Liberals’ New ‘National Interest’ Strike Power Splits Employers and Unions as Ottawa Cites U.S. Trade Pressure

35,000+ smart investors are already getting financial news, market signals, and macro shifts in the economy that could impact their money next with our FREE weekly newsletter. Get ahead of what the crowd finds out too late. Click Here to Subscribe for FREE.

Ottawa is trying to rewrite the rules for one of the most difficult moments in labour relations: when a legal strike or lockout begins affecting far more than the workers and employer at the bargaining table. Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act, would establish a new framework allowing the federal government to intervene when a work stoppage is judged to have a significant adverse national impact.

The proposal arrives after repeated federal interventions in rail, port, postal and airline disputes, and as Canada faces heightened pressure from U.S. tariffs and uncertainty over its largest trading relationship. Employers see an opportunity for greater supply-chain stability. Major unions see a threat to bargaining power and the constitutionally protected right to strike. The disagreement is not simply about whether Ottawa should intervene, but about who decides when an economic disruption becomes serious enough to justify doing so.

The Controversy Centres on an Existing Power Ottawa Wants to Rewrite

Bill C-39 does not create federal intervention in labour disputes from scratch. Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code already gives the responsible minister broad authority to take steps considered necessary to maintain industrial peace and promote settlement of disputes. That provision became especially controversial after Ottawa used it repeatedly in recent years to send major disputes to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, sometimes resulting in a return to work and binding arbitration.

The proposed legislation would spell out a more structured route to intervention. A special mediator would first have to complete a mandate and submit a report. The minister would then have to consider that report and conclude that a strike or lockout would have a significant adverse national impact. Once the stoppage had begun, the minister could direct the labour board to order operations or services resumed, temporarily extend an existing collective agreement or establish a binding method for resolving outstanding issues. Ottawa describes those conditions as safeguards; unions question whether they sufficiently restrict ministerial discretion.

U.S. Trade Pressure Is Part of Ottawa’s Economic Argument

The labour changes are arriving inside a much larger economic package designed to speed project approvals, improve transportation corridors and make Canadian supply chains more dependable. The government has presented those priorities as increasingly urgent while Canada tries to reduce vulnerabilities exposed by its deteriorating trade relationship with the United States. In August, Washington imposed a 50 per cent tariff on $27.6 billion worth of Canadian goods, prompting Ottawa to announce matching countermeasures.

That environment helps explain why railways, ports and other federally regulated transportation networks have become such an important part of the debate. Ottawa is trying to convince investors and overseas customers that Canada can move commodities and manufactured goods reliably even while businesses face uncertainty south of the border. Ministers introducing Bill C-39 argued that Canada needs to get major projects built and goods to market, including new markets. Unions generally support strengthening Canadian industry but reject the argument that greater economic resilience requires giving government additional authority over legal work stoppages.

Many Employers Like the Direction — and Some Want Ottawa to Go Further

Employer organizations have generally reacted more favourably to the proposed labour framework. Federally Regulated Employers — Transportation and Communications, whose members operate in industries including rail, aviation and ports, has described parts of the package as potentially useful for stabilizing collective bargaining. The Chemistry Industry Association of Canada has similarly welcomed greater predictability, arguing that reliable rail and port service is critical for manufacturers dependent on bulk transportation and international markets.

Some employers nevertheless believe Bill C-39 stops short of what is needed. FETCO chief executive Derrick Hynes has said the threshold for declaring a national-interest problem should be high, while also arguing that Ottawa should have the ability in extraordinary circumstances to intervene before a work stoppage actually begins. Bill C-39, as proposed, would require a stoppage to have commenced before the minister could use the new return-to-work powers. That distinction matters: businesses focused on preventing supply-chain damage may prefer earlier action, while unions regard the possibility of a strike as an essential source of bargaining leverage.

Unions See a Risk That Employers Could Simply Wait for Ottawa

The labour movement’s central objection is not that strikes cause no economic damage. It is that causing economic pressure is part of what makes a strike effective. The Canadian Labour Congress, Unifor, Teamsters Canada and the United Steelworkers have all raised objections to the legislation. Unifor, which represents roughly 70,000 workers in federally regulated industries, says the proposed ministerial authority risks overriding workers’ ability to exercise their right to strike.

Teamsters Canada has made a related argument: if employers believe the government will eventually intervene in a disruptive dispute, they may have less incentive to make concessions at the bargaining table. The union points to the bitter 2024 railway confrontation as an example of why that concern is not theoretical. The United Steelworkers has called the right to strike a “red line” and says Section 107 should be repealed rather than rewritten. Those are union positions rather than established outcomes, but they illustrate why legislation intended to make bargaining more predictable is being interpreted very differently across the table.

“National Interest” Would Not Come With a Simple Dollar Threshold

One of the most important questions is what would qualify as a significant adverse national impact. Bill C-39 does not establish a single trigger such as a particular amount of lost GDP, number of stranded passengers or volume of delayed exports. Instead, Employment and Social Development Canada would conduct an assessment considering economic disruption, broader social and public consequences, possible alternatives or mitigation measures, and the importance of free collective bargaining and the protected right to strike.

Jobs Minister Patty Hajdu has said there cannot be a blanket answer covering every future dispute. That leaves considerable judgment in the process, although the government says the new framework creates a higher and more transparent bar than the existing Section 107 language. There is another important nuance: “national interest” itself is not completely new to the Canada Labour Code. Section 90 already allows cabinet to defer certain strikes or lockouts judged harmful to the national interest during the period surrounding a federal election. Bill C-39 would apply a national-impact concept far more directly to ordinary federal labour disputes.

The Constitutional Question Is Bigger Than Labour Policy

The debate carries unusual legal weight because the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized strike action as constitutionally protected. In its 2015 Saskatchewan Federation of Labour decision, the court’s majority concluded that the right to strike is an essential component of meaningful collective bargaining protected through freedom of association under Section 2(d) of the Charter. The ruling did not make the right unlimited, but it established a demanding constitutional framework for governments that restrict it.

The court also indicated that restrictions may be easier to justify when governments use carefully tailored measures and provide meaningful alternative mechanisms for resolving disputes. Bill C-39 includes binding dispute-resolution options, which could become relevant to any future constitutional analysis, but whether its particular framework satisfies the Charter has not been settled by a court. Existing Section 107 interventions from 2024 and 2025 are already facing judicial challenges brought by unions. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has also criticized Bill C-39, arguing that the proposed executive powers raise concerns about bargaining rights and government discretion.

Ottawa Is Adding More Mediation Before Reaching the Intervention Stage

The legislation contains several measures designed to make intervention less immediate. The standard federal conciliation period would increase from 60 to 90 days. In difficult negotiations, a special mediator could be appointed no later than the 75th day of that period and would receive a defined 21-day mandate to work intensively with the parties. If no agreement emerged, the mediator would report on the remaining issues, each side’s position and the likelihood of a negotiated settlement.

The report would generally become public after a five-day period if no agreement had been reached. Importantly, appointing the special mediator would not by itself suspend the legal right to strike or lock out. Bill C-39 would also require earlier bargaining in some historically difficult relationships. Where the previous bargaining round ended in a work stoppage or imposed arbitration — or where more than five years had passed since the last agreement — bargaining would begin six months before the agreement expires. Ottawa’s theory is that more structured negotiations can prevent disputes from reaching the point where extraordinary intervention is considered.

Recent Disputes Explain Why Section 107 Has Become So Contentious

Section 107 was once a relatively obscure part of federal labour law. That changed after a series of high-profile interventions. Federal records show the provision was used in disputes involving CN and Canadian Pacific Kansas City in August 2024, West Coast ports, Montreal and Quebec ports in November 2024, Canada Post in December 2024 and Air Canada in August 2025. Government briefing material reported that 10 Section 107 referrals had been made since 2023, nine involving measures to end or pause work stoppages and/or impose arbitration.

Those interventions touched industries capable of producing immediate ripple effects. Rail disruptions can affect grain, fertilizer, automobiles, energy products and container traffic. Port shutdowns can strand imports and exports. An airline dispute affects passengers and time-sensitive cargo, while a postal stoppage reaches businesses and households nationwide. Yet Ottawa’s own Bill C-39 background material says approximately 95 per cent of federal labour disputes are settled without a work stoppage with assistance from federal mediators. The political fight therefore centres on a relatively small number of disputes with unusually large consequences.

Bill C-39 Contains Worker Protections That Are Getting Less Attention

The return-to-work provisions have dominated the reaction, but the labour package is considerably broader. Ottawa plans to add 100 health and safety officers, which it says would increase federal inspection capacity by roughly 70 per cent. Another 26 employees would be added to the Canada Industrial Relations Board to help reduce complaint backlogs. The government is also proposing stronger action on worker misclassification and wage theft, with particular attention to trucking.

Other measures address bargaining relationships themselves. Successor rights would be expanded in airport and air-transport contract retendering so union representation and collective agreements can continue when a service contract changes hands. Newly unionized workplaces would receive earlier federal mediation support, while either side could eventually ask the labour board for a binding resolution process if no first agreement had been reached after nine months of bargaining. Parties emerging from work stoppages or imposed dispute resolution would also be required to undertake post-dispute relationship work. Some union leaders have welcomed parts of this package even while strongly opposing the Section 107 changes.

Parliament Now Has to Decide Where the Safeguards Should Sit

Bill C-39 was introduced on September 21, 2026, and remains proposed legislation rather than law. Its labour provisions emerged after two rounds of federal consultations involving unions, employers, Indigenous organizations and other participants. Ottawa reported 13 virtual roundtables and 319 written submissions. The consultation record itself captured the same divide now visible publicly: employers generally emphasized continuity in transportation and supply chains, while unions stressed the need to protect free collective bargaining and the right to strike.

That leaves Parliament with several concrete questions rather than a simple choice between strikes and economic stability. Legislators can examine how precisely “significant adverse national impact” should be defined, how much discretion a minister should retain, whether independent review is sufficient and whether the mediation requirements genuinely preserve bargaining leverage. Meanwhile, court challenges involving earlier uses of Section 107 continue separately. The outcome of those cases could add another layer to the debate. Canada is therefore attempting to redesign federal labour intervention at the same time that the legal limits of its existing approach are still being tested.

This Options Discord Chat is The Real Deal

While the internet is scoured with trading chat rooms, many of which even charge upwards of thousands of dollars to join, this smaller options trading discord chatroom is the real deal and actually providing valuable trade setups, education, and community without the noise and spam of the larger more expensive rooms. With a incredibly low-cost monthly fee, Options Trading Club (click here to see their reviews) requires an application to join ensuring that every member is dedicated and serious about taking their trading to the next level. If you are looking for a change in your trading strategies, then click here to apply for a membership.