mechanism around that type of a thing? Because after all, at the end of the day, it is all about the economy in this day and age. I might ask Mr. Mallard.
Mr. Mallard: I would suggest that binding arbitration gets the deal done. You sit down, and both parties are obligated to accept the outcome. That way the strike doesn’t happen and negotiations are done. Hopefully, people agree on the arbitrator — or arbitrators — and come up with a fair and balanced solution that meets the needs of the company and addresses the concerns of the workers. Binding arbitration is a way of moving forward without the strike option crippling the business and possibly a large section of the economy.
Mr. Prybylski: I guess from the CFA’s perspective, we would like to see the government look at all options. The way things have always been done isn’t necessarily the way they should be done in the future. So things are different, and the Industrial Inquiry Commission on West Coast Ports made some significant recommendations that we felt were good and should be explored. Again, look at all the options out there.
Senator Quinn: Unless somebody else has a comment, I’ll move on to a second question.
Ms. Sauser: It is also essential to remember that the livelihoods of Canadian grain farmers and meat producers depend on the lifelines of supply chains. Having those provisions and pre-mediation measures in place, echoing those recommendations from the report, would be essential to ensuring these livelihoods are protected from labour disruption.
Senator Quinn: And thank you for your observation on section 87.7, because when you have grain at a port — it’s at the port. The rest of it is back in the supply chain somewhere.
I want to talk a little bit about section 87.4 and immediate and serious dangers to the safety or health of the public. If we’re dealing with a different economic time and looking at trade diversification, building the economy and trying to recover from what we’re being besieged by now, should we have an addition to the clause that says something about safety, health or ensuring the security of our economy for the public and for Canada? Should there be a clause there that allows the CRB to have a broader interpretation of what situation would allow for them to say when we move forward due to immediate danger? I don’t even know that it has to be immediate. What do you think of broadening that definition a little?
Ms. Martin: What comes to mind from one of our recommendations is the concept of national-level consequences. With respect to Senator Simons’s point around the unique reality that we’re faced with, these rights are long-standing in Canadian society, but the difference that I think we’re talking about today is that, yes, there are no other options. A collective bargaining agreement and the collapse of the process around it has national-level consequences, and we don’t have other avenues to get our product to market. As my colleague said, the effects or impacts are much broader than just between two negotiating parties. For your consideration, I submit the term “national-level consequences.”
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I would like to address Ms. Sauser’s comments regarding the potential essential service designation for grain transportation.
I would like you to elaborate on how you see things. Basically, grain must be the most important commodity transported. This would make the strike 75% less effective. I don’t know how much meat is transported by train. Obviously, grain must be the main commodity. Couldn’t grain movement be considered an essential service from the start of the chain, meaning on trains, through to the ports, because the ports already have measures in place?
[English]
Ms. Sauser: Yes, absolutely. Thank you so much for your question. I think it is important to recognize that grain is already recognized as an essential good at ports — but again, only at ports — through that Labour Code, section 87.7. Grain is very prone to spoilage, making it that essential good, and it therefore must move across the supply chain efficiently. As was brought up earlier, even though it’s at the port and it’s moved as an essential good there, it is still prone to spoilage damage throughout the rest of the supply chain. So I think it is great to bring up that it is not only the port that needs to be recognized as an essential service, but rather that whole supply chain.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: But how much of a percentage is transport of grain as opposed to transport in general on trains? I’m trying to get an idea of how big of a commodity it is as opposed to the rest?
Ms. Sauser: Of all our grain, 70% is moved through ports, and most of it is moved through rail. It goes from the field to the tractor, and then the grain cart, and then the truck, and then the elevator. From there, it is on the rail for transport to the port. A lot of it does move through the port, about 70%, and the rest of our grain, especially in Western Canada, is moved by rail. It is quite a drastic number.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Why do you feel this possible solution doesn’t seem very popular? You didn’t talk about it right at the start. What’s the problem with it?
Ms. Sauser: The gist of it is that we need to ensure that supply chain is going to be strong throughout. And I think my chair, Scott Hepworth, made the point that we don’t just rely on ports or rail exclusively, but rather the system as a whole. I know we talked about the system being the rail, then to the port. It maybe was not explicitly mentioned in our opening remarks that it is essential for the full supply chain to be recognized as an essential service, especially for grain, but it is essential, since grain does spoil no matter where it is in the supply chain.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Would you like to add anything?
Ms. Martin: Thank you for your question, Senator Miville‑Dechêne.
[English]
My recollection is that we moved away from the recommendation of essential services a few years ago, so I am harkening back. But to Kate’s point, because it’s a whole system, we didn’t feel it would be politically palatable to put a suggestion forward regarding essential services for the entirety of the system because, really, if you are to just put a box around port services as being essential services, there would still be domino effects up and down the supply chain if all the other pieces weren’t moving.
That’s my recollection of why we moved away from that as a recommendation and I didn’t include it in the comments.
Mr. Mallard: I want to mention that if you ask any of our members, they’ll tell you that it’s an essential service. I know that we may not find it politically correct to talk about it as an essential service, but that is what it is.
We have one modest-sized pork processor here in the province of Ontario that exports 25% of its product by train to Vancouver and then by ship to Japan and China and other ways. That pork is shipped fresh. It’s obviously on the clock from the moment we put it in a box and a bag. It has to get there in a timely manner. If, by chance, that pork isn’t moving and we can’t process hogs at that one plant, 10,000 hogs a week back up into the marketplace in that one plant because they outgrow their ideal market weight within two weeks. So in order to keep this moving, it is a very essential service, and the bottom line is that our transportation network has to keep us competitive with other countries around the world that also produce these same products. The amount of money it costs to move product by multiple methods just to get it to market is substantial. To truck products to Vancouver is not even viable. Rail is the most cost‑effective way to move them to port.
When you’re in Ontario, you’re not shipping out of any container port on the Great Lakes. You’re trying to expedite that product as quickly as you can. Fresh container shipments by rail have been growing considerably over the last number of years.
So it is essential that this continues to happen for our members whose products are destined for export markets — and even domestic markets in some cases these days, because some are moving by rail inside Canada, too.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I want to thank the guests.
I’ll follow up on what Senator Miville-Dechêne said. However, I’ve reached the point where I don’t know what question to ask. Shouldn’t service by rail or through ports be designated as an essential service in general, to avoid any interruptions? I would like to hear your thoughts on this matter. This has all kinds of implications, particularly in terms of collective bargaining. Should we consider this point of view?
I gather that you’re saying that meat and grain constitute essential commodities. Others have said the same thing about their commodities. Labour relations don’t seem to be improving. There are regular strikes. There have been many in recent years. Should we then designate or recommend designating rail and marine transportation as essential services?
Ms. Martin: Thank you again for the question, Senator Aucoin.
[English]
There is another reason, and I would like the opportunity to follow up by way of writing to refresh my memory on that point.
Back when we looked at this in 2023, when it was critical for us — we have a lot of exports to the Asian market — we reviewed essential services. I don’t disagree with my chair that, for our members as a whole, we consider these services essential, but bulk grains have an essential service designation, and it doesn’t work entirely well for them. There is a reason for that, but I would like to follow up by way of writing and ensure that I’m not misleading the committee.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Would any other witnesses like to chime in?
[English]
Mr. Prybylski: The CFA has been in favour of agricultural products being designated as essential services, recognizing the unlikelihood of that happening with the current definition of “essential services” in that the word “immediate” rules out agriculture products. If the word “immediate” were removed from it to recognize that the supply chain is essential, that would give a lot more latitude to make recommendations or determinations that food security is also a very important aspect to be considered when looking at the movement of agriculture products.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you to our panellists. I’m here as a replacement this morning, but it is an interesting committee. I am glad to have your expertise.
My first question is this: Would better solutions be statutory or collaborative? In other words, could farmers and unions agree in advance on a plan to keep feed, fuel and other essential farm supplies moving during a strike, or do we need to change the law and legislate to make that happen?
Second, how crucial is the predictability in the supply chain? What hurts more, the uncertainty or the actual strike? In business, we all want predictability. When we hear for months and months that a strike may happen, how does that affect you? Maybe put some concrete examples on the record.
Mr. Hepworth: First, part of the bigger problem is the lack of transparency. To your question of what’s worse, the uncertainty or the strike, they’re equally damaging. If we had more transparency around the root cause of the problem, we would come up with a better solution. It’s never been clear to me in recent years as a farmer what the problem is, and we never learn in the end after it has been resolved.
We are a captive market: My grain can’t go down the river to Vancouver; it has to go by train. That is the root problem, but we need to find a solution to prevent stoppages because the frequency is just too often.
There does seem to be an appetite right now in this country to improve our productivity. Let’s start with rail.
As a farmer, I can’t answer your question as far as which is worse. They’re both very damaging.
Ms. Sauser: Thank you so much for your question. It’s essential for him to say that it’s very challenging. It’s very ambiguous, the answer to what is worse, the uncertainty or the strike itself.
But I want to circle back to what you said about a more collaborative approach. I feel that having that consultation with industry, whether it be the grain sector or the meat sector, would be absolutely essential to figuring out solutions going forward, especially in this very reactive time we’re pressed against. I feel like having that real consultation with industry and the members involved in these labour disruptions and strikes to find options for moving grain and moving our services during these times would be helpful.
Mr. Mallard: I want mention that we recently, in the past 18 months, started to ship product to Japan on a frozen basis. It goes to Halifax, and it takes 50 to 60 days to end up in Osaka or whatever port of entry it arrives at. That’s a problem. People are looking down the road for dependable resources. The thought of a strike or port interruption would be enough to discourage potential buyers or existing customers to buy from us if there were a thought that the product they were buying may not come in.
People are well informed. It is both a big world and a small world. The bottom line is that information travels fast, and bad news travels faster. If there is a possibility of any kind of a strike that would keep product from moving, our customers around the world are going to know about that, and they’re going to make decisions to buy elsewhere. That’s what we see and what we’re scared of. The people I talk to overseas ask us if there is any possibility that the product will not arrive or get stopped along the way.
The threat is definitely an issue, and news definitely gets out there in a hurry.
Senator Robinson: If there is not time to answer my question, I would ask for people to respond in writing.
The Chair: You have time.
Senator Robinson: Okay. Thank you.
We heard that you are not labour law experts, but you are food production and processing experts. You have all done the work to ensure we have high-quality products to go to market with. Mr. Prybylski, you spoke about how you need to manage the cash flow to pay $8.2 million of costs on your farm to get your crop into the ground, to tend to it, to harvest it and store it. Your comments that it takes six days to recover from one day of work stoppage, and hearing from Mr. Mallard there is not storage in the Canadian system to hold weeks of production, which means that it has to go to market — when I hear that, I think about a farrowing sow with a gestation period of 114 days. I think of animal health, as well as the stresses placed on producers having to manage the unknown as to how long the stoppage will last. They need to be ready to get back into production to meet those markets. I think of beef and how, right now, we’re seeing some of the strongest pricing in history. With beef, I think of my home province — our home province, Mr. Mallard — and how our soil health would benefit from the addition of manure, yet beef herd numbers are alarmingly low.
Yes, everything does go back to the Agriculture and Forestry Committee report on soil health, Senator Simons.
During recent work stoppages, we heard about the need to place priority on feed, seed and fertilizer getting to their destinations in time, whether that be to heat a chicken barn or put crops in the ground to enable quality and quantity at harvest. We’ve heard of how we need to seize the moment and capture more money in Canada by value-adding.
We have also heard how the average age of a farmer in Canada is 57. We have a massive transition in front of us, and I think about profitability.
And we’ve heard how expensive it is to get into farming — it is highly capital intense.
I’m thinking of the national-level consequences here. I’m asking if you could speak to how the unreliability and transportation play out in investor confidence on the value-add side, as well as how it plays out in farm succession.
Mr. Prybylski: Thank you, Senator Robinson. There is a lot to unpack in that question, obviously.
To the point on succession, I could certainly comment on that. On my farm, we are in that process of succession planning. I took over from my father back in the early 1990s. We’re in the process of my son taking over from me on my farm. He is a journeyman welder, and getting into agriculture was certainly a question for him because there is a lot of uncertainty. As he was making that decision, we ran into the strikes last year on both railroads. So it certainly weighed heavily on his mind as to whether this is an industry that he is prepared to basically gamble his future on. It is certainly a consideration. The bottom line comes down to his love of agriculture and of being on the farm. I’m happy to report that he has made the decision to get into agriculture, but certainly not without concerns.
Mr. Mallard: I wanted to mention that in P.E.I. — and I can speak to the agriculture sector in P.E.I. a little better than the average person since I work with beef producers on a regular basis — we have a lot of small producers in our family of suppliers. Probably out of 400 cattle suppliers, 300 of them ship fewer than 20 cattle a year to our plant. We’re very important to them, and we hear from producers struggling with succession planning and whom they are going to give the farm to. Many of our producers also have part-time jobs off the farm. They are not all in because there are elements that haven’t worked out in the past and they are gun-shy. They’re getting older. They don’t know if they can go through another 7-to-10-year cattle cycle. They’re making money now, but when do they get out? When do they start to grow grain and take the winters off? There are a lot of things like that. Those decisions are real.
There is a lack of young people coming up on the farm that are interested in it, for all kinds of reasons. Where are they going to get the money? “Okay, Dad, you have the money? Thank you very much.” But for producers, for young people who have the interest but don’t have the capital resources and the financing, we need solutions for that. But the bottom line is that if you are producing your products and selling to a plant, that is suddenly in jeopardy because their export markets are cut off.
One plant owner I talked to in Ontario just this morning said 25% of their business goes out as exports. If they can’t buy the hogs, it backs up. For one plant in Manitoba, 85% of their pork is exported. If that product can’t get to market, family farms are in jeopardy because they can’t sell them my hogs. What are they going to do with them now? They are two weeks past their prime. Where are they going with those? Getting product all the way out the door really matters. If I’m a young farmer and looking at constant interruptions, my processor is saying they can’t take them this week and have no place to send them. They say, “Sorry about your price. I know it is terrible. It is the best we can do.” Why would you consider that to be a great career option?
Mr. Hepworth: I have two kids. I have been farming for 23 years. I really wonder if I want them to do this, to be honest. We have enough risk. We have enough uncertainty just with the weather alone. I’m not sure that I want them to go through what I have over the past 23 years, and that’s why I’m here on behalf of Grain Growers of Canada. That’s why I got involved: to try to change this and come up with solutions so we don’t have to deal with even more uncertainty and risk.
The Chair: Thank you all. We have reached the end of our time for this panel. I would like to thank you for appearing today. It is most appreciated. I would like to advise the witnesses that I believe there are a couple of questions that have been asked that require follow-up. You can submit your answers to us in writing by December 2, 2025.
For our next panel, I would like to introduce, from Canpotex, Natashia Stinka, Director, Public Affairs; and from OEC Overseas Express Consolidators Inc., Marc D. Bibeau, Executive Chairman. Thank you for joining us today. Witnesses will provide opening remarks of up to five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with our senators. I would like to invite Ms. Stinka to give her opening remarks.
Natashia Stinka, Director, Public Affairs, Canpotex: Thank you. Canpotex is one of the world’s largest suppliers of potash. For over 50 years, we’ve been one of Canada’s quietest trade success stories. We’re a company of 170 employees proudly based in Saskatoon, but our impact is far-reaching.
On behalf of our two shareholders, Mosaic and Nutrien, we export 14 million metric tons of potash annually to 40 countries overseas. We have exports valued at US$5 billion, supporting 5,000 jobs throughout Canada and helping feed almost 2 billion people.
I’m here today to talk about the devastating impact frequent port and rail labour disruptions have had on the overseas export of potash and our firsthand observations of the damage to Canada’s reputation and how Russia benefited.
There are no alternatives to rail and port service for our potash shipments, as 100% of our potash is moved by rail from Saskatchewan mines to port. One week of Canpotex’s train traffic is the equivalent of 10,000 trucks on the road.
The Port of Vancouver is the most important gateway for potash exports, accounting for approximately 70% of our shipments. However, we also rely on the ports of Saint John and Thunder Bay in Canada, and we operate a terminal in Portland, Oregon. Put simply, we’re the ones caught in the middle when there isn’t a resolution at the bargaining table.
In terms of impacts, potash was the hardest-hit sector in the six port and rail work stoppages between 2022 and 2024. Approximately 2 million metric tons of planned potash shipments were delayed, diverted or missed. These exports were valued at C$1 billion and were destined for markets important to Canada, including Europe, Southeast Asia and South America.
In 2023, Nutrien announced the curtailment of production at two of their largest mines because of the Port of Vancouver strike. When Canpotex can’t move our potash, our shareholders’ mines get congested. During that same strike, Canpotex announced we were withdrawing sales offers because of the uncertainty, a first in our 50-year history. And recovery was slow. Slowdowns began at least a week in advance of each work stoppage, and supply chain partners took upwards of seven months to fully recover. The result was that Russia benefited. Following the 2023 Port of Vancouver strike, Russia replaced Canada as the top potash supplier to large markets like Indonesia and Malaysia. More labour disputes were seen in 2024, and Canada didn’t regain this market share while Russia maintained theirs.
There is disbelief from customers that these problems could persist in Canada, especially when our competitors are delivering in the face of war, sanctions and attacks at sea.
Reliability is crucial for potash exports. Our deliveries are just in time for crop seasons and shipments are planned months in advance, and a missed potash shipment can mean missing the application window, hurting crop yields. Keep in mind that approximately half of all food produced in the world is due to fertilizer use, and reliability is a big part of our brand. We are the supplier that’s known for showing up for customers on time. We have invested approximately $3 billion over the past 20 years in our own railcars, port terminals and vessel charters to protect that reputation.
There are deep geopolitical consequences when Canadian potash shipments are delayed that you don’t see with any other export. Canada has an outsized share of the global supply of potash, accounting for approximately 40% of the world’s potash exports. And if Canada can’t deliver, only Russia and Belarus have the capacity to fill that gap, countries where the sale of potash supports authoritarian regimes and, in Russia’s case, war efforts in Ukraine.
So what can be done? Canada already recognizes that some shipments are essential to the national interest. Under section 87.7 of the Canada Labour Code, grain exports continue during port labour disruptions. Including potash in that exemption would be a logical extension, given grain and potash are equally important to global food security. It is also logical to include both port and rail service in that exemption, given both are equally important supply chain components.
While 2025 saw no labour disputes at the ports or railroads, labour instability isn’t behind us. There are four collective agreements expiring within the next six months that could impact our supply chain. And if Canada is truly serious about new markets and leveraging critical minerals, look no further than our experience. Canpotex is a textbook example for Canadian trade diversification. We have built a solid reputation for Canadian potash, and we have our own homegrown supply chain built to deliver. But right now, the biggest challenge is supply chain reliability inside Canada.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Marc D. Bibeau, Executive Chairman, OEC Overseas Express Consolidators Inc.: Good morning, chair and honourable senators. Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. I appreciate the work this committee is doing. It is an issue that affects all Canadians.
My name is Marc Bibeau, founder and Executive Chairman of the OEC Group here in Canada, a global international freight forwarder that is representative in six continents. I am a former president of the Canadian International Freight Forwarders Association, or CIFFA, where I served three years. It is the voice of government and the voice to government regarding supply chains and logistics. I sit on the Nishitetsu, or NNR, a publicly traded Japan board of directors in Korea, on the supply chain and logistics division. I also just finished a mandate with the International Federation of Freight Forwarders Associations, or FIATA, as senior vice-president in Geneva. That represents 105 countries and about 10,000 individual members around supply chain and global logistics.
Today, I understand our sole reason — or my sole reason — to be in this industry was really to represent trade for Canada. Before Canada and the United States signed their first free trade agreement, I understood that the opening of China and Vietnam would fundamentally change our global trade. That’s where Canada needed to be ready.
For 40 years, my work has centred around one core belief: Canada’s prosperity. And the ability to fund infrastructure, health care, education and social imports depends on the reliability of global markets. Trade is not an option. It sustains our tax base, our competitiveness and our national well-being. Throughout my career, my role has been to help Canadian business leaders, government and businesspeople globally understand how the supply chain truly works and operates. Today, others may operate challenges. I’m here to focus on solutions — practical, realistic solutions that Canada can probably start enacting immediately.
I have five solutions for immediate and tangible results. First, prioritize national gateway productivity and systemwide fluidity above all else. Before adding new ports and terminals, Canada must bring its existing assets, ports and airports, to world-class performance levels. This means efficient port handling, efficient airport cargo processing, disciplined berth windows, reliable rail scheduling and capacity and a fully coordinated rail operation that maintains fluidity coast to coast through our operations and our ports. Increasing productivity and fluidity are the fastest, least expensive ways to strengthen competitiveness here in Canada.
Second, modernize national data, AI capabilities and visible systems. Competitive nations run on real-time data, automation and AI-enabled decision making. Canada needs to share that digital platform — a neutral national visibility layer — supported by AI, machine learning, large language models, predictive analytics and automation to forecast demand, anticipate congestion, coordinate capacity, look at requirements and enable faster evidence-based decision making for all stakeholders.
These technologies are already available and standard in global gateways. Canada cannot afford to fall behind.
Third, align planning across ports, airports, rail, trucking and borders. Modern supply chains rely on integrated systems, not silos. Canada needs coordinated, multimodal planning that aligns capacity investment and operations with actual demand in growth forecast. No country can run an efficient supply chain with disconnected pieces.
Fourth, strengthen our labour and operational dependability collaboratively. We heard the word “collaboratively” a few times this morning, and that is the one thing that will help us get out of this challenge. I’m not a labour negotiator, but I understand the consequences of instability. Canada needs earlier, structured engagement between labour, employment and government to ensure predictability and reliability as far as labour is concerned. We must also invest in workforce modernization, digital skills, safety, automation and readiness in order for Canadian workers to thrive on the technology that is needed in the supply chain today.
Fifth, public investment should focus on projects to improve reliability, throughput and productivity, not expansion for the sake of expansion. Funding must be on a five-year basis, performance-based and nationally aligned. There is a cost to being world-class, but failing to invest will cost Canadians much more.
The proposed 2025 Budget, including the “buy Canadian” direction and the logistics corridor investment fund signal that supply chain performance is becoming a national priority. If Parliament advances these measures, we must move quickly and commit to execution. Labour, industry and government must be prepared to work together. The private sector is ready to do its part. Industry, including companies like ours with global experience, is ready to stand and collaborate with government and stakeholders to help Canada regain its position on the world stage in the supply stadium.
Why does this matter? Canada is losing a considerable amount of volume to competing U.S. and global gateways. Once volume shifts, it rarely comes back. Every diverted container represents lost jobs, lost revenue, lost tax revenues to governments and diminished economic influence. Our supply chains are not only economic assets; they are national security assets. Food security, essentials, medical supplies, energy stability, manufacturing reliance and emergency response all depend on a fluid supply chain. Canada must decide if it intends to lead or accept to continually decline.
In closing, chair and honourable senators, I want to thank you for the opportunity. I welcome your questions and remain available to support committees, working groups and all stakeholders to work together to strengthen Canada’s supply chain in the future. If we do not strengthen our gateways, others will gladly take our place — and they already are. The world is not waiting for Canada. This is the moment where we, as Canadians, choose whether we lead with purpose or watch opportunities go to those who move faster, because respectfully, the only bad decision is not making one. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bibeau.
[English]
We will now move on to questions from our senators, and we’d like to have a copy of that presentation, if we could. It was very impressive. Thank you, sir.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, witnesses, for being here today.
I’m going to start with Ms. Stinka. Your comments offered the perfect segue into my question about what you think we should be doing about this. I’m very distressed to learn that Russia has replaced Canada in potash. I find that surprising because I always think of Russia as a country that has oil and gas but is almost hopeless at everything else. So I’m very distressed to hear that they are also in the potash business and taking business away from Canada. That is not good news.
Your comments would suggest that you are looking for changes to section 87.4 of the Labour Code, which deals with the definition of what should be seen as an essential service in terms of dealing with labour disruptions. Yet some witnesses who were here earlier today told us that they are not suggesting changes to that section. They are looking for other solutions, but your comments would suggest a remedy in terms of dealing with the definition of “essential services,” broadening that out. I wonder if you could focus on that specifically and also more generally in terms of how we should deal with this issue.
Ms. Stinka: Sure. I will first comment on your first remarks about Russia. Just for some context, Canada accounts for about 40% of the world’s potash exports. Belarus and Russia together account for another 40%. That gives us a sense of the scale of their potash exports as well.
On section 87.7, my —
Senator Dasko: I was referring to section 87.4, but go ahead.
Ms. Stinka: The section that I was referring to was 87.7, which speaks specifically to the continuation of port service for grain shipments during port labour disruptions, or specifically longshoremen labour disruptions.
From our perspective, that would have the most effective solution to some of the challenges that we have encountered when potash shipments have been delayed, like the impact on global food security, the impact to Canada’s reputation as a reliable and stable trading partner and the geopolitical consequences that come together with that. However, there are shortcomings with that section right now. Not all port services are covered by that exemption, and rail service, which is critical to reach a port, isn’t covered by that exemption. My understanding is that it doesn’t include the definition of “essential services” in section 87.7, and we brought this forward to offer a suggestion that would be narrow and effective at the same time.
Senator Dasko: So you are not looking for changes to section 87.4 —
Ms. Stinka: No.
Senator Dasko: — in terms of the broadening of essential services. You are just focusing on section 87.7?
Ms. Stinka: That’s correct.
Senator Dasko: Okay.
Mr. Bibeau, in terms of government-specific changes to legislation or regulations, what would you be calling for in terms of changes that you think might be necessary? Many of your comments had to do with changes that are needed in the relations between labour and the companies, labour and the private sector, productivity changes, data collection and so on. Specifically with regard to the Labour Code, would you be looking for changes in any of the sections of the Labour Code?
Mr. Bibeau: Yes, that is a great question. Thank you.
As I said, I’m not a labour expert, and I’m not a labour lawyer, so I think we have to look at it as a collaborative partnership that works, because what is obvious from what I heard this morning — and I’m sure you have been hearing this for years and decades because I have been in it a long time — is that when a work stoppage happens, it closes Canada for business. The damages that it causes us on the global stage — and I have been travelling this world for 40 years, 8 months a year.
I met the Prime Minister of Vietnam two weeks ago, and if I can share his opening address to 1,200 people internationally, he said that his country is open for business and welcomes international trade and his government is here to support it.
Their work ethic is second to none — and we all know that, as far as Asia’s work ethic goes — and their work stoppages are non-existent.
So they understand the cost of doing business and the damages they receive if their supply chain is not world-class. That’s the number one area of concentration for global multinationals, Fortune 100s or countries that want to partner with other countries to ensure a product gets in and out and creates trade.
Again, I‘m not a legal or labour expert. I think from a government perspective — to keep it simple — is that if we had some mechanism, like some countries do, where a mediator or arbitrator goes in on level one, if they cannot get a resolution between the two parties, there is a mutual understanding between labour and employer that it goes to a new, independent, neutral arbitrator. That decision is given up to the department, and the department has stronger powers to actually ensure that work does not stop while negotiations are completed.
But right now, what we’ve heard with my colleague beside me — Natashia — is it puts companies in this country at a halt. We lose jobs. We lose opportunities and revenues that we can never recover, whether it was the pork that was two weeks late they couldn’t sell to any market or something else. We have a small population here, so we can’t eat that much. At the end of the day, we need to find a mechanism that is collaborative, forward-thinking and business-thinking that equally benefits the employees.
I’m pro-negotiations and pro-employees, but we need to find something that works.
The Chair: We have a bit of a logistics issue in that we have to be out of here and ready to accept another group after us at eleven o‘clock. There are nine senators left to ask questions, so I would ask them to spend three minutes maximum on their questions so we can get through the whole group.
Senator Wilson: I have a quick question for Ms. Stinka and then a question for both of you.
Ms. Stinka, we’ve heard about a lot of the problems that have surfaced, but the one thing we haven’t been talking about is capital deployment. I would like to know to what extent is the labour situation in Canada a dynamic in terms of where your members decide to deploy capital, particularly in terms of terminal investments. For example, it’s public information that Nutrien is currently looking at a new terminal development on the West Coast and is eyeing the United States as an option.
To what extent is the labour dynamic a factor?
Ms. Stinka: I would say, overall, reliability is a key component when we think about our supply chain in any context in terms of where we’re going to be delivering today versus where we’re planning investments, say, 10 years from now. It is critical.
For us, the Port of Vancouver is going to be the most important gateway for potash exports. It is right now, and it likely will be for a long time. Our key terminal there is the Neptune Bulk Terminals on the north shore. It is the world’s largest potash-handling facility. We have invested heavily in making it the most cost-effective and efficient terminal, and it is geographically located in a great spot: It is the shortest distance from rail from our shareholders’ mines to a port, and it is also the shortest sailing distance to key markets in Asia. So there is a huge opportunity there.
We are looking at a major investment in Neptune, as well, because we want to ensure we are doing our part in making sure that corridor stays fluid. But for our ability to deliver, it’s not just assets but labour stability that is necessary for keeping products moving.
Senator Wilson: Do you think the situation in Canada makes it more likely that these projects would be developed south of the border?
Ms. Stinka: I can’t speculate on that, but I know that labour instability in Canada has had far-reaching implications, not just in that area but in terms of overall supply chain decisions and Canada’s reputation overseas.
Senator Wilson: I’ll be really quick, and I’ll direct my question to Mr. Bibeau.
You talked about — and I’d love to have a long conversation about it — the productivity thing. We should do another study on that. You talked earlier about structured engagement in the labour negotiation process. The Ready-Rogers report recommends a special mediator be appointed in the case of ports.
What would you think of a special mediator being appointed at the beginning of labour negotiations, both in ports and rail?
Mr. Bibeau: That is another great question.
We would hope that both sides understand the importance of economic development and trade here in Canada. It’s important to maintain and keep jobs such that we are seen on the global stage as a reliable labour workforce and a country in which to do business. We’ve done a pretty poor job of that over the past three or four decades.
We have to give them a round — and, again, it’s above my pay grade, honestly, from a labour lawyer or specialist point of view — but if we give them an opportunity to discuss, on both sides, as far as open, fair discussions are concerned, that’s great. If it’s not going anywhere within a prescribed schedule or timeline, then that special mediator comes in. That special mediator has to advise government and the department that this is the recommendation, and both sides have to understand that this recommendation should or could be enforced by ministerial powers that make a decision on behalf of both parties. Right now, it is a table tennis game: You get binding arbitration, and then, within 12 months, we’re back at the table. It’s a vicious circle that never ends.
Senator Lewis: I will speak quickly to potash. The percentage of the markets is 40% and 40%. In a perfect world, how much of the market could Canada supply if we had a perfect supply chain, let’s say? Could we supply 100% of the potash in the world? It’s a huge resource in Saskatchewan. Mr. Bibeau, we talked about lost opportunities, and there is a lot of new production coming online in Saskatchewan, but I just keep thinking back to it: Potash has been successful in spite of what we’ve seen happen to it. It just boggles my mind where we could be in our industry if we had a good, reliable supply chain.
Ms. Stinka: I should say global demand is in the range of around 70 million metric tons, so that’s a huge amount. As I said, we are supplying about 14 million metric tons right now.
You raise a good point: A lot of the good work that we’ve been able to do in building customer relationships and delivering reliably in time for crop seasons has been in spite of a lot of the supply chain disruptions occurring within Canada. Our deliveries are just in time for a crop season.
So there is something essential that comes to the timing of our deliveries.
Senator Simons: My question is for Mr. Bibeau.
Between June 2024 and August 2025, the federal government invoked section 107 to short-circuit labour disputes eight times instead of doing what was previously the protocol, which is coming before the House of Commons and the Senate with legislation. I wonder if you are concerned at all, given your last answer to Senator Wilson, that if we keep short-circuiting the strike process and trying to — I don’t know what the exact word is. It’s like when you keep something under pressure in a bottle, shake it up, take the lid off and it goes spraying everywhere. I really worry if, long-term, there is a danger to our transportation supply chains in constantly shunting striking workers off into arbitration before they even have is the chance to exercise their legal right to strike.
Mr. Bibeau: You’ve asked another great question.
If you understood what I said, I said I’m pro-negotiations, and I like a collaborative approach to finding a solution to keep our country alive. That doesn’t seem to work here in Canada for whatever reason.
I guess both sides have to understand that with no trade, there are no jobs. And that’s really the question I see as the number one, let’s say, collateral damage to both sides, as well as our country’s reputation. So I think 107 is — from what I’ve read and the limited amount I know as far as the courts are concerned — under review legally. There are pros and cons to that. Some say it won’t be here for very much longer. Some say there will be modifications going forward, but I guess the judge will rule on that at some point.
You know, we really have to get back and learn from neighbouring countries really quick about the benefits of having a partnership and a collaborative workforce that keeps our economy going, Canadian citizens employed, and GDP going up. We must work on productivity that is last in the G7 and probably in the world today.
Ms. Stinka: With respect to section 107, it is an imperfect tool. To get to that point where it is used by the minister means that negotiations didn’t result in a deal at the negotiating table, we are in a work stoppage and we are experiencing supply chain disruptions. As our grain colleagues said earlier, a one-day work stoppage means at least one week of supply chain disruptions as the rail service slows down in advance of a work stoppage and slowly ramps up afterwards. So it certainly isn’t a perfect tool. And given the geopolitical consequences that we’ve seen, the impact to global food security and the risks to Canada’s reputation, we would see there being better tools, including extending the exemption on section 87.7 to include potash as well as rail service.
Senator Simons: I just don’t know how to get better labour peace by taking away people’s constitutional right to strike because it is inconvenient to exporters.
Senator Quinn: My question is for Mr. Bibeau. You outlined five recommendations, five things you wish the government would look at on productivity and fluidity; looking at aligning planning across modes — a coordinated, multimodal type of approach; and then strengthening labour collaboration, a really structured labour-management-government type of process. And while we all, I think, respect collective bargaining, earlier I talked about the economic time that we’re living in now, and I’m just going to cut through it all. Should there be a mediation process or somebody in the room observing good-faith negotiations to ensure they’re taking place, and if they’re not, moving directly to arbitration and taking out the right to strike that’s there. The economy is in a different state now, and we’re competing with the United States, who we’re under attack from.
Is there something that can be done to eliminate work stoppages while having serious collective bargaining take place?
Mr. Bibeau: I think the short answer is yes. You’re never going to please everyone in the room, and people have a right to their values and their decision. I think we have to focus on the big picture, and that is keeping Canada open for business. And that benefits employees and everybody in the supply chain.
Senator Quinn: Thank you. I’m going to turn it back to another colleague.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you to our panellists. My question is for Marc Bibeau. You always have insightful remarks and great recommendations. You talked about prioritizing the national gateway, modernizing our national data and AI capabilities and aligning planning, labour dependability and possible investment. You also mentioned decades of underperformance in certain sectors, and we often discuss the underperformance. Do you think it’s a lack of public investment or resources or any other issue we can tackle?
Mr. Bibeau: That is a great question, Senator Loffreda. It’s a very dark sinkhole that’s very deep and very big. We have to really benchmark ourselves and compare ourselves to companies that have it right, do it right, continuously improve on productivity and are very pro-business, because being pro‑business creates jobs, tax dollars and opportunity.
We’ve had this systemic problem for decades. It’s not that it just showed up in the past 12 months or three years. I think that we have to take a good look at slowly bringing that pendulum back to getting on that world stage. We need to tell the world that we’re open for business and have world-class supply chain operations that will maintain consistent employment and labour, but at the same that time it’s a competitive workplace to invest in as far as foreign investment is concerned.
So it’s a multidimensional question that we probably need a coffee for.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
Mr. Bibeau: But we have to stop shutting Canada down and putting ourselves out of business consistently year after year going forward. There is no other country in the world that has — if you look at the past two years — had 42 or 43 work stoppage days. That just closed our country for business. That’s my frustration.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
Senator Mohamed: Ms. Stinka, you talked about 87.7 and making potash an essential good. I’m wondering, assuming you advocated for this, can you share what you’ve had as a response to that and why you think it was not included in the first instance?
Ms. Stinka: The first instance?
Senator Mohamed: Yes, of section 87.7.
Ms. Stinka: When it was first introduced? I think it has been in the Canada Labour Code for decades now. It predates me, and I apologize because I don’t have the history on that. It’s something we’ve raised in the context of the most recent labour disruptions we experienced, because the disruptions were so long, were happening very frequently and the impacts were far‑reaching — beyond just Canpotex. So we took another look at what levers were available to government and explored a number of policy options, but this is one we view as fairly narrow. It is based on precedent, and it already exists for one sector: grain. We have shared it with government. It is with them, and I’ll let them comment on how they perceive it.
Senator Mohamed: No response yet. Okay, thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Thank you, Mr. Bibeau. I really appreciated your comments on the system. You also have experience abroad. Since you do business in a number of places around the world, do you have any examples — apart from the United States, which we’ve already heard about — of countries that have implemented a mediation system that works? If so, how does their mediation system work?
Mr. Bibeau: Thank you for this good question, given the circumstances.
Countries that have rules and rights in this area support labour and economic development. Take China, Vietnam, Singapore, Japan and Asia in general, for example. The governments don’t tolerate employees stopping work for long periods. Strikes in Asia last only two to four hours. A strike in Europe lasts only three to four hours, or perhaps a day. In our sector, with the ports and my role in logistics, the data is quite good. On the flip side, in Canada, employees have a constitutional right. The country must be considered as a whole, along with the values and the need for a supply chain that keeps moving forward and creating jobs, income, taxes and foreign investment.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: My question is for Ms. Stinka.
I’m wondering whether you know the reason for allowing grain to be considered an essential service. In the case of potash, your ore doesn’t dissolve. There aren’t any problems with the ore. It can wait. However, grain spoils. Maybe that’s why grain was designated as an essential service.
On a broader level, why give potash the essential service status when meat producers would also like this status? The industry is losing millions of dollars by shipping to Japan. Where does it start and where does it end? I’m really looking at the first part of my question. Why potash? You can wait at the port even if it costs you contracts.
[English]
Ms. Stinka: I’m glad you asked that question. I first want to say this: In section 87.7, grain isn’t considered an essential service or an essential good. It is just an exemption to port labour disruptions, specifically, for the tie-up, tie-down and movement of a grain vessel. That is it. It’s not labelled as an essential service.
To the point about grain — or perhaps meat — being perishable, potash cannot be stored for significant amounts of time. As I said before, it is a time-sensitive delivery for crop seasons. However, it isn’t something that we can store for a period of time, for example, in advance of a work stoppage. First, there isn’t enough storage in the world to handle the amount of potash that we are exporting in a short period of time. We have about 700,000 tonnes of storage at our port facilities. That sounds like a lot, but we can load and empty a shed in two to three days. Things are moving very quickly.
However, potash quality actually degrades if it is stored for any length of time. First, that likely means it is being handled a number of times, and the quality of the potash will start to degrade. It will become powdery. Our potash needs to meet the specifications of our customers, and that might be with respect to size. It could also degrade in that way. Also, if it is stored for a period of time, it can start to clump up like cement, and then it becomes useless. In essence, it is perishable and needs to move quickly; otherwise, you miss the opportunity with the potash that has been mined and produced.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: In the case of potash versus meat, why would you be essential and not the transport of meat by trains?
Ms. Stinka: I’ll let the representatives from the meat industry speak for themselves, but potash is unique as a result of the large scale of Canada’s contribution to the supply of potash in the world. I don’t think there is another export in Canada that has the size of exports that potash does. We account for about 40% of the world’s exports.
There are geopolitical consequences with potash that you don’t see with any other export. If Canada doesn’t deliver, the only alternatives with the capacity to fill that gap are from Russia and Belarus. These are countries with authoritarian regimes that Canada and its allies have attempted to constrain. In my perspective, that’s a compelling reason. We have very definitively seen a chipping away of Canada’s reputation because potash shipments have been delayed, diverted or missed.
The Chair: We’ve reached the end of our time for the meeting. I would like to thank you all for appearing today. It is most appreciated. Please submit any written responses to the clerk by Tuesday, December 2. You have given us a lot of outstanding information, and if you want to put that in a précis and send it back, we would appreciate it.
I would like to remind senators that our next meeting will take place tomorrow, Wednesday, November 19, at 6:45 p.m. Before closing the meeting, I would like to thank our entire support team for this committee — those in the forefront and those behind the scenes who are not visible. Thank you all for the work that contributes enormously to the success of our work as senators.
(The committee adjourned.)