The Liberal government has introduced Bill C-39, known as the Building Canada Strong Act, to reform labour relations in federally regulated sectors. While Jobs Minister Patty Hajdu claims the legislation adds necessary guardrails, the Canadian Labour Congress argues it grants the government excessive power to end strikes.
The Section 107 trigger and the "national interest" test
The introduction of the Building Canada Strong Act marks a significant shift in how the federal government manages industrial disputes. For decades, Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code has been a tool for resolving deadlocks, but as the report notes, recent uses involving the railways and ports have led to intense legal scrutiny.
According to the report, the government intends for the "national interest" clause to act as an emergency mechanism. Minister Patty Hajdu argues that the new legislation will actually make it harder to use Section 107, positioning it as a "break-glass" tool that is only triggered when a work stoppage threatens the economy or social stability. The government maintains it must balance these national interests against the fundamental right to free association and to strike.
From Canada Post to the CPKC railways: A history of Section 107 intervention
The federal government has a history of using Section 107 to intervene in high-stakes labour disputes. The report highlights that the government has previously used this measure to end walkouts at Canada Post, the CN and CPKC railways, and at the B.C. and Montreal ports.
These interventions have not been without legal friction. four of these recent instances have resulted in ongoing court challenges, with critics contending that the government overstepped its authority. Furthermore, the tension was highlighted in 2025 when Air Canada flight attendants defied an attempt to use the measure to end their strike, illustrating the difficulty of enforcing ministerial decisions in the face of organized labour.
Bea Bruske’s warning on "unlimited discretion" for ministers
Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, has expressed deep concern that the proposed changes undermine the leverage held by workers. Bruske argued that by explicitly giving the government the power to end legal strikes based on a minister's assessment of the national interest, the bill effectively nullifies the power of collective bargaining.
Legal experts are echoing these concerns regarding the potential for government overreach. Mark Rowlinson, a lawyer with Goldblatt Partners LLP,stated that the proposed changes to Section 107 could provide the federal minister with complete and unlimited discretion to decide which groups are permitted to strike. This ambiguity, Rowlinson suggests, was never the intention of the original 1984 provision in the Canada Labour Code.
New mediators and resources for the Canada Industrial Relations Board
The proposed Building Canada Strong Act also includes several provisions that labour leaders find acceptable. The Canadian Labour Congress has welcomed the inclusion of additional resources for the Canada Industrial Relations Board and increased funding for workplace safety inspections.
To improve transparency, the bill proposes the introduction of a special mediator tasked with publishing reports that outline the positions of both unions and employers during an impasse. Additionally, the legislation would require pre-emptive relationship-repair work with the federal mediation service in cases where there is a documented history of acrimony between the parties.
What defines a "national interest" in the eyes of Patty Hajdu?
Several critical questions remain regarding the implementation of Bill C-39 and the specific criteria for ministerial intervention. While Minister Hajdu has stated that the bar for establishing a "national interest" is high, she has declined to provide a blanket answer on when the government would move to end a strike.
It remains unclear how the government will weigh specific economic pressures, such as the risk to perishable goods in the transportation sector, against the legal right to strike. Furthermore, while Bea Bruske noted that labour leaders are exploring legal avenues to address the bill, the specific strategy for a constitutional challenge has yet to be confirmed.
Comments 0