Last week, the federal government introduced a bill that proposed significant amendments to the Canada Labour Code (CLC) for federally regulated employers and unions. Contained in the omnibus Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act, the proposed changes are some of the most substantial federal labour law reforms in recent years. These proposed amendments have sparked strong reactions from both employer groups and organized labour.
What Would Change?
While the bill contains a variety of labour relations reforms, the most controversial provisions relate to strikes, lockouts, and government intervention in labour disputes.
The most significant – and therefore controversial – changes are those to section 107 of the CLC. This section governs when and how the federal government may intervene in a labour dispute that affects the national interest.
Recent Uses of Section 107
Section 107 has been used in recent years to address a number of high-profile labour disputes in federally regulated sectors. Think of the disputes involving railway workers, port workers on both the West Coast and in Quebec, and postal workers, where the federal government directed the Canada Industrial Relations Board to take steps to end or prevent prolonged work stoppages.
Labour organizations have also pointed to the federal government’s attempted use of section 107 during the 2025 Air Canada flight attendant dispute as evidence of an increasing governmental willingness to intervene in lawful strikes.
Given this context, the proposed changes to this section have become a focal point in the debate over Bill C-39, with unions arguing that codifying intervention powers will further erode bargaining leverage, while employers maintain that government intervention is sometimes necessary to protect the national economy and critical supply chains.
Proposed Changes to Section 107 of the CLC
The proposed amendments to section 107 would create a more structured framework for intervention by requiring the Minister to consider a special mediator’s report and assess whether a strike or lockout is adversely affecting the “national interest” before directing the Canada Industrial Relations Board to act. The legislation also proposes to codify factors that may be considered, including:
- The dispute’s impact on the Canadian economy.
- The risk of serious social disruption, and
- any effect on freedom of association.
The proposed changes would allow the Minister to direct the Board to order the continuation of operations, extend a collective agreement, or impose a binding method of dispute resolution – assuming the codified criteria are met.
Supporters argue that the amendments provide greater certainty and transparency; critics contend that they effectively entrench government strike intervention and risk weakening the constitutional right to strike.
Other Proposed Changes to the CLC
Bill C-39 would also:
- Expand access to first collective agreement interest arbitration, allowing either party to seek a binding resolution if a first collective agreement is not reached within nine months.
- Introduce new collective bargaining timelines, including earlier bargaining requirements in some circumstances.
- Permit the appointment of a special mediator during difficult bargaining disputes.
- Expand certain successor rights protections when contractors are replaced.
Why Are Unions Concerned?
Unions have stated that the proposed amendments effectively weaken the constitutional right to strike. Their argument is that employers will be less interested in reaching a negotiated settlement if they believe the federal government will intervene to end a work stoppage. Labour organizations have also criticized the bill for leaving significant discretion in the hands of the Minister to determine what constitutes the “national interest.”
Unions underscore that the strike – the ultimate tool in a union’s toolbox – must have economic impact in order to be meaningful. If these changes mean that any economic pain results in ministerial intervention, unions point out, this result will weaken their most powerful tool: withdrawing labour.
Why Are Employers Supportive?
Many federally regulated employers view the amendments differently. Businesses operating in sectors such as transportation, ports, rail, banking, and telecommunications argue that prolonged work stoppages can have outsized effects on supply chains, the economy, and the public.
From a management perspective, the proposed changes create greater certainty and provide tools to address disputes that have national consequences. Supporters also point to the bill’s enhanced mediation processes and earlier intervention mechanisms as measures that may encourage settlements before strikes occur.
Looking Ahead
Bill C-39 is currently only at first reading. Whether Parliament ultimately adopts these provisions remains to be seen. However, if enacted, this legislation could significantly reshape collective bargaining and redefine the balance between protecting the right to strike and safeguarding the national economy.
