Toronto, Canada: As Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney accelerates efforts to reduce the country’s reliance on the United States, attract global investment, and expedite major infrastructure projects, his economic agenda is encountering significant pushback from organized labour. This tension centers on amendments to the right to strike, a provision unions argue is crucial to maintaining worker leverage in negotiations.
The latest controversy arose as the U.S. imposed steep tariffs on Canadian goods and undermined trade agreements, prompting Canada to retaliate with its own tariffs and a national “Buy Canadian” campaign, symbolized by the rallying cry “elbows up”—a call to defend against external threats. With trade discussions stalled since August, Carney introduced Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act, last month, aiming to provide investors with “speed, certainty, and predictability.”
The legislation seeks to streamline project approvals while granting the federal government clearer authority to intervene in strikes and lockouts in federally regulated sectors. Unions argue this undermines workers’ collective bargaining power, while businesses support the strengthened federal oversight. Canada’s largest union federation, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), stated its 800,000 members—who work in hospitals, schools, and municipal services—stand with “Team Canada” but oppose the bill’s provisions.
A fight over the right to strike
The debate centers on Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, which allows the Labour Minister to intervene in disputes to maintain “industrial peace.” Since 2024, the government has invoked this clause eight times to resolve conflicts in sectors like airlines, railways, ports, and Canada Post, including a 2025 Air Canada flight attendant strike. Unions challenged its use in court, but the bill preserves Section 107 while adding procedural safeguards requiring mediation and a “national interest” assessment before government intervention.
During active strikes, the minister may direct the Canada Industrial Relations Board to restore operations and impose binding arbitration. The government claims these steps clarify an existing power, with Carney asserting the bill “absolutely reinforces the right to strike.” Unions counter that the “national interest” standard remains subjective and that employers may exploit the provision to preemptively resist strikes.
Professor Larry Savage of Brock University notes that employers might calculate waiting for government intervention rather than negotiating. “Every effective strike is disruptive,” he argues, adding that unions have already observed companies expecting federal mediation—such as during 2024 rail strikes, where Section 107 was invoked within hours. CUPE cites similar dynamics at Air Canada in 2025, where management reportedly anticipated government intervention to halt a walkout, as reported by CBC.
“The political lesson for employers will be simple,” Savage told Al Jazeera. “Hold out longer, emphasize economic damage, and Ottawa will remove union leverage for you.”
Building Canada faster
The strike rights debate reflects deeper disagreements over Canada’s economic direction. Critics accuse Carney of leveraging U.S. trade pressures to advance controversial reforms beyond electoral mandates, as New Democratic Party leader Avi Lewis remarked, using “fear and disorientation around the trade war to push through unpopular measures that would never pass under normal circumstances.”
The tension surfaced during Canada’s first national investment summit in Toronto, where global investors met officials and executives. Outside, protesters converged on the event under “The Many vs The Money,” uniting labour, Indigenous, environmental, and migrant-rights groups to criticize projects linked to fossil fuels, military expansion, AI, and privatization. For unions, the bill sharpens this divide, pitting investor certainty against workers’ strike-driven leverage.
Economist Jim Stanford challenges the notion that strikes significantly harm economic growth, arguing their impacts are usually temporary rather than systemic. He notes over 95% of collective bargaining concludes without work stoppages, and cites no empirical evidence linking strikes to reduced investment. “This is more about giving business icing on the cake, not a necessity for investment to proceed,” he said.
Stanford also highlights economic costs to weakening strike rights: unions need leverage to secure wage increases that support consumer spending and productivity. “If labor peace shrinks workers’ share of economic growth, it actually harms the economy,” he argues. Canadian Labour Congress president Bea Bruske echoed this, asserting unions’ support for “Team Canada” must include “elbows up *at* Trump, not *against* our hands tied at the bargaining table,” according to a statement.
Ultimately, the clash over Carney’s agenda reflects a broader struggle: whether Canada’s economic resilience hinges on minimizing labor unrest or empowering workers to shape equitable growth.