One day after the federal Liberals proposed new legislation with the power to end strikes impacting the “national interest,” concerns are being raised that the bill is “anti-democratic” and would let the government decide who can exercise the right to strike.
Bill C-39, officially titled as the Building Canada Strong Act, is being framed by Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government as simplifying the country’s regulatory regime and making it easier for businesses to get projects greenlit, as well as changing the Canada Labour Code.
It’s a central pillar of Carney’s political agenda against the backdrop of the ongoing trade war with U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration, and comes after multiple high-profile strikes and lockouts over recent years including the Air Canada flight attendants strike and lockout in 2025, the Canada Post labour dispute over the course of 2024 and 2025, and the federal public servants’ strike in 2023.
According to federal data, there have been 96 work stoppages so far in 2026, 177 in 2025, 200 in 2024, 234 in 2023, 176 in 2022, 186 in 2021, and 57 in 2020.
But union leaders warn that the legislation would also allow the government the power to end a legal strike if the federal labour minister decides it goes against the “national interest,” a criteria critics say is broadly defined.
At issue is a section of the Canada Labour Code known as Section 107, a vaguely-written provision that allows the minister of labour to take measures to “promote conditions favourable to the settlement of industrial disputes.”
What is Section 107?
Section 107, as its currently written, allows the federal labour minister to “do such things” that “seem likely to maintain or secure industrial peace and to promote conditions favourable to the settlement of industrial disputes.”
The Liberal government has controversially used Section 107 to end legal strikes in recent years – an issue the Canada Labour Congress noted is currently being litigated before the courts. Labour leaders wanted the section repealed or its use restricted, while employers favour stronger government intervention – at least when it comes to ending strikes.
Get breaking National news
Bill C-39 would amend the current law to give the minister the power to end a strike and order a binding resolution if the minister believes it “adversely affect the national interest.”
Labour Minister Patty Hajdu told reporters Monday afternoon that Section 107 is a “tool of last resort.”
“Ultimately, the government does not want to resolve the dispute for parties,” Hajdu said.
“So we’re putting into place new tools that will raise the bar around accountability for both of the parties to get that deal.”
The minister also would have to consider a report from a new special mediator role being introduced under the legislation. That mediator would be tasked with setting out the parties’ positions and could offer recommendations on a new collective agreement.
But Mark Rowlinson, a lawyer with Goldblatt Partners LLP, told reporters Tuesday that the government’s claim that the legislation creates “guardrails” around the use of Section 107 is “nonsense.”
“It provides the complete and unlimited discretion to the federal minister to decide who gets to go on strike and who does not,” Rowlinson said.
What is the 'national interest'?
Bill C-39 lays out broad “relevant considerations” for the labour minister to take before deciding whether a strike is against the national interest.
That includes whether a strike or lockout is having, or could have, a “significant” impact on the country’s economy – such as in the case of a rail or port strike – or whether it is creating a significant “social disruption.”
What constitutes a “social disruption” is not defined in the legislation.
The minister must also consider whether referring the matter to the Canada Industrial Relations Board for binding arbitration “has any impact on the freedom of association.”
“Of course we’re concerned about economic harm. Employers and unions should be concerned about economic harm as well, by the way,” Hajdu said Monday.
“But the national interest, the consideration of the national interest will also include people’s Charter rights to strike, and the minister will have to balance all of that.”
What critics are saying
Bea Bruske, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), said in Ottawa on Tuesday that “strong collective bargaining, including the ability to withdraw your labour and to go on strike, is in Canada’s national interest.”
“It gives workers the power to bargain for better wages, safer workplaces and greater job security,” Bruske said.
“I want to be clear that workers are on Team Canada. We are ready to defend Canadian jobs, to build Canada’s needs, to build our infrastructure, to attract investment and to make this country much more resilient in the face of the Trump trade war. But we cannot have our elbows up against Trump with our hands tied behind our backs at the bargaining table.”
Rowlinson said he’s never seen the term “national interest” used in labour law in Canada.
“The purpose of strike action, the reason why workers go out on strike is to have economic impact. To say to workers that you cannot go on strike if you’re going to have an economic impact is to say to the workers you cannot go out on strike,” Rowlinson said.
NDP Leader Avi Lewis accused Carney of using the ongoing trade war with the U.S. to push through changes to the labour code.
“We’re under economic attack from the United States and we need a crisis response. But Prime Minister Carney is using our fear and disorientation around the trade war to push through a series of unpopular measures that he did not run on, has no mandate for and would never get away with under normal circumstances,” Lewis said.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre issued a statement on X after the bill was tabled, but did not address the labour code changes proposed in the legislation. Poilievre questioned whether Bill C-39 will actually result in getting projects built.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, meanwhile, was supportive of the legislation.
“The business community has repeatedly backed proposals for additional dispute-resolution tools, including special mediation, alongside a continued ability for government to act when bargaining has failed and the wider economy is at risk,” said Pascal Chan, a vice president with the business group.
With a file from the Canadian Press.
its about time. Too many times the taxpayer is the one who suffers while the parasites stop working and ask for more.
They voted for this gov’t, now they can deal with it. Regarding “nation building projects”, put that in the hands of hard working tax payers, not special interest groups.
Carney taking away more rights and freedoms of canadians but elbowz up!
Chipping away a little bit atour freedom/democracy every day like they did with Freedom Convoy. And arresting proud Csnadian taxpayers as they were/are fighting for our constiti9nal rights & freedoms.
“national interest” is vague and meaningless and could be applied to any strike
So, the next strike will be violence instead of walking out on the job?
I think you idiots forget why unions exist.
Lmfao. Yeah, why, I wonder?
Retards.
it is only drawing flak from union leaders and NDP political hacks. It is welcome news to parents of students,, business people small & large, professionals, transit riders, hospital patients, air travelers, taxpayers generally who need to interact with civil servants at all levels for which there zero competitive alternative or the counter-balance of going bankrupt, etc. In order words the overwhelming majority of citizens. Balance in reporting would be refreshing.
Remember this- if you have to work for someone else to pay your bills, or live paycheque to paycheque, you are working class. People have been tricked to believe they are middle class because of the old definition that was loosely based on “owning” a house.
The importance of this is since liberals came into office, the government addresses Canada using terms like helping the “middle class”, but they are not talking to you. That’s why you never get any help. Their goal is to impoverish the working class and put them back to the way it was prior to 1935.
Middle class are known as the leisure class, or bourgeoisie. They do not live by paycheques, they are the decision makers, a white-collar sector comprised of business owners, people who hold lower government offices, surgeons and judges, who vacation many times each year. Above this there is the upper class of ruling elites.
Find Online Jobs (500$-6000$ Weekly) safe and secure! Easy Acces To Information. Simple in use. All the Answers. Multiple sources combined. Fast and trusted. Discover us now! Easy & Fast, 99% Match.
.
Follow Here ………Www.cash54.Com
Ok , then employer must pay a living wage and provide a safe work environment. Since the ” right” to strike is annihilated. Wouldnt want to pay union dues anymore.
Looks like the unions will get exactly what they voted for. A fraud that is out to screw everyone.
If you don’t want decent wages, a safe workplace, and job security for yourself, that’s your prerogative, but only greedy employers should want inadequate wages, unsafe workplaces, and no job security for others.
If you’re not a greedy employer yet want inadequate wages, unsafe workplaces, and no job security for others, you’ve been brainwashed..
@best, when you left your parents house your mom and dad each gave you a black eye to remember them by
Union leaders might be out of a job. The union dues that all workers have to pay these leaches would end. The continuing disruption of daily life because because of unions not being able to negotiate reasonably.
Why would anyone be against this.
Strikes should be the last resort. Now they have become the first move. Time to straighten out the mess so we all can make money.
I belonged to a union. After a year, there was enough in the strike fund to pay us for a half day. The union leaders were millionairs.
Conservative liberals do not satiate my desire for a change in the political ruling party.
Government workers should not have right to strike
They already have great benefits early retirement sick days and no one can be fired.
Just another burden for taxpayers
Shades of Trudeau and Carney’s invocation of the Emergencies Act that was found by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. It was an abomination and a draconian act by a tyrannical government, and Carney is trying to repeat that disastrous mistake in legislation.
The irony ! After you lefty sob’s lost your mind when Danielle Smith made teachers go back to work.
david – shut up boomer
Anonymous the village idiot….how about you shut your yap ya loser. Ha
How about a plan to exterminate the liberal party and it’s voters?
Happy Labour Day (belated)!