Why a plan to end strikes impacting ‘national interest’ is drawing criticism

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.

Story continues below advertisement

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.”

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.”

Story continues below advertisement

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 Labour leaders wanted the section repealed or its use restricted, while employers favour stronger government intervention – at least when it comes to ending strikes.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

Get breaking Canada news delivered to your inbox as it happens so you won't miss a trending story.

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.”

Story continues below advertisement

“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.

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.”

Story continues below advertisement

“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.”

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.”

Story continues below advertisement

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.