Proposed Changes to Canada’s Labour Code Restrict Strike Rights
The Mark Carney Liberal government’s Bill C-39 proposes sweeping changes to restrict workers’ right to strike under Section 107 of Canada’s Labour Code, raising concerns among labour organizations nationwide.
Labour law reform Canada
A Shift in Labour Power Dynamics
When the federal government introduced Bill C-39 on September 21, it included provisions that would fundamentally reshape how labour disputes are handled in Canada. The proposed amendments to Section 107 of the Labour Code would grant Canada’s Minister of Labour the power to intervene and end strikes at their sole discretion, without requiring any legislative oversight. This represents a significant departure from existing protections and has sparked widespread concern among workers and their representatives.
The New Brunswick Federation of Labour has expressed strong opposition to these changes, characterizing them as an assault on fundamental worker protections. What happens in Ottawa rarely stays in Ottawa—changes at the federal level often set a template that provincial governments across the country follow. If these amendments pass, workers throughout New Brunswick and beyond could face a landscape where their negotiating power is substantially diminished.
Historical Context: Canadian Workers’ Hard-Won Rights
The right to strike didn’t emerge spontaneously in Canada. It came through decades of struggle, sacrifice, and persistent advocacy by workers willing to stand together. Longshoremen working the docks in Saint John fought for a 10-hour workday more than 150 years ago—a battle that shaped labour standards across the region. More recently, workers came together to oppose the privatization of school library services and large animal veterinary services in New Brunswick, demonstrating that the tradition of collective action remains alive.
These historical examples matter because they remind us that the protections workers enjoy today weren’t handed down by benevolent governments. They were earned through conflict, negotiation, and the willingness of ordinary people to take collective action when their interests were at stake. The proposed changes to Section 107 threaten to unwind some of that hard-won progress.
How the New Authority Would Function
Under the current framework, strikes serve as a pressure point that encourages both employers and workers to negotiate in good faith. If negotiations break down and a strike occurs, both sides face economic consequences that create incentive to reach a settlement. This balance has historically driven compromise and eventual agreements.
The proposed amendments would alter this balance dramatically. By giving the Labour Minister power to terminate strikes unilaterally, the government would remove a key bargaining chip that workers depend on. Employers would face less pressure to negotiate fairly because they could simply wait for government intervention to end any labour action. This scenario isn’t hypothetical—it played out recently with Air Canada flight attendants, where the employer allowed negotiations to fail, presumably anticipating that government intervention would resolve the dispute in the employer’s favour.
Constitutional Questions and Legal Challenges
Labour organizations argue that the proposed changes conflict with Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects freedom of association. The right to strike is considered integral to meaningful collective bargaining and freedom of association. If the government enacts these amendments, multiple unions plan to challenge their constitutionality in court, setting up a significant legal battle over workers’ fundamental rights.
The constitutional argument is straightforward: if workers have a right to strike protected by the Charter, the government cannot arbitrarily strip that right away based on a minister’s discretionary judgment. The courts will ultimately decide whether these amendments survive Charter scrutiny, but several unions have already signaled their intent to pursue legal challenges.
The Timing and the Broader Economic Picture
The government has justified these changes as necessary during unprecedented crisis—specifically referencing a trade war that has created economic uncertainty. According to government messaging, workers have done their part to support a “Team Canada” approach since day one of this trade conflict. The argument goes that additional labour restrictions are needed to navigate these challenging circumstances.
However, labour advocates point out an uncomfortable reality: while workers have made sacrifices throughout the pandemic and the current trade tensions, corporations have continued posting record profits. The burden of economic adjustment has fallen disproportionately on working families, while shareholder returns remain robust. From this perspective, restricting workers’ bargaining power during a crisis—rather than encouraging employers to bargain more fairly—represents a choice to tilt economic scales further toward corporate interests.
What New Brunswick Workers Need to Know
New Brunswick has six Liberal MPs who did not campaign on eliminating workers’ Charter rights or making working families poorer. This detail matters because it suggests these proposals represent a policy shift that may not have been explicitly endorsed by voters in recent elections. Workers in the province have a direct line to their federal representatives, and making those MPs aware of worker concerns about Bill C-39 is an important next step.
If you live in New Brunswick and oppose these changes, contacting your local Liberal MP is a practical action. Make it clear that restricting the right to strike is not acceptable and that you expect your elected representative to oppose these provisions. Grassroots pressure from constituents can influence how MPs vote on omnibus legislation like Bill C-39.
The Scope of Section 107 and Who It Affects
Section 107 of Canada’s Labour Code covers workers in federally regulated industries—transportation, telecommunications, banking, interprovincial trucking, and other sectors under federal jurisdiction. While this may seem like a narrow slice of the total Canadian workforce, federal labour standards often serve as templates for provincial labour codes. If the federal government successfully concentrates ministerial power over strikes, provinces are likely to adopt similar provisions in their own labour legislation, expanding the impact far beyond federally regulated workers.
The Path Forward
Bill C-39 remains in the legislative process, meaning there is still opportunity to influence its final form. Workers, unions, and concerned citizens can engage with the parliamentary process through petitions, direct contact with MPs, and public advocacy. The New Brunswick Federation of Labour and other labour organizations will continue to mobilize opposition and legal challenges.
The fundamental question before Parliament is whether workers’ ability to collectively refuse labour in pursuit of fair compensation and conditions is a right worth protecting, or whether it should be subject to ministerial discretion during times of economic stress. The government has drawn a line in the sand with Bill C-39. How Parliament responds will shape labour relations in Canada for years to come.
