The federal government says it wants to “modernize” Canada’s labour relations system. But for many unions, Ottawa’s latest consultation on changes to the Canada Labour Code looks less like a good-faith effort to strengthen workers’ rights and more like an attempt to contain worker power at the behest of employers.
Launched in April and wrapped up just weeks later, the consultation, titled “Building Canada Strong for All – Powered by Canada’s Workers,” invited submissions on a broad range of potential reforms to the federal Canada Labour Code. Among the issues under review were changes to bargaining timelines, strike notice requirements, mediation processes, dispute resolution mechanisms and the federal government’s controversial powers to intervene in labour disputes.
The review comes after one of the most active periods of labour unrest in federally regulated sectors in decades. Railway workers, dockworkers, postal workers, flight attendants and others have increasingly struck as workers seek to recover wages lost to post-pandemic inflation and years of employer concessions.
Yet instead of asking why workers have been forced to fight so hard to secure decent contracts, many employers have used the recent disputes to argue that Canada’s labour laws make strikes too easy and disruptive. They want the government to change that.
The concern is not simply what was included in the consultation document, but why the review was launched in the first place and how quickly the government rushed it through.
Fast-Tracked Consultation
The federal consultation opened in April and requested written submissions by May 25. Stakeholders were given only a matter of weeks to review a lengthy consultation document and prepare responses on a wide range of complex issues.
Several unions criticized the compressed timeline.
The review examined potential changes to nearly every stage of the collective bargaining process. Ottawa sought feedback on extending or altering timelines for direct bargaining, conciliation, and cooling-off periods. It floated the possibility of changing the current 72-hour strike and lockout notice requirement. It proposed creating a new “special mediator” role and reviewed the government’s controversial use of section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. The consultation also examined examples from other jurisdictions, including alternative bargaining structures and expedited grievance arbitration.
The breadth of issues raised alarm bells within the labour movement.
The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) warned that the review should not become a vehicle for weakening collective bargaining rights or importing anti-union labour relations models from the United States. CUPE argued that the process should instead strengthen workers’ rights and improve conditions for collective bargaining.
Similarly, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW), itself the target of multiple heavy-handed government interventions, described the right to strike as “non-negotiable” and warned against any attempt to further restrict workers’ ability to withdraw their labour.
The Elephant In The Room: The Right to Strike
Although the consultation document discussed many issues, the debate quickly centred on one question: Was the federal government preparing to limit the right to strike?
The concern is understandable.
Employer organizations representing railways, ports and other federally regulated industries have spent years lobbying and pressing Ottawa to reduce the likelihood of work stoppages and expand mechanisms that can prevent or quickly end strikes. Recent media reports and labour movement responses suggest many unions view the consultation as part of that broader employer campaign.
Some of the consultation questions appeared relatively technical. But labour organizations noted that changes to bargaining timelines, cooling-off periods, strike notice requirements or mediation procedures can significantly delay workers’ ability to exercise strike rights.
The right to strike is not merely another policy tool. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the right to strike is constitutionally protected under the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of association. Without the ability to withdraw their labour, the Court determined, collective bargaining becomes little more than a discussion between parties with vastly unequal power.
That reality explains why unions reacted so strongly to proposals that could make strikes more difficult or remote.
As CUPE argued in its submission, strong labour rights are not obstacles to industrial peace: they are a precondition for it.
Section 107 And Ottawa’s Growing Interventionism
The most controversial aspect of the consultation involved section 107 of the Canada Labour Code.
Historically, section 107 was viewed as a relatively narrow provision that allowed the labour minister to take measures to promote industrial peace or refer questions to the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB).
But that changed dramatically over the last two years, as the Liberals have ‘discovered’ powers in the section that no one previously imagined existed.
Beginning in 2024, the federal government repeatedly invoked section 107 to intervene in major labour disputes involving railways, ports, Canada Post and airlines. In several cases, ministers directed the CIRB to end work stoppages and impose binding arbitration.
The result has been a de facto form of back-to-work intervention without the government having to pass back-to-work legislation through Parliament.
Unifor’s submission to the consultation was particularly blunt. The union argued that the recent use of section 107 is “abusive,” unconstitutional and contrary to the intent of the legislation. It noted that prior to 2024, no federal labour minister had used the provision to terminate a lawful strike and impose arbitration. According to Unifor, the government is using section 107 to bypass parliamentary scrutiny while achieving the same outcome as traditional back-to-work legislation.
The United Steelworkers (USW) raised similar concerns. The union argued that section 107 has fundamentally altered bargaining relationships by encouraging employers to rely on government intervention rather than negotiating settlements. USW called for the provision’s repeal and supported legislative efforts to remove it from the Code.
These concerns go beyond legal technicalities.
When employers believe the government will eventually intervene, they have less incentive to compromise at the bargaining table. Why make concessions if arbitration or ministerial intervention may deliver a better result?
Labour relations scholars have long observed that frequent third-party intervention weakens incentives for meaningful bargaining. The recent federal experience appears to confirm those concerns.
Progressive Ideas Included, But Never Seriously Pursued
One of the more curious aspects of the consultation was its inclusion of examples from other jurisdictions and alternative bargaining approaches.
Among the models discussed were forms of broader-based bargaining structures that move beyond workplace-by-workplace negotiations (i.e., sectoral bargaining).
For labour advocates, this raised an obvious question: If Ottawa is genuinely interested in modernizing labour relations, why not seriously consider sectoral bargaining?
Sectoral bargaining allows workers across an industry to negotiate common standards and wages rather than forcing each workplace to bargain separately. It has been used in various forms throughout Europe and has increasingly attracted attention in North America as a way to improve wages in fragmented sectors.
Such reforms could significantly expand workers’ bargaining power while reducing the incentives for employers to compete through lower wages and poorer working conditions.
Yet unions noted that genuinely transformative reforms appeared to receive far less attention than proposals focused on managing, delaying or limiting strikes.
In fact, it’s not unreasonable to assume that the federal government raised the prospect of sectoral bargaining reform only insofar as its future implementation might reduce or limit strikes.
Overall, the consultation appeared much more focused on preventing labour disputes than addressing the conditions that produce them.
A Right Already Under Attack
Perhaps the most important point raised by unions is that Canada’s right to strike is already heavily constrained.
Before workers in federally regulated industries can legally strike, they must navigate lengthy bargaining procedures, conciliation requirements, cooling-off periods, strike votes and notice requirements. Mandatory essential services agreements further restrict who can participate in work stoppages.
On top of these existing restrictions, governments at all levels have repeatedly intervened through back-to-work legislation and, increasingly, through mechanisms like section 107.
The result is a significant gap between the constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court and the reality experienced by workers.
The federal consultation could have been an opportunity to strengthen that right. Ottawa could have examined limits on government intervention, narrowed or eliminated section 107, or expanded workers’ access to collective bargaining.
Instead, many unions fear the review was driven by a different objective: finding new ways to reduce labour disruption at a moment when workers have become more willing to exercise their collective power.
For the labour movement, that is the central issue.
The question facing Ottawa is not whether strikes are inconvenient. Strikes are supposed to be disruptive; it’s what gives workers leverage against employers with greater economic power.
A labour relations system without an effective right to strike may produce fewer work stoppages. But it will also produce weaker unions, a further shift in power toward employers and worse pay and conditions for workers.
That is why unions across the country responded to Ottawa’s consultation with the same message: the right to strike is not a problem to be solved. It is a democratic right that must be protected.
Recent Class Struggle Issues
- June 1 | Ontario’s Social Service Workers Have Had Enough Of Doug Ford
- May 23 | Montreal Sex Workers Are On Strike This F1 Grand Prix
- May 18 | The Left Has Failed To Confront Canada’s Resurgent Right
- May 11 | Uber Drivers Have Won A Contract For The First Time In Canada
