Federally regulated employer groups say Ottawa’s proposed Bill C-39 would improve collective bargaining stability, while unions and others warn it would further restrict the right to strike.
The Story
Employer associations are broadly supportive of proposed federal labour changes that would amend the Canada Labour Code and expand tools aimed at ending deadlocked bargaining faster, but some say the Liberal government should allow the labour minister to intervene earlier—before work stoppages begin.
The bill, Bill C-39, was tabled earlier this week, according to commentary from employer representatives and labour organizations. Employer groups say the proposals are designed to reduce the frequency of strikes and lockouts and create more predictable dispute-resolution processes for industries that operate under federal labour jurisdiction.
Derrick Hynes, CEO of Federally Regulated Employers — Transportation and Communications (FETCO), which represents employers in sectors including railways, ports and airlines, said the changes would “improve and stabilize collective bargaining.” He said a key element is the introduction of a new special mediator position intended to help bridge gaps when negotiations reach a standstill.
Hynes also pointed to government promises to provide additional resources to bodies responsible for handling grievances and assessing workplace safety. He described these as steps intended to strengthen processes around labour relations beyond strike threats.
One of the most consequential parts of the proposal, Hynes said, concerns how the federal government could intervene in disputes in federally regulated industries. The Liberal government has previously triggered Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to end work stoppages, and the scope of the government’s authority under that provision remains contested in courts.
Bill C-39 would add language that would explicitly allow the labour minister to direct union members back to work if a strike or lockout is deemed to be affecting the “national interest.” The proposed test would weigh economic effects and social disruption against workers’ right to free association, including the right to strike.
Hynes said the inclusion of special mediation and the “national interest” approach are positive steps toward maintaining stability in sectors he said are critical to the national economy. However, he argued the government should go further by empowering the minister to act proactively in exceptional circumstances—specifically before workers begin picketing.
“We would’ve given the minister, in extraordinary circumstances, the ability to act proactively before a work stoppage,” Hynes said, describing situations where risks to the public are especially high and intervention could be deployed sooner.
Other business voices framed the bill as a mechanism to reduce operational uncertainty in supply chains. RBC Capital Markets co-head of Global Industrials Research, Walter Spracklin, said in a client note that Bill C-39 would establish “a structured, transparent process for government intervention,” and he argued it would benefit freight and logistics industries while reducing disruption risks for railways including CN and Canadian Pacific Kansas City.
Canadian Federation of Independent Business president Dan Kelly, speaking in a media statement, said work stoppages in federally regulated sectors can quickly ripple through small- and medium-sized businesses. He cited Canada Post labour disputes in 2024 and 2025 as examples of costs borne by independent firms and said the federal government should be prepared to designate certain sectors as essential services if labour peace efforts do not work.
Kelly said the proposals appear promising but added that the changes have not yet been “tested in the real world,” expressing concern that unions could still decide to “test the government’s resolve” if the framework does not alter bargaining outcomes.
Labour leaders, by contrast, characterized the same provisions as a retreat from workers’ rights. Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, told reporters that the proposals are unacceptable to unions, arguing that changes tied to Section 107 would discourage employers from negotiating meaningfully at the bargaining table.
Bruske’s position was that any new restrictions on the right to strike are “unacceptable to Canada’s workers.” She said the proposed shift would limit leverage that workers rely on to achieve agreements.
Jobs Minister Patty Hajdu said the bill is intended to reduce the number of times collective bargaining ends in strike or lockout, including through earlier engagement and mandated relationship-repair work.
Adam King, an assistant professor in the labour program at the University of Manitoba, argued that reducing strikes should not be the government’s objective. He said the threat of strike action is a central part of how workers apply pressure to reach a deal and that weakening the strike option will not necessarily produce faster agreements.
King said removing the strike option could lead instead to more “acrinous” negotiations. “They’re trying to get to an outcome, and they think that removing the strike option is the way to get there,” he said, adding that the effect could be an intensification of bargaining conflict rather than a resolution.
Despite labour leaders’ objections, Hynes said he understands why unions are concerned about weakening strike rights, but he argued that the right to strike should not be “absolute.” He said restrictions could be imposed only where the national public interest is at risk, describing it as a high threshold.
Hynes pointed to the federal government’s experience using Section 107, saying the government attempted to order Air Canada flight attendants back to work last year. Unions defied that order, and the parties later reached a tentative agreement at the table after thousands of flights were cancelled during the summer travel season, according to the account presented in the report.
Jeff Morrison, president of the National Airlines Council of Canada, said the federal government needs “practical tools” that can help parties resolve disputes in air transportation when disruptions could affect passengers, communities and the national interest. Morrison said the airlines council supports efforts to enhance ministerial powers, provided they are tied to defined conditions.
Taken together, the debate around Bill C-39 centers on how Ottawa balances labour stability with constitutional and practical bargaining rights in federally regulated industries. Employer representatives argue the bill would create more certainty and improve dispute resolution capacity; unions and academic commentary warn that the framework could limit worker leverage and intensify conflict rather than reduce stoppages, especially if the new ministerial powers are used primarily to constrain strike action.
← More stories